INDEX TO BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING #2/11. Friday, October 14, 2011

Transcription

1 INDEX TO BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING #2/11 Friday, October 14, 2011 MINUTES Minutes of Meeting #1/11, held on April 8, PRESENTATIONS Dillane, Jim, Director, Finance and Business Services, TRCA re: 2012 Preliminary Capital Estimates and Operating Budget Guidelines PRELIMINARY CAPITAL ESTIMATES AND OPERATING BUDGET GUIDELINES 71 PARTICIPATING MUNICIPALITY FUNDING New Municipal Funding Arrangements Policy 82 PLANNING AND PERMIT ADMINISTRATION COST RECOVERY 82

2 MEETING OF THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD #2/11 October 14, 2011 The Budget/Audit Advisory Board Meeting #2/11, was held in the Victoria Room, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, October 14, The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. PRESENT Arrival Time Departure Time Maria Augimeri 12:00 p.m. 1:30 p.m. Member David Barrow 12:00 p.m. 1:30 p.m. Member Bob Callahan 12:00 p.m. 1:30 p.m. Member ABSENT Gerri Lynn O'Connor Dave Ryan Chair Member RES.#C9/11 - Moved by: Seconded by: MINUTES Bob Callahan David Barrow THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/11, held on April 8, 2011, be approved. CARRIED PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Jim Dillane, Director, Finance and Business Services, in regard to item BAAB Preliminary Capital Estimates and Operating Budget Guidelines. RES.#C10/11 - Moved by: Seconded by: PRESENTATIONS David Barrow Bob Callahan THAT above-noted presentation (a) be heard and received. CARRIED 70

3 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES.#C11/11 - Moved by: Seconded by: 2012 PRELIMINARY CAPITAL ESTIMATES AND OPERATING BUDGET GUIDELINES Recommends approval of 2012 preliminary capital estimates and operating budget guidelines David Barrow Bob Callahan THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the preliminary estimates for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) participating municipality capital budgets, as outlined in Attachment 1, be approved for submission to the respective municipalities; THAT the preliminary estimates for the 2012 operating budget make provision for a cost of living adjustment of three per cent (3%) effective in April, 2012; THAT the preliminary estimates for the 2012 operating budget include municipal levy increases consistent with the guidelines determined by the respective participating municipality; AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to submit the 2012 preliminary estmates to the City of Toronto, the regional municipalities of Peel, York and Durham, the Town of Mono and the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio in accordance with their respective submission schedules. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA has begun the process of submitting preliminary estimates to its municipal funding partners. The process began in May and submissions have been made to staff of the various participating municipalities commencing in July. TRCA staff has met with staff of the regions of Peel, Durham and York and the City of Toronto to present TRCA budget requirements. Meetings with Peel, York and Durham included representatives of the other conservation authorities which have jurisdiction in those regions. Meetings with the participating municipalities to finalize the budget will occur over the next five months. Each jurisdiction has its own unique process to be followed for the budget submissions which ultimately must be approved by the respective municipal councils. Staff is presenting the summary level information on the capital budget requests submitted to each jurisdiction. Staff has not provided details of the operating estimates because the detail is subject to considerable change between now and the end of February when TRCA has the results of the funding decisions of its municipal partners and TRCA's 2011 year end results. 71

4 RATIONALE Operating Budget Staff is in process of completing the preliminary estimates for the 2012 operating budget. As always, staff will recommend a final budget in which expenditures are equal to the revenues including revenue from operations, grants and municipal levy. Municipal levy accounts for about one third of the annual operating budget. Expenditures At this time, staff estimate an increase in expenditures of 4.9% or about $1.7 million. Pressures on the operating budget include an increase in OMERS contributions of 1% (about $285,000), health benefit cost increases of 1.8%, property insurance costs, rising energy costs as well as annualization of salary changes in Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) TRCA salary and wage COLA adjustments have been: % % % in 2012, staff recommends a 3% COLA effective the first pay in April of This will cost an estimated $439,000. The effect of the 3% increase averaged over 5 years is about 1% annually. This is well below most municipal increases over the same time frame. Preliminary estimates provide for maintenance of existing programs and services at the 2011 level of service. Any additional new services to be introduced in 2012 will be funded from non-municipal levy sources. Additional staffing is for the most part in area of seasonal and part-time staff or in programs that have additional, non-levy funding. Revenues MUNICIPAL LEVY As a separate report, staff has described a proposed change to the traditional funding arrangements which would result in additional municipal levy from the Regions. Provision is made for a modest levy increase in 2012 of $225,000. To date, staff at the City of Toronto are recommending a flat lined TRCA levy (0%) in Staff at the regions of Peel and York are considering increases in 4 to 4.5% range. The guideline at the Region of Durham for conservation authority operating funds is 2%. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES As a separate report, and at the direction of the Authority, staff has recommended a program to increase planning and development fees to achieve 100% recovery of costs to process development applications. In 2012, the preliminary estimates make provision for a 5.8% increase in planning fees. If the Authority approves the planning fee proposal, staff project that additional funds will be available and those projections can incorporated in the 2012 final budget. 72

5 CONSERVATION (THE LIVING CITY) FOUNDATION In previous budgets, TRCA has relied on up to $800,000 in unrestricted revenue from the Foundation. The 2012 operating estimates include no funding from the Foundation which is a pressure since in past years such funding has been included (although not realized). In future, staff will apply unrestricted funds from the Foundation in the year following the year in which the funds are secured. These funds will be applied first to offset any cumulative deficit. OPERATING REVENUES In total, about $1 million of additional operating revenue from planning fees, interest earnings, various parks fees and other programs is included. This represents an increase of about 4.4% over These estimates will be refined when staff complete the 2011 year end results. PROVINCIAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS Staff aniticipate that once again there will be no increase in provincial transfers estimated at $846,000. This issue has persisted for more than 10 years. Conservation Ontario continues to meet with the province and lobby for additional funding. ROUGE NATIONAL PARK In 2011, the Government of Canada announced support for creation of the Rouge National Park. Representatives of Parks Canada have met with the Rouge Park Alliance, Rouge Park staff and TRCA staff to initiate the process to create the National Park. Staff is hopeful that some level of funding for this work may be available in 2012 but nothing is budgeted. Capital Budgets Staff has completed the municipal portion of the capital program. Participating municipalities usually require that TRCA provide 10 year capital budget projections and each municipality has their own requirements and format for this information. Obviously, most attention is paid to the 2012 and 2013 capital programs. Attachment 1 includes summary tables for each of the following: City of Toronto, regions of Peel, York and Durham. Staff prepares for the City and Peel and York Regions, budget binders which include detailed information on each capital project and program. These binders are in the process of being finalized and will be available to Members who require them. CITY OF TORONTO The capital submission is based on core funding for longstanding programs which meet the existing City of Toronto targets. The City funds TRCA capital programs from both debt and water reserve funding, in roughly 50/50 proportions. The City annual debt guideline for TRCA is $3 million and has remained unchanged for many years. The portion of the capital from water reserves has increased marginally, about 2 to 3% annually. Funding from the City remains inadequate to meet critical state of good repair and infrastructure requirements of TRCA's work within the City. Erosion sites, shoreline protection and repairs to waterfront parks require additional commitment from the City. Accordingly, in 2010, staff prepared a prioritized list of critical infrastructure needs which are additional to the core funding request. This list was extensive and reflected the fact the capital funding from the City has been inadequate in terms of asset maintenance for many years. 73

6 In 2011, the City of Toronto agreed to fund an additional $5 million in critical erosion and flood management works. This work is being completed and TRCA asked for the same amount in 2012 to continue to deal with the back log of state of good repair projects in the City. The City determined that $2 million could be made available for erosion work on the Meadowcliffe project and flood work in Hogg's Hollow, although this amount has yet to be finalized. REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK The capital submission is based on core funding for longstanding programs. York Region guidelines provide for an increase in core programs of no more than 4.5%. Staff has met this guideline. In the 2012 submission, staff has included a list of priority projects reflecting needs that extend beyond the core funding. The Region has made a significant investment in conservation programs but there is still much to be done. TRCA staff anticipate making a submission to the Region's Finance and Administration Committee to request support for these additional projects. REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL The capital submission is based on core funding for longstanding programs. Peel Region guidelines provide for some increase in key programs and require TRCA to submit a rationale to demonstrate needs beyond the guidelines. The 2012 capital program is based on estimates submitted as part of the 2011 program. Staff made a presentation to Regional Council in June of 2011 outlining accomplishments of the climate change adaptation and mitigation programs from 2007 to Staff will do a further presentation to Regional Council in October describing the 2012 program. REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM Capital funding for Durham Region totals $825,000. Included is $125,000 as Durham's share of a pooled capital program for groundwater management in which TRCA holds funds from participating municipalities spent at the discretion of a steering committee of regional works and conservation authority staff. TRCA's capital funding from Durham is $700,000 which has remained the same since about The Durham submission includes significant increases to meet the backlog of needs in Durham. Staff of the five conservation authorities have met with Planning Department and Finance Department staff to consider growing unmet needs of the five conservation authorities. Staff also made a presentation to the Region Planning Committee describing the work of the five conservation authorities and its importance to the growth of the Region. Staff has recently been advised that Durham Regional Council approved 2012 budget guidelines that have once again frozen capital funding to the five conservation authorities and recommended a 2% increase in operating funds Projected Year End Results Staff has completed variance reports to the end of August, 2011 and projecting revenue and expenditures to year end. The projection is that 2011 actuals will be very close to the approved budget. Less than budgeted revenue due to lower attendance at some parks and Black Creek Pioneer Village is being off set by expenditure reductions. Interest revenues are slightly higher than budgeted. 74

7 In terms of capital, the Petticoat Creek Pool project is on track: $3 million project of which $1.2 million will be spent in 2011 to complete the work. The funding shortfall in 2011 is projected to be about $400,000 to bring the total funding shortfall to $1 million. This amount will be repaid from Petticoat pool revenues as reported and agreed to by the Authority in approving the project. Overall, staff project that the capital budget will be on target and should produce the $300,000 surplus to be used to offset a portion of the cumulative deficit. Cumulative Deficit Position As of December 31, 2010, the cumulative "cash basis" deficit for operating and capital was $2.4 million of which $1.7 million related to general operations and $600,000 to the Petticoat creek pool project. $75,000 related to the final payment toward the capital cost of the Restoration Services Centre building which will be paid in full in TRCA has no debt. The cash flow position has always been very positive and this continues in Based on the projected year end results, the cumulative "cash basis" deficit will be about $2.5 million of which $1 million will be related to the repayment of the Petticoat Creek Pool project and $1.5 million would be related to operations. As of December 31, 2010, the book value of TRCA tangible assets was $518.2 million and the unamortized balance or net book value is $402.2 million. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Following year end, the capital budget can be finalized and will include the municipal capital projects as approved by the respective participating municipalities as well as all other capital projects such as Waterfront Toronto work and land acquisition. The operating estimates will become final following year end at which time staff can determine the impact of reserve contributions and any decisions made by the Authority relating to the proposed 100% recovery of planning and development fees. With respect to the latter, staff has included a modest increase in planning fees of 5.8% and will apply new fees if approved. Also, staff await direction from the Authority that the 3% COLA is to be implemented and that the proposed changes to the municipal levy formula are to proceed. Staff is prepared to describe in detail the capital projects and programs included in the submissions at the meeting of the Board or at the Authority on October 28th. Approval of the preliminary estimates by the Authority enables staff to go forward with discussions knowing that the Chair and members are in support of the proposed projects and programs subject to the funding capacity of the respective municipal jurisdictions. Report prepared by: Jim DIllane, extension s: jdillane@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Jim Dillane, extension s: jdillane@trca.on.ca Date: October 05, 2011 Attachments: 4 75

8 Attachment 1 76

9 Attachment 2 77

10 Attachment 3 78

11 Attachment 4 City of Toronto Capital Programs Summary Water 2012 Debt 2012 In Progress 2012 From Last year 2011 Approved Project Name Waterfront and Valley Erosion Control City of Toronto Totals Valley and Shoreline Monitoring and Minor Maintenance Program 360, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 Erosion Major Maintenance Program 490,000 1,140,000 1,140,000 1,140,000 1,240,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200, , ,000 More Waterfront MAJOR MAINTENANCE (& futures sites) 0 2,050,000 0 Toronto Parks Sites to Major Maintenance Program 200,000 Meadowcliffe Drive* 450,000 1,750,000 2,000,000 1,750,000 1,750,000 Denison Road Erosion Control 250, , , , , , , ,000 Guild Inn Erosion Control 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Yonge / York Mills (Hoggs Hollow) 250, ,000 Subtotal 1,500,000 3,550,000 3,500,000 3,530,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 2,750, ,000 * Land Acq $ Enhancements: More Floodworks i.e. Hoggs Hollow, 2011, $250,000; from Land Acq Funds: Troutbrooke topup, 2011, $1,250,000; first Meadowcliffe topup (from Land Acq $), 2011, $3,500, Water 2012 Debt 2012 In Progress 2012 From Last year 2011 Approved Project Name Waterfront Development City of Toronto Totals Keating Channel Flood Control Project 320, , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 0 TTP - Cell 1 & 2 Capping 100, , , , ,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50, ,000 0 Tommy Thompson Park Capital Improvements (Interim Management Program) 240, , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 Arsenal Lands - Park Development 150, Reallocated for Waterfront MAJOR MAINTENANCE 100, , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 Waterfront Environmental Monitoring 235, , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 Waterfront Information Management 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50, ,000 Scarborough Shoreline Waterfront Access Plan 78,000 78,000 78,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80, ,000 Ashbridge's Bay - Coatsworth Cut 250, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 Subtotal 1,523,000 1,552,000 1,552,000 1,608,000 1,573,000 1,423,000 1,423,000 1,423,000 1,423,000 1,423,000 1,423,000 1,423, , , Water 2012 Debt 2012 In Progress 2012 From Last year 2011 Approved Project Name Toronto RAP Regeneration City of Toronto Totals Etobicoke-Mimico Habitat Implementation Program (ongoing) 32,000 33,000 33,000 34,000 35,000 36,000 37,000 38,000 39,000 40,000 41,000 41,000 33,000 0 South Mimico Barrier Mitigation Project (various years) 10,000 40, , Toronto Golf Club Barrier Mitigation , ,000 0 Bundle Total 42,000 73,000 73,000 74,000 35,000 36,000 37,000 38,000 39,000 40,000 41,000 41,000 73,000 Toronto Waterfront Terrestrial & Aquatic Restoration Program (ongoing) 85,000 90,000 90,000 94,000 97, , , , , , , ,000 90,000 0 Waterfront/Moraine Migratory Bird Corridor Program (ongoing) 20,000 25,000 25,000 27,000 28,000 29,000 30,000 31,000 32,000 33,000 34,000 34,000 25,000 0 Bundle Total 105, , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 BioRegional Seed Crop Program (ongoing) 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 Canada Goose Management Program (ongoing) 30,000 32,000 32,000 33,000 34,000 35,000 36,000 37,000 38,000 39,000 40,000 40,000 32,000 0 Habitat for Wildlife Program (ongoing) 10,000 10,000 10,000 11,000 11,000 12,000 12,000 13,000 13,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 10,000 Bundle Total 60,000 62,000 62,000 64,000 65,000 67,000 68,000 70,000 71,000 73,000 74,000 74,000 62,000 79

12 City of Toronto Capital Programs Summary Humber Habitat Implementation Program (ongoing) 45,000 50,000 50,000 54,000 56,000 58,000 60,000 62,000 64,000 66,000 68,000 68,000 50,000 0 Don River Valley & Stream Restoration Program (ongoing) 55,000 60,000 60,000 64,000 66,000 68,000 70,000 72,000 74,000 76,000 78,000 78,000 60,000 0 Rouge Watershed Plan Implementation in Toronto (ongoing) 50,000 55,000 55,000 56,000 58,000 60,000 62,000 64,000 66,000 68,000 70,000 70,000 55,000 0 Subtotal 357, , , , , , , , , , , , , Water 2012 Debt 2012 In Progress 2012 From Last year 2011 Approved Project Name Toronto RAP: Stewardship, Education, Sustainable Communities & Technology City of Toronto Totals Family Nature Events Program (ongoing) 11,000 11,000 11,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 11,000 0 Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Program (ongoing) 30,000 35,000 35,000 38,000 38,000 43,000 43,000 43,000 43,000 43,000 43,000 43,000 35,000 0 Healthy Yards Program (ongoing) 24,000 24,000 24,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 24,000 Rural Clean Water Program (ongoing) 15,000 15,000 15,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 15,000 0 Toronto Stewardship(ongoing) 80,000 83,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 0 Bundle Total 160, , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 Etobicoke Mimico Community Environmental Projects 20,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 25,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 35,000 0 South Mimico Green Neighourhood Program former South Mimico Community Action Area 10,000 (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) 0 Etobicoke Mimico Riparian Zone Restoration Strategy 20,000 20,000 20,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 20,000 0 Sherway Trail & Restoration 40,000 (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) 0 City of Toronto Humber Community Environmental Projects 53,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 70, , , , , , , ,000 56,000 0 Bundle Total 143, , ,000 91, , , , , , , , , ,000 0 Yellow Fish Road Program (ongoing) 23,000 23,000 23,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 23,000 0 Watershed on Wheels Program (ongoing) 43,000 43,000 43,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 43,000 0 Aquatic Plants Program (ongoing) 22,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 0 Bundle Total 88,000 89,000 89,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 89,000 0 Community Transformation Partnership Program (ongoing) 70,000 76,000 76,000 76,000 81,000 81,000 81,000 81,000 81,000 81,000 81,000 81,000 76,000 0 Living City Centre Campus Programming (ongoing) 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 25,000 0 Sustainable House Programming (ongoing) 6,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 0 Canada Green Building Council - Greater Toronto Chapter (ongoing) 32,000 27,000 27,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 27,000 Living City Report Card Project (Various years) 10,000 30,000 75,000 75,000 85,000 85,000 85, Cultural Heritage Master Plan (ongoing) 14,000 14,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 20,000 21,000 22,000 22,000 14,000 0 Bundle Total 157, , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 0 Natural Channel: Monitoring & Database to test Design 18,000 19,000 19,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 19,000 0 Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program- Air, Energy 37,000 39,000 39,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 39,000 Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program- Water (ongoing) 52,000 53,000 53,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 53,000 0 Bundle Total 107, , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 0 Pearson Eco-Industrial Park 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 Subtotal 730, , , , , , , , , , , , , Water 2012 Debt 2012 In Progress 2012 From Last year 2011 Approved Project Name Toronto RAP Regional Watershed Monitoring Program City of Toronto Totals Regional Watershed Monitoring Program 330, , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 0 Terrestrial Natural Heritage Program 100, , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 0 Subtotal 430, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

13 City of Toronto Capital Programs Summary Water 2012 Debt 2012 In Progress 2012 From Last year 2011 Approved Project Name Toronto RAP Regional Watershed Management City of Toronto Totals Regulation Line Mapping Technical Updates Program 25,000 26,000 26,000 27,000 29,000 31,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 26,000 Planning & Regulation Policy Updates Program 31,000 33,000 33,000 35,000 37,000 39,000 22,000 23,000 24,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 33,000 0 Growth Management and Specialized Planning Studies Program 36,000 38,000 38,000 40,000 42,000 44,000 27,000 28,000 29,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 38,000 0 Special Policy Areas:Flood Risk/Emergency Planning 30,000 31,000 31,000 33,000 35,000 37,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 31,000 Bundle Total 122, , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 0 Flood Forecasting and Warning System Program (ongoing) 40,000 50,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 60,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 50,000 0 Flood Protection and Remedial Capital Works Program (ongoing) 100, , , ,000 80,000 76, , , , , , , ,000 0 Large Dams, Capital Works Program (ongoing) 23,000 23,000 23,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 23,000 0 Small Dams and Flood Control Facilities, Capital Works Program (ongoing) 26,000 29,000 29,000 31,000 31,000 35,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 29,000 0 Bundle Total 189, , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 0 Highland Creek Valley & Stream Greening Program (from Watershed Plan) 67,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 66,000 70,000 80, , , , , ,000 62,000 0 Watershed Plan Updates & Followup Program ,000 75,000 75,000 75, Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan Program 91,000 90,000 90, , , , , , , , , ,000 90,000 0 Aquatic Systems Priority Planning Program 38,000 40,000 40,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 40,000 0 Water Mngmnt. Analysis & Guidelines Program 22,000 13,000 13, ,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 13,000 0 Climate Change - Water Management Research & Adaptation Program 27,000 30,000 30,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 30,000 TRCA Flood Line Mapping Program (ongoing) 65,000 65,000 65,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 65,000 0 York/Peel/Durham/Toronto Groundwater Program 125, , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 0 Subtotal 746, , , , , , ,000 1,124,000 1,216,000 1,220,000 1,224,000 1,224, , Water 2012 Debt 2012 In Progress 2012 From Last year 2011 Approved Project Name Infrastructure City of Toronto Totals Black Creek Pioneer Village Retrofit Program (100% Levy) 350, , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 Major Facilities Retrofit Program (ongoing) 460, , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 Information Technology Replacement Program (ongoing) 264, , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 Public Use Infrastructure Retrofit Program (ongoing) 198, , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 Office Accomodation Project 0 921, Subtotal 1,272,000 2,193,665 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272, ,272, Water 2012 Debt 2012 In Progress 2012 From Last year 2011 Approved Project Name Greenspace Land Acquisition City of Toronto Totals Greenspace Land Acquisition Program (ongoing) 87,000 93,000 93,000 99, , , , , , , , ,000 93,000 0 Subtotal 87,000 93,000 93,000 99, , , , , , , , ,000 93,000 0 GRAND TOTAL 6,645,000 9,706,665 8,732,000 8,860,000 8,955,000 9,051,000 9,152,000 9,255,000 9,360,000 9,468,000 9,485,000 9,485,000 5,732,000 3,000,000 81

14 RES.#C12/11 - Moved by: Seconded by: PARTICIPATING MUNICIPALITY FUNDING New Municipal Funding Arrangements Policy. Presents new funding arrangements policy for consideration by participating municipalities. David Barrow Bob Callahan THAT item BAAB7.2 - Participating Municipality Funding be referred to the Executive Committee. CARRIED RES.#C13/11 - Moved by: Seconded by: PLANNING AND PERMIT ADMINISTRATION COST RECOVERY 100% cost recovery for Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Fee Schedule - adjustments for David Barrow Bob Callahan WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has established administration fees to provide service delivery for municipalities and the development industry for the review of a wide range of applications requiring environmental planning technical expertise and regulatory approvals; AND WHEREAS TRCA staff monitor the level of service demands for planning, ecology, engineering, hydrogeology, geotechnical and compliance reviews and report on an annual basis on the implications of cost recovery; AND WHEREAS the Authority has directed staff to report back with an assessment of full cost recovery related to the service delivery for comprehensive planning and permitting review operations; AND WHEREAS TRCA s assessment of service delivery adheres to the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees, TRCA s Fee Policy Guideline 2009 and provides a range of services according to TRCA's Memorandums of Understanding with area municipalities; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the cost recovery recommendations, inclusive of the Proposed Fee Schedule for 2012 be endorsed, and that staff be instructed to consult with the development industry, the Province of Ontario and TRCA's municipalities prior to final approval as per the provincial and TRCA guidelines; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority as to the comments received during the consultation process, and provide recommendations for approval of the final form of schedules, effective January 1, CARRIED 82

15 BACKGROUND TRCA staff has reviewed and monitored the level of service for plan and permitting review over a period of over eight (8) years, and has periodically adjusted the administrative fee schedule to reflect changes in volume, scale and complexity of project submissions and to build efficient service delivery over time. Ongoing streamlining of the plan review process has been a priority and refining the fee schedule commensurate with the specific assignment has been part of all negotiations with the development industry and municipalities over the last few years. TRCA's last substantial fee adjustment was approved in At that time, a fee schedule was approved that made changes in the order of 15 to 20% to main charges. At the same time, TRCA introduced a new major review fee to be applied to Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESPs) technical reviews. This fee schedule was controversial with the development industry and took a two-year period of working sessions and negotiations to reach a mutually acceptable MESP payment approach with the Building, Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) and TRCA. TRCA's fee schedule incorporated a modest inflationary increase of 2% respectively for each year, and the MESP fee requirements were implemented. A provincial Omnibus Bill was passed in January 1996 which empowered conservation authorities (CA) to collect fees for services approved by the Minister of Natural Resources (MNR). Conservation authorities are entitled to set rates, charge and collect fees for services rendered. The document entitled Policies and Procedures for the Charging of Conservation Authority Fees (June 1997) included in the MNR Manual sets guidelines for fee collection. The document states that CA fee structures should be designed to recover, but not exceed, the costs associated with administering and delivering the services on a program basis. The manual also states that setting fees are dependent on the complexity of applications and the level of effort required to administer the application. In 2007, the Province established the Conservation Authority Liaison Committee (CALC) to address issues related to planning and permitting mandate and process, and fee structures across the CAs in the Province. CALC includes representatives from the ministries of Natural Resources, Municipal Affairs and Housing, and Energy and Infrastructure, Conservation Ontario, select CA s, development industry, NGOs and municipal sectors. CALC produced a policies and procedures document in 2010 to assist CAs, municipalities and the development community to understand the roles and responsibilities of CAs in the planning and permitting process. CALC has also conducted a review of fee schedule standards and cost recovery across all CAs in Ontario, and is assessing potential updates to the 1997 MNR fee guideline document. Conservation Ontario has had input into the cost factors that should be incorporated into the cost recovery guidelines. At Authority Meeting #10/10, held on January 7, 2011, TRCA staff recommended delaying the 100% cost recovery assessment for TRCA until we had more input from the CALC discussion about fee collection standards and policies, and had an opportunity to fully assess TRCA s cost recovery implications for 2010, inclusive of the collection of backdated MESP requirements. With a cost recovery target of 55-60% of the total plan review budget costs in January of this year, the Authority modified staff recommendations, and instructed staff to re-assess the Fee Schedule for 100% cost recovery and bring back a proposal for full cost recovery by The resulting Resolution #A231/09 was approved, in part, as follows: 83

16 THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Fee Schedule for Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Review Services dated December 18, 2009 and incorporating a 2% cost of living increase for each of 2010 and 2011, be approved, to be effective January 8, 2010;... AND FURTHER THAT in future amendments to the Fee Schedule for Planning, Permitting and Environmental Review Services, TRCA moves towards full cost recovery as soon as possible, and no later than January 1, The last major fee adjustment took place in 2008, but funds for MESPs were not paid by landowners in most cases until 2010 and As of July 2011 all outstanding MESP fees from 2008 have been collected. Minor inflationary adjustments of 2% in 2010 and 2011 were implemented most recently. TRCA must move forward in terms of fee coverage for the anticipated workload in , and to address current pressures on operating budgets corporately. TRCA has followed the Province s guidelines and TRCA s Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Fees Policy/Guideline 2009 in preparing this report. TRCA is the first conservation authority to move towards 100% cost recovery in the Province, however, several other urbanizing authorities have prepared their assessment and will be reviewing this issue with their boards. Trends in Workload and Service Delivery Demand Attachment 1 provides a summary of the volume of files that have been reviewed by TRCA for three consecutive years ( ), inclusive of a projected estimated file volume for 2011 based on the trends that have been established to July Volume of files helps to establish a baseline of workload, however, does not reflect the increasing complexity of major files. The majority of files are not simple in nature - many require planning technical or regulatory advice as per our Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) and most files require both. Minor and standard files traditionally have included involvement of a planner, water resources engineer and ecologist. However, currently the majority of files are located in complex intensification and greenfield situations requiring technical review and negotiations for an expanded team inclusive of planning, water resources, ecology (terrestrial, aquatic), geotechnical, hydrogeology, geofluvial and, with permits, the added responsibilities of compliance monitoring (enforcement). Often differences exist between municipalities as to the level of technical review that they require particularly in the engineering fields. The changing nature of development in the GTA adds many new challenges to the planning process for both TRCA and our municipal partners. A new focus on intensification and redevelopment, the cost of land and complex development sites is increasingly a significant factor in managing planning and technical review. Additional pressure for higher densities on developable lands, and on the use of valleys, buffers, wetlands and on the urban/natural interface for development and infrastructure demand extensive negotiation time and senior attention. Achieving the appropriate balance between development, and protection and restoration of natural systems has become a difficult technical and legal challenge. The time factor has also become of greater essence given the significant amounts of investment and carrying costs, placing greater emphasis and strain on staff review timelines. 84

17 Planning and Permitting Volume The volume of Planning and Permitting applications has remained steady from 2008 to 2010, and into the second quarter of 2011 at TRCA. TRCA had a record year in terms of permits approved for construction with well over 1,000 permits issued in TRCA met our fees revenue target for 2009 and met the increased target for 2010 with the infusion of outstanding MESP fees. A total of almost $700,000 has been negotiated over the last year to contribute to work already in progress in 2011 and into the next few years. Secondary planning processes and associated MESP processes can span over several years and we must be able to fund them over time. MESPs cover a significant amount of technical work supporting the environmental feasibility of the community and secondary plan process and technical servicing of these planning efforts. As these large scale projects progress, careful monitoring of these funds is needed to ensure that sufficient monies are in place to cover workload and special technical needs over the next 2-3 years. These are committed funds built into the budget process for ongoing project management of large scale assignments, and are not a reserve. Workload for the review of Secondary/Block plans and associated MESPs formed an increasing component of work in 2010 and continues to create a significant component of the development review function. Several key MESP fee negotiations took place in 2010 and early TRCA has 17 active MESP processes ongoing this year. A huge workload driver is the MESP review process around the new Town of Seaton, which incorporates the equivalent of 15 neighbourhood/block plan exercises. Other drivers include Mayfield in Caledon, Countryside/Springdale North in Brampton, Duffin Heights/Area A9 in Pickering and Ajax, and several new communities in Vaughan and King. In addition to TRCA's regular file management, these efforts demand expedited efforts that put strain on senior staff resources. With the continuing health of the urban real estate market, TRCA's advisory services for solicitor/realty inquiries and concept reviews have increased in volume. These services help many landowners get oriented about the environmental features, hazard constraints and legislative requirements for their properties or lands that they wish to purchase. Planning and Development will be relying heavily on our comprehensive fee schedule for funding of the general staff complement, as well as this year s MESP fee negotiations to set funds in place for 2012 and OMB (Ontario Municipal Board) and MLC (Mining and Lands Commission) hearings have been on a significant increase over the last couple of years, although in most cases we have been able to settle out of these proceedings after negotiations/mediation with landowners. These efforts, however, do put pressure on TRCA's legal budget and senior staff resources as do the increasing pressure for enforcement court hearings. It should be noted that OMB and MLC hearings have exceeded our projections from the beginning of the year. Fees for hearings have been considered part of levy expense. 85

18 Environmental Assessment Volume Trends in the Environmental Assessment (EA) workload remained high for 2009/2010, particularly with the impact of the new infrastructure stimulus funding. Although this funding is over, emergency works projects for infrastructure repair have increased this year for many municipalities requiring expedited review and approvals has had a slower start to EA projects as municipal partners re-prioritized projects in January/February of this year. Spring and summer work levels are beginning to reach the volume of the previous year. The Environmental Assessment team has relied heavily on levy to support the small core team function. However, TRCA has moved to establish specialized service agreements to fund review efforts for major infrastructure projects such as TTC (subway/transit systems), Coxwell Emergency Works Project, key regional infrastructure assignments such as Viva/Rapidco, Brampton infrastructure review, and recently the Seaton Environmental Assessment in Durham. These specialized agreements set up a dedicated review team to manage volume hotspots and improve service delivery for high priority growth related areas of the jurisdiction or large scale projects. Level of Service Under the CALC process, all CAs in Ontario have been required to undertake a service delivery tracking process for permitting activities for 2011 to determine the extent to which CAs are about to meet recommended service delivery timelines as stipulated in the procedural manual. TRCA has maintained a positive 80 to 90% adherence rate to provincial time guidelines. Planning applications timelines are very much tied to the municipal process, however TRCA's day turnaround is achievable with the exception of very complex files or where special technical assessments are required e.g. modelling. Environmental Assessment applications have also met the majority of timeline requirements for standard EAs and permits. The EA team tracks and reports on a tight service delivery standard for its service delivery partners, and meets these standards 80-90% of the time. For the non-service delivery partners, the standards are met approximately 70% of the time. Major staffing restructuring of positions and expertise was made in 2010 in the development review teams and EA team to provide more senior input and supervision of major/complex files. Improvements to the quality of file management and file timeline management are positively visible for 2011 timelines. 86

19 Operating Lean One of the critical cost saving measures for TRCA review operations is that our planning and technical staff reviewers are organized in teams to integrate expertise and provide tailored capabilities to all 15 municipal agencies within TRCA's jurisdiction. For instance, our environmental planners and technical experts review and process planning applications and construction permits, as well as assist enforcement on compliance issues. Continuity of the knowledge of the files from planning policy decisions to ultimate construction and on-site implementation is of great environmental and financial value to all agencies. Although cost effective, this approach is challenging to manage from a time management perspective and can periodically cause backlogs in staff time as they try to cover many differing facets of the business obligations. A conservative and flexible approach to building staff capability in a team structure to cover growth demands is in place in TRCA's management of the planning and ecology divisions. Our team coverage of busy municipalities is very lean in all areas - for example, a snapshot of the current development planning review teams (only project management of files) is as follows: Toronto Team Durham Team (Pickering, Ajax, Durham) 258 planning files plus carry over files 310 permits York West Team (Vaughan, King, Whitchurch Stouffville) 219 planning files plus carry over files 99 permits Peel and York East Richmond Hill, Markham 295 planning applications plus carry over files 223 permits 3.25 FTE 1.75 FTE 4.0 FTE 3.5 FTE 2.5 FTE These teams also cover OMB and MLC coordination and testimony, as well as assisting with negotiations for permit compliance and violation resolution. Enforcement coverage for compliance review will be discussed in a separate report to the Executive Committee, anticipated before the end of Projected needs include two additional officers to cover existing and increasing demands with construction growth. Value Added Services For many landowners and community members, obtaining approvals from conservation authorities is a perceived red tape barrier that many do not understand. The legislative requirements are layered and sometimes complex. Many of these requirements tie directly to provincial policy and municipal Official Plan requirements that are mandated to safeguard public investment and ensure that provincial interests are addressed at the site level. Significant public savings are afforded due to the conservation authority approach to water management and flood and erosion risk. Residential clients often do not understand how technical advice from specialists at TRCA help to add value to their properties or safeguard their investment, particularly around erosion and flooding potential. 87

20 Negotiations with development landowners not only requires extensive technical input and creative solutions to meet a variety of legislative requirements but sets an essential open space system in place as a long term legacy for new and redeveloped communities. The protection of natural systems, as well as the remediation and restoration efforts that go into these large proposals through the development process, will result in a healthier open space amenity for growing communities of tomorrow. Appropriate attention paid to ecologically-based site design today will assist to create essential green infrastructure and amenities for the future, alleviating expensive remediation costs for taxpayers in the years to come. Risk such as the blow out of roads and culvert bridges, storm sewer and piping destruction, and private development flooded in sudden storms are just a few of the unexpected risks that demand costly remediation. TRCA s watershed studies have gone a long way over the last few years to identify the need for wholesale change in the way we conduct watershed-based natural system management and these issues need to translate into site level approvals and negotiations. Approval requirements are never intended to be a barrier to development or good site design proposals. The pool of TRCA senior technical expertise in all areas of environmental planning, engineering and ecology saves municipalities the cost of individualized consulting and peer review funds associated with addressing complex legislative requirements, and dealing with the large volume of planning, building and infrastructure applications coming forward. Both municipalities and TRCA, despite solid supportive working relationships, are struggling to keep up with the increasing demands for fast track development approvals while maintaining the quality of the approval outcome. Cost Recovery Analysis Methodology for Estimating 100% Cost Recovery The methodology used to establish a full cost recovery proposal has been founded on five key analyses: Determination of all associated direct costs to the plan and permit review functions for TRCA. This includes inter-divisional calculations of budget components that contribute to the development plan review function, using 2011 budget figures. Determination of the projected revenue targets to move towards a full cost recovery for Preparation of detailed analysis of types of planning, permitting and EA applications and averaged time/cost incurred to meet full cost recovery. Incorporation of input from stakeholders related to file and fee negotiations during 2010 and Incorporation of streamlining efforts to manage file cost and ensure efficient timelines to meet service delivery targets. The results of this work has been integrated to prepare a new fee proposal that would move towards full cost recovery. Obviously, many factors can change the types and volume of applications in any given year. With best efforts to analyze our needs today, a conservative fee schedule is proposed. 88