Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Authority MeetingAgenda
#8/15
September 25, 20159:30 A.M.
HEAD OFFICE, 101 EXCHANGE AVENUE, VAUGHANPages
1. MINUTES OF MEETING #7/15, HELD ON JULY 24, 2015http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/210654.pdf
2. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES
3. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
4. DELEGATIONS
5. PRESENTATIONS
5.1 A presentation by Chris Bagley, General Manager, Black Creek Pioneer Village,TRCA, in regard to item 7.1 - Black Creek Pioneer Village.
5.2 A presentation by Brian Denney, CEO, TRCA, in regard to item 7.11 - Review ofthe Conservation Authorities Act.
5.3 A video presentation of the Girls Can Too Program at Bolton Camp.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/life-video/video-girls-can-too-construction/article26126709/#video0id26126709
6. CORRESPONDENCE
6.1 An email dated September 12, 2015 Dana and Jiri Kopka, 201 Greyabbey Raod,Toronto at in regard to item 8.1 - 220 Greyabbey Trail.
7
7. SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
7.1 BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE 9North Lands Master Plan and the Vision
1
7.2 GREENWOOD CONSERVATION LANDS 19Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan and Brock North inland filling
7.3 TRCA CROSSING GUIDELINES FOR VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDORS 25
7.4 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020 45
7.5 HEART LAKE CONSERVATION AREA WORKSHOP 48Feed-in-Tariff (FIT 3.0) Project
7.6 SCARBOROUGH WATERFRONT PROJECT THRID PARTY FACILITATORSERVICES
51
7.7 TOWN OF AJAX STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POND CLEAN-OUTPARTNERSHIP
54
7.8 ANNIE CRESCENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POND (SWMP) CLEANOUT AND RETROFIT PROJECT
57
Contract #10000904 - Disposal of Stockpiled Sediment Dredgeate
7.9 AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 60Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program
7.10 SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF CLOTHING 2015-2017 70Award of Contract #10000813
7.11 REVIEW OF THE CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACTReport to Follow
8. SECTION III - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
8.1 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015 72Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed.Katherine Jane Dalton and Christine Styles Dalton, Estate Trustee for the Estateof Ian Robert DaltonCFN 22588
8.2 220 GREYABBEY TRAILNotice of Violation # V2814
CONFIDENTIAL - as it pertains to legal matters in which the Authority isinvolved.
9. MATERIAL FROM BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
10. MATERIAL FROM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGMINUTES OF MEETING #8/15, HELD ON AUGUST 7, 2015
http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/210656.pdf
10.1 SECTION II - ITEMS FOR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTION
10.1.1 ELGIN MILLS GREENWAY REHABILITATION PROJECTEast Don Headwall Emergency Works, Implementation of emergencyworks for an erosion risk to the East Don Headwallpage 286
2
10.1.2 RFP #10000648 - TREE SEEDLING COLD STORAGE HOLDINGFACILITY - DESIGN/BUILDTo award the contracdt for RFP #10000648 - Tree Seedling ColdStorage Holdign Facility - Deisgn/Build to DeMan ConstructionCorporation (Diacreek Engineering)page 288
10.1.3 DON VALLEY GOLF COURSE EROSION CONTROL PROJECTContract 10000620 Design-Build Services for Construction of aShoring Wall. Award of Contract 10000620 for engineering andconstruction services for a shoring wall system at Don Valley GolfCourse, in the City of Toronto.page 292
10.1.4 APPOINTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ANDDESIGNATION AS PROVINCIAL OFFENCES OFFICERpage 296
10.1.5 NATIONAL FLOODNET RESEARCH NETWORKToronto and Region Conservation (TRCA) and Ontario ClimateConsortium (OCC) Involvement. Status of Partnership Agreementand Memorandum of Understanding.page 297
10.2 SECTION IV - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDEDReceipt of Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, applications EX10.1 -EX10.13 , which were approved at Executive Committee Meeting #8/15, heldon August 15, 2015.page 306
11. MATERIAL FROM EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGMINUTES OF MEETING #9/15, HELD ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2015
http://www.trca.on.ca/dotAsset/211794.pdf
11.1 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
11.1.1 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River WatershedHer Majesty The Queen In Right Of OntarioCFN 52819page 343
11.1.2 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015Flood Plain Conservation Component Humber River WatershedRegional Municipality of PeelCFN 53756page 346
11.1.3 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River WatershedFord Valley Properties Inc.CFN 53883page 349
3
11.1.4 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011 - 2015Flood Plain Conservation Component, Rouge River WatershedRaija Leena VarjoCFN 53007page 352
11.1.5 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011 - 2015Flood Plain Conservation Component, Rouge River WatershedFairgate (Ninth Line) Inc.54356page 355
11.1.6 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011 -2015Flood Plain Conservation Component, Highland Creek WatershedNewfin Land Development Company LimitedCFN 54104page 358
11.1.7 GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015Flood Plain Conservation Component, Petticoat Creek WatershedE. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc.CFN 54363page 361
11.1.8 E. OVIDE HOLDINGS (ALTONA) INC. AND THE CITY OFPICKERINGRequest for Permanent Easement for Stormwater Retention Swales,City of Pickering, Regional Municipality, Petticoat Creek WatershedCFN 54048page 364
11.1.9 TRANSCANADA PIPELINES LTD.Request for a Permanent Easement for a New Nominal Pipe Size(NPS) 36 Inch Diameter Natural Gas PipelineCity of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel and City of Toronto,Humber River WatershedCFN 53376page 368
11.1.10 CITY OF TORONTORequest for a Permanent EasementHumber River WatershedCFN 49327page 372
11.1.11 REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGIONCONSERVATION AUTHORITY -OWNED LANDBehind 58 Park Drive, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York,Humber River WatershedCFN 48048page 375
4
11.1.12 REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGIONCONSERVATION AUTHORITY-OWNED LANDRear of 134 Ravendale Court, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipalityof York,Humber River WatershedCFN 44843page 380
11.1.13 REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGIONCONSERVATION AUTHORITY-OWNED LAND17 Mill Street, City of Markham, Regional Municipality of York, RougeRiver WatershedCFN 26351page 384
11.1.14 TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLELand Management AgreementCFN 24344page 388
11.1.15 VOLUNTEER POLICYpage 391
11.2 SECTION II - ITEMS FOR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ACTION
11.2.1 APPOINTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICERAdam Millerpage 399
11.2.2 OMB APPEAL BY GILLIAN EVANS/DAVID TOYNEOfficial Plan Amendment 744 of the City of Vaughan Planning Block40/47, North of Major Mackenzie Drive, East and West of Pine ValleyDrive, City of Vaughan, York Regionpage 399
CONFIDENTIAL - as it pertains to legal matters in which the Authorityis involved
11.3 SECTION III - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD
11.3.1 ABSENTEESIM AND TURNOVERpage 400
11.4 SECTION IV - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDEDReceipt of Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, applications EX10.1 -EX10.6, which were approved at Executive COmmittee Meeting #9/15, held onSeptember 11, 2015page 402
11.5 COST CENTRE ACCOUNTINGpage 435
5
12. NEW BUSINESS
NEXT MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #9/15, TO BE HELD ON FRIDAY,OCTOBER 30, 2015 AT 9:30 A.M. AT HEAD OFFICE, 101 EXCHANGE AVENUE,VAUGHAN
Brian Denney, Chief Executive Officer
/jr
6
"Dana Kopka" >
09/12/2015 04:04 PM
To <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
cc
bcc
Subject Notice of Violation #V 2814
Dear Mr. Ainsley and TRCA staff, We would like to acknowledge that we have received your invitation to the upcoming TRCA meeting
regarding Notice of Violation # V 2814 of 220 Greyabbey Trail on September 25th
.Regrettably, we are not able to attend the meeting at the scheduled time to once again voice our concerns, but felt it prudent to at least re‐express our immense concern in a letter to you, in hope that you will present it on our behalf during the meeting. Although we are pleased that you have taken interest in the issue, and continue to investigate potential resolutions, we feel that the amount of time that has already lapsed since the mountain of dirt was carved out of the Scarborough bluffs and deposited directly in front of our house, is beyond unacceptable. The respective agencies involved in approving this project have thoroughly failed in actually exploring and understanding the project’s impact and magnitude prior to approving it. The individuals that should have been overseeing this project failed to do so, as the project was allowed to continue until irreparable damage has been caused. As a result, environmental harm has been caused, important habitats destroyed, community appeal has been damaged, our property values have been decreased, our sanctity has been violated and our peace has been disturbed. All this has been going on for two years with empty promises of a soon‐to‐come resolution that never appears to make it out of the committee’s meeting room. We are frustrated that this project was allowed to happen, we are furious that (to our knowledge) there have been no consequences for the parties involved in this epic failure, and that no reprieve or answers have been provided to the residents of our community in two years. At this point, given that the damage has already been done, we only have the following request: Remove the pile of dirt, restore the value of our properties and return peace to our community. Sincerely, Dana & Jiri Kopka201 Greyabbey TrailScarborough See below one of our previous emails:
From: Dana Kopka Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:17 PMTo: [email protected]; planning&[email protected]: Destruction of the Scarborough Bluffs
7
Importance: High Dear Sir/Madam, We are writing to you to request an explanation regarding a construction at 220 Greyabbey Trail in Scarborough. We have raised our concerns with our local MP, Mr. Paul Ainslie and we were advised that you are responsible for permitting the construction and later stopping the project due to owner’s “non- adherence to your guidelines”. Because of that the whole neighborhood has been affected by this unsightly construction site for over a year. There sits an approximately 10 m high pile of dirt directly across the street from some houses which markedly decreases the value of our properties by thousands of dollars, not to mention the ugly obstructed view and ever-present dust. How does this agree with your policy :“our goal is to support a greener, cleaner, healthier place to live?” Please explain, how is it even possible, that you gave the permission for the destruction of a sizable part of the Scarborough Bluffs which are considered an ecological treasure. Did you really think that the Bluff can be remodelled to its original shape after agreeing to a construction road to be built from its top ? FYI this has caused several months of very busy heavy machinery traffic on a street which had “No entrance to trucks” sign due to weight limits. It is especially difficult to understand because there was already an access road built through the Guildwood Park to enable the Bluff reinforcement along the shore. It is even more confusing now in the light of the proposal of developing a “Waterfront Park along the Bluffs” in the very same area. Obviously your assessment and permit seem very short sighted. We understand that you have stopped the work due to “a violation of the strict guidelines for the environmentally sensitive area” following Ms. Connie Pinto’s inspection, however we believe that much greater violation was done by issuing the permit. We are asking that you at least move quickly on the matter of finishing this shameful project as soon as possible in keeping with your vision “ for a new kind of community, The Living City, where human settlement can flourish forever as part of nature's beauty and diversity.” Please update us on the progress, time-line and final plans for this construction. Thank you. Dana and Jiri Kopka 201 Greyabbey Trail Scarborough
"*PLEASE CONSIDER THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE PRINTING, STORING OR FORWARDING THIS MESSAGE*
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Confidentiality Notice:The information contained in this communication including any attachments may be confidential, is intended only for use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,disclosure or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please resend this communication to the sender and delete it permanently from your computer system.
Thank you."
8
Item 7.1
Section I – Items for Authority Action TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #8/15, September 25, 2015 FROM: Derek Edwards, Director, Parks and Culture RE: BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE North Lands Master Plan and the Vision ____________________________________________________________________________ KEY ISSUE Board endorsement of the Black Creek Pioneer Village Vision and the North Lands Master Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
WHEREAS the Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) Vision and the BCPV North Lands
Master Plan have been completed;
AND WHEREAS select deliverables of the BCPV North Lands Master Plan have been
included in an Environmental Assessment completed by the City of Vaughan;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the BCPV North Lands Master Plan be approved in principle; THAT the BCPV Vision be approved in principle; AND FURTHER THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff work with the municipalities and community to foster support. BACKGROUND BCPV opened as a living history museum owned and operated by TRCA in 1960. The Village is comprised of five 19th century buildings on their original location and more than 30 pre-Confederation buildings moved from surrounding municipalities. BCPV is one of the GTA’s most important cultural treasures. It is here where the history of the Toronto region is researched, preserved and presented to the public. Not only does BCPV interpret pioneer heritage, it is also a leader in living history communication methods and techniques. In support of the TRCA Strategic Plan, “Building The Living City,” BCPV tells the story of the Toronto region:
An appreciation of our cultural heritage gives meaning and context to our path toward the future. When citizens have a strong sense of place, they are more likely to become champions for their communities and stewards of their environment. Building The Living City Leadership Strategy #6
9
Item 7.1
In addition to museum operations, BCPV has additional revenue streams including green weddings and social events, corporate events, and a brewery partnership. The site is also a popular and successful location for commercial filming and photography. BCPV’s North Lands is a 16-hectare parcel of land located on the northwest corner of Jane Street and Steeles Avenue in the City of Vaughan. This site contains five buildings, including three 19th century structures that are original to the site. One of these original buildings is the rare 1809 Pennsylvania-German Dalziel Barn, which is considered to be of national historic significance. The Humber Valley Conservation Authority began acquiring this land in 1954 and opened it as the Dalziel Pioneer Park and Museum in 1956 with the objectives of providing public greenspace, preserving historic structures and showcasing best practices in conservation. When BCPV opened to the public, it continued to operate the North Lands as a public facility until the 1980s. Today, the area generates revenue for TRCA as a filming location, is used as a public event space and provides important storage area for artifacts. In 2010, TRCA staff started working on the development of the BCPV North Lands Master Plan and BCPV Vision. Now complete, the Master Plan and Vision offer critical plans for the future. Explored below are key findings acquired through this process, as well as next steps and future actions. Black Creek Pioneer Village North Lands Master Plan The BCPV North Lands lie adjacent to lands addressed by the City of Vaughan Official Plan Amendment 620 (OPA 620) for development. The master planning process was initiated to consider the relationship between the BCPV North Lands and OPA 620 lands, as well as the impacts of the future urbanization of the area and the northward extension of the Spadina subway line. A stormwater management pond located on the North Lands, which serves a 22-hectare industrial area west of the site, was earmarked for expansion by the City of Vaughan through the Municipal Servicing Master Plan Study process. The City of Vaughan undertook an Environmental Assessment to identify the municipal servicing improvements and/or modifications to the stormwater, water and wastewater services required to implement the development objectives outlined in OPA 620. The BCPV North Lands Master Plan would further address future site usage and determine if the existing stormwater management pond is appropriate for retrofit to accommodate future development. On May 7, 2010, TRCA’s Executive Committee adopted Resolution #B40/10, allowing the undertaking of a master planning process for the BCPV North Lands to study flood control measures for the adjacent OPA 620 lands. Key deliverables of the Master Plan include:
improved flood control measures;
protection of existing heritage structures;
introduction of interactive programs onto the site;
creation of three precincts: natural heritage, cultural/agricultural heritage and commercial development site.
10
Item 7.1
With funding from the City of Vaughan, Schollen & Company undertook the master planning process. The process included visits to the property to assess existing features, with the field work of Schollen & Company supplemented where necessary by natural heritage, archaeological and aquatic habitat inventory work completed by TRCA staff. It also involved consultation with TRCA staff responsible for the management of BCPV and that of other TRCA properties, assessment of existing financial and market conditions associated with BCPV, consultation with OPA 620 environmental assessment (EA) consulting team, and public consultation.
The Master Plan recommends the division of the property into three precincts:
1. Natural Heritage Precinct Located toward the west side of the property, the Natural Heritage Precinct would consist of: a) forested area, west of Black Creek, designated for monitoring and research activities; b) trails to afford public access within the valley corridor, providing opportunities for
nature-appreciation and education; c) improvements to existing stormwater pond.
2. Cultural/Agricultural Heritage Precinct
Encompassing all of the heritage buildings and the proposed stormwater management facility, this precinct would consist of: a) event space in the retrofitted Dalziel Barn and a landscaped outdoor event area
located adjacent to the Barn and suitable for large-scale events; b) urban farm lands used for demonstration and education with produce sold to benefit
BCPV; c) office, administrative and meeting space in the retrofitted building; d) enhanced public and education programs in restored heritage buildings; e) dry pond/meadow stormwater management facility.
3. Commercial Development Site
Fronting on Jane Street, this precinct could be rezoned and leased to accommodate a retail/commercial enterprise.
Once completed, revenue would be generated from:
Village Common rental for events e.g. farmers’ markets, arts & crafts shows, festivals, etc.;
school group fees;
location for film shoots;
wedding and commercial photography location;
retail/commercial development of a portion of the site. In 2013, TRCA staff began work on a broader vision for BCPV that incorporated the recommendations made in the BCPV North Lands Master Plan. It was deemed prudent to present this new vision for BCPV along with the BCPV North Lands Master Plan. The complete Black Creek North Lands Master Plan can be made available upon request.
11
Item 7.1
Black Creek Pioneer Village Strategic Plan In 2012, staff completed a strategic plan for BCPV featuring the following Mission Statement:
Black Creek Pioneer Village helps people apply the history of life in the Toronto region to build a better future in their own communities. We invite everyone to join in this exploration. We care for and show a historical collection of value to all, create experiences of benefit to all, and tell meaningful stories for all. Our programs and exhibits focus on experiential learning and encourage people to draw connections between the mid-1800s and contemporary life. Our services enhance these connections and encourage diverse usage of the site.
The BCPV Strategic Plan identified four key objectives for the site, to be:
relevant to communities;
visited by more people more often;
financially sustainable;
a champion for cultural heritage. The plan also takes into consideration important findings of a 2011 intercept survey completed by Foundation Research Group. The results of this survey demonstrate that despite finding the museum educational and the costumed interpreters informative, friendly and engaging, BCPV visitors are looking for additional opportunities for interactive participation within the site’s historic buildings, and would like the interpretation program to provide more entertainment. Research Field Trips Following the completion of the BCPV North Lands Master Plan and the BCPV Strategic Plan, with support of a private donor, staff undertook a series of research trips to 13 top-tier museums in North America to inform the framework of the BCPV Vision. The key learning outcomes from the field trips are as follows:
Visitors learn more by doing. People have positive and memorable experiences when they are actively engaged.
Adults and children want to be engaged by their surroundings. Visitors want to do rather than watch and listen.
Costumed staff members are integral to educational and enjoyable museum visits. People enjoy engaging with interpretive staff and learn more about history through these types of exchanges.
Visitors relate to stories about real people from the past. First person accounts, such as quotations in exhibits, recorded voices in period room settings, and drama presentations in gathering spaces, offer relatable experiences and can be integrated seamlessly into historic settings.
Mobile apps enhance the museum experience. Digital technology can improve interaction between visitors and their environment when delivered in practical and relevant ways.
Historic buildings can function as a device for exploring the stories of the people who lived, worked or passed through them. Heritage buildings are most effective and engaging when they offer a wide range of stories about people, change, and community.
12
Item 7.1
Cross-cultural exhibit themes, such as food, culture, work and lifestyle, can effectively engage communities. During content development, collaborating with community stakeholders to explore these themes helps foster a sense of community, belonging and common purpose; when captured through programming and exhibits, these topics speak to the personal histories of visitors while fitting into the broader stories of the Toronto region.
BCPV will create a unique visitor experience in Canada. No other museum in Canada combines the elements proposed in the new BCPV.
The BCPV Vision Framework Based on the aforementioned learnings, staff produced the BCPV Vision Framework with the help of the museum consulting firm Museum Planning Partners (MPP). Today, many people view BCPV as a place to learn about a specific group of people living in the Toronto region at a specific point in time. The BCPV Vision Framework proposes to broaden the stories it tells by sharing stories of people currently living in the area in their own words. In addition to discovering how others have lived in this area, community members will see themselves reflected in the stories told at BCPV. Community members will partner with staff to tell stories of relevance to everyone. The BCPV Vision Framework consists of five major alterations to the site and how visitors interact with it (Attachment 1). These changes enable TRCA to meet the objectives and actions articulated in the TRCA Strategic Plan Leadership Strategy #6, “Tell the story of the Toronto region,” while creating a heritage attraction unlike any other in Canada. Community Consultations To seek community input into BCPV’s Vision, both internal and external consultations were held. Over 180 individuals, including representatives of municipal, provincial and federal governments, school boards, cultural institutions, representatives of the Jane Finch community, BCPV partner organizations and post-secondary institutions were invited to a forum held on June 10, 2015. On July 25, 2015, BCPV held a second public consultation at which 75 BCPV members and volunteers provided feedback on the draft plan. In addition to these two public consultations, a number of internal consultations were held, including BCPV staff member participation in a consultation session and a working session with senior TRCA staff members. Key themes that arose through the consultation process included:
Support and excitement for the visioning of BCPV.
BCPV’s responsibility to help preserve and steward heritage within Ontario and the local community.
Attract more visitors by making the site more visible and accessible.
Ensure there is a strong physical connection between BCPV and the new Pioneer Village subway station.
Increase awareness throughout the region by connecting with other attractions. Help the local community to recognize and identify with BCPV by creating a strong sense of place.
Develop connections between BCPV and other local institutions and organizations.
13
Item 7.1
Fundraising Feasibility Study To assess the willingness and ability of the community to sustain a capital campaign that would support the BCPV Vision Framework, The Living City Foundation (LCF) and TRCA, with support from a private donor, contracted with Inspire Inc., a fundraising consultancy firm, to complete a fundraising feasibility study. The study concluded that:
A philanthropic/fundraising goal of $1.5 million be set with a total project budget of $5 million.
A revised case for support be written.
A program of identification and cultivation for volunteer leadership and campaign donors be initiated.
The fundraising campaign be launched in late spring 2016. BCPV Vision: Planning and Concept Development The results of the fundraising feasibility study and feedback from the consultations allowed for further planning and concept development of the BCPV Vision. The BCPV Vision provides recommendations for the overall direction for BCPV along with preliminary descriptions of the approach and elements that will make the plan a reality within the $5 million budget suggested by the fundraising feasibility study. The BCPV Vision recommends the creation of more interactive experience for visitors through initiatives including:
barrier-free hands-on activity areas;
digital discovery apps;
re-imagined streetscape and entranceway;
partnership with local community arts group. The essential elements of the BCPV Vision are outlined in Attachment 2.
Work Completed Towards the BCPV Vision The following initiatives have been introduced to BCPV to reflect the BCPV Vision. These initiatives also align with the BCPV Strategic Plan and TRCA’s 10-Year Strategic Plan, “Building The Living City”.
Interactive discovery stations with a “get involved” philosophy.
“Farmyard Friends”, where visitors may meet and pet farm animals. Acquisition and socialization of child-friendly heritage-breed animals.
Interactive drama programs that encourage participation and learning.
Enhanced local community engagement programming and event development.
Development of new audiences through new specialized programs.
Increased capacity to provide programs, events and exhibits through strategic partnerships.
Piloted projects that will inform future plans and growth.
These initiatives have resulted in a vibrant and active atmosphere in the historic village, an increased capacity to provide visitors with the interactive experiences they are seeking, and more community involvement with the site. Return on engagement is high. Initial feedback to these changes indicates that the vision for BCPV reflects visitor expectations and is encouraging community participation in the museum.
14
Item 7.1
RATIONALE A number of factors have combined to create a strategic opportunity for BCPV to move forward with the implementation of the BCPV Vision, including plans for the North Property, and a related fundraising capital campaign. These factors include:
improved public transit will make BCPV more accessible. The new Pioneer Village TTC station will open to the public in 2018. Located 800 metres from BCPV, Pioneer Village station will make BCPV more accessible while providing promotion for the site;
Canada’s sesquicentennial will result in heightened public awareness and interest in Canada’s history, in particular an interest in Confederation which is the exact time period that BCPV depicts;
an increase in public funding in celebration of Canada’s 150th birthday;
BCPV North Lands Master Plan recommends revitalization of the area’s natural spaces and increasing public usage of the area through innovative public programming funded, in part, through commercial development;
financial support of the W. Garfield Weston Foundation resulted in leading-edge research into building and maintaining audiences at living history museums;
BCPV’s audiences are demanding increasingly interactive experiences. Audience demand is demonstrated through 2011 intercept survey, trends in education program bookings, and visitor comment cards;
recent transformations at other history museums located in southern Ontario have resulted in heightened profile and increased annual visitation;
fundraising feasibility study concludes that the community will support a capital campaign for $1.5 million dollars as part of a larger $5 million dollar project.
FINANCIAL DETAILS BCPV North Lands Master Plan The anticipated cost for implementation of BCPV North Lands Master Plan is $9.26 million as follows:
Activity Expense
Site Preparation $73,152
Earthworks $45,341
Site Work (hard landscaping) $605,146
Services $4,327,349
Building Improvements & New Structures $2,504,250
Soft Landscape Works $565,475
Project Cost Estimate $8,120,713
Contingency $379,336
Design/ Technical Investigation Costs $758,672
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $9,258,722
Sources of revenue for the project include a portion of the development fees for OPA 620 lands. Other revenues include potential leasing of commercial lands located on BCPV North Lands. No work will be initiated until funds are secured. BCPV Vision The anticipated cost for implementation of BCPV Vision is $5.17 million as follows:
15
Item 7.1
Activity Expense
Planning $130,000
Infrastructure Improvements $1,988,000
Content Research $370,000
Interactive Historic Experiences $1,300,000
Technology Investment $300,000
Community Outreach $435,000
Evaluation and Training $100,000
Marketing $300,000
Contingency $246,000
Total $5,169,000
Sources of revenue for the project include:
Activity Revenue
Community Support $1,500,000
Community Support: In Kind $160,000
Grants $1,300,000
TRCA: Internal Re-allocation $1,400,000
TRCA: In Kind $800,000
TOTAL $5,169,000
All components of the vision for BCPV are flexible and scalable. No substantial investments will be made until components are proven to be financially viable and until funding is secured. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE
Completion of a detailed business plan, including a marketing plan and operating budget for the BCPV Vision.
Completion of an interpretive plan, in cooperation with a museum consultant that outlines the specific topics and means of communication to be used in the interactive historic experiences and throughout the property.
Implementation of a fundraising campaign starting with a program to identify and cultivate volunteer leaders and potential donors for the capital campaign.
Implementation of projects associated with the BCPV Vision. Report prepared by: Wendy Rowney extension #5407 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Derek Edwards extension #5407 Emails: [email protected] Date: Date created Attachments: 2
16
Attachment 1
1. Interactive Historical Experiences a. Create accessible interactive historical experiences in eight historic buildings and
five outdoor spaces. Provide multiple opportunities for visitors to do, rather than watch.
b. Provide highly-interactive experiences. Experiences may range from churning butter to lifting a weighted “ice block,” from “ploughing” to setting type on the press, from roping a bed to baking in a wood-burning oven.
c. Remove existing barriers in these historic buildings so that visitors may go right into the heart of the space. Replace artifacts with heritage-inspired reproduction furnishings. Store artifacts for future generations.
d. Incorporate new technologies strategically, e.g. mobile apps. e. Ensure every experience is fully accessible.
2. History Actors
a. Develop characters based on real people and real happenings from the community’s past.
b. Introduce these characters through short plays, interactive drama programs, and unscripted interactions.
c. Provide visitors with copies of primary source documents showing the detective work required to find and bring these real people “to life” through drama.
3. Visitor Centre Experience & Streetscape a. Streamline ticketing and wayfinding to provide visitors with an overview of all there
is to do at BCPV. b. Provide a conceptual overview and historical context for the BC experience. c. Work with TTC and community partners to provide appropriate yet creative
exhibits in the subway station and wayfinding from the Pioneer Village station to BCPV.
d. Partner with local community group and artists to create a heritage mural or art heritage path along the BCPV fence line on Steeles Avenue and Murray Ross Parkway.
4. Technology Investment a. Develop mobile apps that will encourage visitor interaction with the site. b. Provide recorded voices in unstaffed spaces through a mobile app. c. Introduce app that encourages visitors to discover the more recent history of the
community by listening to edited interviews at BCPV buildings that are thematically linked to the site.
5. Community Outreach a. Conduct interviews with diverse community members. Focus interviews on themes
common to all e.g. home, work, health & well-being, leisure. b. Edit interviews. Create walking tour through BCPV with stops based on themes.
17
Attachment 2 Participation
Convert a number of spaces in the historic buildings to barrier-free hands-on activity areas with replaceable collections or replica materials.
“Discover Black Creek” – a number of digital apps that can be downloaded from the BCPV website and provide activities for families and a more in-depth look at artifacts and historical figures related to BCPV.
Black Creek Farm and Gardens – Provide additional interpretive signage and links to Discover Black Creek apps to provide more information and insight into BCPV’s living collection. Rent out areas of BCPV for specialty and heritage crops.
Landmarks
TTC Pioneer Village Subway Station – portions of which would carry appropriate heritage theming through painting and super-graphics. A colourful and easy-to-read map will show the best path from the station to BCPV.
Heritage Mural – Completed in partnership with local community arts groups and located at a strategic viewing point for vehicular traffic, the mural will mark the main route to BCPV in a complex urban environment and invite members of the public to take this unique journey to the past.
Introductions within the Visitor’s Centre
Build on the orientation messaging to streamline ticketing and wayfinding to provide visitors with an overview of what is available to see and do at BCPV, how to find what interests them and how to budget their time.
Provide a conceptual overview and historical context for BCPV experience through an engaging orientation map.
Offer improved access to food, beverage, and entertainment facilities at the Brewery and festival areas.
18
Item 7.2
Section I – Items for Authority Action TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #9/15, September 25, 2015 FROM: Nick Saccone, Director, Restoration Services RE: GREENWOOD CONSERVATION LANDS Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan and Brock North inland filling ____________________________________________________________________________ KEY ISSUES Final approval of the Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan; the strategic placement and grade of clean surplus fill within an abandoned aggregate extraction area within the Greenwood Conservation Lands at the Brock North tract; the transfer of provincially-owned Highway 407 ETR East Extension Lands and the strategic acquisition of lands to facilitate inland filling for ecological restoration and financial sustainability. RECOMMENDATION WHEREAS the Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan was approved in principle by the Authority on November 30, 2012 (Resolution #A219/12); AND WHEREAS the former aggregate extraction area at the Brock North tract has been identified as a site for habitat restoration and enhancement through the strategic placing of clean fill, and was approved as a possible site by the Authority on January 28, 2011 (Resolution #A13/11); AND WHEREAS TRCA staff has initiated planning and discussions with City of Pickering related to the restoration and recreational potential of the property, as was recommended in a report to the Authority on January 28, 2011; AND WHEREAS the Province of Ontario has acquired lands for the construction of the Highway 407 ETR East extension that may become surplus upon completion of the highway construction; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Greenwood Master Plan be approved; THAT the funds for receiving the clean fill be set aside exclusively for project costs and implementation of the Greenwood Lands Master Plan, including future restoration and habitat enhancement of the property and the phased implementation of the recreation plan; THAT TRCA staff facilitate discussions between the City of Pickering, Town of Ajax and City of Toronto for approval of ancillary uses at the Brock lands; THAT staff continue to work with Ministry of Transportation officials and report back on the options for land transfer or use of surplus Highway 407 ETR East Extension lands in the future; THAT TRCA staff continue to explore strategic land acquisition for inland filling that supports ecological restoration and financial sustainability;
19
Item 7.2
THAT staff develop a landscape master plan for the Brock North inland fill area that achieves a balance between ecological restoration and recreational facilities, while incorporating approximately 1.7 million cubic metres of clean fill; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be authorized and directed to execute all the necessary documentation required to facilitate restoration of the property and implementation of the Master Plan. BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #7/15, held on July 24, 2015, staff presented the Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan. The report was referred to the September 25, 2015 Authority meeting for more information as follows:
THAT the staff report be referred to the September Authority meeting for a staff report with information on possible volumes of fill, clarification of Pickering’s plans for recreation fields, options to close the funding gap, provincial lands purchased for the Highway 407 corridor and clarification on conditions of the original transfer of lands from Toronto and mechanism for approval of plans and funding contributions as required.
The report addresses these issues as outlined below. Greenwood Conservation Lands With the most recent acquisition of the Brock Lands in 2011, adding to the adjacent Greenwood Conservation Area (GCA) and Rodar property, the area of the amalgamated properties totals 689 hectares (1,704 acres). For the purpose of integrating the planning of all the lands into the Master Planning process, the three properties are considered as one large complex called the Greenwood Conservation Lands (GCL) as approved on November 30, 2012 as per Resolution #A219/12. Located within the Duffins Creek watershed in the Regional Municipality of Durham, GCL borders the Town of Ajax and the City of Pickering. Additionally, it is adjacent to Highway 7 and the Highway 407 ETR East expansion in the north and Taunton Road to the south and is located between Sideline 16 and Greenwood Road west and east respectively. City of Toronto Transfer Agreement The Brock North former landfill site is located on the north side of the 5th Concession Road, east of Brock Road in the City of Pickering. The Brock South site is located on the south side of the 5th Concession Road, east of Brock Road in the Town of Ajax. These lands were secured by the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in 1969 as part of a landfill site selection process. At that time, in order to purchase land for use as a landfill in another jurisdiction, the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto was required to enter into an agreement with the Township of Pickering. The required agreement, among other matters, provided that “on completion of the refuse disposal sites, the land would be turned over to the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, for recreation purposes." The then Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto obtained Certificates of Approval from MOE for landfill at both Brock North and South. The south-west portion of the Brock North site was used for landfilling in the late 1970’s; however, the waste was removed from the site in 1997. Brock South was never used for waste disposal. Staff reviewed the Remedial Action Plan and The Closure Plan Implementation reports, as well as the Ministry of Environment files, and were satisfied that there is nothing of any significance in terms of risks associated with the transfer of property. In the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, the City retained the right to continue to monitor, pursuant to any certificate of approval. The lands were subsequently declared surplus by the City of Toronto’s Solid Waste Management Division in 2008 and conveyed to TRCA for a nominal fee of $2 in 2011. The City of Toronto and TRCA entered
20
Item 7.2
into an agreement related to the use of the property by TRCA. The general terms of the agreement are as following:
1. The property is to remain in the ownership of TRCA. 2. The property is to be used by TRCA, Ajax or Pickering or any of their agencies only for
open space and park purposes including paths, trails and other passive recreational uses. 3. Any other ancillary uses must be approved by the City of Toronto and will be conditional
upon a management agreement between TRCA and Pickering. These uses may include an expansion of the Pickering Museum, a district park having a minimum size of 50 acres serving the entire City of Pickering with facilities such as stadiums, places of assembly and a variety of active and passive recreational and cultural pursuits including soccer fields, softball diamonds, baseball diamonds and football fields.
4. If there are ancillary uses, then the City of Toronto must receive the fair market value of all of the entitlements, interest and permissions conveyed or granted by TRCA.
5. If there is any sale or other disposition by TRCA for other than an ancillary use approved by the City of Toronto, then the City of Toronto has the rights to take the property back or take the profit. The profit is the Fair Market Value of the rights conveyed by TRCA less TRCA's costs of capital improvements, realty taxes, removal of exiting improvements, environmental clean-up costs, real estate commission, cost of acquiring, operating and maintaining the property.
The uses proposed in the Greenwood Conservation Lands Master Plan were contemplated at the time City of Toronto and TRCA negotiated the transfer of the Brock North and South lands and were incorporated in the Agreement between the City of Toronto and TRCA. City of Toronto staff has indicated that once TRCA has finalized the master plan they would review the plan and advise if further City approvals are required. Brock North Environmental Conditions The terrestrial landscape and hydrologic function of the Brock North lands have been severely altered through previous aggregate extraction and landfill operations. Staff has assessed the site and identified opportunities to restore hydrological function, unique landforms, and aquatic and terrestrial habitats. In order to restore the hydrological regime and natural watershed drainage, the importation of fill materials is required to replace the land overburden and reshape the topography in altered areas of the site. The revenue generated via tipping fees during fill placement will provide financial support for the phased implementation of the Master Plan, including restoration activities and the recreation plan. Inland Fill Plan TRCA staff has determined that importing approximately a minimum of 1.7 million cubic metres of fill is necessary to meet both restoration and revenue goals in the context of a recreational park. A maximum of approximately 2.6 million cubic metres of fill can be placed at the site and still meet restoration goals if there is no recreational park. Tipping fee revenue will flow from either public or private partners, such as York Region who have specifically requested that TRCA reserve fill capacity at Brock North for disposal of excess soils associated with future infrastructure work. A very successful collaborative agreement between York Region and TRCA involving the placement of 350,000 cubic metres of clean soil at Brock South will be completed in late 2015 as approved at the June 24, 2011 Authority Meeting (Resolution #140/11).
21
Item 7.2
Revenue will also be generated from private sector fill suppliers through a competitive bidding process meeting TRCA’s Purchasing Policy. In this scenario, a contractor may be awarded a contract to supply and place a specific quantity of soil within a time frame at a unit cost. The contractor would also be required to restore and stabilize the site via the establishment of a natural cover crop. Past successful inland fill projects have generated tipping fees in the range of $3.50 to $6.00 per cubic metre. This would translate into revenue of between $6 million and $10 million dollars based on a 1.7 million cubic metre fill plan. An additional $3 million to $5 million dollars may be generated based on a 2.6 million cubic metre fill plan. Staff estimate that filling would take place over 7 to 12 years depending on design volumes and market conditions, however staff would always endeavor to maximize revenues and may delay filling to do so. A portion of fill revenue or approximately $200,000 per year will be required to manage the filling operation including the implementation of the TRCA Inland Fill Quality Assurance Program. The program includes the pre-approval of all fill prior to delivery, followed by fill tracking, monitoring and laboratory testing. TRCA has achieved excellence in the management of fill operations and will continue to explore options for strategic land acquisition that will facilitate ecological restoration and financial sustainability. In addition to the restoration of ecological and hydrological functions, the placement of 1.7 million cubic metres of fill also allows for the construction of specific active recreational facilities requested by the City of Pickering. Discussions regarding the future use of the lands have identified that City of Pickering is interested in utilizing a portion of the fill site measuring approximately 18.4+ hectares (45+ acres) for recreational park facilities including sports fields. More discussion is required to confirm the preliminary recreation concept and explore the possibility of reducing the area required, while still accommodating a smaller recreation complex. A smaller recreation complex footprint would allow for a greater amount of fill and associated revenue. Additionally the Pickering Museum has identified an area at the north end of the site, adjacent to their lands, for possible expansion. TRCA is confident that a design balance can be achieved which allows for restoration, financial goals and recreational uses. Highway 407 ETR East Extension As outlined in the November 30, 2012 report to the Authority, TRCA entered into an agreement with the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) to undertake restoration activities as overall benefit compensation for redside dace as required by the Endangered Species Act due to construction of the Highway 407 ETR East Extension. A total of eight stream restoration sites within Brock North will be fully restored by the end of 2017, funded by MTO for a total of approximately $1.8 million. As part of the Highway 407 ETR East Extension, MTO acquired lands for construction and habitat compensation purposes. It is anticipated that upon construction completion the lands will be deemed as surplus for the project and it may be beneficial for TRCA to explore the acquisition of strategic parcels, especially in the area of the GCL.
FINANCIAL DETAILS The estimated cost to implement the GCL Recreation Plan is $3.6 million, while the estimated cost to undertake full restoration of the site is estimated at $4.3 million. Approximately $95,000 was awarded to TRCA by the Trans Canada Trail for improvements to the Trans Canada Trail within the Rodar Property and Greenwood Conservation Area. Approximately $1.8 million has been secured for habitat restoration via MTO and TRCA is working with partners, including the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH), on additional in-kind restoration works. Revenues from the Brock South fill deposition site will help fund the restoration and recreation plans within the Brock South tract. Based on the estimated minimum filling revenue for Brock North, which also accommodates a recreational complex, an estimated shortfall of $4.4 million could result for the complete Master Plan implementation. Alternatively, based on maximum filling
22
Item 7.2
revenue, a surplus of $7.6 million including Master Plan implementation could result. Regardless of the filling scenario, TRCA will continue to explore traditional and non-traditional sources of funding to achieve the phased implementation of the Master Plan. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE To achieve the restoration and revenue goals at Brock North, TRCA staff will take the following actions:
work with municipal partners to confirm their fill capacity requests;
undertake a competitive bidding process for fill suppliers;
work with the City of Pickering to confirm the preliminary recreation concept plan and explore the reduction of area required for recreation;
ask that the City of Pickering make a formal request for the provision of sports related facilities;
facilitate discussions with the City of Pickering, Town of Ajax and the City of Toronto to determine the mechanism for approval of ancillary uses;
To achieve the implementation of the GCL Master Plan, TRCA staff will undertake phased implementation based on available funds that will allow for ecological restoration and passive recreation. The phased approach will allow for flexibility in the design of the landform to accommodate both the recreational complex and any changes to the landform. TRCA staff will also continue to investigate traditional and non-traditional sources of funding. TRCA staff will work with Ministry of Transportation officials and report back on the options for the transfer of Highway 407 East Extension lands in the future. TRCA staff will also continue to explore options for the strategic land acquisition that requires filling to achieve ecological restoration and financial sustainability. Report prepared by: Karen McDonald, extension 5248 and David Hatton, extension 5365 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] For Information contact: Karen McDonald, extension 5248, David Hatton, extension 5365 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] Date: September 11, 2015 Attachments: 1
23
Attachment 1
24
Item 7.3
Section I – Items for Authority Action TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #8/15, September 25, 2015 FROM: Chandra Sharma, Director, Watershed Strategies
Carolyn Woodland, Senior Director, Planning, Greenspace and Communications
RE: TRCA CROSSING GUIDELINE FOR VALLEY AND STREAM CORRIDORS ____________________________________________________________________________ KEY ISSUE Board endorsement of TRCA’s Crossings Guideline for Valley and Stream Corridors, a technical guideline developed to support The Living City Policies (2014). The Guideline was circulated for comments and is now finalized for staff use in the review of crossing applications under planning, environmental assessment and TRCA permit processes. RECOMMENDATION WHEREAS in 2014 and 2015, based on up-to-date knowledge from science and practice,
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff developed the draft TRCA
Crossings Guideline for Valley and Stream Corridors to articulate TRCA objectives and
study requirements for the planning and design of corridor crossings;
AND WHEREAS in 2015, TRCA staff sought input on the draft Guideline from provincial agencies, partner municipalities, the Building and Land Development Industry (BILD), and neighbouring conservation authorities, and have now finalized the Guideline;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Authority endorse the TRCA Crossings Guideline for Valley and Stream Corridors for use by public and private proponents of crossings and TRCA staff in the planning and development submission, review and approval processes;
THAT staff continue to monitor and study the long-term effectiveness of crossings constructed in TRCA watersheds to better understand their cumulative impact on watershed health and to identify the best approaches for crossing design;
AND FURTHER THAT the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of Transportation, regional and local municipalities in TRCA’s jurisdiction, Conservation Ontario, and neighbouring conservation authorities be so advised. BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #6/13, held on July 26, 2013, Resolution #A118/13 was approved to proceed with the development of updated TRCA guidelines for road-watercourse crossings. The updated guidelines would incorporate the latest science to balance ecological benefits with economic costs, while fulfilling mandated responsibilities for the management of flooding and erosion hazards. Since that time, TRCA staff from the Watershed Strategies, Planning, Greenspace and Communications, and Restoration and Infrastructure divisions have worked to develop the Crossings Guideline for Valley and Stream Corridors (hereafter referred to as “the Guideline”).
25
Item 7.3
The draft Guideline was thoroughly vetted through senior technical and planning staff and directors, in addition to undergoing a comprehensive external consultation process. TRCA’s partner municipalities, provincial agencies and neighbouring conservation authorities were all circulated the draft Guideline. Staff also conducted a webinar for these public agencies in which participants were oriented to the structure and content of the Guideline and offered a forum to discuss their initial reactions before the formal circulation and request for their written comments. Subsequent to this, the Guideline was made available to private sector developers and consultants through the BILD policy and government relations representative, after staff conducted a separate webinar for BILD on the Guideline to solicit their comments. Based on the feedback received through the external consultation process, TRCA staff have now revised and finalized the Guideline for use by public and private proponents of crossings and TRCA staff in the planning and development submission, review and approval process. RATIONALE TRCA and other conservation authorities become involved in the design and construction of road crossings over valley and stream corridors because of the potential impacts of these works on natural hazards and natural heritage. TRCA reviews crossings in a number of capacities: as a public commenting body and service provider to approval authorities under the Planning Act and the environmental assessment process, and as a regulator issuing permits under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. Under the Planning Act, TRCA also represents the provincial interest in natural hazards as delegated by the Province of Ontario to all conservation authorities. There are currently over 3,500 bridges and culvert crossings within TRCA watersheds. In coming years, many crossings will be added, upgraded or reconstructed to accommodate population growth and associated transportation network needs, in addition to those that will be replaced or repaired through routine maintenance. Evidence from the TRCA jurisdiction and elsewhere indicates that crossings of this number and density can have substantial impacts on both natural hazards and natural heritage at the watershed scale. From a natural hazard perspective, improperly designed crossing structures can:
Impede the flow of floodwaters, creating increases in flooding upstream of crossings or creating conditions in which roadways are flooded.
Come into contact with river and stream channels as they migrate across the floodplain over time, causing damage or failure of the crossing infrastructure (e.g., to footings, abutments, piers).
Be damaged by valley slope failure if constructed in inappropriate locations or with inadequate countermeasures.
Destabilize slopes during construction resulting in risks to adjacent land uses. Natural hazard issues related to crossings are of increasing concern, as impacts are exacerbated by the changing climate, including an increased frequency of flood events and conditions that create the potential for slope instability and erosion. Risks to public safety and to road infrastructure can be prevented through carefully sited, sufficiently sized and appropriately designed crossings. From a natural heritage perspective, improperly designed crossing structures can:
Impede the movement of fish species upstream and downstream, particularly during migration or other critical life stages.
26
Item 7.3
Prevent the movement of terrestrial animals up and down valley corridors, fragmenting populations and often forcing animals onto roadways where they are killed by cars and create a public safety hazard.
Fragment high quality aquatic and terrestrial habitat, decreasing its quality and ability to support healthy populations of native and sensitive species.
The protection of these natural heritage functions has become increasingly important in recent years as the value of protecting and restoring natural heritage functions in urban and near-urban landscapes is now widely recognized and enshrined in provincial policy as well as municipal official plans and sustainability strategies. Most municipalities in the TRCA jurisdiction have invested in defining, protecting and restoring natural heritage functions through establishment of natural heritage systems; the bulk of these systems is comprised of valley and stream corridors. The impacts that road and rail crossings can have on the natural heritage functions of valley and stream corridors can threaten to undermine these investments. Sufficiently sized and appropriately sited and designed crossings can mitigate many of the impacts on the natural function of corridors and on the broader natural heritage system. TRCA staff’s understanding of the impacts and management of road crossings of valley and stream corridors has changed and increased significantly over the past decade, as a result of both observations of conditions in TRCA watersheds as well as significant new scientific developments in the field. Given the risks of not adequately addressing the natural hazard and natural heritage impacts described above, the Guideline was developed to support TRCA staff, TRCA partner municipalities, other approval authorities, and proponents with this latest understanding of how these impacts can be managed and mitigated. As well, the Guideline is intended to increase the understanding of public and private proponents preparing submissions in support of crossing projects guiding them to a comprehensive approach to study and analysis. The Guideline is consistent with the broad objectives for natural hazards and natural heritage management outlined in The Living City Policies (LCP), and is aligned with provincial and municipal partner objectives. Further, in recognition of the fiscal and logistical challenges of TRCA partner municipalities in constructing and maintaining the bridges and culverts that cross valley and stream corridors, the Guideline outlines a balanced approach to achieving these objectives, which directs effort and expenditure to the mitigation of impacts to where it is most needed with more flexible requirements in less critical locations. Content of the Guideline The Guideline articulates TRCA study requirements for the review of proposed new crossings and upgrades to existing crossing upgrades (extension, repairs, replacements) from preliminary concepts and alignments, to intermediate planning stages, through to detailed design. The submission criteria for studies outlined in the Guideline reflect much of what crossing proponents are already providing in submissions to TRCA, but these criteria are now organized in a helpful manner that will better facilitate and streamline the review and approval process. The Guideline itself is organized as follows:
Introduction: Provides an overview of the context, rationale and role of TRCA in crossing planning and design.
TRCA objectives for crossings: Objectives against which TRCA staff test applications for proposed new crossings or alterations to existing crossings.
27
Item 7.3
TRCA study requirements: Requirements for submissions in support of crossings for TRCA staff to assess whether a crossing will meet the objectives. These requirements are organized by project type (new crossing or existing) and by stage of the planning or environmental assessment process (early, intermediate and late) and vary accordingly in scope and detail.
Technical Appendices: Specific technical details and procedures to guide consultants in preparation of the required studies for natural hazard and natural heritage assessments, including a high level mapping tool. The mapping tool was developed by TRCA staff using desktop analysis of existing data to highlight valley and stream corridors that are predicted to be of high ecological concern for crossings within TRCA’s jurisdiction. Given major new developments in the science of habitat connectivity and function, TRCA staff incorporated this new information into state-of-the-art analyses that were undertaken to understand the most important locations in TRCA watersheds for the management of these impacts and accordingly, in the specification of guidance for crossing location, sizing and design. Notably, the tool is prefaced with the caution that natural heritage priorities must be considered in the context of all of the constraints affecting a crossing project (e.g., natural hazards), such that the greater of these constraints will ultimately drive crossing siting and design.
Throughout the Guideline, labeled diagrams and tables illustrate, synthesize and organize study requirements for greater reference. Comments Received on the Draft Guideline During the consultation period for the LCP, many municipalities and consultants remarked that they were anticipating the crossings Guideline to be helpful in supporting the infrastructure policies. Accordingly, feedback on the draft Guideline through verbal comments in the webinars and through written comments was largely positive. A detailed listing of written comments received with TRCA responses can be found in Attachment 1. However, a summary of these comments is below. Province The only provincial ministry to comment, the Ministry of Transportation (MTO), stated that although they are exempt from TRCA’s permit process, they may still voluntarily undergo TRCA review on specific circumstances. They went on to state that the information in the Guideline is of assistance as MTO continues to proactively collaborate with TRCA on various issues and initiatives to ensure alignment of provincial and TRCA policies. The comments also stated that MTO appreciates TRCA referring to MTO guidelines and standards and TRCA’s efforts in ensuring the alignment of TRCA Guidelines with provincial policy. Municipalities Many municipalities commented that they have no concern with the Guideline and/or no comments for the revision of the Guideline. Some comments recognized that the Guideline identifies the best approaches to corridor crossings in accordance with legislation and policy, accepted science, and current best practice, and is therefore useful to a very wide audience. It was recommended that the Guideline should highlight this point more strongly. Of the municipalities that made comments, many highlighted the issue of costs associated with retrofitting existing crossings. For example:
28
Item 7.3
The document is very useful in outlining the information that TRCA requires to review road and rail crossing structures and proposed modifications to existing structures and should be of assistance in the management of natural hazards and natural heritage issues associated with crossings.
We appreciate the effort that has gone into preparing the document and believe they will be very helpful to use going forward. We support their use on guiding our projects, provided there continues to be support from TRCA on the consideration of all factors (including cost) in the decision making.
This document is generally identifying a ‘best practices’ approach to valley / watercourse corridor crossings, and is therefore applicable and potentially adoptable by a very wide audience, ranging from other conservation authorities, to regional/area municipalities, and other agency and private proponents.
While it is important to include material in this document that expresses how these guidelines build upon / support TRCA’s planning and regulatory responsibilities, you may wish to express / emphasize that these guidelines will help all responsible levels of government / agency/ proponents to fulfill their mandates / policies / standards to address these critical issues.
The document repeatedly notes that TRCA may recommend replacement vs. extension. How does this relate to TRCA’s approval of a project if a proponent disagrees based on issues of cost, timing, etc.?
Criteria/requirements for rehabilitation or modifications to an existing bridge should be much less stringent compared to a new bridge.
In response, staff made revisions to further emphasize the Guideline’s alignment with provincial and municipal objectives. Staff also acknowledged the challenges and limitations associated with upgrading an existing crossing and pointed to the associated flexibility already in the Guideline for existing crossing study requirements relative to new crossing projects. Other Conservation Authorities Comments from TRCA’s neighbouring conservation authorities were supportive of TRCA’s efforts to develop a holistic approach to the planning and design of crossings to address natural hazard and natural heritage issues, and indicated that the Guideline would be useful to them in their own work. Credit Valley Conservation in particular submitted a number of written comments which TRCA staff addressed through minor revisions to the Guideline and by highlighting existing sections of the Guideline that spoke to their comments. Building and Land Development Industry (BILD) BILD members submitted no formal written comments on the Guideline, but informal feedback from BILD’s policy and government relations representative suggested the response by their membership was generally positive. Feedback from the attendees of the webinar was also largely positive, with acknowledgement of the clarity that the Guideline provides regarding TRCA’s approach to crossings. Some of the webinar attendees provided constructive suggestions regarding the need for additional clarity on some points, which have been accommodated through minor revisions to the text.
29
Item 7.3
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Guideline will be implemented through the Planning, Greenspace and Communications division in review processes for Planning Act applications, environmental assessment and master planning, and through TRCA’s own permitting process. As in current practice, TRCA planners, engineers and ecologists reviewing applications will work with crossing proponents and approval authorities to streamline the review process while striving for the best possible outcome for environmental and growth planning objectives. Similar to other TRCA technical guidelines supporting The Living City Policies, the Guideline will be updated to reflect any legislative changes or technical / scientific updates related to current practices as they arise. In addition, TRCA staff will monitor the impacts of crossings in TRCA watersheds and evaluate the performance of crossings located and designed in accordance with the Guideline. This work is intended to validate the guidance in the Guideline, particularly with respect to natural heritage management and to refine it over time with the on-the-ground understanding of what is happening in TRCA watersheds and what approaches to mitigating crossing impacts are most effective in our local context. This will ensure that the Guideline is providing value to TRCA partner municipalities and communities by directing impact mitigation efforts and resources so that they protect valued elements of watershed health. To this end, TRCA staff have already established a long term study design and a working group for Road-Valley Crossings Research comprised of members from various levels of government, neighbouring conservation authorities, academic institutions and wildlife conservation organizations. FINANCIAL DETAILS The development of the crossings guideline was supported through capital funding from the regional municipalities of Peel and York. Staff secured additional funding through research- granting organizations to undertake the research and advanced technical analysis that supported the development of the Guideline. In future years, Peel and York regions’ capital funding will also support the ongoing research and monitoring on the outcomes of crossings and incorporation of the results through revisions to the Guideline. Report prepared by: Ryan Ness, Namrata Shrestha and Mary-Ann Burns Emails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] For Information contact: Ryan Ness, extension 5702 or Mary-Ann Burns, extension 5763 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] Date: September 9, 2015 Attachments: 1
30
Attachment 1
TRCA Responses to Comments on the draft Crossings Guideline for Valley and Stream Corridors, April 2015 version
September 2015
Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response
Revisions to
Guideline?
City of Brampton General This document is generally identifying a ‘best practices’ approach to valley / watercourse
corridor crossings, and is therefore applicable and potentially adoptable by a very wide
audience, ranging from other Conservation Authorities, to regional/area municipalities, and
other agency and private proponents. Today, all levels of government have generally
expressed the same goals and objectives as TRCA has through strategic and planning
documents, i.e. the need to protect / conserve the natural heritage system and protect
people from the harm and risk of environmental hazards. As well, many of these other
levels of government and even agency / private interests have the added concern of
liability.
Therefore, while it is important to include material in this document that expresses how
these guidelines build upon / support TRCA’s planning and regulatory responsibilities,you
may wish to express / emphasize that these guidelines will help all responsible levels of
government / agency/ propoenents to fulfill their mandates / policies / standards to address
these critical issues. As such, this document should also recognize PPS 2014, MNRF’s
Natural Hazards Guide, Natural Heritage Reference Manual, etc. as appropriate.
Text has been added in Section 1.1 - Paragraph 4 to emphasize the
supporting role of the guideline. Text added: "The guideline also supports
the goals of other agencies in protecting the natural heritage system and
protecting people and property from harm and risk due to natural hazards.
The directions provided in the guideline are consistent with the guidance
provided in various provincial and other agency documents (listed in
Reference section) and will be updated as needed."
Y
City of Brampton General Recommend that when the document speaks to natural heritage, use the term "natural
heritage system" because in addition to protecting for a natural feature/area (e.g. specific
valley/watercourse reach), we also need to be cognizant of the system connectivity and the
movement of wildlife on regional landscape basis. For example, in Introduction, paragraph 2
sentence 1 indicates “CAs use their expertise in natural hazard management and natural
heritage protection and restoration to comment to other approval authorities .”
Comments noted and appreciated;
- The use of natural heritage function (instead of NH system) was intended
to reflect the broader concept of ecological functions rather than the
specific "system" line that has already been defined by individual
jurisdictions.
-Though most NH systems have successfully integrated broader ecological
concepts, some are still targeted towards terrestrial habitat and
connections. The guideline includes both terrestrial and aquatic NH
functions to inform crossings decision making.
- In addition, the NH functions in the guideline are intended to incorporate
the priorities set by the pre-defined NH systems, however also adds
additional means to identify a gradient of priorities for crossing structures
per se so that appropriate effort can be directed to locations where the
crossings can benefit habitat quality and wildlife connections more.
N
Page 1 of 1431
Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response
Revisions to
Guideline?
City of Brampton General This document is addressing road and rail crossings; however, is there a need for these
guidelines to include:
a. Road eco-passages for wildlife. Certainly this is an issue for valley and watercourse
crossings, but also connections between and/or to other terrestrial habitats beyond these
corridors?
Although the guideline focuses on valley and stream corridors, the
approach used in connectivity assessments and providing
recommendations recognizes the need for broader landscape connectivity
beyond the valley and stream corridors as stated in the second last
sentence of Section 1.1. - Paragraph 2. Thus, all of the priorities that are
defined by the tools within the valley and stream corridors are in relation to
its relative contribution to the broader landscape connections as described
in detail in Appendix 1D, 2B and 2C.
N
City of Brampton General This document is addressing road and rail crossings; however, is there a need for these
guidelines to include:
b. Pedestrian (trail) crossings as well, since these structures are becoming more
significant in size and cost (and do provide not only people access but equipment
access in corridors)? You may consider integrating the trails information in Sec.
3.3 as well as the future Trails Strategy that is under development.
Recommendations will be made to the TRCA Trails Strategy (under
development) to incorporate additional details regarding this issue.
N
City of Brampton General Municipalities don’t generally express the stages of planning as early, intermediate and late,
and therefore trying to define TRCA’s requirements for crossings in this manner seems very
confusing. You may wish to consider identifying requirements related to infrastructure
planning, infrastructure design and infrastructure approvals.
As well, please note that when the City of Brampton identifies roads through the land use
planning process we reference this as “integrated planning” and essentially follow the EA
process in the following manner:
a. Infrastructure Planning - undertake Secondary Plan / Block Plan Transportation
Study that fulfills EA Phase 1 & 2 (road network needs & justification). The general
location of the road network is established including new roads and upgrades to
existing roads. NHS planning is completed at this stage including the protection,
conservation and compensation for natural features to be retained and/or lost to
facilitate development and servicing.
b. Infrastructure Design - through Draft Plan of Subdivision require supporting technical
reports that would address servicing that would fulfill EA Phase 3 & 4 (road location relative
to NHS and 30% road design), as well as establish limits of development, natural feature
protection/creation, stormwater management, etc. (e.g. geotechnical, fluvial
geomorphology, EIS, FSR, etc.)
c. Infrastructure Approval – through Site Plan or Subdivision – we will finalize detailed
crossing design including site remediation, restoration and enhancement. Applicable
permits will be sought including CA, MNRF, etc.
Comments noted and appreciated;
- TRCA has multiple municipalities within its jurisdiction who use varied
terminologies to express the planning stages. Thus, the terms early,
intermediate, and late were used in the guideline as a way to generalize
them.
- Revised text has been added to Section 1.3 - Paragraph 5 to clarify this
point. Text added "The terminology used to describe the planning stages
varies from municipality to municipality and between Planning Act and
Environmental Assessment processes. TRCA has selected the terms
early, intermediate and late stages to broadly generalize them, and
accommodate all of these processes (Figure 6)."
Y
City of Brampton General Further to Comment 5, discussing requirements related to planning, design and approval
may simplify the issue when describing requirements for existing vs new infrastructure.
Section 3.1 describes this in detail. N
Page 2 of 1432
Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response
Revisions to
Guideline?
City of Brampton General The study should identify the information that TRCA has available that can inform
infrastructure planning, i.e. fisheries management plans, THNS, etc.
The details of all information including various relevant sources are
outlined in Appendix 1 A through 1 D. Additional technical information and
tools are then provided in Appendix 2A through 2C.
N
City of Brampton General Section 3.0 describes TRCA’s study requirements for crossings; however, there is little
recognition that many of these requirements may already be addressed through the typical
study requirements for planning applications and/or the EA process. This is particularly
noteworthy when considering integrated road planning through the Secondary Plan and / or
Block Plan process that requires preparation of a Master Environmental Servicing Plan or
Environmental Implementation Report, respectively.
Text has been added to Section 3 - Paragraph 2 in this regard. Text
added: "It should be noted that many of these requirements may also be
prepared in support of municipal planning applications or the
Environmental Assessment Act process."
Y
City of Brampton General Please include the guidelines and sizing/design requirements for pedestrian crossings. Recommendation will be made to the TRCA Trails Strategy (under
development) to include the suggested details on pedestrian crossings as
stated in Section 3.3.2.1.
N
City of Brampton General Please include TRCA’s floodplain mapping guideline as one of the appendices. The TRCA Floodplain Management Guideline (under development) that
outlines how proponents conduct mapping will be provided in the
upcoming update to the TRCA Procedural Manual. However, in the
interim, the current practice is that proponents complete the mapping in
consultation with TRCA.
N
City of Brampton General Typically, TRCA would not permit the use of upstream storage (behind the crossing
structures) to delineate floodplains. However, in the past, TRCA accepted the hydraulic
analysis of a crossing structure that took into account the upstream storage. Please clarify
that under what circumstances/conditions TRCA would accept this approach.
The issue of reflecting storage upstream of crossings to delineate
floodplains is an issue that pertains to the development of hydrological
models for the delineation and regulation of floodplans and flood hazard
zones by TRCA, and does not pertain to the hydraulic analysis of crossing
structures as described in the Guideline. The forthcoming TRCA
Floodplain Management Guideline will speak in detail to the circumstances
under which storage upstream of crossings can be considered in
hydrologic modelling and analysis.
N
City of Markham
(Engineering
Department)
General In general, the guideline provides a lot of details regarding TRCA’s requirements for
construction of new bridges and rehabilitation (e.g. widen) and/or repair of existing ones. At
the end, these structures (new and/or existing) are to meet existing guidelines (flood,
erosion, aquatic, etc.).
Comments noted and appreciated. N
City of Markham
(Engineering
Department)
General The report is missing section 2.1.4 & 2.1.5 and there are various errors in the report. Please
provide these section for our review since it has been reference few times in the guideline.
Revisions have been made to correct these typos, which were meant to
refer to Sections 2.1 and 2.2 respectively.
Y
City of Markham
(Engineering
Department)
General We will be providing further comments at a later date and when a revised version of the
guideline is provided.
We have addressed the comments received to date and intend on
finalizing the guideline at the end of September.
N
Page 3 of 1433
Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response
Revisions to
Guideline?
City of
Mississauga
General Thank you for providing the draft document for review. The document is very useful in
outlining the information that TRCA requires to review road and rail crossing structures and
proposed modifications to existing structures and should be of assistance in the
management of natural hazards and natural heritage issues associated with crossings.
From a policy planning perspective we have no concerns .
Comments noted and appreciated. N
Ministry of
Transportation
General The Crossing Guidelines for Valley and Stream Corridors is intended to describe TRCA
proponents the information that TRCA requires in order to review crossing structures and
proposed modifications to existing structures. As stated in Section 1.3, certain proponents
including MTO are exempt from TRCA’s permit process but may still voluntarily undergo
TRCA review on specific circumstances. The information is of assistance as MTO continues
to proactively collaborate with TRCA on various issues and initiatives to ensure alignment of
provincial and TRCA policies.
Comments noted and appreciated. N
Ministry of
Transportation
General MTO also appreciates TRCA referring to Ministry of Transportation Guidelines considering
implications of future land use on flooding as well as MTO’s Drainage Management Manual
and MTO Highway Drainage Design Standards. TRCA’s efforts in ensuring the alignment of
TRCA Guidelines with the Provincial Policies are appreciated.
Comments noted and appreciated. N
Ministry of
Transportation
General MTO would like to be informed when the final Draft is issued. Also, would TRCA be willing
to share any stakeholder comments with the Ministry that may relate to MTO’s policies or
activities?
Yes. TRCA will be sharing the final draft of the guideline (Fall 2015) as well
as stakeholder comments with all stakeholders involved in the
consultation process, including MTO.
N
Page 4 of 1434
Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response
Revisions to
Guideline?
Town of
Richmond Hill
General A suggested table of contents is as follows: - The guideline's existing amount of information reflects the varying levels
of familiarity with TRCA requirements and crossing issues by proponents.
TRCA may develop a checklist for quick reference that will summarize the
guideline in a way similar to what you have outlined in the proposed
"Executive Summary". -
Figure 15 has been revised to show more reference points for easier
navigation
Y
Town of
Richmond Hill
General Does the TRCA have a strategy to continue to advocate for policy updates which include
requirements to address the natural heritage system in crossing design?
The Living City Policies (2014) provides the framework for implementation
of the guideline as highlighted in Section 1.3. Policy updates are outside
the scope of the guideline given that it is a technical support tool to
policies, but as science advances for crossings it will inform future updates
to the guideline. Further, we use The Living City Policies to inform our
commenting role under the planning and EA processes.
N
Town of
Richmond Hill
General Will TRCA produce a general summary that Municipal/Regional staff could take to
Council, which garners support for implementing the principles of the Crossing Guidelines
through the tender/study/construction process?
A general summary of the guideline will be included in the Authority Board
report when it is finalized.
N
Town of
Richmond Hill
General Is TRCA able to provide pre-consultation with applicants? Yes, pre-consultation is encouraged prior to submission as standard
practice in the land use and EA planning processes. In addition TRCA staff
will be available to facilitate further meaningful discussions at various
stages of planning as stated in Section 1.3.
N
Page 5 of 1435
Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response
Revisions to
Guideline?
Credit Valley
Conservation
General CVC appreciates the efforts of TRCA planning and ecology staff to develop this
comprehensive guideline. A holistic approach to planning valley and stream crossings that
incorporates hazard and natural heritage functions is much needed, and will be a useful tool
to incorporate into the transportation planning process.
Comments noted and appreciated N
Credit Valley
Conservation
General An indirect effect of crossings may be increased angling activity, due to the creation of
access points. In addition crossings may create conditions that concentrate fish, either as
partial or behavioral barriers, or by attracting fish to scour or impoundment pools associated
with the crossing.
Comments noted and appreciated. N
Credit Valley
Conservation
General Recommend acknowledging that an important function of design is that it can help address
safety concerns, such as deer crossing.
This is stated in the introductory section and in Box 1 of the Guideline. N
Credit Valley
Conservation
General Cumulative effects could be elaborated upon, perhaps when discussing the context of
upstream and downstream impacts. Note there is some literature on the cumulative effects
of crossings on wetlands, as well as cumulative impacts to multiple barriers within stream
systems for fish.
Further discussion on science is provided in technical document, Natural
Heritage Function Technical Summary, which will be found on the TRCA
website as a background document to the guideline.
N
Credit Valley
Conservation
General Consider including a checklist of mitigation options/techniques to consider at design stage
(e.g. signs, fencing, speed limit, avoiding rip rap that deer avoid due to footing issues,
substrate, paving options that may attract/deter species, preferred planting arrangements).
Currently outside the scope of the guideline, however TRCA may consider
producing a handbook of effective crossing design at a later point to
facilitate implementation of the guideline, if needed.
N
Credit Valley
Conservation
General No mention of Significant Wildlife Habitat in the document. Recommend maintaining and
enhancing connectivity in areas that contain SWH.
SWH has been added into point 1b. in Appendix 1D. Y
Durham General We appreciate the effort that has gone into preparing the document and believe they will be
very helpful to use going forward. We support their use on guiding our projects, provided
there continues to be support from TRCA on the consideration of all factors (including cost)
in the decision making.
Once the document is finalized and in use it will improve the current
practice of considering all of the factors affecting a project (including cost)
for the best possible outcome.
N
Page 6 of 1436
Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response
Revisions to
Guideline?
City of Brampton Section 1 Recommend that the document take a more proactive stance in describing natural
functions and processes, and then in subsequent paragraphs explain how this translates
into ‘natural hazards and risks’ to infrastructure / investment as a result of human decisions
rather than the laws of nature. For example, Text Box 1 could be revised in the following
manner:
Text in Box 1 of the Guideline has been revised to reflect some of this
wording.
Y
Page 7 of 1437
Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response
Revisions to
Guideline?
City of Brampton Section 1 Comments noted and appreciated;
Text revised in Box 1 to reflect some of this wording.
Y
Town of
Richmond Hill
Section 1 The overall purpose of the document is not instantly evident and in the current form the
document is lengthy, repetitive and difficult to navigate. Recommendation: Target the
document to the intended client – the applicant who needs a clear process outlined in an
efficient manner .
- Given the wide variety of targeted audiences the guideline intentionally
provides detailed context in the introductory sections of the document.
- The repetition between sections is also intentional to allow each section
to be a stand-alone section. This allows for different audience to delve into
the most relevant sections (as described in the How to Read the
Document).
- Also, the separation of the planning stages for crossings into early,
intermediate, and late stages facilitates a clear process for the ntended
client in an efficient manner.
- The "How to Read this Document" section on Page ii clearly outlines the
relevant sections for the intended clients. For example, a consultant
preparing a submission for a structure at the draft plan stage would refer
to Section 3.2.2 (Study Requirements for Intermediate Planning Stages).
N
Page 8 of 1438
Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response
Revisions to
Guideline?
City of Markham
(Engineering
Department)
Section
1.1.
The guideline ignores municipal, Region’s, etc requirements by indicating that the guideline
is to meet TRCA objectives (1st paragraph, page 3),
Revised text in Section 1.1. - Paragraph 3 to clarify that TRCA's guideline
is intended to achieve TRCA's objectives, many of which are aligned with
the objectives of partner municipalities. Revised text: "The guideline
outlines a balanced approach to planning and design of valley and stream
corridor crossings as a means of achieving TRCA’s natural hazard and
natural heritage objectives described in Section 2 many of which are
aligned with the objectives of partner municipalities."
Y
City of Brampton Section 1.3 Sec. 1.3 – page 5 – paragraph 1 – further to Comment 1, this document often evokes an
egocentric point of view. For example, sentence 2 indicates that “TRCA is not obliged to
issue a permit to these proponents”. A more accurate sentence might note that as these
proponents are ‘exempt’ from TRCA’s processes, they are not required / obliged to seek a
permit from TRCA. This type of issue highlights the opportunity TRCA has in writing /
advocating these guidelines from the perspective of industry / agency best practices to gain
wider audience acceptance and potentially adoption.
The last sentence in Section 1.3 - Paragraph 3, "TRCA is not obliged…"
has been removed from the guideline. The previous two sentences in this
paragraph explain the voluntary review process without being egocentric.
Y
City of Markham
(Engineering
Department)
Section
2.1.
Criteria/requirements for rehabilitation or modifications to an existing bridge should be much
less stringent compared to a new bridge. The 2 should not have the same criteria. The
guideline listed many requirements for rehabilitation/modification of existing bridges which if
they are not met the bridge must be replace. This is difficult, costly and not practical. When
TRCA made their presentation to the city a month ago (the guideline was not out yet at that
time), they indicated that as long as the changes/ modifications to an existing bridge does
not increase flood risks, there will be no need for replacement of the structure. This is not
the case in the guideline (Section 2.1, page 9). This should be changed and made more
flexible and less stringent when there are no impacts of flooding due to bridge repair and
rehabilitation (let’s not treat existing bridges like new ones, it makes implementing the
guideline difficult),
- The guideline recognizes the distinction between new and existing
crossings and have incorporated and emphasized flexibility throughout the
document as follows.
- It is clarified upfront in Section 2-Paragraph 5 leading to Section 2.1.
Existing text:"For upgrades or replacement of existing crossing structures,
TRCA recognizes that both the location of the crossing and the vertical
profile of the road and or railway are already established and often cannot
be modified to any significant degree. In these instances, it may be
difficult to achieve all natural hazard and natural heritage objectives and
TRCA will work with proponents to achieve the best practical outcome."
- It is also stated in Section 2.1 - Paragraph 1 that there is flexibility for
existing crossings for geomorphic risks.
- Further, Section 3.1 - Paragraph 3 states that "If the extension of an
existing crossing structure results in negative natural hazard or natural
heritage outcomes, TRCA recommends that the structure be replaced
instead of extended. At a minimum, there should be no increase in flood
risk as a result of the proposed extension and existing erosion should not
be exacerbated. If this cannot be achieved, the structure must be replaced
with one that can safely convey flood flows without increases in flood risk."
- It is also highlighted in Table 2, which states when studies are not
required for existing crossings if minor changes are proposed.
N
Page 9 of 1439
Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response
Revisions to
Guideline?
City of Markham
(Engineering
Department)
Section
2.1. and
2.2.
The guideline should be more flexible regarding rehabilitation/modification to existing
bridges to allow for mitigation/compensation measures if the rehabilitation/modification will
cause impacts (Pages 9 & 10)
The Guideline acknowledges flexibility is needed for work to existing
crossings up front in Section 2-Paragraph 5 leading to Section 2.1. In
addition, compensation is specifically mentioned in Section 3.2.1 - point 8,
and Section 3.2.3 - point 2.
N
Credit Valley
Conservation
Section 3
and
Appendix
2.C. (Table
2 and 7)
Why specifically was 120m chosen for the distance for forests/wetlands to the crossing to
complete a detailed assessment? This distance is typically for assessing adjacent lands,
and does not directly relate to dispersal distances or goals for maintaining connectivity.
The distance of 120 m was chosen to avoid the direct footprint impact on
the habitat patch as described in Appendix 1.D - Paragraph 3, and
therefore would be consistent with "the adjacent lands" approach of the
PPS. Connectivity is covered through the requirement of assessing priority
for connectivity as per the natural heritage tools presented herein.
N
Credit Valley
Conservation
Section
3.1.
The terrestrial assessment seeks ‘no proposed impacts on forests, wetlands, and aquatic
habitat or connectivity’ (p19). Recommend considering the approach of maintaining north-
south and east-west connectivity through the Natural Heritage System, rather than
individual sections of the valleyland. The valleylands are the major corridors of the natural
heritage system; meadows and other habitat within these systems would also provide
connectivity functions.
- The connectivity approach used in the guideline considers broader
landscape connectivity across all directions at the regional level
(incorporating the principles of natural heritage systems, which includes
existing and potential natural cover areas) as well as local connections
within specific valley segments.
- Revised text added in Section 3.1.2 - Paragraph 3 to clarify that the
connectivity that is being referred to is specifically referring to the details
presented in the guideline (Appendix 1D, 2C and 2D). Text added "no
proposed impacts on forests, wetlands, and aquatic habitat, or priority
areas for habitat and wildlife connectivity as identified through early
planning stages in consultation with TRCA".
Y
City of Brampton Section
3.1.1.
Extensions vs Replacements
a. Paragraph 2 – please qualify what is meant by ‘impact assessment’ relative to the
report requirements outlined in Table 2.
The "impact assessment" requirements for existing crossings are the
same as for new crossings (Section 3.2) unless the proposed changes are
minor. Further details on these requirements are outlined in Appendix 1.D. -
Study Components for Intermediate Stages.
N
City of Brampton Section
3.1.1.
Extensions vs Replacements
b. Throughout this section, the document repeatedly notes that ‘TRCA may (strongly)
recommend replacement vs extensions’. How does this relate to TRCA’s approval
of a project if a proponent disagrees based on issues of cost, timing, etc.?
The guideline is intended to facilitate a meaningful discussion regarding
crossings as early in the planning process as possible. The approval will
be based on negotiations through this process.
N
City of Brampton Section
3.1.2.
Paragraph 1 – what are Environmental Study Reports? This term has not
been used before. Possibly this should read ‘environmental study reports, e.g. EIS, FSR,
etc.
Environmental Study Reports refer to documents required under the
Environmental Assessment Act . Clarification text has been added in
Section 3.1.2 - Paragraph 1. Text added: "(as per the Environmental
Assessment Act)".
Y
City of Brampton Section
3.1.3.
Point 2 – what are your expectations for a proponent to ‘confirm’ that the
proposed footprint has been minimized? As provided, this is very ambiguous.
Revised text added in Appendix 1D - Study Components for late Planning
Stages. Text added: "Examples to minimize crossing footprint impacts
include (but are not limited to) road embankment grade modifications, and
co-locating proposed infrastructure and access roads."
Y
Page 10 of 1440
Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response
Revisions to
Guideline?
City of Brampton Section
3.2.1.
Sentence 2 indicates that “Proponents should meet with TRCA staff at key milestones (e.g.
Secondary Plan commencement, terms of reference development, etc.) well in advance of
any submission in order to identify pertinent issues and study requirements related to
crossings”. It may be more appropriate that TRCA recognize that an EA and/or integrated
planning process for roads have a defined process that will include stakeholder
engagement and consultation, particularly regulatory stakeholders such as TRCA.
Revised text in Section 3.2.1 - Paragraph 1. Revised text: "Proponents
should meet with TRCA staff at key milestones through the existing
environmental assessment and/or land use planning consultation
processes (e.g. Secondary Plan commencement, terms of reference
development, etc.) well in advance of any submission in order to identify
pertinent issues and study requirements related to crossings."
Y
City of Brampton Section
3.2.1.
As well, further to Point 8 there is a need to recognize that secondary or block planning
(that includes planning the road network) will be based on technical studies, e.g MESP
and/or Environmental Implementation Report.that are primarily geared to identifying
/addressing the protection of the natural heritage system. Requirements for additional
technical work / analysis should be built into the terms of reference for these documents
and/or recognize that work undertaken for the MESP / EIR may suffice at this point in
infrastructure planning. Therefore, this section could be revised to better indicate:
TRCA has multiple municipalities within its jurisdiction who use varied
terminologies and differing levels of consultation through EA and planning
stages. Thus, the terms early, intermediate, and late were used in the
guideline as a way to generalize them; Revised text in Section 3.2.1 -
Paragraph 1 to recognize the existing planning process has been added.
Revised text: "Proponents should meet with TRCA staff at key milestones
through the existing environmental assessment and/or land use planning
consultation processes (e.g. Secondary Plan commencement, terms of
reference development, etc.) well in advance of any submission in order to
identify pertinent issues and study requirements related to crossings."
Y
City of Brampton Section
3.2.1.
Pages 20 and 21 - please change the order of activities as following:
• Change #6 to #1
• Change #7 to #4
• Change #8 to #2
• Change #9 to #3
• Maintain the order for the rest of activities
The order of activities is meant to be sequential and the bullets have been
reordered to reflect this in Section 3.2.1.
Y
City of Brampton Section
3.3.
Would recommend breaking out Legislation from Other Considerations –
regulatory requirements certainly supercede recreational trail planning / guidelines.
Changes made to Section 3.3. to separate the Legislation from Other
Considerations.
Y
Page 11 of 1441
Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response
Revisions to
Guideline?
City of Markham
(Engineering
Department)
Section
3.3.1. (now
3.3.2)
The guideline recommends providing 2 separate passages in some cases (one for human
[trails/pathways] and the 2nd for wildlife. This is not practical and costly to implement and
will significantly increase the size of the crossing (page 25, bullet 3). We think one passage
is sufficient and could be shared by both.
- The intent of Section 3.3.2 - point 3 is to present a general consideration
based on strong scientific evidence (Taylor and Knight 2003, Brown et al.
2012, Hansen et al. in press, Barrueto et al. 2014) that in some cases it
may be critical to consider some form of functional separation between
humans and wildlife to achieve habitat connectivity and wildlife passage.
- This may or may not need a separate crossing structure but rather an
appropriate design to separate the human disturbance and wildlife. This is
especially true if there is a presence of high human use and / or very
sensitive wildlife.
- Recommendations will be made to the TRCA Trail Strategy (under
development) to provide further details on the specifics of the trail design
for habitat and wildlife connectivity.
N
Credit Valley
Conservation
Section
3.3.2.
Navigation Protection Act – Not sure if the federal act applies to most of the watershed any
longer, but there are some provincial requirements. Nevertheless, we should respect the
canoeing/kayaking needs and hazards of our stakeholders, as well as existing plans to
promote such activities (e.g. Mississauga’s Credit River Parks Strategy).
Comments noted and appreciated. N
Credit Valley
Conservation
Why was the valley height of >4.5m chosen? CVC uses 3 or 3.5m. A valley height of >4.5 m was used to incorporate 3m for large mammal
crossings plus 1.5 m of deck height while designing large spanning
structures, so that target wildlife can move under the structure. Text added
in Appendix 2.C - Paragraph 9 ">4.5 meters that includes 3 metres + 1.5
metre deck height required for bridges".
Y
Credit Valley
Conservation
Appendix
2.B.
Figure 16 – Have concern with the preliminary assessment of natural heritage function.
High priority areas are interrupted by medium and low priority areas throughout the system.
Would you not want to maintain a contiguous valley system in certain key north-south
corridors to the extent possible? In addition, most of the extreme headwaters are medium,
indicating a need to maintain connectivity in a shallow valley. Would these not be the most
likely locations for culverts?
- The Preliminary Assessment output (Figure 15) is based on desktop level
analysis of existing data on habitat, connectivity models, and valley depth
information. As such, the high priority locations mostly indicate DEEP
(>=4.5m) and important habitat and connectivity locations within the valley.
These locations are likely feasible for large spanning structures. The
medium priority is where there is still important habitat and connectivity
locations, however is NOT DEEP enough (<4.5m). Thus, the maintenance
of habitat and connectivity function has to be achieved via alternate
options such as appropriately designed smaller crossing structures. This
way the connectivity will be maintained across the landscape in both high
and medium priority locations but via different crossing design options.
- Appendix 1.D. - Pararaph 4 and 5 as well as Appendix 2.B. - Paragraph 5
explains this in more detail.
N
Town of
Richmond Hill
Appendix
2.C.
Will Figure 15 be ‘live’ and updated on the TRCA website? Yes; Based on most-up-to-date data and information, Figure 15 will be
updated and will be available on the website as needed.
N
Page 12 of 1442
Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response
Revisions to
Guideline?
Credit Valley
Conservation
Appendix
2.C.
Recommend reconsidering the assumptions regarding urbanization that have been
incorporated into the modelling and guidance (e.g. p 51, Option A bullet 3 and p52, Option
B, bullet 3). In general the valleylands connect the remaining high quality habitat in our
urban areas, and also provide a corridor between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges
Moraine/Greenbelt. Connectivity becomes increasingly important in highly urbanized areas,
as the valleylands provide some of the last remaining connections across the landscape.
- Appendix 2.C. - Paragraph 9 -Option A - bullet 3 refers to the detailed
assessment guiding the site level decisions.
- The assumption made herevregarding urbanization is related to the
evidence that in a habitat patch within close proximity of highly urbanized
areas, speciesthat can persist over the long term are resilient generalists
with good turnover rates. These are well adapted to urban landscapes
(e.g. raccoons) and are capable of surviving and moving in such habitat
regardless of the crossing design.
- However, given that the ultimate objective for crossings is to achieve
connectivity for all wildlife, the guideline highlights alternate ways (Option A
verses B) to achieve this through crossings where connectivity is deemed
important. For example, Option B, which includes smaller crossings with
adequate dry passage along the watercourse or additional openings
(Appendix 2.C. - Paragraph 12) may be equally viable crossing structures
to provide connectivity for urban adapted species (compared to Option A) .
-The guideline highlights these strategic considerations based on evidence
to redirect the appropriate level of effort in terms of crossing design to
where they can contribute most effectively and efficiently to achieve
connectivity function. If science changes these assumptions, they will be
revisited and updated in the guideline.
- In the case of large urban valleys, natural hazards will often drive Option
A type structures, which will help accomodate connectivity functions.
N
Credit Valley
Conservation
Appendix
2.C.
Recommend increasing the ability to incorporate site level information into the ultimate
design of the crossing. For example, field studies may indicate rich/diverse wildlife locally,
even if the area was not necessarily mapped as high quality habitat, or an area of high
connectivity. In these cases, is it possible to alter the choice of the crossing (e.g. Flowchart
1 – Option A, B or C)?
Yes; Appendix 2.C on detailed assessment includes the ability to
incorporate finer level field data (as listed in Table 6 and 7) into the
decision making. Also, the ultimate choice of crossings will have to
comprehensively incorporate natural hazards and other considerations as
discussed in earlier in the guideline.
N
Credit Valley
Conservation
Appendix
2.C.
Need to incorporate literature and references that support the recommendations in the
document (e.g. Table 5 p52, Table 8 p58).
References have been added. Y
Credit Valley
Conservation
Appendix
2.C.
Pleased to see traffic count data incorporated into the decision tree. This is supported by
science and will be beneficial to the analysis.
Comments noted and appreciated. N
Page 13 of 1443
Commenter Section Comment TRCA Response
Revisions to
Guideline?
Credit Valley
Conservation
Appendix
2.C.
Appendix 2C indicates that this stage should identify the appropriate type, size and spacing
of openings along with additional design considerations. Recommend additional design
guidance is needed here, specifically:
o Incorporate openness ratio – a common standard discussed in road ecology literature and
in southern Ontario.
o Incorporate more discussion regarding ecological value of open-bottom culverts, including
that open bottom culverts are preferred in order to ensure fish passage.
o Incorporate more specific guidance on substrate - what treatments should be used as
substrate for the crossing/species.
o Other mitigation measures (directional fencing, steeper side slopes and other concepts to
mitigate impacts).
o Specify minimum width (i.e. bankfull) to ensure that there will be no increase in velocities
when exiting the culvert.
o Clarify under what conditions terrestrial passage is required. Should there be dry passage
during a storm event? 2 year flow suggested as the storm event flow.
- Appendix 2.C. - Paragraph 10 discusses "measures that determine the
willingness of the wildlife to pass through the structure" , which includes
but is not limited to openess ratio. Recent advances in road ecology
literature have indicated that focusing only on one index such as the
openness ratio is not recommended, rather a suite of measures should be
considered for effective usage of crossings by wildlife (Kintch and Cramer
2011).
- Also, Appendix 2.C. - second last paragraph and Table 8 present
additional design factors such as minimum size, type of substrate, lighting
and moisture conditions etc. that may be critical for crossing usage by
wildlife. More details on these and other design parameters are outside the
scope of this guideline. Readers are directed to a comprehensive review of
this information in a report by Kintch and Cramer (2011).
- For aquatic passage, accomodation of hydrological flow with open bottom
culverts should accomodate fish passage.
- TRCA will make any necessary updates to the guideline to reflect any
procedural issues related to legislative change or technical / scientific
updates related to current practices.
- Also, TRCA will consider producing a handbook or a checklist on
effective crossing design at a later point, to augment the implementation of
the guideline, if needed.
N
Credit Valley
Conservation
Appendix
2.C.
Table 8 - The species selected do not appear to be common species or species that CAs
typically survey for.
- The intention of providing the species list in Table 8 is to illustrate the
maintenance of broader habitat functions.
- Given that habitat is used as a surrogate it is assumed that if certain
habitat is present the listed wildlife are using them and would require
connectivity measures.
- This does not mean additional survey requirements. As outlined in
Appendix 2.C, the survey requirements for the assessments do not include
any species beyond which CAs already survey.
N
Page 14 of 1444
Item 7.4
Section I – Items for Authority Action TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #8/15, September 25, 2015 FROM: Mike Fenning, Associate Director, Property and Risk Management RE: GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2016-2020
KEY ISSUE Approval of the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020.
RECOMMENDATION THAT the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 be approved; THAT the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry be requested to approve the project pursuant to Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act; THAT the project be circulated to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) participating municipalities as the basis for funding and land securement opportunities; THAT the project be circulated to the Credit Valley, Central Lake Ontario and Lake Simcoe Region conservation authorities, Nature Conservancy of Canada and Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust and other relevant organizations for their information and as the basis for any joint land securement opportunities which may arise; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any necessary action to implement the Greenlands Acquisition Project 2016 -2020. BACKGROUND The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015 expires at the end of 2015. The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020, (document available upon request), is the latest in a long series of multi-year land acquisition and securement projects approved by TRCA. The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020, when approved by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry under Section 24 of the Conservation Authorities Act, will be the legal mechanism used by TRCA to secure greenspace lands for their protection in perpetuity. The project will be circulated to TRCA's participating municipalities and form the basis for securement of lands in partnership with the City of Toronto and the regional municipalities of Durham, Peel and York using reserve funds established for securement of greenspace. The project will also serve as a vehicle to secure funding from other partners including the federal government, Province of Ontario, local municipalities, foundations and private donors.
45
Item 7.4
RATIONALE The purpose of the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 is to formalize and confirm the legal framework and implementation tools required for the acquisition of greenlands by TRCA. The direction for greenlands securement provided in the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 does not vary in any significance from the direction provided in the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015. TRCA secured 802 hectares between 2011 and 2014, and is likely to meet the target of 1,000 hectares established in the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015. The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 builds on the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015 and previous TRCA land acquisition projects. It continues on the course of those projects with new knowledge and refined direction provided by TRCA’s integrated watershed plans and provincial plans for source water protection, greenbelt and land use. Securements made under the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 are based primarily on identifying and assessing land opportunities which may arise in the real estate market. Therefore, the project is limited by the unpredictable and changing nature of this market. The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 identifies funding partners and estimated financial contributions over its five year duration. Based on recent rate projections, it is estimated that 1,000 hectares (2,500 acres) could be secured during the period of this acquisition project, at a projected purchase expense of $35 million. The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 explains why TRCA acquires greenlands, including TRCA’s legislated mandate and the benefits of public greenlands in Sections 1- 4. The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 also discusses the need for securing greenlands and the role of acquisition in relation to other forms of securement. It relates the Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 to the broader context of TRCA’s vision for The Living City and to the United Nations’ Earth Charter. Support for greenlands securement is provided by recent plans, policies and strategies. These include but are not limited to Building The Living City (TRCA’s 10 year Strategic Plan for 2013-2022), The Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, TRCA’s integrated watershed and waterfront plans that combine the latest science including the Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy, TRCA’s integrated restoration prioritization framework, the approved assessment report: Toronto and Region Source Protection Area and provincial land use plans.
The Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2016-2020 reviews the types of ownership and the tools used by TRCA to secure greenlands. The project sets out the criteria for determining if a property meets the threshold for securement. Finally, the project details the financial strategy including identified and potential funding partners. FINANCIAL DETAILS
The project includes annual expenditure estimates of $6.4 million in 2016, growing to
$7.75 million in 2020, for a project total of $35 million. All expenditures are subject to
availability of funding from participating regional municipalities, local municipalities, land
sale proceeds, federal and provincial governments, non-government organizations, and
donations.
46
Item 7.4
Also included in the project is recognition of the need for annual conservation land care funding
based on the established formula of $309 per hectare for lands not otherwise managed by
agreement with municipalities or other organizations.
Report prepared by: Deanna Cheriton, extension 5204 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Deanna Cheriton, extension 5204, Jae R. Truesdell, extension 5247 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] Date: September 14, 2015
47
Item 7.5
Section I – Items for Authority Action TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #8/15, September 25, 2015 FROM: Derek Edwards, Director, Parks and Culture RE: HEART LAKE CONSERVATION AREA WORKSHOP Feed-in-Tariff (FIT 3.0) Project ____________________________________________________________________________ KEY ISSUE Request for approval for design and build of a turnkey photovoltaic (PV) system at Heart Lake Conservation Area Workshop. RECOMMENDATION THAT Contract #10000397 for the design/build of a turnkey photovoltaic (PV) system at Heart Lake Conservation Area Workshop be awarded to Power Vector at a total cost not to exceed $129,405.57, plus HST, it being the highest ranked bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 15% of the total cost of the contract as a contingency allowance, if deemed necessary; AND FURTHER THAT authorized staff be directed to take the action necessary to implement the contract including obtaining any approvals and the signing and execution of documents.
BACKGROUND In 2014 TRCA acquired a 20-year fixed price Feed-in-Tariff (FIT 3.0) contract from the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) as established under the Green Energy and Green Economy Act 2009. TRCA staff is seeking approval to select a qualified proponent to design, supply, install, test and commission a fully operational grid connected 50kW AC rated solar PV system to be installed on the roof of the Heart Lake Conservation Area Workshop that was constructed in 2014. Under the terms of the FIT contract, TRCA must deliver the PV system not later than the OPA’s “Milestone Operational Date” of August 27, 2016 or the contract becomes void. In exchange, the OPA will pay TRCA at the rate of $0.343/kWh for the power delivered to the grid. This project initiative aligns with TRCA’s objective of Business Excellence and strategic priority of Green the Toronto Region's Economy. RATIONALE Request for Pre-Qualification (RFPQ) for Tender #10000397 was publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http://www.biddingo.com) on March 30, 2015 and closed on April 15, 2015. The work includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the provision of engineering design services and the supply of labour, material, supervision and equipment required to complete the scope of work for the project.
48
Item 7.5
The successful proponent will prepare the design and coordinate permitting, approvals and construction activities which comprise a fully functional and compliant rooftop solar PV system. A total of 20 companies downloaded the pre-qualification documents and three companies submitted completed packages in accordance with the requirements of the pre-qualification process. Proponents interested in pre-qualifying were advised that the criteria for evaluation would include the following:
CCDC 11 (Canadian Construction Documents Committee) requirements and completion;
completeness of submission;
relevant project experience - type and budget;
financial references and bonding ability;
ability to meet project milestones/timing;
ability to coordinate work by others;
experience dealing with projects with construction budgets of $150,000.00 to $250,000.00;
personal resumes for key project staff;
project references - client and/or consultant. A total of three companies were pre-qualified to submit tender bid prices. Tender bid documents were distributed to the following pre-qualified companies with a closing date of June 24, 2015:
Deltro Electric Ltd.;
Power Vector;
RESCo Energy Inc. A mandatory pre-bid site meeting was held on May 21, 2015 to review the project scope and site conditions with prospective bidders. All of the prequalified bidders attended the mandatory site meeting. Three completed tender bids were received. The Selection Committee of TRCA staff (Dave Rogalsky, Svend de Bruyn and Kate Pankov) reviewed the proposals. The criteria used to evaluate and select the recommended consultant included the following:
Criteria Description Points Total
Qualifications and Experience
Company history and experience FIT program experience Implemented projects (of similar size and scope) Experience and qualifications of key individuals
5 5 5 5
20
Quality of the Proposal
Understanding of the RFP and approach to RFP objectives Technical approach and flexibility to conditions Performance monitoring and reporting Implementation schedule reasonable
5 5 5 5
20
Photovoltaic System & Equipment
Proposed photovoltaic system technologies Other equipment items – metering/monitoring, display Warranty Projected Technical Performance
10 5 5 5
25
Financial Lump-sum cost Cost per kW installed
20 15
35
Total 100
49
Item 7.5
A summary of the received fee proposals is as follows:
Contract #10000397 – Heart Lake Conservation Area Workshop – Photovoltaic System
Design/Build
BIDDERS Fees
(Including Permitted Expenses, Plus HST)
Deltro Electric Ltd. 202,000.00
Power Vector 129,405.57
RESCo Energy Inc. 225,600.00
The scoring was completed by each member of the evaluation committee, and averaged to produce total scores as follows:
Company Proposal Score (/100)
Deltro Electric Ltd. 45.42
Power Vector 87.33
RESCo Energy 82.46
Based on the Selection Committee’s review of the proposals, Power Vector was evaluated the highest by the Committee. Therefore, staff is recommending that the contract be awarded to Power Vector at a total upset cost not to exceed $129,405.57, plus HST, plus a contingency allowance of 15% as deemed necessary by TRCA staff. FINANCIAL DETAILS All expenditures that pertain to this contract will be assigned to the Heart Lake PV System project budget account 424-05. Funding is available from TRCA reserves. Revenues are anticipated in the order of $20,000 per year based on the projected kWh’s generated during the FIT contract 20 year period (2016-2035). Revenues are expected to provide a return that will pay back the capital investment within 6-7 years. Beyond the pay-back period, revenues will then offset a portion of the annual operating cost of Heart Lake Conservation Area. Report prepared by: Kate Pankov extension 6418 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Kate Pankov extension 6418 Emails: [email protected] Date: August 20, 2015
50
Item 7.6
Section I – Items for Authority Action TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #8/15, September 25, 2015 FROM: Chandra Sharma, Director, Watershed Strategies RE: SCARBOROUGH WATERFRONT PROJECT Third Party Facilitator Services ____________________________________________________________________________ KEY ISSUE Authorization to proceed with amendments to the Third Party Facilitator Contract with Dillon Consulting Ltd., for the Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment. RECOMMENDATION WHEREAS on August 29, 2014, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) was authorized to enter into an agreement for Third Party Facilitator Services with Dillon Consulting Ltd. to complete the Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment, to an upset limit of $80,915.00, plus HST, plus, additional expenditures to a maximum of 20% of the contract cost ($16,183.00) as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary, was also approved, for a total budget of $97,098.00 plus HST; WHEREAS the size of the study area and significance of the natural features of the bluffs required a more robust public and agency consultation plan than originally planned for; WHEREAS Dillon Consulting Ltd. was asked to provide a revised scope of work resulting in an increase of fee to the amount of $37,465.00, plus HST; THERFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the contract for Third Party Facilitator Services to complete the Scarborough Waterfront Project, be increased by $21,282.00 to an upset limit of $118,380.00, plus HST; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10% of the total revised contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing and execution of any documents. BACKGROUND
Toronto City Council on December 16, 2013 adopted, in part, the following resolution: City Council amend the Toronto Water budget by including $1.5 million for Environmental Assessment work on the Scarborough Waterfront Erosion Control and Access Plan with funding coming from the Toronto Water Capital Reserve (Ex.36.17).
At Authority Meeting #3/14, held on April 25, 2014, Resolution #A36/14 was approved, in part, as follows:
51
Item 7.6
…THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff be directed to work with the City of Toronto to initiate the Scarborough Waterfront Access Plan Individual Environmental Assessment.
Based on this direction, TRCA initiated a study under the Environmental Assessment Act to create a system of greenspace along the Lake Ontario shoreline which respects and protects the significant natural and cultural features of the Bluffs, enhance the terrestrial and aquatic habitat, and provide a safe and enjoyable waterfront experience. To provide support to TRCA staff with the public consultation and outreach required for the Environmental Assessment (EA), TRCA released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Third Party Facilitator Services. On August 29, 2014, Award of Contract RFP#10000061 for Third Party Facilitator Services for the Scarborough Waterfront Project EA received TRCA Chief Executive Officer approval as follows:
THAT Contract RFP#10000061 for Third Party Facilitator Services for the Scarborough Waterfront Project Environmental Assessment be awarded to Dillon Consulting Limited at a total cost not to exceed $80,915.00, plus HST, it being the highest ranked proposal meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications set out in the Request for Proposal; and THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 20% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance if deemed necessary.
The original consultation program as outlined in RFP #10000061 was a basic public consultation plan that included:
two Public Information Centres (PICs) as part of the Terms of Reference (ToR) phase, and two PICs as part of the EA phase; and
two Stakeholder Committee (SC) meetings as part of the ToR phase, and two SC meetings as part of the EA phase.
As a result of public and agency feedback received during the development of the Terms of Reference, additional consultation meetings and outreach activities have been planned to provide an extensive consultation process more reflective of the size of the study area and significance of the natural features of the bluffs. Consultation will include:
four PICs as part of the EA phase;
three SC meetings as part of the ToR phase, and five SC meetings as part of the EA phase;
social media outreach; and
park user surveys, online user surveys and electronic newsletters.
52
Item 7.6
RATIONALE TRCA required the services of a third party facilitator to assist the project team in completing the Environmental Assessment. The third party facilitator services are required for communications, issues management, public consultation and stakeholder engagement. The third party facilitator is also responsible for the public consultation summary of the Terms of Reference and Environmental Assessment document. During the public and agency consultation for the Terms of Reference, it became clear that a more robust program was needed to engage the public, agencies and other interested parties in order to move the Environmental Assessment to a positive outcome. As a result of this, the Scope of Work for Dillon Consulting Ltd. was increased to reflect their preparation and participation in two additional PICs, three additional SC meetings, several Project Team meetings and an increase in one year to the contract. Dillon provided a revised Scope of Work and cost estimate that resulted in an increase of $37,465. This cost estimate exceeds the approved 20% contingency by $21,282. The revised upset limit for the Third Party Facilitator Services contract is $118,380 plus HST. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Public and agency consultation for the Environmental Assessment will resume in the fall once a decision on the Draft Terms of Reference has been made by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. FINANCIAL DETAILS Third Party Facilitator Services will be funded by Scarborough Waterfront Project EA in the Toronto capital budget, account 204-03. Report prepared by: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Emails: [email protected] Date: September 9, 2015
53
Item 7.7
Section I – Items for Authority Action TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #8/15, Friday, September 25, 2015 FROM: Nick Saccone, Senior Director, Restoration and Infrastructure RE: TOWN OF AJAX STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POND CLEAN-OUT
PARTNERSHIP ____________________________________________________________________________ KEY ISSUE Commence stormwater management pond clean-out in partnership with the Town of Ajax.
RECOMMENDATION THAT approval be granted to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to enter into a partnership with the Town of Ajax for the Annie Crescent Stormwater Management Pond Clean-out and Retrofit Project; THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the partnership including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. BACKGROUND The creation of stormwater management facilities (SWMF) proliferated in the 1990s, and since, there has been significant research and improvements made to their design and function. However, the management and maintenance of SWMFs has become a growing concern for many municipalities as the cost and technical feasibility of maintaining them is highly variable. Many SWMFs are never maintained or dredged, and many are nearing or have reached their maximum sediment capacity. Improper maintenance reduces a SWMFs capability to hold and treat stormwater, thereby no longer protecting the surrounding areas from localized flooding and improving downstream water quality. SWMFs require regular maintenance and sediment removal in order to operate effectively. The Annie Crescent stormwater management facility was constructed in 1994 to provide water quality and erosion control for the 42.19 ha residential site in the East Duffins Creek watershed. It was designed to provide control from a two hour duration 25mm rainfall design storm. In 2012, flooding issues at the outlet, complaints of unpleasant odours and damage to the submerged outlet structure prompted the Town of Ajax to retain professional engineering services to perform assessments relating to the operating and maintenance of the Annie Crescent SWMF. The review revealed that elevated permanent pool water level (blocked/damaged outlet structure) and overgrown vegetation interfered with the proper operation of the pond. Further, bathymetric and topographic surveys showed that the active storage volume had decreased by over 35% of the original design volume.
54
Item 7.7
In early 2015, the Town of Ajax approached TRCA's Restoration Projects section within the Restoration and Infrastructure division seeking assistance with the clean out and retrofits of the Annie Crescent SWMF. TRCA has had a long history in SWMF planning, approval, construction, retrofit, monitoring, and it currently manages a geo‐spatial database with almost 1,000 SWMF records across TRCA’s jurisdiction. More recently, TRCA has been working with its member municipalities to develop cleanout and maintenance programs to showcase the feasibility and benefits of routine pond maintenance, and highlight practical, cost effective strategies to facility maintenance. Since 2013, TRCA has been working with the City of Toronto on a Stormwater Management Pond Clean-Out Partnership. The Restoration Projects section as well as Engineering Services and the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) have gained valuable experience in all aspects relating to the cleaning-out, retrofit, maintenance and management of SWMF’s . To date, five facilities have been cleaned and retrofitted to restore and improve function, thereby protecting the surrounding area from localized flooding and erosion, as well as improving downstream water quality. A Stormwater Pond Maintenance and Clean-out Plan includes the following:
assessment of background information and current site conditions;
detailed survey and sediment investigation;
clean-out options and retrofit assessment; and
detailed costing and implementation phasing.
Through additional discussions and investigation with Ajax, it has been determined that there is opportunity to begin to develop a longer term SWMF management and retrofit program. Annie Crescent Pond will be the first to be cleaned; however, Ajax is also interested in partnering on the retrofit of other ponds. TRCA has $40,000 to contribute to retrofit high priority SWMFs in Ajax. This retrofit would ideally be conducted in coordination with a pond cleanout and will be the basis for prioritization of the next partner project. RATIONALE TRCA has identified SWMFs as an integral component of water resources management within the TRCA jurisdiction. SWMFs improve water quality and provide flood and erosion control, and must be maintained, and often retrofit to achieve TRCA's watershed targets. The Town of Ajax currently manages 55 SWMF’s, and many of these are now reaching their design capacities and are in need of maintenance. In partnership with Ajax, TRCA has agreed that there is an immediate need to showcase the feasibility and benefits of routine pond maintenance, as well as functional improvements that can be made from retrofitting existing ponds. To date, there are few excellent examples of pond maintenance in TRCA’s jurisdiction. Dredging and retrofitting the Annie Crescent SWMF will ensure that it continues to provide the surrounding area with effective flood control and water quality management. Annie Crescent SWMF is situated on TRCA property in a sensitive valley corridor which has now developed into a rich wetland flora and fauna community. The site is known to support significant reptile, amphibian and fish communities. As a result, fish and wildlife rescue will be an important consideration to complete this project.
55
Item 7.7
The Restoration Projects Division, in undertaking this endeavor, will work with TRCA’s stormwater management team within Engineering Services, as well as the STEP program. The STEP program is a multi-agency initiative, and it is currently updating the SWMF Maintenance Guide which will be finalized in the fall of 2015. Through these additional relationships, TRCA brings greater value to the partnership with Ajax, and the project will be profiled to improve knowledge and the science of SWMF maintenance. The management of SWMFs is consistent with the TRCA’s Strategic Plan, specifically: priority strategy #2 Manage Our Regional Water Resources for Current and Future Generations, and strategy #7 Build Partnerships and New Business Models. TRCA has gained valuable experience in SWMF maintenance in recent years. In its current partnership with the City of Toronto, TRCA has cost effectively cleaned five SWMF’s in sensitive public areas. The opportunity to work with the Town of Ajax allows us to further promote TRCA's current pond management techniques, and is an excellent opportunity to showcase pond maintenance in Ajax and Durham Region in significant valley corridors owned by TRCA. FINANCIAL DETAILS The maintenance and clean-out plans are being completed by TRCA staff. The cost to clean Annie Pond may vary greatly, because disposal costs depend heavily on the levels of contamination found within each pond. The funding for the pond clean-out and maintenance will be 100% recoverable from the Town of Ajax within account 109-40, and is estimated to cost $312,655.84 (plus HST). DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Annie SWMF will be dredged mechanically and the site will be restored upon completion. Dredging is tentatively scheduled to commence in September 2015 contingent on approval of the staff recommendation in a subsequent report on this September Authority agenda on the award of contract for the disposal of stockpiled sediment dredgeate. The pond will be de-watered during the dredging, and will be managed to ensure the pond is providing stormwater management function during this time period. The method of sediment disposal depends on the contamination levels of the sediment. It is expected that the sediment will be dried on-site and then disposed of off-site. A Request for Quotation will determine which contractor(s) is/are chosen for sediment disposal. Only contractors operating under a Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change Certificate of Approval are eligible to undertake the disposal of the sediment. Ajax and TRCA staff will establish a working group to manage this project and prioritize additional projects for both retrofit and maintenance needs. TRCA will also be providing $40,000 of funding to address additional retrofit opportunities for ponds in Ajax in 2016. Report prepared by: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Ralph Toninger, extension 5366 Emails: [email protected] Date: September 14, 2015
56
Item 7.8
Section I – Items for Authority Action TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #8/15, Friday, September 25, 2015 FROM: Nick Saccone, Senior Director, Restoration and Infrastructure RE: ANNIE CRESCENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT POND (SWMP) CLEAN
OUT AND RETROFIT PROJECT Contract #10000904 - Disposal of Stockpiled Sediment Dredgeate
____________________________________________________________________________ KEY ISSUE Award of Contract #10000904 for the disposal of stormwater management pond Dredgeate at Annie Crescent SWMP, Town of Ajax. RECOMMENDATION THAT Contract #10000904 for the disposal of stormwater management pond (SWMP) dredgeate for Annie Crescent site, in the Town of Ajax be awarded to TBG Landscape Inc. for a total cost not to exceed $176,063.18, plus 25% contingency, plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting TRCA cost estimates and specifications; THAT should TRCA staff be unable to execute an acceptable contract with the awarded contractor, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other contractors that submitted tenders, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the agreement including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents. BACKGROUND The Town of Ajax currently manages 55 SWMP’s. Many of these are now reaching their design capacities and are in need of maintenance. In partnership with Ajax, TRCA has agreed that there is an immediate need to showcase the feasibility and benefits of routine pond maintenance, as well as functional improvements that can be made from retrofitting existing ponds. To date, there are few excellent examples of pond maintenance in TRCA’s jurisdiction. The Annie Crescent stormwater management pond (SWMP), located near Annie Crescent and Elizabeth Street in the Town of Ajax, was constructed in 1994 to provide water quality and erosion control for the 42.19 ha residential site in the East Duffins Creek watershed. In early 2015, the Town of Ajax approached TRCA's Restoration Projects section, seeking assistance with the clean out and retrofit of the Annie Crescent SWMP. Approval of this partnership is a previous agenda item on this September 25th Authority agenda, therefore award of contract #10000904 for the disposal of stockpiled sediment is contingent upon the approval of that earlier item.
57
Item 7.8
Sediment sampling indicated that the dredgeate marginally exceed the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) 2011 guidelines for Residential/Parkland/Institutional Property; however the dredgeate did meet Commercial/Industrial/Community Property guidelines. Therefore, the material will need to be hauled away by a licensed contractor and disposed of at an industrial/commercial disposal facility that is operating under an MOE Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA). Approximately 4,186 tonnes of sediment will need to be dredged from the site. RATIONALE The Request for Quotation (RFQ) #10000904 was publically advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo.com on September 2, 2015 for the haulage and disposal of sediment material from the Annie Crescent SWMP. The document was downloaded for review by 22 vendors. As a condition of the RFQ, only bidders that operate under an MOE Environmental Compliance Approval were considered to undertake the disposal of the sediment. The Quotations were received on September 16, 2015 and formally opened by TRCA staff (Lori Colussi, Judith Reda and Natalie Racette) on the same day with the following results:
Contract #10009904 Annie Crescent SWMP Disposal of Stockpiled Sediment Dredgeate (approximately 4,186 tonnes)
BIDDER General Contract Requirements (Lump Sum)
Disposal (cost per tonne)
TOTAL (Plus HST)
TBG Landscape Inc. $1,800.00 $41.63 $176,063.18
Ground Force Environmental Inc.
$6,844.80 $46.80 $202,749.60
Ambler & Co. Inc. $10,875.37 $46.17 204,142.99
TRCA reviewed the bids received against its own cost estimate and has determined that the lowest bid is of reasonable value and also meets the requirements and deliverables as outlined on the contract documents. TBG Landscape Inc. is capable of undertaking the scope of work. Based on the bids received, staff recommend that TBG Landscape Inc. be awarded Contract #10000904 for the disposal of SWMP dredgeate at the Annie Crescent SWMP for a total cost no to exceed $176,063.18, plus $44,015.80 contingency to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST. FINANCIAL DETAILS The cost of this contract is 100% recoverable from the Town of Ajax, within account 109-40. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The Annie Crescent SWMP will be dredged mechanically and the site will be restored upon completion. Only contractors operating under a Ministry of the Environment Certificate of Approval are eligible to undertake the disposal of the sediment. TRCA will execute the contract, including: management of the awarded disposal contractor on site, certification of each load leaving the site, issuance of bills of lading to each truck, verification of the dumping site’s MOE ECA, and random checks to follow trucks from dredging site to disposal site. These activities ensure the chain of custody of the dredged sediment from the SWMP to the licensed dump site operating under an MOE ECA.
58
Item 7.8
Dredging is tentatively scheduled to commence in late September 2015 upon receipt of all approvals and the availability of resources. The pond will be de-watered during the dredging, and will be managed to ensure the pond is providing stormwater management function during this time period. Ajax and TRCA staff will establish a working group to manage this project and prioritize additional projects for both retrofit and maintenance need. TRCA will also be providing $40,000 of funding to address additional retrofit opportunities for ponds in Ajax in 2016. Report prepared by: Natalie Racette, extension 5603 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: John DiRocco, extension 5231 Emails: [email protected] Date: September 17, 2015
59
Item 7.9
Section I – Items for Authority Action TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #8/15, September 25, 2015 FROM: Darryl Gray, Director, Education, Training and Outreach RE: AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program ____________________________________________________________________________ KEY ISSUE The PAIE audited financial statement for the period April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015 is presented for Authority approval.
RECOMMENDATION THAT the Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program (PAIE) audited financial statement as presented, be approved and signed by the Chair in accordance with the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade’s Audit and Accountability Guidelines for 2014-2015 Ontario Bridge Training Projects. BACKGROUND Funded by the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade (MCIIT), TRCA has been delivering the PAIE Ontario bridge training program since 2006 to assist internationally trained professionals to access training, licensing and employment opportunities in their field within the environmental sector. As part of its project audit guidelines, MCIIT requires Authority approval of PAIE financial statement, as attached, as verification that the financial information in the audit report is complete and accurate. RATIONALE Under funding from MCIIT, the Authority is responsible for financial reporting and is ultimately responsible for reviewing and approving the financial statements, including verification that:
• project funding has been solely applied to costs directly related to the Project; • funding and/or expenditures from other sources, not directed related to this project, have
not been included in the Report; • the Ministry expects that tuition/program fees will be used to off-set program costs related
to the delivery of the bridge training project. • reported expenditure is net of HST rebates; • shared costs have been properly apportioned to the Project; • the Project bears full responsibility for absorbing any project deficits; • Project funds that were provided to the Project prior to their immediate need were
maintained in an interest-bearing account; and • interest earned on Project funding has been credited to the Project.
60
Item 7.9
The accounting firm of Grant Thornton LLP has completed the audit. The audited financial statement is presented for approval as Attachment 1. Report prepared by: Dash Paja, Leigha Abergel, extension 5593, 5574 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] For Information contact: Rocco Sgambelluri, extension 5232 Emails: [email protected] Date: Date created: September 1st, 2015 Attachments: 2
61
Statement of Revenue and Expenditures
Professional Access and Integration Enhancement
Program
(A Program of Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority)
Year ended March 31, 2015
62
Contents
Page Independent Auditor’s Report 1 - 2 Statement of Revenue and Expenditures 3 Notes to the Statement of Revenue and Expenditures 4 - 5
63
Grant Thornton LLP Suite 200 15 Allstate Parkway Markham, ON L3R 5B4
T (416) 366-0100 F (905) 475-8906 www.GrantThornton.ca
Audit • Tax • Advisory
Grant Thornton LLP. A Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International Ltd
Independent Auditor’s Report
To the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade
We have audited the statement of revenue and expenditures (“the Statement”) for the Professional Access and Integration Enhancement Program of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) for the year ended March 31, 2015. The statement has been prepared by management in accordance with the Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects from the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. Management's Responsibility for the Statement Management is responsible for the preparation of the Statement in accordance with the Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects from the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of the Statement that is free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor's Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Statement based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the Statement is free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the Statement. The procedures selected depend on the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the Statement, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation of the Statement in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the Statement.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to
provide a basis for our audit opinion.
64
2
Opinion In our opinion, the statement of revenue and expenditures for the Professional Access and Integration Program of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the year ended March 31, 2015 is prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects from the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. Basis of Accounting and Restriction on Distribution and Use Without modifying our opinion, we draw attention to Note 2 to the Statement which describes the basis of accounting. The Statement is prepared to assist Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to meet the financial reporting requirements of the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. As a result, the Statement may not be suitable for another purpose. Our report is intended solely for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade and should not be distributed to or used by parties other than Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade.
Markham, Ontario Chartered Accountants June 30, 2015 Licensed Public Accountants
65
3
Professional Access and Integration Enhancement
Program (A Project of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority)
Statement of Revenue and Expenditures Year ended March 31 2015
Revenue
Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and
International Trade grant $ 570,170
Interest 1,530
Program and application fees 25,910
597,610
Program costs
Salaries and benefits 540,847
Website development and online learning tools 2,052
Network events / meetings 568
Third-Party Evaluation 1,521
Technical training and supplementary workshops 3,821
Speaking with Clarity 2,477
551,286
Administrative costs
TRCA administrative recovery (Note 3) 28,458
Computer equipment 3,112
Communications 4,078
Travel, meetings and consultations 2,543
Facility rentals 2,681
Marketing 1,815
Audit 2,564
Other general administrative costs 1,073
46,324
Total expenditures 597,610
Excess of revenue over expenditures $ -
See accompanying notes to the statement of revenue and expenditures. 66
Professional Access and Integration Enhancement
Program (A Project of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority)
Notes to the Statement of Revenue and Expenditures Year ended March 31
4
1. Nature of operations
This Statement of Revenue and Expenditures (“the Statement”) pertains to the Professional
Access and Integration Enhancement Program (“PAIE” or “the Program”) administered under
the Funding Agreement issued by the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International
Trade, and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”). Accordingly this statement
does not include all the assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses of TRCA.
The TRCA is administering the Program on behalf of the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration
and International Trade.
2. Significant accounting policies and basis of presentation
This financial information has been issued under the name of TRCA.
The Statement reflects the operations of the PAIE, a project of TRCA, and has been prepared
by management based on the Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training
Projects from the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. Costs eligible for
reimbursement by the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade under the
Funding Agreement effective April 1, 2014 are eligible costs that are incurred after April 1, 2014
and before March 31, 2015.
The more significant accounting policies with respect to the Statement are as follows:
Accrual accounting
Items recognized in the Statement are accounted for in accordance with the accrual basis of
accounting. The accrual basis of accounting recognizes the effect of transactions and events in
the period in which the transactions and events occur, regardless of whether there has been a
receipt or payment of cash or its equivalent. Accrual accounting recognizes a liability until the
obligation or condition(s) underlying the liability is partly or wholly satisfied. Accrual accounting
recognizes an asset until the future economic benefit underlying the asset is partly or wholly
used or lost. Additionally, items of a capital nature have been reflected as expenditures and not
through amortization of property, plant and equipment.
Revenue recognition
Government transfers received are recognized in the Statement as revenue when the transfers
are authorized and all eligibility criteria have been met except when there is a stipulation that
gives rise to an obligation that meets the definition of a liability. In that case, the transfer is
recorded as deferred revenue and recognized as revenue as the stipulations are met.
User charges, including revenue from the program and application fees are recognized as
revenue in the period in which the related services are performed. Amounts collected for which
the related services have not been performed are recognized as deferred revenue and
recognized as revenue when the related services are performed.
67
Professional Access and Integration Enhancement
Program (A Project of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority)
Notes to the Statement of Revenue and Expenditures Year ended March 31
5
2. Significant accounting policies and basis of presentation (continued)
In-kind contributions
In accordance with the agreement for the funding with respect to this Program, no in-kind
contributions have been included in this schedule.
3. Related party transactions
Under the terms of the Funding Agreement, TRCA charged $28,458 during the year ending March 31, 2015 for project overhead and administration costs with respect to the administration of the Program.
68
Appendix IV: Labour Market Integration Unit Statement of Revenue and
Expenditure Template
FOR THE REPORTING PERIOD FROM 2014/04/01 TO 2015/03/31
(Please refer to your Schedule B for the Reporting Period)
Organization Name: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Project Case Number: 2013-08-1-15258274
Organizational contact Name: Leigha Abergel, Project Manager Telephone #: (416) 661-6600 ext. 5343
PROJECT REVENUE
Approved Carryover Funding from Previous Reporting Period(s)
Ministry Funding for audit period as per Schedule B (2014/2015) $ 650,000
Tuition/Program Fees $ 25,910
Total $ 675,910
PROJECT EXPENDITURE
Total Expenditure $ 597,610
DEFERRED REVENUE
Deferred Revenue for audit period as per Schedule B (2014/2015) $ 78,300
UNALLOCATED
Unspent funding
INTEREST EARNED
Interest Earned for audit period 2014/2015 $ 1,530
I verify that the above financial information is correct and that:
• Project funding has been solely applied to costs directly related to the Project;
• Funding and/or expenditures from other sources, not directed related to this project, have not been
included in the Report;
• The Ministry expects that tuition/program fees will be used to off-set program costs related to the
delivery of the bridge training project.
• Reported expenditure is net of HST rebates;
• Shared costs have been properly apportioned to the Project;
• The Project bears full responsibility for absorbing any project deficits;
• Project funds that were provided to the Project prior to their immediate need were maintained in an
interest-bearing account; and
• Interest earned on Project funding has been credited to the Project.
I certify that the information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and claimed in accordance to
the Bridge Training Agreement.
_________________________________________ ___________________________
Signature of Agency Signing Authority Date
__________________________________________ ___________________________
Name: Maria Augimeri Title: Chair
I have authority to bind the Recipient.
Audit and Accountability Guidelines for Ontario Bridge Training Projects
2014-2015
14 69
Item 7.10
Section I – Items for Authority Action TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting #8/15, September 25, 2015 FROM: Derek Edwards, Director, Parks and Culture RE: SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF CLOTHING 2015-2017 Award of Contract #10000813 ____________________________________________________________________________ KEY ISSUE Award of Contract #10000813 for the supply and delivery of clothing for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority staff. RECOMMENDATION THAT Contract #10000813 for Supply and Delivery of Clothing 2015-2017 for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be awarded to Dufferin Apparel at an estimated cost of $148,000.00, plus HST per year for a two year term at a total estimated contract price of $296,000.00, plus 10% contingency to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, it being the lowest bid meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized staff be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. BACKGROUND TRCA'S Uniform and Costume Policy was adopted at Executive Committee Meeting #4/99, held on April 30, 1999 by Resolution #B84/99. The policy states that:
“In recognition of the public service nature of the work of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), and in order that TRCA staff is easily identifiable by the public, TRCA uniforms or special costumes must be worn by designated staff while carrying out their normal work duties.”
As part of the TRCA Clothing Guidelines and Allocations, approximately 800 employee uniform orders are placed throughout the year. At Authority Meeting # 10/14, held on December 12, 2014, Contract #10000128 for the Supply and Delivery of Clothing 2015-2017 was approved and awarded to Needham Promotions Inc. at a total cost of $135,000 per year plus 10% Contingency, plus HST. The contract included a 90 day notice cancellation clause, allowing either party to terminate the contract without penalties. On July 14th, 2015, Needham Promotions advised TRCA staff that they could not adhere to the contract pricing due to the diminishing value of the Canadian dollar, and therefore, provided TRCA with 90 days written notice of contract termination.
70
Item 7.10
As Needham Promotions did not violate its previous contract terms with TRCA, it was allowed to re-bid on Contract #10000128. Furthermore, the opportunity was posted publically on Biddingo.com as Section 14 of TRCA's Purchasing Policy dictates that “purchases of goods and services that exceed $100,000, standard advertising media (e.g. web-based procurement services, trade magazines, etc.) is to be used to advertise the opportunity. In order to prevent such contract terminations without penalty in the future, TRCA will be revising Contract #10000813 in accordance with advice from its legal counsel. RATIONALE Request for Quotation (RFQ) documentation was issued by TRCA and publically advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http://www.biddingo.com) on August 7th, 2015. TRCA identified product numbers of items currently purchased in order to ensure that like quality items were priced. Where exact product numbers were not available, material and quality specifications were provided. Bidders were requested to quote on these exact products when possible, or a substitute close in quality and specifications. In addition, the RFQ indicated a requirement to provide a secure on-line TRCA catalogue of available items for ease and consistency in purchasing. Quotations were opened by a Procurement Opening Committee comprising of TRCA staff (Lesley Adams, Kate Pankov, Kathy Stranks and Jenifer Moravek) on August 21, 2015 with the following results:
BIDDER ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST *
(Plus HST)
Dufferin Apparel $148,391.15
G & L Promotions $163,147.00
Needham Promotions $170,166.79
Cotton Candy $207,298.01
* Estimated costs above are based on average cost per item and on average annual quantities required of each item. The products quoted by Dufferin Apparel meet TRCA’s uniform needs and adhere to the product specifications requested. Dufferin Apparel has served as TRCA's clothing supplier in previous years and has proven to be a reliable and professional company. Therefore, based on the bids received, staff recommends that the contract for Supply and Delivery of Clothing 2015-2017 for TRCA staff be awarded to Dufferin Apparel at an estimated cost of $148,000.00 per year for a two year term, plus 10% contingency, it being the lowest bid meeting TRCA specifications. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funds for clothing will be identified within the various annual divisional operating and capital budgets. Report prepared by: Lesley Adams, extension 5668 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Lesley Adams, extension 5668 Emails: [email protected] Date: September 2, 2015
71
Item EX8.1
Section III - Items for the Information of the Board
TO: Chair and Members of the Authority Meeting # 8/15, September 25, 2015 FROM: Mike Fenning, Associate Director, Property and Risk Management RE: GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015
Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River Watershed. Katherine Jane Dalton and Christine Styles Dalton, Estate Trustee for the Estate of Ian Robert Dalton CFN 22588
____________________________________________________________________________ KEY ISSUE Status of requests for funding for purchase of a property municipally known as 12800 11th Concession Road, located to the west side of the 11th Concession Road, and south of King Road, Township of King, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed. RECOMMENDATION IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report dated September 11, 2015, regarding the status of requests for funding for purchase of a property municipally known as 12800 11th Concession Road, located to the west side of the 11th Concession Road, and south of King Road, Township of King, Regional Municipality of York, Humber River watershed, be received. BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #6/15, held on June 26, 2015, Resolution #A115/15 was approved as follows:
THAT 44.20 hectares (109.22 acres), more or less, of an irregular shaped parcel of land, improved with a log cabin and a detached, two bay garage, being Part of Lots 3 and 4, Concession 11, Township of King, Regional Municipality of York, located to the west side of 11th Concession Road and south of King Road, municipally known as 12800 11th Concession Road, be purchased from Katherine Jane Dalton and Christine Styles Dalton, Estate Trustee for the Estate of Ian Robert Dalton; THAT the purchase price be $2,760,000.00; THAT acquisition by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) be conditioned upon all necessary funding being available; THAT TRCA receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid;
72
Item EX8.1
THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents; THAT TRCA’s request to the City of Toronto for funding from the Land Acquisition for Source Water Protection Reserve also include a request on behalf of the Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust (ORMLT) for financial support in the amount of $1,200,000 for the ORMLT’s 2015/2016 Land Securement Program; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back in September.
Attached is a sketch showing the location of the subject lands. STATUS OF REQUESTS FOR FUNDING The Regional Municipality of York has been requested to fund 50% of the total cost of the acquisition of the Dalton property. York Region staff is supportive of the request for 50% funding and has scheduled a report for consideration by the Committee of the Whole on October 8, 2015; subsequently, Regional Council will consider the request at its meeting scheduled for October 15, 2015. The City of Toronto has been requested to fund 33% of the total cost for the acquisition of the Dalton property as well as financial support in the amount of $1,200,000 for the Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust’s 2015/2016 Land Securement Program. City of Toronto staff has indicated that Toronto Water’s approved 2015-2024 Capital Plan does not include funding for land acquisition for source water protection; and have indicated that these requests could be considered as part of 2016-2025 budget submission process as new funding requests. Therefore, the remaining 50% for acquisition of the Dalton property to be provided by TRCA will be achieved through funds contained in the land acquisition capital account. The funding in this account is from land sales, easement revenue and a bequest. Presently, there are no other sources of funding available in order to meet the financial requirements to complete the transaction. Furthermore, the owners are not receptive to extend the purchase into 2016. Report prepared by: George Leja, extension 5342 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: George Leja, extension 5342, Jae R. Truesdell, extension 5247 Emails: [email protected], [email protected] Date: September 11, 2015 Attachments: 1
73
0 0.2 0.40.1Kilometers
F© Queen ’s Prin ter for On tario an d its licen sors. [2005] May Not be Reproduced without Permission . THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.
PEEL
YORK DURHAM
TORONTO
Lake Ontario
Key Map
^SITE
LegendSubject Property
! ! ! ! ! ! Floodlin eWatercoursesCrest of SlopeRegulation LimitTRCA PropertyParcel Assessmen t
MAINHUMB
ER
KINGROAD
CONCESSIONROAD
11
ALBIONVAUGHANRD
MAINHUMBER
SUBJECTPROPERTY
Attachment 1
74
