authority meeting #5/17 was held at trca head office, on ......presentations 5.1 recognition of...

Authority Meeting #5/17 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, June 23, 2017. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m. PRESENT Maria Augimeri Chair Jack Ballinger Member David Barrow Member Ronald Chopowick Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Jennifer Drake Member Michael Ford Member Jack Heath Vice Chair Jennifer Innis Member Colleen Jordan Member Jim Karygiannis Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member Giorgio Mammoliti Member Glenn Mason Member Mike Mattos Member Jennifer McKelvie Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member John Sprovieri Member ABSENT Paul Ainslie Member Kevin Ashe Member Vincent Crisanti Member Michael Di Biase Member Paula Fletcher Member Chris Fonseca Member Jim Tovey Member RES.#A95/17 - MINUTES Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Minutes of Meeting #4/17, held on May 19, 2017, be approved. CARRIED

__________________________________

164

PRESENTATIONS

5.1 Recognition of Manulife for their contributions to Paddle the Don.

5.2 A presentation by Julia Langer, Chief Executive Officer, The Atomspheric Fund, in regard to 7.1 - The Atmospheric Fund.

5.3 A presentation by Sameer Dhalla, Associate Director, Engineering Services, TRCA, in regard to item 10.2.1 - Flood Protection Land Forming Technical Guideline Document.

5.4 A presentation by Laurie Nelson, Associate Director, Planning and Development, TRCA, in regard to item 7.16 - Conservation Authorities Act Proposed Amendment.

RES.#A96/17 - PRESENTATIONS

Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Giorgio Mammoliti

THAT above-noted presentations 5.1 and 5.2 be received. CARRIED


Moved by: Michael Ford Seconded by: Matt Mahoney

THAT above-noted presentation 5.3 be received. CARRIED


Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jim Karygiannis

THAT above-noted presentation 5.4 be received. CARRIED

__________________________________

165

Section I – Items for Authority Action RES.#A99/17 - APPOINTMENT TO TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION

AUTHORITY City of Toronto. The Secretary-Treasurer advises that one new appointee

to TRCA, representing the City of Toronto, has been duly appointed and is entitled to sit as a member of this Authority until the 2018 annual meeting when all appointments for the period of the Annual Authority Meeting for 2018 to the Annual Authority Meeting for 2019 will be confirmed, unless a successor is appointed.

Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT Councillor Paul Ainslie be recognized as a City of Toronto member of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) until November 30, 2018 and until the first meeting of TRCA afterwards, and as such is duly appointed and entitled to sit as a member of this Authority until Annual Authority Meeting #1/18, scheduled to be held on February 23, 2018, or until his successor is appointed. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Toronto City Council on December 13, 14 and 15, 2016, Council approved the appointment of nine Council appointees to TRCA for a term of office from January 1, 2017 to November 30, 2018 and until the first meeting of the TRCA afterwards. One of these positions became vacant due to the passing of Councillor Ron Moeser, and as a result of this vacancy, at Toronto City Council on May 24, 2017, Council approved appointment of Councillor Paul Ainslie to TRCA until November 30, 2018. Each year at the annual meeting the Secretary-Treasurer advises who is entitled to sit as members of the Authority for the upcoming year. Due to the change in membership, such advisement needs to be provided at the June 23, 2017 meeting, to be effective until Annual Meeting #1/18, scheduled to be held on February 23, 2018, or until his successor is appointed. As a result, the Secretary-Treasurer is advising that Paul Ainslie is duly appointed to sit as a member of the Authority, effective June 23, 2017. For Information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: [email protected] Date: June 12, 2017

__________________________________

166

mailto:[email protected]

RES.#A100/17 - THE ATMOSPHERIC FUND New Name and Expanded Geographic Mandate for The Toronto

Atmospheric Fund. Update on changes at The Toronto Atmospheric Fund and collaboration with TRCA.

Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Giorgio Mammoliti WHEREAS The Toronto Atmospheric Fund has changed its name to The Atmospheric Fund (TAF) to reflect receipt of a new endowment funding from the Province of Ontario to expand its work to communities across the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area; AND WHEREAS TAF’s new regional mandate to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA) is consistent with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) Building The Living City, 10 Year Strategic Plan; AND WHEREAS TAF is undertaking a series of studies to better understand the GHG reduction opportunities, key stakeholders and how best to measure and track GHG reductions over time in the GTHA and develop a strategy and program for expanding their work to communities across the GTHA; AND WHEREAS TRCA has worked in partnership with The Toronto Atmospheric Fund for many years on climate related projects within the City of Toronto; AND WHEREAS TRCA has significant relationships and experience working with local and regional municipalities, non-governmental organizations and businesses in the GTA and is delivering programs such as Community Transformation, Partners in Project Green, Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plans and Ontario Climate Consortium in partnership with these organizations; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to provide input to TAF’s current studies and efforts to develop a strategy and program for GHG emission reductions for the GTHA; THAT staff continue to work with TAF in supporting the development of a regional program aligned with municipal needs and objectives; THAT staff work with TAF to align complementary programs such as The Living City Report Card, Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plans (SNAP), Partners in Project Green (PPG), The Living City Campus and the Ontario Climate Consortium, to assist TAF with delivering their new regional mandate; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority on the results of the collaboration, including governance, once TAF has completed its regional strategy and program. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Toronto Atmospheric Fund was established by the City of Toronto in 1991 in recognition of the critically important role played by cities in achieving carbon reduction and cleaner air in Ontario. TAF was established as a non-profit corporation with a one-time financial endowment of $23 million from the City of Toronto.

167

Over the 25 years since its creation TAF has become one of Canada’s preeminent thought and action leaders in confronting and addressing climate change, and a leading-edge investor and contributor to innovative solutions that have helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions city-wide by 24% below 1990 levels. With approximately 30% of Ontario’s greenhouse gas emissions originating in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, much needs to be done in the urban areas of the GTHA if Ontario is to meet its climate targets. To that end the Province of Ontario provided TAF with a strategic endowment of $17 million. The new capital will enable TAF to expand its successful model into the GTHA and help achieve the benefits of a low-carbon economy. In order to inform its development of a regional strategy and program for the GTHA, TAF is undertaking a series of studies to better understand the GHG emission reduction opportunities, key stakeholders and how best to measure and track GHG emissions for the GTHA. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has been actively working with its member municipalities, businesses and the public to undertake environmental management in the GTA for over 60 years. TRCA works closely with all levels of government as well as the public, NGOs and the private sector. Since 2000 TRCA has been developing and delivering programs in support of making the Toronto region more sustainable. Some of the programs TRCA developed and is currently delivering include:

The Ontario Climate Consortium that fosters collaboration between universities and municipalities on climate mitigation and adaptation related research and practice;

Partners in Project Green which is the largest Eco-Business Zone in North America in partnership with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority local business and governments;

Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plans, working with local communities to make sustainable solutions more accessible;

The Living City Campus and BRE Innovation Park linking Canadian innovation in the building sector to innovation occurring globally;

Climate change is one of the most significant issues facing municipalities. To help our member municipalities, TRCA has made a strong commitment to help municipalities address sustainability in the Greater Toronto Area and help communities deal with climate change through mitigation and adaptation. Collaboration is one of TRCA’s guiding principles and a cornerstone of how communities will need to work in order to successfully address climate change. RATIONALE For the past 15 years TAF has proven to be a credible and effective organization with the work it has done on climate change and air quality mitigation within the boundaries of the City of Toronto. With its expanded geographic mandate, TAF is poised to become an important regional partner in helping TRCA achieve The Living City sustainability objectives, including reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. TAF’s expanded geographic mandate will also allow it to work with all of TRCA’s municipalities, thus providing another resource to help them achieve their climate mitigation goals. In addition, there are likely to be significant synergies between TAF’s regional program and some of TRCA’s programs such as Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plans, Partners in Project Green, Ontario Climate Consortium and The Living City Campus. Collaborating with TAF will help to ensure programs are aligned with municipal objectives and mutually supportive.

168

Collaborating with TAF on its mandate supports a number of TRCA’s Strategic Plan goals, including: greening the Toronto region’s economy; fostering sustainable citizenship; building partnerships and new business models; gathering and share the best urban sustainability knowledge; measuring performance; accelerating innovation; and facilitating a region-wide approach to sustainability. FINANCIAL DETAILS Staff time to provide assistance to TAF for its current studies and strategy development is included as part of staffs existing activities thus there are no financial implications at this time. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE

Meet with TAF to identify how staff can assist them with their current projects and strategy development;

Prepare a memorandum of understanding to define and guide the partnership; and

Report back to the Authority once TAF’s regional strategy and program has been completed.

Report prepared by: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Bernie McIntyre, extension 5326 Emails: [email protected] Date: June 6, 2017

__________________________________

169



RES.#A101/17 - CRITICAL EROSION AND FLOOD WORKS Proposed 2017 Workplan and a Summary of TRCA’s Response to the May

2017 Severe Rainfall and Flooding Event. Submission of TRCA’s proposed 2017 Critical Erosion and Flood Works 2017 workplan, including a summary of TRCA’s response to the May 2017 sustained rain event and high lake levels with recommendations for further action.

Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Gino Rosati WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff reported on the management of erosion and slope stability hazards related to the July 8, 2013 severe weather event at Authority meetings #6/13 on July 26, 2013, #11/13 on January 31, 2014, #6/14 on July 25, 2014, #10/14 on January 9, 2015, #7/15 on July 24, 2015, #4/16 on May 27, 2016 and #11/16 on January 27, 2017; AND WHEREAS TRCA staff was directed at Authority Meeting #4/16 under Resolution #A71/16 to keep the 2017-2026 works forecast for private properties confidential until further legal direction is obtained regarding the disclosure of information and a staff report with recommendations is brought back to a future Authority Meeting for approval; AND WHEREAS staff was authorized at Authority Meeting #4/16 under Resolution #A71/16 to continue with the implementation of several new and ongoing priority projects as described in the 2016 workplan; AND WHEREAS staff was directed at Authority Meeting #4/16 under Resolution #A71/16 to allocate up to 15% of the funding for 2017 to lower priority sites where proactive and/or minor works may prevent significant future damage to or loss of property; AND WHEREAS high lake levels in the spring of 2017 and sustained rains in early May 2017 resulted in significant new erosion damage in the City of Toronto as outlined in Attachment 1; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff be authorized to release the 2017-2026 works forecast for private properties waiting for assistance following the receipt of legal advice regarding the disclosure of information collected through TRCA’s Erosion Management Program; THAT staff be authorized to obtain approval from Toronto City Council as required to reallocate erosion funding between projects in the 2017 capital budget in accordance with updated cost estimates and as a result of new damage arising from the May 2017 weather event as shown in Attachment 2; THAT staff be authorized to commence with the implementation of new projects as outlined in the 2017 workplan described in Attachment 2; THAT staff be directed to continue to pursue additional sources of funding from the Province of Ontario and federal government for erosion control works;

170

AND FURTHER THAT a copy of this report be provided to Toronto Water in compliance with the 2014 Coordinated Watercourse Management Plan. CARRIED BACKGROUND July 8, 2013 Severe Weather Event On July 8, 2013 an intense downpour rolled through the Toronto area, causing wide-spread flooding, surcharges of water infrastructure, and significant damage to the river and valley systems including extensive damage to park trails and pedestrian bridges, numerous debris jams, and an unprecedented number of slope failures on hundreds of private properties that border these natural areas. TRCA staff became the first responders to flood and erosion related damage following this event, inventorying and assessing more than 500 sites over the course of several months. TRCA has been inventorying, assessing and remediating erosion hazards for more than 30 years under various program names and special projects, but the July 8, 2013 event significantly increased the number of hazards in the Toronto area, requiring TRCA to rethink its approach to erosion management in its jurisdiction to more effectively deal with the effects of climate change. Disclosure of Information Related to Private Property Although TRCA has been assisting private landowners with erosion control works for decades, prior to the July 8, 2013 storm, this assistance was typically limited to one or two projects per year. And while there was always a long list of sites waiting for assistance, there was never a lengthy delay between completing the detailed geotechnical investigations and proceeding with the stabilization works as exists today. While a large number of studies can be completed annually with the available funding, only a limited number of critical and high ranking sites have been able to be repaired through 2014, 2015 and 2016 due to the cost of the repairs at each project site. The concern that some residents have raised is that the detailed investigations have flagged their property as being at-risk, and that this determination has effectively devalued their property and/or complicated their ability to sell the property. Furthermore, since the cost of repairs are typically beyond the financial means of the average homeowner, many owners are upset that their property is not forecasted to receive assistance for several years while higher priorities are addressed. In response to these concerns, at Authority Meeting #4/16 staff recommended seeking a legal review of all information collected regarding private property through its Erosion Management Program and how it is disclosed pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA). The purpose of this review was to advise what changes were recommended to TRCA’s verbal and written communications, if any, to ensure that property owners wishing to receive assistance with erosion control works have been duly advised of what information is collected, who it may be disclosed to, and how it may be used. Until the aforementioned legal direction was received, staff recommended treating the 2016-2026 forecast of projects involving private property as confidential. Staff has since sought legal direction from Gardiner Roberts LLP regarding liability and the release of information related to its Erosion Management Program (Attachment 3). Gardiner Roberts LLP considered:

1. Whether disclosure of information collected by TRCA or its consultants regarding the condition (i.e. slope stability or erosion risk assessment findings) of private property would violate the MFIPPA, and whether such information would be considered “personal information” of or about the property owner under MFIPPA;

171

2. Whether disclosure of such information would subject TRCA to liability at common law;

3. What, if any, changes are recommended to TRCA’s permission to enter agreements and/or other means of communication (e.g. storm damage information portal and resident update meetings) to ensure that property owners wishing to receive erosion control assistance have been advised of what information is collected, how it may be used and who it may be disclosed to.

On October 13, 2016, TRCA was advised that “information and findings contained in geotechnical reports relating to the condition of the property is information about the property and is not information about an identifiable individual and therefore is not ‘personal information’ within the meaning of the MFFIPA…While the report discloses the municipal address of the subject properties, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario has found that addresses alone do not constitute personal information” (Gardiner Roberts LLP, 2016). It was concluded that “disclosure by TRCA of information in its records about the condition (i.e. slope stability or erosion risk) of a property located at a specific municipal address (without disclosure of the names of property owner(s) or resident(s)), that is collected from investigations or works carried out by TRCA, would not be a disclosure of personal information about an individual under MFIPPA.” Furthermore, Gardiner Roberts LLP concluded that “disclosure by TRCA of the results of slope stability and erosion risk assessments or studies carried out by TRCA or its consultants that conclude that private property within TRCA’s jurisdiction is, or over a period of time will be, impacted negatively by erosion, would not, in our view, create liability on the part of TRCA to property owners such that property owners would have a potential claim for breach of confidence”(Gardiner Roberts LLP, 2016). Based on the legal direction provided by Gardiner Roberts LLP, a ‘Notice of Collection’ has been incorporated into permission to enter agreements and formal correspondence with private landowners. This ‘Notice of Collection’ serves to communicate that “pursuant to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the information is collected under the authority of the Conservation Authorities Act, and information may be disclosed to Government and Municipal agencies for review and comment, or to members of the public through the Freedom of Information process. No information, material, or conclusions collected or reached through studies, reports, or otherwise will be kept confidential, and information may be made available to interested parties without the consent of the Owner”. Coordinated Watercourse Management Plan In the spring of 2014 the City of Toronto requested TRCA’s assistance with the drafting of a Coordinated Watercourse Management Plan to be received by the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee from the General Manager of Toronto Water. The purpose of the Plan was to advise City Council of the existing programs in place to manage watercourse erosion risks and to respond to damage caused by accelerated erosion during intense storms; and to request that Council uphold the principles of watercourse management in Toronto. One of the principles included a requirement that Toronto Water continue to report to City Council, as part of the annual Toronto Water budget submission, the 10 year TRCA/Toronto Water coordinated capital plan of erosion improvement works. To uphold this principle, TRCA and Toronto Water meet regularly to review priorities and TRCA provides Toronto Water with an annual workplan for all projects proposed to be completed with the Critical Erosion and Flood Works funding prior to proceeding, to promote collaboration and cost savings through coordinated planning, design and construction processes.

172

Proactive and Minor Works Funding At Authority Meeting #7/15, held on July 24, 2015, staff provided an update on the Critical Erosion and Flood Works projects in progress, and highlighted the need to diversify its approach to erosion management in Toronto by allocating a portion of each year’s funding to proactive and minor works to realize the economic and social benefits of preventing further damage from occurring during future storm events. As per the staff report at Authority #4/16, held on May 27, 2016, the allocation to minor/proactive works was proposed to be increased to approximately 15% in 2017, with the option to increase/decrease the amount as needed to balance reactive and proactive works. Since bringing the first staff report on the July 8th event forward to the Authority at Meeting #6/13, held on July 26, 2013, geotechnical investigations have been completed or are in progress at over 150 properties, and more than $20M in studies and repairs have been completed of the estimated $40M in damage from that event. May 2017 Sustained Rainfall and High Lake Levels Significant rainfall and prolonged high water levels in Lake Ontario resulted in widespread flooding along the Toronto shoreline and at the Toronto Islands, and erosion at several locations in the Toronto area. TRCA was the first responder at many of these impacted sites, where damage ranged from damaged pathways, to displaced armouring, to flooding of homes on Toronto Islands and major landslides on ravine slopes. The majority of the immediate response was directed to the Leuty Lifeguard Station, Toronto Islands, Woodbine Beach and the Eastern Beaches Boardwalk. Leuty Lifeguard Station required emergency repair to an existing concrete breakwater and a secondary beach curb to protect the building from wave up rush. The Toronto Islands required the purchase and deployment of 35,000 sandbags,1,000 metre bags and the rental of five industrial pumps for dewatering. Woodbine Beach required dewatering and beach profile modifications to protect infrastructure and preserve park operations. Over 400 metres of the eastern beaches boardwalk required emergency repair and the placement of a beach curb for wave up rush protection. In addition to the aforementioned emergency efforts, through TRCA’s Erosion Management Program (EMP), a comprehensive inspection of all existing 227 TRCA waterfront erosion control structures was completed from Marie Curtis Park to the mouth of the Rouge River. Staff also inspected damage to private and municipal assets including Western Beaches, Ontario Place, Tommy Thompson Park, Beachpoint Promenade, Millennium Square Beachfront Park and Ajax Waterfront Park, while other staff provided immediate support to address flooding at the Toronto Islands. Based on boat, aerial, drone and foot monitoring, numerous areas of concern have been identified. Sixteen landslides have been reported across the length of the Scarborough Bluffs from the R.C Harris Water Treatment Plant to Greyabbey Trail at the time this report was prepared, and are being cleaned up on a priority basis. Approximately 75 metres of eroded shoreline structures has been repaired to protect construction access roads below Sylvan Avenue, the Guild Inn and Fishleigh Drive. With respect to the landslides that resulted from three days of sustained rain in early May 2017, TRCA responded by installing temporary safety fencing at several hazard locations, while commissioning detailed investigations to confirm the extent of risk to homes and other essential structures.

173

A summary of TRCA’s response to the May 2017 sustained rainfall and high lake level is outlined in Attachment 1. This submission includes the status of the remedial work by location, TRCA’s recommendations for further action, and the cost to complete each recommended action using existing Critical Erosion and Flood Works funding, excluding those sites denoted as being cost recoverable from the City of Toronto (e.g. Toronto Islands, Woodbine Beach). TRCA has and will continue to prioritize maintenance repairs based on the results of these inspections, and is working with municipal staff to undertake collaborative repair efforts and flood mitigation measures wherever possible to reduce risk to public safety and infrastructure throughout TRCA’s jurisdiction. As part of this collaboration and to help foster good decision making on prioritizing protection efforts, TRCA also produced inundation mapping for both the Islands and the Toronto shoreline showing the potential limit of static flooding at different elevations above sea level. Minor and Proactive Works As the primary objective of TRCA’s Erosion Management Program is to reduce risk to life and property from the hazards of erosion, the majority of funding continues to be allocated to sites where significant damage has already occurred. Since receiving direction by the Authority at Meeting #7/15 on July 24, 2015 to allocate a portion of each year’s funding to lower priority sites where proactive and minor works may prevent future failures, staff has initiated an extensive review of potential candidate sites to inform the appropriate portion of annual funding that should be allocated to this category of work. Prior to the extensive damage caused by the May 2017 sustained rains and high lake levels, the recommended allocation for 2017 was 15%. As illustrated in Attachment 2, the proposed allocation to proactive and minor works in 2017 has been reduced to 3% of the total available budget for valley erosion hazards to fund urgent geotechnical investigations where homes have been threatened by landslides, and high priority maintenance work required along the Toronto waterfront to repair damage from high lake levels and wave uprush. RATIONALE Based on the legal review of the collection and disclosure of information related to private property by Gardiners Roberts LLP in 2016, staff recommends releasing the proposed 2017-2026 Critical Erosion and Flood Works workplan for private properties awaiting assistance through the Erosion Management Program. This information is proposed to be disseminated to all municipal councillors with affected properties in their respective wards, as well as directly to the property owners, via TRCA’s Storm Damage Information Portal, email and hard copy depending on the individual landowners’ preferred communication method with TRCA. Since the 2016 workplan report to the Authority on May 27, 2016, staff has worked to implement priority projects, and to reassess all other sites waiting for assistance for both major and minor/proactive works to develop the 2017 workplan outlined herein. To comply with the principles of the City’s Coordinated Watercourse Management Plan, the workplan was developed with input from Toronto Water in early 2017, however recent changes in priorities as a result of the May weather events requires confirmation of Toronto Water support, and Council approval for reallocations over $250,000, before new projects are able to proceed. Staff therefore requests to proceed with the planning and implementation of all new projects outlined in Attachment 2, subject to all required approvals and confirmation of funding.

174

FINANCIAL DETAILS The total available budget for Critical Erosion and Flood Works projects in 2017 is $11.73 million, which includes unspent funds from 2016 carried forward, 2017 capital funding, landowner contributions, and funding from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) under the 2017-2018 Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure (WECI) Program. Attachment 2 shows how the funding is allocated across the priority projects. All capital funding for Critical Erosion and Flood Works projects is provided by the City of Toronto within the accounts listed in Attachment 2. Some adjustments to individual projects funded under this capital works program may be required to respond to changing priorities as a result of additional severe weather events, and hence are subject to further revisions as the year progresses. Significant changes to the 2017 workplan will be brought forward to a future Authority meeting for approval, and to Toronto City Council as required. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The proposed details of work to be done for each priority project under the Critical Erosion and Flood Works funding envelope are provided in Attachment 2. Report prepared by: Moranne McDonnell, 416-392-9725 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Moranne McDonnell, 416-392-9725 Emails: [email protected] Date: June 13, 2017 Attachments: 2

175



Attachment 1. May 2017 sustained rainfall and flooding event response by TRCA ACTION LOCATIONS STATUS RECOMMENDATIONS COST TO

COMPLETE ACTION

1. Preliminary damage assessments including inspection, reporting, meetings, and associated project management tasks

281 locations across TRCA’s jurisdiction

On-going. Reports of new hazard sites has slowed down.

I. Undertake third-party preliminary risk assessments to determine further action (Action #2).

II. Recommend sites for emergency or maintenance works (Action #6-#9).

III. Refer damage to municipal infrastructure and property to appropriate City staff (complete).

$15,000

2. Preliminary slope stability and erosion risk assessments

11 properties in the City of Toronto ranked high priority by TRCA inspectors and recommended for detailed investigation by a geotechnical engineer.

On-going. Preliminary assessments will be conducted as new sites are identified.

Undertake detailed geotechnical investigations for properties assessed on a priority basis (Action #3).

$10,000

3. Emergency detailed geotechnical investigations

11 properties in the City of Toronto ranked high-critical priority by TRCA inspectors and recommended for detailed investigation by a geotechnical engineer (Rose Park Cres, Windhill Cres and Burbank Dr)

Three (3) detailed studies initiated; two locations are adjacent to existing study areas (Windhill Cescent and Rose Park Crescent) and will be completed under expanded study area limits

Review findings of detailed inspections and prioritize remedial works according to risk to public safety and private property, in consultation with Toronto Water.

$75,000

4. Guildwood Parkway Long Term Stable Slope Crest Line Delineation

405-483 Guildwood Parkway (Scarborough Bluffs)

Complete Updated LTSSC confirms risk to additional properties along Guildwood Parkway at #435, #441, #461 and #479 (in addition to previously identified properties at #441, #447 and #449)

$10,000

176

ACTION LOCATIONS STATUS RECOMMENDATIONS COST TO COMPLETE ACTION

5. Toronto Islands, Leuty Lifeguard Station, Woodbine Beach, Eastern Beaches Boardwalk

Multiple properties and infrastructure at-risk of flooding

Placement of 35,000 sandbags,1000 metre bags and the rental of 5 industrial pumps for dewatering; armouring around Leuty Lifeguard Station and along the boardwalk to protect against high lake levels

Continue to monitor the situation and deploy more resources and equipment as required upon request by the City of Toronto. Begin flood planning for future flooding.

Toronto Islands: $350,000 to date plus $250,000 recommended for future flood planning

Leuty Lifeguard Station:

$200,000

Eastern Beaches:

$350,000 plus

$150,000 recommended for inland lake dewatering and remainder of work

Note: these costs are recoverable from City of Toronto Parks

6. Emergency and minor construction works to protect at-risk properties

Temporary fencing/barriers erected adjacent to 7 properties. Downspout extensions and other works to be evaluated based on site conditions.

On-going. Minor works will be assessed as new sites are identified.

Implement minor works to prevent further erosion or slope instability at impacted areas (extend downspouts to base of slope and tarp exposed soils). Erect barriers and safety fencing to restrict access to unstable locations.

$10,000

7. Waterfront Landslide Cleanups

There have been 16 landslides across the length of the Scarborough Bluffs from the R.C Harris Water Treatment Plant to Greyabbey Trail.

All high priority landslides have been cleaned up (6 total). Other sites to be monitored and cleaned as needed in the future.

Continue cleaning landslides in areas that are frequently accessed by the public and pose a safety risk

$100,000

8. Waterfront Access Road Repairs (Fishleigh Avenue and Guild Inn)

Shoreline below Sylvan Avenue, Guild Inn and Fishleigh Drive

Completed. Works will be monitored and additional maintenance may be required.

Continue waterfront repairs as required.

$50,000

177

ACTION LOCATIONS STATUS RECOMMENDATIONS COST TO COMPLETE ACTION

9. Minor Maintenance Works of Existing Shoreline Infrastructure

Maintenance of existing works at Marie Curtis Park, Port Union Waterfront Park, Ashbridge’s Bay, Bluffers Park and Long Branch Park as the top priority sites. Other

Marie Curtis Park maintenance completed and crew will then move to other structures as crews are available

Continue to repair erosion control infrastructure as required. To the limit of

available funding (approximately$200,000 in 2017); remainder of works deferred to 2018+

Total cost $1,770,000

178

Attachment 2. Critical Erosion and Floodworks - Proposed 2017 Workplan

Funding Account

Project Name

2016 Year End Balance

(Carried forward to

2017)

2017 Approved

Capital Funding

2017 Proposed Revised Capital

Funding*Other Funding

2017 Proposed Budget

Status Project Details

107-24 Flood Control Channel Maintenance (1,185,270)$ (500,000)$ - - (1,685,270)$ Ongoing from 2014

•Black Creek: dredging of the dam behind Troutbrook Drive •Yonge-York Mills Channel: resume and complete sediment and vegetation from the limits of the channel (Donino Ave. to Knightswood Rd.)•Lavender Creek: sediment and vegetation removal (City owned channel)•Sheppard Channel: sediment and vegetation removal (City owned channel)

135-01Guildwood Parkway Erosion Hazard Mitigation (Ward 43) (284,999)$ (1,500,000)$ - - (1,784,999)$ Ongoing from 2013

•Funding for acquisition in the following order of priority: #449, #447, and #441•#449 has been bought and sold multiple times since 2014 at over $1M; TRCA is unable to acquire for appraised value of $230K which applies erosion hazard discount•Owners of #447 have rejected TRCA's offer to acquire (June 12/17)•Given inability to acquire top two hazard sites and recent LTSSC update for Guildwood Parkway, reallocate $800K to acquire #461 as home is at risk and owners wish to sell to TRCA now; balance of funding to be reallocated to pursue acqusition and/or protection of another hazard property on Guildwood Parkway pending approval from Toronto Water and Toronto City Council

175-011 Midland - 81-83 Fishleigh Erosion Control Project (Ward 36) -$ (1,500,000)$ - ($830,000) (2,330,000)$

Ongoing from 2014

•1 Midland Avenue acquired in 2014•83 Fishleigh Drive acquired in 2016 as per Board direction at Authority Meeting #6/15 held on June 25, 2015 under Resolution #A118/15 •Buttress cancelled•Prepare access route and stockpile material May-July 2017; construct shoreline work July - November 2017 pending DFO approval•Obtain approval from Toronto Water and Toronto City Council for the reallocation of $830,000 from Valley Erosion Hazards below

133-99Future Erosion Hazard Mitigation Strategy (2016-2017) -$ (300,000)$ - - (300,000)$

Ongoing from 2016; extend study to

December 31, 2018 using balance of 2017

funds

•Identify potential future erosion 'hot spots' in Toronto by modeling the July 8, 2013 event over select ravines in Toronto that have been identified as vulnerable based on site characteristics and other data collected•2017 will involve using the information collected in 2016 to develop a comprehensive strategy to idenfity locations, type and costs of proactive hazard mitigation•Initiate extensive consultation with Solid Waste Management re closed

133-01

Valley Erosion Hazards (including July 8 storm sites)

($1,674,903) ($3,720,000) ($4,330,696) ($870,384) ($5,201,080) Ongoing from 2014

●See information by subproject in italics below● $234,287 proposed reallocation to Waterfront Major Maintenance below●$830,000 proposed reallocation to Fishleigh-Midland above pending Toronto City Council approval●Other funds are MNRF & Landowner Contributions

- $540,000 Annual

•General program management•Annual re-inspection of all participating properties•Legal support to execute agreements

- $180,000 Annual

•Minor and proactive works such as downspout extensions/redirections, removal of unstable structures, regrading, plantings, and other undertakings to prevent erosion damage from lower ranking sites •Approximate allocation of 15% of 2017 Capital Levy• 150K allocated to minor works at Azalea Court and concept designs at Roslin Avenue (2016 investigation); The balance of 15% total funding has been reallocated to higher priorities following the May 2017 landslides and high lake level damage

- $50,000 Ongoing from 2014

•Ongoing extensive channel and slope stabilization work to protect water infrastructure and private property at the top of slope•2017 involves completing work along the north tributary and slope stabilization work

($270,000) $700,000 Ongoing from 2014

•Ongoing extensive channel and slope stabilization work to protect water infrastructure and private property at the top of slope•2017 involves completing work along the north tributary and slope stabilization work at 117 Whitburn Crescent. Design works for 111 Whitburn Cresscent to be completed through 2017 with implementation in 2018•Budget includes 270K property owner financial contribution toward cost of work (111-117 Whitburn Crescent)

- $200,000 Ongoing from 2014

•Stabilization works from 1 Katrine Road and 69 - 53 Riverhead Drive complete (Phase 1)•2017 involves completing stabilization works at 47-49 Riverhead Drive (Phase 2)•Remaining participating properties along Riverhead Drive to be studied at more detailed level in 2017 through interpretation of previously collected subsurface data. Staff are assessing addition properties on Riverhead Drive for potential erosion hazard issues through 2017 (Phase 3)

($150,384) $135,000 Ongoing from 2014

•Work at 5 Old Yonge substantially complete•Work at 14-16 Brookfield involves removing landslide and restoring slope in summer 2017•Budget includes $150,384 contribution from private landowners for the works at 5 Old Yonge Street and 14 - 16 Brookfield Road

($430,000) $860,000 Ongoing from 2015

•Class EA complete and final approvals underway•Work involves constructing a vegetated buttress at the toe of slope and relocating an existing playground back from the slope crest to allow the upper slope to self-stabilize•Budget includes 430K from Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Water and Erosion Control Infrastructure (WECI) Program

- $985,000 Ongoing from 2015

•Class EA underway•Phase 1 work scheduled to commence summer 2017 pending receipt of all approvals


•Class EA underway through 2017 to identify and select the preferred alternative solution•Detailed design to be finalized through 2017

($20,000) $20,000 Ongoing from 2015

•Emergency works previously completed at 26 Norfield Crescent in 2015•Update of the LTSSC for the remaining properties on Norfield Crescent through 2017 following construction of an armourstone wall at the toe of the slope by Toronto Water in 2015•Budget includes 20K private landowner contribution

Program management, monitoring, legal support, multiple Wards)

Black Creek in Downsview Dells between 2 Jennifer Court - 111 Whitburn Crescent Emergency Works (including 2 Jennifer Court - 137 Whitburn Crescent) (Ward 9)

Minor and proactive works (multiple wards, varied scope of work)

Black Creek in Downsview Dells between 2 Jennifer Court - 111 Whitburn Crescent Emergency Works (111 - 117 Whitburn Crescent) (Ward 9)

Phase 1 Riverhead Drive Emergency Works, and Phase 2 - 3 Slope Stability and Erosion Risk Assessments (Ward 2)

5 Old Yonge incl 14-16 Brookfield (Ward 25)

1025 Scarlett (Toronto Community Housing apartment complex) (Ward 2)

Black Creek between 14 Appletree and Seeley Drive (Ward 9)

30 Northline Road (Ward 31)

22 - 32 Norfield Crescent (Ward 2)

179

Funding Account

Project Name

2016 Year End Balance

(Carried forward to

2017)

2017 Approved

Capital Funding

2017 Proposed Revised Capital

Funding*Other Funding

2017 Proposed Budget

Status Project Details

- $290,080 Ongoing from 2016

•Continuation of detailed geotechnical investigations to confirm extent of risk and prioritize assistance with erosion control works from 2016•Specific addresses omitted pending legal review of program communications to protect homeowner privacy


•Detailed design works(internal) through 2017 for potential major maintenance at the toe of the slope and stormwater management improvements in 2018 (tentative)


•Detailed design works through 2017 for potential major maintenance behind Ridgegate Crescent in 2018 (tentative)

- $500,000 New

•Completion of detailed design and implementation •Recommended shoring of existing upper retaining walls and removal of lower walls with re-grading/planting and land conveyance to TRCA

$40,000 New

•Completion of detailed design

$75,000 New

•Interim works to support Toronto Water's Geomorphic Systems Master Plan for Wilket Creek

$500,000 New

•Partnership project with Toronto Water to cost-share storm sewer and bank/trail protection works utilizing one design-build process

- $2,000 2015 project ON HOLD

•Project on hold pending completion of higher priorities and confirmation of property owner participation

$2,000 2015 project ON HOLD

•Project on hold pending completion of higher priorities

- $2,000 2015 project ON HOLD

•Project on hold pending completion of higher priorities

241-20

WesternWaterfront Major Maintenance Strategy (Wards 6, 13, 14) ($250,000) - Ongoing from 2016

•Year 2 of 2; completion of study with final report•Results will inform 2018+ WF maintenance priorities

241-01

Waterfront Major Maintenance & Remedial Works

($7,778) ($188,000) ($430,065) ($430,065) Annual

•$234,287 reallocated from Valley Erosion Hazards for several landslide cleanups and interim/emergency works related to high water levels

($3,152,951) ($7,958,000) ($870,384) ($11,731,415)Totals

Phase 2 detailed geotechnical assessmentsHeath Crescent (Ward 27)

Rose Park Crescent (Ward 27)Storer Drive (Ward 7)

Windhill (Ward 7) Clarinda Drive (Ward 24)

Gwendolen Crescent (Ward 23)Burbank Drive (Ward 24)

Ridge Point Crescent (Ward 12)

Ridgegate Crescent (Ward 5)

21-24 Disan Court (Ward 1)

Bucksburn Road (Ward 1)

Weston Road Storm Sewer Replacement and Humber Trail Protection

Royal York Road (Ward 5)

Topcliff Avenue (Ward 8)

2 Kevi Lane (Ward 3)

9 Alderbrook Drive (Ward 25)

180

RES.#A102/17 - TRCA COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY Approval of TRCA’s Community Engagement Strategy 2017-2027. Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has almost 60 years of experience and extensive expertise in collaborating with stakeholders and grassroots organizations in all aspects of watershed and waterfront management; AND WHEREAS TRCA recognizes the important role watershed and waterfront engagement (including Duffins-Carruthers Watershed Resource Group, Rouge Park Alliance, Don Watershed Regeneration Council, Humber Watershed Alliance and Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition and their predecessors) has played for over two decades in building community stewardship capacity to help TRCA meet The Living City objectives, and planning and implementation priorities of watersheds and waterfront plans/priorities; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the draft 2017-2027 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Community Engagement Strategy be approved; THAT TRCA staff be directed to initiate implementation of key immediate priorities namely: the proposed Citizen Governance Model (as outlined in Attachment 2), including the terms of reference and recruitment of members for the Regional Watershed Council, Indigenous Liaison Committee, and Youth Council, online engagement platform and Community Consultation Office; THAT staff continue to consult with TRCA’s partner municipalities to seek input and alignment throughout the planning and development of the proposed Community Consultation Office aimed at supporting both mandatory and non-mandatory public consultation needs; THAT progress reports on TRCA’s community engagement activities be presented to the Authority on an annual basis; THAT the Community Engagement Strategy be reviewed and updated as needed based on new trends and/or opportunities; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to finalize and publish the Strategy for internal and external communication as appropriate. CARRIED BACKGROUND The roots of the conservation authority movement were sowed in the principle that watershed focused programs be partnership-based and community-driven. At both the Guelph Conference in 1941 and the London Conference in 1944, community and sector leaders from across Ontario engaged in a dialogue related to addressing pressing natural resource management issues, with a particular emphasis on integrated watershed management.

181

With the advent of watershed and waterfront committees and task forces in the 1980s, citizen committees have continued to play a significant role in strengthening TRCA’s ability to achieve watershed planning and management objectives. Some key accomplishments resulting from citizen committees and task forces include the development of watershed plans, watershed report cards, and the designation of the Humber River as a Canadian Heritage River. For more details on the accomplishments of watershed groups refer to minutes of Authority Meeting #3/15, held on March 27, 2015. In the early years of watershed planning, TRCA’s community engagement approach was both unique and effective in addressing the needs of collaborative watershed management. However, as the Toronto region continues to face complex regional sustainability challenges (i.e., urbanization, growth pressures, climate change and aging infrastructure), a broader and more progressive citizen engagement model with greater alignment across TRCA’s watersheds is required. TRCA’s Strategic Plan (2013 - 2022), Building The Living City, recognizes the important historic role of citizen participation in the conservation authority movement and calls for “engagement of a broad cross-section of the population employing unique outreach tools and collaboration models to capitalize on our current strengths and avail new opportunities.” At Authority Meeting #3/15, held on March 27, 2015, Resolution #A37/15 was approved, in part, as follows:

…THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff undertake a review of TRCA-wide public engagement and new opportunities for community and stakeholder activities and involvement, in light of recent trends and opportunities in civic engagement; THAT TRCA staff, current members of community-based subcommittees, community leaders and other stakeholders be consulted throughout the process as appropriate; … …AND FURTHER THAT a report on the proposed model be brought back to the Authority.

Further to this, at Authority Meeting #10/15, held on November 27, 2015, the Authority approved the Future Directions in Education at TRCA, specifically focused on the development of a Community Learning and Engagement Model. The following two key recommendations from that report are supported through the findings and recommendations of the proposed community engagement strategy:

THAT TRCA education centres be redeveloped into community engagement centres with an emphasis on local participation in program development and delivery; THAT TRCA establish urban activity zones as mechanisms to improve program delivery within urban areas, and support increased community engagement and participation in community sustainability activities.

The development process of the Community Engagement Strategy (CES) provided staff the opportunity to not only look at new approaches to citizen governance, but also undertake a comprehensive review of its current community engagement activities while examining new trends in community engagement which will guide future directions in community engagement at TRCA. To clearly understand TRCA’s current market and trends in best practices, the Community Engagement Strategy was completed in two phases: Phase 1 consisted of developing a background Community Engagement Assessment Report (CEAR) and Phase 2 included development of Community Engagement Strategy.

182

Staff from across TRCA participated in the development of the CES, along with an external working group comprised of members of past TRCA watershed committees and other TRCA citizen and hosted committees. Additionally, municipal staff and interested board members have also been consulted on various components of the Community Engagement Strategy. Consultation with municipalities will be ongoing as TRCA staff implements recommendations from the CES. The firm of Hardy Stevenson Associates helped staff with the development of the CES. A copy of the Phase 1 Community Engagement Assessment Report and draft TRCA Community Engagement Strategy 2017-2027 is available on request. Community Engagement Assessment Report (CEAR) Based on market data provided by TRCA and research and analysis conducted by IndEco Consulting Inc., the Community Engagement Assessment Report provides direction on how to engage the community in a targeted and strategic way, taking into consideration the demographics of the TRCA’s jurisdiction, and drawing on the TRCA’s existing activities, gaps and best practices from other organizations: four key areas were investigated as part of this work: Market Segment Analysis was undertaken to provide an overview of TRCA’s jurisdictional user demographic using various data sources (i.e., Environics, TRCA parks study, etc.). Each watershed was characterized using this data. A sample watershed summary is provided in Attachment 1. Scan of TRCA’s Current Engagement Practices and programs was undertaken to develop an understanding of the current gaps in engagement activities that TRCA is undertaking. This scan was augmented by an internal staff survey to identify barriers and challenges from staff perspective. A Gap Analysis was undertaken to review the findings of the Market Segment Analysis and the TRCA Current Engagement Practices Scan to identify where gaps exist between TRCA’s market and the activities currently used to engage the community. Gaps that were directly identified by staff through internal interviews and consultations were also considered. TRCA’s current activities were scored based on increasing level of public impact (inform, consult, involve, collaborate and empower) using “Spectrum of Public Participation” from International Association of Public Participation. This analysis also identified data gaps for future consideration. A Best Practices Review was carried out to identify best practices in civic engagement and community mobilization. The best practices selected also sought to fill gaps in TRCA engagement activities identified as part of the gap analysis mentioned above. Since TRCA staff possesses a strong understanding of best practices within TRCA’s jurisdiction, the organizations reviewed and consulted were either outside TRCA’s jurisdiction or have a national focus. These include:

• City of Melbourne, Australia - Wiki-based online engagement tool and Citizen Jury (stratified committee);

• Citizen’s Foundation, Iceland - Better Reykjavik online tool; • WE.org, International WE day - large scaled event with earned participation; • WWF, Canada - Pandamonium (fundraising event/social) and Community Panda (crowd

funding); and • City of Calgary, Canada - Mayor’s Youth Council.

183

TRCA staff also developed a detailed inventory of municipal environmental advisory committees, community engagement/consultation offices and other municipal activities relevant to this work. Community Engagement Strategy For TRCA, community engagement means people working collaboratively, through inspired action and learning, to create and realize bold visons for their common future (adopted from Tamarack Institute for Community Engagement). The Community Engagement Strategy applies to both mandatory and mission specific engagement activities of TRCA. Purpose The Purpose of TRCA’s CES is “to align and guide TRCA’s approaches to civic engagement over the next ten years so that TRCA supports broader and deeper community mobilization and maximizes collective impact in pursuit of TRCA’s vision for The Living City.” Goals The following goals deliver the vision and mission of the Community Engagement Strategy:

a) Advance regional sustainability and local watershed priorities through collaboration, shared learning, strategic alliances and/or partnerships with the public, private and/or non-profit sectors;

b) Broaden and deepen TRCA’s reach into its communities through new inclusive engagement models and tools and that engage a wide range of residents, community leaders, groups and businesses and by investing in community-based engagement programs.

c) Facilitate a coordinated approach and guidance for community engagement in all aspects of TRCA programs and align with and support municipal partner priorities, when requested

d) Establish and support an effective community governance model that facilitates collaboration, builds capacity and advocacy around watershed and regional sustainability issues;

e) Augment and scale established engagement programs that are aligned with the goals of the Engagement Strategy, and invest in new strategic priorities;

f) Maximize impact by advancing priorities that bring multiple interests together to work on shared interests;

g) Maximize impact and continuous improvement through monitoring, measuring and reporting on engagement activities; and

h) Achieve financial resiliency in support of the community engagement strategy through grants, collaborations, strategic alliances, social enterprise and/or partnerships.

Recommendations There are eighteen recommendations and forty three associated actions included in the Community Engagement Strategy categorized by four areas of focus: a) Who to engage?; b) How to engage?; c) How to support?; and d) How to evaluate? (Attachment 3). Implementation, Communications, Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation The Community Engagement Strategy includes three implementation frameworks:

a) an implementation framework to guide implementation of recommendations and actions from the Community Engagement Strategy;

b) an engagement and communications framework which guides development of engagement and communications plans; and

184

c) monitoring, evaluation and reporting framework guides performance evaluation of communications and community engagement activities based on key performance indicators (KPI).

Immediate Implementation Priorities Regional Watershed Alliance The new citizen governance model being proposed by TRCA will be inclusive to a wide range of experience, knowledge and perspectives. It will advance the engagement of a more diverse population to build capacity that leads to collective ownership and actions. The Regional Watershed Alliance is expected to be launched in 2017, followed by the finalization and launch of watershed working groups and youth council. Staff will initiate finalization of terms of reference and recruitment process following the approval of CES (refer to Attachment 2 for more details on the proposed Citizen Governance Model). Indigenous Engagement The Strategy defines current practices for Indigenous engagement at TRCA. A draft Indigenous engagement approach has been developed as part of this Strategy; however the goals, principles and practices around Indigenous engagement at TRCA, including the development of the proposed Indigenous Liaison Committee needs to be further defined in consultation with Indigenous communities. To facilitate this work an Indigenous Liaison Officer will be hired following the approval of CES. Community Consultation Office The proposed Community Consultation Office supports the implementation of the Community Engagement Strategy as it will provide specialized community consultation services for internal and external stakeholders for both mandatory and non-mandatory consultations. Municipal consultations will be part of the process for developing the overall terms of reference for the Community Consultation Office. Online Engagement Platform Engagement HQ (Yoursay.ca) is an online engagement tool that TRCA purchased in 2017 with the objective of engaging a wider audience. TRCA will be launching a wide-range of projects such as The Living City Report Card and proposed TRCA Trails Strategy in 2017 to pilot the online engagement tool. FINANCIAL DETAILS The Community Engagement Strategy has been developed using existing Watershed Strategies division program budget and resources and with support from TRCA staff from other divisions. Future financial support to the implementation of CES is presented in Recommendation #15 in Attachment 3. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE

Finalize and publish the Community Engagement Strategy; Recruit Indigenous Liaison Officer;

Develop terms of reference for proposed Regional Watershed Alliance and recruit members for governance committees;

Launch the Regional Watershed Alliance; Initiate planning and consultation for the proposed Community Consultation Office by

establishing a cross-divisional expert team;

185

https://yoursay.ca/

Launch and pilot community engagement projects through TRCA’s online engagement platform; and

Organize and host a watershed forum. Report prepared by: Sonia Dhir, extension 5291 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Chandra Sharma, extension 5237 Emails: [email protected] Date: June 8, 2017 Attachments: 3

186



2016

Population 41,250

77%

42%

11%

2%

< 14 > 65

Population Growth

80% 20%

Owned 82%

18% Rented

$110,111

$93,104Income Median Household /yr

Income Average Household /yr

Household Income

24% University Education

5% Unemployed

Housing

Immigration

5 yr

10 yr

10%

18%

Visible Minorities

HOUSE APARTMENT

49%

17%

13%

6%

Black

South Asian

Filipino

Top 3 Visible Minorities

Immigrants* Top 5 Countries

1. Philippines2. Jamaica3. UK4. India5. Pakistan

5 yr10 yr21%

< 14

69%14 - 65

10%> 65

www.trca.ca

*Total immigrants by countryof origin (DemoStats 2016)

Lake Ontario

Humber

Mimico

Etobicoke

Don

Waterfront

Highland

Rouge

Petticoat

Duffins Carruthers Creek

<30k /yr $ 10%

30 to 60k /yr $ 18%

60 to 90k /yr $ 20%

90 to 125k /yr $ 21%

>125k /yr $ 31%

34%of the total population

Data source: Environics Analytics - DemoStats 2016 (June 2016)

5 and 10-year Growth for < 14 and > 65

Population Composition (2016)

Attachment 1

187

1

Attachment 2

PROPOSED TRCA REGIONAL WATERSHED ALLIANCE BACKGROUNDER June 12, 2017

1.0 CONTEXT

Since the 1980s, TRCA watershed and waterfront committees and task forces have been instrumental in supporting TRCA’s watershed management activities. These committees included watershed residents and representatives from businesses, academia, agencies and local groups. Elected officials and municipal staff have also been part of these committees (please refer to attachment 1 for more details on previous committees). In the early years of watershed planning, TRCA’s community engagement approach was both unique and effective in addressing the needs of collaborative watershed management; however, TRCA’s jurisdiction is now facing more complex regional sustainability challenges (i.e., urbanization, growth pressures, climate change, and aging infrastructure). While the watershed approach continues to be crucial in ensuring the ecological integrity of our natural resources, we also require a broader citizen engagement to achieve desired impact for large scale transformation at both local and regional scale. In addition, TRCA’s Strategic Plan (2013 - 2022), Building The Living City, lays out the strategic directions the organization intends to pursue for the ten year period from 2013 to 2022. The Plan calls for engagement of a broad cross-section of the population employing unique outreach tools and collaboration models to capitalize on our current strengths and avail new opportunities. In 2015, upon the completion of the existing terms for the Don, Humber and Etobicoke-Mimico Watershed Committees, the Authority directed staff to update TRCA’s community focused engagement model in light of new trends and opportunities in civic engagement and to facilitate the implementation of the Strategic Plan. A new citizen governance model is being proposed as part of TRCA’s Community Engagement Strategy (in progress) along with a suite of other recommendations such as an on-line engagement platform and a consultation office. The overall purpose of the Community Engagement Strategy is “to align and guide TRCA’s approaches to civic engagement over the next ten years so that TRCA supports broader and deeper community mobilization and maximizes collective impact in pursuit of TRCA’s vision for The Living City.”

2.0 PROPOSED CITIZEN GOVERNANCE MODEL

The proposed citizen governance model will include the following Citizen Committees hosted by TRCA. These committees will have the opportunity to work in collaboration with one another on specific projects and initiatives. The Terms of Reference for each of these committees will be developed following the TRCA Board approval of the Community Engagement Strategy.

188

2

Watershed/ Waterfront Working

Groups

Youth

Council

Indigenous Liaison Committee

Regional Watershed Alliance

TRCA Board The Living City

Foundation

Figure 1: Proposed TRCA Governance Model

1. Regional Watershed Alliance (More details in Section 3 below)

Focus on local watershed and regional sustainability

Advisory, action and advocacy role

Reporting relationship with TRCA Board

Collaborate with The Living City Foundation on community outreach and capacity building for regional and watershed/waterfront programs, including community led projects

Collaborate with municipal Environmental Advisory Committees (EACs) and other Conservation Authorities within the Greater Golden Horseshoe

Members will provide sector/community specific expertise

Members will be recruited based on a diverse skill set/background

2. Youth Council:

Council of existing active youth groups and possibly new recruits

Representation on Regional Watershed Alliance

Members provide their views and expertise as individuals who are part of a specific demographic

3. Watershed/Waterfront Working Groups :

Working groups for the watersheds/waterfront which are set up as per the direction of the Regional Watershed Alliance

Each Watershed/Waterfront Working group will focus on a particular watershed/waterfront-specific project

Provide information/updates to Regional Watershed Alliance

Members provide their views, expertise and local knowledge

Working Groups may recruit additional watershed residents to the Group as required

189

3

4. Indigenous Liaison Committee:

Advisory function to TRCA Board and Regional Watershed Alliance

Liaise on Indigenous interests

Develop stronger Indigenous relationships

May Represent or attend meetings of the Regional Watershed Alliance as advisors

Members will provide community perspective and local knowledge

3.0 PROPOSED REGIONAL WATERSHED ALLIANCE Mission: Local action, regional impact, shared priorities and resources

Mandate: 1. Advocacy (regional and local environmental policy issues); 2. Advisory (input and consultation on initiatives, act as a resource to TRCA Board); 3. Action for collective impact (campaign/action oriented outreach around collective

priorities); and

4. Collective reporting.

Goals: Achieve The Living City Vision of Healthy Rivers and Shorelines, Regional Biodiversity,

and Sustainable Communities across TRCA’s nine watersheds/waterfront and Lake Ontario;

Advocate on regional and local environmental policy issues;

Act as a resource to TRCA, TRCA’s municipal partners and The Living City Foundation by providing advice on matters of community interest;

Provide a platform for alignment on cross-jurisdictional priorities;

Garner public support on environmental priorities across TRCA’s nine watersheds/waterfront and Lake Ontario;

Mobilize and empower networks of local communities;

Secure political support at all levels of government; and

Maximize impact through resource and data sharing, measuring, and reporting on regional priorities.

Broader Engagement The Regional Watershed Alliance will be engaged with the broader public via two delivery channels:

1. The Watershed Forum/Events

Annual networking event to engage in conversations on issues/opportunities, share ideas and develop priorities for moving forward

Use the Alliance as a platform for mobilization

Forum will have a particular theme and feature experts and notable speakers

190

4

2. Online Engagement Platform

Digital public engagement (Engagement HQ)

Members of the public participate in decisions affecting their communities via YourSay.ca

Get project related updates from TRCA

Share ideas and information with one another and TRCA

Share their needs and aspirations with TRCA

The initiation of information gathering through surveys, online discussions, participatory budgeting, etc.

Membership: The proposed membership of the Regional Watershed Alliance includes the following representation and a membership of approximately 40 members:

TRCA Board representation by municipality or municipal nominations

Sector representatives (Building, Green Infrastructure, Water, Education etc.)

NGO representatives

Financial/foundation representatives (TD, Manulife, RBC, Trillium)

Think tanks (Neptis, Centre for Social Innovation)

Provincial/Federal Political Representatives

Representatives from Youth Council

Representatives from Indigenous Liaison Committee (optional as representatives of Indigenous may attend the meeting as guest)

Watershed residents (20-25 watershed resident members from across the watersheds)

Representatives from diverse communities

Term: 2 - 4 years (aligned with municipal council terms)

Commitment Meetings will take place either day time or evening, as needed, and are proposed to be hosted on a quarterly basis.

Resources The following resources/support will be made available to the Regional Watershed Alliance:

1. Secretariat/staff and administrative support will be provided to the Regional Watershed Alliance.

2. Living City Foundation Resources: collaborative fundraising, connections to other foundations.

191

Attachment 3

Community Engagement Strategy Recommendations and Actions

Recommendation 1: Ensure ongoing engagement of general public. Action 1.1: Ensure that existing and new engagement programs that broadly target the

general public engage a wide range of population segments across the watersheds and waterfront.

Recommendation 2: Enhance existing relationships with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), thought-leaders and special interest groups. Action 2.1 To accelerate collective action towards common goals engage thought leaders,

NGOs and special interest groups in the proposed governance model. Action 2.2 To mobilize grassroots action build capacity within local NGOs through shared

learning, shared resources and access to information. Recommendation 3: Enhance relationships and engagement with the Indigenous communities. Action 3.1: To better understand the Indigenous communities and their expectations from

TRCA, facilitate an Indigenous Liaison Committee as part of the proposed citizen governance model and hire an Indigenous relationship officer at the staff level.

Action 3.2: Develop an Indigenous engagement policy or/and update the Aboriginal

Engagement Guidelines (June 2015) in consultation with the Indigenous people. Action 3.3: Provide training to TRCA staff on Indigenous engagement, knowledge and

culture. Recommendation 4: Maximize engagement of the appropriate age group(s). Action 4.1: Build the capacity of youth by building their skills and awareness specifically

through TRCA’s proposed community engagement centres (education centers located at TRCA’s conservation parks).

Action 4.2: Expand engagement programs to enable older adults and seniors to contribute to

collective impact. Action 4.3: Include pre-school children in engagement activities. Recommendation 5: Enhance relationships with ethnically diverse communities.

Action 5.1 Extend TRCA outreach and engagement programing to Community Hubs in Toronto and similar entities within other municipalities in TRCA’s jurisdiction.

192

Action 5.2 Build the capacity of a wide range of ethnic groups and new immigrants by building their skills and awareness.

Action 5.3 Build new relationships and strengthen existing relationships with ethnic or faith-

based organizations and community leaders. Action 5.4 Offer verbal or written communications in the most commonly spoken languages

as appropriate (including French). Recommendation 6: Establish an effective and inclusive citizen-based governance model. Action 6.1: Establish a Regional Watershed Alliance, Watershed Working Groups,

Indigenous Liaison Committee and a Youth Council to advance engagement between TRCA and its stakeholders.

Action 6.2: Build capacity of Regional Watershed Alliance and Youth Council to act as a

community resource to TRCA Board and staff and the Living City Foundation, advocate and advise on local watershed priorities and regional sustainability issues, and to maximize impact through collective action.

Action 6.3: In consultation with municipal partners establish a clear line of communication

and alignment approach with municipal environmental advisory committees. Recommendation 7: Establish a Community Consultation Office to support both mandatory and non-mandatory consultation and engagement. Action 7.1: Establish an internal team of TRCA staff to develop and launch the Community

Consultation Office based on objectives set out in the CES. Action 7.2: In consultation with TRCA’s municipal partners, develop a partnership program to

guide relationship between the municipal partners and the Community Consultation Office.

Action 7.3 Research paradigm shifts and ongoing benchmarking against best practices to

deploy innovative approaches to consultation and engagements. Recommendation 8: Maximize online engagement tools to strengthen the delivery of engagement programs through connecting external groups and organizations, facilitating discussions, and encouraging innovative and creative ideas. Action 8.1: Scale and enhance the YourSay.ca (recently deployed online tool) to support a

variety of mandatory and grassroots engagement activities and develop an online engagement guide to facilitate effective use of this resource.

Action 8.2: Evaluate YourSay.ca based on its objectives and expand it to include other

engagement programs, as appropriate.

193

Recommendation 9: Develop a plan for and organize new large-scale public events to augment existing watershed events. Action 9.1: Organize a watershed forum on an annual basis. Action 9.2: Organize regular large-scale event(s) focused on youth. Recommendation 10: Deepen TRCA's reach by investing in established and new community-based engagement programs which build relationships, capacity and leadership among businesses, neighbourhoods, communities, schools and other special interest groups. Action 10.1 Develop strategies and tools for use across TRCA's engagement activities that

support the capacity of individuals and organizations from participants in TRCA's programs to partners and leaders of Living City actions.

Recommendation 11: Apply targeted approaches when developing new engagement programs that lead to future collaborations and/or partnerships with community leaders and groups. Action 11.1 Facilitate collaborations between different groups (e.g., youth and older adults or

seniors) to build a stronger knowledge base among the groups. Action 11.2 Encourage and support individuals and groups leading/hosting community-led

initiatives through progressive transferring of knowledge and expertise. Recommendation 12: Ensure that every engagement program has an engagement and communications plan aligned with the engagement goals in the CES. Action 12.1: Develop engagement and communication plans for all existing engagement

programs or strengthen the existing plans.

Action 12.2: Develop an engagement and communications plan for all new engagement programs at the beginning of program development.

Recommendation 13: Establish an effective approach for internal coordination on engagement. Action 13.1: Establish an internal committee of TRCA staff from relevant departments to

ensure cross collaboration on engagement programs. Recommendation 14: Strengthen TRCA’s brand awareness and corporate-wide communications. Action 14.1: Develop a corporate marketing and communications strategy to support the

Engagement Strategy.

194

Recommendation 15: Support implement of the CES through reallocation of existing resources and new innovative funding mechanisms. Action 15.1 Develop a business plan and budget for new priority action as these are

scheduled for implementation. Action 15.2 Collaborate with The Living City Foundation to generate funds to support the

implementation of the recommendations in this CES, for other TRCA projects and community-led projects or initiatives.

Action 15.3 Cultivate the culture of philanthropy through crowd funding, formal and informal

fundraising event. Recommendation 16: Ensure that every engagement program has an evaluation plan. Action 16.1 Develop an evaluation plan for each new and existing program based on the

monitoring, evaluation, and reporting framework and respective engagement and communications plans.

Action 16:.2 Evaluate the programs for expansion or broad-scale implementation. Recommendation 17: Collect reliable, quality and up-to-date data (quantitative and qualitative) for effective program development and implementation, delivery, and monitoring and evaluation. Action 17.1 Collect data on the demographics of the jurisdiction at watershed and

neighbourhood levels. Action 17.2 Collect data on Indigenous communities within the jurisdiction in collaboration

with the Indigenous people. Action 17.3 Collect data on usage of ravines, municipal parks and waterfront trails. Action 17.4 Develop a system that can document and collate public or stakeholder

interactions so as to provide an understanding of the demographics and spatial area being engaged and if and how their engagement is evolving overtime.

Action 17.5 Deploy a client management system to understand community interactions with

TRCA through a ranges of activities and to ensure these interactions are leveraged appropriately.

Recommendation 18: Measure performance and report the results on an annual basis. Action 18.1 Develop annual reports based on key performance indicators established in the

CES as a knowledge management and guidance tool to evaluate performance.

Action 18.2 Develop annual reports on the status of the CES to the Board. Action 18.3 Review and update CES on a regular basis.

195

RES.#A103/17 - WETLAND PROTECTION Protection for Urban and Near-urban Wetlands. Responding to the

Authority’s request for staff to report on what is being done to protect urban and near-urban wetlands.

Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jennifer McKelvie THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff continue to work with our provincial and municipal partners in the identification and protection of wetlands in the TRCA jurisdiction; THAT staff continue to encourage TRCA’s partners to support the integration of these wetland features into the greenspace planning for new communities as they are so important to the long term health of the natural heritage and hydrologic systems; AND FURTHER THAT the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Conservation Ontario and TRCA’s municipal partners be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #10/16, held on January 6, 2017, amendment #A211/16 was approved as follows:

THAT staff report back on what is being done to protect urban and near urban wetlands; Wetlands are a critical component of healthy watersheds. The ecosystem services that wetlands provide such as flood attenuation, improving air and water quality, and provision of habitat for many important species are invaluable. All watersheds in southern Ontario, including TRCA’s watersheds, currently have less wetland cover than they did prior to extensive European settlement (c. 1800), with losses exceeding 70% in many jurisdictions. Environment Canada in its report, “How Much Habitat is Enough?” recommends that “each major watershed should have a minimum, 10% wetland cover protected and restored.” On average, TRCA’s watersheds have less than 5% wetland cover (Figure 1). Even in the best cases, none of the individual watersheds reach the 10% target recommended by Environment Canada.

196

Figure 1 In a growing and intensifying city region such as TRCA’s jurisdiction, protected and functioning wetlands are critical to combatting the impacts of urbanization and the compounding effects of climate change. Policy and Regulation The protection of wetlands is a multi-jurisdictional endeavor requiring the different levels of government to work together. Provincial policy sets the general direction for protection of wetlands in the provincial interest, and municipalities and conservation authorities are responsible for implementing those policies through their own programs and policies. Provincial Policy Statement The Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) is used by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to identify and evaluate wetlands to determine if they are Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs). Designated PSWs are protected under the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2014, which states that, “Development shall not be permitted in significant wetlands...unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or their ecological functions.” Provincial Plans Provincial plans such as the Greenbelt Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan also contain policies to protect all wetlands on the Oak Ridges Moraine and/or in the Greenbelt as “key natural heritage features” and “key hydrologic features” in which development or site alteration is prohibited. Municipal Official Plans Municipal Official Plans must contain wetland protection policies in accordance with the PPS and provincial plans. The policies of the PPS represent minimum standards; however, planning authorities and decision-makers may go beyond these minimum standards. In TRCA’s jurisdiction, many municipalities have adopted or proposed policies for the protection of wetlands beyond just PSWs.

197

Conservation Authorities Act Section 28 Regulation The only regulation for wetlands in Ontario is the section 28 regulation under the Conservation Authorities (CA) Act. TRCA’s section 28 regulation (Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended) applies to all wetlands regardless of provincial significance or permissions in official plans. It fills the gap for applications that do not require any approvals under the Planning Act. It is also the only enforcement body for the protection of wetlands. The Living City Policies The Living City Policies (LCP) implements TRCA’s roles in the development planning process, the infrastructure planning process and the Regulation. The LCP guides staff in their day-to-day operation, helping to implement the PPS, provincial plans and TRCA’s Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy; the LCP also helps support municipalities’ wetland protection policies. The LCP contains policies that recommend the protection of wetlands under Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act processes. It also contains policies to implement TRCA’s Regulation where development is proposed within Regulated Areas associated with a wetland. Challenges and Opportunities Wetland Identification Not all wetlands have been identified, mapped or evaluated (under OWES). TRCA’s terrestrial inventory and monitoring programs continue to identify wetlands across the jurisdiction. The inventory work also documents the habitat functions of the wetlands including the presence of flora and fauna. These data are entered into TRCA’s GIS mapping databases and are used by TRCA staff in their review role. The information is also available to municipalities and to consultants on request to support their development and infrastructure planning activities. In addition, TRCA regularly updates our information with data from the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). Municipally-led planning exercises such as subwatershed studies, Block Plans and Master Environmental Servicing Plans, also offer an opportunity to identify and evaluate wetlands in new urban areas. Under the text of Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, a wetland is regulated even if it is not currently mapped. Non-Provincially Significant Wetlands As noted above, municipalities may choose to go beyond the PPS and provincial plans to protect local wetlands in their policies. However, there are often costly legal appeals to these policies when there is no provincial requirement for protection. In the case of linear infrastructure, it is often impossible to avoid impacting wetlands, including PSWs. To deal with the situation where wetlands cannot be protected in-situ, TRCA has been developing a Compensation Protocol for Ecosystem Services. The draft protocol is currently out for consultation; however, staff has piloted the draft protocol with willing municipalities and proponents where unavoidable losses of natural features have occurred. Non-provincially significant wetlands are usually small and have less complex ecosystem functions than PSWs. TRCA has expertise and experience in being able to recreate/restore wetlands elsewhere if they cannot be protected in-situ. Some municipalities have or are considering compensation policies in their planning documents for non-provincially significant features.

198

The Province of Ontario’s draft Wetland Conservation Strategy has identified that in parts of Ontario where wetland losses have been the greatest, that perhaps, all wetlands should be protected. The draft Strategy also presents compensation/offsetting as something to be explored. Wetland Hydrology (Water Balance) Wetlands and their ecological functions are very much defined by each of their unique hydrologic regimes. For example, hydrology is one of the main factors influencing whether or not amphibians are able to use a wetland to breed. Truly protecting a wetland goes beyond just setting aside the land and providing a buffer. Protecting the hydrologic regime or water balance (volume, timing, and duration of water inputs and outputs) is critically important. This can be very challenging when land is urbanized and the amount of stormwater runoff increases dramatically and water quality decreases. It becomes necessary to take measures to match the quantity and quality of water entering the wetland if the wetland is going to continue to function adjacent to development. The LCP contains requirements for a water balance analysis to demonstrate that the hydrology of the feature will be maintained once the development occurs. To assist proponents, TRCA has produced a Wetland Water Balance Monitoring Protocol to provide consistent guidance for proponents where their proposals have the potential to impact wetland features. TRCA is also working on a Risk Evaluation Tool to determine the level of monitoring and evaluation that is required based on the sensitivity of the wetland and the extent of hydrologic change the development is likely to cause. These guidelines and tools have been or are being developed with input from an external stakeholder committee that includes membership from TRCA municipalities, other CAs and the building and consulting industry. TRCA and Credit Valley Conservation have also initiated a research study to better understand when significant adverse impacts from development are likely to occur. Unauthorized Removals or Damage TRCA’s Enforcement Officers play an important role in the management of natural hazards and features within TRCA watersheds. As noted above, the only regulation for the protection of wetlands comes under section 28 of the CA Act and so too the enforcement and compliance of the regulation. Violation trends within TRCA’s jurisdiction range from minor intrusions into wetland features to major site alterations. Through the investigation process of unauthorized works, it is a challenge to delineate the original feature limits when wetlands that are not mapped or evaluated are damaged or removed outside of the land use planning process. TRCA’s compliance approach is to resolve minor infractions through landowner cooperation and resolve violations by notice through discussions and negotiations for restoration where possible. Currently, there are no Stop Work provisions or Order to Comply provisions within the CA Act. Prosecutions are generally reserved for situations where a negotiated resolution is not possible and the offence is significant in nature. However, these legal proceedings take multiple years to resolve, the costs of which are borne by the CA. Wetland Restoration TRCA has developed strong expertise in the creation, enhancement and ecological restoration of wetlands. Using an understanding of the natural heritage needs in each watershed along with TRCA’s inventory and monitoring data, restoration opportunities have been identified and prioritized. In the last five years, TRCA has restored nearly 100 ha of wetlands in TRCA watersheds, moving us towards the target of 10% wetland cover.

199

FINANCIAL DETAILS The work done at TRCA to protect wetlands is accomplished through established planning and environmental assessment processes and is part of the regular planning and development budgeting process. Funding support for science and research (including the water balance work) is supported through grants from the Great Lakes Sustainability Fund, the Toronto Region Remedial Action Plan (RAP), with additional capital funding from York and Peel regions. Credit Valley Conservation has made significant in-kind contributions to this work as well. Funding support for restoration work comes through various municipal capital projects, Peel’s climate change fund, and various grants from external organizations such as Great Lakes Sustainability fund, Toronto RAP, and TD Friends of the Environment Fund, etc. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff supports the direction in the Province’s draft Wetland Conservation Strategy for the protection of all wetlands, in areas where wetland loss has been the greatest, and the use of off-setting or compensation to replace wetlands that are damaged or lost. Staff is awaiting the next round of consultation from the Province on implementation of their Wetland Conservation Strategy and, as needed, will contribute to its implementation. Staff will continue to strengthen partnerships and working relationships with municipalities and other conservation authorities to protect and restore wetlands within TRCA’s watersheds. Report prepared by: Dena Lewis, extension 5225 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Dena Lewis, extension 5225 Emails: [email protected] Date: June 23, 2017

__________________________________

200



RES.#A104/17 - EASTERN AND BROADVIEW FLOOD PROTECTION DUE DILIGENCE AND MUNICIPAL CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Direction to undertake a Due Diligence and Municipal Class Environmental Assessment as co-proponents with Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation and the City of Toronto.

Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Linda Pabst WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) and the City of Toronto received approvals from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) for the Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Project Environmental Assessment (DMNP EA) in December 2014; WHEREAS the Port Lands Flood Protection and Enabling Infrastructure Project Due Diligence Report was released publically by TWRC, City of Toronto, TRCA and the Toronto Port Lands Company (TPLC) in October 2016; WHEREAS approximately 8 ha of urban lands north of the elevated Metrolinx railway embankment will remain within the Regulatory Floodplain following implementation of the DMNP EA; WHEREAS the City of Toronto and TWRC have requested that TRCA lead a Due Diligence and Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Study, which will be undertaken to identify a flood protection solution to remove the remaining flood risk to these 8 ha of urban land north of the elevated Metrolinx railway embankment; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA enter into a Delivery Agreement with TWRC to undertake the Due Diligence and Class EA studies; THAT TRCA staff be directed to establish a Project Team consisting of staff from the co-proponent agencies, throughout the Stage 1 - Due Diligence and potentially, the Stage 2 - Class EA processes; THAT the Project Team present the results of the Stage 1 - Due Diligence Study to the Port Lands Executive Steering Committee to seek direction to proceed with the Stage 2 - Class EA portion of the Project; THAT authorized officials and staff be directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing of agreements, amendments or other legal documents deemed necessary to undertake the Project; THAT TRCA participation be subject to funding being available from the City of Toronto via a Delivery Agreement between TRCA and TWRC; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff report back to the Authority with the results of the Stage 1 – Due Diligence and Stage – 2 Class EA phases of the Project. CARRIED

201

BACKGROUND The Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection Environmental Assessment received approvals from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change in December 2014. The DMNP EA was completed by TRCA on behalf of and in cooperation with TWRC and the City of Toronto. Currently, 290 ha of land are at risk due to flooding from the Don River in the Port Lands and South Riverdale communities (Attachment 1) and, as a result, are currently subject to restrictions on development and intensification under provincial policy. The DMNP calls for the creation of two new naturalized river valley sections in addition to modifications to the existing Keating Channel, which together will result in the removal of flood risk to approximately 240 ha of land within the Port Lands area and unlock the potential for development. Following full implementation of the DMNP, the Keating Channel, lower Don River Channel and the new naturalized river valleys will still be subject to riverine flooding as per the design. However, a small section of urban land approximately 7-8 ha will remain under flood risk following completion of the DMNP works (Attachment 2). These lands, which are considered as being within the “area of influence” of the Unilever Precinct, are located to the north of the Metrolinx-owned elevated railway embankment, on the east side of the Don River. In 2013, the City of Toronto initiated a Municipal Class EA for the Port Lands (excluding the Lower Don Lands) and south of Eastern Avenue area to establish the necessary infrastructure to support redevelopment. A critical piece of infrastructure identified through the Class EA was an extension of Broadview Avenue south from its current terminus at Eastern Avenue/Sunlight Park Road into and through the Port Lands. The preferred design would cross the existing elevated Metrolinx railway embankment (Attachment 2) with a new underpass structure and in doing so introduce a new pathway for flooding southward into the Unilever Precinct Area. The formal submission of the DMNP EA also preceded the resolution and approval of several key transit and infrastructure project concepts planned for the areas north of the railway embankment, including the TTC Subway Relief Line Station planned for the intersection at Eastern Avenue and the proposed extension of Broadview Avenue. To address these concerns, TRCA undertook preliminary feasibility modeling runs in 2016 to test whether a flood protection solution, on the north side of the railway embankment and east of the river, could be built such that the remaining flood risk could be removed to lands north of the embankment without significant increases in flood risk elsewhere. Results from this exercise indicated that a structure installed on the east side of the Don Valley Parkway, between the Eastern Avenue fly-over and elevated railway embankment, could be used to address flooding to these remaining 7-8 ha of flood vulnerable urban lands. However, it was also noted that, due to the number of concurrent or future development projects and the presence of extensive infrastructure within the project area (e.g., pipelines, sewer lines, etc.), the technical challenges of integrating such a structure are considerable.

202

RATIONALE The implementation of a flood protection solution that would mitigate flood risk to lands north of the railway embankment will allow for the enhancement and redevelopment of a key piece of Toronto’s eastern waterfront. Based on the current and future land uses planned for the area, the provision of a flood protection solution will remove flood risk for landowners and better facilitate a number of important infrastructure projects, including the proposed subway station at Eastern and Broadview in support of the TTC Subway Relief Line and the proposed SmartTrack station to service the East Harbour Precinct lands. Together these two stations will form a new transit “hub” for the area. The removal of the flood risk north of the Metrolinx railway embankment would also facilitate grading works for the proposed Broadview Avenue extension under the railway embankment into the East Harbour Precinct lands. At Toronto City Council Meeting #27, held on March 28, 2017, the Planning and Growth Management Committee Report PG18.6 was adopted, in part, as follows:

The Deputy City Manager, Cluster B, be directed to commence, together with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and TWRC, the Eastern and Broadview Flood Protection Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Recommendation 4).

Subject to approval of Recommendation 4, the Deputy City Manager & Chief Financial Officer be directed to create a capital sub-project, the “Eastern and Broadview Flood Protection Municipal Class Environmental Assessment”, with 2017 cash flows of $2.0 million, funded from development charges from Reserve Fund XR2120 ($1.8 million) and $0.200 million in approved funding from the Waterfront Revitalization Initiatives 2017-2026 Capital Budget and Plan – CWR003-18 ($0.130 million) and CWR003-21 ($0.070 million) – resulting in a $1.8 million net increase in the Budget Committee recommended Waterfront Revitalization budget (Recommendation 5).

Based on the above and in consultation with the MOECC and TRCA’s project partners, the City of Toronto and TWRC, as well as area stakeholders, it is recommended that the Due Diligence Study and Municipal Class EA be undertaken in order to resolve the remaining flood risk north of the railway embankment. FINANCIAL DETAILS The creation of a sub-project within the Waterfront Revitalization Initiatives 2017-2026 Capital Budget and Plan has been recommended in order to cover the full cost of the Eastern and Broadview Flood Protection Municipal Class EA. Based on preliminary cost estimates prepared by TRCA staff, it is estimated that 2017 and 2018 cash flows of $2.0 million will be required to fully fund the project. The proposed Class EA will be separate from the Port Lands Flood Protection and Enabling Infrastructure project that is included in the City of Toronto’s 2017-2026 Capital Budget and Plan. Funding will be tracked through a series of 191-70 accounts. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA, TWRC and the City of Toronto will work as co-proponents to identify a viable flood protection solution for the area north of the railway embankment. The project will consist of a Two Stage process:

a) Stage 1: Due Diligence stage that will follow Phases 1 and 2 of the Municipal Class EA process, minus the public engagement elements of the study to confirm that a viable alternative can be established; and

203

b) Stage 2: Undertaking the formal Municipal Class EA process if directed to proceed by the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) – it will be reconfirmed whether a Schedule B or C Class EA is required at this time.

The above-mentioned high level work plan was prepared in conjunction with the project co-proponents. Stage 1 will involve the definition of the project problem or opportunity and will identify a high level list of alternative solutions. The high level screening process will produce a short-list of alternatives that can meet the project objective of removing the risk of flooding to urban lands north of the Metrolinx railway embankment. The remaining short-list of options will be further refined including the development of details as to how the remaining alternatives will be integrated with existing and future infrastructure, land uses and other considerations. These refined alternatives will then be evaluated based on, but not limited to, construction and maintenance costs, their ability to integrate with existing infrastructure, and their resulting flood plain policy implications. A preliminary preferred alternative will be selected as a result of the evaluation results. The details of the preliminary preferred alternative will be presented to the Port Lands ESC seeking direction as to whether the Project proceeds to the Stage 2 – Class EA. If not approved, the work completed to date will be consolidated by the Project Management and Consultant Teams into a single, stand-alone Due Diligence Report, thus concluding the project. If however, the ESC is satisfied with the outcomes to date, the Project Management Team will proceed to the Stage 2 – Class EA phase. This will involve the consolidation of all technical studies and documentation completed during Stage 1 to form the basis of Phases I and II of the Municipal Class EA process. Formal consultation and stakeholder engagement sessions will be organized as per Municipal Class EA requirements with the release of the Notice of Commencement. Through the engagement process, new alternatives may be suggested and evaluated, requiring updates to the work completed to date. Following conclusion of public engagement, and assuming no significant concerns or issues have been raised, the project will proceed towards the completion of the Municipal Class EA by confirming the appropriate Municipal Class EA Schedule (B or C) and issuing a Notice of Completion, thus notifying agencies and the public of their opportunity to review the final EA. For the above-mentioned works, TRCA will require the support of several consultant teams in order to fulfill the requirements of the EA planning and design process. Three consultant teams will lead the implementation and management of the required services and will coordinate with each other in order to 1) characterize the environmental, geotechnical and hydrogeological subsurface conditions of the project area; 2) carry-out hydraulic modeling and design services of the various flood protection solutions under consideration; and 3) provide planning and engineering support in the development of the Due Diligence and Class EA. Report prepared by: Corey Wells, extension 5233 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230 Emails: [email protected] Date: May 19, 2017 Attachments: 2

204



Attachment 1

The extent of flood risk as it currently exists within the Port Lands and South Riverdale areas (blue shaded area)

205

Attachment 2

Hydraulic model results showing the 7-8 hectares of urban land bounded by the DVP to the west, the Metrolinx elevated railway emankment to the south, and Eastern Avenue to the north that will remain under flood risk following full implementation of the DMNP EA. The extent of flooding shown here is under a Hurricane Hazel level event.

__________________________________

206

RES.#A105/17 - BLACK CREEK RAVINE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION CONNECTION FEASIBILITY

Potential for an active transportation connection between Shoreham Drive and Steeles Avenue West along land owned and managed by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) take a leadership role in conducting a trail planning feasibility study for the Black Creek Ravine lands area, subject to availability of funding; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA work with the City of Toronto, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, York University, Metrolinx and other appropriate land owners and managers in the study area to develop a trail plan. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Executive Committee Meeting #9/16, held on November 4, 2016, Resolution #B113/16 was approved as follows:

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be requested to conduct a study and report back by April 2017 to determine the potential of installing a bike path along Black Creek from Shoreham Drive to Steeles Avenue West on lands owned and managed by TRCA.

TRCA staff conducted a series of meetings and sites visits to investigate the potential of connecting the existing Black Creek trail system from Shoreham Drive to Steeles Avenue West. This preliminary investigation indicated that there is potential for a trail between Shoreham Drive and Steeles Avenue West, and that the best option is to utilize the existing pathway within the Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) complex, as the option avoids long span crossings of the Black Creek floodplain and minimizes costs to build and maintain additional infrastructure. Further technical studies and consultation with project partners and the public are necessary to more fully determine the most appropriate trail alignment, design and costing, as well as to better integrate this trail section with other active and non-active transportation routes in the area. TRCA staff included additional lands and landowners in the study area in order to analyze more options and determine the best active transportation connection. These lands include:

BCPV North

Black Creek Parklands (just south of Shoreham Drive, in the vicinity of TRCA Head Office Project)

Black Creek Community Farm

City of Toronto road and sidewalk networks

City of Vaughan road and sidewalk networks

York University between BCPV and Pioneer Village TTC Station

Highway 407 TTC Station and surrounding lands

207

TRCA staff has started to contact the landowners of these properties to discuss the potential to enhance the trail system in the vicinity of the Black Creek Ravine. Increasing connectivity to and from public transit is essential to the success of this trail connection project; therefore, York University Development Corporation was informed of TRCA’s interest in increasing connectivity from the Black Creek Ravine and BCPV to the TTC Pioneer Village Station. Lands owned by York University are essential to providing increased connectivity in the area. TRCA staff also met with staff members from the Black Creek Community Farm to discuss their goals and objectives and determine potential trail connections in and around their leased lands. There are several complex issues that will need to be resolved as a part of a more detailed trail planning process. At this stage, the largest challenge to successfully achieving this connection is the ability to appropriately separate the trail from the operation of BCPV as a paid use facility. Further discussions regarding the operational aspects of BCPV and/or management agreement will need to take place in order to determine whether there is a practical and cost efficient solution to maintaining BCPV as a paid facility while still permitting members of the public to freely access the ravine trail system. Another distinctive issue is the difficulty of providing suitable access in and out of the ravine system. There are only two potential access points in and out of the ravine once north of Shoreham Drive due to the steep slopes on the west side and BCPV on the east. Other issues identified during preliminary scoping for trail connectivity in the area include:

safe access underneath Jane Street/Steeles Avenue;

safety and security of trail users;

regular flooding of these ravine lands;

trail design guidelines;

difficult terrain in some areas;

quality of existing pathway and subsurface conditions;

constructability of pedestrian river crossings;

approval for railway underpass;

ongoing lease of TRCA land to Black Creek Community Farm. Conceptual Trail Alignment TRCA staff considered these issues and developed a conceptual trail alignment utilizing land within and surrounding Black Creek. The primary trail alignment utilizes a preexisting service pathway that stretches from the end of the existing City of Toronto trail system at the south end of the Black Creek complex to Black Creek Pioneer Village North, via a tunnel underneath Jane Street and Steeles Avenue. The entirety of this mostly flat service road follows the western boundary of BCPV and the east side of the ravine. A mid-block trail connection was also included in the concept as there was an interest in TRCA’s initial meetings and scoping sessions to include increased public connectivity across the ravine from Jane Street to Black Creek TTC Station. This east/west path requires two parts, both of which connect to the main north/south trail identified above. The first part connects a multi-use pathway to a preexisting sidewalk constructed by the City of Toronto to connect Jane Street to a Toronto Community Housing Complex and a city park. The pathway then flows around the Black Creek Community Farm and eventually connects to a single pedestrian bridge proposed to be constructed over the Black Creek Ravine and connecting in to the main trail. Modifications to the western side of the ravine slope are necessary in order to construct a stable and accessible west pathway in and out of the ravine lands. An additional connection could be constructed from Jane Street and Hullmar Drive to the proposed bridge; however, this will require further consultation

208

and collaboration with Black Creek Community Farm. The second part of the east/west path connects the northern terminus of the existing Black Creek Trail to BCPV and then heads east past Murrary Ross Parkway connecting to preexisting multi-use pathways constructed by York University, and eventually ending at Pioneer Village Station. A map of the trail concept has been included in Attachment 1. Potential Project Partners TRCA’s municipal and regional partners support trail planning for active transportation, and are also pursuing strategies that include trails and paths in the vicinity of the Black Creek Ravine: City of Toronto One of Mayor John Tory’s key initiatives is Vision Zero: Toronto’s Road Safety Plan, which aims to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries on city streets by making walking and cycling safer. This Plan aligns well with TRCA’s trail objectives of providing active transportation routes away from roads. The City of Toronto Bike Plan: Shifting Gears is Toronto’s plan to “shift gears towards a more bike friendly city,” and sets out principles, objectives and recommendations to guide the development and maintenance of cycling infrastructure and programs. One of the primary objectives for the bikeway network is to connect it with the networks in adjacent municipalities. The Bike Plan includes a proposed one kilometre signed cycling route along Shoreham Drive and Murray Ross Parkway, connecting the Black Creek Trail to a proposed off-road bicycle path on Steeles Avenue. In Toronto’s Cycling Network Ten Year Plan, Shoreham Drive is shown as a location for a future bike lane/cycle tracks, and Jane Street is shown as a corridor “where future study may be considered as part of the Cycling Network Plan 2 Year Review Report”. York Region The Regional Municipality of York Transportation Master Plan intends to integrate active transportation in urban areas. One element of this objective is “promot[ing] the development of trails that support greater levels of active transportation that complement the on-road cycling and pedestrian networks, particularly those that connect urban areas”. One of the key Regional trail spines identified in the Plan is an “east-west trail system that would utilize the Hydro corridor in southern York Region”. One section of this hydro corridor is located between the Black Creek Pioneer Village North property and the Highway 407 subway station. City of Vaughan The Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 620 lands in Vaughan are “to become a mixed use area, with a variety of retail, office and residential uses, as well as other community uses”. The OPA specifies that developments seeking height and/or density above what is outlined may be permitted by the City under Section 37 of the Planning Act, “in exchange for community facilities and public open space features” including pedestrian and/or bike trails, “within the Amendment Area, over and above those required by this Plan, or funds for the provision of such facilities and features”. The Vaughan 20-year Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Study was developed to guide the expansion of a network of pedestrian and cycling facilities, including a recreational trail system. The Jane Street and Steeles Avenue West intersection is designated as a “Gateway,” and Jane Street is marked as a “Class 2 Bike Lane – Community Bike Lane” with “Formal pavement marking and signing (CL – WIDENING)”. Also, the Steeles West Urban Design Guidelines + Streetscape Plan outlines a proposed off-road cycle track and pedestrian sidewalk along the north side of Steeles Avenue.

209

Other organizations and TRCA partners also support trails and active transportation in the area: York University York University is planning significant changes to the Keele Campus and its surrounding area. In the precincts adjacent to the Black Creek valley, the York University Secondary Plan features new pedestrian and bicycle connections between the University, the surrounding areas, and natural heritage features and systems, as well as a pedestrian oriented greenway along The Pond Road. The Steeles West Precinct is intended to be largely developed as a high-density transit-supportive mixed-use corridor, focused on the Pioneer Village Station. The Keele Campus Master Plan promotes “Pedestrians First at York University,” and “Greening York University.” The “Pedestrians First” lens aims to “foster a culture of active transportation within the campus”, and outlines plans for a shared-use greenway favouring cyclists and pedestrians on the Ring Road, linking to regional trails. The “Greening” lens includes considerations for trails in the arboretum along The Pond Road (just east of the Black Creek valley) and near stormwater management ponds, and also includes the Black Creek/Hoover Creek Valley Corridor as a Priority Restoration Area. Black Creek Community Farm Black Creek Community Farm has an existing (but tabled) plan to construct a bridge at the north east corner of the property to a service trail at Black Creek Pioneer Village on the other side of the creek. The Farm has developed a trail around the outer perimeter of the property, from the northeast corner to the southeast corner, where there is an excellent opportunity for an interpretive lookout. Lastly, a Black Creek Trail Plan would support existing TRCA initiatives as follows: Black Creek Pioneer Village One objective of the BCPV Strategic Plan is to be visited by more people more often. To achieve this, the BCPV vision recommends “the creation of a more interactive experience for visitors,” through initiatives including a re-imagined streetscape and entranceway. Part of the rationale for the BCPV vision is the Pioneer Village Station (scheduled to open in 2017), which will make BCPV more accessible while providing promotion for the site. Currently the pedestrian/cycling route from the Pioneer Village Station to BCPV is approximately 950 metres along formal paths, or approximately 750 metres by cutting across fields and/or parking lots. Formalization of the faster route with trails/paths would make it safer and more accessible, thus improving the experience for BCPV visitors coming from Pioneer Village Station, and enriching the proposed re-imagined streetscape and entranceway. The Black Creek Pioneer Village North Lands Master Plan proposes trails to “afford public access within the valley corridor, providing opportunities for nature appreciation and interpretation of the natural landscape and Black Creek as well as access to facilitate monitoring of the success of reforestation and environmental enhancement initiatives”. Wayfinding Signage Plan from Pioneer Village Station to Black Creek Pioneer Village TRCA and Black Creek Pioneer Village staff is developing a wayfinding sign plan for the new Pioneer Village TTC Station. Based on discussion with TTC, there will be in-station signage that directs riders to Black Creek Pioneer Village. These signs will be strategically placed in the station and their spots will be directed by the TTC staff.

210

In addition to these signs, TRCA is putting together a wayfinding sign plan to provide direction along Steeles Avenue to Murray Ross Parkway, both on the north and south sides. Similar signs will also be placed along the existing and proposed multi-use trails on York University lands. These signs will vary in content and size depending on where they are placed. BCPV Parking Lot Infrastructure Enhancement Plan TRCA is in the process of developing a plan to optimize BCPV’s parking lot through a series of site improvements that will address the following:

site and user safety;

accessibility and wayfinding;

ease of use and site configuration;

sustainability, landscape aesthetics and promotion. These enhancements will improve BCPV’s parking lot by remediating site challenges and optimizing existing infrastructure. As a portion of the parking lot has been identified as a potential trail connection from BCPV to Black Creek Station, TRCA staff will be able to coordinate efforts to achieve shared goals and reduce costs. TRCA Strategic Plan In 2013, TRCA introduced a strategic plan covering a 10-year period from 2013 to 2022. The plan emphasizes TRCA’s commitment to safeguarding and enhancing the health and well-being of the residents of the Toronto region through the protection and restoration of the natural environment and the fundamental ecological services our environment provides. TRCA developed 12 strategies that guide its activities from 2013-2022. The strategies are presented in two categories: Leadership Strategies that move TRCA toward The Living City vision; and, Enabling Strategies that build collective capacity for TRCA to make significant, positive impacts. The development of trails within the Black Creek Ravine falls within several Leadership Strategies, most notably “Rethink greenspace to maximize its value”, where all objectives are met:

1) A network of greenspace and green infrastructure that weaves through every community to connect a healthy and resilient landscape.

2) More people engaging with nature more often. 3) Improved protection of Toronto region’s natural systems.

These objectives will be achieved through the following actions by TRCA:

1) Work with TRCA’s partners to acquire, design and distribute greenspace and green infrastructure, both natural (e.g., ravines, meadows, wetlands) and created (e.g., urban forest, agriculture and community gardens, greenroofs) to all communities in an equitable manner, directing ecosystem services to the areas where the need is greatest.

2) Partner with municipalities, neighbouring conservation authorities and the federal government (e.g., Rouge National Urban Park) to connect and promote a regional active transportation network that facilitates physical activity and reduces air pollution while creating key linkages between natural areas.

3) Develop infrastructure and tools such as, transit access and smart-technology applications that improve access to and increase use of greenspace, particularly for marginalized populations and new Canadians.

211

4) Deliver experiences and programs that encourage life-long engagement and stewardship of urban nature among a more diverse range of people.

Humber River Watershed Plan The Humber River watershed plan, Pathways to a Healthy Humber, recommends recognizing “the distinctive heritage of the Humber through an enhanced regional open space system”. The plan’s nature-based recreation objectives are: “Incorporate greenspace in all urban and rural developments and create an accessible and connected greenspace system that is compatible with ecological and cultural integrity;” and “Develop a system of inter-regional trails and local and regional nature-based recreation, education and tourism destinations within the greenspace system. The Black Creek subwatershed is identified as having opportunities to complete missing links in the trail system and create new trails along hydro corridors. Black Creek Neighbourhood Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Plan (SNAP) Black Creek is one of Toronto’s 31 Neighbourhood Improvement Areas, and a TRCA SNAP neighbourhood. One of the many goals of the Black Creek SNAP is to enhance natural areas such as local parks for the community to enjoy. Currently, there is very little greenspace per capita for residents of the Black Creek neighbourhood, and the existing greenspace (largely in the Black Creek valley) is hard to access, disconnected, perceived to be unsafe and underutilized. TRCA’s New Head Office Plans for TRCA’s new head office at 5 Shoreham Drive aim to strengthen the connection between York University, TRCA and the Black Creek valley, including a public ground floor that connects to the ravine landscape. New and improved trails in the Black Creek area would provide active transportation opportunities for staff, as well as visiting partners and members of the public. RATIONALE Several major changes including the opening of the Spadina Subway Extension, Secondary Development Plans, TRCA’s new head office project, and a reimagining of BCPV warrant a rethinking of the active transportation and community trail connections in the vicinity of the Black Creek ravine. Numerous TRCA partners support trail planning for active transportation, and are also pursuing strategies for connected community trails and paths in the vicinity of the Black Creek Ravine including:

City of Toronto

Regional Municipality of York

City of Vaughan

York University Further technical studies, collaboration with project partners and public consultation is necessary to determine the most appropriate trail alignment and design, active transportation routes to major transit hubs, and to better integrate the ravine system in to the community. The City of Toronto and York University are supportive of TRCA’s plans to lead this trail planning feasibility study. TRCA will also work with the City of Vaughan and the Regional Municipality of York to develop a concept and trail alignment for the ravine lands north of Steeles Avenue.

212

FINANCIAL DETAILS TRCA requires approximately $400,000 to complete a trail planning feasibility study for the Black Creek Ravine and associated lands identified in this report. TRCA is actively investigating funding sources for this work, as part of the capital budget process. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA staff will develop a trail planning feasibility study in collaboration with the City of Toronto, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, York University and other partners. The study will review proposed multi-use trail options, select a preferred route, develop new options for community trail connections, and develop preliminary planning, design and construction cost estimates. Report prepared by: Adam Dembe, extension 5939, Colleen Bain 647-746-7447 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] For Information contact: Adam Dembe, extension 5939, Deanna Cheriton, extension 5204 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] Date: May 4, 2017 Attachments: 1

213





Attachment 1

214

RES.#A106/17 - RENAMING OF A TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ASSET Proposed Name Change of the Claremont Field Centre to the Claremont Nature Centre. Approval to officially rename the “Claremont Field Centre”, a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority facility in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, to the “Claremont Nature Centre”.

Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Matt Mahoney

THAT the Claremont Field Centre, a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) owned and operated education facility located in the City of Pickering, be officially renamed the “Claremont Nature Centre”;

AND FURTHER THAT facility and directional signage, along with marketing and program materials, be updated to reflect the name change.

CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #10/15, held on November 27, 2015, Resolution #A227/15 was approved, in part, as follows:

…THAT TRCA education centres be redeveloped into community engagement centreswith an emphasis on local participation in program development and delivery;…

RATIONALE Claremont Field Centre is the first of TRCA’s three field centres to start the transition to community engagement centres. The proposed name change from Claremont Field Centre to Claremont Nature Centre will help TRCA to re-position the site as a community engagement centre that supports a variety of programs in the community. TRCA’s vision for the Claremont Nature Centre and its associated 129 hectares (318 acres) of conservation lands expands its existing use as an overnight destination for school groups into a “community hub” for all to use.

The proposed name is in keeping with TRCA’s policy for Naming of TRCA Assets as per the following:

The naming of TRCA assets may contain any or all of the following:

The name of major individual or corporate/public sector organization;

The name of an individual prominent in the environmental or conservation community;

A relevant historical name associated with the geographic area or community;

The name of a strategic initiative, a citizen's group or other partnership of TRCA;

Other names that may have significant for a specific site and area.

The renaming of the Claremont Field Centre to the Claremont Nature Centre formally announces the transformation of the site to a community engagement centre to the public. The name change was determined by understanding the needs of local partners and community members and reflects the unique nature of the site and facility.

215

In addition to the name change, a number of facility upgrades designed to support community use of the site are also in place. Funding has been secured through a Canada 150 grant, Durham Region and the Ministry of Employment and Social Development Canada to help make Claremont inclusive and barrier free. Upgrades to the facility include an expanded parking area, accessible parking spaces, an educational trail to connect the front parking to the rear valley trails, outdoor classroom and learnings spaces and an indoor multipurpose room. FINANCIAL DETAILS Provision for sign replacement costs of $8,000 is available in Claremont Field Centre operating account 353-01. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Marketing staff will finalize the entrance sign design and contract a sign company for fabrication and installation. Program and marketing material will be updated and replaced as part of the normal replacement cycle. Report prepared by: Natalie Harder, 416-891-0518 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Natalie Harder, extension 416-891-0518 Emails: [email protected] Date: May 23, 2017

______________________________

216



RES.#A107/17 - VENDORS OF RECORD FOR MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS FOR OPERATING SEASON 2017 TO 2018

Contract #10004229. Award of Contract #10004229 for the supply of on-call mechanical and electrical related goods and services from June 30, 2017 to June 30, 2018.

Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Jack Heath WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is the owner of several properties across the jurisdiction that require on-call mechanical and electrical services; AND WHEREAS in March 2017, TRCA solicited quotations through a publicly advertised process and evaluated the quotations based on experience, certifications, in good standing with the Workplace Safety Insurance Board (WSIB) and references; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff establish a Vendors of Record (VOR) arrangement with nine electrical contractors and eight mechanical contractors for the supply of on-call services less than $10,000 per occurrence for the 2017 to 2018 operating season; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take necessary action to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA requires services, repairs and ongoing maintenance to various TRCA public use and rental facilities across its jurisdiction. By establishing a VOR list for on-call and emergency electrical and mechanical services, vendors are authorized to provide these services for a defined period of time and with fixed pricing. Staff may contact a vendor on the list to provide mechanical or electrical related goods and services with a value up to $10,000 per occurrence. On-call services above the $10,000 threshold are subject to TRCA’s Purchasing Policy and procurement procedures. Vendors will be required to provide all labour, materials, equipment and supervision necessary to complete the work in accordance with applicable laws, codes, standards, terms and conditions of the Vendors of Record Agreement. RATIONALE Request for Quotation (RFQ) for Contract #10004229 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on March 23, 2017. Suppliers were advised that they would be evaluated on the following criteria:

Completeness of submission;

Ability to meet current Occupational Health and Safety standards;

Industry certifications and association memberships; and

Company profile, services offered and experience with HVAC, plumbing, refrigeration, natural gas, swimming pool, general electrical and high voltage services.

The Procurement Opening Committee opened the quotations on April 7, 2016. Members of the selection committee, consisting of TRCA staff (Aaron D’Souza, Natalie Racette and Lisa Moore) reviewed the quotations and evaluated them based on the above technical requirements

217

http://www.biddingo.com/

The results of the evaluation are as follows:

ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS

Vendor Technical (out of 100)

Plan Group 98

TilTran Power Services 97

Rand Electric 95

Electric Group Ltd. 94

Ainsworth Inc. 91

Nezz Electric 87

BEC Electric 84

R.A. Graham Electrical 84

Bolton Electric 65

MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS

Vendor Technical (out of 100)

Plan Group 98

Glen the Plumber 97

Ontario Air Systems Ltd. 97

MSB Mechanical 96

Norline Plumbing and Mechanical Ltd.

95

Black Creek Mechanical Ltd. 93

LTK Mechanical Services Inc. 93

TBR Mechanical Electrical 89

Suppliers were also required to submit a Schedule of Rates (Attachment 1) for either on-call mechanical or electrical services. The Schedule of Rates was comprised of rates for regular work hours (Monday – Friday 8:00am to 4:30pm), overtime/emergency hours (evenings and weekends) and vehicle mileage (per kilometre). Through the evaluation process, it was determined that all of the vendors meet TRCA’s requirements for experience, qualifications, and health and safety. Staff further confirmed this through reference checks for each vendor. While Bolton Electric’s submission scored lower than the other submissions, their reference check, familiarity with a number of TRCA facilities, and past performance confirmed that they are able to provide quality services in a timely manner. The extent of the VOR list will ensure that a vendor will be available to provide goods and services in short order and the geographical distribution of the vendors will reduce the cost of mileage. Staff will be provided all of the information to be able to contact a vendor based on their experience/qualifications, geographical location, cost or a combination of the three. Therefore, staff recommends Contract #10004229 be awarded to all of the vendors listed above, they being the vendors that best meet TRCA’s requirements.

218

FINANCIAL DETAILS The total value of this contract is estimated to be $700,000 based on a review of previous work orders completed in 2016. An increase or decrease in workload will have an impact on the amount of this contract. All of the vendors understand the potential cost and resource implications associated with changes in workload. The services will be provided on an “as required” basis with no minimum hours guaranteed. Funds required for the contract are identified in TRCA’s 2017 and 2018 capital and operating budgets. Report prepared by: Lisa Moore, extension 5846 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Lisa Moore, extension 5846 or Aaron D’Souza, extension 5775 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] Date: May 29, 2017 Attachments: 1

219




Attachment 1

BIDDERS

Labour: ** Hourly Rate **Regular Time

Monday – Friday 8:00AM – 4:30PMResponse within 24 hours

Labour: ** Hourly Rate **Overtime/Emergency Hours

Monday – Friday 4:30PM –8:00AM


All day Saturday


All day Sunday

Travel time/vehicle (per km)

Ainsworth Inc. $95.00 $195.00 $195.00 $195.00 $1.10

BEC Electric $105.00 $157.50 $157.50 $157.50 $0.60

Bolton Electric $78.00 $117.00 $117.00 $117.00 $0.40

Electric Group Ltd. $110.00 $195.00 $195.00 $195.00 $0.85

Nezz Electric $80.00 $160.00 $160.00 $160.00 $0.70

Plan Group $95.00 $190.00 $190.00 $190.00 $0.70

R.A. Graham Electrical $80.00 $149.00 $149.00 $149.00 $0.60

Rand Electric $92.00 $138.00 $138.00 $184.00 $1.15

TilTran Power Services $98.00 $160.00 $160.00 $160.00 $1.09

Contract No. 10004229 Vendor of Record for Mechanical and Electrical Services

ON CALL SERVICES FOR ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS

220

Attachment 1

BIDDERS

Labour: ** Hourly Rate **Regular Time

Monday – Friday 8:00AM – 4:30PMResponse within 24 hours


Monday – Friday 4:30PM –8:00AM


All day Saturday


All day Sunday

Charge for travel time/vehicle (per km)

Black Creek Mechanical $90.00 $135.00 $135.00 $135.00 $0.30

Glen the Plumber $82.50 $165.00 $165.00 $165.00 $0.65

LTK Mechanical $94.35 $142.50 $142.50 $142.50 $1.25

MSB Mechanical $92.00 $160.00 $160.00 $160.00 $1.00

Norline Plumbing $125.00 $187.50 $187.50 $187.50 $0.85

Ontario Air Systems Ltd. $120.00 $168.00 $168.00 $168.00 $0.00

Plan Group $95.00 $190.00 $190.00 $190.00 $0.70

TBR Mechanical $90.00 $135.00 $135.00 $135.00 $0.52

ON CALL SERVICES FOR MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS

Contract No. 10004229 Vendor of Record for Mechanical and Electrical Services

221

RES.#A108/17 - AGGREGATES TO TRCA WORK SITES Vendor of Record. Award of Vendor of Record contracts for the supply and

delivery of various aggregate and construction materials to various Toronto and Region Conservation Authority work sites from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018.

Moved by: Giorgio Mammoliti Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is engaged in a variety of environmental initiatives that require numerous procurements for aggregate materials; AND WHEREAS TRCA issued a Request for Tender for the supply and delivery of various aggregates to TRCA project sites that was evaluated on cost, corporate experience and resources, and reference checks; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff establish a Vendor of Record (VOR) arrangement with a primary and secondary supplier representing the two highest ranked proposals for each aggregate material category, less than $200,000 per occurrence, for a one year period, with an option to extend the contract for an additional period of twelve months to June 30, 2019 as indicated in the contract documents; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded supplier, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other suppliers that submitted tenders, beginning with the next highest ranked bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA implements numerous environmental projects of varying scale throughout the GTA. The projects highly depend on the utilization of aggregate materials for the site work to progress. These types of projects include the following:

waterfront development and remedial shoreline protection, including lakefilling, placement of rip rap, armourstone headlands, groynes and breakwaters;

habitat enhancement and regeneration projects, including wetlands, meadows, natural channels, trail development; and

bank/slope/channel stabilization projects, including armourstone retaining walls, drainage channels, revetments and buttresses.

In previous years, TRCA would undertake multiple procurement processes to source materials for its project requirements. To improve efficiencies and assist staff during the peak construction season, TRCA is establishing a Vendor of Record list for the supply and delivery of various types of aggregate materials. Due to the proximity of project sites to quarry locations, the Vendor of Record process will establish east and west jurisdictions with multiple primary and secondary suppliers for each type of aggregate material up to $200,000 per occurrence. Any material request beyond $200,000 per occurrence will be tendered out as a

222

separate contract. The establishment of this Vendor of Record will help to ensure a vendor is available to deliver quality materials when needed at competitive pricing, while reducing procurement costs. The VOR list will be subject to quarterly reviews in order to confirm that the suppliers are providing an adequate level of service and to update applicable health and safety policies and certificates. RATIONALE Request for Tender documents were publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on May 16, 2017. Tender documents were received by the following 14 bidders:

B Town Group;

Brock Aggregates;

CDR Young Aggregates Inc.;

Cut Above Natural Stone Ltd.;

Dufferin Aggregates;

Glenn Windrem Trucking;

J.C. Rock Ltd.;

James Dick Construction Limited;

Lafarge Aggregates;

Nelson Aggregates;

Earthco Soil Inc.;

Arnts The Landscape Supplier;

Miller Paving; and

Strada Aggregates. The tender provided specifications for the various types of aggregate materials TRCA requires for its project sites. The materials include various types of granular, armourstone, rip rap, round stone and topsoil. Additional to providing the cost to supply these aggregate materials, the supplier is to specify the source of the aggregate and cost for delivery by tri-axle/flatbed trucking. With numerous project sites spread across TRCA’s jurisdictions, a site location map was provided depicting Yonge Street as the divide between east and west jurisdictions as well as estimated quantities based on prior purchases within the last two years to assist bidders with their competitive pricing. Tender submissions closed on May 30, 2017 and were opened by the Procurement Opening Committee that same day; the unit pricing submitted by each bidder is presented in Attachment 1. Members of the Selection Committee, consisting of TRCA staff, reviewed the tender submissions and were evaluated on a weighted scoring system consisting of 50% reasonableness of cost, 30% corporate experience and resources and the remaining 20% on the reference check. Along with unit rates for supply and delivery of aggregate material, bidders were to include company resources, relevant experience, references, quarry locations, and health and safety certificates to ensure TRCA is receiving good value for services. From the evaluation, the highest ranked vendor will be selected as the primary supplier to provide the aggregate materials as needed. If the primary supplier is unable to meet the specifications of the VOR for any reason, a secondary supplier with the second highest ranked evaluation will be called upon. The results of the evaluation is as follows:

223

http://(www.biddingo.com/

East District Granular Contract #10004837

BIDDERS Weighted Score (out of 100) Glenn Windrem Trucking 100

Strada Aggregates 95.5

Miller Paving 92.75 B Town Group 92.75

Arnts; The Landscape Supplier 91

Dufferin Aggregates 89.25

James Dick Construction Limited 83

CDR Young Aggregates Inc. 45

Lafarge Aggregates 43

Brock Aggregates 41

Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and Strada Aggregates are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and Strada Aggregates as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements. West District Granular Contract #10004838

BIDDERS Weighted Score (out of 100) Strada Aggregates 98.5

Glenn Windrem Trucking 98

Dufferin Aggregates 96.75

James Dick Construction 95

B Town Group 92.75

Brock Aggregates 66


CDR Young Aggregates Inc. 43.5

Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Strada Aggregates and Glenn Windrem Trucking are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Strada Aggregates as the primary supplier, and Glenn Windrem Trucking as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements. East District Armourstone Contract #10004839


B Town Group 94

J.C. Rock Ltd. 78

Cut Above Natural Stone Ltd. 70


224

Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and B Town Group are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and B Town Group as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements. West District Armourstone Contract #10004841


B Town Group 95.5

Cut Above Natural Stone Ltd. 88

Dufferin Aggregates 85

J.C. Rock Ltd. 79.5


Lafarge Aggregates 79.2

Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and B Town Group are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and B Town Group as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements East District Rip-rap Contract #10004842

BIDDERS Weighted Score (out of 100)


B Town Group 94.5

Miller Paving 92



J.C. Rock Ltd. 81



Brock Aggregates 41

Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and B Town Group are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and B Town Group as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements.

225

West District Rip-rap Contract #10004843


B Town Group 93



J.C. Rock Ltd. 80.5



Lafarge Aggregates. 46

Brock Aggregates 41

Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and B Town Group are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and B Town Group as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements. East District Round Stone Contract #10004844



Brock Aggregates 41

Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and James Dick Construction are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and James Dick Construction as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements. West District Round Stone Contract #10004845

BIDDERS Weighted Score (out of 100)



Brock Aggregates 41

Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Glenn Windrem Trucking and James Dick Construction are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Glenn Windrem Trucking as the primary supplier, and James Dick Construction as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements.

226

East District Topsoil Contract #10004926

BIDDERS Weighted Score (out of 100) Earthco Soil Inc. 97.5

Arnts The Landscape Supplier 96


Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Earthco Soil Inc. and Arnts the Landscape Supplier are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Earthco Soil Inc. as the primary supplier, and Arnts the Landscape Supplier as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements. West District Topsoil Contract #10004927

BIDDERS Weighted Score (out of 100) Earthco Soil Inc. 99



Based on the evaluation of the received quotations it was determined that Earthco Soil Inc. and James Dick Construction are the highest ranking vendors and most competitively priced overall. Therefore, staff recommends the award of the contract to Earthco Soil Inc. as the primary supplier, and James Dick Construction as a secondary supplier, they being the two highest ranked suppliers that best meet TRCA’s requirements. FINANCIAL DETAILS Based upon a review of projects scheduled for implementation during this contract period, the approximate value of the materials is as follows; granular $1,200,000; armourstone $2,400,000; rip rap $1,900,000; topsoil $200,000; and round stone $900,000. An increase and decrease in workload will have an impact on the value of this contract. All suppliers understand both the potential cost and resource implications associated with changes in workload. The aggregate will be supplied on an ‘as required’ basis with no minimum quantities guaranteed. Funds for the contract are identified in TRCA’s 2017 and 2018 capital budgets. Report prepared by: James Dickie, 416-844-3987 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Aaron J. D’Souza, extension 5775 Emails: [email protected] Date: June 7, 2017 Attachments: 1

227



Attachment 1

BIDDER

Granular East Area of GTA CONTRACT # 10004837

10-15mm Pea Gravel by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne

19mm Granular A by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne

50mm Granular B by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne

6.25mm Limestone Screenings by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne

19mm Crusher Run Limestone by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne


19mm Clear Stone Limestone by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne

50mm Clear Stone Limestone by Tri-axle Truck

Dufferin Aggregates $40.32 $26.62 No Bid $21.55 $23.57 $23.57 $33.82 $33.82

C.D.R Young's Aggregates Inc. $43.21 $20.87 $14.97 $23.52 $23.52 $23.52 $27.02 $27.02

Glen Windrem Trucking $32.25 $20.80 $14.80 $19.22 $20.22 $20.22 $26.80 $28.50

Lafarge Canada Inc. $31.15 $27.65 $17.25 $22.38 $23.38 $23.38 $30.65 $30.65

Strada Aggregates Inc. $33.30 $20.80 $18.95 $20.55 $21.55 $21.55 $27.70 $27.70

Miller Paving Limited No Bid No Bid No Bid $20.75 $21.75 $21.75 $26.75 $26.75

B-Town Group No Bid No Bid No Bid $21.80 $22.30 $22.00 $24.90 $24.90

James Dick Construction Limited $34.47 $25.17 $22.87 $20.90 $25.57 $25.57 $35.67 $35.67

Brock Aggregates Inc. $39.00 $26.50 $17.00 $23.75 $26.00 $26.00 $31.50 $31.50

ARNTS The Landscape Supplier $30.50 $22.50 $16.40 $22.71 $23.72 $23.72 $29.92 $29.92

228

BIDDER

Granular West Area of GTA CONTRACT # 10004838

10-15mm Pea Gravel by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne

19mm Granular A by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne

50mm Granular B by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne

6.25mm Limestone Screenings by Tri-axle Truck/Tonne





Dufferin Aggregates $36.72 $25.62 No Bid $17.95 $18.85 $18.85 $30.22 $30.22

C.D.R Young's Aggregates Inc. $45.21 $24.37 $18.47 $24.52 $28.02 $28.02 $28.02 $28.02

Glen Windrem Trucking

$34.00

$24.45

$18.45

$19.77

$21.77 $21.77 $30.45 $30.45

Lafarge Canada Inc. $27.10 $21.38

$16.60 $21.88 $22.88 $22.88 $30.15 $30.15

Strada Aggregates Inc. $31.40

$21.85

$18.25 $21.00

$22.25 $22.25 $27.90 $27.90

B-Town Group

No Bid

No Bid

No Bid $21.75 $22.00 $22.00 $28.05 $28.25

James Dick Construction Limited

$30.82

$21.52

$19.22 $18.90 $22.43 $22.43 $32.53 $32.53

Brock Aggregates Inc. $32.75 $24.00 $17.75 $21.75 $24.25 $24.25 $32.00 $32.00

229

BIDDER

Armour Stone East Area of GTA

CONTRACT # 10004839

1-2 tonne Stackable Armour Stone by Flatbed Trailer, including wood blocks for off-loading with forks Truck /Tonne





Cut Above Natural Stone Ltd. $70.97 $66.90 $66.90 $66.90 $66.90

Dufferin Aggregates $114.15 $65.15 $60.15 No Bid No Bid

C.D.R Young's Aggregates Inc. $58.00 $58.00 $57.95 $57.95 $59.60

Glen Windrem Trucking $62.50 $62.50 $62.50 $61.50 $60.50

Lafarge Canada $60.00 $60.00 $50.00 $50.00 $60.00

B-Town Group $61.00 $59.05 $58.55 $58.05 $58.05

J.C.Rock Ltd. $85.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00

230

BIDDER

Armour Stone West Area of GTA

CONTRACT # 10004841






Cut Above Natural Stone Ltd. $70.00 $66.90 $66.90 $66.90 $66.90

Dufferin Aggregates $111.00 $62.00 $57.00 No Bid No Bid



Lafarge Canada $60.00 $60.00 $50.00 $50.00 $60.00

B-Town Group $62.00 $60.08 $59.50 $59.50 $59.50

J.C.Rock Ltd. $85.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00 $70.00

231

BIDDER

Rip-Rap & Gabion East Area of GTA

CONTRACT # 10004842

100-200mm Gabion by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne


300-600mm Rip-rap by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne



Dufferin Aggregates $33.57 $34.57 $51.47 $51.47 No Bid



Lafarge Canada $34.00 $34.00 $36.00 $35.00 $35.00

Strada Aggregate No Bid $32.55 No Bid No Bid No Bid

Miller Paving Limited $28.90 $28.90 $37.50 No Bid No Bid

B-Town Group $33.58 $33.58 $31.65 $31.65 $33.65

James Dick Construction Limited $34.00 $34.00 No Bid No Bid No Bid

Brock Aggregates Inc. $41.50 $42.00 $50.00 No Bid No Bid

J.C.Rock Ltd. $29.00 $29.00 $30.50 $30.50 $72.00

232

BIDDER

Rip-Rap & Gabion West Area of GTA

CONTRACT # 10004843






Dufferin Aggregates $29.97 $30.97 $48.42 $48.42 No Bid



Lafarge Canada $34.00 $34.00 $34.00 $35.00 $35.00

Strada Aggregate No Bid $32.75 No Bid No Bid No Bid

B-Town Group $35.50 $35.50 $35.05 $35.05 $35.05

James Dick Construction Limited $36.95 $36.95 No Bid No Bid No Bid

Brock Aggregates Inc. $44.00 No Bid $47.00 No Bid No Bid

J.C.Rock Ltd. $31.00 $31.00 $32.50 $32.50 $74.00

233

BIDDER

Round Stone / Boulders East Area of GTA

CONTRACT # 10004844

25-75mm Round Stone by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne



500-1000mm Boulders by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne



Glen Windrem Trucking $33.50 $38.75 $40.00 $40.00 $56.50 $56.50

Lafarge Canada $30.40 $30.40 No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid

James Dick Construction Limited $33.54 $37.57 No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid

Brock Aggregates Inc. $51.00 $54.00 $60.00 $67.00 No Bid No Bid

BIDDER

Round Stone / Boulders West Area of GTA

CONTRACT # 10004845







Glen Windrem Trucking $38.75 $41.50 $43.50 $43.50 $58.00 $58.00

Lafarge Canada $41.50 $41.50 No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid

James Dick Construction Limited $29.90 $34.43 No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid

Brock Aggregates Inc. $39.00 $41.00 $67.00 $71.00 No Bid No Bid

234

BIDDER

Top Soil East Area of GTA

CONTRACT # 10004926

Screened Top Soil by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne

Piled Top Soil by Tri-axle Truck /Tonne

Glen Windrem Trucking $28.80 $343.50

ARNTS The Landscape Supplier $11.00 $7.50

Earthco Soils Inc. $13.73 $225.00

BIDDER

Top Soil West Area of GTA

CONTRACT # 10004927



Glen Windrem Trucking $32.30 $423.50

James Dick Construction Limited No Bid $338.00

Earthco Soils Inc. $13.73 $225.00

235

RES.#A109/17- VARIOUS PLANT MATERIALS FOR 2017 – 2018 PLANTING SEASONS

Contract #10004318 – Vendors of Record. Award of Contract #10004318 for the supply and delivery of various plant materials from July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018.

Moved by: Ronald Chopowick Seconded by: Jack Heath WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is engaged in a variety of environmental initiatives that require the procurement of a significant volume of native trees and shrubs to complete; AND WHEREAS in March 2017,TRCA issued a Request for Tender for the supply and delivery of various plant material through a publicly advertised process and evaluated the tenders based on corporate experience and resources, plant material quality, reference checks and cost; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff establish a Vendors of Record (VOR) arrangement with five suppliers for a contract value less than $50,000 per occurrence, for a one year period for July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA engages in numerous habitat restoration, engineering, as well as education and outreach initiatives with municipal, regional and community partners. In order to restore ecosystem and watershed health across the jurisdiction, native trees and shrubs are required for these projects and programs. TRCA’s nursery staff at Restoration Services Centre (RSC) manages the purchasing, delivery, interim care, storage and distribution of this plant material through the Indigenous Plant Propagation Program. In the spring of 2016, approximately 35,000 one and two gallon potted trees and shrubs flowed through the facility. This number increases every year. To improve efficiency and reduce administrative staff time, TRCA staff would like to establish a VOR arrangement for the supply and delivery of various plant materials for one time purchases up to $50,000. This VOR will help to ensure a qualified vendor is able to deliver the plant materials at a competitive price while meeting TRCA’s specifications and reducing administrative costs associated with conducting multiple requests for quotations. The VOR list will be subject to a seasonal review in order to confirm that suppliers are providing an adequate level of service and an acceptable quality of plant material. RATIONALE Request for Tender (RFT) for Contract #10004318 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on March 29, 2017. The bid document provided specifications for approximately 80 native species of one and two gallon potted native trees and shrubs. Suppliers were advised that they would be evaluated on the following weighted criteria:

236


Completeness of submission;

Availability, quantity and quality of requested plant material (site visit);

Corporate profile and experience;

References; and

Reasonableness of cost. Request for Tender documents were received by 22 suppliers and seven of those suppliers submitted a bid. The Procurement Opening Committee opened the tenders on April 19, 2017. Members of the Selection Committee, consisting of TRCA staff (Waylon D’Souza and Natalie Racette), reviewed the submissions and evaluated them based on the criteria above. The results of the evaluation are as follows:

Bidders Weighted Score (out of 100)

Neil Vanderkruk (NVK) Holdings Inc. 79

St Williams Nursery and Ecological Centre Inc. 74

Sheridan Nurseries Ltd. 72

Hillen Nursery Inc. 63

Dutchmaster Nurseries Ltd. 61

Richardson Pineneedle Farms 41

Baker Forest Services Disqualified; late submission

Through the evaluation process, it was determined that five of the vendors meet TRCA’s requirement for good quality and high value for cost plant material. Richardson Pineneedle Farm was assigned a low score because their proposal did not include a corporate profile or description of their experience, nor did they include references. They also scored poorly during the site visit, and carried a limited stock compared to the other vendors. Given the weak proposal received from Richardson Pineneedle Farms, TRCA staff elected to exclude them from the VOR. This leaves nursery staff with a robust VOR list with several highly qualified, well recommended and experienced vendors, ensuring that the increasingly large demand for plant material will be available as needed. Therefore, staff recommends that the award of Contract #10004318 be awarded to five of the qualified vendors listed above, they being vendors that best meet TRCA’s requirements. FINANCIAL DETAILS The total value of this contract is estimated to be $1,000,000 based on a review of previous purchases completed in 2016 and a forecast of increasing demand. An option to review pricing in spring 2018 was included in the Request for Tender as the pricing obtained is for the fall 2017 since the industry regularly sees annual price changes. These fluctuations can be due to severe weather conditions, increases in operational costs, production demand and increases in labour and shipping costs. As a result, staff is recommending the VOR be for July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018, subject to satisfaction with 2018 pricing. This Vendor of Record list will predominantly be used by RSC nursery staff. Plant material will be purchased from suppliers offering the lowest unit cost, the greatest availability and highest quality. Should the supplier with the lowest unit cost not be able to supply the requested quantity, the supplier offering the second lowest cost will be contacted and so on. There may be situations where large orders may need to be fulfil using several suppliers.

237

Funds for the purchase of plant materials are available in account 125-17, Outside Sourced Plant Material (TRCA and non-TRCA lands). Costs to these accounts are recoverable from end user project and programs. Report prepared by: Natalie Racette, extension 5306 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Waylon D’Souza, extension 6408

Ralph Toninger, extension 5366 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] Date: June 2, 2017

______________________________

238




RES.#A110/17 - FISHLEIGH DRIVE EROSION CONTROL PROJECT Contracts #10005031, 10005032 and 10005033. Award of contracts for

stone for the Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Glenn De Baeremaeker THAT Contract #10005031 for the supply and delivery of 3800 tonnes of 300 – 600 mm rip-rap to the Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project in the City of Toronto, be awarded to Glenn Windrem Trucking for a total unit price of $31.75 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $120,650.00, plus a contingency of 10% to be expended as authorized by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; THAT Contract #10005032 for the supply and delivery of approximately 4650 tonnes of 4 - 6 tonne piece stackable armourstone to the Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project in the City of Toronto, be awarded to CDR Young Aggregates Inc for a total unit price of $53.06 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $246,729.00, plus a contingency of 10% to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; THAT Contract #10005033 for the supply and delivery of approximately 1400 tonnes of 3 – 5 tonne piece stackable armourstone to the Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project in the City of Toronto, be awarded to CDR Young Aggregates Inc for a total unit price of $53.06 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $74,284.00, plus a contingency of 10% to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; THAT should staff be unable to achieve an acceptable contract with the awarded suppliers, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other suppliers that submitted quotations, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Erosion concerns along the Scarborough Bluffs have been well documented by TRCA for more than 30 years. In 1980-1981, Geocon Inc. carried out an extensive erosion control study of the Scarborough Bluffs as a whole. This study identified Fishleigh Drive as one of the sectors along the Scarborough Bluffs in need of erosion control. In response, TRCA retained Keith Philpott Consulting in 1987 to provide design options for remedial shoreline protection works. In 1988, Terraprobe Limited was retained to conduct subsurface investigations and establish the Long Term Stable Slope Crest (LTSSC). Later that year, based on recommendations and analysis from Keith Philpott Consulting and Terraprobe Limited, TRCA produced an Environmental Study Report (ESR) under the Class Environmental Assessment for Water Management Structures (now Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects). This report, entitled Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project, recommended offshore fill and armourstone revetment approximately 560 metres (m) long from 33 – 85 Fishleigh Drive and 1 Midland Avenue to eliminate toe erosion and realize self-stabilization of the bluffs. The Class EA was approved and construction commenced in 1988.

239

In response to public opposition in 1994, a decision was made by TRCA to terminate the revetment structure approximately 150 m short of the distance allowed for in the approved ESR in order to protect the natural formation of the bluffs below 1 Midland Avenue. The shortened revetment ultimately left the eastern extent of Fishleigh Drive vulnerable to powerful southeasterly waves which have resulted in ongoing erosion, putting infrastructure in the area, as well as the road allowance at Fishleigh Drive and Midland Avenue, in jeopardy. This erosion has been documented in numerous geotechnical reports from 1994 to 2014. In response to the previous study results, an addendum to the 1988 Fishleigh Drive Erosion Control Project ESR was prepared and Terraprobe Limited and Shoreplan Engineering Limited were retained to develop detailed designs to address the continued and unanticipated erosion concerns at the eastern extent of Fishleigh Drive while maintaining the natural formation of the bluffs directly east of the project area. This addendum was approved by the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) on April 07, 2016. TRCA intends to implement a 132 m extension of the existing armourstone revetment than runs along the shoreline below Fishleigh Drive. This extension was designed to be as close to shore and as short as possible to reduce required land creation and impact to the adjacent bluff features, respectively, while allowing an appropriate long-term stable slope crest setback from municipal infrastructure and the Fishleigh Drive and Midland Avenue road allowance atop the tablelands. Implementation is tentatively scheduled for July 2017. RATIONALE Based on pre-tender estimates, bids for contacts #10005031, #10005032, #10005033 were anticipated to be in excess of $100,000 so were tendered out rather than using the 2016 Vendor of Record contract. The 2017 recommendations for Vendor of Record contract is available as a separate staff report on this agenda, and will be utilized for future contracts fitting into the Vendor of Record criteria. Quotation packages were sent to 24 suppliers as follows:

Atlantis Marine Construction

The Miller Group

Nelson Aggregates

Glenn Windrem Trucking

LaFarge

JC Rock

Youngs Aggregates

James Dick Construction

Tomlinson Group

Brent Quarry

B Town Group

Fowler

Strada Aggregates

Bot Aggregates

Ritchie Logistics

Rock Valley Natural Stone

Mark Cambridge Aggregates

Central Sand and Gravel Ltd

Jenkins

All Stone Quarry

Redstone Quarries

Stonescape Inc

Maxwell Stone

Dufferin Aggregates

Furthermore, Request for Tenders #10005031, #10005032, #10005033, were publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (www.biddingo.com) on May 25, 2017. The Procurement Opening Committee opened tenders on June 8, 2017 with the following results:

240



Contract #10005031 - Supply and Delivery of 3,800 tonnes of 300 – 600mm Rip-Rap

BIDDER

TOTAL UNIT PRICE (Plus

HST)

TOTAL VALUE OF CONTRACT (Plus HST)

Glenn Windrem Trucking $31.75 $120,650.00

CDR Young Aggregates $34.21 $129,998.00

Btown Group $36.05 $136,990.00

Miller Paving Ltd $36.75 $139,650.00

Ritchie Rocks $39.50 $150,100.00

Atlantis Marine $42.00 $159,600.00

Amos Excavation $78.55 $298,490.00

Contract #10005032 - Supply and Delivery of 4650 Tonnes of 4 – 6 Tonne Piece Stackable Armourstone

BIDDER

TOTAL UNIT

PRICE (Plus HST)




Cut Above Natural Stone $57.15 $265,747.50

Btown Group $57.55 $267,607.50


Ritchie Rocks $66.00 $306,900.00


Contract #10005033 - Supply and Delivery of 1400 Tonnes of 3 – 5 Tonne Piece Stackable Armourstone

BIDDER

TOTAL UNIT

PRICE (Plus HST)



Redstone Quarries $53.90 $75,460.00


Cut Above Natural Stone $57.15 $80,010.00

Btown Group $57.50 $80,500.00


Ritchie Rocks $66.00 $92,400.00


Based on the tenders received, staff recommends that:

Glenn Windrem Trucking be awarded Contract #10005031 for the supply and delivery of 3,800 tonnes of 300 – 600mm rip-rap for the unit cost of $31.75 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $120,650.00, plus HST;

CDR Young Aggregates Inc. be awarded Contract #10005032 for the supply and delivery of 4650 tonnes of 4 – 6 tonne piece stackable armourstone for the unit cost of $53.06 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $246,729.00, plus HST;

241

CDR Young Aggregates Inc be awarded Contract #10005033 for the supply and delivery of 1400 tonnes of 3 – 5 tonne piece stackable armourstone for the unit cost of $53.06 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $74,284.00, plus HST.

These contracts are subject to a 10% contingency to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff. TRCA will be conducting quarry inspections to verify that the material is of good quality and meets contract specifications. The licenses of the quarries which the lowest bidders will use to supply the aggregates have been verified to be legitimate and fully licensed using the Ontario government’s “find pits and quarries” online tool: https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/find-pits-and-quarries. This project is aligned with Leadership Strategy #2 under TRCA's current 10-year strategic plan. By protecting public safety through the implementation of shoreline stabilization works, TRCA is demonstrating responsible management of our water resources for current and future generations. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for this project is available from the City of Toronto capital budget within account 175-01 Report prepared by: Jet Taylor, 416-688-7627 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Jet Taylor, 416-688-7627 Emails: [email protected] Date: June 8, 2017

______________________________

242

https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/find-pits-and-quarries



RES.#A111/17 - END-USER COMPUTING DEVICES AND SERVICES Award of Contract #10003898 for the Vendors of Record for Supply of

End-User Computing Devices and Services. Execution and adoption of the Ontario Education Collaborative Marketplace (OECM) Master Agreement reference OECM-2017-261-02 for the purchase of end user hardware and software.

Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Jennifer Innis THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) execute and adopt the OECM Master Agreement with three (3) vendors: CDW Canada, Compugen Inc. and Dell Canada Inc., for the supply of various end-user computing devices and services, on an as-required basis, up to a total value of $400,000 over a period of four years commencing with the signing of the agreement, with the option to extend the contract for an additional two or four years; THAT TRCA staff be directed to enter into Client Supplier Agreements (CSA) with all three established OECM vendors: CDW Canada, Compugen Inc., and Dell Canada Inc., applying the OECM Master Agreement; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the supplier agreements, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA makes purchases to ensure staff has access to personal computers, laptops and mobile devices as well as all enterprise hardware and software to fulfill their responsibilities effectively. To date these items were purchased following TRCA standard procurement protocols. The OECM process provides an opportunity to achieve better pricing and more efficiency. OECM is a not-for-profit organization that provides supply management and other administrative, management or support services to educational, public sector organizations and not-for-profits. Its core business is collaborative sourcing, customer and supplier partnership management, the goal of which is to generate savings and process efficiencies for public sector and not-for-profit organizations. OECM offers access to collaboratively-sourced and competitively priced products and services from supplier partners in a range of categories including information technology. Other organizations participating in the OECM Master Agreement for end user computing devices and services include York Region District School Board, York University and University of Toronto. By adopting and executing the OECM end user computing devices and services Client Supplier Agreements with the three vendors, TRCA will derive the benefit of OECM’s discounted pricing and vendor procurement compliance. Under this arrangement TRCA will continue its practice of obtaining quotes from the three OECM vendors as well as others to ensure optimal pricing.

243

RATIONALE By executing and adopting OECM’s Master Agreement, TRCA does not commit to any spending or volume limits with the suppliers and remains free to purchase from other suppliers not included in the agreement. However, TRCA will benefit from discounted pricing, vendor procurement compliance and reduced administrative costs. Partnering with OECM helps to expand vendor options for TRCA Information Technology purchases and ensure financial efficiency and responsibility.

FINANCIAL DETAILS Executing and adopting the OECM agreement does not, in itself, carry any costs. It will support the purchase of end user computing devices and services valued up to $400,000 until 2021. These will be charged to Capital and Operating accounts from appropriate TRCA divisions. Report prepared by: Lisa Peng, extension 5970, James Dong, extension 5357 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] For Information contact: James Dong, extension 5357 Emails: [email protected] Date: May 1, 2017

__________________________________

244




RES.#A112/17 - AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program. The PAIE

Statement of Revenue and Expenditure for the period April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2017 is presented for Authority approval.

Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Jennifer Innis THAT the Labour Market Integration Unit Statement of Revenue and Expenditure for the Professional Access and Integration Enhancement (PAIE) Program, as outlined in Attachment 1, be approved and signed by the Chair and Chief Executive Officer / Secretary-Treasurer in accordance with the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration’s Audit and Accountability Guidelines for 2016-2017 Ontario Bridge Training Projects; THAT the Management Representation Letter as outlined in Attachment 2 be signed by the Chair and Chief Executive Officer / Secretary-Treasurer in accordance with the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration’s Audit and Accountability Guidelines for 2016-2017 Ontario Bridge Training Projects; AND FURTHER THAT the Audited Statement of Revenue and Expenditure, as outlined in Attachment 3, be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Funded by the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration (MCI), Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been delivering the PAIE bridge training program since 2006 to assist internationally trained professionals in accessing training, licensing and employment opportunities in their field within the environmental sector. As part of its project audit guidelines, MCI requires Authority approval of PAIE financial statements (Attachment 1), as verification that the financial information in the audit report is complete and accurate. In addition, MCI requires a Management Representation Letter signed by the Chair and Chief Executive Officer / Secretary-Treasurer in regard to the audited statements. RATIONALE Under funding from MCI, the Authority is responsible for financial reporting and is ultimately responsible for reviewing and approving the financial statements, including verification that:

Project funding has been solely applied to costs directly related to the Project;

Funding and/or expenditures from other sources, not directly related to this project, have not been included in the Report;

The Ministry expects that tuition/program fees will be used to off-set program costs related to the delivery of the bridge training project;

Reported expenditure is net of HST rebates;

Shared costs have been properly apportioned to the Project;

The Project bears full responsibility for absorbing any project deficits;

Project funds that were provided to the Project prior to their immediate need were maintained in an interest-bearing account; and

Interest earned on Project funding has been credited to the Project.

245

The accounting firm of KPMG LLP has completed the audit. The Audited Statement of Revenue and Expenses is presented as Attachment 3. Report prepared by: Dash Paja, extension 5593 Email: [email protected] For Information contact: Pamela Papadopoulos, extension 5973 Email: [email protected] Date: June 9, 2017 Attachments: 3

246



Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects 2016-2017

Appendix IV: Labour Market Integration Unit Statement of Revenue and Expenditure Template

FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD FROM 2016/04/01 TO 2017/03/31 (Please refer to your Schedule B for the Reporting Period)

Organization Name: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

Project Case Number: 2013-08-1-15258274 Organizational contact Name: Leigha Howard, Project Manager Telephone #: (416) 661-6600 ext. 5343 Project Name: Professional Access and Integration Enhancement (PAIE)

PROJECT REVENUE

Approved Carryover Funding from Previous Reporting Period(s) $ 159,421

Ministry Funding for audit period as per Schedule B (2016/2017) $ 725,000

Tuition/Program Fees $ 24,039

Total $ 908,460

PROJECT EXPENDITURE

Total Expenditure $ 636,648

DEFERRED REVENUE

Deferred Revenue for audit period as per Schedule B (2016/2017) $ 271,812

UNALLOCATED

Unspent funding

INTEREST EARNED

Interest Earned for audit period 2016/2017 $ 213

I verify that the above financial information is correct and that:

Project funding has been solely applied to costs directly related to the Project;

Funding and/or expenditures from other sources, not directly related to this project, have not beenincluded in the Report;

The Ministry expects that tuition/program fees will be used to off-set program costs related to thedelivery of the bridge training project.

Reported expenditure is net of HST rebates;

Shared costs have been properly apportioned to the Project;

The Project bears full responsibility for absorbing any project deficits;

Project funds that were provided to the Project prior to their immediate need were maintained in aninterest-bearing account; and

Interest earned on Project funding has been credited to the Project.

Attachment 1

247

Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects 2016-2017

I certify that the information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and claimed in accordance with the Ontario Bridge Funding Agreement. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Not-for-Profit Organization _________________________________________________ ___________________

Brian Denney Date Chief Executive Officer / Secretary-Treasurer _________________________________________________ ___________________

Maria Augimeri Date Chair

I have the authority to bind the Recipient

248

Attachment 1 Office Of the Chair

June 23, 2017 Ms. Benilda Silkowska-Masior Senior Program Advisor Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration Labour Market Integration Unit 400 University Avenue, 3

rd Floor

Toronto, ON M7A 2R9 Dear Ms. Silkowska-Masior: This management representation letter is provided in connection with the audited financial statements of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) Professional Access and Integration Enhancement (PAIE) Program for the year ended March 31, 2017. The financial statements of TRCA’s PAIE Program are the responsibility of management and have been approved by the Authority, the board of TRCA. The financial statements have been prepared by management in accordance with Canadian Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Management has determined that its choice of accounting policies supporting the amounts presented on the financial statements, are presented fairly, in all material respects. TRCA maintains systems of internal accounting and administrative controls of high quality. Such systems are designed to provide reasonable assurance that the financial information is relevant, reliable and accurate and that TRCA’s operations are appropriately accounted for and assets are adequately safeguarded. All transactions have been recorded in the accounting records and are reflected in the financial statements. All liabilities have been reviewed by management in consultation with its external auditor KPMG LLP. There are no material liabilities or contingencies as at the date of this report. Significant assumptions used by management in making accounting estimates, including those measured at fair value, are reasonable and approved by the Authority. The effects of uncorrected misstatements are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements as a whole. A list of the uncorrected misstatements is attached. This letter confirms that TRCA management and the Authority have provided; access to all information to the external auditors of which they were aware of that is relevant to the preparation of the financial statements, such as records, documentation and other matters; additional information that was requested by the external auditors for the purpose of the audit; and unrestricted access to persons within the entity who would be determined necessary to provide audit evidence.

249

2

The Authority is responsible for ensuring that management fulfills its responsibilities for financial reporting and is ultimately responsible for reviewing and approving the financial statements. This letter confirms that TRCA management and the Authority have fulfilled their responsibilities, as determined in the transfer payment agreement dated April 1, 2014; in the Amended Schedule “B” 2015-2016 dated December 17, 2015 and in Revised Schedule “B” of 1st Amending Agreement effective as of January 15, 2017. I certify that the information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and claimed in accordance with the Ontario Bridge Funding Agreement. _________________________________________________ ___________________ Brian Denney Date Chief Executive Officer / Secretary-Treasurer _________________________________________________ ___________________ Maria Augimeri Date Chair I/we have the authority to bind the Recipient

250

Attachment 3

251

RES.#A113/17 - CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Comments on the Conservation Authorities Act Component of Bill 139. On

May 31, 2017, the provincial government posted proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry (EBR#013-0561) for a 61-day commenting period ending July 31, 2017.

Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Jim Karygiannis WHEREAS the Province on Ontario has posted the proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act (CA Act) as part of Bill 139, the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act for public comment on the Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR); AND WHEREAS the Province has released “Conserving our Future: A Modernized Conservation Authorities Act” outlining the suite of legislative, regulatory, policy and program actions that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) intends to take to modernize the CA Act; AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)’s Chief Executive Officer and staff have participated in the provincial CA Act review process; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the staff report on the provincial government’s proposed amendments to the CA Act under Bill 139 be received and inform TRCA’s final EBR submission; THAT staff continue to work with MNRF, Conservation Ontario and TRCA’s municipal partners in the actions proposed by MNRF to modernize the CA Act; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA’s municipal partners, neighbouring conservation authorities and Conservation Ontario be so advised. CARRIED BACKGROUND In 2015, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry initiated a three-phase review of the Conservation Authorities Act, which governs Ontario’s 36 conservation authorities (CAs). MNRF developed an initial Conservation Authorities Discussion Paper (fall 2015) to provide an overview of CAs, their funding and governance (EBR#012-4509) along with a series of questions to solicit feedback on opportunities to improve the legislative, regulatory and policy framework governing the creation, operation and activities of conservation authorities. In spring 2016, MNRF posted a second discussion paper (EBR#012-7583) that identified priorities for moving forward with the CA Act review, Conserving Our Future: Proposed Priorities for Renewal. This was followed by multi-sector engagement sessions hosted by MNRF. TRCA, Conservation Ontario and several other conservation authorities participated in the engagement sessions and provided responses to both discussion papers. TRCA’s comments on Conserving Our Future were received at Authority Meeting #7/16, held on September 23, 2016, under Resolution #A159/16.

257

http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTMyODYz&statusId=MjAxODIx&language=en

https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTI1Mzgx&statusId=MTg4ODg5

https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTI4NTQz&statusId=MTk0MzY1

As a third phase of the review, an amended Conservation Authorities Act was introduced to the legislature on May 30, 2017 and passed First Reading as part of Bill 139, the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act. Bill 139 is an “omnibus bill”, which groups various Acts to be amended including the CA Act, labelled as Schedule 4. The other schedules within the Bill contain amendments to other Acts dealing with the government’s Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) reform, for which the commenting period ends August 14, 2017. Staff will report on this aspect of the Bill at a future meeting. Further to the May 31, 2017 EBR notice for the proposed CA Act amendments, the Province released “Conserving our Future: A Modernized Conservation Authorities Act”. This supporting document was posted on June 14, 2017 (EBR#012-7583) and outlines a comprehensive suite of actions to be taken by MNRF to modernize the CA Act. Organized into five themes, the document lists the legislative amendments proposed under the Act as well as a number of proposed policy, regulation and program changes informed by the feedback provided through the ministry’s review. The document’s five themes are:

Strengthening Oversight and Accountability

Increasing Clarity and Consistency in Programs and Services

Increasing Clarity and Consistency in Regulatory Requirements

Enhancing Collaboration and Engagement

Modernizing Funding Mechanisms The document concludes with a section on implementation which states that the proposed policy, regulation and program changes would be phased in over the next four years to provide the ministry, conservation authorities, participating municipalities, Indigenous communities and other interested parties the opportunity to participate in their development. It goes on to state that a phased approach is also being used in consideration of the time and resources that it may take to operationalize some of the proposed changes. Bill 139 must pass through two more readings in the legislature before it can be enacted. This could take place during the next session of Parliament scheduled to commence September 11, 2017. During this time, it will be debated by Members of the Legislature and could be referred to a Standing Committee for a “clause by clause” review. It should be noted that many of the proposed legislative amendments are enabling only, meaning that, if passed, they would not come into force until a later date through regulations made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council (LGIC) or the Minister. Summary of Proposed Amendments For reference purposes, an unofficial redline version of the proposed amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act can be found in Attachment 1. The following summarizes some of the more substantial changes as a result of Bill 139: The addition of a purpose statement (section 0.1):

The purpose of this Act is to provide for the organization and delivery of programs and services that further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources in watersheds in Ontario.

Currently, the Act does not contain a purpose; however, existing section 20 (1) states the objects of a conservation authority. Section 20 (1) is not proposed to be repealed but is proposed to be amended as follows:

258

https://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ERS-WEB-External/displaynoticecontent.do?noticeId=MTI4NTQz&statusId=MTk0MzY1

The objects of an authority are to establish and undertake, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to provide, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, programs and services designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 20.

Governance of conservation authorities: A new section 19.1 is proposed that sets out the power of an authority to make by-laws in relation to its governance, including its meetings, employees, officers and its executive committee. Many of these powers were previously regulation-making powers that CAs held under section 30 of the Act; they are now legislative requirements. Section 19.1 outlines the minimum expectations for the content of administrative by-laws. CAs must have compliant by-laws in place within one year of enactment of Bill 139. Programs and services: A new section 21.1 (1) of the Act, entitled Programs and Services, is being proposed, which sets out three categories of program and services that a CA is required or permitted to provide within its area of jurisdiction:

1. Mandatory programs and services that are required by the regulation. 2. Municipal programs and services that the authority agrees to provide on behalf of

municipalities situated in whole or in part within its area of jurisdiction under a memorandum of understanding.

3. Such other programs and services as the authority may determine are advisable to further its objects.

The new provisions of section 40 of the Act would enable the LGIC to make regulations outlining the provincially mandated programs and services CAs are required to provide in (1) above, in accordance with any applicable standards or requirements outlined in the regulation. Furthermore, as per section 40 (2) such regulations may include standards and requirements to mitigate the impacts of climate change and provide for adaptation to a changing climate, including through increasing resiliency.

Fees for programs and services: The powers of authorities under Section 21 (1) in the current Act remain largely intact with the exception of 21 (1) (m) and (m.1) that are proposed to be repealed. Sections 21 (1) (m) and (m.1) are CA powers for using CA-owned or managed land for park or other recreational purposes, to erect structures for such purposes and to charge fees for such services, and to charge fees for services in general approved by the Minister. A new section 21.2, Fees for programs and services, has been added to the Act. The ability for CAs to charge fees for classes of programs and services is now proposed to be determined by the Minister and prescribed through regulation. A CA may charge a fee for a program or service that it provides only if it is set out on the list of classes of programs and services published by the Minister. The amount of a fee charged by a CA for a program or service shall be the amount prescribed by the regulations, or if no amount is prescribed, the amount determined by the CA. In addition, CAs will be required to maintain a fee schedule that sets out the list of programs and services that it provides and in respect of which it charges a fee, the amount of the fee charged or the manner in which the fee is determined. Every CA will be required to adopt a written fee policy that is available to the public and includes the frequency that the policy will be reviewed; the process for carrying out a review and notice of the review; and how a fee can be appealed.

259

Apportionment of Costs: Sections 24 to 27 of the Act are repealed and replaced with new sections allowing CAs to recover their capital costs with respect to projects that they undertake and their operating expenses from their participating municipalities. Currently, the apportionment of those costs and expenses is based on a determination of the benefit each participating municipality receives from a project or from the CA. The amendments provide that the apportionment and where appeals will be heard, will be determined in accordance with regulations to be approved by the LGIC. A definition of “operating expenses” has been added to the Act in section 1 replacing the “administration” and “maintenance” expenses categories in the current Act, yet the amended Act provides no definition of “capital costs”. Existing rules regarding apportionment of costs and their appeal will continue to apply until such time that new regulations are proposed and approved. Regulating Activities: Section 28 of the Act is repealed and substantially updated to provide additional clarity, scope and consistency in the types of activities that are subject to conservation authority approval. The authority of individual CAs to make regulations concerning development and interference with watercourses or wetlands is transferred to the Minister. The content of Section 28 CA regulations, which is currently part of the “content regulation” for CAs (Ontario Regulation 97/04), has been moved up into the Act. Similarly, prohibitions have been added to the Act. Provisions have been added that would enable the Minister to establish exemptions for activities provided that they are undertaken in accordance with regulations made by the ministry. The scope of a CA’s review of a permit application has been further clarified and strengthened in Section 28.1 (4). A CA may now refuse a permit if the activity is likely to create conditions or circumstances that, in the event of a natural hazard, might jeopardize the health or safety of persons or result in the damage or destruction of property. A CA can refuse a permit if in its opinion the activity is likely to affect (versus current wording “will affect”) the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or conservation of land. This strengthened test allows a consideration of probability and possibility. New regulation-making enabling powers by the LGIC are set out in section 28.5 governing other activities that may impact the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources within the area of jurisdiction of a conservation authority. This provision would enable the Province to regulate other activities within the area of the CA in the future, in order to be responsive to current and future natural resource management challenges. The ability to enable regulations governing lands and property owned by a conservation authority, under section 29 of the Act has been transferred from CAs to the Minister. Enforcement and Compliance: Other substantial amendments proposed under Bill 139 are enhanced enforcement mechanisms, i.e., the ability to stop work, the ability to enter privately-owned land, and the ability to charge significantly higher penalties than those currently allowed. The proposed amendments in section 30 update and modernize the suite of compliance tools that can be used by conservation authorities to enforce compliance with regulatory requirements. This section will be enacted at a date to be determined by the Lieutenant Governor. Regulations, Lieutenant Governor in Council and Regulations, Minister: Section 40 of the Act has been enhanced significantly to identify all the regulations needed to operationalize the proposed amendments to the Act. These regulations are either approved by the LGIC or the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. These regulatory changes will be subject to additional public and stakeholder consultation.

260

Preliminary Assessment on the Proposed Amendments to the Act The TRCA review team made up of staff representatives from the CEO’s Office, Finance, Planning and Development, Watershed Strategies, and Property Services are studying the proposed amendments in consultation with TRCA legal counsel. “Conserving our Future: A Modernized Conservation Authorities Act” is an important supplementary document as it explains the intent of the Ministry’s proposed amendments to the Act, as well as a suite of proposed regulatory, policy and program changes. The review team has also compared the proposed amendments to the Act with TRCA’s main recommendations to the Province in September 16, 2016 on phase 2 of the CA Act review (Attachment 2). Overall, the changes are positive in that the new purpose statement maintains the broad mandate of CAs with regard to natural resource management, enforcement tools for the section 28 regulation have been enhanced, and CAs’ ability to assist municipalities managing watersheds and combatting climate change has been recognized. Furthermore, many of the standards, requirements and administrative aspects of CAs that are proposed as required to be part of a by-law and provincial regulations are already existing in TRCA’s case either through our own documents, e.g., our Section 28 Regulation, The Living City Policies, supporting technical guidelines, TRCA Rules of Conduct, various memoranda of understanding and service delivery agreements, TRCA’s Fee Policy for Planning and Permitting Fees, etc., or through provincial documents, e.g., Hearing Guidelines, Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authorities (including the CA fees chapter and the CA planning and permitting chapter (“CALC”)). All of these documents exist as a solid foundation for the new requirements for documentation and transparency pursuant to the Province’s priority for strengthening oversight and accountability of CAs. Furthermore, TRCA’s current Rules of Conduct (by-laws) are mostly in compliance with the Section 19.1 requirements, therefore staff can recommend the changes/additions required to be in place within one year of enactment of Bill 139. That said, much of the outcome of the CA Act review has been deferred to the content of regulations either under the Minister’s approval or through Provincial Cabinet. The details of such regulations and their implications for CAs are unknown at this time. Financial Implications: While no changes to current provincial funding are proposed, MNRF has indicated that outlining provincial expectations for the programs and services to be provided by CAs will provide the opportunity to review existing levels against these expectations and ensure that appropriate funding levels are in place to ensure sustainability of these programs and services. The proposed amendments to the Act will enable the Province to make regulations governing the kinds of cost to be apportioned among participating municipalities as “capital costs” (not currently defined in the Act) and “operating expenses”. Similarly, the Province will also be enabled to make regulations governing how capital costs and operating expenses (e.g. associated with conservation authority programs, services and operation) are apportioned by CAs. Conserving our Future indicates that the Province will work with municipalities and CAs to update the way in which costs are apportioned to participating municipalities, including determining the appropriate body for hearing appeals of apportionment decisions. TRCA will need to monitor and be engaged in this process to more fully understand the implications of the proposed changes, in particular as to how municipalities are able to fund CAs given the categories of programs and services being introduced under the new section 21.1 (1).

261

Fees: The Province has indicated it will be updating the ministry’s Policies and Procedures for the Charging of Conservation Authority Fees to provide CAs with additional guidance on the development of fee schedules. TRCA is well-positioned in this regard as it relates to its plan and permit review functions, given its board-approved Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Fees Policy and Guideline (2009) that is consistent with the intent of the proposed amendments. Yet what remains unclear at this time is the scope of programs and services that are to be included in the Minister’s regulation, how prescriptive the amounts to be charged will be, and the manner in which fees are to be calculated (current fees for TRCA services range widely from those for renting a campsite and booking banquet facilities, to environmental education workshop fees and admission fees to conservation areas). This has obvious potential implications to TRCA’s operations and budgeting. Working Groups: Conserving Our Future indicates that MNRF will establish a multi-ministry working group in order to develop the proposed regulatory changes and options for increasing provincial funding levels. A multi-stakeholder Service Delivery Review Committee will be established and tasked with supporting MNRF in the development of proposed policies and procedures. Any proposed regulatory and policy changes will be subject to additional public and stakeholder consultation as appropriate. In consideration of the time and resources that it may take to operationalize some of the proposed changes, a phased approach over the next four years is being proposed by MNRF.

Roles and Responsibilities: As also indicated in Conserving Our Future, if passed, the MNRF intends to use the LGIC regulation-making authority to propose regulations to outline the provincially-mandated roles and responsibilities of CAs and provide greater certainty including:

a new regulation outlining the roles and responsibilities of CAs in managing water-related natural hazards, including programs and services associated with flood forecasting and warning, flood and erosion control and ice management

a new regulation outlining the roles and responsibilities of CAs in reviewing planning documents for consistency with Provincial Policy Statements, including policies related to natural hazards and land use patterns that promote climate change adaptation and mitigation

a new regulation outlining the roles and responsibilities of CAs in supporting Ontario’s proposed Wetland Conservation Strategy and provincial commitments to stopping the net loss of wetlands

working with the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to create a regulation for CAs’ programs and services that includes standards and requirements to mitigate climate change and provide for adaptation to a changing climate, including through resiliency

working with a multi-ministry working group to identify additional areas where mandate programs and services could be developed to support other areas of provincial interest, such as programs and services associated with natural heritage identification, assessment and reporting, land and cultural heritage conservation, biodiversity conservation and watershed planning and management.

262

Implementation: The Province has identified a four-year time horizon for implementation. Given the number and breadth of the regulations proposed to be developed, the timeline for full implementation is ambitious. Moreover, the amendments do not include transition provisions to address the time between the enactment of the amendments and the development and promulgation of the regulations. In this regard, there are some amendments proposed under Bill 139 that may serve CAs better were they to be in force immediately upon enactment. For instance, staff are pleased to see the enhanced enforcement powers and submit that these should be enacted immediately. With respect to stop work orders, staff would request that an accompanying “order to comply” also be added in order to facilitate immediate (albeit interim) mitigation at the expense of the party engaged in the offending activity. Additionally, the amendments do not mention the mapping that supports the s.28 regulations, which would assist in the proper enforcement of the new compliance measures. An amendment that was not proposed but that staff would like to see is with respect to risk management. That is, given the potential liability associated with the operation of flood control infrastructure for which CAs are responsible, particularly in the face of increased exposures associated with climate change, some form of statutory immunity for the good will operation of this essential infrastructure is warranted. Staff would request that a clause to this effect be added to the Act.

FINANCIAL DETAILS Staff are reviewing the proposed amendments and the supporting Conserving Our Future document as part of existing budgets. No additional funding is required for this review. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE In the coming weeks the TRCA review team, in consultation with TRCA legal counsel, will continue to refine the comments on the proposed amendments to the CA Act, informed by the recently posted Conserving Our Future document. Staff welcome any additional comments from Authority members to be incorporated into the submission to the EBR by the deadline of July 31, 2017. Staff will continue to work with TRCA’s municipal partners, Conservation Ontario and the Province in understanding the implications of the proposed amendments and timing of the pending regulations to the operation of TRCA programs and delivery of services. In order to be responsive to the watershed needs of municipal partners in a rapidly growing and intensifying city-region, an approach that provides clarity and direction during this interim/transition period is needed. This is of particular interest to the renewal and creation of municipal memorandums of understanding for various TRCA services, as well as existing section 28 and 29 regulations. Staff will keep the Authority informed on this third and final phase of the Province’s Conservation Authorities Act review. Report prepared by: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281, Mary-Ann Burns, extension 5763 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] For Information contact: Brian Denney, extension 6290 Emails: [email protected] Date: June 23, 2017 Attachments: 2

263




For reference to review only – unofficial redline version of proposed amendments June 5, 2017 Page 1

Attachment 1 Conservation Authorities Act

R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.27

Amended by: 1993, c. 27, Sched.; 1994, c. 27, s. 127; 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, ss. 40-47; 1996, c. 32, s. 66; 1997, c. 5, s. 64;

1997, c. 26, Sched.; 1997, c. 29, s. 54; 1997, c. 43, Sched. G, s. 19; 1998, c. 3, s. 33; 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3; 1998, c. 18,

Sched. I, ss. 1-14; 2000, c. 5, s. 8; 2001, c. 8, s. 203; 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1; 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table.

NOTE: 2004, 2006, 2008,2009,2010 and 2011 amendments were inserted; the Current E-laws bill can be found

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c27?search=The+Conservation+Authorities+Act#BK27

Skip Table of Contents

CONTENTS

1. Definitions 2. Meeting to establish authority for watershed 3. Establishment, jurisdiction and initial financing 4. Regional municipality to act in place of local municipalities 5. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 6. Hamilton Region Conservation Authority 7. Grand River Conservation Authority 8. Grouping of municipalities 9. Establishment of authority for two or more watersheds 10. Enlargement of authority’s area 11. Amalgamation of authorities 13. Participating municipalities following annexation, etc. 13.1 Dissolution of authority 14. Members of authority 15. Meetings of authority 16. Decision-making at meetings 17. Chair, vice-chair 18. Employees and advisory boards 19. Executive committee 20. Objects 21. Powers of authorities 22. Agreement re road 23. Minister’s powers 24. Projects of authority 25. Apportionment of benefit 26. Determination of capital expenditure 27. Maintenance and administration costs 28. Regulations by authority re area under its jurisdiction 29. Regulations by authority re lands owned by it 30. Regulations by authority: mandatory regulations 30.1 Restriction on entry 31. Expropriation 32. Restrictions on projects 33. Assessment of lands of authority 34. Cemetery lands 35. Right to use water power 36. Assent of electors not necessary 37. Payment to and spending by authority 38. Annual audit 39. Grants

264

https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90c27?search=The+Conservation+Authorities+Act#BK27


Purpose

0.1 The purpose of this Act is to provide for the organization and delivery of programs and services that further the

conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources in watersheds in Ontario.

1. In this Act, “administration costs” means salaries and travelling expenses of members and employees of an authority, office rent,

maintenance and purchase of office equipment, expenses connected with exhibits, visual equipment and printed matter for

educational purposes, and all expenditures necessary for carrying out the objects of an authority other than capital expenses

and maintenance costs of projects; (“frais d’administration”) “operating expenses” include,

(a) salaries, per diems and travel expenses of employees and members of an authority,

(b) rent and other office costs,

(c) program expenses,

(d) costs that are related to the operation or maintenance of a project, but not including the project’s capital costs, and

(e) such other costs as may be prescribed by regulation; (“dépenses d’exploitation

“advisory board” means an advisory board appointed by an authority; (“conseil consultatif”)

“authority” means a conservation authority established by or under this Act or a predecessor of this Act; (“office”)

“executive committee” means the executive committee appointed by an authority; (“comité de direction”)

“land” includes buildings and any estate, term, easement, right or interest in, to, over or affecting land; (“bien-fonds”)

“maintenance costs” means all expenditures required specifically in relation to the operation or maintenance of a project; (“frais d’entretien”)

“Minister” means the Minister of Natural Resources; (“ministre”)

“municipality” means a local municipality, and includes a band under the Indian Act (Canada) that is permitted to control, manage and expend its revenue money under section 69 of that Act; (“municipalité”)

“participating municipality” means a municipality that is designated by or under this Act as a participating municipality; (“municipalité participante”)

“project” means a work undertaken by an authority for the furtherance of its objects; (“projet”)

“watershed” means an area drained by a river and its tributaries. (“bassin hydrographique”) R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 1; 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 40; 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 1; 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table.

Meeting to establish authority for watershed

2. (1) Where the councils of any two or more municipalities situate either wholly or partly within a watershed by resolution request the Minister to call a meeting for the establishment of an authority for the watershed or any defined part thereof, the Minister shall fix a time and place for such a meeting and shall forthwith notify the council of every municipality either wholly or partly within the watershed or part thereof. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 2 (1).

Representatives at meeting

(2) The council of each municipality may appoint representatives to attend the meeting in the following numbers:

1. Where the population is 1,000,000 or more, seven representatives.

1.1 Where the population is 500,000 or more but less than 1,000,000, six representatives.

1.2 Where the population is 250,000 or more but less than 500,000, five representatives.

2. Where the population is 100,000 or more but less than 250,000, four representatives.

3. Where the population is 50,000 or more but less than 100,000, three representatives.

4. Where the population is 10,000 or more but less than 50,000, two representatives.

5. Where the population is less than 10,000, one representative. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 2 (2); 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (1).

Authority of representatives

(3) The representatives so appointed have authority to vote and generally act on behalf of their respective municipalities at the meeting. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 2 (3).

265


Quorum

(4) At any meeting called under this section, a quorum consists of two-thirds of the representatives that the municipalities notified are entitled to appoint, but, where not fewer than three representatives are present at a meeting or adjourned meeting, they may adjourn the meeting or adjourned meeting from time to time. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 2 (4).

Establishment, jurisdiction and initial financing

Establishment and jurisdiction of authority

3. (1) Upon receipt by the Minister of a resolution passed at a meeting or adjourned meeting held under section 2 and at which a quorum was present by not less than two-thirds of the representatives present thereat requesting the establishment of an authority, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may establish a conservation authority and designate the municipalities that are the participating municipalities and the area over which the authority has jurisdiction. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 3 (1).

Where only part of municipality in watershed

(2) Where a municipality is only partly within the watershed, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may include the whole or that part of the municipality in the area over which the authority has jurisdiction. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 3 (2).

Name of authority

(3) The name of each authority shall be determined by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall conclude with the words “conservation authority” in English and shall include the words “office de protection de la nature” in French. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 3 (3).

Corporate body

(4) Every authority is a body corporate. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 3 (4).

Borrowing power

(5) Every authority may, for its purposes, borrow on the promissory note of the authority, at such rate of interest as the Minister approves, such money as may be required until payment to the authority of any grants and of sums to be paid to the authority by the participating municipalities. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 3 (5).

Regional municipality to act in place of local municipalities

4. (1) Where a regional municipality has been established, the regional municipality, on and after the 1st day of

January after it is established, Upper-tier municipalities

Regional municipalities to act in place of local municipalities

(1) An upper-tier municipality that was established as a regional municipality before the day subsection 6 (1) of Schedule 4

to the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 comes into force,

(a) shall act in the place of the local municipalities within the regional municipality for the purpose of appointing representatives to attend a meeting for the establishment or enlargement of a conservation authority or the amalgamation of conservation authorities and for the purpose may appoint representatives in the numbers to which the local municipalities would otherwise have been entitled; and

(b) shall be a participating municipality in the place of such of the local municipalities within the regional municipality as are wholly or partly within the area under the jurisdiction of a conservation authority and shall appoint to each such authority the number of members to which the local municipalities would otherwise have been entitled as participating municipalities. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 4 (1).

Members appointed by local municipality continue

(2) When a regional municipality is established, the members of an authority then holding office who were appointed by a local municipality wholly or partly within the regional municipality shall continue to hold office until their respective terms of office expire and shall be deemed to have been appointed by the regional municipality. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 4 (2).

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

5. (1) The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is continued under the name Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in English and Office de protection de la nature de Toronto et de la région in French, and has jurisdiction in all matters provided for in this Act over the area under its jurisdiction on December 31, 1990, as it may be altered under this Act. 1997, c. 26, Sched.

(2) REPEALED: 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (2).

266


Designation of participating municipalities and area

(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate,

(a) the municipalities that are the participating municipalities of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and

(b) the area over which the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has jurisdiction. 1997, c. 26, Sched.

Members

(4) Despite subsections 14 (1), (2) and (5) but subject to subsection 14 (2.1), the number of members appointed to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority by the City of Toronto shall, at all times, be equal to the total number of members appointed by the other participating municipalities. 1997, c. 26, Sched.; 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (3).

Hamilton Region Conservation Authority

6. (1) The Hamilton Region Conservation Authority is continued under the name Hamilton Region Conservation Authority in English and Office de protection de la nature de la région de Hamilton in French, and has jurisdiction in all matters provided for in this Act over the area under its jurisdiction on the 31st day of December, 1990, as it may be altered under this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 6 (1).



(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate the municipalities that are the participating municipalities of the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority and the area under its jurisdiction. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 6 (3).

(4) REPEALED: 2000, c. 5, s. 8.

Grand River Conservation Authority

7. (1) The Grand River Conservation Authority is continued under the name Grand River Conservation Authority in English and Office de protection de la nature de la rivière Grand in French as a conservation authority under this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 7 (1).


(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate the municipalities that are the participating municipalities of the Grand River Conservation Authority and the area over which it has jurisdiction. 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (5).


Grouping of municipalities

8. The participating municipalities may designate any group of municipalities that shall be considered as one municipality for the purpose of appointing a member or members to a conservation authority and provide for the appointment of the member or members to be appointed by a group of municipalities. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 8; 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 2.

Establishment of authority for two or more watersheds

9. Where the councils of any three municipalities situate either wholly or partly within the area comprising two or more watersheds by resolution request the Minister to call a meeting for the establishment of an authority for such watersheds or any defined parts thereof, the provisions of sections 2 and 3 apply with necessary modifications. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 9.

Enlargement of authority’s area

10. (1) If an authority has been established, the council of a municipality that is completely or partly outside the jurisdiction of the authority may call a meeting to consider the enlargement of the area over which the authority has jurisdiction to include an area specified by the municipality. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 3 (1).

Notice of meeting

(1.1) The council of every municipality completely or partly within the jurisdiction of the authority or the area specified under subsection (1) shall be given notice of the meeting. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 3 (1).

Representatives

(2) With respect to each municipality so notified, subsection 2 (2) applies. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 10 (2).

267


Quorum

(3) At any meeting called under this section, a quorum consists of the number of members of the existing authority required to constitute a quorum of the authority and two-thirds of the representatives that the municipalities notified are entitled to appoint, but, where not fewer than two members of the authority and three municipal representatives are present at a meeting or an adjourned meeting, they may adjourn the meeting or adjourned meeting from time to time. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 10 (3).

Resolution

(4) A joint resolution, passed at a meeting held under this section, at which a quorum was present, by not less than two-thirds of the members of the authority present at the meeting and not less than two-thirds of the municipal representatives present at the meeting, agreeing to the enlargement of the area over which the authority has jurisdiction, amends the order in council establishing the authority and has the effect of enlarging the area and designating the additional municipalities and the additional area over which the enlarged authority has jurisdiction in accordance with the resolution. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 3 (2). Notice of meeting

(1.1) Notice of the meeting shall be given to each participating municipality of the authority and to any municipality that is

completely or partly within the area specified under subsection (1).

Representatives

(2) Each municipality that receives notice of the meeting may appoint the number of representatives to attend the meeting

that is determined in accordance with subsection 2 (2).

Quorum

(3) At any meeting called under this section, a quorum consists of two-thirds of the representatives that the municipalities are

entitled to appoint under subsection (2).

Resolution

(4) At a meeting held under this section at which a quorum is present, a resolution may be passed to do all of the following:

1. Agree to enlarge the area over which the authority has jurisdiction.

2. Designate participating municipalities for the enlarged area.

3. Designate the enlarged area over which the authority has jurisdiction.

Two-thirds majority vote

(5) A resolution described in subsection (4) shall be passed by a majority of at least two-thirds of the representatives present

at the meeting.

Resolution in effect

(6) A resolution described in subsection (4) takes effect on such terms as it may specify despite anything to the contrary in

the order in council establishing the authority.

Minister’s copy (7) The municipality that called a meeting under subsection (1) shall provide the Minister with a copy of any resolution

described in subsection (4) passed at the meeting promptly after the resolution is passed.

Amalgamation of authorities

11. (1) If two or more authorities have been established for adjoining watersheds or parts thereof, one or more of

the authorities or the council of a municipality situated completely or partly within the jurisdiction of one of the

authoritiescouncil of a participating municipality of one of the authorities may call a meeting to consider the establishment of

one authority to have jurisdiction over the areas that are under separate jurisdictions. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 4 (1).

Notice of meeting

(1.1) The council of every municipality situated completely or partly within the jurisdictions of the authorities shall be given notice of the meeting. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 4 (1). Notice of the meeting shall be given to each participating municipality of the relevant authorities.

Public notice

(1.2) The body or bodies that call a meeting under subsection (1) shall ensure that, at least 14 days before the meeting, notice

of the meeting is,

(a) published in a newspaper having general circulation in each participating municipality, including in the electronic

version of the newspaper where available; or

(b) if there is no newspaper of general circulation in a participating municipality, posted on a website maintained by the

municipality and in at least one prominent place in the municipality.

268


Public representations

(1.3) No vote shall be taken on a resolution requesting amalgamation of the authorities unless members of the public have

(1.1) been given an opportunity at the meeting to make representations on the issue.

Representatives

(2) With respect to each municipality so notified, subsection 2 (2) applies. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 11 (2).

Quorum

(2) Each municipality that receives notice of the meeting may appoint the number of representatives to attend the meeting

that is determined in accordance with subsection 2 (2).

Quorum

(3) At any meeting called under this section, a quorum consists of two-thirds of the representatives that the municipalities are

entitled to appoint under subsection (2). (3) At any meeting called under this section, a quorum consists of two-thirds of the representatives that the municipalities notified are entitled to appoint, but, where not fewer than three representatives are present at a meeting or adjourned meeting, they may adjourn the meeting or adjourned meeting from time to time. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 11 (3).

Resolution

(4) At a meeting held under this section at which a quorum is present, a resolution may be passed to do all of the

following:

1. Establish a new authority that has jurisdiction over areas that previously were under the separate jurisdiction of the two

or more existing authorities of the adjoining watersheds.

2. Dissolve the existing authorities.

3. Designate the participating municipalities for the new authority.

4. Designate the area over which the new authority has jurisdiction.

Two-thirds majority vote

(4.1) A resolution described in subsection (4) shall be passed by a majority of at least two-thirds of the representatives

present at the meeting.

Approval by Minister

(4.2) The authorities or the municipality who called a meeting under subsection (1) shall submit the resolution passed in

accordance with subsection (4.1) to the Minister for approval and the Minister may approve the resolution with such changes

and on such terms and conditions as he or she considers appropriate.

Resolution in effect

(4.3) The resolution takes effect in accordance with the terms of the resolution and the Minister’s approval. (4) A resolution, passed at a meeting held under this section, at which a quorum was present, by not less than two-thirds of the representatives present at the meeting, agreeing to the establishment of one authority, has the effect of establishing the new authority, dissolving the existing authorities and designating the municipalities that are the participating municipalities and the area over which the new authority has jurisdiction in accordance with the resolution. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 4 (2).

Assets and liabilities of former authorities

(5) Upon the establishment of a new authority and the dissolution of the existing authorities under subsection (4),

When the establishment of a new authority and the dissolution of the existing authorities take effect under subsection

(4.3)”.all the assets and liabilities of the dissolved authorities vest in and become assets and liabilities of the new authority.

R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 11 (5). 12. REPEALED: 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 5.

Participating municipalities following annexation, etc.

13. Where a new municipality is erected or two or more municipalities are amalgamated or any area is annexed to a municipality and any part of the resulting municipality is within the area over which an authority has jurisdiction, such resulting municipality shall be deemed to have been designated a participating municipality by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 13.

Dissolution of authority

13.1 (1) An authority shall call a meeting of the members of the authority to consider the dissolution of the

authority if, by resolution, the councils of two or more participating municipalities request the meeting Public notice

(1.1) The authority that calls a meeting under subsection (1) shall ensure that, at least 14 days before the meeting, notice of

269


the meeting is,

(a) published in a newspaper having general circulation in each participating municipality, including in the electronic

version of the newspaper where available; or

(b) if there is no newspaper of general circulation in a participating municipality, posted on a website maintained by the

municipality and in at least one prominent place in the municipality.. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41.

Quorum

(2) Despite subsection 16 (2), a quorum at a meeting called under this section consists of two-thirds of the members of the authority who were appointed by participating municipalities. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41.

Members not entitled to vote

(3) Despite subsection 16 (1), members of the authority who were appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council before section 42 of Schedule M of the Savings and Restructuring Act, 1996 came into force are not entitled to vote at a meeting held under this section. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41.

Notice of meeting

(4) The authority shall ensure that notice of the meeting is published in a newspaper having general circulation in each participating municipality at least 14 days before the meeting. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41.

Public representations

(5) No vote shall be taken on a resolution requesting dissolution of the authority unless members of the public have been given an opportunity at the meeting to make representations on the issue. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41.

Criteria for dissolution

(6) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may dissolve the authority, on such terms and conditions as the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate, if,

(a) the Minister receives a resolution requesting the dissolution passed by at least two-thirds of the members of the authority present and entitled to vote at a meeting held under this section and at which a quorum was present; and

(b) the Minister is satisfied that acceptable provision has been made for future flood control and watershed interests and for the disposition of all assets and liabilities of the authority. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41.

(c) the Minister of the Environment is satisfied that acceptable provision has been made for future protection of drinking water sources. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41; 2006, c. 22, s. 113 (1).

Authority continued by s. 5, 6 or 7

(7) If an authority continued by section 5, 6 or 7 is dissolved under subsection (6), the Lieutenant Governor may, by proclamation, repeal that section on a day named in the proclamation. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 41.

Members of authority

14. (1) Members of an authority shall be appointed by the respective councils of the participating municipalities in

the numbers prescribed by subsection 2 (2) for the appointment of representatives, and each member shall hold office until

the first meeting of the authority after the term for which he or she was appointed has expired. Members of authority

(1) Members of an authority shall be appointed by the respective councils of the participating municipalities in the numbers

set out in subsection 2 (2) for the appointment of representatives.

(2) Subsection 14 (4) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:

Requirements regarding composition of authority

(4) The appointment of members to an authority shall be in accordance with such additional requirements regarding the

composition of the authority and the qualification of members as may be prescribed by regulation.

Term

(4.1) A member shall be appointed for a term of up to four years, as may be determined by the council that appoints the

member.

Same

(4.2) A member’s term begins at the first meeting of the authority after his or her appointment and expires immediately

before the first meeting of the authority after the appointment of his or her replacement.

Replacement of member

(4.3) Despite subsections (4.1) and (4.2), a member may be replaced by the council of the participating municipality that

270


appointed the member.

Reappointment

(4.4) A member is eligible to be reappointed. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 14 (1).

Changes in number of members

(2) The total number of members of the authority and the number of members that each participating municipality may appoint shall be adjusted as required to ensure compliance with subsection (1) if the municipalities that are participating municipalities change or the population of a participating municipality changes. 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (6).

Agreement on number of members

(2.1) Despite subsections (1), (2) and (5), the total number of members of the authority and the number of members that each participating municipality may appoint may be determined by an agreement that is confirmed by resolutions passed by the councils of all of the participating municipalities. 2001, c. 9, Sched. K, s. 1 (6).

Qualification

(3) Every member of an authority shall be resident in a participating municipality in which the authority has jurisdiction. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 14 (3).

Term

(4) No member of an authority shall be appointed to hold office for more than three years at any one time. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 14 (4).

Where part of municipality in authority’s area

(5) Where part only of a municipality is situated in an area over which an authority has jurisdiction, the number of members appointed for the municipality shall be based on the population of that part only of the municipality, and the population shall be deemed to be the same proportion of the total population of the whole municipality as the area of that part of the municipality is of the total area of the municipality. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 14 (5).

(6) REPEALED: 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 42.

Meetings of authority

15. (1) The first meeting of an authority shall be held at such time and place as may be determined by the Minister and, in each year thereafter, the authority shall hold at least one meeting before the 1st day of March and at least one meeting after the 1st day of July and such other meetings as it considers necessary to effectively conduct the affairs of the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 15 (1).

Copies of minutes to members

(2) Within 30 days after any meeting of an authority or of an executive committee, the secretary-treasurer of the

authority shall send a copy of the minutes of the meeting to each member of the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 15 (2);

1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 7Open meetings

(3) Every meeting held by the authority shall be open to the public, subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the

bylaws of the authority.

Decision-making at meetings

16. (1) Each member of an authority is entitled to one vote. 1998, c. 18, Sched, I, s. 8.

Quorum

(2) At any meeting of an authority, a quorum consists of one-half of the members appointed by the participating municipalities, except where there are fewer than six such members, in which case three such members constitute a quorum. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 16 (2); 2006, c. 22, s. 113 (2).

Majority vote

(3) A majority vote of the members present at any meeting is required upon all matters coming before the meeting. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 16 (3).

271


Chair, vice-chair

17. (1) At the first meeting of an authority and thereafter at the first meeting held in each year At the first meeting

held in each year or at such other meeting as may be specified by the authority’s by-laws, the authority shall appoint a chair

and one or more vice-chairs from among the members of the authority. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 43.

Vacancy

(2) Subject to subsection (1), upon the death of the chair or a vice-chair, or upon the incapacity of the chair or a vice-chair to act, or upon the chair or a vice-chair ceasing to be a member of the authority, the remaining members may appoint a member to fill such vacancy. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 17 (2).

Absence of chair and vice-chairs

(3) In the event of the absence of the chair and the vice-chairs from any meeting of an authority, the members present shall appoint an acting chair who, for the purposes of such meeting, has all the powers and shall perform all the duties of the chair. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 17 (3).

Employees and advisory boards

Employees

18. (1) An authority shall appoint a secretary-treasurer and may appoint such other employees as it considers necessary who shall hold office during the pleasure of the authority and shall receive such salary or other remuneration as the authority determines, payable out of the funds of the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 18 (1).

Advisory boards

(2) An authority may appoint one or more advisory boards(2) An authority shall establish such advisory boards as

may be required by regulation and may establish such other advisory

boards as it considers appropriate.

Same

(3) An advisory board shall comply with any requirements that may be prescribed by regulation with respect to its

composition, functions, powers, duties, activities and procedures. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 18 (2).

Executive committee

19. (1) The authority may appoint an executive committee from among the members of the authority.

19.1 (1) An authority may make by-laws,

(a) respecting the meetings to be held by the authority, including providing for the calling of the meetings and the

procedures to be followed at meetings, specifying which meetings, if any, may be closed to the public;

(b) prescribing the powers and duties of the secretary-treasurer;

(c) designating and empowering officers to sign contracts, agreements and other documents on behalf of the authority;

(d) delegating all or any of its powers to the executive committee except,

(i) the termination of the services of the secretary-treasurer,

(ii) the power to raise money, and

(iii) the power to enter into contracts or agreements other than those contracts or agreements as are necessarily

incidental to the works approved by the authority;

(e) providing for the composition of its executive committee and for the establishment of other committees that it

considers advisable and respecting any other matters relating to its governance;

(f) respecting the roles and responsibilities of the members of the authority and of its officers and senior staff;

(g) requiring accountability and transparency in the administration of the authority including,

(i) providing for the retention of records specified in the by-laws and for making the records available to the public,

(ii) establishing a code of conduct for the members of the authority, and

(iii) adopting conflict of interest guidelines for the members of the authority;

(h) respecting the management of the authority’s financial affairs, including auditing and reporting on the authority’s

finances;

(i) respecting the by-law review required under subsection (3) and providing for the frequency of the reviews; and

(j) respecting such other matters as may be prescribed by regulation.

Conflict with other laws

(2) If a by-law made by an authority conflicts with any provision of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act or the Municipal

272


Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or a provision of a regulation made under one of those Acts, the

provision of the Act or regulation prevails.

Periodic review of by-laws

(3) At such regular intervals as may be determined by by-law, an authority shall undertake a review of all of its by-laws to

ensure, amongst other things, that the by-laws are in compliance with any Act referred to in subsection (2) or any other

relevant law.

By-laws available to public

(4) An authority shall make its by-laws available to the public in the manner it considers appropriate.

Transition

(5) An authority shall make such by-laws under this section as are required for its proper administration,

(a) in the case of an authority that was established on or before the day section 16 of Schedule 4 to the Building Better

Communities and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 comes into force, within one year of that day; and

(b) in the case of an authority that is established after the day section 16 of Schedule 4 to the Building Better Communities

and Conserving Watersheds Act, 2017 comes into force, within one year of the day the authority is established.

Direction by Minister

(6) The Minister may give an authority a written direction to make or amend a by-law on any matter described in subsection

(1), in accordance with the direction, within such period of time as may be specified in the direction.

Compliance

(7) The authority that receives a direction under subsection (6) shall comply with the direction within the time specified in

the direction.

Regulation where failure to comply

(8) If an authority fails to adopt a by-law in accordance with the direction made under subsection (6), the Minister may make

regulations in relation to the matters set out in the direction that are applicable in the area of jurisdiction of the authority.

Same

(9) Any regulation made by the Minister under subsection (8) prevails over any conflicting by-law that the authority may

have adopted. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 19 (1).

Chair, vice-chair

(2) The chair and vice-chair of the authority shall be the chair and vice-chair of the executive committee. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 19 (2).

(3) REPEALED: 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 9.

Objects

20. (1) The objects of an authority are to provide, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, programs

and services designedto establish and undertake, in the area over which it has jurisdiction, a program designed to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources other than gas, oil, coal and minerals. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 20.

Same

(2) Despite subsection (1) and subject to any other legislation pertaining to these resources, authorities may enter into agreements to allow exploration, storage and extraction by others in order to share in the revenue from use of gas or oil resources owned by them if,

(a) the use is compatible with the conservation, restoration, development and management of other natural resources; and

(b) extraction occurs on land adjacent to, but not on, conservation authority land. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 10.

Powers of authorities

21. (1) For the purposes of accomplishing its objects, an authority has power,

(a) to study and investigate the watershed and to determine programs and services a program whereby the natural resources of the watershed may be conserved, restored, developed and managed;

(b) for any purpose necessary to any project under consideration or undertaken by the authority, to enter into and upon any land and survey and take levels of it and make such borings or sink such trial pits as the authority considers necessary;

273


(c) to acquire by purchase, lease or otherwise and to expropriate any land that it may require, and, subject to subsection (2), to sell, lease or otherwise dispose of land so acquired;

(d) despite subsection (2), to lease for a term of five years or less land acquired by the authority;

(e) to purchase or acquire any personal property that it may require and sell or otherwise deal therewith;

(f) to enter into agreements for the purchase of materials, employment of labour and other purposes as may be necessary for the due carrying out of any project or to further the authority’s objects;

(g) to enter into agreements with owners of private lands to facilitate the due carrying out of any project;

(h) to determine the proportion of the total benefit afforded to all the participating municipalities that is afforded to each of them;

(i) to erect works and structures and create reservoirs by the construction of dams or otherwise;

(j) to control the flow of surface waters in order to prevent floods or pollution or to reduce the adverse effects thereof;

(k) to alter the course of any river, canal, brook, stream or watercourse, and divert or alter, as well temporarily as permanently, the course of any river, stream, road, street or way, or raise or sink its level in order to carry it over or under, on the level of or by the side of any work built or to be built by the authority, and to divert or alter the position of any water-pipe, gas-pipe, sewer, drain or any telegraph, telephone or electric wire or pole;

(l) to use lands that are owned or controlled by the authority for purposes, not inconsistent with its objects, as it considers proper;

(m) to use lands owned or controlled by the authority for park or other recreational purposes, and to erect, or permit to be erected, buildings, booths and facilities for such purposes and to make charges for admission thereto and the use thereof;

(m.1) to charge fees for services approved by the Minister;

(n) to collaborate and enter into agreements with ministries and agencies of government, municipal councils and local boards and other organizations and individuals ;

(o) to plant and produce trees on Crown lands with the consent of the Minister, and on other lands with the consent of the owner, for any purpose;

(p) to cause research to be done; (q) generally to do all such acts as are necessary for the due carrying out of any project or as may be desirable

to further the objects of the authority” R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 21; 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 44 (1, 2); 1998, c. 18, Sched. I,

s. 11. Programs and services

21.1 (1) The following are the programs and services that an authority is required or permitted to provide within its area of

jurisdiction:

1. Mandatory programs and services that are required by regulation.

2. Municipal programs and services that the authority agrees to provide on behalf of municipalities situated in whole or in

part within its area of jurisdiction under a memorandum of understanding referred to in subsection (3).

3. Such other programs and services as the authority may determine are advisable to further its objects.

Mandatory programs and services

(2) Programs and services referred to in paragraph 1 of subsection (1) shall be provided in accordance with such standards

and requirements as may be set out in the regulations.

Memorandum of understanding with municipalities

(3) An authority may enter into a memorandum of understanding with a municipality situated in whole or in part within its

area of jurisdiction in respect of programs and services that the authority will provide on behalf of the municipality.

Memorandum available to public

(3.1) An authority shall make a memorandum of understanding referred to in subsection (3) available to the public in such

manner as may be determined in the memorandum.

Periodic review of memorandum

(4) An authority and a municipality who have entered into a memorandum of understanding described in subsection (3) shall

review the memorandum at such regular intervals as may be determined by the memorandum.

274


Municipal programs and services

(5) Programs and services that an authority agrees to provide on behalf of a municipality shall be provided in accordance

with the terms and conditions set out in the memorandum of understanding or in such other agreement as may be entered into

by the authority and the municipality.

Consultation

(6) An authority shall carry out such consultations with respect to the programs and services it provides as may be required

by regulation and shall do so in the manner specified by regulation.

21 The Act is amended by adding the following section:

Fees for programs and services

21.2 (1) The Minister may determine classes of programs and services in respect of which an authority may charge a fee.

Publication of list

(2) The Minister shall publish the list of classes of programs and services in respect of which an authority may charge a fee

in a policy document and distribute the document to each authority.

Updating list

(3) If the Minister makes changes to the list of classes of programs and services in respect of which an authority may charge

a fee, the Minister shall promptly update the policy document referred to in subsection (2) and distribute the new document to

each authority.

Where authority may charge fee

(4) An authority may charge a fee for a program or service that it provides only if it is set out on the list of classes of

programs and services referred to in subsection (2).

Amount of fee

(5) The amount of a fee charged by an authority for a program or service it provides shall be,

(a) the amount prescribed by the regulations; or

(b) if no amount is prescribed, the amount determined by the authority.

Fee schedule

(6) Every authority shall prepare and maintain a fee schedule that sets out,

(a) the list of programs and services that it provides and in respect of which it charges a fee; and

(b) the amount of the fee charged for each program or service or the manner in which the fee is determined.

Fee policy

(7) Every authority shall adopt a written policy with respect to the fees that it charges for the programs and services it

provides, and the policy shall set out,

(a) the fee schedule described in subsection (6);

(b) the frequency within which the fee policy shall be reviewed by the authority under subsection (9);

(c) the process for carrying out a review of the fee policy, including the rules for giving notice of the review and of any

changes resulting from the review; and

(d) the circumstances in which a person may request that the authority reconsider a fee that was charged to the person and

the procedures applicable to the reconsideration.

Fee policy to be made public

(8) Every authority shall make the fee policy available to the public in a manner it considers appropriate.

Periodic review of fee policy

(9) At such regular intervals as may be determined by an authority, the authority shall undertake a review of its fee policy,

including a review of the fees set out in the fee schedule.

Notice of fee changes

(10) If, after a review of a fee policy or at any other time, an authority wishes to make a change to the list of fees set out in

the fee schedule or to the amount of any fee or the manner in which a fee is determined, the authority shall give notice of the

proposed change to the public in a manner it considers appropriate.

Reconsideration of fee charged

(11) Any person who considers that the authority has charged a fee that is contrary to the fees set out in the fee schedule, or

that the fee set out in the fee schedule is excessive in relation to the service or program for which it is charged, may apply to

the authority in accordance with the procedures set out in the fee policy and request that it reconsider the fee that was

charged.

Powers of authority on reconsideration

(12) Upon reconsideration of a fee that was charged for a program or service provided by an authority, the authority may,

275


(a) order the person to pay the fee in the amount originally charged;

(b) vary the amount of the fee originally charged, as the authority considers appropriate; or

(c) order that no fee be charged for the program or service.

Approval of Minister

(2) If the Minister has made a grant to an authority under section 39 in respect of land, the authority shall not sell, lease or otherwise dispose of the land under clause (1) (c) without the approval of the Minister except if,

(a) the disposition is for provincial or municipal infrastructure and utility purposes;

(b) the province, the provincial agency, board or commission affected by the disposition or the municipal government, agency, board or commission affected by the disposition has approved it; and

(c) the authority informs the Minister of the disposition. 2010, c. 16, Sched. 10, s. 1 (1).

Terms and conditions

(3) The Minister may impose terms and conditions on an approval given under subsection (2), including a condition that the authority pay a specified share of the proceeds of the disposition to the Minister. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 44 (3).

Agreement re road

22. An authority and any municipality may enter into agreement for the construction or maintenance of a road or the reconstruction or maintenance of an existing road under the jurisdiction of the municipality for the purpose of providing access to lands of the authority used or to be used for park or recreational purposes. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 22.

Minister’s powers

23. (1) Despite any powers conferred on an authority by this Act, the Minister may, when and for such periods as he or she considers necessary in the public interest,

(a) require an authority to carry out flood control operations in a manner specified by the Minister;

(b) require an authority to follow instructions issued by the Minister for the operation of one or more of the authority’s water control structures; or

(c) take over the operation of one or more of an authority’s water control structures and require the authority to reimburse the Minister for any costs incurred by the Minister as a result. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 45.

Areas not under jurisdiction of authority

(2) Despite any powers conferred on the council of a municipality under this or any other Act, in an area that is not under the jurisdiction of an authority, the Minister may, when and for such periods as he or she considers necessary in the public interest,

(a) require the council of a municipality to carry out flood control operations in a manner specified by the Minister;

(b) require the council of a municipality to follow instructions issued by the Minister for the operation of one or more of the water control structures operated by the council; or

(c) take over the operation of one or more of the water control structures operated by the council of a municipality and require the council to reimburse the Minister for any costs incurred by the Minister as a result. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 45.

Definition

(3) In subsection (2),

“municipality” includes an upper-tier municipality. Information required by Minister

23.1 (1) An authority shall provide the Minister with such information as the Minister may require in relation to its

operations, including the programs and services it provides.

Same

(2) The information shall be provided at the time and in the manner as the Minister may specify.

Publication

(3) If directed by the Minister to do so, an authority shall publish all or such portion of the information provided to the

276


Minister under subsection (1) and shall do so at the time and in the manner specified by the Minister.

2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table.

Projects of authority

Projects requiring approval

24 Before proceeding with a project that involves money granted by the Minister under section 39, the authority shall file

plans and a description with the Minister and obtain his or her approval in writing.

Recovery of project capital costs

25 (1) An authority may, from time to time, determine the amount of capital costs to be incurred in connection with a project

and apportion the capital costs to the participating municipalities in accordance with the regulations.

Notice of apportionment

(2) An authority shall send a notice of apportionment in writing to each participating municipality setting out the amount of

the capital costs for a project that has been apportioned to the participating municipality.

Payment of apportioned amount

(3) Each participating municipality shall pay to the authority the portion of the capital costs for a project that is specified in

the notice of apportionment in accordance with the requirements set out in the notice and with this section.

How money to be raised

(4) Each participating municipality may issue debentures to provide financing for the capital costs for a project of an

authority.

Where money raised over several years

(5) If the notice of apportionment requires a municipality to raise its portion of the capital costs for a project over a period of

two or more years, the municipality shall, within 30 days of receiving the notice of apportionment, give the authority written

notice of how it will pay its portion of the capital costs.

Debt due

(6) The amount of the portion of the capital costs for a project that is specified in a notice of apportionment sent to a

participating municipality is a debt due by the participating municipality to the authority and may be enforced by the

authority as such.

Review of apportionment of capital costs

26 (1) Any participating municipality that receives a notice of apportionment under section 25 may, within 30 days after

receiving the notice of apportionment, apply to the Ontario Municipal Board, or to such other body as may be prescribed by

regulation, for a review of the apportionment among the participating municipalities of the capital costs for the relevant

project.

Same

(2) The participating municipality that makes an application under subsection (1) shall send a copy of the notice of

application to the authority and to every other participating municipality of the authority.

Hearing

(3) The Ontario Municipal Board, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, shall hold a hearing to reconsider

the apportionment of capital costs among the participating municipalities, including considering whether the apportionment

complies with section 25 and the regulations and whether the portion apportioned to the municipality is otherwise

appropriate.

Parties

(4) The parties to the hearing are the applicant municipality, the authority, any other participating municipality of the

authority that requests to be a party, and such other persons as the Ontario Municipal Board, or such other body as may be

prescribed by regulation, may determine.

Requirement to pay costs stayed

(5) A participating municipality that makes an application under this section is not required to pay the portion of the capital

costs that was apportioned to the municipality under the notice of apportionment until the determination of the application.

Delay of notice

(6) A participating municipality that makes an application under this section is not required to give notice under subsection

25 (5) until 30 days after the final determination of the application.

Powers on hearing

(7) Upon hearing an application under this section, the Ontario Municipal Board, or such other body as may be prescribed by

regulation, may confirm or vary the apportionment of the capital costs by the authority among the participating

municipalities.

277


Decision final

(8) A decision under subsection (7) is final.

24. (1) Before proceeding with a project, the authority shall file plans and a description with the Minister and obtain his or her approval in writing. 1996, c. 32, s. 66 (1).

(2) REPEALED: 1996, c. 32, s. 66 (1).

Notice re raising of portion of cost

(3) When the statement of apportionment of the cost of any project requires a municipality to raise any portion of the cost in a subsequent year or years, the council shall, within thirty days after it receives the notice of apportionment, notify the authority in writing whether the portion of the cost will be provided by the issue of debentures or raised by taxation in the subsequent year or years. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 24 (3).

Time for notice where apportionment under review

(4) When a municipal council has, in accordance with subsection 25 (2), notified the secretary of the Ontario Municipal Board that it is dissatisfied with any apportionment, the time allowed for notifying the authority under subsection (3) shall be reckoned from the date of the order confirming or varying the apportionment. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 24 (4).

(5) REPEALED: 1996, c. 32, s. 66 (2).

Approval of works on lakes or rivers

(6) Despite the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, a project for the construction of dams or other works on a lake or river that has been approved under this section does not require approval under that Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 24 (6).

Application

(7) This section does not apply to a project unless the project involves money granted by the Minister under section 39. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 46.

Apportionment of benefit

25. (1) When an authority has determined the proportion of the total benefit of any project afforded to all the participating municipalities that is afforded to each of them, it shall cause a notice containing a statement of the apportionment to be sent to the council of each participating municipality by registered mail. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 25 (1).

Review of apportionment by O.M.B.

(2) Any municipal council that is dissatisfied with any apportionment may, within thirty days after it receives notice of the apportionment, notify the secretary of the Ontario Municipal Board and the authority in writing by registered mail that it applies for a review of the apportionment by the Ontario Municipal Board. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 25 (2).

Hearing

(3) Upon application, the Ontario Municipal Board shall fix a date for the hearing of all interested parties and shall give all necessary directions for the hearing. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 25 (3).

Powers of O.M.B. on hearing

(4) The Ontario Municipal Board has authority to take evidence, to confirm or vary the apportionment of the authority and to fix and award costs, and its decision is final and conclusive and is not open to appeal. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 25 (4).

Variation of apportionment

(5) In the event of the authority varying any apportionment made by it, this section applies with necessary modifications. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 25 (5).

Determination of capital expenditure

26. (1) An authority may, from time to time, determine what money will be required for capital expenditure in connection with any project. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 26 (1).

Portion to be raised by participating municipalities

(2) The portion of the money so required that each participating municipality shall raise shall be in the same proportion as the benefit derived by each such municipality bears to the total benefit derived by all participating municipalities. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 26 (2).

278


How money to be raised

(3) Upon notice in writing of the amount required to be raised, signed by the secretary-treasurer of the authority, each participating municipality shall raise by the issue of debentures or otherwise such money as may be required by the authority for capital expenditure. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 26 (3); 1996, c. 32, s. 66 (3).

Enforcement of payment

(4) Subject to subsection (3), an authority may enforce payment against any participating municipality of the portion of the capital cost required to be raised by the municipality as a debt due by the municipality to the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 26 (4).

Where only part of municipality in area

(5) Where only a part of a participating municipality is situated in the area over which the authority has jurisdiction, the portion of the money required to be raised by that municipality for capital expenditure may be charged only against the rateable property in that part of the municipality. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 26 (5).

(6) REPEALED: 1994, c. 27, s. 127.

Maintenance and administration costs

27. (1) REPEALED: 1997, c. 29, s. 54 (1). Apportionment of maintenance costs Recovery of operating expenses

27 (1) Every year an authority shall determine its operating expenses for the subsequent year and apportion those expenses to

the participating municipalities in accordance with the regulations.

Fixed portion for some municipalities

(2) Despite subsection (1) and subject to the regulations, an authority may establish a fixed minimal amount as the portion of

the authority’s operating expenses that a participating municipality is required to pay each year, and may apportion that

amount to the municipality instead of the portion determined under subsection (1) in any year in which the fixed minimal

amount exceeds the portion determined under subsection (1).


(3) An authority shall send a notice of apportionment in writing to each participating municipality setting out the amount of

the operating expenses that has been apportioned to the participating municipality.

Collection as taxes

(4) Each participating municipality shall collect the amount apportioned to it in the same manner as municipal taxes for

general purposes and shall remit the amount collected to the authority.

Debt due

(5) The amount of the portion of the operating expenses specified in a notice of apportionment sent to a participating

municipality is a debt due by the participating municipality to the authority and may be enforced by the authority as such.

45

Review of apportionment of operating expenses

27.1 (1) Any participating municipality that receives a notice of apportionment under section 27 may, within 30 days of

receiving the notice, apply to the Mining and Lands Commissioner, or to such other body as may be prescribed by regulation,

for a review of the apportionment of the operating expenses.

Same

(2) The participating municipality that makes an application under subsection (1) shall send a copy of the notice of

application to the authority and to every other participating municipality of the authority.

Hearing

(3) The Mining and Lands Commissioner, or such other body as may be prescribed by regulation, shall hold a hearing to

reconsider the apportionment of the operating expenses, including considering whether the apportionment complies with

section 27 and the regulations and whether the portion apportioned to the municipality is otherwise appropriate.

Parties

(4) The parties to the hearing are the applicant municipality, the authority, any other participating municipality of the

authority that requests to be a party and such other persons as the Mining and Lands Commissioner, or such other body as

may be prescribed by regulation, may determine.

No stay

(5) The appellant municipality shall comply with the notice of apportionment pending the determination of the application.

Powers on hearing

279


(6) Upon hearing an application under this section, the Mining and Lands Commissioner, or such other body as may be

prescribed by regulation, may confirm or vary the apportionment of the operating expenses by the authority among the

participating municipalities and may order participating municipalities to pay such portion of the operating expenses as it

determines.

Decision final

(7) A decision under subsection (6) is final.

(2) Subject to the regulations made under subsection (16), after determining the approximate maintenance costs for the succeeding year, the authority shall apportion the costs to the participating municipalities according to the benefit derived or to be derived by each municipality, and the amount apportioned to each such municipality shall be levied against the municipality. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 27 (2); 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (1).

Apportionment of administration costs

(3) Subject to the regulations made under subsection (16), after determining the approximate administration costs for the succeeding year, the authority shall apportion the costs to the participating municipalities and the amount apportioned to each such municipality shall be levied against the municipality. 1997, c. 29, s. 54 (2).

Minimum levy for administration costs

(4) Subject to the regulations made under subsection (16), an authority may establish a minimum sum that may be levied for administration costs by the authority against a participating municipality, and, where the amount apportioned to any municipality under subsection (3) is less than the minimum sum, the authority may levy the minimum sum against the municipality. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 27 (4); 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (3).


(5) The secretary-treasurer of the authority, forthwith after the amounts have been apportioned under subsections (2), (3) and (4), shall certify to the clerk of each participating municipality the total amount that has been levied under those subsections, and the amount shall be collected by the municipality in the same manner as municipal taxes for general purposes. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 27 (5).

Levy where only part of municipality in area

(6) Where only a part of a participating municipality is situated in the area over which the authority has jurisdiction, the amount apportioned to that municipality may be charged only against the rateable property in that part of the municipality and shall be collected in the same manner as municipal taxes for general purposes. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 27 (6).

Enforcement of payment

(7) An authority may enforce payment against any participating municipality of any portion of the maintenance costs or administration costs levied against the municipality as a debt due by the municipality to the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 27 (7).

Appeal

(8) A municipality against which a levy is made under this section may appeal the levy to the Mining and Lands Commissioner appointed under the Ministry of Natural Resources Act. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4).

Time for appeal

(9) The appeal must be commenced within 30 days after the municipality receives notice of the levy from the authority. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4).

Parties

(10) The parties to the appeal are the municipality, the authority and any other person added as a party by the Commissioner. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4).

Compliance pending determination

(11) The municipality shall comply with the levy pending the determination of the appeal. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4).

Matters to be considered at hearing

(12) The Commissioner shall hold a hearing on the appeal and shall consider,

(a) whether the levy complies with this section and the regulations made under subsection (16); and

280


(b) whether the levy is otherwise appropriate. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4).

Powers of Commissioner

(13) The Commissioner may, by order, confirm, rescind or vary the amount of the levy and may order the authority or the municipality to pay any amount owing as a result. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4).

No appeal

(14) No appeal lies from the decision of the Commissioner. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4).

When subss. (8-14) begin to apply

(15) Subsections (8) to (14) do not apply until the first regulation made under subsection (16) comes into force. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4).

Regulations re levies

(16) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations governing the nature and amount of the levies made by authorities under this section, including regulations that restrict or prohibit the making of levies described in the regulations. 1996, c. 1, Sched. M, s. 47 (4).

Regulations by authority re area under its jurisdiction

Prohibited activities re watercourses, wetlands, etc.

28 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) and section 28.1, no person shall carry on the following activities, or permit another

person to carry on the following activities, in the area of jurisdiction of an authority:

1. Activities to straighten, change, divert or interfere in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or

watercourse or to change or interfere in any way with a wetland.

2. Development activities in areas that are within the authority’s area of jurisdiction and are,

i. hazardous lands,

ii. wetlands,

iii. river or stream valleys the limits of which shall be determined in accordance with the regulations,

iv. areas that are adjacent or close to the shoreline of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System or to an inland lake

and that may be affected by flooding, erosion or dynamic beach hazards, such areas to be further determined or

specified in accordance with the regulations, or

v. other areas in which development should be prohibited or regulated, as may be determined by the regulations.

Exception, aggregates

(2) The prohibitions in subsection (1) do not apply to an activity approved under the Aggregate Resources Act after

December 18, 1998, the date the Red Tape Reduction Act, 1998 received Royal Assent.

Same, prescribed activities

(3) The prohibitions in subsection (1) do not apply to an activity or a type of activity that is prescribed by regulation and is

carried out in accordance with the regulations.

Same, prescribed areas

(4) The prohibitions in subsection (1) do not apply to any activity described in that subsection if it is carried out,

(a) in an area that is within an authority’s area of jurisdiction and specified in the regulations; and

(b) in accordance with any conditions specified in the regulations.

Definitions

(5) In this section,

“development activity” means a development activity as defined by regulation; (“activité d’aménagement”)

“hazardous land” means hazardous land as defined by regulation; (“terrain dangereux”)

“watercourse” means a watercourse as defined by regulation; (“cours d’eau”)

“wetland” means a wetland as defined by regulation. (“terre marécageuse”)

Permits

28.1 (1) An authority may issue a permit to a person to engage in an activity specified in the permit that would otherwise be

prohibited by section 28.

Application for permit

(2) A person who wishes to engage in an activity that is prohibited under section 28 in an area situated in the jurisdiction of

an authority may apply to the authority for a permit under this section.

Same

281


(3) An application for a permit shall be made in accordance with the regulations and include such information as is required

by regulation.

Power to refuse, etc.

(4) Subject to subsection (5), the authority may attach conditions to a permit or refuse to issue a permit if, in the authority’s

opinion,

(a) the activity is likely to create conditions or circumstances that, in the event of a natural hazard, might jeopardize the

health or safety of persons or result in the damage or destruction of property;

(b) the activity is likely to affect the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of

land; or

(c) any circumstances as may be prescribed by regulation exist.

Hearing

(5) An authority shall not refuse an application for a permit or attach conditions to a permit unless the applicant for the

permit has been given an opportunity to be heard by the authority.

Additional criteria, renewable energy projects

(6) Despite subsection (4), in the case of an application for a permit to engage in development related to a renewable energy

project as defined in subsection 1 (1) of the Green Energy Act, 2009,

(a) the authority shall not refuse the permit unless it is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so to control pollution,

flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches; and

(b) the authority shall not impose conditions on the permit unless the conditions relate to controlling pollution, flooding,

erosion or dynamic beaches.

Reasons for decision

(7) If the authority, after holding a hearing, refuses a permit or issues the permit subject to conditions, the authority shall

give the applicant written reasons for the decision.

Appeal

(8) An applicant who has been refused a permit or who objects to conditions imposed on a permit may, within 30 days of

receiving the reasons under subsection (7), appeal to the Minister who may,

(a) refuse the permit; or

(b) order the authority to issue the permit, with or without conditions.

Definition


“pollution” means pollution as defined by regulation.

Period of validity

28.2 A permit shall be valid for a period to be determined in accordance with the regulations.

Cancellation of permits

28.3 (1) An authority may cancel a permit issued under section 28.1 if it is of the opinion that the conditions of the permit

have not been met or that the circumstances that are prescribed by regulation exist.

Notice

(2) Before cancelling a permit, an authority shall give a notice of intent to cancel to the permit holder indicating that the

permit will be cancelled on a date specified in the notice unless the holder requests a hearing under subsection (3).

Request for hearing

(3) Within 15 days of receiving a notice of intent to cancel a permit from the authority, the permit holder may submit a

written request for a hearing to the authority.

Hearing

(4) The authority shall set a date for the hearing and hold the hearing within a reasonable time after receiving a request for a

hearing.

Power

(5) After a hearing, the authority may confirm, rescind or vary the decision to cancel a permit.

Delegation of power

28.4 An authority may delegate any of its powers relating to the issuance or cancellation of permits under this Act or the

regulations, or to the holding of hearings in relation to the permits, to the authority’s executive committee or to any other

person or body, subject to any limitations or requirements that may be prescribed by regulation.


Regulations: activities affecting natural resources

28.5 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations with respect to activities that may impact the

282


conservation, restoration, development or management of natural resources and that may be carried out in the areas of

jurisdiction of authorities, including regulations,

(a) identifying activities that have or may have an impact on the conservation, restoration, development or management of

natural resources for the purposes of the regulation;

(b) regulating those activities;

(c) prohibiting those activities or requiring that a person obtain a permit from the relevant authority to engage in the

activities in the authority’s area of jurisdiction.

Same

(2) A regulation under clause (1) (c) that requires that a person obtain a permit from the relevant authority to engage in an

activity described in subsection (1) may,

(a) provide for applications to be made to an authority for the permit and specify the manner, content and form of the

application;

(b) provide for the issuance, expiration, renewal and cancellation of a permit;

(c) require hearings in relation to any matter referred to in clauses (a) and (b) and specify the person before whom, or the

body before which, the matter shall be heard, provide for notices and other procedural matters relating to the hearing

and provide for an appeal from any decision.

Same

(3) A regulation made under this section may be limited in its application to one or more authorities or activities.

28. (1) Subject to the approval of the Minister, an authority may make regulations applicable in the area under its jurisdiction,

(a) restricting and regulating the use of water in or from rivers, streams, inland lakes, ponds, wetlands and natural or artificially constructed depressions in rivers or streams;

(b) prohibiting, regulating or requiring the permission of the authority for straightening, changing, diverting or interfering in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse, or for changing or interfering in any way with a wetland;

(c) prohibiting, regulating or requiring the permission of the authority for development if, in the opinion of the authority, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by the development;

(d) providing for the appointment of officers to enforce any regulation made under this section or section 29;

(e) providing for the appointment of persons to act as officers with all of the powers and duties of officers to enforce any regulation made under this section. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Delegation of powers

(2) A regulation made under subsection (1) may delegate any of the authority’s powers or duties under the regulation to the authority’s executive committee or to any other person or body, subject to any limitations and requirements that may be set out in the regulation. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Conditional permission

(3) A regulation made under clause (1) (b) or (c) may provide for permission to be granted subject to conditions and for the cancellation of the permission if conditions are not met. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

References to maps

(4) A regulation made under subsection (1) may refer to any area affected by the regulation by reference to one or more maps that are filed at the head office of the authority and are available for public review during normal office business hours. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Minister’s approval of development regulations

(5) The Minister shall not approve a regulation made under clause (1) (c) unless the regulation applies only to areas that are,

(a) adjacent or close to the shoreline of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System or to inland lakes that may be affected by flooding, erosion or dynamic beach hazards;

(b) river or stream valleys;

283


(c) hazardous lands;

(d) wetlands; or

(e) other areas where, in the opinion of the Minister, development should be prohibited or regulated or should require the permission of the authority. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Regulations by L.G. in C. governing content of authority’s regulations

(6) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations governing the content of regulations made by authorities under subsection (1), including flood event standards and other standards that may be used, and setting out what must be included or excluded from regulations made by authorities under subsection (1). 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Invalid regulation

(7) A regulation made by an authority under subsection (1) that does not conform with the requirements of a regulation made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under subsection (6) is not valid. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Transition

(8) Subject to subsection (9), if a regulation is made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under subsection (6), subsection (7) does not apply to a regulation that was previously made by an authority under subsection (1) until two years after the regulation made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council comes into force. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Same

(9) If a regulation made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under subsection (6) is amended by an amending regulation, subsection (7) does not apply, in respect of the amendment, to a regulation that was made by an authority under subsection (1) before the amending regulation, until such time as may be specified in the amending regulation. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Exceptions

(10) No regulation made under subsection (1),

(a) shall limit the use of water for domestic or livestock purposes;

(b) shall interfere with any rights or powers conferred upon a municipality in respect of the use of water for municipal purposes;

(c) shall interfere with any rights or powers of any board or commission that is performing its functions for or on behalf of the Government of Ontario; or

(d) shall interfere with any rights or powers under the Electricity Act, 1998 or the Public Utilities Act. 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (8); 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Activities under the Aggregate Resources Act

(11) A requirement for permission of an authority in a regulation made under clause (1) (b) or (c) does not apply to an activity approved under the Aggregate Resources Act after the Red Tape Reduction Act, 1998 received Royal Assent. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Right to hearing

(12) Permission required under a regulation made under clause (1) (b) or (c) shall not be refused or granted subject to conditions unless the person requesting the permission has been given the opportunity to require a hearing before the authority or, if the authority so directs, before the authority’s executive committee. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Powers of authority

(13) After holding a hearing under subsection (12), the authority or executive committee, as the case may be, shall,

(a) refuse the permission; or

(b) grant the permission, with or without conditions. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Grounds for refusing permission

(13.1) If the permission that the person requests is for development related to a renewable energy project, as defined in section 1 of the Green Energy Act, 2009, the authority or executive committee, as the case may be,

284


(a) shall not refuse the permission unless it is necessary to do so to control pollution, flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches; and

(b) shall not impose conditions unless they relate to controlling pollution, flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches. 2009, c. 12, Sched. L, s. 2.


(14) If the authority or its executive committee, after holding a hearing, refuses permission or grants permission subject to conditions, the authority or executive committee, as the case may be, shall give the person who requested permission written reasons for the decision. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Appeal

(15) A person who has been refused permission or who objects to conditions imposed on a permission may, within 30 days of receiving the reasons under subsection (14), appeal to the Minister who may,

(a) refuse the permission; or

(b) grant the permission, with or without conditions. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Offence: contravening regulation

(16) Every person who contravenes a regulation made under subsection (1) or the terms and conditions of a permission of an authority in a regulation made under clause (1) (b) or (c) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to a term of imprisonment of not more than three months. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12; 2010, c. 16, Sched. 10, s. 1 (2).

Limitation for proceeding

(16.1) A proceeding with respect to an offence under subsection (16) shall not be commenced more than two years from the earliest of the day on which evidence of the offence is discovered or first comes to the attention of officers appointed under clause (1) (d) or persons appointed under clause (1) (e). 2010, c. 16, Sched. 10, s. 1 (3).

Orders

(17) In addition to any other remedy or penalty provided by law, the court, upon making a conviction under subsection (16), may order the person convicted to,

(a) remove, at that person’s expense, any development within such reasonable time as the court orders; and

(b) rehabilitate any watercourse or wetland in the manner and within the time the court orders. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Non-compliance with order

(18) If a person does not comply with an order made under subsection (17), the authority having jurisdiction may, in the case of a development, have it removed and, in the case of a watercourse or wetland, have it rehabilitated. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Liability for certain costs

(19) The person convicted is liable for the cost of a removal or rehabilitation under subsection (18) and the amount is recoverable by the authority by action in a court of competent jurisdiction. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Powers of entry

(20) An authority or an officer appointed under a regulation made under clause (1) (d) or (e) may enter private property, other than a dwelling or building, without the consent of the owner or occupier and without a warrant, if,

(a) the entry is for the purpose of considering a request related to the property for permission that is required by a regulation made under clause (1) (b) or (c); or

(b) the entry is for the purpose of enforcing a regulation made under clause (1) (a), (b) or (c) and the authority or officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a contravention of the regulation is causing or is likely to cause significant environmental damage and that the entry is required to prevent or reduce the damage. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

285


Time of entry

(21) Subject to subsection (22), the power to enter property under subsection (20) may be exercised at any reasonable time. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Notice of entry

(22) The power to enter property under subsection (20) shall not be exercised unless,

(a) the authority or officer has given reasonable notice of the entry to the owner of the property and, if the occupier of the property is not the owner, to the occupier of the property; or

(b) the authority or officer has reasonable grounds to believe that significant environmental damage is likely to be caused during the time that would be required to give notice under clause (a). 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

No use of force

(23) Subsection (20) does not authorize the use of force. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Offence: obstruction

(24) Any person who prevents or obstructs an authority or officer from entering property under subsection (20) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Definitions


“development” means,

(a) the construction, reconstruction, erection or placing of a building or structure of any kind,

(b) any change to a building or structure that would have the effect of altering the use or potential use of the building or structure, increasing the size of the building or structure or increasing the number of dwelling units in the building or structure,

(c) site grading, or

(d) the temporary or permanent placing, dumping or removal of any material, originating on the site or elsewhere; (“aménagement”)

“hazardous land” means land that could be unsafe for development because of naturally occurring processes associated with flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or unstable soil or bedrock; (“terrain dangereux”)

“pollution” means any deleterious physical substance or other contaminant that has the potential to be generated by development in an area to which a regulation made under clause (1) (c) applies; (“pollution”)

“watercourse” means an identifiable depression in the ground in which a flow of water regularly or continuously occurs; (“cours d’eau”)

“wetland” means land that,

(a) is seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water or has a water table close to or at its surface,

(b) directly contributes to the hydrological function of a watershed through connection with a surface watercourse,

(c) has hydric soils, the formation of which has been caused by the presence of abundant water, and

(d) has vegetation dominated by hydrophytic plants or water tolerant plants, the dominance of which has been favoured by the presence of abundant water,

but does not include periodically soaked or wet land that is used for agricultural purposes and no longer exhibits a wetland characteristic referred to in clause (c) or (d). (“terre marécageuse”) 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

Transition

(26) A regulation that was in force immediately before the day the Red Tape Reduction Act, 1998 received Royal Assent and that was lawfully made under clause (1) (e) or (f) of this section as it read immediately before that day shall be deemed to have been lawfully made under clause (1) (c). 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 12.

286


Regulations by authority re lands owned by it

29. (1) An authority may make regulations applicable to lands owned by the authority, (1) The Minister may make regulations with respect to land and other property owned by authorities including regulations

(a) regulating and governing the use by the public of the lands and the works, vehicles, boats, services and things of the authority;

(b) providing for the protection and preservation from damage of the property of the authority;

(c) prescribing fees for the occupation and use of lands and works, vehicles, boats, recreational facilities and services;

(d) prescribing permits designating privileges in connection with use of the lands or any part thereof and prescribing fees for permits;

(e) regulating and governing vehicular and pedestrian traffic and prohibiting the use of any class of vehicle or classes of vehicles;

(f) prohibiting or regulating and governing the erection, posting up or other display of notices, signs, sign boards and other advertising devices;

(g) prescribing terms and conditions under which horses, dogs and other animals may be allowed on the lands or any part thereof;

(h) subject to the Forest Fires Prevention Act and the regulations made thereunder, prohibiting or regulating and governing the use, setting and extinguishment of fires. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 29 (1); 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 13 (1).

Regulations by L.G. in C. governing content of authority’s regulations

(1.1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations governing the content of regulations made under subsection (1), including the standards that may be used, and setting out what must be included or excluded from regulations made under subsection (1). 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 13 (2).

(2) A regulation made under this section may be limited in its application to one or more authorities.

Invalid regulation

(1.2) A regulation made under subsection (1) that does not conform with the requirements of a regulation made under subsection (1.1) is not valid unless it has been approved by the Minister. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 13 (2).

Offence: contravening regulation

(2) Every person who contravenes any regulation made under this section is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $1,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 29 (2); 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 13 (3).

Regulations by authority: mandatory regulations

30. (1) Subject to the approval of the Minister, an authority shall make regulations,

(a) providing for the calling of meetings of the authority and prescribing the procedure at those meetings;

(b) prescribing the powers and duties of the secretary-treasurer;

(c) designating and empowering officers to sign contracts, agreements and other documents on behalf of the authority; and

(d) delegating all or any of its powers to the executive committee except,

(i) the termination of the services of the secretary-treasurer,

(ii) the power to raise money, and

(iii) the power to enter into contracts or agreements other than those contracts or agreements as are necessarily incidental to the works approved by the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 30 (1).

Time for making regulations

(2) Every authority shall make regulations under subsection (1) within one year after its establishment. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 30 (2).

Legislation Act, 2006

(3) Part III (Regulations) of the Legislation Act, 2006 does not apply to regulations made under this section. 2006, c. 21, Sched. F, s. 105.

287


Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y)

2006, c. 21, Sched. F, s. 105 - 25/07/2007

Restriction on entry

Appointment of officers

30 An authority may appoint officers for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the Act and the regulations.

Entry without warrant

30.1 (1) An officer appointed by an authority under section 30 may, subject to subsections (2) and (3), enter any land

situated in the authority’s area of jurisdiction for the purposes of determining compliance with subsection 28 (1), a regulation

made under subsection 28 (3) or section 28.5 or with the conditions of a permit issued under section 28.1 or under a

regulation made under clause 28.5 (1) (c).

No entry to buildings

(2) The power to enter land under subsection (1) does not authorize the entry into a dwelling or other building situated on the

land.

Time of entry

(3) The power to enter land under subsection (1) may be exercised at any reasonable time.

Power upon entry

(4) An officer who enters land under subsection (1) may do any of the following things:

1. Inspect any thing that is relevant to the inspection.

2. Conduct any tests, take any measurements, take any specimens or samples, set up any equipment and make any

photographic or other records that may be relevant to the inspection.

3. Ask any questions that are relevant to the inspection to the occupant of the land.

No use of force

(5) Subsection (1) does not authorize the use of force.

Experts, etc.

(6) An officer who enters land under this section may be accompanied and assisted by any person with such knowledge,

skills or expertise as may be required for the purposes of the inspection.

Searches

Search with warrant

30.2 (1) An officer may obtain a search warrant under Part VIII of the Provincial Offences Act in respect of an offence

under this Act.

Assistance

(2) The search warrant may authorize any person specified in the warrant to accompany and assist the officer in the

execution of the warrant.

Search without warrant

(3) If an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that there is something on land that will afford evidence of an offence

under this Act but that the time required to obtain a warrant would lead to the loss, removal or destruction of the evidence,

the officer may, without warrant, enter and search the land.

No entry to buildings

(4) The power to enter land under subsection (3) does not authorize the entry into a dwelling or other building situated on the

land.

Stop order

30.3 (1) An officer appointed under section 30 may make an order requiring a person to stop engaging in or not to engage in

an activity if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is engaging in the activity, has engaged in the

activity or is about to engage in the activity and, as a result, is contravening,

(a) subsection 28 (1) or a regulation made under subsection 28 (3) or under section 28.5; or

(b) the conditions of a permit that was issued under section 28.1 or under a regulation made under clause 28.5 (1) (c).

Information to be included in order

(2) The order shall,

(a) specify the provision that the officer believes is being, has been or is about to be contravened;

(b) briefly describe the nature of the contravention and its location; and

(c) state that a hearing on the order may be requested in accordance with this section.

Service of order

288

http://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/S06021#schedfs105


(3) An order under this section shall be served personally or by registered mail addressed to the person against whom the

order is made at the person’s last known address.

Registered mail

(4) An order served by registered mail shall be deemed to have been served on the fifth day after the day of mailing, unless

the person served establishes that the person did not, acting in good faith, through absence, accident, illness or other cause

beyond the person’s control, receive the order until a later date.

Effective date

(5) An order under this section takes effect when it is served, or at such later time as is specified in the order.

Right to hearing

(6) A person who is served with an order under this section may request a hearing before the authority or, if the authority so

directs, before the authority’s executive committee, by mailing or delivering to the authority, within 30 days after service of

the order, a written request for a hearing that includes a statement of the reasons for requesting the hearing.

Powers of authority

(7) After holding a hearing, the authority or executive committee, as the case may be, shall,

(a) confirm the order;

(b) amend the order; or

(c) remove the order, with or without conditions.


(8) The authority or executive committee, as the case may be, shall give the person who requested the hearing written

reasons for the decision.

Appeal

(9) Within 30 days after receiving the reasons mentioned in subsection (8), the person who requested the hearing may appeal

to the Minister and, after reviewing the submissions, the Minister may,

(a) confirm the order;

(b) amend the order; or

(c) remove the order, with or without conditions.

Offences

30.4 (1) Every person is guilty of an offence if he or she contravenes,

(a) subsection 28 (1) or a regulation made under subsection 28 (3) or under section 28.5;

(b) the conditions of a permit that was issued under section 28.1 or under a regulation made under clause 28.5 (1) (c); or

(c) a stop order issued under section 30.3.

Penalty

(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on conviction,

(a) in the case of an individual,

(i) to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to a term of imprisonment of not more than three months, or to both, and

(ii) to an additional fine of not more than $10,000 for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or

continues; and

(b) in the case of a corporation,

(i) to a fine of not more than $1,000,000, and

(ii) to an additional fine of not more than $200,000 for each day or part of a day on which the offence occurs or

continues.

Monetary benefit

(3) Despite the maximum fines set out in clauses (2) (a) and (b), a court that convicts a person of an offence under clause (1)

(a) or (b) may increase the fine it imposes on the person by an amount equal to the amount of the monetary benefit that was

acquired by the person, or that accrued to the person, as a result of the commission of the offence.

Contravening s. 29 regulations

(4) Every person who contravenes a regulation made under section 29 is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a

fine of not more than $1,000.

Obstruction of officer

(5) Every person who prevents or obstructs an officer from entering land under section 30.1 or 30.2 is guilty of an offence

and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000.

Limitation period

30.5 A proceeding shall not be commenced with respect to an offence under subsection 30.4 (1), (4) or (5) more than two

years after the day on which the offence first comes to the attention of an officer appointed under section 30.

289


Rehabilitation orders

30.6 (1) In addition to any other remedy or penalty provided by law, the court, upon convicting a person of an offence under

clause 30.4 (1) (a) or (b), may order the convicted person to,

(a) remove, at the convicted person’s expense, any development within such reasonable time as the court orders; and

(b) take such actions as the court directs, within the time the court may specify, to repair or rehabilitate the damage that

results from or is in any way connected to the commission of the offence.

Non-compliance with order

(2) If a person does not comply with an order made under subsection (1), the authority having jurisdiction may arrange for

any removal, repair or rehabilitation that was required of a person under subsection (1) to be carried out.

Liability for certain costs

(3) The person to whom an order is made under subsection (1) is liable for the cost of any removal, repair or rehabilitation

arranged by an authority under subsection (2), and the amount is recoverable by the authority by action in a court of

competent jurisdiction.

Restriction on entry

30.1 (1) An authority or an officer appointed under a regulation made under clause 28 (1) (d) or (e) shall not enter land without,

(a) the consent of the owner of the land and, if the occupier of the land is not the owner, the consent of the occupier of the land; or

(b) the authority of a warrant under the Provincial Offences Act. 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 14.

Exceptions

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to entry under clause 21 (1) (b) or subsection 28 (20). 1998, c. 18, Sched. I, s. 14.

Expropriation

31. The Expropriations Act applies where land is expropriated by an authority or where land is injuriously affected by an authority in the exercise of its statutory powers. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 31.

Restrictions on projects

Crown land affected

32. (1) Where any land required for the carrying out of a project or a part thereof is Crown land, a plan and description of the land prepared and signed by an Ontario land surveyor and signed by the chair or vice-chair of the authority shall be deposited with the Minister, and the project or the part thereof shall not be proceeded with until the authority has received the approval in writing of the Minister. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 32 (1).

Interference with public work

(2) Where a project or a part thereof may interfere with a public work of Ontario, the authority shall file with the Minister of Infrastructure a plan and description of the project or a part thereof together with a statement of the interference with the public work that may occur and a statement of the manner in which the authority proposes to remedy the interference, and the project or the part thereof shall not be proceeded with until the authority has received the approval in writing of the Minister of Infrastructure. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 32 (2); 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (3); 2011, c. 9, Sched. 27, s. 22.

Interference with highway

(3) Where a project or a part thereof will interfere with a public road or highway, the authority shall file with the Minister of Transportation a plan and description of the project or a part thereof together with a statement of the interference with the public road or highway that will occur and a statement of the manner in which the authority proposes to remedy the interference, and the project or the part thereof shall not be proceeded with until the authority has received the approval in writing of the Minister of Transportation. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 32 (3).

Costs, how to be borne

(4) The cost of rebuilding any road, highway, bridge, public work or any part thereof and the cost of any other work that any of the Ministers of the Crown may require to be done under this section shall be borne by the authority, except where an agreement providing for payment thereof in some other manner has been entered into with the Crown in right of Ontario. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 32 (4); 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (4).

290


Assessment of lands of authority

33 (1) Land vested in an authority, except works erected by an authority for the purposes of a project, is taxable for municipal purposes by levy under section 312 of the Municipal Act, 2001 or section 277 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, as the case may be, upon the assessment and classification of such land determined in each year by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and the land shall be assessed under the Assessment Act as if the works erected by the authority on the land had not been erected. 1997, c. 5, s. 64 (1); 1997, c. 43, Sched. G, s. 19; 2001, c. 8, s. 203; 2002, c. 17, Sched. F, Table; 2006, c. 32, Sched. C, s. 8.

Assessment of rented property

(2) Despite subsection (1), section 18 of the Assessment Act applies with necessary modifications in respect of lands vested in an authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 33 (2).

Notice

(3) The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation shall deliver or mail to each authority concerned and to the clerk of each municipality in which any of the land is situated a notice setting out the assessment and the classification of the land in the municipality. 1997, c. 5, s. 64 (2); 1997, c. 43, Sched. G, s. 19; 2001, c. 8, s. 203.

Reconsideration under Assessment Act

(4) The authority may request a reconsideration under section 39.1 of the Assessment Act. 1997, c. 5, s. 64 (3).

Complaint to the Assessment Review Board

(5) The authority or the municipality may appeal to the Assessment Review Board under section 40 of the Assessment Act and the last day for appealing is the day that is 90 days after the authority or the clerk of the municipality, as applicable, is notified. 2008, c. 7, Sched. A, s. 19.

Assessment Act to apply

(6) The Assessment Act applies, with necessary modifications, with respect to a request for a reconsideration or an appeal. 2008, c. 7, Sched. A, s. 19.

(7) REPEALED: 1997, c. 5, s. 64 (3).

Assessment for next year’s taxation

(8) The assessment of land under subsection (1) shall be determined by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation in each year for the purpose of taxation in the following year. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 33 (8); 1997, c. 5, s. 64 (4); 1997, c. 43, Sched. G, s. 19; 2001, c. 8, s. 203.

Cemetery lands

34. (1) Where the carrying out of a project will require the use of a cemetery or other place of interment of human remains, the authority shall acquire other suitable lands for the interment of the bodies contained in the cemetery or other place of interment. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 34 (1).

Notice to plot owners

(2) The authority shall forward a notice to the owner of each lot in the cemetery or other place of interment, but, if the owner or the owner’s whereabouts is unknown, the notice shall, wherever possible, be forwarded to some other person having an interest in the plot through relationship or otherwise to a deceased person buried therein. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 34 (2).

Publication of notice

(3) The authority shall also cause a notice to be published once a week for at least three weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the locality where the cemetery or other place of interment is located, which notice shall state,

(a) that the cemetery or other place of interment has been acquired for the purposes of the authority;

(b) that other land, describing it, has been acquired by the authority for the purpose of reinterring the bodies;

(c) that the authority will at its own expense proceed to remove the bodies from the cemetery or other place of interment to the lands acquired for reinterment at a time not less than one month after the forwarding or third publication of the notice, whichever is the later date; and

291


(d) that the owner of any plot in the cemetery or other place of interment, or any other person with the approval of the authority, may cause any body interred in the cemetery or other place of interment to be removed to any other place of interment at the expense of the owner or person if the owner or person obtains permission from the authority and effects the removal within one month from the forwarding or insertion of the notice, whichever is the later date, or before such later date as the authority determines. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 34 (3).

Removal of bodies

(4) The authority has full power to cause the removal of any body from the cemetery or place of interment to any lands acquired under subsection (1) despite any other Act and to authorize the removal by any other person of the body for reinterment in any other cemetery or place of interment. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 34 (4).

Removal of headstones

(5) Where a body is removed and reinterred, any headstone or other stone shall be removed and re-erected at the place of reinterment. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 34 (5).

Conveyance of lands for reinterment

(6) The authority shall render land, including fences and buildings, acquired for the reinterment of bodies, in a fit and proper condition and shall convey the land to the owner of the cemetery or other place of interment from which the bodies were removed. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 34 (6).

Right to use water power

35. (1) The authority has the right to use any water power created upon lands vested in it for its own uses. 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (5).

Restriction on sale

(2) REPEALED: 2006, c. 3, Sched. D, s. 1.

Obligation to pay

(3) Any person using water power created upon authority lands shall pay to the authority an annual reasonable compensation for the use of the water power. 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (5).

Arbitration

(3.1) Where the authority and a person described in subsection (3) are unable to agree on the amount of the annual compensation, the matter shall be arbitrated under the Arbitration Act, 1991. 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (5).

Charge for power

(4) Subject to review by the Minister of Natural Resources, an authority shall charge persons who at the time of the establishment of the authority are, or thereafter become, users of power derived by them from the use of the waters of the watershed for any additional power generated from increased head or flow due to the works undertaken by the authority. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 35 (4); 1998, c. 15, Sched. E, s. 3 (6).

When section not to apply

(5) This section does not apply to water power reserved to the Crown under the Public Lands Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 35 (5).

Assent of electors not necessary

36. Where by this Act any power is conferred or duty imposed upon a municipality, or the council of a municipality, including a power or duty to raise money, the power may be exercised and the duty shall be performed by the council of the municipality without the assent of the electors. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 36.

Payment to and spending by authority

37. 37 All money that is paid to an authority for specified purposes under this Act may be spent by the authority as it

considers proper.

proper. All money required by this Act to be raised for the purposes of an authority shall be paid to the authority, and the authority may spend money as it considers proper, except that no salary, expenses or allowances of any kind shall be paid to any of the members of the authority without the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 37.

292


Annual audit

38 (1) Every authority shall cause its accounts and transactions to be audited annually by a person licensed under the Public Accounting Act, 2004. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (1); 2004, c. 8, s. 46.

Auditor

(2) No person shall be appointed as auditor of an authority who is or during the preceding year was a member of the authority or who has or during the preceding year had any direct or indirect interest in any contract or any employment with the authority other than for services within his or her professional capacity. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (2).

Auditor’s report

(3) An authority shall, upon receipt of the auditor’s report of the examination of its accounts and transactions, forthwith forward a copy of the report to each participating municipality and to the Minister. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 38 (3).

Grants

39. Grants may be made by the Minister to any authority out of the money appropriated therefor by the Legislature in accordance with such conditions and procedures as may be prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27, s. 39.

Regulations

40 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations defining any term that is used in this Act and that is not defined in this Act. 2010, c. 16, Sched. 10, s. 1 (4).

Regulations, Lieutenant Governor in Council

40 (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

(a) governing the composition of conservation authorities and prescribing additional requirements regarding the

appointment and qualifications of members of conservation authorities;

(b) governing advisory boards established under subsection 18 (2), including requiring authorities to establish one or more

advisory boards and prescribing requirements with respect to the composition, functions, powers, duties, activities and

procedures of any advisory board that is established;

(c) governing programs and services provided by authorities under paragraph 1 of subsection 21.1 (1), requiring

authorities to provide those programs and services and respecting standards and requirements applicable to those

programs and services;

(d) governing the apportionment of an authority’s capital costs in connection with a project for the purposes of section 25;

(e) governing reviews under sections 26 and 27.1, including prescribing a body that may conduct such reviews instead of

the Ontario Municipal Board or the Mining and Lands Commissioner, as the case may be;

(f) governing the apportionment of an authority’s operating expenses for the purposes of section 27, prescribing expenses

as operating expenses for the purposes of section 27, governing the amount that participating municipalities are

required to pay under section 27, including the fixed amount that a participating municipality may be required to pay

under subsection 27 (2), and restricting and prohibiting the apportionment of certain types of operating expenses;

(g) defining any term that is used in this Act and that is not defined in this Act;

(h) respecting anything that is necessary or advisable for the proper administration of this Act.

Same

(2) The standards and requirements established for programs and services in a regulation made under clause (1) (c) may

include standards and requirements to mitigate the impacts of climate change and provide for adaptation to a changing

climate, including through increasing resiliency.

Regulations, Minister

(3) The Minister may make regulations,

(a) prescribing matters that may be the subject of by-laws made under clause 19.1 (1) (j);

(b) respecting the amount of any fee that may be charged by an authority in relation to a program or service, including

determining the manner in which the fee is calculated;

(c) governing consultations that an authority must carry out for the purposes of subsection 21.1 (6);

(d) governing the information that authorities must provide to the Minister under section 23.1, including the publication of

that information;

(e) governing the prohibitions set out in section 28, including,

293


(i) prescribing the limits on river and stream valleys for the purposes of subparagraph 2 iii of subsection 28 (1),

(ii) determining or specifying areas for the purposes of subparagraph 2 iv of subsection 28 (1),

(iii) determining areas in which development should be prohibited or regulated for the purposes of subparagraph 2 v

of subsection 28 (1),

(iv) prescribing activities or types of activities to which the prohibitions set out in subsection 28 (1) do not apply and

respecting the manner or circumstances in which the activities or types of activities may be carried out and any

conditions or restrictions that apply to the activity or type of activity,

(v) prescribing areas in which the prohibitions set out in subsection 28 (1) do not apply and respecting the manner or

circumstances in which the activities may be carried out in such areas and any conditions or restrictions that

apply to carrying out activities in such areas,

(vi) defining “development activity”, “hazardous land”, “watercourse” and “wetland” for the purposes of section 28;

(f) governing the issuance of permits under section 28.1, including applications for the permits, prescribing conditions

that may be attached to a permit or circumstances in which a permit may be refused under subsection 28.1 (4) or

cancelled under section 28.3 and respecting the period for which a permit is valid;

(g) defining “pollution” for the purposes of the Act;

(h) governing the delegation of powers by an authority under section 28.4 and prescribing any limitations or requirements

related to the delegation.

(2) Clause 40 (1) (e) of the Act, as enacted by subsection (1), is amended by striking out “Mining and Lands

Commissioner” and substituting “Mining and Lands Tribunal”.


Rolling incorporations

41 A regulation made under this Act that adopts a document by reference may adopt the document as it may be amended

from time to time after the regulation is made.

Commencement

34 (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Schedule comes into force on the day it receives Royal Assent.

(2) Sections 2, 13 and 16, subsections 19 (3) and 20 (2) and sections 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 32 come into force on

a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.______________

294

Attachment 2 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS COMPARED TO PREVIOUS TRCA COMMENTS TRCA’s main recommendations to the Province in its September 9, 2016 comments are listed below with a corresponding response for each on if, and/or how, the recommendations are addressed in Schedule 4, Bill 139.

Maintain the broad mandate of conservation authorities as currently outlined in the Act, but in any changes to the Act, recognize, validate and strengthen the important and diverse role conservation authorities play as local implementation agents of provincial and municipal objectives.

Partially addressed. A purpose statement has been added to the Act that is similar to the existing broad “objects” of a CA currently in the Act (s. 20 (1)). The new purpose is broad so as to support and maintain CAs’ broad mandate. However, this achievement is tempered by CA programs and services being divided into three categories (new Section 21.1 (1)) with one category being mandatory, comprised of programs and services that will be required by regulation. Another positive is that these standards and requirements may include those for increasing resiliency to address climate change. Conserving our Future states on page 13: “The science-based, watershed management programs and services that conservation authorities provide will be increasingly required in the face of climate changes and the resulting vulnerabilities to biodiversity and natural resources in the province. The programs and services include those mandated by the Province, assigned by municipalities and developed by conservation authorities in response to local needs and priorities.”

Establish a collective administration of the Act by the MNRF, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) that coordinates through an inter-agency liaison body with conservation authorities and municipalities to strengthen the important relationships conservation authorities have with these and other provincial ministries.

Partially addressed. MNRF remains the sole administrator of the CA Act; however, Conserving Our Future states the intention of the Ministry to establish multi-ministry working groups to develop the regulations that would outline the requirements for the delivery of provincially mandatory programs and services of CAs. These regulations will be developed in consultation with municipalities, Indigenous communities, CAs, stakeholders and the public. As TRCA staff learns more about these working groups and the potential for municipal and CA participation, staff will keep the Authority informed.

Amend section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act to supply sufficient tools for compliance with conservation authorities’ development regulations.

Addressed. Enhanced compliance mechanisms have been added to the Act such as Stop Orders, Search without a Warrant, Orders to Comply and increased penalties for violations.

295

Establish a sustainable and equitable funding model that allows conservation authorities to optimize existing municipal funding and that provides the resources required to sustain the broad suite of conservation authority programs.

Partially addressed. Funding is not directly addressed by the amendments however MNRF has indicated that the multi-ministry working group will be tasked with exploring options for increasing provincial funding. Conserving Our Future states that the adequacy of funding existing provincially mandated programs and services, as well as any new ones that may be prescribed by the Province in regulation, will be assessed. Additionally, opportunities to access new funding envelopes to help finance conservation authority programs and services will be identified through this process

Support conservation authorities in continuing to strive for service excellence in all aspects of conservation authority programs and operations.

Partially addressed. The Province will be establishing a multi-stakeholder Service Delivery Review Committee tasked with advising the ministry on ways to improve the establishment, tracking and achievement of service delivery standards and other roles as assigned. The committee would serve to replace the former Conservation Authorities Liaison Committee previously established to support the development and implementation of the ministry’s “Policies and Procedures for CA Plan Review and Permitting Activities” (MNR 2010). TRCA supports undertaking the modernization of administrative processes to reflect current best practices. However, as regulations are to be created about the charging of CA fees, this process must recognize the significant differences between political climates, financial capacity, watershed conditions, land use profiles and overall, the complexity of the challenges faced within each CA’s jurisdiction. Therefore, TRCA will need to be engaged in this process, together with municipalities, to understand the funding implications to TRCA's programs and services.

296

Section I – Items for Authority Action RES.#A114/17 - 2016 A UDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Approval of Financial Statements. The 2016 audited financial statements

are recommended for approval. (Budget/Audit Res.#C7/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick THAT the transfer of funds from surplus to reserves in the amount of $2,030,000 as outlined below and reflected in Note 7, “Accumulated Surplus” to the financial statements (Attachment 1) be approved; AND FURTHER THAT the 2016 audited financial statements, as presented in Attachment 1 be approved, signed by the Chair and Secretary-Treasurer of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), and distributed to each member municipality and the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry, in accordance with subsection 38(3) of the Conservation Authorities Act. CARRIED

__________________________________

RES.#A115/17 - 2018 PRELIMINARY BUDGET Update on the recommended 2018 preliminary municipal budget

submissions. (Budget/Audit Res.#C8/17) Moved by: Linda Pabst Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) 2018 preliminary municipal capital budget submissions for the regions of Peel and York, and the City of Toronto be consistent with the targets identified for TRCA in the 2017 budget cycle and that the target for the Durham preliminary capital budget be set at 2.5% over 2017 funding levels; THAT preliminary operating levy targets be set at: Durham 2.5%, Toronto 2.5%, Region of Peel 3.2% and Region of York at 3.9%; THAT the list of unfunded municipal projects included in TRCA’s “Unmet Needs List” be submitted to the municipalities for their consideration in 2018; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to submit the preliminary 2018 municipal estimates and multi-year funding requests to the City of Toronto, and the regional municipalities of Durham, Peel and York in accordance with their respective submission schedules. CARRIED

__________________________________

297

RES.#A116/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed

Poetry Living (The View II) Limited, CFN 57887. Acquisition of property located east of Pine Valley Drive and north of Major Mackenzie Drive, in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020,” Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed.

(Executive Res.#B46/17) Moved by: Jennifer McKelvie Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT 13.7644 hectares (34.0125 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located east of Pine Valley Drive and north of Major Mackenzie Drive, said land being Part of Lot 22, Concession 8 designated as Parts 29, 30 and 31 on draft Plan of Subdivision, prepared by Krcmar, Drawing Name 00-183MP11, dated January 20, 2017 in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, be purchased from Poetry Living (The View II) Limited; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED

__________________________________

RES.#A117/17 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 Waterfront Component, Scarborough Sector

Marcia Gray, CFN 56360. Acquisition of property located west of Morna Avenue and south of Guildwood Parkway, municipally known as 461 Guildwood Parkway, in the City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area), under the “Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020,” Waterfront Component, Scarborough Sector.

(Executive Res.#B47/17) Moved by: Jennifer McKelvie Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT 0.06 hectares (0.14 acres), more or less, of land improved with a one storey single family residence, located west of Morna Avenue and south of Guildwood Parkway, said land being Part of Lot 2, Registered Plan 2413 being Part 5, Plan of Reference 64R-11987, City of Toronto, municipally known as 461 Guildwood Parkway, in the City of Toronto be purchased from Marcia Gray;

298

THAT the purchase price be $755,000.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid by TRCA; THAT acquisition by TRCA is conditional on all necessary funding being available; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED

__________________________________

RES.#A118/17 - CITY OF TORONTO Request for a Stratified Permanent Easement Required for Access to

Subsurface Infrastructure City of Toronto, Don River Watershed, CFN 57864. Receipt of a request

from the City of Toronto to provide a stratified permanent easement for access to City of Toronto subsurface infrastructure, located south of Graydon Hall Drive and west of Don Mills Road, municipally known as 1955 Don Mills Road, City of Toronto, North York Community Council Area, Don River watershed.

(Executive Res.#B48/17) Moved by: Jennifer McKelvie Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to provide a stratified permanent easement for access to subsurface infrastructure, located south of Graydon Hall Drive and west of Don Mills Road, municipally known as 1955 Don Mills Road, City of Toronto (North York Community Council Area), Don River watershed; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with the City of Toronto in this instance;

299

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing a total of 0.015 hectares (0.04 acres), more or less, be granted to the City of Toronto, said land being Parcel F-3, Section M960 Firstly: Pt Blks F & G, Plan 66M960 as closed by By-Law 33-80, being Parts 5, 6 & 7 66R11579; Subject to Easement in Favour of The Corporation of the Township of North York over Part 6 Plan 66R-11579 as in A100497; Secondly: Part Blks F & G on Plan 66M-960 as Parts 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 Plan 66R-1159; Subject To Easement in Favour of the Corporation of the Township of North York over Part 9, Plan 66R-1159 As In A100497, as shown on Parts 14, 15, 16 on Draft Plan created by J.D. Barnes under Ref. No. 13-15-012-02 on April 21, 2017, Township of York/North York; City of Toronto, be conveyed to the City of Toronto; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00. All legal, survey and other costs are to be paid by the City of Toronto; THAT the City of Toronto is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of City of Toronto prior to any disturbance of TRCA lands; THAT all TRCA lands disturbed by any proposed works be revegetated/stabilized following construction and, where deemed appropriate by TRCA staff, a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA review and approval in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines; THAT said easement be subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED

__________________________________

RES.#A119/17 - REGION OF PEEL Requirement from the Region of Peel for Conveyance of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned Lands and a Permanent Easement Required for Road Widening and Associated Traffic Light Infrastructure

City of Brampton, Region of Peel, Humber River Watershed, CFN 57971. As part of the redevelopment of the Claireville Water Park (Site Plan Revision File: SP16-063-000) the Region of Peel requires the granting of a permanent easement and conveyance of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned lands, located east of Finch Avenue and south of Steeles Avenue, in the City of Brampton, Region of Peel, for the future widening of Finch Avenue (Regional Road 2) and associated traffic light infrastructure, Humber River watershed.

(Executive Res.#B49/17)

300

Moved by: Jennifer McKelvie Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been requested to grant a permanent easement and convey lands east of Finch Avenue, south of Steeles Avenue, in the City of Brampton, Region of Peel, to the Region of Peel for the future widening of Finch Avenue and associated traffic light infrastructure, Humber River watershed; AND WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with Region of Peel in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a parcel of TRCA-owned land containing 0.1657 hectares (0.4094 acres), more or less, required for the future widening of Finch Avenue, including a 0.3m reserve, said land being Part of Lots 15, Concession 9, East of Hurontario Street, and designated as Parts 1 to 4, and 6 to 14 inclusive, on the Draft Plan of Survey, prepared by NA Geomatics Inc, File No. 16-7082-CH1, be conveyed to the Region of Peel; THAT a permanent easement containing 0.0476 hectares (0.1176 acres), more or less, be granted to the Region of Peel for traffic light infrastructure, said land being Part of Lots 14 and 15, Concession 9, East of Hurontario Street, and designated as Part 5 on the Draft Plan of Survey, prepared by NA Geomatics Inc, File No. 16-7082-CH1; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00. All legal, survey and other costs are to be paid by TRCA; THAT said conveyance and grant of the permanent easement be subject to approval of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED

__________________________________

RES.#A120/17 - LAKEVIEW WATERFRONT CONNECTION PROJECT Design Build of Automated Gate Entry and Revenue Tracking System.

Award of Contract #10003420 to complete engineering and construction services for an automated gate entry and revenue tracking system for the Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project, in the City of Mississauga.

(Executive Res.#B50/17) Moved by: Jennifer McKelvie Seconded by: Colleen Jordan

301

THAT Contract #10003420 to complete engineering and construction services for an Automated Gate Entry and Revenue Tracking System for the Lakeview Waterfront Connection Project, in the City of Mississauga be awarded to Precise ParkLink inc. at a total cost not to exceed $544,751.00, plus HST, as they are the lowest bidder that best meets Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; THAT should staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such action as is necessary to implement the contract, including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED

__________________________________

RES.#A121/17 - CITY OF TORONTO AND THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION FOR RIDERS WITH DISABILITIES

Request for Licence Agreement 4777 Dufferin Street, G. Ross Lord Park, City of Toronto, Don River

Watershed, CFN24311. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to enter into a 20-year Licence Agreement with the Community Association for Riders with Disabilities, located in G. Ross Lord Park, City of Toronto.

(Executive Res.#B51/17) Moved by: Jennifer McKelvie Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS certain lands owned by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) situate in G. Ross Lord Park in the City of Toronto have been turned over to the City of Toronto for management under the terms of an agreement between the City of Toronto and TRCA dated June 14, 1961;

WHEREAS the Community Association for Riders with Disabilities (CARD) has had an agreement with the City of Toronto at this location since 1979 and has requested from the City of Toronto an additional 20-year license agreement;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA concur with the City of Toronto entering into a Licence Agreement with CARD for a term of 20 years commencing on September 1, 2020 and ending on August 31, 2040;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction, including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED

__________________________________

302

Section II – Items for Authority Information RES.#A122/17 - SECTION II – ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Mike Mattos THAT Section II item 10.2.1 – Flood Protection Land Forming Technical Guideline Document, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #4/17, held on June 9, 2017, be received. CARRIED

__________________________________

303

Section III – Items for the Information of the Board RES.#A123/17 - FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW Overview of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Flood Risk

Management current initiatives and future priorities. Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: David Barrow THAT the Flood Risk Management Overview report be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Engineering Services section plays a keystone role in fulfilling TRCA’s mandate to manage our regional water resources for current and future generations. Specifically, Engineering Services leads the strategic plan objectives to reduce or eliminate existing flood risks within the TRCA jurisdiction, and to minimize or eliminate the impact of new development and urban intensification on water quality, erosion and flood risk. Regulatory policy, planning, and site design are key components of achieving flood management and resilience solutions. Thus, the Water Resources team works together with Planning and Development to reduce risk by ensuring that development and infrastructure projects are built in harmony with the hazard management principles of the Living City Policies. The Capital Projects team works to reduce flood risk through remedial mitigation projects, and also ensures the continued delivery of high-quality floodplain mapping, along with the hydrologic and hydraulic modelling that support it. Another cornerstone of flood management is the suite of dams, channels and berms that make up TRCA’s flood control infrastructure, as reported to the Authority in Resolution #A187/16 approved at Authority Meeting #9/16, held on November 18, 2016. The Flood Infrastructure and Hydrometrics team manages this infrastructure, and also ensures the operation of the rainfall and stream gauge network that provides critical real-time and historical information to enable data-driven decision making. Finally, the Flood Risk Management team works to reduce existing flood risk to people and property by undertaking initiatives throughout the cycle of emergency management – from risk assessment to support preventative measures, to preparedness planning and outreach with municipal partners, through Flood Forecasting and Warning during flood events, to flood event documentation and analysis after the storm. The following report highlights the Flood Risk Management key accomplishments of 2016, current initiatives for 2017, and future priorities for 2018. Objectives of Flood Risk Management:

1. Reduce or eliminate existing flood risks within the TRCA jurisdiction; 2. Strive to minimize the impact to communities and protect people and property from

riverine flood risks, to the extent possible; 3. Fulfil TRCA’s legislated mandate and delegated responsibilities; 4. Build awareness of what Flood Risk Management does.

Strategies to achieve those objectives:

A. Advance knowledge of flood risk; B. Disseminate/document flood risk; C. Facilitate the implementation of flood mitigation projects;

304

D. Operate a state-of-the-art Flood Forecasting and Warning program; E. Work with municipalities to enhance flood emergency response capacity; F. Teach people how to prepare/respond to flooding.

The above strategies are grouped into thematic areas, described together with their highlights for 2016 and 2017 below. Flood Risk Assessment Understanding what is at stake when we flood is critical. Leveraging matching funds through successful applications to the National Disaster Mitigation Program, the Flood Risk Management team is currently updating the database of structures and roads (Flood Vulnerable Areas, or FVAs) within the floodplain with the help of GIS. This database is a key component of the Flood Risk Assessment process, which layers hazard information (TRCA’s floodplain mapping) with exposure and vulnerability information, to help quantify and communicate flood risk in a geospatial format. This project incorporates new methodologies recognized as national best practices in flood damage estimation and will provide valuable data for further analysis to allow remediation and mitigation efforts to be focused where maximal benefits will be realized. A key component of this project was the acquisition of high-resolution LiDAR data, which has proven to be crucial in the creation of flood response maps for the flooding currently being experienced due to high levels on Lake Ontario. The updated Risk Assessments will be used to re-prioritize Flood Vulnerable Area clusters identified in the Remedial Capital Works and Flood Protection Strategy. Preparedness through Strong Partnerships Ultimately, TRCA serves partner municipalities and the people that live within them. Flood Risk Management continued to build ever stronger relationships with partners and the communities TRCA serves, through workshops, conference presentations and convening working groups to facilitate cross-training. In 2016 and 2017, Flood Risk Management:

Hosted the annual Floods Happen workshop, where attendees from over 25 different organizations came to exchange knowledge and experience to better prepare for flooding; the 2017 workshop featured speakers involved in the flood forecasting and warning for the South Carolina and Texas flood events of 2016.

Further cemented relationships with the emergency management and operational staff of partner municipalities:

Presented, with Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, at York Region Emergency Management Workshop;

Together with Credit Valley Conservation, engaged with our Peel Region partners at their Community Emergency Management Coordinator seasonal meeting and met with the City of Mississauga Works to develop flood specific operations plans;

Attended Durham Region Emergency Management Symposium and worked on the development of a Risk Specific Plan for flooding;

Continued our participation in the Toronto Emergency Management Working Group; revised the Risk Specific Plan for Flooding and updated the flood risk ranking for their Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment program;

Advanced the state of practice among conservation authorities through presentations at the Provincial Flood Forecasting and Warning Committee fall conference and at the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) Technical Transfer workshop.

Strengthened TRCA’s relationship with Environment Canada through face-to-face cross-training, and presentations at the Great Lakes Operational Meteorology Workshop and Change of Season workshops.

305

Reconvened the Lower Don Transportation Working Group to present the final report outlining operational roles and responsibilities, and to present the results of the Lower Don 1D-2D Floodplain mapping update, which better illustrates flooding mechanisms in this critical area and provides a baseline to test remediation options against.

Continued representation at the GTA Flood Forecasting and Warning group to share advancements and lessons learned.

Continued TRCA engagement with academic, research and industry partners also working in flood risk reduction (FloodNet, Insurance Bureau of Canada, Partners for Action, Canada Hazus User Group).

Presented at the Ontario Climate Change Consortium technical meeting.

Delivered guest lectures at Ryerson University, York University, Bayview Rotary Club, the Ontario Science Centre, among others.

Flood Forecasting, Warning and Contingency Planning In order to fulfill TRCA’s delegated responsibility from the Province of Ontario and to further achieve the goals of the Natural Hazards Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, section 3.1 of the Planning Act, TRCA operates a robust Flood Forecasting and Warning program. The program is operated in accordance with the requirements presented in the “Provincial Flood Forecasting and Warning Implementation Guidelines”, Ministry of Natural Resources, August 2008. The GTA Flood Standards were adopted by Resolution #A130/03 at Authority Meeting #5/03, held on June 27, 2003. An experienced team of Flood Duty Officers (FDOs) are on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and 365 days a year. FDOs monitor weather and watershed information as conditions dictate, and use computer models and hydrology expertise to determine if it is necessary to issue or escalate flood warning messages. They provide advice and guidance to municipal partners, other levels of government, and infrastructure operators regarding expected impacts, and provide public messaging. When warranted, they will direct the operation of TRCA’s flood control infrastructure. 2016 saw a focus on documenting the knowledge and experience of Flood Duty Officers, formalizing processes, and overhauling operational manuals. Specifically, staff undertook a major update of the Flood Duty Officer manual, and made minor updates to the RiverWatch operations manual and the Flood Contingency Plan. These improvements help to ensure clarity, consistency and knowledge transfer even in the case of staff turnover. Monthly training sessions and an annual table-top exercise are standing elements of the workplan for the Flood Forecasting and Warning Program. Although staff continuously tweaks processes to take advantage of advancements in weather modelling, a key focus for 2018 will be large-scale improvements to TRCA’s now-casting and short term forecasting hydrologic models, and the development of more robust decision support systems, building on research partnerships with FloodNet and utilizing funding confirmed by MNRF. TRCA roles, responsibilities and resources with respect to flood preparedness and response are documented in the Flood Contingency Plan, which is updated annually and distributed to TRCA municipal partners. While municipalities undertake the operational response to emergencies, including flooding, conservation authorities support the municipal response by providing technical advice, information and watershed expertise. In order to optimize TRCA’s function for partners during flood events, TRCA maintains an Emergency Operations Centre, and employs Incident Management System principles to ensure inter-operability with other agencies in times of crisis. A key accomplishment in 2016 was the roll-out of the updated Incident Management System (IMS) structure for flood emergencies. This system outlines the various roles and responsibilities and

306

support functions that staff across TRCA would fulfill to support response to a flood event. Over 28 unique positions were developed and over 40 staff were trained to fill them, should the need arise. Thanks to the organization-wide roll-out of this system last year, a modified version of it is currently being used to streamline communications and facilitate an effective response during the flooding and erosion currently being experienced due to high levels on Lake Ontario. An active priority project for 2017 is the updating of Emergency Preparedness Plans for the major dams that TRCA owns and operates, ensuring that TRCA meets industry best practices outlined in the Canadian Dam Association guidelines. The update for G. Ross Lord Dam began in 2016, in collaboration with the City of Toronto, and is nearing completion. Currently underway are the updates for Claireville and Milne Dam, and the draft for Stouffville Dam will begin in fall 2017. Education and Outreach Pro-actively educating the public about flood risk now helps ensure that TRCA communications in times of crisis are better understood. In the spirit of providing access to data, and in light of the evolving landscape of flood insurance, staff created web tools that make it easier for the general public to understand about flooding and the floodplain, prepare themselves, and stay informed. TRCA continues to raise awareness about flood risks and personal preparedness by partnering in Emergency Preparedness Week outreach events, Water Festivals and through social media campaigns. In 2016, TRCA’s Flood Risk Management staff participated in events with an audience reach of over 12,000 people in two months. The @TRCA_Flood Twitter account earned 234,500 impressions in 2016, and the number of social media visits to www.trcagauging.ca increased by 260%. A priority project for 2017 is to enhance collaboration with TRCA’s Education section and specifically, to create a curriculum around flood safety and emergency preparedness. Recognizing the need from municipal partners to foster a resilient population through education, TRCA is leveraging our education delivery capacity to create a course, with input from partners, in line with the Ontario Specialist High Skills Major program, the delivery of which can be a source of revenue to TRCA. Data Management, Technology, and Flood Event Documentation The current redevelopment of TRCA’s Flood Monitoring website as approved by Resolution #A36/17, at Authority Meeting #2/17, held on March 27, 2017, is a key priority in improving the delivery of critical flood related information from TRCA’s real-time gauging network. Following another successful application to the National Disaster Mitigation Program, matching funds have been secured to further expand the real-time gauging network in 2017 and 2018. Also ongoing is the improvement of how TRCA collects field information during flood events and high water marks afterwards, leveraging mobile technology tools such as Survey 123 to help increase TRCA’s situational awareness and streamline work. 2017 Weather Highlights In 2016, the Flood Forecasting and Warning program issued nine Water Safety Watershed Conditions Statements, six Flood Outlook Watershed Conditions Statements, and one Flood Watch. No major riverine flooding was experienced in 2016.

307

http://www.trcagauging.ca/

2017 has thus-far proven to be a much wetter year. In addition to having much of the winter precipitation within TRCA’s jurisdiction fall as rain, the months of April and May have been exceptionally rainy, particularly for the Lake Ontario – St. Lawrence basin at large. This exacerbated spring freshet conditions resulted in severe flooding along the Ottawa River and St. Lawrence River. Concurrently, water levels on Lake Ontario rose, reaching record levels in early May. The risk of riverine flooding in TRCA’s relatively small watersheds is based on each immediate precipitation event, with water levels in rivers returning to seasonal levels within a day or two of each storm. By contrast, Lake Ontario flooding occurs on a much longer timescale and is impacted by the volumes of precipitation totals over months, and over a much larger drainage basin area. The management of water levels in Lake Ontario is under the jurisdiction of the International Lake Ontario and St. Lawrence River Board, which is part of the International Joint Commission. Environment Canada and Climate Change is the federal agency representing Canada on the board. While conservation authority hazard regulation and shoreline protection projects have limited exposure to flood and erosion risk along the shoreline, the levels experienced in 2017 exceed the previous 100-year lake level. Flood risks are not only related to elevated static lake levels; prolonged high lake levels combined with winds from southerly directions increase the damage potential due to storm surge and wave uprush. Flooding and erosion have occurred in numerous locations along the shoreline, including areas that were developed prior to or without regulation. Various groups within TRCA have been working together with TRCA’s municipal partners in responding to the flooding and erosion. Furthermore, high lake levels have resulted in backwater at the mouths of rivers, reducing the capacity of river channels and compounding potential riverine flood risks at the very downstream ends of rivers, as has been the concern with several rainfall events in the past month. Thus-far in 2017, TRCA’s Flood Forecasting and Warning program has issued 13 Water Safety Statements, two Flood Outlook Statements, three Flood Watches and one Shoreline Hazard Warning, as well as a statement on Lake Ontario related flooding that continues to remain in place since April. Lake levels are expected to slowly decline over the remainder of the summer down to more seasonal levels, but are expected to remain above average levels though the fall. Summary The Flood Risk Management group, together with the rest of Engineering Services, fulfil one of TRCA’s foundational roles, working to reduce or eliminate existing flood risks within the TRCA jurisdiction, and to minimize or eliminate the impact of new development and urban intensification on water quality, erosion and flood risk. TRCA will continue to bolster the resilience of the region in the face of flood risks, a hazard whose potential is expected to increase with the changing climate, by leveraging advancements in technology and opportunities for partnership. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds have been identified in the 2017 Operating Budget from TRCA’s municipal funding partners (accounts 115-60 and 115-62) for general program operations. Municipal capital funds for specific projects in 2017 and 2018 are identified within the Toronto, Peel, York and Durham budgets. Details on the National Disaster Mitigation Program funding can be found in Resolution #A109/16 from Authority Meeting #6/16, held on July 22, 2016. Report prepared by: Rehana Rajabali, extension 5220 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Rehana Rajabali, extension 5220, Sameer Dhalla, extension 5350 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] Date: June 2, 2017

308




RES.#A124/17 - FOUR UPDATED PROVINCIAL PLANS

Providing a summary and initial staff observations of the four updated provincial plans, as released by the Province of Ontario on May 18, 2017.

Moved by: Glenn De Baeremaeker Seconded by: Gino Rosati THAT the staff report on the final updates to the Four Provincial Plans be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND On February 27, 2015, the Province initiated a coordinated review of the Greenbelt Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Niagara Escarpment Plan and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. An Advisory Panel led by Mr. David Crombie was appointed to coordinate this review and recommend plan amendments. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff provided comments in response to questions posed by the Province on May 28, 2015, as approved by Resolution #A99/15 at Authority Meeting #6/15. The Advisory Panel provided recommendations to the Province on December 7, 2015 through a report entitled, “Planning for Health, Prosperity and Growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe: 2015-2041”. TRCA staff reported on these recommendations at Authority Meeting #11/15, as approved by Resolution #A245/15. Provincial staff assessed the Advisory Panel’s report and formulated amended plans on May 10, 2016, for further consultation. TRCA staff summarized the key themes of the amended plans and identified important changes warranting additional analysis prior to the issuance of formal comments, as approved by Resolution #A119/16 at Authority Meeting #6/16. On September 23, 2016, TRCA staff provided comments in response to the final round of the Province’s coordinated review, as approved at Authority Meeting #7/16 by Resolution #140/16. TRCA staff generally supported the proposed changes and noted that many of our previous comments were reflected in the enhanced plans, including: stronger requirements for watershed planning; new policy language promoting a “systems approach” to natural heritage and water resource planning; harmonized terminology across the Plans and with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS); increased support for agricultural lands and related rural uses; stronger policy requirements for integrating infrastructure and land use planning; new policies to help manage large-scale fill activities; new policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change; and, new policies to incorporate green infrastructure and low impact development (LID). TRCA staff also made recommendations staff believed, if implemented, would further strengthen and support the progressive intent of the Plans, including: adding new policies to require the completion of an “urban master environmental servicing plan” for areas of major urban redevelopment; revising the Growth Plan’s Climate Change policies to require official plan (OP) implementation and tie-back to the many climate change references throughout the Plans; harmonizing the definition, scope, and integration of watershed and subwatershed plans with clear goals to protect, enhance, and restore natural heritage and water resource systems; and, make the role conservation authorities (CAs) have in implementing the Plans more apparent.

On May 18, 2017, the Ontario government announced the completion of their coordinated land use review. The result is four amended plans that have been synthesized into a cohesive regional land use planning framework. The Niagara Escarpment Plan comes into effect on June 1, 2017, while the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, Greenbelt Plan, and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan take effect on July 1, 2017.

309

https://www.escarpment.org/LandPlanning/PlanReview

http://www.placestogrow.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=104&lang=eng

http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/Page13783.aspx



Content of the Updated Plans By virtue of the updated plans, the Province has demonstrated a coordinated effort to harmonize land use policies, synchronize language and terminology, and align the Plans within Ontario’s broader policy framework to better coordinate infrastructure planning with land use planning. The enriched policy direction correlates directly with TRCA’s land use planning, watershed management and regulatory roles and aligns well with TRCA’s The Living City Policies (as approved by the Authority in November, 2014). The foremost changes have been articulated by the Province through eight themes. TRCA staff has highlighted changes of particular relevance to TRCA below, in accordance with each corresponding theme. Building Complete Communities The updated plans seek to build “complete communities” by increasing intensification within built-up areas, particularly around transit and urban growth centres, while also providing greater protection for agricultural land and natural heritage features. Key changes aimed at achieving this objective include:

Intensification targets for new residential development occurring annually in existing built-up areas will increase to 60% as of 2031, with an interim target of 50% to be achieved from 2022;

Density targets of 80 combined residents and jobs per hectare for designated greenfield areas will apply to lands designated in the future and are to be achieved by 2031, with an interim target of 60 residents and jobs per hectare for current designated greenfield areas at 2022;

Municipal accommodation of interim intensification and density targets is to occur through the next municipal comprehensive review (2022), though alternative targets may be requested in unique circumstances;

Specific density targets are required for major transit station areas along priority transit corridors;

Stronger environmental and planning criteria added to assess the feasibility of expanding settlement areas, including water/wastewater and stormwater management (SWM) master plans, informed by watershed planning.

Supporting Agriculture The new plans emphasize the importance of the agricultural system as a key contributor to the quality of life and economic well-being of the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH). The plans seek to protect and enhance the agricultural sector and land base more effectively through the following changes:

The Province will map an Agricultural System across the GGH;

Municipalities are required to minimize impacts on the Agricultural System;

The types of uses permitted in prime agricultural areas align with the PPS, 2014 (e.g., on-farm diversified uses such as home industries and agri-tourism);

Clarifying setback requirements from key natural heritage features (KNHFs) and key hydrologic features (KHFs) for certain agricultural uses and related buildings/structures on the Oak Ridges Moraine (i.e. permitted within the minimum vegetation protection zone of features but not within the features);

Clarifying requirements for exempting new structures associated with certain agricultural and related uses from undertaking natural heritage or hydrologic evaluations, while ensuring ecological impacts are minimized.

Protecting Natural Heritage and Water Through the updated plans, natural heritage, hydrologic and landform features and systems may be further protected, maintained and improved, particularly within areas not currently governed by the Greenbelt by:

310

Requiring municipalities, partnering with CAs, to undertake watershed planning to protect, improve or restore water quality and quantity within watersheds;

Requiring the Province to map a Natural Heritage System (NHS) for lands outside municipal settlement areas;

Requiring municipalities to identify and protect KHFs and key hydrologic areas (KHAs) in their OPs;

Providing Greenbelt-level protection for the NHS, KNHFs, KHFs and KHAs outside settlement areas;

Directing municipalities to avoid settlement area expansion into KHAs and the NHS, where possible;

Encouraging municipalities to develop excess soil re-use strategies and requiring policies for best management practices for excess soil and fill received during development or site alteration, to be incorporated into municipal OPs.

Growing the Greenbelt New policies in the Greenbelt Plan describe ways in which the Greenbelt has and will be expanded by:

Including 21 major river valleys and seven associated coastal wetlands as designated urban river valleys (URVs). Within TRCA’s jurisdiction, this includes Duffins and Carruthers creeks (including their coastal wetlands), as well as additional Rouge tributaries, Don and Humber rivers and Etobicoke creek;

Exploring opportunities for the Province to grow the Greenbelt and consider requests from municipalities to increase the Greenbelt including within URVs.

Addressing Climate Change The updated plans recognize the importance of addressing climate change and include new policy directions aimed at more effectively responding to and mitigating its effects by:

Requiring municipalities to implement climate change policies in their OPs that align with the Ontario Climate Change Strategy, 2015, and Climate Change Action Plan, 2016;

Requiring SWM plans in settlement areas and for major development;

Requiring municipalities to assess infrastructure risks and vulnerabilities caused by the impacts of climate change when planning or replacing infrastructure and identify options for further enhancing resiliency;

Encouraging the use of green infrastructure and LID to reduce risks and costs associated with extreme weather events.

Integrating Infrastructure The updated plans seek to better integrate infrastructure and land use planning by:

Requiring infrastructure corridors to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts on KNHFs, KHFs and KHAs;

Requiring water and wastewater master plans to demonstrate no negative impact on water quality and quantity and assimilative capacity when expanding water and wastewater services;

Requiring comprehensive SWM studies before expanding settlement boundaries or permitting major development.

311

https://www.ontario.ca/page/climate-change-strategy

https://www.ontario.ca/page/climate-change-action-plan

Improving Plan Implementation The plans were established at various times, have different geographies, and contain distinct but complementary goals. The Province has integrated and aligned the plans with the local and provincial planning frameworks (e.g., PPS, Source Water Protection, Big Move, etc.) by making policies consistent, cross-pollinating terminology, harmonizing themes and synchronizing municipal implementation timelines. In support of this objective, the following changes were undertaken:

New guidance materials and supplementary direction will be produced by the Province to implement watershed planning, SWM and greenhouse gas inventories;

Clarification that intensification and density targets would not require or enable growth beyond what is permitted under the PPS for special policy areas and other "hazardous lands";

Upper- and single-tier municipalities will undertake integrated planning to manage forecasted growth through a municipal comprehensive review, to be approved by the Province, and provide direction to lower-tier municipalities.

Measuring Performance, Promoting Awareness and Increasing Engagement Accurate data, reliable information and widespread feedback are essential to ensuring provincial policy objectives are implemented effectively and intended goals can be achieved. To promote awareness of the proposed changes, measure their ongoing performance and increase engagement from stakeholders, the Province has committed to:

Establishing a comprehensive monitoring program to measure the effectiveness of the Plans;

Requiring municipalities and CAs to provide data for monitoring and performance indicators;

Ensuring all Schedules are reviewed (and potentially updated) every five years after the Plans take effect.

RATIONALE To help assess the degree to which TRCA’s previous recommendations have been incorporated into the updated plans, staff undertook a comparative evaluation of the significant changes. As evidenced in the eight themes above, the majority of the positive changes found in the 2016 proposed amendments remain in the 2017 updated plans. These areas include:

Recognizing the value of, and strengthening the requirements for watershed planning to ensure that growth occurs in an environmentally sustainable manner;

Adding KHAs into the Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plan, a new class of features to be identified, managed and protected as part of the water resource system;

Harmonization of terminology;

Increased support for agricultural lands and related rural uses;

Strengthened policy requirements for integrating infrastructure and land use planning;

Addition of policies to help manage excess soil generated and fill received during development or site alteration;

Addition of policies for the use of green infrastructure and LID techniques; and,

Recognition of the need and direction to be planning for climate change adaptation and mitigation.

TRCA has and continues to demonstrate expertise and exhibit leadership in these areas, ideally situating TRCA to assist partnering municipalities and stakeholders implement the amended plans.

312

Although a number of refinements were made, most appear to be minor adjustments to further clarify policy direction and harmonize policy language. Based on TRCA staff’s initial analysis, the principal recommendations outlined in TRCA’s September 23, 2016 comment letter to the Province appear to have been considered and implemented to varying degrees in the updated plans. The following represents the primary changes of interest that TRCA staff has presently identified. Climate Change The Climate Change section of the Growth Plan (4.2.10) has been expanded and enhanced to reference related climate change policies in the updated plans and align with the Ontario Climate Change Strategy, 2015, and Climate Change Action Plan, 2016. Upper-and single-tier municipalities are now required: to develop OP policies that protect the NHS, water resource system and agricultural land base; identify and protect hydrologic features and areas; acknowledge the importance of watershed planning; assess and address infrastructure risks and vulnerabilities from climate change; undertake SWM planning to assess the impacts of extreme weather events and utilize green infrastructure and LIDs; support the achievement of complete communities; reduce dependence on the automobile by supporting planned transit and active transportation; support a culture of conservation; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience. Given the importance the Province has and continues to place on climate change adaptation and mitigation, this noteworthy policy refinement further strengthens provincial messaging around climate change and highlights the strong linkages between climate change resiliency and watershed planning. Watershed Planning and Subwatershed Planning The definitions of “watershed planning” and “subwatershed plan” are significantly more robust. TRCA staff generally welcomes this refinement as well as the corresponding modifications to related policies. More detailed description of the objectives of watershed and subwatershed planning are included to help clarify intended goals, improve implementation, and to better illustrate the scope of the full adaptive cycle of integrated watershed planning. The Plans now acknowledge that watershed planning also includes watershed characterization; utilizes scenario modelling to evaluate the impacts of forecasted growth and servicing options, and mitigation measures; provides a framework for establishing goals, objectives and direction for the protection of water resources; and requires the use of environmental best practice programs and performance measures. In addition, subwatershed plans are now encouraged to reflect and refine the findings of watershed planning in the evaluation of the impacts of any potential or proposed land uses; identify natural features, areas, and related hydrologic functions and associated linkages; and, establish intended actions, thresholds, targets and best management practices for development, water and wastewater servicing, SWM, and mitigating impacts related to severe weather events. These changes are important to TRCA staff involved in land use planning processes who rely on identifiable watershed and subwatershed goals, objectives and targets to measure the effectiveness of proposed land development and infrastructure plans and improve upon plan deficiencies. The term “watershed plans” has been removed from the Plans while the scope of a subwatershed plan has been narrowed from being undertaken at a “broader scale” to “smaller drainage areas”. Because watershed planning can be done without producing a “watershed plan”, per se, additional flexibility regarding the scope and scale required of watershed planning may be available for some municipalities in certain instances. As an example, Growth Plan policy criteria to justify settlement area boundary expansion now requires “watershed planning” to demonstrate

313

that expansion will not negatively impact the water resource system, where previously a “subwatershed plan” was required. Questions remain pertaining to how the terms “watershed planning” and “subwatershed plans” will be interpreted, as well as the scope of consultation, watershed characterization, future impacts analysis, documentation, monitoring and evaluation processes that comprise watershed and subwatershed planning, as historically defined and practiced. Additional important details remain to be clarified, such as the appropriate frequency for renewing watershed plans as well as the roles and responsibilities of various organizations and stakeholders in planning, implementation, and compliance. However, TRCA will be one of four CAs represented in a “Watershed Engagement Group” convened by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry that will provide input and advice into the development of a Watershed Planning Guidance document by those ministries that will support the implementation of these new policies. Excess Soil and Fill Improved policy language regarding the development of strategies to manage excess soil and fill are in keeping with the Province’s proposed Excess Soil Management Policy Framework and regulation that would require soil management plans for source sites of excess soil and establish rules for receiving sites of excess soil. Plan policies now distinguish between best practices required for “excess soil generated” and “fill received” during development, site alteration and infrastructure development. Best management practices must now be implemented through “municipal planning policies and relevant development proposals” to ensure poor quality fill does not adversely affect the natural environment or cultural heritage resources and is compatible with adjacent land uses. Where feasible, excess soil reuse planning should also be undertaken concurrently with development planning and design. Although the policies could be strengthened by referencing a clear legislative provision necessitating compliance, requiring the incorporation of best practices into municipal OPs will help mitigate the potential negative impacts on natural systems and hazards that may result from the inappropriate relocation of excess soil and placement of fill within TRCA’s jurisdiction. Agricultural Exemptions from Vegetation Protection Zones and Hydrologic/Natural Heritage Evaluations Policies exempting new buildings or structures for certain agricultural uses from locating within the vegetation protection zone (VPZ) of KHFs/KNHFs remain. As do similar exemptions from the requirement to complete a natural heritage or hydrologic evaluation (NHE/HE). The detailed policies requiring that certain criteria are met to be exempt from completing a NHE/HE have been consolidated into a single, undefined requirement; “best management practices” to protect or restore features and their functions. The lack of direction regarding how compliance with best management practices is to be demonstrated may lead to unintended challenges during policy implementation. CAs have regulatory requirements where NHEs/HEs or equivalent, could still be required to demonstrate compliance with permit applications submitted under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. Similarly, Source Protection Plans under the Clean Water Act may also require hydrogeological assessments for certain development to ensure the safety and quality of public drinking water systems. Further analysis is needed to assess whether best management practices will provide sufficient environmental protection in lieu of a NHE/HE, when considering certain structures on agricultural lands and how the interplay of potentially conflicting policy/regulatory requirements will be managed.

314

Stormwater Management Ponds in Vegetation Protection Zones Improved SWM policies have replaced the term SWM “ponds” with the broader SWM “systems”. SWM systems account for a wider range of SWM facility components (e.g. outfalls, LID), which may need to be located closer to natural features than SWM ponds. Previously confusing policies pertaining to the location of SWM systems within the “Whitebelt” lands of major river valleys that connect the Niagara Escarpment and Oak Ridges Moraine to Lake Ontario have been clarified. Within these areas, “naturalized” SWM systems may be permitted within the VPZ of a significant valleyland, provided they are at least 30 metres from the river or stream, and located outside the VPZ of any other KNHF/HSF. Refined policies also denote that the determination of an appropriate VPZ should consider the area and nature of the feature being protected and the nature of the proposed SWM system.

Complete Communities Greater direction is provided on the objectives of a “complete” community, including: having a diversity of land uses; improved quality of life; access to a range of housing and transportation options; and, compact built form integrated with green infrastructure and low impact development to mitigate climate change impacts. Further clarification is also provided concerning how the Plans will support the achievement of complete communities, such as, requiring municipalities to develop strategies to achieve the minimum intensification targets while maximizing the use of existing infrastructure. Although the definition of complete communities does not explicitly reflect the contributions the natural environment can provide to a community’s overall health and well-being (clean air and water; resilient natural systems, access to a low-carbon lifestyle), the expanded objectives noted above include a number of other components previously recommended by TRCA staff. Net-Zero Communities Net-Zero Communities are referenced throughout the Plans, yet they are no longer defined. Moreover, a slight softening of policy language has shifted the intended timeframe sought to achieve them. For instance, previous policy direction aimed at “moving towards net-zero communities” now reads, “moving towards low-carbon communities with the long-term goal of net-zero communities”. Mapping the NHS The Province remains committed to mapping a Natural Heritage System comprised of natural heritage features and areas. Municipalities are expected to incorporate the NHS as an overlay in their OPs and apply corresponding NHS policies accordingly. However, NHS mapping will exclude municipal settlement areas that were approved as of July 1, 2017 and previously more prohibitive NHS policies appear to relax development restrictions adjacent to KHFs, KHAs and KNHFs within settlement areas. Additional examination of the NHS policies, in conjunction with existing PPS policy, is needed to understand the implications of this policy change. FINANCIAL DETAILS Staff is engaged in this policy analysis work as per the normal course of their duties. No additional funding is proposed. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE • TRCA staff to attend training sessions offered by the Province on the four updated plans

(ongoing);

315

• Coordinate internal consultations with senior management, planning and technical staff to assess the implications of the updated plan policies (ongoing).

Report prepared by: Jeff Thompson, extension 5386 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: David Burnett, extension 5361 Emails: [email protected] Date: June 23, 2017

__________________________________

316



RES.#A125/17 - THE LIVING CITY FOUNDATION Management Model and Fundraising Initiatives. Provide the Authority with

updates regarding The Living City Foundation’s management model and fundraising initiatives, and submit to the Authority a signed Management and Administrative Services Agreement that clearly defines the day-to-day relationship between the two organizations.

Moved by: Michael Ford Seconded by: Ronald Chopowick WHEREAS The Living City Foundation (LCF) raises money to support the initiatives of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA); AND WHEREAS LCF has initiated two major fundraising campaigns for TRCA; AND WHEREAS TRCA and LCF have recently entered into a Management and Administrative Services Agreement (Attachment 1) that outlines the responsibilities of each organization pertaining to the operation of LCF; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Management and Administrative Services agreement as well as updates regarding the two major fundraising campaigns be received. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #10/16, held on January 6, 2017, Resolution #A204/16 was approved, in part, as follows:

“…THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT The Living City Foundation be requested to move ahead with a two-phased $30 million fundraising campaign for the New Black Creek Pioneer Village that aims to secure $10 million in philanthropic commitments, grants, partnerships and corporate sponsorships during Phase 1 (2017-18), and $20 million during Phase 2 (2019-21).”

At the subsequent LCF Board of Directors meeting held on February 22, 2017, a motion was approved to collaborate with TRCA in order to achieve a successful fundraising campaign for Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV). Together with a $750,000 fundraising campaign for Tommy Thompson Park that was initiated in late 2016, these two fundraising projects comprise a priority area of focus for LCF. LCF is an independent, non-controlled, registered charitable organization. It is governed by its own Board of Directors and serves the primary function of raising funds to support the undertakings of TRCA. Recently, LCF and TRCA entered into a Management and Administrative Services agreement to clearly define the day-to-day relationship between the two organizations. The purpose of this report is to provide the Authority with an overview of the recently captured LCF-TRCA relationship as well as to share updates on LCF’s fundraising initiatives and activities.

317

LCF Management Model On May 3, 2017, TRCA and LCF entered into a Management and Administrative Services agreement to define how TRCA employees will be providing management and administrative services to LCF. The Agreement promotes a harmonious day-to-day relationship between LCF and TRCA to help advance common goals. As per Agreement terms, all employees of LCF are TRCA employees who have been assigned to fulfill selected LCF roles and responsibilities. LCF’s existing staff (employees of TRCA) includes the following positions: Coordinator, Donor Stewardship; Coordinator, Events; Senior Development Officer; and, Philanthropy Officer. Along with these staff, TRCA’s Director, Parks and Culture is serving as Interim Executive Director to provide managerial and strategic oversight to LCF’s operations as well as to fill the position vacancy following the departure of LCF’s Executive Director in March 2017. TRCA’s Deputy Chief Financial Officer and TRCA’s Controller are providing financial management and guidance on day-to-day financial activity, and together with the Interim Executive Director, these employees have become signing authorities for LCF transactions. Additionally, various other TRCA employees and business teams are providing important services to LCF to help meet the organization’s fundraising and operating needs. The nature of these services include administration, financial management, fundraising, communications, grant writing, marketing, event management and public relations. As the LCF’s needs grow and evolve, so too will its service requirements. The current Agreement allows for a flexible day-to-day relationship wherein other such services of TRCA may be requested as needed to fulfill the LCF’s mission. LCF’s Fundraising Initiatives LCF supports the work of TRCA through a variety of activities and fundraising initiatives. Currently, these initiatives include:

Annual fundraising events, including The Living City Environmental Dinner, Manulife Paddle the Don and the Heart Lake Dragon Boat Festival, which raise funds along with TRCA’s profile;

‘Look After Where You Live’ employee engagement program, which inspires employees across the Toronto region to participate in activities that enhance local nature;

Planned Giving Program, which encourages donors to leave a lasting legacy through a planned gift to TRCA;

Grants and proposals, which are prepared to secure funding for various projects across TRCA;

Donations and sponsorships, which offer an ongoing source of funding for TRCA;

Donor stewardship, which cultivates long-term support and engagement, and is an ongoing and integral responsibility of LCF;

Fundraising campaigns, including a $750,000 campaign for Tommy Thompson Park, and a major multi-million dollar campaign for BCPV that aims to secure $12.5 million during phase one. As a major priority area of focus for LCF, these campaigns will continue to inform the organization’s service requirements.

Along with these initiatives, LCF is also working to broaden the reach of their fundraising efforts to better serve environmentally focused community groups with whom TRCA partners. This may manifest in LCF serving as a funding vehicle for community partners, or in the development of new, community-based fundraising initiatives and events.

318

FINANCIAL DETAILS LCF’s new management model has produced a balanced budget for 2017. All core operating expenditures will be covered by self-generating revenues. Cost-to-Donation Ratio LCF’s fundraising campaigns employ a self-sustaining financial model. Using the Black Creek Pioneer Village campaign as a key point of reference (since it is the more ambitious of the two that are now underway), LCF has assessed the impacts of leading a successful campaign. This assessment indicates a cost-to-donation ratio of 20% over the life of the campaign. For example, the first phase of Black Creek Pioneer Village’s fundraising campaign aims to raise $10 million. This means that LCF would need to raise $12.5 million in order to provide TRCA with $10 million. This cost-to-donation ratio is in line with industry standards. For example, data from Charity Watch and Charity Navigator indicates that top-rated American not-for-profit organizations generally spend 75% or more of their budgets on programs and less than 25% on fundraising and administrative fees. Similarly, Charity Intelligence Canada provides top marks to not-for-profit organizations that spend between 17% and 27% on fundraising and administrative fees. When evaluating the cost-to-donation ratio, it is essential to consider the life of the campaign as costs may be considerably higher than donations in the infancy of any campaign. LCF will budget accordingly for this expectation. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will provide the Authority with periodic updates on the activities of LCF and TRCA as they pertain to the terms of the Agreement. The Authority will also receive updates on the progress and outcomes of the two fundraising campaigns. Report prepared by: Stephanie Demetriou, extension 6424,

Michael Tolensky, extension 5965 Emails: [email protected] , [email protected] For Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: [email protected] Date: May 31, 2017 Attachments: 1

319




Attachment 1

320

RES.#A126/17- SECTION IV – ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Jack Ballinger Seconded by: Colleen Jordan THAT Section IV item 10.3 – Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #4/17, held on June 9, 2017, be received. CARRIED

__________________________________

NEW BUSINESS RES.#A127/17 - WATERSHED REPORT CARDS Moved by: Ron Chopowick Seconded by: Jack Ballinger THAT a report on the state of each one of the nine watersheds and the waterfront in the TRCA jurisdiction be presented by staff on a regular basis; AND FURTHER THAT the scope, content and communication format of these reports, as well as potential alignment with the mandate of the proposed Regional Watershed Alliance, be developed by staff in consultation with a select group of Authority members interested in this initiative. CARRIED

__________________________________

TERMINATION ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:32 a.m., on Friday, June 23, 2017. ___________________________ ___________________________ Maria Augimeri Brian Denney Chair Secretary-Treasurer /ks

327

authority meeting #5/17 was held at trca head office, on ......presentations 5.1 recognition of...

Documents