INDEX TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING #11/13. Friday, January 17, 2014

Transcription

1 INDEX TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING #11/13 Friday, January 17, 2014 MINUTES Minutes of Meeting #10/13, held on December 13, CORRESPONDENCE An dated November 28, 2013 from Mr. Joe Grogan, resident, Bolton, re: Canadian Tire Warehouse Distribution Centre Proposal 636 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek Watershed City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham 640 THE LIVING CITY POLICIES FOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE WATERSHEDS OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 643 PLANNING AND PERMITTING ADMINISTRATION COST RECOVERY 649 ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATED PROPOSAL FOR LEASE OF LAND Heart Lake Conservation Area, Regional Municipality of Peel 666 PARKS CANADA AGENCY Rouge National Urban Park 670 TORONTO ZOO Governance Model 677 HUMBER RIVER HYDROLOGIC SIMULATION PROGRAM FORTRAN MODEL UPDATE 683 BLACK CREEK CHANNEL MAINTENANCE Disposal of Stockpiled Soils Tender RSD APPOINTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Renee Afoom-Boateng 688

2 ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 CITY OF TORONTO MILLWOOD PARKWAY MUMBERSON COURT 690 PIER PROPERTY INC RODD AVENUE VAN DUSEN BOULEVARD 691 CITY OF TORONTO 691 HIS MAJESTY THE KING IN THE RIGHT OF CANADA AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE GREEN VALLEY ROAD ASTLEY AVENUE BEAUMONT ROAD 692 TOMPAUL HOLDINGS LIMITED 693 CASTLE MANOR HOMES 693 TOWN OF AJAX ONTARIO INC. 693 CITY OF BRAMPTON 694 ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC GARDEN AVENUE CALEDON-KING TOWNLINE SOUTH 694 CITY OF BRAMPTON 695 REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK 695 CITY OF TORONTO 696 BELL CANADA 696 REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK 696 TOWN OF AJAX 697 REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL 697 REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK 697 PRATT & WHITNEY CANADA BRONTE SQUARE ORCHARD CRESCENT VEROBEACH BOULEVARD SANDRINGHAM DRIVE CORINNE CRESCENT BEECHGROVE SIDE ROAD OLD SCHOOL ROAD HILL TOP TRAIL 700

3 MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE #11/13 January 17, 2014 The Executive Committee Meeting #11/13, was held in Weston Room B, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, January 17, The Vice Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:37 a.m. PRESENT Maria Augimeri Ben Cachola Ronald Chopowick Michael Di Biase Jack Heath Mike Mattos Richard Whitehead PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE Gloria Lindsay Luby ABSENT Glenn De Baeremaeker Colleen Jordan Gerri Lynn O'Connor Jim Tovey Vice Chair Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Chair Member RES.#B161/13 - Moved by: Seconded by: MINUTES Ronald Chopowick Jack Heath THAT the Minutes of Meeting #10/13, held on December 13, 2013, be approved. CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE (a) An dated November 28, 2013 from Mr. Joe Grogan, resident, Bolton, in regard to the Canadian Tire Warehouse Distribution Centre Proposal. 636

4 RES.#B162/13 - Moved by: Seconded by: CORRESPONDENCE Richard Whitehead Ben Cachola THAT above-noted correspondence (a) be received. CARRIED 637

5 CORRESPONDENCE EX6.1 From: grogan_joe To: CC: Subject: RES.#A104/13-June 18, 2013-CTC Proposal-WAREHOUSE Date: Thu, 28 Nov :31: This week, I requested and received from the Authority this document. I read with interest that since 2010 the Authority has worked with the Town of Caledon to "identify and assess the natural heritage and aquatic features on this site...". The report you prepared on June 18, 2013 for the Conservation Authority also contains much other important information for the public of which the public is not aware. However, the report does NOT contain additional significant information that the executive and elected members of the Conservation Authority need to be aware of. By means of this I am now requesting that the executive and elected members of the Conservation Authority receive this information because the entire matter of the proposed Canadian Tire Depot in South Bolton is a major concern to thousands of families living in Caledon. As one member of the Caledon community who has been very much concerned by many aspects of this matter, I wish to draw to the Authority's attention (executive and elected members) the following partial record of community opposition to this proposal: 1/July 19, 2012 notice in the Caledon Enterprise of a proposed CTC warehouse in South Bolton causes much public concern. 2/August 18th, 2012 meeting in Caledon East when members of the public expressed our concerns in a public forum. 3/September 11, 2012 when the writer and others delegated Council in opposition with petitions filed. 4/November 26, 2012 the public in a stormy meeting at the Wellness Centre in Bolton, again expresses opposition. 5/February 12th, 2013, Bolton residents asks for information as to the date of the next public meeting and requests that it be held in Bolton not Caledon East. 6/May 28th, 2013, public meeting held in Caledon East and many questions raised re: the proposal-no response from any members of the Council to the questions raised; instead, some answers provided by Town consultants and reps from CTC. 7/June 25, 2013, Town Council approves the land zoning application changing the land use from Agricultural to Serviced Industrial In spite of presentations made by 15 members of the general public who indicated our opposition. Subsequently on July 18, 2013 the Ontario Government via a MZO approves the change supported by both Caledon Council and the Region of Peel. 8/Since July, 2012, more than 1,000 residents of Bolton, Palgrave, Wildfield and North Brampton have signed petitions in opposition to the proposed CTC warehouse in South Bolton as the Depot will bring to our communities more than 700 trucks daily with some of these trucks very likely powered by diesel engines. A June, 2012 report from the World Health Organizations clearly identifies diesel engine exhaust as cancer producing. A copy of the press release from the WHO was provided to all members of Council. Since July of this year, a community organization Your Voice for Bolton has organized additional activities to educate the public as to our concerns and has filed documentation with the Ontario Government asking that the MZO requested by Caledon Council be revoked. In addition, I believe a legal challenge will be filed against this proposed Depot. While your report for the Authority was prepared in June, 2013, before the MZO was issued, I am shocked that it does NOT include some of the community information being summarized here. Since your report is a public document, should it not also have included the information noted here which is also part of the public record? 638

6 Furthermore, given the potential for more than 2800 trucks weekly going to and from the proposed Depot, (a facility replacing 1,500,000 square ft. approx. of prime farmland) what concerns does the Authority have re: possible increased damage to the natural environment and the community's Quality of Life due to a possible significant increase in diesel fume emissions? I would appreciate please a written response to this note via . Thank you. Joe Grogan, Bolton Resident, 1975 to present 639

7 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION RES.#B163/13 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek Watershed City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, CFN Acquisition of property located to the south of Bayly Street and west of Church Street South in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for ", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Duffins Creek watershed. Moved by: Seconded by: Gloria Lindsay Luby Mike Mattos THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT hectares (7.016 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lots 15 & 16, Broken Front Concession, being Parts 11, 14, 29 and 30, Plan 40R-22677, City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, be purchased from the Corporation of the City of Pickering; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the lands subject to existing service easements and the reservation of three storm drainage easements by the Corporation of the City of Pickering; THAT Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction and all reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining needed approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND Resolution #A94/10 at Authority Meeting #5/10, held on June 25, 2010, approved the Greenlands Acquisition Project for The development of a property located to the south of the subject property and municipally known as 1400 Church Street South included the creation of a wetland on the subject property to offset loss of wetlands through the development of 1400 Church Street South. Pickering accepted title to the subject property for a five year minimum period, during which time TRCA's Ecology staff monitored wetland operations. TRCA's Ecology staff has completed a review of the wetland monitoring operations and support the acquisition of the subject property at this time. Pickering will reserve three easements for storm drainage purposes. Water inflow to the subject property includes clean rain roof run-off from the 1400 Church Street South development by way of an existing underground pipe. The area involving this inflow pipe will be the third storm drainage easement, which is located is between the other two storm drainage easements that Pickering will reserve. 640

8 Negotiations have been conducted with Denise Bye, Supervisor, Property & Development Services at the City of Pickering. Attached is a plan showing the location of the subject lands. RATIONALE The subject property falls within the Duffins Creek watershed and the approved Greenlands Acquisition Project for The subject property is a wetland feature, which satisfies one of the criteria in the Greenlands Acquisition Project. The majority of the lands are included in TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System and provide a connection to other adjacent natural features, including portions of the Lower Duffins Creek Provincially Significant Wetland Complex to the west, north and east, and significant woodlands to the west. The latter has been previously acquired by TRCA. The subject property adds to the size of these existing natural features, which are currently protected through public acquisition and Provincial policy. Situated approximately two kilometres from Lake Ontario in the southern, primarily urban, fabric of the City of Pickering, this property offers migratory opportunities to songbirds and waterfowl migrating across the lake. TAXES AND MAINTENANCE Based on TRCA's preliminary review of the environmental criteria for lands that are eligible to receive a property tax exemption under the provincial Conservation Land Tax Incentive Program, it would appear that a portion of the subject property would be eligible for an exemption for the 2014 taxation year as it is Provincially Significant Wetlands. The remainder of the subject property is zoned M or Industrial, which is not eligible for exemption. The estimated 2014 taxes would be in the range of $2,000 to $3,000. Pickering s Planning staff has agreed to change the zoning for the subject property in order to accurately match its current wetland use at such time that Pickering's Planning staff is processing a by-law to address other miscellaneous zoning issues. Upon rezoning of the subject property, the remainder would be eligible for exemption. Furthermore, the addition of the subject parcel of land should not significantly impact TRCA's maintenance costs at this location. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds for the costs related to this purchase are available in the TRCA land acquisition capital account. Report prepared by: Dan O'Donohue, extension 5767, Jae R. Truesdell, extension 5247, s: DO'Donohue@TRCA.on.ca, jtruesdell@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Dan O'Donohue, extension 5767, Jae R. Truesdell, extension s: DO'Donohue@TRCA.on.ca, jtruesdell@trca.on.ca Date: December 12, 2013 Attachments: 1 641

9 Attachment 1 642

10 RES.#B164/13 - Moved by: Seconded by: THE LIVING CITY POLICIES FOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE WATERSHEDS OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY To report on the results of public consultation and on revisions to the draft of The Living City Policies, and to release the revised draft for final public and stakeholder review. Ronald Chopowick Jack Heath THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff conducted public and stakeholder consultation on The Living City Policies draft document and have revised the draft document based on stakeholder feedback; AND WHEREAS staff committed to reporting back to the board on the results of public consultation and on revisions to the draft document; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA release a revised draft of The Living City Policies draft document for final public and stakeholder consultation as outlined in this report; THAT TRCA's municipal partners, provincial ministries, the Building Industry and Land Development Association, environmental non-governmental agencies, watershed and waterfront interest groups, neighbouring conservation authorities, and other stakeholders be so advised by the CEO'S Office; AND FURTHER THAT staff return to the board later in 2014 for formal adoption of The Living City Policies document. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #11/12, held on January 25, 2013, Resolution #A263/12 was approved as follows: WHEREAS conservation authorities have a legislated and mandated responsibility under the Conservation Authorities Act to have board-approved policies to further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources; AND WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff have drafted a policy document entitled: The Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of TRCA, to update and replace TRCA s Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (1994); AND WHEREAS public and stakeholder consultation on the draft policy document is a provincial requirement and will improve the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the document; 643

11 THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA release The Living City Policies draft document for public and stakeholder consultation as outlined in this report; THAT all of TRCA's municipal partners, provincial ministries, the Building and Land Development Industry (BILD), environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs), watershed and waterfront interest groups, neighbouring conservation authorities and other stakeholders be so advised by the CEO's Office; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back on the outcomes of the consultation process and proposed revisions. The purpose of The Living City Policies (LCP) is four-fold: 1) to guide TRCA review of applications under the Planning Act and undertakings subject to the Environmental Assessment Act; 2) to provide the basis for approving permit applications under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act; 3) to inform TRCA s advocacy role for The Living City and sustainable communities in the planning and development process; and 4) to assist and enable TRCA's partners and stakeholders contributions to building The Living City. Stakeholder Consultation Since receiving consent from the Authority to consult externally on the draft policy document, staff posted the draft document on TRCA s website with a series of questions to evoke comments from all stakeholders. Staff also conducted three Orientation Sessions at Black Creek Pioneer Village (March 2013) on The LCP, which were well attended by: municipalities, provincial ministries, the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD), environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) and neighbouring conservation authorities. Attendees were asked to provide their written comments by the end of June Between May and August 2013, staff met individually with several municipalities (by region), the City of Toronto, BILD, Humber Watershed Alliance, Don Council, Etobicoke-Mimico Watersheds Coalition, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (by phone). Written comments were received over this time period from these and other stakeholders, with extensions granted to municipalities requesting more time to review the document. At the municipal sessions, both regional and local staff attended mainly from planning departments, but some staff representatives from engineering, public works, capital projects (roads and water departments), urban design and parks, also attended. Through the process, the feedback was generally positive and many stakeholders indicated that the document aligned well with their objectives for building sustainable communities. The following is an overview of input grouped by stakeholder type. 644

12 Municipalities: The main message from municipalities was to provide greater clarity in identifying roles and responsibilities to clearly state that municipalities are responsible for the design and planning of communities and that TRCA is not the approval authority under the Planning Act or the Environmental Assessment Act. Municipalities expressed in person and in writing to TRCA staff that the policies in The LCP, as drafted, do not make this sufficiently clear. They commented that the document s language should be adjusted in order to emphasize that TRCA can only make recommendations in the advocacy (Chapter 6), planning and environmental assessment realms (Chapter 7); conversely, they generally felt that the policy language in the Regulation section (Chapter 8) was generally sufficient as drafted because TRCA is the approval authority in the permitting process. Next, municipalities expressed concern over the policies that recommend protection of the Natural System as defined only by TRCA. They felt that they, as the approval authorities in the planning process, should be defining a natural system in accordance with the natural heritage systems and policies in their municipal official plans. In general, they felt that The LCP s Natural System policies were too prescriptive, did not account for the natural systems work done by municipalities, and that municipal natural heritage systems in official plans should prevail over TRCA s Natural System. They noted that none of these points were made clear enough in the policy language as drafted. Another common municipal comment was that certain technical guidelines referred to in The LCP that are still under development, such as the Compensation Protocol and the Stream Crossings Guideline, should be consulted on and finalized before having status in The LCP. Finally, a number of municipalities were of the opinion that The LCP should have municipal council endorsement prior to its final approval by the Authority. Accordingly, they requested an extension in The LCP s proposed timeline in order to allow time for municipal staff reporting to their respective Councils. Provincial Ministries: Provincial ministries and the Niagara Escarpment Commission were supportive of the document and made only minor comments for clarification in wording where provincial matters are referenced in the draft. The ministries that commented were: Natural Resources (MNR), Environment, and Municipal Affairs and Housing. MNR stated in their comments: It is apparent that a lot of work went into developing this draft and TRCA should be commended for a job well done. BILD: The Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) s commented that The LCP was clear and well organized. BILD's only major issue with the draft was that they wanted further emphasis on the fact that the Regulation policies were the only chapter for which TRCA is the decision maker. Their comments took this view one step further, by requesting that only the Regulation policies remain as policies, and that the advocacy and planning chapters be made guidelines only and not policies. This would help ensure, in their opinion, that staff would implement the three different types of policies in the appropriate way, i.e., advocacy and planning policies as recommendations; regulation policies as requirements. 645

13 ENGOs: ENGOs were generally content with The LCP draft as written but expressed the need to strengthen the policies to provide more protection for natural systems. In particular, the Peel Federation of Agriculture s comments stood out given that they took the opportunity to express their discontent with the already multi-layered maze of environmental regulation in Ontario that, in their opinion, TRCA s policy document compounds. Other ENGOs that commented in writing were Cycle Toronto and Environmental Defense. Both organizations were supportive of The LCP, but wished to see an overall strengthening of the policies to further promote active transportation alternatives to the automobile, and to avoid environmental degradation from development and infrastructure. Other Stakeholders: Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation provided supportive comments on the draft LCP with requests for some minor adjustments. Others who also made minor comments in writing were a private citizen, a private consulting firm and a neighbouring conservation authority. TRCA Staff Internal Review Planning and Development staff also conducted another round of internal review of The LCP in the last several months with TRCA Planning and Development and Ecology staff involved in day-to-day plan review. In September and December, two workshops were held for staff on select chapters in the document; staff from other divisions and sections such as Restoration Services, Watershed Management and Property Services were also invited. A number of theoretical but typical planning and development proposals were presented as case study examples, for which staff had to provide comments using the draft policies. Feedback from this testing of The LCP was generally positive with many suggestions for minor adjustments to improve the clarity and usability of the document. Staff have also been keeping TRCA s Directors Committee up-to-date on the progress of the project. Summary of Responses and Revisions At consultation sessions with external stakeholders, such as municipalities and BILD, staff gave presentations scoped to written comments received and were able to address many stakeholder issues through these presentations and the discussions that ensued. The remaining issues will be addressed through written responses, comment by comment, in a chart that will be made available to commenters. The responses indicate how the comments are addressed either through explanations of what is already in the draft document or through revisions to the document. The following summarizes the main revisions to the document by issue: Issue: The advocacy and planning policies do not make it as clear as they should that municipalities are the decision makers in these realms, especially where the natural heritage systems in municipal official plans conflict with TRCA s Natural System. As suggested by BILD, a solution may be to convert the advocacy and planning chapters to guidelines only. 646

14 Response/Revision: Staff are confident that having policies for all three chapters (advocacy, planning and regulation) is consistent with provincial direction to conservation authorities (CA) to indicate to all stakeholders the roles and responsibilities of CAs in the planning and development process through a set of publicly consulted-on policies. And in general, most stakeholders were pleased to see all of what TRCA does all in one place, and therefore would not want to see the document split out into separate documents for guidelines and policies. However, staff have revised The LCP with enhanced wording and formatting in the advocacy and planning chapters that further emphasizes the municipal decision making role in the planning and development process and further wording describing how the policies in each section will be used. In particular, the planning policies in The LCP that recommend the protection and dedication of TRCA s Natural System now further emphasize that under the Planning Act review process, the final boundaries of the System are ultimately up to the municipality. The policies reflect current practice whereby the process to determine the boundary is a cooperative endeavour among municipalities and TRCA. TRCA will continue to use our watershed-based research and science to inform this decision making process, including identifying opportunities for restoration, enhancement and compensation. To this end, TRCA will use the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (TNHSS) and natural hazard boundary delineation and management in order to maintain the long term health of our watersheds. As well, more diagrams will be added to the document in order to better express the intent of the Natural System delineation policies. In addition to the above, revisions to The LCP acknowledge, as per TRCA's municipal planning advisory service agreements, that TRCA is in no way limited to exercising its rights under the Planning Act, the Conservation Authorities Act, or any other applicable legislation nor limited from independently appealing a planning decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. This is also applicable to TRCA's delegated responsibilities from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and Ministry of Natural Resources as part of the Provincial One-Window Plan Review Service to represent the provincial interest on natural hazards encompassed by Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement Issue: New technical guidelines referred to in The LCP that are still under development, such as the Compensation Protocol and the Stream Crossings Guideline, should be consulted on and finalized before having status in The LCP. Response/Revision: Before any new technical guidelines that support the policies are used in plan review, they will be consulted on externally in draft and then revised and finalized based on feedback. The Compensation Protocol has undergone some initial consultation with municipalities and will be undertaking further consultation in Consultation on the Stream Crossing Guidelines is anticipated for Spring These guidelines are based on recent watershed plan recommendations, ongoing monitoring and scientific research of TRCA staff and its partners, and experience from current practice. Should TRCA s Compensation Protocol or Stream Crossing Guideline not be finalized concurrently with the approval of The LCP, these two policy areas will be held while the remainder of the document comes into effect. The current practice for these two areas will apply until the Guidelines are finalized. Issue: Municipal Council endorsement of The LCP should take place prior to Authority approval. 647

15 Response/Revision: In accordance with provincial guidance, as a CA policy document, The LCP only requires Authority approval. Staff, however, acknowledge that municipal council endorsements are welcome as an added layer of support for implementing the policies in the document. Adoption of any of the policies from The LCP by municipalities in their official plans would be an even more helpful initiative. Timeline TRCA staff are maintaining communication with commenters and are using the TRCA website, to continue to inform and consult with all stakeholders. The ongoing process to revise, consult and finalize The LCP over the first half of 2014 is described below. The timeline has shifted since the last report to the Authority, given that most stakeholders required extra time to review and provide comments on the document. Both the discussions and the written comments from external stakeholders and TRCA staff have helped inform revisions to the draft. Staff have now inventoried and reviewed all of the written comments received and the revisions are being completed and confirmed through consultation with senior TRCA staff. Following the Authority meeting on January 31, 2014, a copy of this report and the revised draft document will be posted on the TRCA website welcoming comments from any interested parties. As requested by the stakeholders, the revisions will be in "track changes" Word version format so that differences from the previous version can be easily reviewed. A chart documenting all comments with corresponding responses from TRCA staff will be made available to all stakeholders and in particular, those parties who provided written comments. While waiting for the revised draft to be reviewed, staff will hold a public open house at Black Creek Pioneer Village on the revised document. The draft will also be submitted to TRCA s legal counsel for their review. Once staff receive the final round of comments from all of these parties, final revisions to the document will be made where necessary. Staff anticipate returning to the Authority to recommend adoption of The LCP in mid FINANCIAL DETAILS Conservation authorities have a legislated and mandated responsibility under the Conservation Authorities Act to have board-approved policies. Funding for this project is part of the regular planning and development divisional budgeting process. SUMMARY In consultation with other TRCA staff, municipalities, provincial staff, ENGOs and BILD, TRCA Planning and Development staff have revised a draft policy document to replace the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. The revised draft will be ready for public release in February 2014 so that TRCA s partners and the general public will have a second and final opportunity to provide their input to the revised document. Public consultation is a provincial requirement for CA plan review policy documents similar to a municipal official plan review. 648

16 Staff anticipate that this final consultation process will continue to help create a comprehensive and effective document for TRCA s roles in the planning and development process and, in cooperation with TRCA's partners, will ultimately contribute to a healthy and sustainable city-region. Report prepared by: Mary-Ann Burns, extension mburns@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Laurie Nelson, extension 5281, David Burnett, extension s: lnelson@trca.on.ca, dburnett@trca.on.ca RES.#B165/13 - Moved by: Seconded by: PLANNING AND PERMITTING ADMINISTRATION COST RECOVERY Cost of living adjustments for the Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Review Services Fee Schedule. Ronald Chopowick Jack Heath THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) established the Fees Schedule for all plan review services that aimed to achieve a 100% cost recovery target for the development review functions within the Planning and Development Division; AND WHEREAS staff has committed to monitor the trends in submission demand, level of service, revenue collection and cost recovery for the preliminary period of change in and report back to the Authority and TRCA's stakeholders on the status of cost recovery; AND WHEREAS TRCA follows the guidelines from the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees 1997 and TRCA s Fee Policy Guideline 2009, which provides for an inflationary adjustment for review fees every two years and provision for a comprehensive service delivery and cost recovery assessment study; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Fee Schedule for Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Review Services dated January 2014, incorporating a 5% cost of living increase, be approved, to be effective on January 31, 2014; THAT a comprehensive service delivery/cost recovery assessment report be provided for the years 2012 and 2013 as soon as year end accounting numbers are available and review is finalized with any required modifications, including adjustments to the fee schedule, and streamlining proposals effective later in the spring of 2014; 649

17 AND FURTHER THAT TRCA discuss the outcomes of the service delivery/cost recovery assessment with our municipal partners, stakeholders and BILD (Building Industry and Land Development Association) prior to Authority approval. CARRIED BACKGROUND The last major fee schedule adjustment for TRCA s Planning and Development role took place in January At that time, a new fee schedule was initiated based on the trends of submissions for the previous few years and assessing the potential forecast of submissions - setting a new approach for fee recovery targeting moving forward to a 100% revenue stream for development related submissions. The cost of staff delivery was also assessed on a projected basis. However, there is a need to review actual staffing requirements relative to the submissions and project demands of the last two years to determine level of service and cost recovery. A set of guidelines accompanied all the fees schedules that were developed in consultation with BILD to improve the execution of the fee schedule and to provide greater clarity of fee administration for applicants. This work helped the implementation of the fee schedule greatly and the process of fee collection has progressed smoothly over the last two years for planning and permitting applications with the development industry. The Environmental Assessment fees have been more difficult to collect in a few municipalities that do not have service agreements or have constrained budgets and limited development revenue of their own, as well as provincial and crown agencies. Workload and Revenue Trends Planning and Development is currently reviewing the workload volume and types of application reviews conducted for both 2012 and In 2012, Planning and Development had one of the highest volumes of planning matters in about 12 years, with a distinct increase in the review of large scale Secondary Plans and associated MESP (Master Environmental Services Plans) as well as, complex draft plans of subdivision. The 2012 the projected revenue target for development review was $5,157,000. TRCA achieved revenues in the first year of fee modifications and procedural change in the order of approximately $4,800,000, from Environmental Assessment (EA), MESP and development review fees. The 2013 revenue actuals are still being confirmed and staff is estimating approximately $4,500,000 based on the performance during the first three quarters of the year. Staff require final figures for 2013 to base a detailed analysis of the cost recovery picture on for 2012 and 2013, and to confirm any required modifications for cost recovery. Staff need to determine where the workload pressures are that are not generating revenue and where shortfalls may exist, if any, in the current revenue picture. The outcomes of the service delivery/cost recovery assessment will be completed with any required modifications and streamlining proposals later in the spring 2014 for stakeholder discussions and Authority approval. 650

18 Streamlining Efforts Planning and Development has worked diligently this year to improve many areas of daily operations for efficiencies. Staff has worked to improve accounting and financial tracking through new corporate accounting improvements; has established a pilot project for on-line payment; worked toward more digital submission improvements with TRCA's partner municipalities and the consulting industry; and has streamlined the approvals process for minor and standard permitting applications with the new provincially approved staff delegation process. Details of the staff delegation process and continuous strategic improvements can be found in the report "Planning and Permit Administration, Continuous Strategic Improvements and Delegation of Permit Approvals" to the Executive Committee on November 1, 2013 (Resolution #B138/13, pages and approved by the Authority on November 22, 2013 (amended Resolution #A198/13, pages 462 and Modifications have been made to the fee schedules to reflect recent amendments to the Fisheries Act (November 25, 2013), whereby TRCA will no longer review projects as per Fisheries and Oceans Canada s (DFO) Level III partnership agreement under the Fisheries Act for development review applicants. TRCA will continue to deliver services directed toward the protection, restoration and management of aquatic systems, including fish and fish habitat as an integral part of its watershed management and regulatory responsibilities as well as agreements with Ministry of Natural Resources and our memorada of understanding with municipalities. Fish habitat information and field data will be provided to applicants as needed for the new Fisheries Act self assessment process or any DFO authorizations. FINANCIAL DETAILS According to the approved TRCA Fees Policy Guideline 2009, the fee structure and cost recovery assessment is completed every two years. As part of TRCA's annual corporate budgeting process, staff is recommending a cost of living inflationary increase of 5% (inclusive of 3% 2012, 2% 2013) to be effective on January 31, 2014 upon approval by the Authority. Based on current levels of work, this increase would generate additional revenue of about $200,000 which will cover TRCA's staffing inflationary costs (COLA) over the last two years. A revised fee schedule for is outlined in Attachments 1-3, reflecting the 5% adjustments for planning, permitting and environmental assessment review. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE A comprehensive service delivery/cost recovery report will be provided for the years 2012 and 2013 as soon as year end accounting numbers are available and review is finalized with any required modifications and streamlining proposals later in the spring of TRCA will discuss the outcomes of the service delivery/cost recovery assessment with our municipal partners, stakeholders and BILD prior to Authority approval. Report prepared by: Carolyn Woodland, extension s: cwoodland@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension s: cwoodland@trca.on.ca Date: January 6, 2014 Attachments: 3 651

19 Attachment 1 Introduction TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES January 2014 TRCA s Fee Schedule for Planning Services was approved by Resolution #xxx/13 of the Authority on January 31, The Fee Schedule adheres to the Provincial Ministry of Natural Resources Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees, the TRCA s Fee Policy Guideline 2009, and the range of planning services consistent with TRCA s Memorandums of Understanding with area municipalities. The Fee Schedule includes a broad spectrum of fee categories within each application type to accurately cover the scale of work. The lower fees apply to minor and less complex applications, and modest scale efforts. Higher fees apply to more complex applications requiring a higher level of planning and technical review. The Fee Schedule also includes fees for services that assist with streamlining processing and approval efforts for the applicant, such as phased approvals, expedited review charges, red line revision processing (where possible), and a project management assistance fee. Administration of Applications and Fees 1. All planning application submissions and associated fees must be administered through the Planning and Development Division of TRCA. 2. General inquiries and negotiation of fees will be directed through TRCA's planning area managers and the Director, Planning and Development on issues of interpretation and scoping of work requirements. 3. Pre-consultation - A pre-consultation meeting with the municipality and TRCA staff to determine the scope of issues for the planning application should be held. TRCA processing fees will be determined based on a predetermined scope of work. If through the application processing, the scope of the application changes, then fee adjustments will be determined. All applications must be deemed complete, inclusive of fee submission, prior to commencement of submission processing. 4. Fee appeal process - Any dispute of fee calculations that can not be resolved through consultation with TRCA's Director, Planning and Development and/or CAO's office, can be appealed through the Budget/Audit Advisory Board and/or the Authority. Delegation format with justification of appeal request is recommended. 5. Any refunds, where applicable, will be approved by the Director, Planning and Development. 6. The application fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the municipality. The final clearance fee will be billed directly by the TRCA and paid prior to final clearance of an application. All payments must be made within 30 days of TRCA notification in writing. Interest will be charged and accumulated beyond 30 days. 7. Re-submission fees will be billed directly by the TRCA and must be paid prior to final clearance of an application. 8. Only one set of fees applies when processing and reviewing a combined application (e.g. a combined Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Subdivision application). The highest rate of fees applies. If the applications are received more than 6 months apart then separate fees apply. 9. The TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees or adjust fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort or for development application scenarios not captured in the Fee Schedule. Custom fees will be negotiated for fast-tracked or unique circumstances for large scale or complex review efforts. Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical and specialized modeling and may be charged to the applicant. TRCA reserves the right to assess fee requirements after one year of processing planning applications. Additional fees can be charged after one year and for unreasonable delays. 10. All application fees (except minor Concept Development) include one initial site visit, where appropriate. 11. TRCA reserves the right to adjust fees to reflect new planning or regulatory legislative requirements (e.g. Bill 51). 12. Base geotechnical and hydrogeology review is included. Applications will be subject to an additional fee for complex reviews and advisory services. TRCA will inform applicants as early as possible in the process. The standard additional charge is $2,100 and the major additional charge is $3,150 - $4,725 based on scope. 652

20 Administration of Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) Applications The Fee Schedule sets a base fee across the jurisdiction as follows: Proposals 25ha or less: Proposals greater than 25ha: $ 7,500 Base Fee $15,000 Base Fee An additional charge of $475 per gross hectare is applied to each application. The gross area includes natural systems. The following apply to MESP applications: 1. The Fee Schedule assumes an average 2 year timeframe for MESP completion. TRCA reserves the right to re-evaluate the MESP scope of work and progress related to fee status after a two year process. 2. A Terms of Reference for the MESP work tasks must be prepared and agreed to by all parties including the municipality, TRCA and the proponent. 3. Fee charges apply to Residential and Industrial/Commercial Block planning. Non-participating landowners need to apply and pay the MESP component commensurate with current fee at the time. 4. The fee schedule includes the following MESP milestone payment structure: MESP PHASE OF WORK PAYABLE a. Preliminary Initiation (at Project start-up) Base Fee applies (Scoping of MESP/Terms of Reference Initiation) b. Terms of Reference completion/mesp Initiation 50% payable (Includes existing conditions report/field work/ First MESP Submission/Review) c. Prior to First Submission Comments 20% payable d. Prior to issuance of final MESP approval by TRCA 30% payable (Maximum 3 review submissions) 5. All official plan amendment, zoning and draft plans of subdivision fee requirements that evolve out of the Secondary/Block Plan process and MESP process apply separately as per TRCA's approved Fee Schedule at the time of submission. No additional per lot charges will apply on draft plans of subdivision if an MESP is completed, approved and paid for. 6. Plans of subdivision that have not been studied under the MESP process will be charged an additional fee of $105 per unit, over and above the subdivision base and clearance fees (see schedule). Subdivisions not included as part of original MESP/Block Plan approval will be charged on a per unit basis for updated plans. 7. On occasion, MESP fee requirements may be scoped to the type of municipal process and scheduling parameters (e.g. fast-tracked, updates and transitional files, reduced scope of work). 8. Construction permits for works under TRCA's provincial regulation are charged separately at the time of detailed design and construction of draft plan components (such as stormwater management facilities, road/bridge crossings, pipe boring and drilling works, stream channel works, etc). 653

21 Definitions The following definitions apply to applications to determine fee review category: Screening Assessment projects for which a letter/response is required from the TRCA (i.e. is located adjacent to a natural feature or natural hazard area) but does not affect the program or policy interests of the TRCA. No technical review is associated with this project. Minor projects for which a letter/response is required from the TRCA (i.e. is located adjacent to a natural feature or natural hazard area) which may affect the program or policy interests of the TRCA, and requires technical review related to only one technical discipline. Standard projects that meet TRCA policies, and require routine technical analysis (i.e. standard EIS review and/or water management screening and assessment, or standard geotechnical review). Major projects which are significant in geographic area, and/or for which submission of a suite of applicable technical studies is required to demonstrate that TRCA or partner municipality program or complex policy interests can be met (e.g. ORM, Rouge Park, NEC). Major projects generally require more complex ecological, geotechnical, water resource engineering, hydrogeological, or fluvial geomorphic studies and assessment. Major projects may require more than one technical team or planning meeting. Complex projects for which a full suite of applicable technical studies are required to demonstrate consistency with TRCA or partner municipality program or complex policy interests (e.g. ORM, Rouge Park, NEC). Complex projects typically involve extensive modifications to the landscape. Complex projects may also be characterized by one or more of the following: a. The need for multiple resubmissions or extensive working meetings; b. The need for additional TRCA technical assessments (i.e. technical modeling refinements); c. Extensive technical study review, including complex hydrogeological, fluvial geomorphology; natural channel design, wetland interference, environmental impact studies; d. Require more than one day of TRCA fieldwork. Incomplete Submissions - A submission for review is deemed to be incomplete where TRCA has provided a checklist of requirements, and the application has not met all requirements. Applicant Driven Formal Modification - A fee for an applicant driven formal modification will be charged where plans are submitted for review after the application has received planning approval from the municipality. 654

22 TRCA Adminsitration Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES January 2014 Fee Schedule for Planning Services Application Type Application Fee Clearance Fee Notes Screening letter (Residential/Minor projects) $85 N/A Generally, this fee does not apply to major developments. Vulnerable Areas Screening $85 Fees (Source Water Protection) Concept Development/ minor $275 N/A This is not a mandatory fee. This is Property Inquiry standard $2,625 N/A a guidance tool at the request of major $5,775 N/A the applicant. Variance screening assessment $315 minor $525 major $1,680 Consent/Severance/Land Division screening assessment $315 minor $1,260 major $4,200 Single Residential Site Plan minor $735 major $3,060 Site Plan minor $1,470 standard $5,250 major $14,700 complex $22,050 Official Plan Amendment screening assessment $315 (OPA) minor $1,680 standard $4,620 major $8,190 complex $12,600 Zoning By-law Amendment/ Rezoning (ZBA/RZ) Multi-Unit Building Site Plan (Rental, Condominium, Mixed Use) screening assessment $315 minor $1,680 standard $4,620 major $8,190 complex $12,600 standard $15,910 major $32,815 complex $37,800 See notes N/A N/A $795 N/A $665 N/A $1,575 $3,150 $3,150 N/A N/A $2,730 $2,730 $2,730 N/A N/A $2,730 $2,730 $2,730 $5,460 $12,035 $12,035 Where a site visit and/or extended review is required for a variance application, a clearance fee of $145 is applicable. Refer to Note #8. Refer to General Note #8 and #12. Refer to General Note #8 and #12. Refer to General Note #8 and #12. Refer to General Note #8 and #12. Refer to General Note #

23 TRCA Adminsitration Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES January 2014 Application Type Application Fee Clearance Fee Notes Draft Plan of Subdivision (Residential/Industrial/ Commercial Subdivision) Golf Courses, Aggregate Pits or Commercial Fill Pits Block and Tertiary Plans and Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP)(Residential & Industrial/Commercial) Urban MESP Optional Expedited Review (Director approved) 5ha or less Standard $18,900 Major $27,300 Complex $36,750 5ha to 25ha Standard $27,300 Major $36,750 Complex $43,050 25ha and greater Standard $36,750 Complex $43,050 Per unit (if applicable) $105/ unit Per ha (if applicable) $475/ha Standard 25ha or less $21,000 Complex > 25ha $31,500 Base fee 25ha or less $7,500 Base fee > 25ha $15,000 Comprehensive $475/ha Negotiated in a Terms of Reference Agreement. $5,460 $12,035 $12,035 $12,035 $12,035 $12,035 $12,035 $12,035 N/A N/A N/A N/A to be determined 1. Residential subdivisions without prior comprehensive MESP review will be charged an additional $105 per unit. Industrial subdivisions without prior comprehensive MESP review will be charged an additional $475 per hectare. See General Note #8 and # Refer to Definitions for application category criteria. 3. As the file review progresses, should the issues and review become more complex than originally anticipated, then the fee will correspondingly increase as per scope of work. 4. For sites greater than 50 ha, there will be a site specific discussion on scope of review depending on size and complexity of the specific application. Refer to General Note #12. Additional charge of $475 per hectare for comprehensive MESP. Refer to Notes related to Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) Application. N/A $5,250 The Expedited Review charge applies to special circumstances around fast-tracked conditions for plan registration and completion of conditions to meet unanticipated circumstances. Applied only on Director s approval and as workload allows. This generally applies to efforts that are required to be completed within 1-2 week period. 656

24 TRCA Adminsitration Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES January 2014 Other Applicable Fees Description Fee Notes Pre-consultation meeting no charge Pre-consultation technical team site visit $2,730 This is not a mandatory fee. This is a guidance tool at the request of the applicant. Additional Site Visit Charges up to ½ day $735 Includes travel time. First site visit is up to 1 day $1,470 included as part of processing. Multiple field assessments, stakings and negotiations are charged separately. This is not a mandatory fee. This is a guidance tool at the request of the applicant. Additional Clearance fee for Subdivision Phases standard $2,625 with new technical info. $5,250 Applicant Driven Formal Modification (requiring minor $1,095 See Definitions on page 3. re-circulation) major $3,675 Re-submission due to incomplete submissions $3,675 See Definitions on page 3. All applications located in a Special Policy Area (SPA) or Flood Vulnerable Area will be charged a 25% or 75% premium on the applicable fee. minor 25% major 75% File Reactivation $525 To reactivate files that have been inactive for 2 years or more. Waterfront Development additional charge for shoreline engineering peer review $1,575-2,625 To be determined based on scope. 657

25 Attachment 2 Introduction TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES For Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES January 2014 TRCA s Fee Schedule for Permitting Services for Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) was adopted by Resolution #xxx/13 of the Authority Board on January 31, The Fee Schedule adheres to the Provincial Ministry of Natural Resources Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees, the TRCA s Fee Policy Guideline 2009, and the range of planning services consistent with TRCA s Memorandums of Understanding with area municipalities. The Fee Schedule includes a broad spectrum of fee categories within each application type to accurately cover the scale of work. The lower fees apply to minor and less complex applications, and modest scale efforts. Higher fees apply to more complex applications requiring a higher level of regulatory and technical review. The Fee Schedule also includes fees for services that assist with streamlining processing and approval efforts for the applicant, such as phased approvals, expedited review charges, red line revision processing (where possible), and a project management assistance fee. Administration of Applications and Fees: All permit application submissions and associated fees must be administered through the Planning and Development Division of TRCA. General inquiries and negotiation of fees will be directed through TRCA's planning area managers and the Director, Planning and Development on issues of interpretation and scoping of work requirements. Pre-consultation - A pre-consultation meeting with TRCA staff to determine the scope of issues for the permit application is mandatory. TRCA processing fees will be determined based on a predetermined scope of work. If through the application processing, the scope of the application changes, fee adjustments will be determined. All applications must be deemed complete, inclusive of fee submission, prior to commencement of submission processing. Fee appeal process - Any dispute of fee calculations that can not be resolved through consultation with TRCA's Director, Planning and Development and/or CAO's office, can be appealed through the Budget/Audit Advisory Board and/or the Authority. Delegation format with justification of appeal request is recommended. Any refunds, where applicable, will be approved by the Director, Planning and Development. The permit fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the TRCA. In the event that the permit fee is not paid at the time of filing an application, fees must be paid prior to issuing a permit. The TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort. Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical, and specialized modelling and may be charged to the applicant. All permits are issued for two years. There are no extensions for permits issued under Ontario Regulation 166/06. On a one-time basis, and upon notification 60 days prior to the expiration of an Ontario Regulation 166/06 permit, applicants may apply for re-issuance of a new permit for the original approved works, before the works are considered new. Such requests will be assessed in accordance with any new updated technical hazard information and the current policies in place. There is no guarantee of an automatic approval. TRCA reserves the right to adjust fees related to regulatory legislation changes or updates. Expedited Review Additional Charge applies only to unanticipated circumstances requiring fast-tracked approvals (primarily clearance). 658

26 Definitions The following apply to Residential Property Minor projects for which a letter/response is required from TRCA (e.g. is located adjacent to a natural feature or natural hazard area) which may affect the program or policy interests of the TRCA, and requires technical review related to one technical discipline. Projects include ancillary structures such as decks, sheds, garages, and pools and placement of less than 30 cubic metres of fill. Standard projects that meet TRCA policies, and require routine technical analysis (e.g. standard EIS review and/or water management screening and assessment, or standard geotechnical review). Projects include additions, structures or buildings; works in the floodplain and placement of fill (over 30 cubic metres) and associated grading/fill placement. Major projects which are significant in geographic area, and/or for which submission of a suite of applicable technical studies is required to demonstrate that TRCA or partner municipality program and policy interests can be met. Major projects generally require more complex ecological, geotechnical, water resource engineering, hydrogeological, or fluvial geomorphic studies and assessment. Major projects may require more than one technical team or planning meeting. Projects include major additions (greater than 50% of the original ground floor area), new structures or buildings; all works in the floodplain; and the placement of 30 cubic metres or more of fill. 659

27 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES For Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) January 2014 Fee Schedule for Ontario Regulation 166/06 Applications Application Type Application Fee Notes Works on Private Residential Property minor $380 See definitions. standard $770 major $5,250 Municipal EA Projects See TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment and Infrastructure Permitting Services Municipal Development Projects $1,210 (NOT EA related) Utilities Single residential $1,155 Development project based minor $2,100 major $4,200 Projects on Subdivision Lands, Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Properties, Resource-based Recreation and Other Projects. Minor Projects: Topsoil stripping/temporary stormwater management Minor outfalls Minor alterations/restoration of watercourse and wetlands Minor Improvements (trails, minor recreational facilities, etc.) Standard Projects: SWM Ponds and associated outfalls Standard Road Crossings Major Filling/Grading/Earth Works In-stream Remediation Works Alterations/Restoration of Wetlands Major Outfalls Major Projects: Major Road Crossings Natural Channel Modifications Relocation of Stream Corridor/New Channel Design Major Commercial Fill Project All applications located in a Special Policy Area (SPA) or Flood Vulnerable Area will be charged a 25% or 75% premium on the applicable fee. per project $4,200 per project $8,400 per project $14,175 $14,175 $15,750 $15,750 minor 25% major 75% Permission for Minor Works - Letter of Approval private residential $105 with site visit $380 municipal $2,940 Permit Revisions % of current fee. residential minor/major25% others 50% Permit Re-Issuance (Extension) for Ont. Regulation 166/06 % of current fee. 660 Fee charged per project component within a larger submission. Multiple permit fees are common for subdivision and site plan applications. See Minor Works qualification criteria as approved June 9, % One time only.

28 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES For Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) January 2014 Other Applicable Fees Application Type Application Fee Notes GIS Fee Direct Charge Fish Timing Window Extension $5,775 Emergency Works $4,330 Emergency Works fee to be added to applicable permit fee. Red Line Revisions by TRCA minor $735 major $1,575 File Reactivation $525 To reactivate files that have been inactive for 2 years or more. Waterfront Development additional $1,575 - $2,625 To be determined based on scope. charge for shoreline engineering peer review. Optional Expedited Review additional minor 25% The Expedited Review charge applies to charge (Director approved) Percentage major 50% special circumstances around of current fee. fast-tracked conditions for plan registration and completion of conditions to meet unanticipated circumstances. Applied only on Director s approval and as workload allows. This generally applies to efforts that are required to be completed within 1-2 week period. Negotiated Technical/Management Agreements $1,050 - $1,575 Management agreements, major filling or grading, etc. Repeat Submissions Percentage of current fee for each additional submission Project Management Assistance (voluntary as required) Compliance Monitoring: Permit Non-compliance Compliance Reports-Clearance Letter 25% TRCA will charge a fee directly to the applicant when technical reviews of required studies, plans, drawings and models go beyond the first submission and 2 re-submissions. Notification will be provided in writing to landowner. $1,575 - $5,250 To be determined based on scope. Project Management Assistance fee is applied to assist applicants to address complex technical design issues to meet regulatory requirements. Working sessions are recommended. $2,310 $170 Solicitor/Realtor/Property Inquiry $295 Fee to resolve each issue, exclusive of permit revision fee. 661

29 Attachment 3 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES January 2014 Introduction TRCA s Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment and Permitting Services was adopted by Resolution #xxx/13 of the Authority Board on January 31, The Fee Schedule was developed in consultation with municipalities through an assessment of service delivery which adheres to the Provincial Ministry of Natural Resources Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees, the TRCA s Fee Policy Guideline 2009, and the range of Environmental Assessment (EA) services consistent with TRCA s Service Delivery Agreements and/or Memorandums of Understanding with area municipalities. The Fee Schedule includes a broad spectrum of fee categories within each application type to accurately cover the scale of work. The lower fees apply to minor and less complex applications, and modest scale efforts. Higher fees apply to more complex applications requiring a higher level of EA and technical review. The Fee Schedule also includes fees for services that assist with streamlining processing and approval efforts for the applicant, such as phased approvals, expedited review charges, red line revision processing (where possible), and a project management assistance fee. General Notes 1. All EA and permit application submissions and associated fees must be administered through the Planning and Development Division of TRCA. 2. General inquiries and negotiation of fees will be directed through TRCA's EA Senior Manager or the Director, Planning and Development on issues of interpretation and scoping of work requirements. 3. Pre-consultation - A pre-consultation meeting with TRCA staff to determine the scope of issues for the EA or permit application is mandatory. TRCA processing fees will be determined based on a predetermined scope of work. If through the application processing, the scope of the application changes, fee adjustments will be determined. All applications must be deemed complete, inclusive of fee submission, prior to commencement of submission processing. 4. Fee appeal process - Any dispute of fee calculations that cannot be resolved through consultation with TRCA's Director, Planning and Development and/or CAO's office, can be appealed through the Budget/Audit Advisory Board and/or the Authority. Delegation format with justification of appeal request is recommended. 5. Any refunds, where applicable, will be approved by the EA Senior Manager or Director, Planning and Development. 6. The application fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the TRCA. Applications will not be processed until fees are received. 7. Generally, only one set of fees applies when processing and reviewing a combined application (e.g. an EA Property Screening or Inquiry or an Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application). The highest rate of fees applies. 8. TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort (e.g., Environmental Management Plan Review). Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical and specialized modelling and may be charged to the applicant. 9. All application fees (except EA Property Screening or Inquiry) include one initial site visit. 10. Specific Municipal Service Delivery Agreements take precedent over the fee schedule. 11. For Class Environmental Assessments, the schedules or categories specific to the respective class EA document or environmental assessment review procedures of utility boards or commissions, including Enbridge, Consumers Gas or Bell Canada, will be applied. 12. Routine Infrastructure Works Application review is subject to the respective TRCA procedure. 13. Emergency Works Application review is subject to the respective TRCA procedure. 14. Minor project review means that no or limited technical Natural Heritage Impact Studies and engineering review reports are required as part of the submission, together with detailed design drawings if appropriate; standard project review means that scoped technical studies or reports are required as part of the submission (such as hydrology, ecological, stormwater), together with detailed design drawings if appropriate. Major and complex project review means that comprehensive technical studies or reports are required as part of the submission (such as meander belt, hydrogeology, geotechnical, environmental impact studies) together with detailed design drawings if appropriate. 15. In accordance with the Crown Agency Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 48, s.1, and the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 27, the following Crown corporations or agencies are exempt from the Conservation Authorities Act : 662

30 GO Transit Hydro One Ministry of Transportation Ontario Realty Corporation (Infrastructure Ontario) Ministry of Natural Resources Greater Toronto Airports Authority, and Downsview Park. As such, these proponents are exempt from review fees and exempt from the TRCA regulatory approval process (i.e., permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 are not required). However, in circumstances where the review is considered major, TRCA can negotiate funding to compensate for its review time. These proponents may not be exempt from approvals under the Fisheries Act or the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and are responsible for obtaining the appropriate approvals independent of TRCA. In accordance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. E.18, s.4 these proponents are required to consult with TRCA throughout the EA process. 16. The following corporations are not exempt from the Conservation Authorities Act : Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (Waterfront Toronto) CN Rail, and CP Rail. As such, these proponents are not exempt from review fees or the TRCA regulatory approval process (i.e., permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 are required). In accordance with agreements between TRCA and the Ministry of Natural Resources, TRCA will also conduct reviews under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act. In accordance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. E.18, s.4 these proponents are required to consult with TRCA throughout the EA process. 17. TRCA has extensive environmental and cultural data that is available for use by the proponent, subject to the waiver of a legal disclaimer and the provision of user fees. Where there are data sharing agreements in place, municipalities, agencies and Crown corporations or agencies are exempt from these fees and the data will be provided free of charge. For all others, an application form for the purchase of such data will be forwarded to the proponent for use at their discretion. 663

31 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES January 2014 Fee Schedule for Ontario Environmental Assessment Act Applications or Applications made in Accordance with Utility Board Environmental Assessment Requirements Environmental Assessment Review Application Type Application Fee Notes Master Plan Minor $11,550 Subject to negotiation Standard $20,475 Major/Complex $28,875 Individual EA $28,875 Subject to negotiation Class EA Schedule/Category C Minor $5,775 or equivalent Standard $12,075 Major/Complex $18,480 Class EA Schedule/Category B or equivalent Class EA Schedule/Category A/A+ or equivalent Minor $5,515 Standard $9,345 Major/Complex $12,810 N/A EA Addendum Reports Minor $2,100 Standard $3,045 Major $3,990 EA Property Screening or Inquiry $280 GIS Fee Direct charge to non-levy partners through GIS Detailed Design Review EA pre-approved and an Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit may be required. See below. Application Type Application Fee Notes Project Clearance No Permit Required Minor $2,100 EA Service Delivery assumes two Major $4,830 submissions Project Clearance Environmental Minor $2,100 EA Service Delivery assumes three Management Plan for Dewatering Major $11,550 submissions Repeat Submission 25% for each additional submission. EA Related Planning Act Application See TRCA Planning Services Fee Schedule for appropriate rates 664

32 Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application Individual or Class EA or Schedule/ Category B & C or equivalent TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES January 2014 Permit Application Review Fees Application Type Application Fee Notes Service Agreement $3,045 Minor $4,200 Standard $8,400 Major $14,175 Complex * $15,750 will be conducted. Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application Class EA Schedule/Category A/A+ or equivalent. Routine Infrastructure Works Letter of Approval Service Agreement $1,260 Minor $2,625 Major $3,990 Service Agreement $370 Minor $790 Major $1,470 EA Service Delivery assumes three submissions * A site specific discussion related to size and complexity of the application EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions Emergency Works $4,330 To be added to the applicable permit or detailed design review fees Project Clearance No Permit Required Minor $2,100 EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions Permit Screening $280 Additional Review Fees Application Type Application Fee Notes Fish Timing Window Extension $5,775 Additional Site Visit Charges up to ½ day $735 The first site visit is included as part of up to 1 day $1,470 processing Red Line Revisions by TRCA Minor $735 Major $1,575 Additional Submissions 25% for each additional submission GIS Fee Direct charge to non-levy partners through GIS Permit Revisions and Reissuances (Extensions) Application Type Application Fee Notes Revision to Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Minor change - 25% of current fee Major change - 50% of current fee EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Reissuance (one-time only) 50% of current fee Compliance Monitoring Application Type Application Fee Notes Permit Non-Compliance $2,310 Fee to resolve each issue, exclusive of permit revision fee Environmental Management Plan To be determined Subject to negotiation Compliance Compliance Reports - Clearance Letter $

33 RES.#B166/13 - Moved by: Seconded by: ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATED PROPOSAL FOR LEASE OF LAND Heart Lake Conservation Area, Regional Municipality of Peel, CFN Proposal to lease Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned land located within the Heart Lake Conservation Area, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, to construct and operate a telecommunications tower and associated equipment. Jack Heath Ben Cachola THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has been requested by Rogers Communications Incorporated (RCI) to enter into a lease agreement for lands located within the Heart Lake Conservation Area, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality Peel; WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interests of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with RCI in this instance; THAT TRCA enter into a lease with RCI for approximately hectares (0.007 acres), more or less, together with use of the existing road surfaces for access and utilities, to construct and operate a telecommunications tower and associated equipment, said land being Part of Lot 14, Concession 2 E.H.S., City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel; THAT the lease with RCI be premised on the following general terms and conditions: (i) (ii) The initial term of the lease will be five (5) years, with three (3) renewal options for successive five (5) year periods, all at the sole option of TRCA; The lease rate shall be approximately Sixteen thousand five hundred dollars ($16,500.00) plus HST per annum, to be increased by 2% per year; (iii) RCI shall be responsible for any and all approvals required for the construction and operation of a telecommunications tower and associated equipment; (iv) RCI shall bare the sole responsibility for any and all costs associated with the construction and operation of a telecommunications tower and associated equipment; (v) Any further terms or conditions as deemed necessary or appropriate by TRCA's staff or chosen solicitor; THAT an archaeological review shall be completed by RCI, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of the TRCA, all at the sole expense of RCI; 666

34 AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to implement the lease, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA had originally been approached by RCI to locate a telecommunications tower and associated equipment on TRCA lands within the Heart Lake Conservation Area. This request was in response to RCI's customers' request for improved coverage in this area. RCI investigated opportunities to co-locate onto existing towers of other cell phone providers; however these towers were all beyond the required distance and/or below the required height in order to address the coverage deficiencies in the area. Through TRCA's review of this leasing opportunity, approximately 300 local residents were contacted and offered information through the Heart Lake Community Association, informing them of the RCI proposal, with no concerns or objections being raised. Staff feel that a telecommunications tower in the Heart Lake Conservation Area will not impact the use and enjoyment of the park by visitors. The proposed tower is a 40 metre shrouded tri-pole and a walk-in equipment cabinet located within a fenced eight metre by eight metre compound. The access right-of-way will be across existing roadways for initial construction and ongoing tower maintenance. RCI has indicated that they will work with TRCA to develop a visually pleasing design for the top of the tower. RCI has advised that the design will accommodate future co-location requirements. As an additional benefit to TRCA, RCI shall be responsible for the capital cost of installing cabling and other equipment to allow access to high speed internet at TRCA's Heart Lake facility. Lease Agreement The subject area consists of approximately hectares (0.007 acres), all of which is made up of tableland. A sketch showing the subject lands is attached. The following are the key terms of the proposed lease arrangement: 1. Lease Payment: $16, plus HST per annum to be increased by two percent (2%) per year; 2. Initial Term: Five years; 3. Renewals: Three successive five year terms, conditional upon TRCA approval; 4. Access: RCI will be provided with access to the tower and fenced compound at all times; 5. Insurance: RCI will provide five million dollars in commercial general; 6. Realty Taxes: RCI will pay all taxes levied against the property as a result of this installation; 7. Hydro: RCI will be responsible for electrical connections and charges relating to this use; 8. Approvals: RCI will comply will all required laws, directions, rules and regulations; 9. Equipment Removal: RCI will remove all equipment and restore the site to the satisfaction of TRCA within 120 days following termination of the lease. 667

35 FINANCIAL DETAILS The revenues generated from this lease will be used for TRCA purposes. Report prepared by: Jae R. Truesdell, extension For Information contact: Jae R. Truesdell, extension 5417, Mike Fenning, extension 223 s: Date: December 13, 2013 Attachments: 1 668

36 Attachment 1 669

37 RES.#B167/13 - Moved by: Seconded by: PARKS CANADA AGENCY Rouge National Urban Park, CFN Conveyance of land for the Rouge National Urban Park, in the cities of Toronto, Markham and Pickering, regional municipalities of York and Durham, Rouge River watershed. Jack Heath Richard Whitehead THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT WHEREAS at Authority Meeting #2/12, held on March 30, 2012, the "Statement of Intent -Towards Cooperation and Collaboration in the Establishment of a National Urban Park in the Rouge Valley" was endorsed; AND WHEREAS it is the opinion of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering it's objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with the Park Canada Agency (PC) in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA lands containing 2,266 hectares (5,600 acres), more or less, and highlighted on the attached plan be conveyed to PC for the Rouge National Urban Park, in the cities of Toronto, Markham and Pickering, regional municipalities of York and Durham subject to the following terms and conditions; a) the consideration is to be the nominal sum of $2.00; b) PC is to be responsible for all legal, survey and other costs related to the land conveyance; c) retention by TRCA of the lands included in the tripartite agreement between City of Toronto, Toronto Zoo and TRCA subject to refining the boundaries; d) conveyance by TRCA of lands and/or easements for municipal infrastructure to the cities of Toronto, Markham and Pickering and the regional municipalities of York and Durham if requested by the municipality and subject to concurrence by PC; e) any additional considerations as deemed appropriate by TRCA staff or its solicitor. THAT said conveyance be subject to the Province of Ontario releasing its interest in the lands conveyed by it to TRCA for Rouge Park and Bob Hunter Memorial Park purposes; THAT said conveyance is subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27 as amended; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including the obtaining needed approvals and the signing and execution of any documents. 670

38 AMENDMENT RES.#B168/13 Moved by: Seconded by: Jack Heath Richard Whitehead THAT following be inserted between items d) and e) of the main motion: e) Locust Hill School House and Cedarena shall be subject to further discussions between TRCA, PC and the City of Markham prior to being conveyed; THE AMENDMENT WAS THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #2/12 held on March 30, 2012, Resolution #A22/12 was approved as follows: THAT the "Statement of Intent -Towards Cooperation and Collaboration in the Establishment of a National Urban Park in the Rouge Valley" be endorsed; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) request direction from the Ministry of Infrastructure regarding the disposition of provincial lands conveyed to TRCA in title or by management agreement for Rouge Park purposes; THAT TRCA express its thanks to Minister Peter Kent for the support of the Government of Canada to create the National Urban Park; THAT TRCA express its thanks to Mr. Alan Wells, Chair of the Rouge Park Alliance for his leadership in pursuit of the resolution of the governance and funding solutions for the Rouge Park; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA continue to offer its assistance to Parks Canada regarding the transition period and provision of other services to Parks Canada after the National Urban Park is established. In June 2011, the Speech from the Throne set the direction for the Government of Canada to establish a national urban park in the Rouge Valley. In May 2012, the Government of Canada announced $143.7 million in funding over the next 10 years for the establishment of the park and a subsequent $7.5 million annually for ongoing park operation. 671

39 The Rouge National Urban Park (RNUP) requires a management approach reflective of its urban character. As such, since early July 2011, PC has worked closely with more than 100 national, provincial and regional organizations, Aboriginal partners, RNUP tenants, and youth, along with individuals and organizations with expertise related to conservation, farming, tourism, recreation, youth engagement and education, to develop a proposed RNUP concept. In June 2012, PC released the RNUP concept. The concept presented a vision for the park, a study area and a broad overview of how the park will be established, protected and managed. The RNUP concept enshrines the following four fundamental elements of the RNUP; connect people to nature and history, support a vibrant farming community, conserve natural heritage and celebrate cultural heritage character. Public feedback on the park concept will inform the development of recommendations on legislative process, policies and strategic management plan for RNUP. PC is moving forward with its recommendations for a federal legislative framework that will establish and govern the park. PC expects to have a draft strategic management plan available for review and comment in early Agriculture Agriculture in the RNUP was strongly supported by the public in the summer 2012 public engagement process. The presence of long-term farming in the RNUP will be supported by long-term leases that provide farmers the security of tenure and encourage investment in assets and beneficial management practices. PC supports the continuation of the present range of farming operations, and will seek opportunities to diversify agriculture that offer more opportunities for visitor and community contact. Cultural Resources The RNUP has a diversity of cultural resources, including archaeological sites, heritage buildings and landscapes that speak to the agrarian life of the early European settlers and the travel routes and settlements of Aboriginal peoples. PC will work with municipalities and other organizations such as TRCA to improve the unique cultural assets which enhance the profile and visitor experience of RNUP. PC will also work with municipal governments to ensure that locally designated heritage homes in the park remain occupied whenever possible, and will use its leasing strategy with appropriate tenures to ensure pride of ownership and proper maintenance over the long term. Original Rouge Park Plan, Rouge North Management Plan, Bob Hunter Memorial Park Plan, East Markham Lands Plan, Greenbelt Plan and Trails Master Plan The original plan for the Rouge Park, south of Steeles, the Rouge North Management Plan, the Bob Hunter Memorial Park Plan, the plan for the East Markham lands and the Greenbelt Plan have been extensively reviewed by PC, as have the background reports that supported their formulation. These plans and related background information serve as important resources in the continuing development of park data bases that integrate planning on the Transport Canada lands with those lands in the current Rouge Park. The land transfer agreement with the Province of Ontario commits PC to work with the Province in developing its policies for RNUP. This will ensure that relevant past policy is considered when developing current and future policy relating to the RNUP. 672

40 The trails master plan recently completed by the Rouge Park has been a key component of continuing trail planning for RNUP. PC staff used the plan as a starting point, and then considered the plan in view of PC s trail policy and its experiences in its other protected areas. PC staff also engaged many of the same individuals that contributed to the Rouge Park trails plan. The trails component of the upcoming draft strategic management plan is more conceptual in nature than the 2012 trails master plan. More detailed trail planning will continue following the public engagement process on the draft strategic management plan. Rouge Park Alliance The Province of Ontario terminated the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Ministry of Natural Resources, Rouge Park Alliance and TRCA effective July 31, This MOU related to the Rouge Park Alliance and operations, administration and management of the Rouge Park. On July 23, 2012, TRCA received a letter from PC confirming PC's intention to have TRCA be responsible for the interim management of the Rouge Park until it is formerly established as RNUP and PC assumes operational control. In May of 2013, TRCA and PC entered into an Interim Management Agreement. Provincial Lands In January 2013, the Government Canada and the Province of Ontario entered into a Memorandum of Agreement relating to the transfer of the provincial government's 1,600 acres (648 hectare) of land to PC for the creation of the RNUP as well as relinquishing reversionary rights to approximately 3,700 acres (1,497 hectares) lands which were previously conveyed by the Province to TRCA. Transport Canada Lands In June 2013, the Government of Canada announced that Transport Canada will transfer nearly 5,000 acres (2,024 hectares) to PC for the proposed RNUP. Memorandum of Agreement The Statement of Intent -Towards Cooperation and Collaboration in the Establishment of a National Urban Park in the Rouge Valley identified the following: Government of Canada (represented by the PC); Province of Ontario (represented by the Ministry of Infrastructure); City of Toronto; City of Markham; City of Pickering; The Regional Municipality of York; The Regional Municipality of Durham; Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. As noted above the Government of Canada and the Province on Ontario entered into a separate Memorandum of Agreement, leaving the remaining as parties to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which identifies the lands to be included and excluded from the proposed park and the process by which the lands will be transferred to PC. 673

41 The proposed RNUP boundary is shown on the attached plan. The RNUP will include all publicly owned lands within the park boundary with the exception of the Toronto Zoo, the former Beare Road landfill site, rail corridors, hydro transmission corridors and existing infrastructure including existing roads, road allowances and stormwater management facilities. Privately owned lands are also excluded from the RNUP. The MOA includes the following terms and conditions: establishment of the RNUP by federal legislation; the lands each party will be contributing to the RNUP; mechanism for conveyances and/or easements for future municipal infrastructure requirements; entering into Supplemental Agreements to establish further terms and conditions respecting the transfer; If the transferred lands are not designated as part of the park within five years, the lands will be transferred back to the party without any charge; all lands will be transferred for nominal value; PC will reimburse each party for any "out of pocket expenses" associated with the transfer of lands to PC; PC will assume all existing tenancies. Toronto Zoo The Zoo is strategically located adjacent to the RNUP with its overflow parking and some other facilities being located in the Park study area. This creates a significant opportunity for collaboration and partnering on programs and possibly capital projects of mutual interest and benefit. In addition, attendance at both the Zoo and the Park could be enhanced as each venue, through collaboration, could provide complimentary attraction content. The City of Toronto has recently completed a review of the governance of the Zoo and one of the recommendations is to update the Tripartite Agreement between the Zoo, the City of Toronto and TRCA for operation, management and maintenance of the Zoo. This update will include a review of the existing Zoo boundaries to determine if they are still relevant based on the current use and needs of the Zoo as well as the future needs of the RNUP. Lands not included in the Tripartite Agreement will be conveyed to PC. Infrastructure Requirements Since the RNUP is located in a large urban area which continues to grow, it is necessary for the RNUP to accommodate some existing and future infrastructure. Existing municipally owned infrastructure such as roads and stormwater management facilities will be excluded from the proposed RNUP boundary. Prior to transfer of lands to PC, TRCA may be requested to grant certain easements for this infrastructure. The municipal parties to the MOA have also identified a number of road improvements which are anticipated to occur on roads which pass through the Park including provision of bike paths and safety improvements. TRCA may also be requested to transfer these lands to the municipality prior to the PC transfer. PC will be consulted on all such requests. To date TRCA has processed a request from the City of Toronto relating to the ramps that provide access to and from the Toronto Zoo. 674

42 Transition Under the MOA, landowners will be responsible for their lands until such time as the lands are transferred to PC. TRCA will continue to manage the day to day operations of the Park as it did under the now dissolved Rouge Park Alliance. The existing management agreements between TRCA and City of Toronto will continue to remain in effect until the lands have been transferred to PC or as mutually agreed to. A Transition Advisory Committee chaired by PC will be established to provide advice and input on the establishment process and provide input on interim management direction until a permanent governance strategy is created. The signatories to the MOA will be represented on the Committee. Supplemental Agreements As noted above, the MOA provides for Supplemental Agreements to establish further terms and conditions respecting the transfer between one or more of the parties and PC. The items to be addressed in Supplemental Agreements involving TRCA include: identifying ongoing collaboration, joint programming, shared facility management and boundaries related to the Toronto Zoo; identifying and transferring or granting easement for future municipal infrastructure requirement on TRCA lands prior to the transfer of these lands to PC (to date the City of Toronto is the only municipality requesting this agreement); TRCA's ongoing role in the RNUP relating to management of rentals, leases, the Glen Rouge Campground and regeneration activities; interface between the RNUP and TRCA's policy and program interests relating to the Rouge watershed; interface between RNUP and TRCA lands outside of the RNUP ie. Port Union Waterfront Park, Petticoat Creek Conservation Area, Rouge/Duffins corridor; costs associated with any staff displaced by the creation of the RNUP. FINANCIAL DETAILS PC will be responsible for all survey, legal and other costs associated with the completion of this transaction Report prepared by: Mike Fenning, extension s: mfenning@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Mike Fenning, extension 5223; Mike Bender, extension s: mfenning@trca.on.ca, mbender@trca.on.ca Date: December 12, 2013 Attachments: 1 675

43 Attachment 1 676

44 SECTION II - ITEMS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION RES.#B169/13 - Moved by: Seconded by: TORONTO ZOO Governance Model. Update on the status of the governance of the Toronto Zoo. Gloria Lindsay Luby Ronald Chopowick THAT staff be directed to facilitate discussions between Parks Canada (PC), Toronto Zoo (Zoo), and the City of Toronto (City) for an agreement for ongoing collaboration, joint programming and shared facility management related to the Zoo and the Rouge National Urban Park; THAT staff be directed to enter into discussions with the City and the Zoo to finalize the terms of a revised Tripartite Agreement for the use of the Zoo lands; THAT staff be directed to explore opportunities for ongoing collaboration and joint programming with the Zoo; AND FURTHER THAT a report regarding these discussions be brought forward to a future Executive Committee meeting. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Executive Committee Meeting #10/12, held on December 7, 2012, Resolution #B170/12 in regard to the Toronto Zoo was approved as follows: THAT Chief Administrative Officer and the Senior Manager, Property Services be directed to work with the City of Toronto and the Toronto Zoo regarding the future governance and management of the Toronto Zoo; AND FURTHER THAT a report regarding these discussions be brought forward to a future Executive Committee Meeting. City Council on October 8, 9, 10 and 11, 2013, adopted the following: 1. City Council retain the Toronto Zoo and the Zoo Board of Management as a City Board and agency pursuant to the City of Toronto Act. 2. City Council request that the Toronto Zoo Board of Management's forthcoming 2014 Strategic Plan include the following: a. a Facility Master Plan; b. sources of capital and operating program funding including: fundraising, sponsorships and partnerships, with an emphasis on the promotion of wildlife and habitat conservation, environmental sustainability, and public education; c. strategies to improve on site visitor spending, and possible addition of new compatible activities or other measures which boost attendance and net revenues; 677

45 d. possible joint programs and capital projects in partnership with Parks Canada within the implementation of the Rouge National Urban Park; and e. service efficiencies that reduce the need for government operating funding. 3. City Council acknowledge the regional importance of the Toronto Zoo and request that the Province of Ontario take a strong role in the future of the Toronto Zoo given its function as a major regional attraction and its importance to the regional economy as a major tourism, recreation, wildlife conservation and education venue, and City Council request the City Manager, in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto Zoo, to initiate discussions with the Province on these principles and to establish a funding partnership for Toronto Zoo programming and shared capital infrastructure. 4. City Council request Parks Canada to enter into an agreement with the Toronto Zoo, the City of Toronto, and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for ongoing collaboration, joint programming and shared facility management related to the Rouge National Urban Park; and request the Government of Canada to provide funding for any new or shared joint capital infrastructure. 5. City Council request the Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto Zoo, in consultation with the City Manager, to further engage stakeholders such as the University of Toronto, the University of Guelph, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and other GTA municipalities on their financial and program participation in the future of the Toronto Zoo. 6. City Council direct the City Manager, with appropriate City Officials and the Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto Zoo, to finalize the terms and report back to City Council on a revised Tripartite Agreement for the use of the Zoo lands between the City, the Toronto Zoo Board and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. 7. City Council request the Toronto Zoo Board of Management, in consultation with the City Manager, to facilitate the establishment of a separate and independent charitable foundation for fundraising, sponsorship, donation and partnership purposes in alignment with its 2014 Strategic Plan. 8. City Council request the City Manager, in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto Zoo and Zoo Board of Management, to review the board governance and develop a Relationship Framework between the City and the Toronto Zoo for Council approval, incorporating Parts 1 to 7 above. 9. City Council refer the following Executive Committee Recommendation to the City Manager to include in his future report outlining a shareholder relationship framework with the Toronto Zoo. Referred Recommendation: City Council affirm that the Toronto Zoo Board of Management is solely responsible for any future decisions regarding the acquisition, disposition and overall management of the Zoo's animal and plant collection. 678

46 10. City Council request the Toronto Zoo Board of Management to convene an expert panel to undertake an animal collection welfare assessment and audit and create a scientific standard of care for the zoo animal collection, based on the biological and behavioural needs of the animals, relying on scientific data collected in situ; such expert panel be composed of representatives from: - Canadian Federation of Humane Societies - Canadian Council on Animal Care - Canadian Veterinarian Medical Association - Zoocheck Canada - Bornfree Canada - Animal Alliance of Canada - Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food - Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. 11. City Council request that the findings of the expert panel in Part 10 above be incorporated into the Zoo/City of Toronto Relationship Framework, the Zoo Strategic Plan and the Capital Master Facilities Plan. 12. City Council request the Zoo Board of Management to submit an Annual Report to the City Manager for transmittal to the Executive Committee and City Council, following Council's approval of the Zoo Board Relationship Framework. History of the Toronto Zoo The Zoo is located on the east and west sides of Meadowvale Road between Finch Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East, City of Toronto and is approximately 280 hectares (700 acres) in size. Over 80% of the Zoo is located on lands owned by TRCA, comprised of valley and table lands. The subject TRCA lands were acquired between 1962 and 1970 and are included in the June 14, 1961, Management Agreement with the City (formerly Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto). On April 6, 1967, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto (Metro Toronto) Council approved in principle a proposal to construct a new zoological park on a site in the Rouge River area. In March of 1968, Raymond Moriyama Architect and Site Planner submitted to the Metropolitan Parks Commissioner a Feasibility Study and Master Development Plan for the Metropolitan Toronto Zoological Park, Glen Rouge. On April 29, 1969, the Metropolitan Toronto Zoological Society (the Society) was incorporated as a nonprofit corporation for the purpose of establishing, maintaining and operating zoological facilities in the Metropolitan Area. On October 17, 1969, Metro Toronto Council approved the Master Zoo Plan submitted by the Society for the long term development of the Zoo. On November 1, 1970, Metro Toronto, TRCA and the Society entered into an agreement for the construction and operation of a zoological park and related facilities in the Rouge River watershed. On June 16, 1977, Metro Toronto served a notice of termination of this Agreement to TRCA and the Society, effective July 1, On April 28, 1978, Metro Toronto, TRCA and a newly constituted (by Metro Toronto) Board of Management of the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo (the Board) entered into an Agreement for the operation, management and maintenance of the Zoo by the Board. 679

47 The following are the general provisions of the 1978 Agreement: TRCA approves the continued use of TRCA lands for a zoological garden; TRCA approves the location and type of buildings in the Master Zoo Plan approved by Metro Toronto Council on October 17, 1969; TRCA receives no compensation for the use of the TRCA lands for Zoo purposes; the Board assumes all the assets and liabilities of the Society including all agreements; the Board is responsible for the operation, management and maintenance of the Zoo as a public zoological garden in accordance with the agreement and any general policies established from time to time by Metro Toronto Council; the role of the Society is to assist in maintaining the philosophical integrity of the Zoo and its facilities for the edification, education and enjoyment of the general public and for the advancement, encouragement of and research in zoology, conservation, wildlife and plant life; Metro Toronto has financial responsibility for the operation of the Zoo including any surplus or deficit incurred by the Board and any capital improvements to the Zoo; Metro Toronto or the Board can terminate the Agreement with three months' written notice. Zoo Proposal In September of 2012 the Zoo Board adopted a proposal which recommended the Zoo separate from the City by reorganizing into a private non-profit corporation to operate and manage the Zoo through a management agreement with the City. City staff has reviewed the proposal and has identified the following potential risks to the City: there is no assurance of financial sustainability for the Zoo within a 10 year time frame; even if the Zoo is restructured to become more independent of government control, it will still require municipal and other government funding; the Zoo's ability to maintain City assets; the Zoo's ability to secure commercial financing. As a result, the City will retain the Zoo as a City Board and Agency. Rouge National Urban Park As noted above, the Zoo is located on the east and west sides of Meadowvale Road. The Zoo is strategically located adjacent to the Rouge National Urban Park with its overflow parking and some other facilities being located in the Park study area. This creates a significant opportunity for collaboration and partnering on programs and possibly capital projects of mutual interest and benefit. In addition, attendance at both the Zoo and the Park could be enhanced as each venue, through collaboration, could provide complimentary attraction content. Staff is recommending that TRCA facilitate discussions between the Zoo, the City and PC to explore the feasibility of achieving the following objectives: 1. a joint visitor experience and education centre; 2. determining potential future uses and restoration responsibility for ValleyHalla; 3. shared use of other facilities such as parking; 4. joint and/or complimentary programming dealing with environmental education, endangered species, conservation strategies and other public programming; 5. delineate the boundaries of lands that will be included in the tripartite agreement between the City, TRCA and the Zoo and the boundaries of lands that will be transferred by TRCA to PC; 680

48 how the area in the vicinity of the Zoo can provide a significant, welcoming entrance for the Rouge National Urban Park; how security interests of both the Zoo and PC can be achieved; opportunities to collaborate on sustainable community objectives such as waste management, energy conservation, renewable energy and low impact development. Tripartite Agreement The 1961 Management Agreement is the mechanism that allows for the use and management of TRCA lands by the City for park and recreation purposes. This is an important foundation document to any agreement for Zoo related use of this property and should remain in place. The agreement for the operation, management and maintenance of the Zoo has now been in place for 35 years and the parties have agreed that there is a need to update this agreement. Some of the items to be discussed during the update are as follows: identify ownership of the various buildings, structures on site as well as the animals; a process to review the buildings and structures at the end of the lease to determine future need for these facilities; identify opportunities for TRCA to work with the Zoo on conservation/education programs; acknowledgement that TRCA's regulations apply to the Zoo lands; as set out in the 1961 Management Agreement, TRCA will need to approve the Facility Master Plan or any other master/management/development plan for the Zoo; undertake a review of the existing Zoo boundaries to determine if they are still relevant based on the current use and needs of the Zoo; need to identify permitted and non-permitted uses for the lands; the agreement needs to include a non-competition clause. (a number of the new proposed uses for the Zoo are similar to activities TRCA is undertaking at our various facilities and we do not want to be competing over these revenues); term of the agreement; provision for early termination if the lands are no longer being used for Zoo purposes; the agreement should provide for environmental clean up at the end of the term of the agreement. Public Institutions The other source of collaboration being considered by the City is large public institutions such as the University of Toronto, the University of Guelph, the Toronto Board of Education and TRCA. Not only do these institutions provide a wealth of leading edge knowledge in animal science, biology, zoology, conservation, environmental science and environmental education but also undertake important research which can be operationalized at the Zoo to improve the animal care, conservation, environmental sustainability and public education efforts of the Zoo. While the Zoo has some connection to these institutions, particularly with veterinary sciences at the University of Guelph, the City is recommending that the Zoo further strengthen this collaboration. Report prepared by: Mike Fenning, extension s: mfenning@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Mike Fenning, extension s: mfenning@trca.on.ca Date: November 29, 2013 Attachments: 1 681

49 Attachment 1 682