BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MEMBERS · PRESENTATION / DELEGATION 4.1 BADLANDS UPDATE - FALL 2018 Jeff Payne, Director, Corporate Services will give a presentation to the members on

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

Friday, November 9, 2018CVC Administration Office

1255 Old Derry Road, Mississauga, ON

MEMBERS

N. (Nando) Iannicca (Chair)D. (Don) MacIver (Vice Chair)

T. (Tom) AdamsJ. (John) BrennanG. (Gail) CampbellD. (David) Cook

J. (Johanna) DowneyB. (Bob) Inglis

M. (Martin) MedeirosM. (Michael) Palleschi

K. (Karen) RasR. (Ron) Starr

Pages

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Recommended Resolution:RESOLVED THAT the agenda be approved as distributed.

2. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

3. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

Recommended Resolution:RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the 530th meeting of the Credit Valley ConservationAuthority held August 24, 2018 be approved.

4. PRESENTATION / DELEGATION

4.1 BADLANDS UPDATE - FALL 2018

Jeff Payne, Director, Corporate Services will give a presentation to themembers on the above mentioned subject.

Recommended Resolution:THAT the presentation "Badlands Update - Fall 2018" presented by Jeff Payne,Director, Corporate Services be received.

5. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES

6. NEW BUSINESS STAFF REPORTS

6.1 DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS, AND ALTERATIONSTO SHORELINES & WATERCOURSE APPLICATIONS

7

Recommended Resolution:RESOLVED THAT the Development, Interference with Wetlands, andAlterations to Shorelines & Watercourses applications, pursuant to OntarioRegulation 160/06, as approved by staff, be received and appended to theminutes of this meeting as Schedule ‘A’; and further

THAT the staff approvals for each application be endorsed.

6.2 2019 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING SCHEDULE 43

A report on the above mentioned subject as submitted by Tamara Chipperfield,Corporate Secretariat is included in the agenda as Schedule 'B'.

Recommended Resolution:RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “2019 Board of Directors MeetingSchedule” be received and appended as Schedule ‘B’ to the minutes of thismeeting; and further

THAT the 2019 schedule of Board of Directors meetings contained therein beapproved.

6.3 APPOINTMENT OF 2018 CONSERVATION AWARDS SUB-COMMITTEE 46

A report on the above mentioned subject as submitted by Lindsey Jennings,Coordinator, Community Outreach; Andrew Kett, Sr. Manager, Education &Outreach; and Mike Puddister, Deputy CAO and Director, WatershedTransformation is included in the agenda package as Schedule 'C'.

Recommended Resolution:RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “Appointment of 2018 ConservationAwards Sub-Committee” be received and appended to the minutes of thismeeting as Schedule ‘C’; and

THAT three members of the Board of Directors serve to fulfill theresponsibilities of the Conservation Awards Sub-Committee; and further

THAT the members on this committee shall be:

_____________________1.

2

_____________________2.

_____________________3.

6.4 APPOINTMENT OF THE 2018 RECOGNITION AWARDS SUB-COMMITTEEOF THE BOARD

48

A report on the above mentioned subject as submitted by Marlene Ferreira, Sr.Manager, Human Resources is included in the agenda package as Schedule'D'.

Recommended Resolution:RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “Appointment of the 2018 RecognitionAwards Sub-Committee of the Board” be received and appended to theminutes of this meeting as Schedule ‘D’; and

THAT an awards sub-committee be struck to review the 2018 EmployeeRecognition Awards nominations; and further

THAT the following members serve on this committee in 2018:

__________________________1.

__________________________2.

__________________________3.

6.5 CONSERVATION AREAS RATES AND FEES 2019 51

A report on the above mentioned subject as submitted by Bill Lidster, ManagerConservation Parks; Mark Thompson, Sr. Manager, PARCS; and Jeff Payne,Director, Corporate Services is included in the agenda package as Schedule'E'.

Recommended Resolution:WHEREAS public use rates and fees are collected at four active CVCconservation areas; and

WHEREAS all rates and fees be subject to Harmonized Sales Tax, whereapplicable;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “Conservation AreasRates and Fees 2019” be received and appended to the minutes of thismeeting as Schedule ‘E’; and further

THAT effective January 1, 2019 CVC staff be directed to implement the revisedfee structure contained therein.

6.6 NETWORK CONNECTION FOR WARWICK OFFICE 66

A report on the above mentioned subject as submitted by Moheb Ekladios, Sr.Manager, Information Technology, Information Management and Infrastructure;

3

and Jeff Payne, Director, Corporate Services is included in the agendapackage as Schedule 'F'.

Recommended Resolution:WHEREAS cost effective, reliable and secure network and telecommunicationsconnections are necessary to meet business operational needs at the WarwickNursery; and

WHEREAS a wide range of options to provide a network connection, ITinfrastructure and telecommunications to the site have been explored;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “Network Connectionfor Warwick Office” be received and appended to the minutes of this meeting asSchedule ‘F’; and

THAT the Board of Directors approve a contract for construction of a networkconnection, including fibre and necessary utility works, by the Peel PublicService Network (PSN) and its authorized agents, vendors and contractors inthe estimated amount of $322,950 excluding applicable taxes, in accordancewith Purchasing Policy CS 008 ; and

THAT that staff carry a contingency of $32,000 (excluding applicable taxes) toaccount for unforeseen costs or complexities and these funds will only be usedif necessary with consent from both the PSN project manager and CVC staff;and further

THAT staff advise the PSN Board of this decision and the approval to startconstruction immediately.

6.7 IMPACT OF CURRENT VALUE ASSESSMENT (CVA) ON BOARDENDORSED 2019 BUDGET

72

A report on the above mentioned subject as submitted by Roger Tharakan, Sr.Manager, Financial Services; and Jeff Payne, Director, Corporate Services isincluded in the agenda package as Schedule 'G'.

Recommended Resolution:WHEREAS the 2019 CVC Budget was endorsed by the Board of Directors onAugust 24, 2019 under Resolution #72/18; and

WHEREAS updated Current Value Assessment (CVA) data was received inOctober of 2018 and has now been applied to the 2019 budget;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “Impact of CurrentValue Assessment (CVA) on Board Endorsed 2019 Budget” be received andappended to the minutes of this meeting as Schedule ‘G’; and

THAT the apportionment of the 2019 Levy be adjusted to reflect the changesresulting from the updated CVA data; and further

THAT the Director of Corporate Services be authorized to make any necessary

4

technical adjustments to the 2019 budget.

6.8 AUDITOR GENERAL’S REPORT ON NIAGARA PENINSULACONSERVATION AUTHORITY

76

A report on the above mentioned subject as submitted by Deborah Martin-Downs, CAO is included in the agenda package as Schedule 'H'.

Recommended Resolution:WHEREAS the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario conducted an audit onNiagara Peninsula Conservation Authority releasing their findings in Septemberof 2018; and

WHEREAS a number of recommendations were made that have implicationsfor all CA’s and the province;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “Auditor General’sReport on Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority” be received andappended to the minutes of this meeting as Schedule ‘H’; and further

THAT the staff be directed to considered the recommendations of the Auditor’sreport and to bring forward to the board for approval any needed policies,procedures or practices to address the intent of the recommendations.

6.9 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COST RECOVERY AND FEESCHEDULE UPDATE

96

A report on the above mentioned subject as submitted by Gary Murphy,Director, Planning and Development Services; and Jeff Payne, Director,Corporate Services is included in the agenda package as Schedule 'I'.

Recommended Resolution:RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “Planning and Development ServicesCost Recovery/Fee Schedule Update” be received and appended to theminutes of this meeting as Schedule ‘I’; and

THAT the Board of Directors approve the proposed 2019 plan review andpermit fee schedules contained therein; and further

THAT a reserve account be set up to defer revenues received late in 2018 for areview that will be undertaken in 2019.

7. CORRESPONDENCE/INFORMATION ITEMS DISTRIBUTED TO MEMBERS

8. NOTICE OF MOTION

9. QUESTION PERIOD

10. OTHER BUSINESS

5

11. RESOLUTION TO MOVE TO 'IN-CAMERA' SESSION

Recommended Resolution:RESOLVED THAT the Board move to 'In-Camera' session to consider propertymatters.

11.1 LAND SECUREMENT NEGOTIATIONS – PROPERTY LOCATED IN THECITY OF BRAMPTON (WARD6)

12. RESOLUTION TO PROCEED TO OPEN SESSION

Recommended Resolution:THAT the Board proceed to open session.

13. RESOLUTIONS FOLLOWING 'IN-CAMERA' SESSION

14. MEETING ADJOURNED

6

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -1-

2018-11-09

DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS, AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES & WATERCOURSES APPLICATIONS (STAFF APPROVED, FOR BOARD OF

DIRECTORS’ ENDORSEMENT)

A) APPLICATION # 18/197

OWNER: Union Gas AGENT: PROPERTY LOCATION:

68 Ewing Street Part Lot 19, Concession 9 Town of Halton Hills

APPLICATION: Development in the Regulated Area to facilitate the

construction of a gas line.

WARD: H 3

B) APPLICATION # 18/209 OWNER: AGENT: PROPERTY LOCATION:

74 Rising Hill Ridge Part Lot 2, Concession 5 WHS City of Brampton


construction of a 10’ x 12’ cabana, 8’ x 11’ shed and patio.

WARD: B 6

7

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -2- 2018-11-09

DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS, AND ALTERATIONS TO

SHORELINES & WATERCOURSES APPLICATIONS (STAFF APPROVED, FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ ENDORSEMENT)

C) APPLICATION # 18/243 OWNER:

AGENT: Stoyanovsky Architects PROPERTY LOCATION:

77 Joymar Drive Part Lot 4, Concession 5 WHS City of Mississauga


construction of new two storey dwelling and covered patio. WARD: M 11

D) APPLICATION #: 18/232 OWNER: Rogers Communications Inc. AGENT: Spectra Engineering Ltd. PROPERTY LOCATION:

3573 Wolfedale Road Part Lot 21, Concession 1 NDS City of Mississauga

APPLICATION: Development in the Regulated Area to facilitate construction

of a proposed one storey addition of 14.4m x 3.6m and a proposed concrete pad.

WARD: M 6

8


2018-11-09



E) APPLICATION #: 17/339 OWNER: Rogers Communications Canada Inc. AGENT: LOCATION: McLaughlin Road North – North of Van Scott Drive

Part Lot 15, Concession 1 WHS City of Brampton

APPLICATION: Development in the Regulated Area for the purpose of installing

a 4” (100mm) HDPE conduit.

WARD: B 2, 6

F) APPLICATION #: 18/251 OWNER: AGENT: Just Drafting Ltd. LOCATION: 1105 Fair Birch Drive

Part Lots 23 & 24, Concession 2 SDS City of Mississauga


construction of a front two storey addition (3.71m x 1.98m) and front covered porch (3.71m x 1.22m).

WARD: M 2

9




G) APPLICATION #: 18/244 REVISED OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 12 Porter Creek Hollow



construction of a 38’ x 29’ deck and stairs. WARD: B 4

H) APPLICATION #: 18/257 OWNER: AGENT: CDN Buildings LOCATION: 9026 Creditview Road


APPLICATION: Development in the Regulated Area for the purpose of

constructing a pedestrian bridge. WARD: B 5

10


2018-11-09



I) APPLICATION #: 18/256 OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 22 Cannington Crescent



construction of a 14’ x 16’ deck and stairs. WARD: B 5

J) APPLICATION #: 18/217 OWNER: 1MH 2465 Hurontario Ltd. AGENT: LOCATION: 2475 Hurontario Street

Lot 15, Concession 1 SDs City of Mississauga

APPLICATION: Development in the Regulated Area to facilitate the grading and

construction of the parking lot and residential building. WARD: M 7

11




K) APPLICATION #: 18/263 OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 31 Dundas Street West

Part Lot 16, Concession 9 Town of Erin


constructing a 3.66m x 8.93m wet-floodproofed garage and second storey non-habitable storage loft.

WARD: N/A

L) APPLICATION #: 18/259 OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 9 Nature’s Landing Drive

Part Lot 1, Concession A Township of East Garafraxa


constructing a 12m x 6m pool and pool equipment. WARD: N/A

12


2018-11-09



M) APPLICATION #: 16/146 REVISED OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 547 Main Street

Part Lot 21, Concession 10 Town of Halton Hills (Glen Williams)


constructing a 6.65m x 4.68m roof over the existing deck. WARD: H 2

N) APPLICATION #: 18/262 OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 1298 Bramblewood Lane

Part Lot 25, Concession 2 SDS City of Mississauga


construction of a proposed 7.71m x 4.40m deck.

WARD: M 2

13




O) APPLICATION #: 18/254 OWNER: Town of Caledon AGENT: The Greer Galloway Group Inc. LOCATION: The Grange Sideroad

Lots 5 & 6, Concession 1 WHS Town of Caledon

APPLICATION: Alteration to a watercourse to facilitate a culvert replacement

and development within the Regulated Area to facilitate a road rehabilitation.

WARD: C 1

P) APPLICATION #: 18/233 OWNER: The Town of Caledon AGENT: Candevcon Limited LOCATION: Kennedy Road

Part Lot 25, Concession 1 EHS Town of Caledon

APPLICATION: Alteration to a watercourse and Development in the Regulated

Area to facilitate ditch works and culvert replacements. WARD: C 1

14


2018-11-09



Q) APPLICATION #: 18/215 OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 9654 Sideroad 5



construction of an accessory building. WARD: N/A

R) APPLICATION #: 18/271 OWNER: AGENT: GianCarlo’s Design Services LOCATION: 75 Main Street South

Part Lot 28, Concession 3 Town of Halton Hills


constructing a rear yard deck. WARD: H 1

15

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -10- 2018-11-09



S) APPLICATION #: 18/260 OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 4143 Rolling Valley Drive

Part Lot 33, Concession 2 NDS City of Mississauga


construction of a basement walkout.

WARD: M 8

T) APPLICATION #: 18/252 OWNER: AGENT: Solar Swim LOCATION: 43 Leader Court



construction of a 5m x 8m and pool equipment. WARD: N/A

16

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -11- 2018-11-09



U) APPLICATION #: 18/268 OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 52 Adamsville Road


APPLICATION: Development within a Regulated Area to facilitate the

construction of a 6.10m x 4.26m deck. WARD: B 5

V) APPLICATION #: 18/266 OWNER: Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. AGENT: LOCATION: Oriole Avenue and Hurontario Street

Part Lots 2 & 3, Range 1 CIR City of Mississauga

APPLICATION: Development in the Regulated Area to facilitate a watercourse

crossing by directional drill under Mary Fix Creek to construct a gas line.

WARD: M 1

17

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -12- 2018-11-09



W) APPLICATION #: 18/214 OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 213 Mountainview Road North



construction of a landing and accessway. WARD: H 3

X) APPLICATION #: 18/272 OWNER: K + S Windsor Salt Ltd. AGENT: WSP Canada Group Ltd. LOCATION: 2555 Royal Windsor Drive

Lot 32, Concession 2 SDS City of Mississauga

APPLICATION: Development in the Regulated Area to facilitate the grading and

construction of a proposed industrial bulk storage unit and access driveway on the north portion of the subject site.

WARD: M 2

18

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -13- 2018-11-09



Y) APPLICATION #: 18/261 OWNER: AGENT: Jay’s Custom Sheds LOCATION: 9502 Wellington Road 124



construction of a proposed 20’ x 10’ shed. WARD: N/A

Z) APPLICATION #: 18/223 OWNER: Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. AGENT: LOCATION: Shepard Avenue



a gas main. WARD: M 7

19

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -14- 2018-11-09



AA) APPLICATION #: 18/267 OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 11 Park Boulevard



constructing a 26’1” x 12’2” addition to the existing dwelling.

WARD: N/A

BB) APPLICATION #: 18/247 OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 76 Sir Jacobs Crescent



construction of a 7.92m x 4.87m deck and stairs. WARD: B 6

20

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -15- 2018-11-09



CC) APPLICATION #: 18/278 OWNER: Union Gas Limited AGENT: LOCATION: 53 Confederation Street



a gas main. WARD: H 2

DD) APPLICATION #: 18/221 OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 31 Upper Canada Court


APPLICATION: Development in the Regulated Area to facilitate construction of

a 4.11m x 4.57m deck and stairs. WARD: H 2

21

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -16- 2018-11-09



EE) APPLICATION #: 18/274 OWNER: Aujla Derry Investments Inc. AGENT: LOCATION: 270 Derry Road West

Lot 10, Concession 1 WHS City of Mississauga

APPLICATION: Development with a Regulated Area to facilitate grading in

preparation for land development of commercial (office) buildings.

WARD: M 11

FF) APPLICATION #: 18/279 OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 12191 Fourth Line

Part of Lot 21, Concession 5 Town of Halton Hills

APPLICATION: Development in a Regulated Area to facilitate the construction

of an underground proposed cold cellar extension to the existing dwelling.

WARD: H 2

22

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -17- 2018-11-09



GG) APPLICATION #: 18/265 OWNER: City of Mississauga AGENT: AECOM LOCATION: Lakeshore Road over Applewood Creek

Part Lot 6, Concessions 2 & 3 SDS City of Mississauga

APPLICATION: Development in a regulated area and alteration to a

watercourse to facilitate channel works and associated grading. WARD: M 1

HH) APPLICATION #: 18/063 OWNER: AGENT: Four Seasons Sunrooms LOCATION: 1486 Carmen Drive



construction of a rear sunroom addition. WARD: M 1

23

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -18- 2018-11-09



II) APPLICATION #: 18/284 OWNER: AGENT: Rockhaven Homes LOCATION: 41 Mill Pond Drive



constructing a dwelling, driveway and septic system. WARD: H 2

JJ) APPLICATION #: 18/286 OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 14 Armstrong Street



constructing a pool, a hot tub, equipment shed and patio. WARD: N/A

24

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -19- 2018-11-09



KK) APPLICATION #: 18/277

OWNER: AGENT: Ground Breakers Contracting Ltd. LOCATION: 610 Main Street



a water service line. WARD: H 2

LL) APPLICATION #: 18/009

OWNER: City of Mississauga AGENT: LOCATION: 3669 Mississauga Road

Part Lot 3, Range 3 NDS City of Mississauga

APPLICATION: Development in a Regulated Area to facilitate slope restoration

and grading works. WARD: M 8

25

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -20- 2018-11-09



MM) APPLICATION #: 18/249

OWNER: Credit Valley Conservation AGENT: City of Mississauga LOCATION: 1699 Dundas Street West (Erindale Park)

Part Lots 4 & 5, Ranges 1 SDS and 1 NDS City of Mississauga

APPLICATION: Development in a Regulated Area to facilitate construction of a

parking lot expansion and shade structures. WARD: M 6 & 7

NN) APPLICATION #: 18/255

OWNER: AGENT: Let’s Landscape Together LOCATION: 1544 Hampshire Crescent

Part Lot 2, Range 2 CIR City of Mississauga


construction of a 16’ x 24’11” deck and stairs. WARD: M 1

26

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -21- 2018-11-09



OO) APPLICATION #: 18/285

OWNER: AGENT: Riepma Consultants Inc. LOCATION: 12688 Winston Churchill Boulevard


APPLICATION: Development in the Regulated Area to facilitate fill placement

and site grading. WARD: H 2

PP) APPLICATION #: 17/086 REVISED

OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 29 Plainsman Road

Part Lot 7, Concession 4 WHS City of Mississauga


constructing a 18.15m x 5.76m rear addition, 9.14m x 4.27m inground pool, pool deck, hot tub and patio.

WARD: M 11

27

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -22- 2018-11-09



QQ) APPLICATION #: 18/288

OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 1078 Beachcomber Road



construction of a 3.66m x 3.05m upper deck. WARD: M 1

RR) APPLICATION #: 18/289

OWNER: AGENT: Super Decks LOCATION: 1084 Beachcomber Road



construction of a 17’ x 8’ upper deck and a 17’ x 8’ lower deck with stairs.

WARD: M 1

28

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -23- 2018-11-09



SS) APPLICATION #: 18/290

OWNER: AGENT: Archaus Architects Inc. LOCATION: 46 Fairglen Avenue


APPLICATION: Development in the floodplain of Fletcher’s Creek for the

purpose of constructing a 4.87m x 11.28m ground and second floor rear addition with crawlspace, 6.19m x 4.87m covered patio and 3.65m x 7.62m inground pool.

WARD: B 1

TT) APPLICATION #: 18/270

OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 5002 Trafalgar Road


APPLICATION: Development in the Regulated area to facilitate the

construction of a 36’ x 34’ proposed garage. WARD: N/A

29

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -24- 2018-11-09



UU) APPLICATION #: 18/296

OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 18 Chesapeake Court



constructing a 10’7” x 11’6” upper deck and a 12’5” x 16’ lower deck.

WARD: B 4

VV) APPLICATION #: 18/298

OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 19 Lions Park Avenue



constructing a 21’8” x 24’4” rear addition to the existing dwelling.

WARD: N/A

30

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -25- 2018-11-09



WW) APPLICATION #: 18/294

OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 40 Blue Heron Drive

Part Lot 3, Concession 1 EHS Town of Mono


construction of a 40’ x 26’ garage. WARD: N/A

XX) APPLICATION #: 18/297

OWNER: AGENT: Super Decks LOCATION: 1088 Beachcomber Road



construction of a 18’ x 8’ upper deck and a 18’ x 8’ lower deck with stairs.

WARD: M 1

31

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -26- 2018-11-09



YY) APPLICATION #: 18/015

OWNER: City of Mississauga AGENT: GEO Morphix LOCATION: Levi Creek at Old Derry Road


APPLICATION: Development in a Regulated Area and alteration to a

watercourse to facilitate erosion protection works and associated grading.

WARD: M 11

ZZ) APPLICATION #: 18/299

OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 4037 Charleston Sideroad

Part Lot 15, Concession 3 EHS Town of Caledon


construction of a septic system. WARD: C 1

32

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -27- 2018-11-09



AAA) APPLICATION #: 17/339 REVISED

OWNER: Rogers Communications Canada Inc. AGENT: LOCATION: McLaughlin Road North – North of Van Scott Drive



installing a 4” (100mm) HDPE conduit. WARD: B 2, 6

BBB) APPLICATION #: 18/300

OWNER: AGENT: DBM Inc. LOCATION: 122 Cumberland Drive



construction of a deck and swimming pool. WARD: M 1

33

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -28- 2018-11-09



CCC) APPLICATION #: 18/282

OWNER: AGENT: Dickinson & Hicks Architects Inc. LOCATION: 471061 A Line

Part of Lots 1 & 2, Concession B Township of East Garafraxa


of a new garage that is located partially on an existing concrete slab.

WARD: N/A

DDD) APPLICATION #: 18/287

OWNER: Region of Peel AGENT: GM BluePlan Engineering Ltd. LOCATION: 1640 Queen Street East (Alton)

Part Lot 28, Concession 4 WHS Town of Caledon

APPLICATION: Development in a Regulated Area to facilitate installation of a

watermain and electrical works using open cut. WARD: C 1

34

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -29- 2018-11-09



EEE) APPLICATION #: 18/291

OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 15602 Hurontario Street

Lot 2, Concession 1 WHS Town of Caledon

APPLICATION: Development in the Regulated Area to facilitate the conversion

of an existing non-habitable garage into a habitable dwelling. WARD: C 1

FFF) APPLICATION #: 18/295

OWNER: Killam Investments Inc. AGENT: Killam Apartment Reit LOCATION: 4 Carolyn Court


APPLICATION: Development in the Regulated Area associated with the

floodplain of the West Credit River for the purpose of constructing two concrete pads and wood decks, concrete piers.

WARD: N/A

35

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -30- 2018-11-09



GGG) APPLICATION #: 18/308

OWNER: AGENT: JM Kozen Design Associates LOCATION: 10 Noble Court

Lot 16, Concession 9 Town of Halton Hills


construction of a proposed second storey addition and a new roof over the existing dwelling.

WARD: H 3

HHH) APPLICATION #: 18/309

OWNER: AGENT: Jameson Pool Landscape Inc. LOCATION: 160 Confederation Street

Lot 23, Concession 9 Town of Halton Hills

APPLICATION: Development in the Regulated Area to facilitate a proposed

inground pool, pool equipment and patio. WARD: H 2

36

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -31- 2018-11-09



III) APPLICATION #: 18/306

OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 2620 Mississauga Road



construction of a two storey detached dwelling, garage, driveway, concrete deck, flagstone paving and associated grading.

WARD: M 8

JJJ) APPLICATION #: 18/307

OWNER: Caledon Mountain Trails AGENT: Sutton Headwaters Realty Inc. LOCATION: 17710 Mississauga Road

Part Lot 12, Concession 4 WHS APPLICATION: Development in the Regulated Area for the purpose of

constructing a new dwelling, septic system and slope restoration.

WARD: C 1

37

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -32- 2018-11-09



KKK) APPLICATION #: 18/313

OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 2194 Olde Baseline Road

Part Lot 1, Concession 2 WHS Town of Caledon


construction of a 7.82m x 11m second storey studio addition to an existing detached garage and stairs to a balcony of the second storey.

WARD: C 1

LLL) APPLICATION #: 18/312

OWNER: AGENT: GianCarlo’s Design Services LOCATION: 2164 Haygate Crescent



construction of a 4.88m x 9.75m swimming pool, 2.44m x 3.66m cabana, 1.22m x 2.44m equipment pad, and 161.76m2 deck.

WARD: M 2

38

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -33- 2018-11-09



MMM) APPLICATION #: 17/251

OWNER: Walness Developments Inc./1367933 Ontario Inc. AGENT: Rand Engineering Corporation LOCATION: Part of Lot 17, Concession 3 WHS

City of Brampton APPLICATION: Grading within a regulated area to facilitate the construction of

a residential subdivision (21T-11011B). WARD: B 6

NNN) APPLICATION #: 18/305

OWNER: Credit Valley Conservation AGENT: Town of Orangeville LOCATION: Dragonfly Park

Part Lot 1, Concession F Town of Orangeville

APPLICATION: Interference with a wetland and development in the floodplain

of the Credit River to facilitate the reconstruction of a boardwalk.

WARD: N/A

39

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -34- 2018-11-09



OOO) APPLICATION #: 18/319

OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 143 Turner Court

Lot 1, Concession 8 Town of Erin


of am 18’ x 24’ Pool, Pool Equipment, 9’ x 12’ Cabana/Shed, Patio and a 9’ x 12’ Garden Shed.

WARD: N/A

PPP) APPLICATION #: 18/317

OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 11968 Sixth Line



construction of a 24’ x 14’ 2.5” Shed. WARD: H 2

40

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -35- 2018-11-09



QQQ) APPLICATION #: 18/325

OWNER: AGENT: LOCATION: 15 Nature’s Landing Drive

Part Lot 1, Concession A Town of East Garafraxa


construction of a 10’ x 10’ shed with an additional 10’ x 10’ roof.

WARD: N/A

RRR) APPLICATION #: 18/198

OWNER: AGENT: Huis Design Studio LOCATION: 502 Richey Crescent



constructing an addition to a 2 storey dwelling, rear deck and patio.

WARD: M 1

41

SCHEDULE ‘A’ PAGE -36- 2018-11-09



SSS) APPLICATION #: 18/321

OWNER: AGENT: Strickland Mateljan Design Architecture LOCATION: 1155 Willow Lane



reconstruction of the existing one storey addition to the house with new covered porches (front, side, rear), rear deck, and detached garage.

WARD: M 11

42

SCHEDULE ‘B’ PAGE -1-

2018-11-09

TO: The Chair and Members

of the Board of Directors, Credit Valley Conservation

SUBJECT: 2019 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING SCHEDULE PURPOSE: To seek approval of the Board of Directors of CVC for the

2019 schedule of Board of Directors meetings. BACKGROUND: At the end of each year, a schedule of CVC Board of Directors meetings is approved by the members for the following calendar year. ANALYSIS: Attached as Schedule ‘B’, Appendix 1 is the proposed Board of Directors meeting schedule for 2019. The schedule for Board of Directors meetings follows the previous practice of the second Friday of every month except where that Friday is a statutory holiday or precedes a statutory holiday Monday. Under these circumstances, the meeting is scheduled the third Friday of the month. The Inaugural Meeting of the CVC Board of Directors follows the previous practice of the third Friday of January. Also, as per past practice, no meeting is scheduled for the month of August. Per resolution #82/11 dated September 9, 2011 the full CVC Board of Directors sits as the Executive Committee/Hearing Board to conduct hearings as required. Therefore, when required, a hearing will be scheduled at the start of an appropriate CVC Board of Directors meeting. The Peel District School Board and Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board have identified their scheduled March Break as the week of March 11 to 15, 2019 inclusive. There will be no CVC Board meeting scheduled that week. CVC Board meetings are held at the CVC Administration Offices, 1255 Old Derry Road, Mississauga.

43

SCHEDULE ‘B’ PAGE -2-

2018-11-09

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN: The approved schedule of CVC Board of Directors meetings will be forwarded to all member municipalities and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications to this report. RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “2019 Board of Directors Meeting Schedule” be received and appended as Schedule ‘B’ to the minutes of this meeting; and further THAT the 2019 schedule of CVC Board of Directors meetings contained therein be approved. Submitted by:

__________________________ Tamara Chipperfield Corporate Secretariat Recommended by:

__________________________ Deborah Martin-Downs Chief Administrative Officer

44

TO MEMBERS, MUNICIPALITIES AND STAFF

2019 Schedule of CVC Board of Directors Meetings Board Meetings Commence at 9:15 a.m.

January 18, 2019 (Inaugural Meeting) February 8, 2019 March 8, 2019 April 12, 2019 May 10, 2019 June 14, 2018 July 12, 2019 August 9, 2019 (Cancelled as per usual practice) September 13, 2019 October 11, 2019

November 8, 2019 December 13, 2019

All meetings will be held at the CVC Administration Office, 1255 Old Derry Rd, Mississauga, ON As per CVC Resolution #82/11 any required Hearing Board will be held prior to a regularly scheduled Board of Directors meeting.

Approved by Resolution # , November 9, 2018

SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 2018-11-09

45

SCHEDULE ‘C’ PAGE -1-

2018-11-09



SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF 2018 CONSERVATION AWARDS

SUB-COMMITTEE PURPOSE: To appoint a sub-committee of the Board of Directors of CVC

for the 2018 Friends of the Credit Conservation Awards BACKGROUND: Since 1986, the Credit Valley Conservation Board of Directors has recognized those who make a significant positive impact on the health of the Credit River Watershed through the Friends of the Credit Conservation Awards Program. The program fulfills Goal 5, Direction 10 of the CVC Strategic Plan by recognizing and celebrating the talents and achievements of volunteers and partners. Annually, the Board of Directors appoints three members to sit on and fulfill the responsibilities of a Conservation Awards Sub-Committee. ANALYSIS: We are seeking a minimum of three Board Members to serve on the 2018 Conservation Awards Sub-Committee. Members of the sub-committee are asked to:

review award nominations prior to the December sub-committee meeting;

attend a sub-committee meeting on December 14, 2018 at 12:30 p.m.;

bring forward recommended winners to the Board of Directors for approval;

attend the Friends of the Credit Conservation Awards banquet in March 2019. COMMUNICATIONS PLAN: There are no communications implications for the formation of this sub-committee. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There is no financial impact to CVC for the formation of this sub-committee.

46

SCHEDULE ‘C’ PAGE -2-

2018-11-09

RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “Appointment of 2018 Conservation Awards Sub-Committee” be received and appended to the minutes of this meeting as Schedule ‘C’; and THAT three members of the Board of Directors serve to fulfill the responsibilities of the Conservation Awards Sub-Committee; and further THAT the members on this committee shall be:

1) 2) 3)

Submitted by:

__________________________ _____________________________ Lindsey Jennings Andrew Kett Coordinator, Community Outreach Sr. Manager, Education & Outreach

__________________________ Mike Puddister Deputy CAO & Director, Watershed Transformation Recommended by:


47

SCHEDULE ‘D’ PAGE -1-

2018-11-09



SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF THE 2018 RECOGNITION AWARDS

SUB-COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD PURPOSE: To appoint a sub-committee of the CVC Board of Directors

that will be part of the Recognition Awards Committee to review nominations for the 2018 Employee Recognition Awards

BACKGROUND: The Board approved the report for the revised CVC Employee Recognition Program on October 16, 2015 (Resolution #60/15), stating that: “The new Employee Recognition Program has been designed to build on CVC’s culture of recognition and acknowledge staff’s achievements that are relevant to our values, as outlined in CVC’s strategic plan (2014). The Employee Recognition Program will recognize staff accomplishments in areas that contribute to five of CVC’s values:

Spirit;

Innovation;

Leadership;

Excellence; and

Collaboration. In addition, the Recognition Awards Committee can choose to award one discretionary Award of Distinction to a nominee from all of the nominations submitted.

The review of the nominations and the selection of the recipients are to be staff led through a Recognition Awards Committee. This committee will be comprised of a sub-group of the Leadership Team, up to three members of the Board of Directors if they wish to participate and the Senior Manager, Human Resources who will act as Chair and coordinator. The committee will be responsible for the selection of the award recipients based on the criteria for each award category.

The award recipients are presented with their awards at the Inaugural Board meeting in January of each year.

Since the commencement of this new program, up to three members of the Board served on the Recognition Awards Committee and took part in the nomination review process for CVC Employee Recognition Awards.

48


2018-11-09

ANALYSIS: In the past, up to three Board members have constituted the Recognition Awards sub-committee. We are seeking up to three volunteers to stand in this role for 2018. One meeting will be held on Friday, November 23, 2018 from 10:00 a.m. to noon at CVC’s head office where the nominations will be reviewed. The Employee Recognition Awards recipients will be presented with their awards at the Inaugural Board meeting in January 2019. COMMUNICATIONS PLAN: There are no communications implications for this project. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There is no financial impact to CVC for this project. RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “Appointment of the 2018 Recognition Awards Sub-Committee of the Board” be received and appended to the minutes of this meeting as Schedule ‘D’; and

THAT an awards sub-committee be struck to review the 2018 Employee Recognition Awards nominations; and further

THAT the following members serve on this committee in 2018: 1) 2) 3)

Submitted by:

___________________________ Marlene Ferreira Senior Manager, Human Resources

49


2018-11-09

Recommended by:


50

SCHEDULE ‘E’ PAGE -1-

2018-11-09



SUBJECT: CONSERVATION AREAS RATES AND FEES 2019 PURPOSE: To seek approval from the Board of Directors of CVC for the

Conservation Areas Rates and Fees for 2019 BACKGROUND: The purpose of conservation area rates and fees is to meet annual revenue targets which are designed to help offset conservation area related expenditures. These rates and fees apply to a range of facilities and services including, but not limited to:

Entry

Parking

Memberships

Equipment / facility / site reservations and rentals

Events

Special permits

Conservation land permits and easements Rates and Fees Criteria CVC’s conservation area rates and fees are reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors annually. The rates and fees for CVC’s conservation areas are based on a set of criteria which reflect the strategic direction of the program. If one or more of the criteria are met, it is deemed to constitute sufficient justification for a proposed change. The following criteria are considered when proposing an alteration to conservation areas rates and fees. The rates and fees are designed to help:

Maintain conservation areas

Support specialized activities / events

Support new / refurbished facilities

Support level of service / new services Overview of CVC Rates and Fees Entry fees are currently collected at CVC’s four active conservation areas:

1. Island Lake Conservation Area 2. Belfountain Conservation Area 3. Ken Whillans Resource Management Area 4. Terra Cotta Conservation Area

51


2018-11-09

There are presently two existing entry fee structures: 1. Gatehouse 2. Self-serve

Gatehouse The gatehouse fee structure is used at all four active conservation areas during regular operating seasons. This type of fee structure is the focus of this report. Self-serve Island Lake Conservation Area, Terra Cotta Conservation Area and Ken Whillans Resource Management Area currently use the self-serve system during shoulder seasons (mid-March to mid-April, November 1 to and December 31). CVC, on an ongoing basis, examines new or alternative methods for collecting the self-service fees at non-operational sites.

Conservation Lands Permits and Easements In addition to active conservation areas permits and applicable fees for programs, there are a series of conservation lands permits and charges that apply to the broader conservation area system that deal with access to and use of CVC conservation lands. These permits deal with requests to access / use of CVC lands for activities such as the construction of public or private infrastructure over and/or through CVC-owned lands. Permits are designed to regulate access, conserve the environment, protect CVC against liability and ensure that land use requests are evaluated on an equal basis. Given the relativity low volume of such permits the fees associated with conservation lands permits are structured to help recover some staff resource time associated with administering access requests and to encourage requests that are compatible with CVC goals and objectives and that improve the conservation area system. Appropriate and timely review of conservation areas operations, including rates and fees, is required to operate as a high-quality, customer-oriented, facility and service provider. This process allows CVC to maintain comparable fee structures with other conservation authorities in the best interest of all conservation area visitors. As shown in Schedule ‘E’, Appendix 1, CVC’s basic fees range from slightly lower to equal to the fees of neighbouring conservation authorities and have taken into consideration the differences in facilities, services and visitor demand of each. Additionally, there are instances where staff needs the flexibility to adjust rates and fees to specific circumstances. A few of the more common examples are identified in Table 1, below.

52


2018-11-09

Table 1 Examples Where Fees May be Changed to Reflect Specific Circumstances

Fee Type Fee Description

General Admission or Memberships

Allows for basic access to CVC conservation areas; for special events, promotions or to address seasonal volume, modified membership or general admission entrance rates may be applied.

Use Fees This rate and fee Schedule is provided as a general summary of fees applied by the CVC at its various operating venues. It does not provide, nor is it intended to provide, complete information as to the various regulations and operating procedures in effect at these venues which may relate to individual fee schedule items. Daily, seasonal and program operating schedules, and minimum group size requirements, are among these procedures which may affect rates and fees charged.

Discounts and Premiums Any fee may be subject to a discount or premium at the discretion of the appropriate Manager and/or Superintendent.

Supplementary Fees Not all fees are considered part of CVC’s rate and fee schedule as approved by the Authority. Some are set independently of that schedule. The sale of retail merchandise or the provision of incidental services represents the common examples of such fees.

Fees are also collected at the Cheltenham Badlands, those are not schedule fees in this report, rather those fees are set under the terms of the management agreement with the Ontario Heritage Trust (OHT), the fees include:

Parking

Permits Before presenting the proposed rates and fees for 2019 it is useful to reflect on:

Successful joint initiatives

Challenges and changes in 2018

New / expanded initiatives and opportunities for 2019 Successful Joint Initiatives Property, Assets, Recreation and Conservation Area Services (PARCS) staff continue to explore a number of activities with partners to help increase revenues. Among these are:

53


2018-11-09

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) CVC and TRCA have continued to work on joint initiatives for the collective benefit. These activities have included:

Developing a joint membership card allowing members to go to both CVC and TRCA conservation areas

Undertaking joint marketing for common events such as maple syrup festivals

Undertaking joint marketing for seasonal programming at CVC and TRCA conservation areas

Implemented a ‘Conservation Parks Day’ to allow visitors to be introduced to all parks at no charge

Share best practices

Local Service Clubs CVC continues to enjoy the benefits of support from a variety of local service clubs. For example, the Rotary Club of Orangeville-Highlands successfully fundraised for the roof structure for the amphitheatre at Island Lake Conservation Area. This made the stage more attractive to a wider variety of groups and events. The club has committed to support other initiatives directly related to the amphitheatre site in 2019 and beyond. ‘Friends of’ Groups CVC has benefitted greatly from the time, effort and generosity of those involved in ‘Friends of’ groups. Without their financial (and other) support, important features such as the Vicki Barron Lakeside Trail would be an unrealized vision. Third Party Partnerships CVC continues to build and grow its relationships with various third parties (largely private sector) in the provision of various services and events. An example is bringing in food vendors (e.g. food trucks) to special events such as the Fall Fest at Terra Cotta Conservation Area. This leverages the special skills such as food preparation and handling held by these vendors. CVC staff can concentrate on providing the best venue possible for these events. Municipal Partnerships CVC has many models of partnership with municipalities in the CVC watershed that ensure facilities and lands meet the needs of our local communities.

Challenges and Changes in 2018 Each year brings its own unique set of challenges and changes, 2018 was no exception.

A few of the challenges were beyond CVC’s control:

Extreme weather days included heat advisories and severe storms that affect visitation;

An early thaw of Island Lake also affected ice fishing revenues;

Reduced snow fall that resulted in limited opportunities for cross-country skiing and snowshoeing and therefore lower than budgeted gate fee and rental revenues;

54


2018-11-09

High rate of conservation area casual staff turnover that resulted in short staffed situations, more time spent by supervisors recruiting and training during peak visitation times, impacting workload and project completion

Some of the changes implemented in 2018 included:

A new watercraft storage facility that will hold up to 300 units was built and opened at Island Lake Conservation Area;

CVC PARCS staff undertook trail enhancements and is actively managing Cheltenham Badlands for the Ontario Heritage Trust upon its reopening in September of 2018

New / Expanded Initiatives and Opportunities for 2019 CVC continually seeks out new and different ways of meeting its mandate. Some of these initiatives include:

Parking Fees at Non-Active Conservation Areas CVC continues to explore the opportunities of instituting cloud-based parking at some of CVC’s non-active conservation areas. These funds would help to offset the costs associated with the development and maintenance of these areas - such as parking lots, trails, washrooms and garbage pickup. Event Programming CVC continues to seek out different ways of getting new and different visitors and tourists to come to our conservation areas. This is largely done by providing opportunities for events such as:

Maple Syrup festivals

Fishing derby

Fall Festival

Green weddings

Theatrical productions

Outdoor concerts

Wellness programs

Corporate events (e.g. large corporate picnics, charity runs)

Increased Number of Memberships Available Through Libraries Over recent years CVC has provided memberships to libraries to help ensure that access to CVC conservation areas is not restricted due to ability to pay. In 2018 this offering has been expanded through the library system to provide an even greater number of concurrent visitation opportunities. Connectivity and Point of Sale System (POS) As the revenues generated by the conservation areas continues to increase it is becoming critical to address some of the technological challenges these sites face. There are three (3) initiatives which are currently underway in this regard:

55


2018-11-09

Connectivity CVC’s four active conservation areas are geographically located in areas which have fair to poor connectivity. Staff are currently studying these issues to identify possible solutions. Point of Sale (POS) System CVC’s four active conservation areas are currently using point of sale systems which are nearly a decade old. This old technology impacts the ability to quickly, accurately and efficiently integrate the data collected at the conservation areas with the financial system at the administrative office. This results in an inordinate amount of time and effort being spent on this activity.

Changes in Legislation CVC has recently announced increased hourly wages to align the work being done above the level of the 2018 minimum wage increase. The result has had an impact on operating budgets but can be managed with recommendations made in this report.

ANALYSIS: Proposed Changes in Conservation Areas Rates and Fees In general, staff are recommending most of the 2019 conservation areas rates and fees stay the same as those charged for 2018. The reasons for this include:

It continues to make entry into the conservation areas affordable for families

It encourages visitors to take advantage of the membership options available

It continues to help defray costs associated with maintaining and operating the conservation areas

CVC staff are recommending a few minor changes (bolded in Schedule ‘E’, Appendix 2) to the conservation areas rates and fees for 2019. These recommendations are based on a thorough review of the fee-for-service model and other considerations such as:

1. Consumer Price Index 2. Revenues generated from conservation area admissions, parking, programs,

facilities and events 3. Willingness to pay 4. Comparison of rates and fees at other conservation authorities 5. Improvements / changes to conservation area infrastructure

There are two (2) main reasons for the proposed changes in CVC 2019 conservation area rates and fees from the 2018 values:

1. Comparison of CVC’s the rates and fees with those charged by other conservation authorities

2. CVC’s continued efforts to align itself more closely with the joint TRCA / CVC membership program

Below is a discussion on the various factors normally considered as part of the annual review of the rates and fees:

56


2018-11-09

Application of Consumer Price Index Staff recommends that the impact of the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) be accumulated until it results in an increase of 25 cents or greater and that applicable conservation area fees be increased as of January 1st the year the threshold is expected. The average CPI to date in 2018 is approximately 2.36% which would result in a 14 cent increase on a basic admission. No increases are warranted in 2019 based on this criterion alone. Membership Program CVC currently offers two types of memberships:

1. Our Credit Membership Program 2. Conservation Parks Membership Program

Our Credit Membership Program CVC’s original membership program offers a range of choices for individuals and families as well as conservation area-specific memberships. Conservation Parks Membership Program A joint membership program between CVC and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) giving access to CVC and TRCA conservation areas.

2019 will mark the fifth year CVC has partnered with TRCA in offering the Conservation Parks Membership Program. At the time of the launch of the ‘Conservation Parks Membership Program’, CVC opted to continue to offer its own ‘Our Credit Membership Program’. The intent was to revisit the decision to continue to offer the ‘Our Credit Membership Program’ after the third year of the partnership with TRCA.

A program review in 2017 identified a number of reasons which support merging the two membership programs:

1. Steady increase in Conservation Parks Membership sales 2. Too many membership options are confusing for the public and staff 3. Difficulty marketing two brands and price points 4. Logistics behind keeping two data sets 5. Equality in membership offerings

After implementing strategies that increased member conversion in 2018 and through careful analysis and planning, staff recommended continuing the process of streamlining the membership program by offering only the Conservation Parks program.

Attached as Schedule ‘E’, Appendix 2 is CVC’s recommended 2019 Conservation Areas Rates and Fees Schedule. CVC staff recommend the 2019 Conservation Areas Rates and Fees come into effect on January 1, 2019.

57


2018-11-09

Significant Proposed Changes The following outlines the following changes to the fee structure: Rate / Fee Current

Fee Proposed

Fee Rational

Adult $5.31+tax $5.75+tax Competitive with other CA’s

Senior $4.20+tax $4.43+tax Competitive with other CA’s

Maximum Vehicle $22.12+tax $23.90+tax Competitive with other CA’s

Our Credit Membership Program $60-$110 +hst

Eliminate all ‘Our Credit’

membership options

To streamline the program

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN: The new rates and fees will be posted on the CVC, and other websites, and in the Conservation Areas Visitors Guide. In addition, some of the key 2019 conservation rates and fees will be posted at entrances to:

lsland Lake Conservation Area

Ken Whillans Resource Management Area

Belfountain Conservation Area

Terra Cotta Conservation Area FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There is no financial impact to CVC for this project. The rates and fees have been incorporated into the 2019 budget. CONCLUSION: Staff recommend the Board of Directors of CVC approve the proposed conservation areas rates and fees 2019 to take effect on January 1, 2019. RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: WHEREAS public use rates and fees are collected at four active CVC conservation areas; and WHEREAS all rates and fees be subject to Harmonized Sales Tax, where applicable; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “Conservation Areas Rates and Fees 2019” be received and appended to the minutes of this meeting as Schedule ‘E’; and further THAT effective January 1, 2019 CVC staff be directed to implement the revised fee structure contained therein.

58


2018-11-09

Submitted by:

____________________________ _____________________________ Bill Lidster Mark Thompson Manager,Conservation Parks Sr. Manager, PARCS

____________________________ Jeff Payne Director, Corporate Services Recommended by:

____________________________ Deborah Martin-Downs Chief Administrative Officer

59

SCHEDULE ‘E’, APPENDIX 1 PAGE -1-

2018-11-09

Appendix 1 Fee Comparison between CVC and Other

Conservation Authorities with Similar Services - 2018

Fees (before tax)

Credit Valley Conservation Halton

Grand River Toronto and Region

Adult $6.00 $7.00 $7-$10 $6.50-8.50 $16.95 (Black Creek)

Senior $4.75 $6.00 $5.50 - $7.50 (& disabilities)

$5.50-6.50 $13.56 (Black Creek)

Child $3.00 5 & under FREE

$5.25 4 & under FREE

$3-$5 5 & under FREE

$3.00 $12.43 (Black Creek) 4 & under FREE

Parking $10 on weekends (BCA)

NA NA $7 (Black Creek)

Canoe/Kayak rentals

$20/hr, $50/day Single Kayak-$17 Tandem-$20 Canoe-$20 SUP-$21 Pedal Boats-$24

Canoe & SUP (Shade’s Mills) Up to 4 hrs-$30 Over 4 hrs-$45 Kayak 2 hrs-$26 Byng/Conestogo/Guelph Lake/ Canoe/Kayak 1 hr-$15 4 hrs-$45 8 hrs-$75 Pinehurst Canoe, Tandem, SUP 1hr-$17 Single kayak 1hr-$12 Rockwood Canoe weekday hr-$15 Canoe weekend hr-$20

Canoe, pedal, row $14/hr

Motor Boats $60/half day $90/full day

NA (Gas motors) 4 hrs-$80 8 hrs-$120 12 hrs-$140

NA

Fat Tire Bikes $10/hr,$40/day

NA NA NA

Kick Sleds $10/hr, $25/day NA NA

Ski Set (skis, boots, poles)

Adult-$27 Child-$17

NA Adult-$20 Child-$15

Adult-$19.50 Youth-$13.56

Snowshoe rental

$15 NA $11

60


2018-11-09

Pavilion hydro/water

$20 - $175 NA $75-$300 $155-$500

Pavilion no hydro/water

$20 - $165 NA $25-$200 $150-500

Memberships

Individual $60 (CVC) $75 (TRCA & CVC)

$54.87 Child-$50 Adult-$70

$75

Senior $48 $44.69 $60 (& disabilities)

NA

Family & Friends (up to 6 people)

$110 (CVC) $135 (TRCA & CVC)

119.91 $130

$135

Senior Family N/A $100 $115 (& disabilities)

NA

Single Park Membership (up to 6 people)

$75 (CVC only) NA NA $85-180

Group Membership (5 or more up to 6 people)

$80 (CVC only) NA NA NA

Corporate Membership (20 or more up to 6 people)

$60 (CVC only) NA NA NA

Municipal Partner, Family Membership (up to 6 people)

25% (online discount per employee)

NA NA NA

61


2018-11-09

Appendix 2 2019 Conservation Area

Rates and Fees Schedule Conservation Area Rates and Fees Current Proposed 2019

Conservation Area Day Use

Adult $5.31+hst $5.75+hst

Child (6-14) $2.65+hst $2.65+hst

Senior (60+) $4.20+hst $4.43+hst

Group Rates (50 persons or more)

Adults N/A N/A

Children (6-14 years) N/A N/A

Seniors (60+) N/A N/A

Bus Group (7 or more adults) $3.50+hst $3.50+hst

Municipal Bus Service $2.50+hst $2.50+hst

Maximum Daily Rate

Vehicle (up to 6 people) $22.12+hst $23.90+ hst

Bus Fee $110.00+ hst $110.00+ hst

Active Transportation Users No Charge No Charge

Boat Launch (Island Lake CA Only) $8.00+hst $8.00+hst

Self Serve Day Use (per day)

Vehicle $4.43+hst $4.43+hst

Bus $44.25+hst $44.25+hst

Winter Rentals

Ice Fishing Program

Full-day Hut Rental (per person) $36.00+hst $36.00+hst

Half-day Hut Rentals (per person) $26.00+hst $26.00+hst

Fail to Show for Hut Reservations As reserved As reserved

Ice Fishing Rod Rental $10.00+hst $10.00+hst

Ice Fishing Rod Security Deposit $20.00 $20.00

Seasonal Hut rental N/A N/A

Portable Huts

2 person $30.00/day+hst $30.00/day+hst



Drilling of Ice Fishing Hole – 1 $1.77+hst $1.77+hst

Drilling of Ice Fishing Holes - 3 $4.43+hst $4.43+hst

Snowshoes

Snowshoes (per pair/ per day) $15.00+hst $15.00+hst

62


2018-11-09

Cross Country Ski Rentals

Adult $27.00+hst $27.00+hst

Children/ Seniors (14 and under/ 60 and over) $17.00+hst $17.00+hst

Kick Sled $10.00/hr or $25.00/day+hst

$10.00/hr or $25.00/day+hst

Summer Rental

Water-based Program

Hourly Canoe, Kayak or Paddleboard $20.00+hst $20.00+tax

Daily Canoe, Kayak or Paddleboard $50.00+hst $50.00+tax

Half Day Boat with Electric Motor $60.00+hst $60.00+tax

Fat Tire Bike $10.00/hr or $40.00/day+hst

$10.00/hr or $40.00/day+hst

Full Day Boat with Electric Motor $90.00+hst $90.00+hst

Watercraft Security Deposit $200.00 $200.00

Fail to Show for Watercraft Reservation As Reserved As Reserved

Fishing Rod Rental Free as part of the

OFAH Tackle Share Program

Free as part of the

OFAH Tackle Share Program

Fishing Rod Security Deposit $20.00 $20.00

Annual Memberships

Our Credit Individual $60.00+hst N/A

Our Credit Friends and Family (up to 6 people) $110.00+hst N/A

Our Credit Senior 20% off personal

N/A

Group Membership: Our Credit Family and Friends (5 or more purchased, valid for up to 6 people)

$80.00 each +hst

N/A

Corporate Membership: Our Credit Family and Friends (20 or more purchased, valid for up to 6 people)

$60.00 each +hst

N/A

Our Credit Conservation Area Specific Family and Friends Membership

$80.00+hst N/A

Conservation Parks Family and Friends Membership, valid at TRCA and CVC Parks (up to 6 people)

$135.00+hst $135.00+hst

Conservation Parks Individual Membership, valid at TRCA and CVC Parks

$75.00+hst $75.00+hst

Annual User

Boat Launch N/A N/A

Canoe and Kayak Storage (per unit stored) $110.00+hst $110.00+hst

Pavilion Rental

Enclosed Pavilion with hydro and water (ILCA) $150.00+hst $150.00+hst

Large Open Pavilion with hydro (TCCA) $175.00+tax $175.00+hst

Medium Open Pavilion no hydro/water, includes 2 wagon shuttles (TCCA)

$165.00+tax $165.00+hst

Small Open Pavilion no hydro/water, includes 1 wagon shuttle (TCCA)

$125.00+tax $125+hst

Picnic Site Rental

General Area $50.00+hst $50.00+hst

63


2018-11-09

Premium Site $75.00+hst $75.00+hst

Reservation

Site Reservation Deposit (included in site rental, non-refundable)

$25.00 $25.00

Special Event (included in fee and non-refundable) $300.00 $300.00

All equipment Reservation Fee (additional fee, online bookings available)

$4.43+hst $4.43+hst

Amphitheatre Reservation Deposit (TCCA) $50.00 $50.00

Special Events

Special Event Fee $300.00+hst $300.00+hst

Weddings

Wedding Services start at $800.00+hst $800.00+hst

Note: additional fees applicable for services rendered

Professional Photography

Professional Photography (9 ppl, 1 hour) $75.00+hst $75.00+hst

Professional Wedding Photos (25 ppl, 2 hours) $250.00+hst $250.00+hst

Portfolio Photography $50.00/hour +hst

$50.00/hour +hst

Picnic Options

Rental of Large Propane BBQ N/A N/A

Rental of Large Stationary Charcoal BBQ (included in pavilion rental)

$35.00+hst $35.00+hst

Rental of Small Charcoal BBQ N/A N/A

Rental of 20x20 tent $75.00+hst $75.00+hst



Special Permits

Commercial Filming (operating hours) $250.00/ hour +hst

$250.00/ hour +tax

Before/ after operational hours $300.00/ hour +hst

$300.00/ hour +tax

Vendors, added value to an event $25.00/ day +hst $25.00/ day +hst

Vendors, event will have at least 250 people attend $100.00/day+hst $100.00/day+hst



Commercial Photography (operating hours) $125.00/ hour +hst

$125.00/ hour +hst

Before/ after operational hours $225.00/ hour +hst

$225.00/ hour +hst

Staff assistance $30.00/ hour +hst

$30.00/ hour +hst

Wagon Ride - max 25 people (+/-) each ride $25.00/ride +hst $25.00/ride +hst

Group Event Wagon Rides (groups of 75 or more) $50.00/hour +hst

$50.00/hour +hst

Watershed Learning Center Mon – Fri (up to 4 hours) $150.00+hst $150.00+hst

Watershed Learning Center Mon – Fri (up to 8 hours) $300.00+hst $300.00+hst

64


2018-11-09

Watershed Learning Center Sat & Sun (up to 4 hours) $250.00+hst $250.00+hst

Watershed Learning Center Sat & Sun (up to 8 hours) $400.00+hst $400.00+hst

Watershed Learning Center Cancellation Fee $100.00+hst $100.00+hst

Amphitheatre (no equipment, includes res. fee) (TCCA) $100.00+hst $100.00+hst

Amphitheatre (no equipment, includes res. fee) ILCA Weekdays

$75.00+hst $75.00+hst

Amphitheatre (no equipment, includes res. fee) (ILCA) Weekends

$200.00+hst $200.00+hst

Laptop $50.00+hst $50.00+hst

LCD Projector (Screen, Blue Ray Player incl.) $50.00+hst $50.00+hst

Podium (added to other service) No Charge No Charge

Corded Microphone (added to other service) No Charge No Charge

Cordless Headset Microphone (per mic) $50+hst $50+hst

Easel with Paper $10+hst $10+hst

Land Planning Easement Fees Schedule

Low These easements will be simple agreements with no other extenuating environmental or legal concerns or have involvement from any other group or agency.

$3,000 $3,000

Medium These easements will require circulation to one or more outside agencies and may have limited environmental and/or legal concerns.

$6,000 $6,000

High These easements will require substantial amounts of discussion and negotiation with one or more of CVC’s partners and/or be very complex because of environmental or legal considerations.

$10,000 $10,000

65

SCHEDULE ‘F’ PAGE -1-

2018-11-09



SUBJECT: NETWORK CONNECTION FOR WARWICK OFFICE PURPOSE: To request approval by the Board of Directors of CVC for a

contract over $100,000 to construct a fibre optic network connection for the Warwick Office

BACKGROUND: The CVC Board of Directors authorized construction of the Warwick nursery workshop in March 2012 (Resolution #30/12). The workshop was constructed and office space for staff was provided for by way of temporary office trailer accommodations. At the May 13, 2016 meeting of the CVC Board of Directors the implementation of the subject office expansion was approved (Resolution #41/16). The new office facility was approved by the CVC Board under Resolution #65/17. The project is currently nearing the end of construction. The office will be approximately 8,200 sq. ft. and will be connected to the existing workshop. This will improve overall operational efficiency by combining office and workspace seamlessly and eliminate all temporary office trailer accommodations for staff at the site. The office capacity for the building will meet both current and future needs for the foreseeable future for full-time, contract and seasonal casual staff. The facility includes climate controlled corporate storage space and a multipurpose meeting room/lunchroom with a capacity for up to 50 people. This multipurpose space will be available for CVC community engagement functions as well as potentially for public rental. The facility is designed to meet the business needs of the Terrestrial Restoration and Management Program (nursery, restoration and invasive species program staff) as well as for other programs, where it is operationally an appropriate location for work. Staff from CVC, working with Region of Peel IT staff and Peel Public Service Network (PSN) staff, has been investigating a number of options to provide network connection to the Warwick facility. The servicing is necessary to ensure staff at the site will have network, internet and phone services for business purposes. The current 3G connection to the site is very basic and only allows for up to six simultaneous users with subpar bandwidth that impacts network speed, reliability and security. The Warwick Nursery was purpose located to suit the primary function of the facility and the programs it supports (nursery, restoration and invasive species). While the rural location is ideal from a functional point of view it does pose a challenge from a servicing or connectivity point of view given the lack of telecommunications infrastructure in close

66


2018-11-09

proximity to the site. A number of options were explored by CVC staff to provide basic business quality network services to the site including:

- Tower-to-tower relay; - Wireless network connection (cellular); - Satellite relay solutions; - Copper based land lines (telecom); - Coaxial connection (cable); and - Fibre connection (dedicate).

The identified options lacked pre-existing infrastructure nearby in place to meet the requirements for operational purposes based on current or possible future business needs for the site, with one exception, the PSN. A number of the options considered had technical challenges or were simply cost prohibitive. CVC reached out to a number of telecom players in the market, utilities, organizations such as South Western Ontario Integrated Fibre Technology (SWIFT) and other public agencies (municipalities, school boards) in proximity to explore every possible option for servicing the site. CVC also looked at the technological servicing models for the site and considered two primary models to meet the office needs of the programs and services. First was to treat the site as a stand-alone operation and second was to treat the site as an extension of the CVC head office. Staff determined there was significant cost avoidance by treating Warwick as an extension of the head office, details of savings are in Table 1 below. Table 1 – Stand Alone vs. Extension of Head Office Service Model - Cost Analysis

Required New Expenditures

Stand Alone Site

Head Office Extension

Explains Why Head Office Model=$ savings

Savings $ ,000

Network Infrastructure/configure (purchase)

Y N Use same in place infrastructure as head office to meet needs

170

Phone System / voice mail/configure (purchase)

Y N Use same phone system as head office, with ext. to ext. dialing

50

Security/Building Controls (purchase)

Y N We can piggy back off of head office

25

Internet/Connectivity Network Charge (per/year)

Y* N Use same internet provider contract as head office

25

Additional Staff Resource (per/year)

Y N Impact of complexity of having 2 separate systems (0.5 FTE)

30

Total one time and year 1 savings 300

*The cost does not include any required infrastructure build by a telecom provider (that would still

be cost plus).

67


2018-11-09

To achieve the model whereby Warwick is an extension of head office (and not a stand-alone site) requires a dedicated and secure fibre connection. While this does represent a significant upfront capital build investment there is substantial short-term and long-term savings that will be realized. ANALYSIS: Staff recommends that CVC leverage our ‘Constituent Agency’ status with the PSN as the most cost effective approach to provide a single network solution to meet infrastructure, tele-communication, cloud services and security needs for Warwick. The additional benefits of utilizing the PSN as the preferred solution include:

- The PSN will do the design, procurement and build of the fibre connection; - The PSN will provide all ongoing maintenance and technical support; - The PSN does not come with any additional monthly/annual service access or

usage charges; - The PSN has provided exemplary service to CVC head office with up-time well in

excess of 99%; and - The PSN can have the build completed to align roughly with staff occupancy.

To service the Warwick site will require a dedicate fibre run to be constructed at a quoted cost of $324,000 comprised of $315,000 for installation and $9,000 for design and professional services, excluding tax and contingency. The fibre will be installed along the Caledon Trailway running from Highway 10 across to Heartlake Road and then down into the Warwick site. See attached map (Schedule ‘F’, Appendix 1). For a dedicated fibre run this represents a very good value given the cost of fibre and the cost to run the utility for the entire distance. Extensive research of various options and providers found that other utility or service providers could not provide a competitive price over the preferred build proposed by the PSN. The plan is for the PSN build to be contained within road allowances or trail right-of-ways so no land acquisitions or easements are required. The CVC Board of Directors has the authority to conduct direct negotiations under Section 9 of the CVC Purchasing Policy for a contract over $100,000. The PSN is a public sector utility and as such has a purchasing policy that ensures these services are provided through a competitive process. COMMUNICATIONS PLAN: There are no communications implications for this project. Local residents in proximity to the utility work will be advised, as necessary, by the PSN or its contractors. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost of fibre network connection for Warwick is estimated to be $324,000 excluding applicable taxes. The funding for this work is available from capital special levy account

68


2018-11-09

601-607. The project will be constructed by the PSN and its contractors overseen by CVC Corporate Services staff in the Information Technology, Information Management and Infrastructure division. CONCLUSION: The construction of the Warwick office approved by the CVC Board of Directors is advancing on schedule and on budget. Staff that are located at this site in temporary office accommodations currently have subpar 3G network connectivity access that has security, bandwidth and reliability issues. To meet the business needs of this site for now, and into the future, it is necessary for CVC to provide a network fibre connection. Staff has conducted extensive research and examined a wide range of alternatives to provide services for network and telecommunications. Staff has also considered various models for how to provide IT services at the site. The conclusion is that the most cost effective, secure and reliable way of providing network access to the site is to extend the PSN connection to the site through a dedicated fibre build and to provide IT services as an extension of those already in place at head office. All other options considered represented significantly more capital and operating costs. This approach allows CVC to leverage investments already made in technology and to avoid duplicate costs and complexity. Staff are recommending a directly negotiated contract with the Peel Public Service Network to install the fibre. RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: WHEREAS cost effective, reliable and secure network and telecommunications connections are necessary to meet business operational needs at the Warwick Nursery; and WHEREAS a wide range of options to provide a network connection, IT infrastructure and telecommunications to the site have been explored; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “Network Connection for Warwick Office” be received and appended to the minutes of this meeting as Schedule ‘F’; and THAT the Board of Directors approve a contract for construction of a network connection, including fibre and necessary utility works, by the Peel Public Service Network (PSN) and its authorized agents, vendors and contractors in the estimated amount of $322,950 excluding applicable taxes, in accordance with Purchasing Policy CS 008 ; and THAT that staff carry a contingency of $32,000 (excluding applicable taxes) to account for unforeseen costs or complexities and these funds will only be used if necessary with consent from both the PSN project manager and CVC staff; and further

69


2018-11-09

THAT staff advise the PSN Board of this decision and the approval to start construction immediately. Submitted by:

______________________________ ____________________________ Moheb Ekladios Jeff Payne Sr. Manager, Information Technology, Director, Corporate Services Information Management and Infrastructure Recommended by:


70

Imagery ©2016 Google, Map data ©2016 Google 500 m

Total distance: 4.00 km (2.49 mi)Measure distance

SCHEDULE 'F', APPENDIX 1 2018-11-09

71

SCHEDULE ‘G’ PAGE -1-

2018-11-09



SUBJECT: IMPACT OF CURRENT VALUE ASSESSMENT (CVA) ON

BOARD ENDORSED 2019 BUDGET PURPOSE: To inform the Board of Directors of CVC of the impact of the

Current Value Assessment (CVA) on the Board endorsed 2019 Budget

BACKGROUND: The 2019 draft budget for CVC was endorsed by the Board of Directors at the August 24, 2018 meeting under Resolution # 72/18. At the time the 2019 budget was presented to the CVC Board the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) had not yet released to conservation authorities across the province the Current Value Assessment (CVA) data set. The levy for conservation authorities is allocated based on a CVA calculation (formula set in regulation) using Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) data over the watershed area by municipality in the Credit Valley Conservation Authority jurisdiction. The final CVA data set for CVC was supplied by MNRF on October 10, 2018. The CVA determines the apportionment of the levy based on municipal population and property values. It is important to note that the CVA does not impact the total amount of the 2019 budget that was approved by the CVC Board. Peel Region and Halton Region combined fund approximately 97% of all levied funding for CVC. CVC staff did meet with Region of Peel senior management to review the 2019 Budget on October 1, 2019 and with senior staff at Halton Region on October 25, 2019. All required information has been submitted to both Peel and Halton, including updated CVA tables, in accordance with the set timelines. ANALYSIS: Upon receipt of the CVA data from MNRF staff at CVC immediately updated the 2019 budget to reflect the revised information. The apportionment change, as set out in Table 1, in real dollars from 2018 to 2019 saw the levy for Peel increase by $4,679 and for Halton increase by $303. The Town of Orangeville saw a reduction of $3,033, the Town of Erin saw a reduction of $1,937 and the Town of Mono saw a reduction of $12 in levy apportionment from 2018 to 2019. All other municipalities saw no measurable change as

72


2018-11-09

a result of the CVA apportionment. These adjustments are net of the overall levy change.

Table 1: Municipal Apportionment of CVC General Levy based on 2018-19 Current CVA (% Share of Total Municipal Levy and Funding based on Apportionment)

Municipality %

Apportionment of 2018 CVA

% Apportionment

of 2019 CVA

2019 $ Based on 2018 CVA

2019 $ Based on 2019 CVA

$ Change

2019 over 2018

Peel Region* 91.7366 91.7767 23,872,400 23,877,078 4,679

Halton Region*

4.9673 4.9699 579,543 579,846 303

Town of Orangeville

2.4695 2.4435 288,121 285,087 -3,033

Town of Erin 0.6459 0.6293 75,358 73,421 -1,937

Town of Mono

0.1129 0.1128 13,172 13,161 -12

Township of East Garafraxa

0.0568 0.0568 6,627 6,627 -

Township of Amaranth

0.0110 0.0110 1,283 1,283 -

TOTAL 100% 100% 24,836,504 24,836,504 -

*Excludes funding for EAB

When the 2019 budget was first presented to the CVC Board on August 24, 2019 the CVA apportionment was not applied and the total percentage change in levy was applied equally to all municipal funders. Table 2 shows the updated CVA applied to the budget and levy allocation based on the formula.

Table 2: Year-Over-Year Proposed CVC Total Levy Increase

Municipality 2018

Total Levy 2019

Total Levy * %

Change $ Change

Peel Region* $23,030,166 23,877,078 3.68% 846,912

Halton Region* 560,723 579,846 3.41% 19,123

Town of Orangeville 278,764 285,087 2.27% 6,323

Town of Erin 72,911 73,421 0.70% 510

Town of Mono 12,744 13,161 3.26% 416

Township of East Garafraxa 6,412 6,627 3.36% 215

Township of Amaranth 1,253 1,283 2.43% 30

Total Levy 23,962,974 24,836,504 3.65% 873,530

*Excludes funding for EAB

73


2018-11-09

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN: The updated CVA information has been provided to Peel Region and Halton Region. All other municipal funders will receive budget information packages prior to the end of November. Budget presentations to each funder municipal council are scheduled for early 2019 after the new Councils are convened. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There is no financial impact to CVC resulting from the updated CVA data given the total levy amount of the 2019 budget as endorsed by the CVC Board on August 24, 2018 has not changed. Only the apportionment of the levy has been updated based upon the CVA data supplied by MNRF and allocated based on the formula set out in regulation. CONCLUSION: The CVA data from MNRF was received by CVC on October 10, 2019 and has been applied to the 2019 budget. The overall budget has not changed from what the CVC Board of Directors approved on August 24, 2018 only the apportionment of the levy has been updated as a result. The final 2019 CVC Budget is anticipated to be brought to the Board in March of 2019 for approval. RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: WHEREAS the 2019 CVC Budget was endorsed by the Board of Directors on August 24, 2019 under Resolution #72/18; and WHEREAS updated Current Value Assessment (CVA) data was received in October of 2018 and has now been applied to the 2019 budget; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “Impact of Current Value Assessment (CVA) on Board Endorsed 2019 Budget” be received and appended to the minutes of this meeting as Schedule ‘G’; and THAT the apportionment of the 2019 Levy be adjusted to reflect the changes resulting from the updated CVA data; and further THAT the Director of Corporate Services be authorized to make any necessary technical adjustments to the 2019 budget.

74


2018-11-09

Submitted by:

__________________________ ___________________________ Roger Tharakan Jeff Payne Senior Manager, Financial Services Director, Corporate Services Recommended by:


75

SCHEDULE ‘H’ PAGE -1-

2018-11-09



SUBJECT: AUDITOR GENERAL’S REPORT ON NIAGARA

PENINSULA CONSERVATION AUTHORITY PURPOSE: To inform the Board of Directors of CVC of a recent audit of

Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) by the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario and implications for the business of Credit Valley Conservation.

BACKGROUND: On October 25, 2017, the Legislature’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Committee) passed a motion requesting that the Auditor General conduct a value-for-money audit of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA). The motion was presented in light of increasing public criticisms against the NPCA. The objective of the audit was to assess whether the NPCA, in partnership with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (ministry, previously falling under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry) and participating municipalities, has effective procedures and systems in place to ensure that:

• programs and services are delivered economically, efficiently and in accordance with relevant legislation, regulations, agreements and policies, such that the impact of human activities, urban growth and rural activities on the area of the watershed within the NPCA’s jurisdiction is effectively managed; and

• operational effectiveness is measured, assessed and publicly reported on. The audit was conducted between January 8, 2018, and July 31, 2018 focusing on NPCA’s operations (and to some extent, the ministry and participating municipalities’ oversight of the NPCA’s operations) in the five-year period between 2013 and 2017. Other conservation authorities were not audited but were surveyed about certain aspects of our operations. CVC took part in that survey but were only provided with a 4 day window in July to do so. The auditor’s report was released publically in September of 2018 after providing opportunities for NPCA and the Ministries to provide responses to their findings. NPCA in their responses note that many of the concerns expressed through the audit are already the subject of internal changes that have been undertaken by the new management of the authority.

76


2018-11-09

ANALYSIS: The auditor’s report brought some key issues to light that CVC too has at times struggled with. In the vein of continuous improvement we have reviewed their recommendations and provided some commentary on CVC practices and the steps that are being taken or need to be taken to ensure we could adequately respond to such a review of our operations. Schedule ‘H’, Appendix 1 summarizes all of the recommendations of the audit with the CVC response where appropriate as the third column. Some of the key recommendations of particular interest to the board follow with a brief synopsis of the findings and the implications for CVC business going forward.

1. Board Not Sufficiently Independent for Objective Oversight (Municipal Priorities Sometimes Conflict With Board Responsibilities) Conservation Authority Board of Directors are comprised of municipal politicians with some citizen appointments. As the auditors describe “The Conservation Authorities Act authorizes board members to “vote and generally act on behalf of their respective municipalities.” This puts board members in a difficult position when municipal interests conflict with the interests and responsibilities of conservation authorities and their employees. Further complicating board members’ role is the fact that municipalities are the main source of funding for conservation authorities, accounting for, on average, almost half of their revenues. This dependence may present challenges for conservation authorities, including their boards, to make decisions independent from municipal pressures. The conflict is especially problematic when board members are also elected officials (mayors and councillors), whose municipal priorities include facilitating economic development in their municipalities. In certain cases, allowing such development may not be in line with the provincial legislation and policies that conservation authorities are mandated to implement.” Leading governance practices suggest that board members who are appointed as representatives of a stakeholder group should be vigilant in ensuring that representing their stakeholder group does not conflict with acting in the best interest of the organization they are overseeing. The findings of the Auditor identify that the potential conflict between municipal and conservation authority business can be difficult to define and was not clear to NPCA Board members. The auditor notes that “the Board has not discussed how its members’ various competing interests may give rise to apparent and actual conflict of interests given that Board members are appointed to represent their municipalities’ interests. In addition, the Board has not developed any guidance on how to identify circumstances (such as those arising from multiple competing interests) and/or relationships that could lead to a potential or perceived conflict of interest and how to manage them. Board members told us in interviews that they did not believe that acting in their municipalities’ interests created a conflict with their responsibilities to oversee the NPCA. They referred often to the definition of “conflict of interest” under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, which is limited to circumstances where an individual or a relative has pecuniary or financial

77


2018-11-09

interests in the matter being discussed. Board members may face situations where their competing responsibilities place them in a conflict-of-interest position even though they will not directly benefit from the decision financially.”

Implications for CVC Business: The CVC Code of Conduct states that “Board Members must ensure they are able to carry out their duties as duly appointed members of the Board of Directors by both meeting the Objects of the Conservation Authority Act R.S.O. 1990,c. C.27 while also meeting the requirements under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50. To help ensure members of the CVCA Board of Directors are able to meet both of these requirements the following Code of Conduct Policy has been established to provide guidance and direction.” The CVC Board of Directors training for the newly appointed board identifies the obligations of the board to uphold the policies and regulations of the authority. CVC could develop guidance for conflict of interest to further outline the expectations of members.

2. Board Involvement in Day-to- Day Operations and Decision-Making

Compromises Board’s Objectivity

The auditors found NPCA Board member involvement in about 10% of the sample of development proposals and work permit applications between 2016 and 2018 that were reviewed. They maintain that, while this is not a high percent-age, no degree of involvement by the Board is appropriate, and the cases we found had the potential to affect people, property and the environment on a large scale.

Implications for CVC Business: Board members ask the CAO for information about files and sometimes facilitate a discussion with a community member or developer usually because of a relationship. All requests are to come through the CAO’s office so as not to have board members unduly influence staff. It has been our experience that no undue influence has occurred in recent years and members have acted in the best interests of the environment, our regulation and best practices. CVC could develop an explicit protocol for member involvement in files.

3. Board Does Not Assess CAO or Board’s Performance

The auditor found that “NPCA policies require that the Board regularly evaluate the CAO’s performance against the NPCA’s strategic plan and the financial and human resources goals of the organization. They found that the last formal CAO evaluation was conducted in 2001. Since then, the NPCA has had four different CAOs.” They also found that “there is no formal process in place for the Board to self-evaluate its oversight processes and activities. The Board has also not established goals and performance indicators to enable such evaluation. Although neither the Act nor NPCA Board policies require a formal evaluation process, leading governance practices suggest that boards should periodically

78


2018-11-09

monitor and assess their performance in fulfilling their governance responsibilities.”

Implications for CVC Business: The CAO annually schedules a performance review with the Chair of the Board and tables a series of accomplishments and plans for the coming year for discussion and agreement. There are no performance indicators for the board to monitor and assess their progress in fulfilling their governance responsibilities. The board could develop an annual report outlining the work undertaken, attendance of members, conflicts or other performance indicators.

4. More Clarity Needed Around Board Activities Eligible for Per Diem

Payments

The auditor found that “from 2010 to 2017, payments to NPCA Board members (including honorariums, per diems and travel expenses) increased mainly because per diem payments for Board members’ attendance at a variety of meetings increased significantly. However, the total number of meetings claimed by NPCA Board members increased 422% from 121 in 2010 to 632 in 2017. This is equivalent to 42 meetings for each NPCA Board member in 2017. In comparison, Board members in 28 of the other 35 conservation authorities we surveyed claimed an average of four meetings each in 2017.” Implications for CVC Business: The total number of meetings claimed by CVC Board members has remained relatively constant over the last several years at approximately 10 meetings annually per member.

5. No Floodplain Maps for Over Half of the Watercourses in NPCA’s

Watershed

The auditor found that “NPCA does not have floodplain maps for 117 (or 58%) of the 202 watercourses in its watershed. These include 70 watercourses for which the ministry recommends floodplain maps be prepared because they drain land areas 125 hectares in size or larger. Although neither the Act nor the ministry requires conservation authorities to develop floodplain maps, CAs need to use such maps to review and make decisions on development proposals and work permit applications, and to assess risk and forecast floods. In addition, for the purpose of implementing the regulations of the Act that govern work permit applications, conservation authorities are required to detail the areas they regulate through a geographic description or by referring to maps. In the auditors survey of conservation authorities they found that almost half (46%) of conservation authorities reported that they have mapped less than 50%

79


2018-11-09

of all watercourses in their watershed with drainage areas of at least 125 hectares. Conservation Ontario’s 2015 inventory of conservation authorities’ floodplain maps noted that three-quarters of the existing floodplain maps in Ontario are outdated and that it will cost an estimated $136 million to update them.

Implications for CVC Business: CVC has been actively updating all its floodplain maps since 2012 which has required the development of updated base mapping, better flow monitoring through additional real time gauges and rating curves, hydrologic and hydraulic models as well as defining the extent of the flood based on the regulatory storm. Funding was initially provided by Peel Region and continues supported by Peel Special Levy as well as the National Disaster Mitigation Program. CVC has approximately 300 floodplain map sheets, all dating from 1996 or later. Since 2012 a total of 37 map sheets have been updated, with an additional 84 currently being updated (completion by 2020).

6. Inconsistent Criteria Used to Review Development Proposals and Work

Permit Applications

The Conservation Authorities Act empowers conservation authorities to develop specific policies for where development is allowed. Such policies are based on the Act and the stipulations of the Provincial Policy Statement that development be directed “away from areas where there is a risk to public health or safety or of property damage” and “to areas outside of hazardous land impacted by flooding and/or erosion hazards.” The auditors found that the NPCA has not used consistent criteria to assess the safety of proposed development. In 2007, the NPCA Board approved the policies for where development is allowed, in line with the legislation but that flexibility was applied in those decisions. Implications for CVC Business: CVC has a policy framework as well as a number of guidance documents that it uses to assess the applications. Staff are encouraged to find the right solution for each site within the boundaries of our regulations and policies. Some flexibility needs to be allowed for as there are many unique situations for which policy may not suit. Any instances where policy is not being applied tend to be done with a team of specialists, including the CAO, before being finalized. CVC will be developing a database to track files including compliance with policy which will make summaries of all activities more accessible.

7. Measuring the Impact of NPCA’s Programs and Services

The auditor found that “NPCA’s annual reports describe the organization’s achievements in the previous year. Beginning in the last quarter of 2015, the NPCA also began producing quarterly reports to provide more frequent updates regarding its activities. We found that the reports:

• did not always include key information about the NPCA’s mandate (for example, of the annual reports from 2012 to 2017, only the 2012 and

80


2018-11-09

2014 reports included a description of the different departments and core activities of NPCA);

• contained mainly narrative descriptions, often including a chronology of events, of the major projects completed during the year, with limited information about the benefits of such projects or how they contribute to the NPCA fulfilling its mandate; and

• included quantitative information for example, the number of development proposals reviewed, number of work permits issued, and the average time it took staff to review applications but, did not compare this information against pre-established goals or targets or include any trend analysis.”

The auditor also reviewed these reports against best practices for performance reporting as outlined in the directives issued by Management Board of Cabinet for provincial agencies and guidance issued by the Public Sector Accounting Board. The auditor notes that “in 2014, the NPCA developed it first Strategic Plan, which outlined its goals for the next four years, and identified specific action items to meet those goals. One of the action items in the NPCA’s 2014–17 Strategic Plan was to design, implement and report on key performance indicators by the end of 2015. At the time of the audit, the NPCA was still in the process of developing a set of indicators against which to assess its performance”.

Implications for CVC Business: CVC had stopped the practice of preparing an annual report until 2016 when it was resurrected, albeit in a digital format. This is widely distributed to our watershed stakeholders and has received accolades for the innovative presentation. It still leans largely on statistics of actions taken over outcomes produced. Outcomes remain difficult to report on as our work is geographically distributed (i.e. not concentrated and measurable in one place) and may take years to mature in the case of tree planting and some other habitat improvements. We do prepare many other reports on the work we undertake and every three years prepare a watershed report card with Conservation Ontario to document the state of three indicators across the province which does tell us the progress we are making on our mandate. CAs are not considered a provincial agency and are therefore not circulated on Management Board directives. CVCs Strategic Plan was also completed in 2014 and we have been working through the objectives and directions. The use of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) has been initiated but remains a challenge to track and communicate.

81


2018-11-09

8. Managing Financial and Capital Resources

The auditors review of the NPCA’s spending policies and practices found that the NPCA:

• “did not acquire goods and services competitively as required by its procurement policy in half of the purchases reviewed from 2012 to 2017. The total value of those purchases was $2 million;

• can accept unsolicited proposals (proposals from companies to provide services that the NPCA is not explicitly seeking); and

• exempts legal services from competitive procurement.” The auditors also investigated the NPCA Foundation’s procurement practices since those expenses comprise the majority of the Foundation’s operating costs and identified issues in the Foundation’s procurement practices similar to those at the NPCA.

Implications to CVC Business: CVC recently updated its procurement policies that were approved by the board in 2016. A detailed procedure and training for staff were also implemented. Since 2014 CVC has been reporting annually to the board on the procurement activity with special attention to sole sourced or directly negotiated contracts based on the prior year. This demonstrates a commitment to transparency and accountability. Between 2015 and 2017 CVC directly negotiated 24-31% of goods and services. CVC has developed preferred vendor lists from which to select services based on price and performance. CVC will always have incidents of directly negotiated contracts due to specialized equipment, unique partnership arrangements and skills requirements or continuation of work by specialized contractors. As per our purchasing policy, we do exempt legal services from competitive bids as they tend to be specialized contractors and may be required on an emergency basis. The CVC Foundation is required to follow the same procurement policy and processes as CVC.

9. Province Does Not Give Conservation Authorities Sufficient Direction and Guidance nor do they know if Conservation Authorities Are Fulfilling their Mandate

The auditor felt that more direction was needed from the province to clarify priorities and ensure consistency in programs and services. In addition to audited financial statements, the ministry only requires conservation authorities to submit information on their activities related to flood forecasting and warning, and flood and erosion control that are provincially-funded. Every year, conservation authorities must submit a year-end report that itemizes where its funding was spent and describes the conservation authorities’ management of flood control structures, their operation of flood forecasting and warning systems, and their review of municipal planning documents. The reports do not include information

82


2018-11-09

about how the conservation authorities’ activities in these areas have helped them fulfill the responsibilities delegated to them by the ministry. Nor do they cover the other aspects of natural resource and watershed management activities that are part of the mandate of the CAs. Implications for CVC Business: CAs were working through implications of the revised Conservation Authorities Act with MNRF staff prior to the election with an objective to identify and clarify CA business and potentially provide more financial support for these functions. A new relationship was developing, where for years there had been limited interaction with the province. With the change in ministries after the last election and lack of clear objectives for the coming year we do not anticipate much progress to be made. It has been clear from the interactions with the province that they are not very knowledgeable about the work of CAs and will need to become more familiar if they are to provide meaningful guidance.

The province has an opportunity to redefine the delivery of environmental services in the coming year and CAs are well positioned to deliver watershed based local solutions.

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN: There are no communications implications for this project. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There is no financial impact to CVC for this project. CONCLUSION: CVC has reviewed the Auditor General’s report on the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) and its associated recommendations for improvements and actions on the part of NPCA as well as the Ministry of Environment Conservation and Parks as well as Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. The Auditor has identified challenges that many CAs face largely due to funding restrictions. They remind us of the importance of documentation, good governance and adherence to policies and practices. They also focus on outcome based reporting to be able to demonstrate the value of Conservation Authorities. Overall, CVC can respond quite favourably to many of the recommendations. There is always room for improvement and this review identifies a few areas of action that can be taken by both the organization and the Board of Directors to be more transparent and accountable.

83


2018-11-09

RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: WHEREAS the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario conducted an audit on Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority releasing their findings in September of 2018; and WHEREAS a number of recommendations were made that have implications for all CA’s and the province; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “Auditor General’s Report on Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority” be received and appended to the minutes of this meeting as Schedule ‘H’; and further THAT the staff be directed to considered the recommendations of the Auditor’s report and to bring forward to the board for approval any needed policies, procedures or practices to address the intent of the recommendations. Recommended by:


84

AUDITORS REPORT KEY FINDING

AUDITORS REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS CVC NOTES

5.1.2 Conflict of Interest Not Clearly Defined and Understood

5.1.3 Board Involvement in Day-to-Day Operations and Decision-Making Compromises Board’s Objectivity

Recommendation 2

To ensure that the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) Board of Directors has the necessary independence and objectivity to oversee the NPCA’s activities effectively, we recommend that the NPCA Board:

• adhere to its Code of Conduct, which states that Board members are to refrain from unduly influencing staff, being respectful of staff’s responsibility to use their professional expertise and corporate perspective to perform their duties; and

• update its Code of Conduct to clearly define the circumstances and relationships that could lead to an actual or perceived conflict of interest beyond those defined in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

A code of conduct for members was developed and completed in May 2012. The 2014-2018 Board was the first to be required before appointment to agree to sign the code. There have been no incidents of Board actions that have warranted a discussion of the code of conduct in this board term. There was one incident in a previous board term

5.2 Identifying Necessary Skills and Competencies Could Improve Board Effectiveness

Recommendation 3

To ensure that members of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) Board of Directors collectively have the skills, experience and training necessary to oversee the NPCA’s activities effectively, we recommend that the NPCA Board:

• determine the types of skills and experience required on the Board based on the NPCA’s mandate, and develop and implement a strategy to address any gaps;

• work with the NPCA’s funding municipalities to ensure that their Board appointment processes consider skills and experience requirements;

• assess the current role of its advisory committee to determine whether it is sufficient in fulfilling any gaps in Board skills and competencies, and revise as necessary; and

• identify initial and ongoing Board governance training needs.

The Board appointees for CVC are sourced solely from municipal and regional councils. Unlike volunteer or other boards where members are sought based on certain skills, the CAs compete for members with other municipal committees and boards. We can ask in our appointment request letters that municipalities consider appointees who have skills in a variety of areas of interest to the CA but do not have the control to ultimately make the decision. CVC does provide governance training for the new board and includes information/education presentations at most board meetings about various programs/projects/functions of CVC to improve understanding of the members.

SCHEDULE 'H', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 1

2018-11-0985

5.3 Board Does Not Assess CAO or Board’s Performance

Recommendation 5

To ensure that the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) Board of Directors has all the information it needs to effectively oversee the NPCA and improve its oversight when needed, we recommend that the NPCA Board:

• regularly evaluate the performance of the NPCA’s Chief Administrative Officer, as required by its policies;

• develop performance indicators to facilitate the Board’s evaluation of its oversight processes and activities; and

• regularly evaluate both its collective performance and the performance of individual Board members.

The CAO meets annually with the board chair to assess performance against assigned priorities for the previous year The CAO leads the development of the strategic plan that lays out a five year plan and reports to the board on its progress every two years. There is no process to evaluate the performance of Board members other than noting attendance.

5.4 More Clarity Needed Around Board Activities Eligible for Per Diem Payments

Recommendation 6

To ensure that per diem payments to Board members are reasonable and transparent, we recommend that the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority:

• clarify its Board policies to specify the meetings and other functions for which Board members may receive per diem payments in the future; and

• continue to publish information on actual Board per diems and other expenses annually online.

The CVC Board of Directors approves the Board honorarium and per diem rate annually as part of the CVC budget approval process. The minutes of the meeting approving the annual budget and Board honorarium and per diem rate is publicly available on the CVC website. The CVC Chair and Vice Chair receive an annual honorarium for their service. The remaining Board members receive a per diem and mileage reimbursement. Per diems are paid for attendance at Board meetings, sub-committee meetings and required attendance at other meetings, training sessions or speaking on behalf of the CVC Board of Directors. Board members do not receive a per diem or mileage reimbursement for voluntary attendance at seminars, workshops , events, etc.…

6.1 Identifying Flood-Prone Areas

Recommendation 7

To ensure that the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) has complete and up-to-date information about flood risks within its watershed, we recommend that the NPCA:

• •assess the risk to communities around the unmapped watercourses;

In recent years CVC has been actively pursuing updating of floodplain mapping including updated base mapping and modelling to ensure the best information for future planning and regulation needs. CVC has been supported in this by special funding from the Region of Peel and the federal National Disaster Mitigation Program. CVC has approximately 300 floodplain map sheets, all dating from 1996 or later.


2018-11-0986

• determine the time and cost for completing and updating floodplain maps; and

• schedule this work, based on its risk assessment and for the watercourses for which the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry recommends floodplain maps be prepared

Since 2012 a total of 37 map sheets have been updated, with an additional 84 currently being updated (completion by 2020). CVC’s current focus has been the update of floodplain mapping across Mississauga, in recognition that older urban areas in Mississauga represent the most flood prone areas in the watershed. Part of the NDMP funding has been directed to a watershed-wide risk assessment (upstream of Mississauga) to identify the most vulnerable areas and to prioritize future work in those areas.

6.2.1 Inconsistent Criteria Used to Review Development Proposals and Work Permit Applications

Recommendation 9

To ensure that development is directed away from areas of natural hazards where there is an unacceptable risk to public health and safety or of property damage, we recommend that the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority:

• finalize, as soon as possible, its policies for reviewing development proposals and work permit applications; and

• in finalizing such policies, ensure that the criteria for where development is allowed is consistent with Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Conservation Authorities Act.

CVC has a board approved policy document (2010) that is used as the basis for planning and permitting decisions, along with internal guidance documents for consistency. This document will be updated when regulations for the revised Conservation Authorities Act are completed.

6.2.3 Frequent Reorganizations Have Affected NPCA’s Delivery of Mandated Services

Recommendation 10

To ensure that staffing decisions are focused on improving the operations of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) to fulfill its legislative mandate and provide effective and efficient services, we recommend that the NPCA:

• develop a human resources (HR) plan that identifies current and future HR needs, as they relate to the strategic direction of the NPCA;

• in developing such an HR plan, review its staffing mix to determine the appropriate level of administrative and corporate support staff;

• base future HR decisions on its HR plan; and

• provide information about planned restructuring

This is an issue that is occurring at NPCA operations. CVC does not have a similar issue at this time.


2018-11-0987

decisions, including their financial implications, to the NPCA Board prior to implementing such decisions.

6.3.1 NPCA Needs to Take Timely and Progressive Actions After Complaints Received

Recommendation 11

To ensure that reports of possible and known violations are appropriately addressed in a timely manner, we recommend that the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority:

• determine the number of enforcement staff necessary to address violations on a timely basis and staff accordingly;

• ensure that enforcement staff obtain the necessary training to discharge their responsibilities;

• revise its enforcement policy to provide guidance on the progressive actions enforcement staff should take to address violations, taking into consideration the significance of the violations;

• revise its enforcement policy to require that enforcement activities be sufficiently documented and ensure that staff adhere to the policy; and

• use CityView to track reports of possible violations.

CVC responds to notifications of potential violations as quickly as possible but has a limited team of 2 regulations officers. Regulations officers have all been trained through the Section 28 regulations training offered by Conservation Ontario CVC does not have a special tracking system like Cityview. We have explored systems with our municipal partners but they are all different systems which limits the utility of CVC participation. The Regulation Officers have their own individual system to make sure we respond to the violations in a risk-based sequence which has worked effectively for years. Cityview or similar tracking systems are used mostly for plan review and permitting tracking and not violations.

6.3.2 Violations May Be Occurring Without the NPCA’s Knowledge

Recommendation 12

To ensure that the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) can proactively identify unlawful activities before they result in risk to people, property and the environment, we recommend that the NPCA:

• institute a mandatory reporting mechanism for landowners to notify the NPCA that approved work has been completed in compliance with the conditions of the permit, and follow up with landowners who fail to report;

• develop a risk-based plan to conduct site visits to ensure that landowners have completed the approved work in compliance with the conditions of the permit; and

• update its website to provide information to the public about activities that are prohibited under the Conservation Authorities Act and how the public can

A mandatory reporting mechanism would be work for landowners who report back that their work has been completed but, the amount of staff time and resources required to follow-up with those who don’t report back would be very difficult, extremely time consuming and expensive. CVC utilizes a risk-based system to make sure that landowners who obtain permits that are at high risk to not comply are checked for compliance. Our guidelines/policies and FAQs posted on the CVC website also indicate what is prohibited and how the public can report violations to CVC.


2018-11-0988

report suspected violations to the NPCA.

6.4.1 Restoration Program to Improve Water Quality Was Suspended for One Year

6.4.2 Funding Under Former Restoration Program Not Directed to Where Restoration Is Most Needed

Recommendation 13

To ensure that restoration funding is directed toward projects that best achieve the goals of the restoration program, we recommend that the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority regardless of its chosen program delivery model, develop and implement a strategy to better target areas of the watershed based on water quality monitoring and other information on the health of the watershed.

CVC has invested in an Integrated Watershed Monitoring Program (IWMP) to identify areas in the watershed that may be changing. Our monitoring data identifies status and trends that is used to direct additional investigation and restoration projects. CVC initiated a cause-effect program to look into specific hot spots to further guide restoration and other preventative actions. CVC also conducts real-time water quality monitoring that provides instant readings of the health of our watercourses. The data collected from real-time water quality stations is utilized for detection of spills and identifying abnormal water clarity issues. CVC has been evolving a number of science based restoration strategies, plans and guidelines and is presently updating past practices and available science in an overarching Ecological Restoration Strategy and Guidelines that will build on and revise where appropriate existing guiding documents such as the Integrated Watershed Restoration Strategy (subwatershed priorities), Water Management Strategy Update, Water Quality Strategy, Fisheries Management Plan and Wetland Restoration Strategy. CVC has a Natural Heritage System and is working on a restoration priorities layer. Both these initiatives help guide effective and efficient restoration activities.

6.4.3 Almost One-Third of $3 Million in Welland River Restoration Funding Not Spent as Intended

Recommendation 14

To ensure that restoration funding from Ontario Power Generation (OPG) helps improve the health of the Welland River as agreed to, we recommend that the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA):

• seek clarification with OPG regarding its expectations for how the remaining funds are to be spent;

• revise, as necessary, the formal agreement between the NPCA and OPG to outline such expectations; and

• develop and implement a plan that identifies the

Not applicable to CVC


2018-11-0989

projects and their locations for which the remaining funds will be spent, ensuring that such projects focus on areas of concern identified on the watershed plans that have been developed for the Welland River.

6.5 Buying Land for Conservation, Recreation and Education

Recommendation 15

To ensure that lands are acquired to help the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) fulfill its mandate, we recommend that the NPCA:

• review and revise its land acquisition goals—both in its latest 2015 plan and in its 100-year plan—for reasonableness and to reflect the NPCA’s responsibilities under the natural hazard policies of the Provincial Policy Statement;

• improve its current land acquisition criteria to provide clear direction on which lands should be acquired;

• prioritize its current land acquisition criteria to reflect the revised goals;

• determine the total cost of its land acquisition plan and how it will fund the acquisitions;

• develop and implement a plan to achieve its land acquisition goals; and

• monitor and report to the NPCA Board of Directors on land acquisition progress.

CVC has a land acquisition strategy (Greenlands Securement Strategy, 2004) that it uses to guide the acquisitions. Recent projects like the Credit Valley Trail have added new land projects to our activities. A new watershed plan underway may also identify needed resources to manage future conditions. CVC has on its workplan to update the Greenland Securement Strategy and with it will be a review of goals and criteria. Funding for acquisition remains a challenge. Both Halton Region and Peel Region have funding programs for land acquisition. CVC staff worked with Peel Region to modify their acquisition criteria to reflect current realities of lack of provincial support and the high cost of land which makes individual fundraising a challenge. CVC annually reports to the board on planned and executed acquisitions.

6.6 Measuring the Impact of NPCA’s Programs and Services

Recommendation 16

To enable the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) to assess its performance in fulfilling its mandate, we recommend that the NPCA:

• develop performance indicators that are tied to its mandate and overall program goals;

• establish targets against which each indicator will be assessed;

• regularly collect and analyze information about the impact of its programs and services on the Niagara Peninsula watershed to help adjust programs on an ongoing basis; and

CVC developed a strategic plan (2014) based on mandate and program areas. From that we have worked on Key Performance indicators. They remain a challenge for much of the work we do takes years to mature (e.g tree planting) or needs many more geographically linked projects to produce measureable results. CVC has undertaken several program reviews to identify and make improvements to the programs or services being offered.


2018-11-0990

• review, and revise as necessary, its annual and quarterly reports to better reflect how the NPCA’s initiatives and projects are helping the NPCA fulfill its mandate and overall program goals

7.1.1 NPCA Staffing Has Been Unstable with Frequent and Costly Restructurings

7.1.2 Improvements made in Human Resource Processes Since 2014, But Best Practices Still Frequently Not Followed

Recommendation 17

To ensure that the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) follows fair and transparent recruitment and promotion processes, and that the best-qualified individuals are hired and promoted, we recommend that the NPCA:

• update its recruitment policies to include the steps and documentation required to support hiring decisions and eliminate situations of real or perceived conflict of interest in recruitment and hiring;

• update its promotion policies to include the decision-making process required to be followed and documented for promotions and appointments;

• assess staff’s performance annually, as required by its policies; and

• provide quarterly updates to the NPCA Board of Directors on staffing changes and performance.

CVC has a solid human resources team that support and participate on all competitive hiring processes. Panel interviews are conducted to ensure a fair and transparent recruitment and selection process. They carry out job evaluations on proposed promotions which are then vetted through the Directors meetings. A documented justifiable rationale is also provided to support the right person in the right job. HR creates and updates policies to guide all aspects of the human resources portfolio which are also vetted through the Directors meetings. CVC recently went through a process to update the performance review process for all staff including casuals. Staff are assessed formally at the end or beginning of the work year and then have check-in’s at three – 4 month intervals CVC does not report on staffing issues to the board.

7.1.3 Staff Concerns Over Incidents Leading to Grievances and Complaints Not Always Addressed Appropriately by Management

Recommendation 18

To ensure compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Ministry of Labour’s Code of Practice, we recommend that the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA):

• for every harassment or discrimination complaint or grievance filed, fully assess and document whether an investigation is required and, if it is, conduct it in an appropriate and timely manner;

• use its ability, under its workplace harassment policy, to appoint an external investigator or develop mechanisms to ensure that complaints against the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) are investigated by a party who does not report directly to the CAO;

NPCA has some of their staff unionized. CVC does not have any unionized staff. Nevertheless, staff are encouraged to bring issues forward to management or HR to be resolved. Very few incidents over the last 4 years have been raised which all have been dealt with in a fair and timely manner. CVC policies on violence, harassment and discrimination clearly outline the investigation and reporting procedures and comply with relevant legislation. Where potential biases or conflicts are identified an external third party investigator will conduct the investigation. CVC does not report on personnel matters to the


2018-11-0991

and

• provide additional information on grievances, staff complaints and investigations, including their subject and financial implications, as part of confidential updates to the NPCA Board of Directors.

Board.

7.1.4 Staff Have Divided Opinions About NPCA Workplace Culture

Recommendation 19 To ensure the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) operates as effectively and productively as possible, without workplace issues hindering its operations unnecessarily, we recommend that the NPCA:

• develop and implement an action plan to address workplace concerns;

• present this action plan and related timeline to the NPCA Board of Directors for review and approval; and

• report on its progress in implementing the actions within the approved timeline.

CVC undertakes an anonymous staff survey every two years to gain insights as to staff issues and suggestions for improvement. We then use this information to discuss responses at the department level and guide corporate activities and changes. Through the years we have systematically addressed many of the complaints and improved the satisfaction level of staff

7.2.1 NPCA Has Not Taken Full Advantage of Cost Saving Opportunities Due to Procurement Practices

Recommendation 20

To ensure that the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) receives value for money spent on goods and services, we recommend that the NPCA:

• follow its procurement policies for the acquisition of goods and services;

• revise its procurement policies to require that any needed services associated with unsolicited proposals be obtained in a transparent and competitive manner;

• assess the benefits of establishing continuity and achieving cost savings from contracting with a preferred law firm for each field of law it requires services; and

• revise its procurement policies for legal services to implement the results of the above assessment.

CVC recently updated its procurement policies that were approved by the board in 2016. A detailed procedure and training were also implemented. Since 2015 CVC has been reporting annually to the board on the procurement activity with special attention to sole sourced or directly negotiated contracts based on the prior year. This demonstrates a commitment to transparency and accountability. CVC has developed preferred vendor lists to select services from based on price and service. CVC will always have incidents of directly negotiated contracts due to specialized equipment, unique partnership arrangements and skills requirements or continuation of work by specialized contractors.

7.2.2 Improvements in Managing Capital Spending Since 2015

Recommendation 21

To ensure that funds are available and that critical capital projects are completed in a timely manner, we

CVC is in the process of developing an asset management plan to guide investment in capital projects. States of good repair assessments and


2018-11-0992

an Important Step, But More Can Be Done

recommend that the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA):

• update the information in its asset management system to reflect the actual replacement cost of assets (when this information is available) and the estimated useful life of assets based on their condition;

• obtain reliable information to support replacement cost estimates and cost estimates for planned capital projects;

• prioritize capital projects using an objective assessment of needs;

• identify how the NPCA will obtain funding to undertake these projects; and

• • refine the capital plan, based on the above action items, and present it to the NPCA Board for approval.

lifecycle projections have been complete on facility assets and assessments are planned for structures. CVC is proposing to develop a capital plan for Board approval in 2019. The Plan will address any funding shortfall and assist to prioritize and track capital expenditures once the asset management plan is completed.

Recommendations to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (Ministry) and to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

5.1.1 Municipal Priorities Sometimes Conflict with Board Responsibilities

Recommendation 1

To ensure effective oversight of conservation authorities’ activities through boards of directors, we recommend that the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks clarify board members’ accountability to the conservation authority.

CVC’s code of conduct identifies that Board members are working on behalf of the CA when sitting on the board and are expected to uphold the policies and practices of the Authority and are not there to represent the Municipality. Board Members must ensure they are able to carry out their duties as duly appointed members of the Board of Directors by both meeting the Objects of the Conservation Authority Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.27 while also meeting the requirements under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50. To help ensure members of the CVCA Board of Directors are able to meet both of these requirements the CVC Code of Conduct Policy was established to provide guidance and direction.

5.2 Identifying Necessary Skills

Recommendation 4

We recommend that the Ministry of the Environment,

The Board appointees for CVC are sourced solely from municipal and regional councils. Unlike volunteer or


2018-11-0993

and Competencies Could Improve Board Effectiveness

Conservation and Parks:

• make a recommendation to the Executive Council of Ontario to proclaim Section 40 of the Conservation Authorities Act;

• once Section 40 is proclaimed, make a regulation prescribing requirements for board composition that result in board members having the independence and objectivity they need to fulfill their oversight responsibilities; and

• work with Conservation Ontario and conservation authorities to determine whether governance training should be developed and delivered province-wide for board members of conservation authorities.

other boards where members are sought based on certain skills, the CAs compete for members with other municipal committees and boards. We can ask in our appointment request letters that municipalities consider appointees who have skills in a variety of areas of interest to the CA but do not have the control to ultimately make the decision. CVC does provide governance training for the new board and includes information/education presentations at most board meetings about various programs/projects/functions of CVC to improve understanding of the members.

6.1 Identifying Flood-Prone Areas

Recommendation 8

To ensure that conservation authorities have complete and up-to-date information about flood risks within their watershed, we recommend that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry work with Conservation Ontario to:

• establish clear responsibility and criteria for developing and updating floodplain maps across the province; and

• review current funding levels to conservation authorities to determine how floodplain mapping can be completed in a timely manner.

CVC would welcome updated direction from MNRF on floodplain mapping and risk assessment, particularly as it relates to climate change and updated design storms. CVC would also welcome meaningful financial participation by MNRF in the development of floodplain maps and associated products.

8.1 Province Does Not Give Conservation Authorities Sufficient Direction and Guidance

Recommendation 22 To ensure that conservation authorities have the necessary information to interpret and fulfill their legislative mandate, we recommend that the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, upon proclamation of Section 40 of the Conservation Authorities Act:

• clearly describe for conservation authorities what the development of natural resources entails, and how it differs from “development” in general;

• provide guidance to help conservation authorities prioritize the objectives of their programs and

CVC welcomes a discussion with the province. However, the province will have to educate itself on CA programs and delivery before it provides advice. In the absence of provincial involvement, CAs have developed a number of guidance documents and processes that could be used as a starting point.


2018-11-0994

services (conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources);

• use its regulatory powers to establish minimum requirements and standards for conservation authorities’ delivery of programs and services; and

• establish the governance practices that it determines conservation authorities should be uniformly following province-wide.

8.2 Neither the Ministry nor Municipalities Know How Conservation Authorities Are Fulfilling their Mandate

Recommendation 23

To ensure that conservation authority boards of directors are held to account appropriately, we recommend that the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks work with municipalities to develop and implement a formal, cost-effective and purposeful reporting process that includes a discussion of the outcomes of conservation authorities’ activities.

CVC reports to all its municipal partners on activities and proposed budget. With the largest funder we provide a mid-year presentation to council as well as 3 variance reports on progress against budget and key deliverables.

8.3 Neither the Ministry nor Municipalities Can Step In to Address Serious Concerns with Conservation Authorities

Recommendation 24

To ensure that issues that are beyond conservation authorities’ ability to manage themselves are dealt with appropriately and in a timely manner, we recommend that the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (Ministry) work with municipalities to:

• determine the circumstances when Ministry and/or municipality intervention is warranted;

• establish mechanisms for the Ministry and/or municipalities to intervene when necessary in conservation authorities’ operations; and

• formalize such mechanisms through a memorandum of understanding between the Ministry, municipalities and conservation authorities that clearly establishes the roles and responsibilities of each party and when intervention is necessary.

We hope that we never need that intervention.


2018-11-0995

SCHEDULE ‘I’ PAGE -1-

2018-11-09



SUBJECT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COST

RECOVERY AND FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE PURPOSE: To provide the Board of Directors of CVC with an update of

cost recovery for the planning program and to seek approval of the 2019 fee schedules.

BACKGROUND: The guidelines established by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (2010) for collection of fees under Section 21 of the Conservation Authorities Act allows authorities to charge fees for permits, plan review services and response to legal, real estate and public inquiries. The fee schedules are not to exceed the costs associated with administering and delivering services on a program basis. A cost recovery strategy was developed in 2003 where fees would be collected associated with the review of planning applications and permits under CVC’s Regulation. The CVC Board of Directors provided direction to have development pay for development, be consistent to the extent possible with other conservation authorities (CAs) and municipalities, maintain reasonable costs for minor planning files, charging more for complex applications and keeping minor permit costs down to avoid property owners proceeding with development without permits that may result in violations. Fees have been adjusted over time to reflect volume and complexity of applications and to improve service delivery. The last substantial change to the fee schedules was made in 2016. Discussions with BILD were held which resulted in an agreement to a 25% increase in the fee for subdivision development. At the November 2016 Board meeting, the Board of Directors passed Resolution #82/16 stating “an update report on cost recovery and a review of the fee schedules (except for the $4,000 per net developable ha) be brought back to the Board of Directors in late 2018 for possible implementation in 2019”. ANALYSIS: Factors in Cost Recovery One of the major concerns with achieving cost recovery is that fees collected for urban development are dependent on a number of factors beyond CVC’s control including the economy, the pace, phasing and timing of development and market limitations to name

96


2018-11-09

a few. Leading up to 2018, a concerning trend from a budgetary perspective was the lack of subdivision development applications that were proceeding to the point where cost recovery could occur. However, in 2018 a number of large subdivisions have (or will in the last quarter of 2018) proceed to draft plan submission where 75% of the total fee is required. The subdivision developments include the former Ontario Power Generation (OPG) property in Mississauga and the Manors of Belfountain in Caledon. Mayfield West developments (six subdivisions) are also obtaining draft plan approval before the end of 2018 where the remaining 25% owing is collected. Future developments include the southwest Georgetown development in Halton Hills which is currently in the Secondary Plan approval stage which CVC shares with Conservation Halton. Mississauga will contribute with additional brownfield sites like the former Imperial Oil lands (and OPG property) which will move ahead with planning approvals in 2019.The lands in northwest Brampton (4,000 acres) will advance at some point but it has been stalled for a number of reasons including the Environmental Assessment for the GTA West Highway was cancelled. 60/40 Levy/Revenue Ratio The 60/40 standard has been established as a formula by most CAs for budget purposes requiring 60% revenue from development and 40% from general levy. The general levy component recognizes the significant effort and resources that are used for non-development related activities and to review and provide advice to municipalities (environmental advice, review of Official Plans, Secondary Plans, Zoning By-laws, provincial led initiatives, etc.). The development driven category includes revenue generated by subdivision development, site plans, consents etc. In 2016, at the direction of the Board, CVC developed a tracking system providing a statistical analysis of the amount of time spent on development review versus plan input which showed CVC was consistent with the 60/40 standard. Trends in Applications From a planning and permit application perspective, Table 1 below indicates a positive trend in the number of applications reviewed by staff since 2015 (2018 has been projected to the end of the year). It should be noted that the number of applications does not reflect the complexity and/or the technical review time associated with an application. Table 1:

Year Number of Plan Review Applications

Number of Permit Applications

Number of Real Estate/Property Inquiries

Number of Environmental Assessments

2015 161 367 146 15

2016 158 354 168 17

2017 171 373 144 14

2018 195 395 195 11

97


2018-11-09

It should also be noted that CVC has been very successful in minimizing costs on expensive OMB hearings, working with municipalities to resolve issues. As well, in comparison to other CAs, CVC has kept costs down on compliance/violation issues and court costs. Trends in Revenue The total revenue generated for 2015 was $541,000, 2016 was $716,000 and 2017 was $725,000 indicating an upward trend (see Table 2 below). 2018 revenues are significantly higher with projected revenues of $980,000 and a cost recovery rate of 75%. Table 2:

Year Revenue Cost of Program Cost Recovery %

2015 $541,000 $1.2 million 46%

2016 $716,000 $1.3 million 55%

2017 $725,000 $1.3 million 56%

2018 $980,000 $1.3 million* 75% *The cost of the program remains constant at $1.3 million regardless of increases to salaries since cost savings have been realized by a secondment and backfilling of positions, gapping in vacated positions, maternity leaves, etc. For 2018, the revenue from subdivision development was approximately $450,000 or 50% of the total $890,000. As a comparison, in 2017, subdivision revenue was $250,000 of $725,000 or 33% indicating that this type of development revenue is key to achieving the best cost recovery rate. Given the increase in cost recovery, it may be prudent to place some revenue in reserve for 2019 when most of the work will be undertaken for fees that come late in 2018.The remaining months of 2018 will be monitored in terms of revenue brought in and a decision will be made about deferring revenue into 2019. 2018 Fee Schedules The fee schedules remained similar to past years in terms of formatting and categories; one schedule for plan review (Schedule ‘I’, Appendix 1) and one for permitting (Schedule ‘I’, Appendix 2). The plan review schedule includes minor variance, consents, site plans, etc. which fees are collected by the municipality on behalf of CVC and subdivision, golf course development, etc. which fees are collected directly by CVC. For the plan review fee schedule where fees are collected by the municipality on CVC’s behalf, CVC has to be aware of the fee required by the municipality (e.g. minor variance fee needs to be less than the fee charged by municipal partners throughout the watershed). An inflationary increase of 3.5% (rounded to the nearest $5 increment for years 2017 and 2018) has been added for all categories as identified in Table 3 below.

98


2018-11-09

Table 3:

Application Collected By CVC 2018 Fees 2019 Fess (3.5% Increase)*

Minor Variance $300 $310

Consents (Severances)

Minor $700 Major $3,000

Minor $725 Major $3,100

Site Plan (Residential) $600 $625

Site Plan (Commercial, Industrial, Institutional)

Minor $1,500 Intermediate $4,000 Major $7,000


Site Plan (Multi-unit Buildings and Condominiums)



Site Plan Water Balance Review Only (WHPA Q2 Area)

$1,500 $1,550

Official Plan Amendment Minor $1,200 Intermediate $3,000 Major $6,000


Zoning By-law Amendment Minor $1,000 Intermediate $2,500 Major $6,000


*3.5% increase has been rounded to the nearest $5 increment.

The second category (fees collected by CVC) was subject to discussions with BILD in 2016 and an agreement that a charge of $4,000 per net developable hectares would be in effect until 2020. The fee is charged at three stages in the planning process and a final clearance fee required at the registration stage. The fee covers significant staff resources in the review of a planning process that may take years to complete and is becoming increasingly complex with CVC’s planning, technical and regulatory responsibilities. There are no changes recommended to the subdivision fees. The golf course and aggregate operations category (highlighted in Table 4) are recommended to be subject to the 3.5% inflationary increase. There are no changes recommended to the Class EA review fees since those are fees collected from the municipalities and the corresponding permit cost will be increased.

99


2018-11-09

Table 4:

Application-Collected by CVC

2018 Fees 2019 Fees (highlighted-3.5%

increase)

Subdivisions

Clearances

$4,000 per net ha 50% at EIR or EMP submission 25% at draft plan submission

25% at draft plan approval

Minor $5,000 Major $12,000

$4,000 per net ha 50% at EIR or EMP

submission 25% at draft plan

submission 25% at draft plan approval

Minor $5,000 Major $12,000

Golf Courses $15,250 $15,750

Aggregate Operations Minor $6,000 Intermediate $20,000

Major $60,000

Minor $6,200 Intermediate $20,700

Major $62,000

Class EA review-Schedule A

N/A Permit Fee Only N/A Permit Fee Only

Class EA review-Schedule B

$2,500 plus permit fee $2,500 plus permit fee

Class EA review-Schedule C

$5,000 plus permit fee (Additional fees may apply for

Master Plans)

$5,000 plus permit fee (Additional fees may apply

for Master Plans)

The following permit fee schedule (Table 5) includes the fees associated with small to major scale permits issued by CVC under the regulation. Select fees (highlighted) have been increased 10% on average. The 10% is partially to increase the fees from an inflationary perspective and to “catch up” to other CAs who have recently reviewed their fees.

100


2018-11-09

Table 5:

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN: All watershed municipalities will receive the 2019 fee schedules in advance of the start of the new year and the schedules will be posted on the CVC website for public viewing. BILD has been contacted about the fee increases and since no increase is

Ontario Regulation 160/06 Permit Applications

2108 Permit Fees 2019 Permit Fees (highlighted-10%increase)

Development Small Scale

$400 $450

Development Medium Scale

$1,200 $1,350

Development Large Scale

$3,200 $3,250

Development Major Scale

$5,100 $5,500

Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Watercourses and

Shorelines-Small Scale

$750 $800


Shorelines-Medium Scale

$2,000 $2,250


Shorelines-Large Scale

$6,000 $6,500


Shorelines-Major Scale

$10,000

$11,000

Permit for Minor Works $100 $150 with site visit

$150

Permit Revisions/Review of Repeat Submissions

Small scale: 25% of current fee

Others: 50% of current fee

Small scale: 25% of current fee


Expedited Review (Director approved-subject to resources

available)

Additional 100% of current fee

Additional 100% of current Fee

In Stream Timing Window Extension

Minor $500 Major $5000

Minor $500 Major $5000

Fill Placement (less than 500m3

) Large Fill Placement (greater

than 500m3)

$400 $10,000 plus $1.00 per m3

$400 $10,000 plus $1.00 per m3

Additional Site Visit $200 $200

Property Information

Solicitor/Realtor/Property Inquiry $300 $325

GIS Information Request/Service

$50-$75/hr..+HST $50-$75/hr.+HST

101


2018-11-09

recommended to the $4,000 per net hectare charge, BILD has responded that it is supportive of the report and would like a copy of the report when available. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The increases provided in the 2019 fee schedules will assist in meeting 2019 budgetary projections. A reserve account will be set up for revenues received in late 2018 to be deferred to 2019 when the majority of the review will be undertaken. CONCLUSION: The challenges in predicting revenue are factors beyond CVC’s control (the progress of development tied to the economy, market limitations, etc.). These factors have been highlighted in a concerning trend up until 2018 where revenues from subdivision development has significantly increased. The cost recovery rate for 2018 is 75% rising steadily from 2015. Applications for plan review, permits and property/solicitor inquiries have increased correspondingly. The proposed Plan Review fees have been increased by an inflationary rate of 3.5%. and some select permit fees increased by 10%. The proposed increases and modifications in the fee schedules will support the provision of planning and permitting services and allow CVC to continue to meet service delivery standards. RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION: RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “Planning and Development Services Cost Recovery/Fee Schedule Update” be received and appended to the minutes of this meeting as Schedule ‘I’; and THAT the Board of Directors approve the proposed 2019 plan review and permit fee schedules contained therein; and further THAT a reserve account be set up to defer revenues received late in 2018 for a review that will be undertaken in 2019. Submitted by:

__________________________ _____________________________ Gary Murphy RPP Jeff Payne Director, Planning and Development Services Director, Corporate Services

102


2018-11-09

Recommended by:

_____________________________ Deborah Martin-Downs CAO

103

SCHEDULE ‘I’, APPENDIX 1 (REVISED) PAGE -1-

2018-11-09

2019 CVC PLAN REVIEW FEE SCHEDULE

Application Collected by Municipality Fees*

Minor Variance $310

Consents (Severances) Minor $725 Major $3,100

Site Plan (Residential) $625

Site Plan (Commercial, Industrial, Institutional) Minor $1,550 Intermediate $4,150 Major $7,250

Site Plan Multi-unit Building & Condominiums

Clearances

Minor $6,200 Intermediate $12,425 Major $31,050 $2,075

Site Plan Water Balance Review Only (WHPA Q2 Area)

$1,550

Official Plan Amendment Minor $1,225 Intermediate $3,100 Major $6,200

Zoning By-law Amendment Minor $1,035 Intermediate $2,575 Major $6,200

Subdivisions

Clearances

$4,000 per net ha 50% at EIR or EMP submission** 25% at draft plan submission 25% at draft plan approval Minor $5,000 Major $12,000

Golf Courses $15,750

Aggregate Operations Minor $6,200 Intermediate $20,700 Major $62,000

Class EA review-Schedule A N/A Permit Fee Only

Class EA review-Schedule B $2,500 plus permit fee

Class EA review-Schedule C $5,000 plus permit fee (Additional fees may apply for Master Plans)

*Fees include HST **EIR refers to Environmental Implementation Report / EMP Environmental Master Plan NOTES

1. The application fee must be paid at the time of filing an application and/or within 30 days of CVC notification in writing. For outstanding payments, CVC may place the application on hold upon review until satisfactory arrangements are established.

2. When processing and reviewing consolidated applications (ZBA/OPA applications), the highest rate of fees will apply.

104


2018-11-09

3. Separate fees will apply for the processing of CVC permit approvals, with the exception of Subdivision applications.

4. CVC reserves the right to adjust fees should the review require a substantially greater or lower level of review including applicant-driven revisions to an approved plan/application.

5. CVC reserves the right to reassess fee requirements after two years of receipt of the application, based on timing and receipt of required technical information.

DEFINITIONS

1. Minor: an application is determined to be “Minor” where no technical studies are required. Minor for the purposes of administering clearance fees is a subdivision clearance of draft plan conditions that is administrative in nature with no technical studies (e.g. preparation of a letter after confirming that CVC is satisfied with the registration of the subdivision and review is limited to grading and sediment and erosion control plans, etc.).

2. Intermediate: an application is determined to be “Intermediate” where, as an example, a scoped Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is required.

3. Major: an application is determined to be “Major” where technical studies (e.g. EIS, stormwater management, geotechnical) are required. Major for the purposes of administering clearance fees is a subdivision clearance of draft plan conditions prior to registration which requires significant work to review and clear conditions and requires the review of technical information (stormwater management ponds, natural heritage system design, etc.).

105


2018-11-09

2019 CVC Permit Schedule

Ontario Regulation 160/06 Permit Applications Permit Fees

Development

Small Scale

$450

Development

Medium Scale

$1,350

Development

Large Scale

$3,250

Development

Major Scale

$5,500

Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to

Watercourses and Shorelines-Small Scale

$800


Watercourses and Shorelines-Medium Scale

$2,250


Watercourses and Shorelines-Large Scale

$6,500


Watercourses and Shorelines-Major Scale

$11,000

Permit for Minor Works $150

Permit Revisions/Review of Repeat Submissions Small scale:25% of current fee


Expedited Review (Director approved-subject to

resources available)

Additional 100% of current Fee

In Stream Timing Window Extension Minor $500

Major $5000

Fill Placement (less than 500m3 ) *

Large Fill Placement (greater than 500m3)

$400

$10,000 plus $1.00 per m3

Additional Site Visit $200

Property Information

Solicitor/Realtor/Property Inquiry $325**

GIS Information Request/Service $50-$75/hr.+HST

* 500m3 is equivalent to approximately 50 truckloads. ** HST applicable to Solicitor/Realtor/Property Inquiry. The $325 fee includes the HST. NOTES

1. The application fee must be paid at the time of filing an application. A permit will not be issued unless the application fee has been submitted.

2. CVC reserves the right to modify or adjust fees should the review require a substantially greater or lower level of review and/or assessment.

3. Fees related to review of repeat submissions will be determined by CVC depending on the number, completeness and quality of the repeat submissions.

106


2018-11-09

4. All permits are issued for two years. Permit extensions and/or renewals will not be granted. However, applicants may re-apply for re-issuance of a new permit for the original approved works in accordance with the most recent technical requirements.

5. For Permits associated with “Unauthorized Works” or a “Violation”, the fee will be double the applicable application fee.

6. For large fill placements, the CVC Procedural Guideline for receiving and processing applications to place fill in excess of 500 cubic metres should be referenced.

DEFINITIONS

1. Small Scale: an application is determined to be “Small Scale” where no technical studies are required.

2. Medium Scale: an application is determined to be “Medium Scale” where limited or scoped technical studies are required.

3. Large Scale: an application is determined to be “Large Scale” where technical studies are required.

4. Major Scale: an application is determined to be “Major Scale” where a number of technical studies are required (hydraulic analysis, storm water management, geotechnical, etc.).

5. Minor in the In Stream Timing Window Extension is applicable where the request to extend the timing window is made well in advance of the final date, is considered low risk and requires minimal review.

6. Major in the In Stream Timing Window Extension is applicable where the request to extend the timing window is made within less than a week of the final date and/or requires considerable review and effort by CVC staff.

107

Documents

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MEMBERS · PRESENTATION / DELEGATION 4.1 BADLANDS UPDATE - FALL 2018 Jeff Payne, Director, Corporate Services will give a presentation to the members on