Conservation Authorities Summary of Submitted 2014 Budgets · 2013-12-03 · • Secure a contract for services with OPG for the planting of 100,000 trees or find an alternate funding

Service Expense

Non Tax

Revenue

Net Property

Tax

Supported Expense

Non Tax

Revenue

Net Property

Tax

Supported Expense

Non Tax

Revenue

Net Property

Tax

Supported

Prop. Tax

Supported

(%)

Kettle Creek Conservation Authority 1,871 (1,506) 365 1,712 (1,338) 374 (159) 168 9 2.3%

Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority 2,333 (2,245) 88 2,378 (2,285) 93 45 (40) 5 5.5%

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority 12,058 (9,419) 2,639 12,010 (9,284) 2,726 (48) 135 87 3.3%

Total to Maintain Existing

Service Level16,262 (13,170) 3,092 16,100 (12,907) 3,193 (163) 263 100 3.2%

0 0 0.0%

3,193 100 3.2%

Note: All figures are subject to rounding.

2014 Budget Highlights: $ 000 %Maintaining Existing Service:

Kettle Creek Conservation Authority:9 2.3%

Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority:5 5.5%

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority: 87 3.3%

Increase/ (Decrease) over prior year budget 100 3.2%

Expenditures are forecasted to decrease approximately 0.4% as a result of reduced materials & supplies and capital contract costs. However, a decline in revenues of 1.4% is projected to offset this reduction in expenditures primarily due to the loss of provincial funding for the planning phase of the Source Water Protection program. The result is a 3.3% increase in the net budget.

Conservation AuthoritiesSummary of Submitted 2014 Budgets

($000's)2013 2014 Increase / (Decrease) Over Previous

YearRevised Budget Draft Budget

KCCA may lose funding support from long-term contracts with Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and the provincial Source Protection Program. The 2014 Budget request seeks only those funds necessary to maintain program and services at pre-OPG funding levels.

Re-establishing a technical position within the water management division, required due to an increase in planning and regulation transactions and to achieve necessary capacity in operation and management of critical flood and erosion control infrastructure

Service Adjustments Submitted

2014 Conservation Authorities AS SUBMITTED

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2014 Draft Budget for the City of London - December 3, 2013

_________________ Page 104

BUSINESS PLAN: Kettle Creek Conservation Authority

How does this service contribute to the results identified in the City of London Strategic Plan? A strong economy A vibrant and diverse

community A green and growing

City A sustainable

infrastructure A caring community

Kettle Creek Conservation Authority ensures the conservation, restoration and responsible management of water, land and natural habitats throughout the Kettle Creek Watershed, benefiting seven member municipalities and an approximate watershed population of 70,000. KCCA promotes an integrated watershed approach balancing human, environmental and economic needs for best results.

Name the main activities done to provide this service:

Name The Activities Done To Provide This Service

How Much Did We Do? (optional)

Is The City Mandated To Provide

This Service?

Can The Level Of Service Be Changed?

1. Environmental Monitoring (KCCA monitors water quality and quantity, biota and benthic invertebrates throughout the watershed to enhance and protect water quality and quantity)

• 180 sampling events at 55 monitoring stations throughout the watershed • 4 Level One Low Water Conditions declared in the past 5 years and one Level Two • Overall watershed grade trending upwards to “C+” in 2011 from “C-“ in 2008 • Five year update of the Watershed Report Card will be released in 2013

No No, not without significant impact to KCCA’s ability to show accountability for results

2. Flood Forecasting & Monitoring

• Average of 6 flood warnings per year protecting 585 residents & 278 structures in the floodplain

Yes No, mandated/legislated service under Conservation Authorities Act

Section 21, 28.


_________________ Page 105




This Service?


3. Forestry and Stewardship

• In 2013 KCCA planted its 1 millionth tree since 2001 • An average of 15,000 trees per year planted in the City of London in the past three years • KCCA has planted 59% (58,131 of 98,976) of the total trees planted in the City of London’s One Million Tree Challenge • On average 67 landowners receive $255,000 in grants to reforest 50 hectares of land per year • KCCA leverages $10,000 in stewardship grants to landowners to undertake erosion control, wetland creation and well decommissioning projects

No No, any change to the current service level would impair long-

term objectives of the watershed as established by the community and the Board of Directors. Increased

forestry and stewardship efforts are required to combat environmental

degradation of the watershed.

4. Environmental Planning

• On average staff review 100 planning and development applications and issue 40 permits for development, interference with wetlands and alterations to shorelines and watercourses

Yes No, mandated/legislated service under Conservation Authorities Act

Section 21, 28.

5. Education and Awareness

• 4,000 children reached per year through Children’s Water Festival and Carolinian Forest Festival • KCCA leverages funds to educate local students on the importance of wetlands

No No, any change to the current service level would impair long-

term objectives of the watershed established by the community and the Board of Directors. Growth is

already limited to that which can be supported by fundraising and self-

generated revenue.


_________________ Page 106




This Service?


6. Recreation

• 34 km of passive hiking trails • 2 campgrounds attracting over 10,000 visitors and an average of $60,000 in profit per year to support Authority programs and services

No No, any change to this program would severely impact KCCA’s main

source of self-generated funds.

7. Source Water Protection • First Kettle Creek Source Protection Plan to be approved by MOE in 2014

Yes No, mandated/legislated by the Clean Water Act, Section 4, 7(5).

What is the current state of this service?

Current Objectives / Milestones • In 2013, KCCA celebrated with its member municipalities and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) the planting of one million trees in the

KCCA watershed since 2001. To put this number into perspective, the Authority planted only 750,000 trees from 1965 – 2000. • Tree planting and stewardship programming continues to be the top environmental priorities identified by the community through

participation in KCCA’s community-based subwatershed strategies. • Tree planting and stewardship activities, such as wetland creation and erosion control, are increasing riparian buffer strips in the

watershed thereby enhancing habitat and stream health. Efforts are being tracked and recognized in the lower percentage of impaired streams in the watershed. KCCA’s tree planting and stewardship programs help reduce the amount of phosphorous entering the creek, and ultimately Lake Erie, thereby having a direct and positive impact on water quality and the reduction of blue green algae.

• Community buy-in to the programs and services offered by the Authority is evidenced by the increasing amount of landowners planting 1,000 trees or more and the Authority’s increasing fundraising success.

• Between 2012 and 2013, KCCA successfully fundraised $352,000 for on-the-ground stewardship projects as part of the Kettle Creek Clean Water Initiative, the Elgin Clean Water Program and the London/Middlesex County Clean Water Program.

• Kettle Creek Environmental Trust, a charity dedicated to raising funds for environmental works within the Kettle Creek watershed, will hire a Fund Development Coordinator in 2013 with a focus on leveraging additional funds for KCCA’s stewardship and environmental education programming.


_________________ Page 107

What is Driving This Service?

• The majority of KCCA’s programs and services (flood forecasting and warning, hazard management plan input and review, source water protection) are mandated under the Conservation Authorities Act and the Clean Water Act

• Programming decisions are made by a Board of Directors comprised of representatives from KCCA’s seven member municipalities • Community Based Watershed Strategies act as guiding documents and are available at www.kettlecreekconservation.on.ca

What is the future direction of this service? Emerging Issues and Challenges

• Since 2001 KCCA’s tree planting program has been supported by a contract for service with OPG. This $175,000 contract ends in 2013. The loss of this contract means KCCA cannot sustain the current service level of planting 100,000 trees per year in the watershed, an amount necessary to achieve the 30% forest cover necessary for biodiversity.

• Without a contract from OPG, KCCA’s service level will drop to 30,000 trees or lower per year. The potential loss of $175,000 to the budget would be devastating; any change to the levy forecast of 2.5% would detrimentally affect the ability of KCCA to sustain other programs and services, and staffing capacity to seek out other funding sources.

• It is anticipated that the Kettle Creek Source Protection Plan will be approved by the Ministry of the Environment in 2014. The Province of Ontario has fully funded the source protection planning process, including capacity building at each conservation authority, the writing of various reports and completion of the technical documents required to contribute to the completion of the Assessment Reports and Source Protection Plans. However, there is no clear indication from the Ministry of the Environment as to the level of financial commitment from the Province of Ontario for the implementation of the Source Protection Plans. The Clean Water Act and the source protection planning process was a program introduced by the Province in response to a province-wide concern about the safety of municipal drinking water. The Lake Erie Region Source Protection Committee strongly believes the Province should continue to fund the implementation of the Kettle Creek Source Protection Plan and is committed to requesting that this be done.

• Source Protection funds will no longer fund information technology support, such as internet services. KCCA will assume all of these costs starting in 2014 ($3,420 annually).


_________________ Page 108

http://www.kettlecreekconservation.on.ca/

What do you plan to do?

2014 • Secure a contract for services with OPG for the planting of 100,000 trees or find an alternate funding source to sustain the current level

of planting 100,000 trees per year ($175,000 per year). • Continue to deliver stewardship and environmental education programming by leveraging municipal dollars for federal, provincial and

private funding support. Any increase of this service will be dependent on fundraising success ($100,000 per year). • Assist the Kettle Creek Environmental Trust to establish a long-term funding source for stewardship and environmental educational

programming ($20,000 per year). • Implementation of the Kettle Creek Source Protection Plan (cost unknown at this time); approval of plan expected in 2014.

2015 – 2018 • Continue to invest in campground infrastructure to maintain or increase self-generated funds to at least 55% of total budget. • Improve in-house GIS capabilities to assist in targeting stewardship and forestry programs for best results; map and analyse progress.

Partnership possibility exists with County of Elgin to achieve cost efficiencies. • Investigate synergies with neighbouring conservation authorities for continued cost savings. Currently, Long Point Region Conservation

Authority, Catfish Creek Conservation Authority and Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority will be joining KCCA to undertake a joint Shoreline Management Plan.

• Manage capital infrastructure plan to ensure capital is being maintained without increased costs to the municipalities.


_________________ Page 109

Key Performance Indicators Description of measure 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

How Much? 1. Number of trees planted

*NOTE: Number of trees without OPG funding 100,000 100,000 Unknown 30,000* 30,000* 30,000* 30,000*

2. Value of stewardship projects completed (Kettle) $27,163 TBD $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 3. Value of stewardship projects completed (Elgin)

NOTE: KCCA coordinates the Elgin Clean Water Program $151,934 $296,763 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000

How Well? 4. Maintain or improve on Overall Watershed Benchmark

Grade of “C-“established in 2008. Full watershed report card to be released end of 2013.

“C+” “C+” “C+” “C+” “C+” “C+” “C+”

5. Funds raised for stewardship projects in London, Elgin and Middlesex County $72,000 $280,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000

6. Maintain or increase self-generated revenue to a minimum of 55% of total budget 58% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55% 55%

7. Maintain or increase salary dollars raised through employment grants $57,430 $32,185 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000

Is Anyone Better Off? 8. Number of landowners completing stewardship

projects in Kettle Creek Watershed 12 5 so far 15 15 15 15 15

9. % of impaired streams in the watershed 70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% 60% 10. # of people employed under employment programs 32 18 25 25 25 25 25


_________________ Page 110

2012 2013 2014

Object

ActualRevised

Budget

Maintain

Existing

Service

Service

Adjustments

Requested

Budget

Expenditures $ %

Administration 112 112 112 0 0.0%Wages and Benefits 910 897 14 911 14 1.6%Conservation Awareness 44 44 2 46 2 4.5%Conservation Lands 449 474 (175) 299 (175) (36.9%)Environmental Protection 289 289 289 0 0.0%Public Safety 55 55 55 0 0.0%

Total Expenditures 1,859 1,871 (159) 0 1,712 (159) (8.5%)

Revenue

User Fees (828) (810) (5) (815) (5) 0.6%Government Grant (119) (119) (119) 0 0.0%Other Municipal Levy (317) (328) (9) (336) (9) 2.6%Other Revenue (243) (249) 181 (68) 181 (72.7%)

Sub-total - Non Property Tax

Revenue(1,507) (1,506) 168 0 (1,338) 168 (11.1%)

Net Budget 352 365 9 0 374 9 2.3%

Additional Information / Commentary with respect to 2014 Draft Budget

Maintaining Existing Service Levels (Flow through from prior years, inflation, contractual obligations, efficiencies)

Kettle Creek Conservation Authority

($000's)2014 Budget As Submitted

Explanation of Adjustments

Increase/ (Decrease) Over

2013

In addition to inflation (garbage removal, septic maintenance on KCCA lands, fuel) and contractual employment obligations, KCCA faces the potential loss of a contract for tree planting services with Ontario Power Generation (OPG). KCCA's budget request is to maintain only those employees necessary for the continuation of mandatory services and pre-OPG planting levels. A loss of Source Protection Planning funds means KCCA must now absorb costs of internet services and other IT support as well.


_________________ Page 111

Budget Forecast

Object

Expenditures 1,871 1,712 1,785 1,839 1,894 1,951 80Non-Property Tax Revenue (1,506) (1,338) (1,400) (1,442) (1,485) (1,529) (24)Property Tax Supported (Net Budget) 365 374 386 397 409 422 56

Increase / (Decrease) Over Prior Year 9 12 12 12 13 56Increase / (Decrease) Over Prior Year % 2.3% 3.1% 3.0% 3.0% 3.1% 15.4%

Annual average increase: 2.9%

StaffingFull-Time Equivalents # 21.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0Increase / (Decrease) Over Previous Year (1.0) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Full-Time Employees # 11 11 11 11 11Increase / (Decrease) Over Previous Year 0 0 0 0 0

Additional Information / Commentary:

The loss of the OPG contract would result in the reduction of 1 FTE staff member as fewer trees would be planted.

The majority of KCCA staff are still moving through the pay grid. Cost of Source Water Protection implementation remains unknown beyond 2013. Likewise the impact on conservation authorities from the Ministry of Natural Resources' own fiscal restraint is still unknown and may impact KCCA's budget projection beyond 2014. KCCA continues to explore efficiencies with neighbouring conservation authorities and member municipalities. Currently, KCCA is leading the implementation of the Elgin Clean Water Program, a collaborative of the four conservation authorites in Elgin County, which provides cost-sharing incentives to landowners who implement stewardship projects on their lands. Pooling staff resources and fundraising efforts, the collaborative has raised over $320,000 for on-the-ground work. For 2014, the collaborative is exploring a joint Shoreline Management Plan for the entire stretch of Lake Erie shoreline within Elgin County. A joint plan will eliminate the retention of multiple consultants, thereby streamlining meeting and administrative work, resulting in real cost savings.

Kettle Creek Conservation Authority2014 - 2018 Budget Forecast & Staffing

($000's)

2013

Revised

Budget

2014 to 2018

Projected

Increase

2014

Requested

Budget

2015

Forecast

2017

Forecast

2018

Forecast

2016

Forecast


_________________ Page 112

BUSINESS PLAN: Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority



City A sustainable


The Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority serves the 10 member municipalities in the Lower Thames watershed including the City of London. LTVCA delivers services and programs to protect and manage water and other natural resources in partnership with government, landowners, and other organizations. As a result, lives and property are protected, natural habitats are preserved and restored, and research and monitoring of the environment are undertaken and reported upon.


Name The Activities Done To Provide This Service How Much Did We Do? (optional)

Is The City Mandated To Provide This

Service?


1. Flood Protection The LTVCA has a legislated mandate to provide flood protection for people and property within areas vulnerable to flooding. The system includes a precipitation and flow monitoring network and a series of channels, dykes, and water control structures which are operated to bypass flood prone areas.

2,500 flood vulnerable residences in Chatham, 25 vulnerable businesses on King Street; entire community of Thamesville located within flood plain; 45,000 acres of agricultural lands protected by dykes but vulnerable during ice jams or extreme flows.

Yes, the Authority is mandated to provide

the service, the cost of which is shared by

Ontario and the benefiting

municipalities.

No, mandated/legislated

service under Conservation

Authorities Act Section 21, 28.


_________________ Page 113



Service?


2. Environmental Planning & Regulations The LTVCA reviews planning and land use change applications for consistency with provincial policy (PPS) and the Authority’s regulatory responsibilities. The activity in this area has been increasing steadily since 2010 and reflects economic growth and intensification of land use. Service is carried out in accordance with policies and procedures approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources

1300 land use planning transactions; 166 permits issued under Section 28 Regulations in 2012.

Yes, plan input and review is undertaken to

support land use planning process and is

mandatory.

No, mandated/legislated

service under Conservation

Authorities Act Section 21, 28.

3. Conservation Services The LTVCA undertakes conservation services on authority-owned lands and private lands in accordance with Board approved plans to meet watershed management objectives. Financial resources include user fees, grants and donations, and municipal levies.

No

Yes, although the program responds to landowner demand, need and available resources. Climate

change and Great Lakes water quality issues will require an increase in the level of effort in

future years. 4. Provision of Outdoor Recreation Services

The LTVCA owns some 600 ha of conservation lands which are managed for a variety of natural resource, recreational, cultural and educational purposes. Revenues come from user fees, grants, donations and municipal levies. Land securement is part of an overall watershed management program, and assets are utilized to provide opportunities for public use.

No

Yes, although must be mindful of ability of

maintain self-generated revenues.


_________________ Page 114

What is the current state of this service? Current Objectives / Milestones • The LTVCA is implementing an adequate program with an extremely modest staff complement of 15 FTE’s. The program addresses the

provincially mandated responsibility of protection to life and property through the usual range of planning and regulatory instruments, coupled with a unique water management infrastructure particularly in the lower portion of the watershed (Chatham-Kent). In addition, the Authority is managing a greater volume of applications, inquiries and land use planning instruments, as well as referrals to the hearings board for applications that are outside of policy. Adequate response timelines are not being met in all cases.

• The LTVCA is implementing a “Greening Strategy” within and in partnership with the municipality of Chatham-Kent, to offset the devastating loss of Green Ash and Elm trees over the past decade, and to increase forest cover over time. This program has been successful at leveraging the municipal investment through the aggressive pursuit of complementary funding opportunities.

• Reforestation on private and public lands along with development of habitat improvement projects to support public access to natural areas. • Education (natural and cultural heritage) and recreation programs are being delivered to watershed (and visiting) schools and residents to

maximum capacity, supported in part through corporate sponsorship. • A number of these programs (or predecessors) have been ongoing since the LTVCA’s inception, although changes to the water management

regulations in 2006 have resulted in a larger portion of activities that fall within the regulatory scope. Environmental and economic changes are also significant. The programs and services are Board directed and are reviewed annually.

Challenges and Pressure Points • Aging infrastructure and increasing frequency of potential flood events (evidenced by the six events requiring operation of flood control

infrastructure through the end of August 2013). • Staff succession including new management in two key areas and a significant proportion of staff at or nearing retirement age. • Condition of lands and facilities is falling below standards for public health and safety, as human resources have been responding to more

emergent priorities (flooding, loss of Ash trees, etc.). • Economy in Southwestern Ontario has challenged municipal capacity to respond to needs of partner organizations.


_________________ Page 115

Recent Achievements • Improvements to IT to facilitate communication and collaboration between staff in two main locations • Contribution to GIS analysis of forest cover in Chatham-Kent in support of tree conservation strategy • Contribution to Planning Department review of Great Lakes Shoreline Development Policies • Participation in symposium evaluating phosphorus reduction strategies in Great Lakes basin • Publication of the first Watershed Report Card on forest health and water quality in the Lower Thames Watershed • Investigation of sharing and integration of streamflow monitoring system with the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority

What is the future direction of this service? Future Objectives • Each of the program components must be reviewed within the overall context of a watershed plan that identifies state of the resources,

desired future state and a strategic plan to get there. This will be a collaborative process with the community and the municipal partners. It is obvious that the challenges, if they are to be met responsibly, are beyond the capacity of the organization and its staff resources as it is presently constituted. A wide range of options must be explored including financing, governance, alternate delivery models, etc.

Emerging Issues and Challenges • Pending staff retirements present both challenges and opportunities. A complete operational review of programs and services necessary to

meet watershed objectives, coupled with a review of organizational capacity and structure, must be undertaken in 2014 • Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and current initiatives being undertaken by Ontario and Canada regarding success of past nutrient and

contaminant reduction strategies could result in demand for increased private land stewardship actions aimed at meeting Great Lakes (and especially Lake Erie) Water Quality Targets

• Anticipated increase in the number and frequency of extreme precipitation events, coupled with prolonged periods of drought, will tax the capacity of existing flood control infrastructure, monitoring and warning systems, and low water response capability.


_________________ Page 116


2014 • Complete upgrades and maintenance of all critical infrastructure to ensure operational capacity • Undertake a review of all Authority land holdings in collaboration with the community to establish new management objectives, operational

plans and budgets • Complete an organizational review and evaluate opportunities for alternate service delivery • Implement a succession plan to ensure continuity of critical programs and services • Review governance and Board process and amend as necessary • Continue program to remove woody debris from mouth of Thames River initiated in 2013

2015 – 2018 • Complete and implement a comprehensive watershed management strategy, in collaboration with member municipalities and other

stakeholders • Implement key strategies in partnership with all levels of government, organizations and landowners • Continue to develop organizational capacity to deliver on key programs • Implement a comprehensive nutrient and contaminant management program in conjunction with senior governments & landowners • Implement an ongoing debris removal program with senior government cost sharing at mouth of the Thames River


_________________ Page 117

Key Performance Indicators Description of measure 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

How Much? 1. Increased reliability in all aspects of

flood control infrastructure – eliminate equipment malfunctions

n/a 4 incidents

1 incident

0 incidents

0 incidents

0 incidents

0 incidents

2. Increased visitation and revenue at Conservation Areas (# of admissions) 24,000 25,000 28,000 32,000 36,000 40,000 44,000

How Well? 3. Improvements in timeliness and

accuracy of flood forecasts and related information bulletins

2 watershed conditions statements issued, no

flood messages required

Peak flows forecast for

Chatham within 12hrs & 30 cm of actual peak

flow experienced

Reduce margin of error to within

10hrs & 25 cm

Reduce margin of error to within 8hrs & 20 cm


Reduce margin of error to within 5hrs &

12.5 cm


4. Improved satisfaction of facility users through regular customer surveys, Facebook comments, etc

n/a 4 specific

complaints received

3 complaints

2 complaints

1 complaint

0 complaints

0 complaints

Is Anyone Better Off? 5. Avoid damage to life and property in

flood prone areas $0 in

property damage,

no lives lost

$0 in property damage,

no lives lost


no lives lost


no lives lost


no lives lost


no lives lost


no lives lost 6. Contribute to Healthy Living movement

by encouraging public to participate in outdoor recreation opportunities

4 special events

6 special events

8 special events

10 special events

12 special events

14 special events

16 special events


_________________ Page 118

2012 2013 2014

ObjectActual Revised

Budget

Maintain Existing Service

Service Adjustments

Requested Budget

Expenditures $ %Flood Control 220 228 10 238 10 4.4%Erosion Control 23 24 5 29 5 18.8%Flood Forecasting & Warning 206 213 15 228 15 7.0%Planning and Regulation 38 40 15 55 15 37.5%Technical Studies 13 13 13 0 0.0%Conservation 157 171 171 0 0.0%Conservation and Recreation 449 466 466 0 0.0%Community Relations 150 156 156 0 0.0%Conservation Education 110 111 111 0 0.0%Ska-Nah-Doht Iroquoian Village 229 237 237 0 0.0%Groundwater Monitoring 12 12 12 0 0.0%Employment Programs (Fed/Prov) 100 100 100 0 0.0%Watershed Planning-Source Protection 230 25 25 0 0.0%Technical Studies-Generic Regulations 68 71 71 0 0.0%Chatham-Kent Greening Project 163 168 40 208 40 23.8%Aerial Photography 10 11 11 0 0.0%Fed/Prov Dyke Maintenance 0 0 50 50 50 0.0%McGregor Creek-Gen Set Repair 22 0 10 10 10 0.0%McGregor Creek-Rivard Dam Repair 7 0 50 50 50 0.0%McGregor Creek-Brushing Project 0 250 (150) 100 (150) (60.0%)Community Trees Initiative 0 21 21 0 0.0%Union Gas Centennial Project 41 16 16 0 0.0%Simcoe Seawall 740 0 0 0 0.0%

Total Expenditures 2,988 2,333 45 0 2,378 45 1.9%

Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority


Explanation of AdjustmentsIncrease/ (Decrease) Over

2013


_________________ Page 119

Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority


2012 2013 2014


Budget


Service Adjustments

Requested Budget

Revenue $ %Government Grants/Subsidies (976) (509) (509) 0 0.0%User Fees (564) (596) (596) 0 0.0%Foundation Grants/Revenues (41) (41) (41) 0 0.0%Other Municipal Levy (1,323) (1,099) (40) (1,139) (40) 3.6%

Sub-total - Non Property Tax Revenue (2,904) (2,245) (40) 0 (2,285) (40) 1.8%

Net Budget 84 88 5 0 93 5 5.5%Additional Information / Commentary with respect to 2014 Draft BudgetMaintaining Existing Service Levels (Flow through from prior years, inflation, contractual obligations, efficiencies) Re-establishing a technical position within the water management division, which existed until April 2012, bringing division complement to 3 from 2. Position is required due to a 50% increase in planning and regulation transactions; and to achieve necessary capacity in operation and management of critical flood and erosion control infrastructure. Frequency and intensity of events requiring additonal monitoring, forecasting, warning and operations is increasing as predicted. Position is strictly to maintain existing levels of service and satisfy additional demand.

Explanation of AdjustmentsIncrease/ (Decrease) Over

2013


_________________ Page 120

Budget Forecast

ObjectExpenditures 2,333 2,378 2,496 2,621 2,752 2,890 557Non-Property Tax Revenue (2,245) (2,285) (2,399) (2,519) (2,645) (2,777) (532)Property Tax Supported (Net Budget) 88 93 97 102 107 113 25Increase / (Decrease) Over Prior Year 5 5 5 5 5 25Increase / (Decrease) Over Prior Year % 5.5% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 28.2%


StaffingFull-Time Equivalents # 20.0 21.0 21.0 22.0 22.0 23.0Increase / (Decrease) Over Previous Year 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0Full-Time Employees # 15 16 16 17 17 18Increase / (Decrease) Over Previous Year 1 0 1 0 1


Future increases and additional staffing requirements are anticipated as a result of the implementation of a comprehensive nutrient and contaminant management program and increased needs in land management operations and conservation areas. These needs will become more defined upon completion of the LTVCA's organizational review that will be completed in 2014.

Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority2014 - 2018 Budget Forecast & Staffing

($000's)

2013 Revised Budget

2014 to 2018 Projected Increase

2014 Requested

Budget

2015Forecast

2017Forecast

2018Forecast

2016Forecast


_________________ Page 121

BUSINESS PLAN: Upper Thames River Conservation Authority



City A sustainable


The Upper Thames River Conservation Authority serves the 17 member municipalities in the Upper Thames watershed including the City of London. Our mandate is to:

1. Protect people and their property from flooding and erosion (public safety through operation of dams, dykes, flood forecasting and warning, plan review, floodplain regulations).

2. Protect and enhance water quality. 3. Manage and preserve natural areas. 4. Provide outdoor recreation opportunities.

The UTRCA provides this service regionally to best protect watershed health in a cost effective manner on behalf of its member municipalities. London’s share of the total UTRCA budget is approximately 23% with the balance of revenue coming from other municipalities, user fees, contracts and a token provincial transfer payment.




Service?


1. Flood Protection: Protect people and their property from flooding and erosion (e.g., public safety through operation of dams, dykes, flood forecasting and warning, plan review, floodplain regulations, wetland securement, community education, etc.).

Yes No, mandated/legislated service under Conservation Authorities Act Section 21,

28.


_________________ Page 122



Service?


2. Protect and Enhance Water Quality (e.g., monitoring, implementation of conservation projects on private land, tree planting, wetland securement, community education, etc.)

• Continue to monitor >200 sites per year

• 70,000 trees planted • > 400 conservation

projects

No Yes

3. Manage and Expand Natural Areas (e.g., tree planting, ESA management, land securement, plan review services, community education, etc.)

No Yes, with limitations (liability risks)

4. Provide Outdoor Recreation Opportunities (e.g., camping, trail development, expanded public access to CA lands, fishing, boating, etc.)

• 450,000 visitors per year to three Conservation Areas

No, although no City

funding is provided

Yes, but must be mindful of sustaining self-generated

revenues

What is the current state of this service? • Services provided by the UTRCA are stable but inadequate at present. Organizational goals include comprehensive flood protection,

improved water quality and expanded natural cover throughout the watershed. Current organizational capacity only allows us to maintain the status quo as far as environmental targets. The UTRCA’s Watershed Report Cards produced during the past 12 years have confirmed existing services are only capable of maintaining watershed health at its current level, which has been widely confirmed by the community as inadequate. Even this achievement may be in jeopardy as a result of additional stresses including urban growth, agricultural intensification and a changing climate. Municipal and public demand has been for local watershed health improvement. This will only be possible with additional investment in services.

• More specifically, flood control services are critical for public safety, however changing weather patterns with more frequent and intense storms are requiring more monitoring, revised flood prediction modeling and infrastructure upgrades to meet new levels of flood risk. Public demand for improved water quality and protection of/access to natural areas is challenged by ever increasing pressure on those resources and funding limits. Additionally, municipalities, developers and the general public are demanding real time digital access to environmental information, in part, to support development applications. Investment in information management systems are required to meet this demand and to allow for more informed decision making.


_________________ Page 123

• The UTRCA Board of Directors approved a Municipal Levy Investment Plan in 2011 that called for $900K in new municipal funding over four years. However, a variety of factors limited the plan’s implementation including requests from municipalities to minimize increases, staff’s ability to finance work from other revenue sources, as well as the conscious deferral or reduction of work for austerity reasons. In terms of the overall success of the four-year plan, the UTRCA will achieve only 50% of the four-year plan’s funding goals. While this obviously does not support the expected and necessary investments in services, it is a reflection of municipal economic challenges and the UTRCA’s attempt to balance fiscal responsibility with program needs.

What is the future direction of this service? • Given the limited improvements in service between 2011 and 2014, priorities for the future remain the same; improvements in flood

protection, water quality, natural areas expansion and information management. With only 50% of service improvement goals being met, it is expected the Board of Directors will draft a new four-year Municipal Levy Investment Plan for the period 2015-2018 to continue to make progress in achieving environmental targets.


2014 • The proposed levy increase for 2014 will be used to support the existing four-year plan in the following manner:

• Land Management Capacity Investment – Additional staff capacity is required to meet minimum land management standards including maintaining property integrity (e.g., wetlands) and acceptable levels of risk management. This phased investment is part of a long-term strategy that addresses significant past funding cuts.

• Information Management Investment – Public and municipal demand for online, real-time access to environmental information is increasing. The volume of available information is also increasing. Investment in hardware, software and data management is required.

• Flood Control Monitoring Improvements – Model updates, improved river cross-section surveys and inclusion of climate change predictions will lead to more accurate flood predictions.

• The 2014 requested increase has been reduced from the original plan and several items are being deferred. The UTRCA’s proposed budget increase is a pragmatic attempt at balancing program investment needs with fiscal responsibility.


_________________ Page 124

2015 – 2018 • Since the funding objectives of the 2011-2014 Municipal Levy Investment Plan have not been achieved, it is assumed the UTRCA Board

of Directors will approve a new investment plan to phase increases through the 2015-2018 period. A new Municipal Levy Investment Plan will be developed by the new Board of Directors once their term begins in 2015. Increases included in this budget document are considered reasonably accurate place-holders for amounts that must be approved by that future Board. A new strategic plan is scheduled for 2015. At this time it is assumed incremental investment in existing services and capital upgrades will be identified but that no new large initiatives have been planned.

Key Performance Indicators

Description of measure 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 How Much?

1. Number of Planning Inquiries and Permits Issued 1,705 1,720 1,735 1,750 1,765 1,780 1,800 2. Hectares of Land Actively Managed 11,500 11,600 11,800 12,000 12,200 12,400 12,600 3. Number of Water Quality Monitoring Stations 206 206 212 212 220 220 225 4. Number of Trees Planted 70,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 110,000

How Well? 5. Water Quality Report Card Score

(published every 5 years) Maintain/ improve existing scores

Maintain/ improve existing scores






6. Natural Heritage Report Card Score (published every 5 years)








Is Anyone Better Off? 7. Number of Conservation Projects Completed 447 456 463 470 475 480 490


_________________ Page 125

2012 2013 2014


Budget


Service Adjustments

Requested Budget

Expenditures $ %Wages & Benefits 5,848 5,699 68 5,767 68 1.2%Staff Expenses 116 112 15 127 15 13.4%Materials & Supplies 2,202 1,618 (102) 1,516 (102) (6.3%)Capital-Contracts and Capital Mtce & Flood Ctrl & Op. Resv.

1,201 998 (73) 925 (73) (7.3%)

Taxes/Insurance/Safety 418 440 0 440 0 0.0%Utilities 300 295 0 295 0 0.0%Legal Fees 26 20 0 20 0 0.0%Other Expenses 303 61 (30) 31 (30) (49.2%)Allocated Costs: (Includes occupancy,information systems, motor pool, marketing andcommunications, administration, and finance)

2,664 2,815 74 2,889 74 2.6%

Total Expenditures 13,078 12,058 (48) 0 12,010 (48) (0.4%)Revenue

Direct Revenue (6,158) (5,571) (256) (5,827) (256) 4.6%Direct Donations (116) (167) 56 (111) 56 (33.5%)MNR Grants (Flood Control) (351) (351) 0 (351) 0 0.0%Other Provincial Sources (2,607) (1,451) 453 (998) 453 (31.2%)Federal Sources (251) (119) (12) (131) (12) 10.1%Reserves 424 (231) 109 (122) 109 (47.2%)Other Municipal Levy (General, Dam/FloodControl and Specific) (1,469) (1,529) (215) (1,744) (215) 14.1%

Sub-total - Non Property Tax Revenue (10,528) (9,419) 135 0 (9,284) 135 (1.4%)Net Budget 2,550 2,639 87 0 2,726 87 3.3%Additional Information / Commentary with respect to 2014 Draft Budget

Expenditures are projected to decrease by approximately 0.4% as a result of reduced materials and supplies and capital contract costs (resulting from projects that will be completed in 2013), partially offset by a nominal increase in wages & benefits and inflationary increases in allocated administrative and overhead costs. Revenues are forecasted to decrease by approximately 1.4% primarily because of a loss of funding from the province for Source Water Protection planning activities, which will be completed in 2013. Additionally, reserve-funded revenues and direct donations are also projected to decrease as a result of the completion of projects in 2013.

Maintaining Existing Service Levels (Flow through from prior years, inflation, contractual obligations, efficiencies)

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority


Explanation of Adjustments Increase/ (Decrease) Over

2013


_________________ Page 126

Budget Forecast

ObjectExpenditures 12,058 12,010 12,044 12,027 12,250 12,500 442Non-Property Tax Revenue (9,419) (9,284) (9,155) (8,983) (9,100) (9,250) 169Property Tax Supported (Net Budget) 2,639 2,726 2,889 3,044 3,150 3,250 611Increase / (Decrease) Over Prior Year 87 163 155 106 100 611Increase / (Decrease) Over Prior Year % 3.3% 6.0% 5.4% 3.5% 3.2% 23.2%


StaffingFull-Time Equivalents # 106.5 106.5 106.5 107.5 107.5 107.5Increase / (Decrease) Over Previous Year 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0Full-Time Employees # 71 71 71 72 72 72Increase / (Decrease) Over Previous Year 0 0 1 0 0


An additional staff member is tentatively anticipated in 2016 to assist in meeting minimum land management standards.

Future year forecasted increases are considered reasonably accurate place-holders, pending approval of a new investment plan in 2015 by the new incoming Board of Directors. The increases projected for 2015 and 2016 reflect the need to address the funding objectives of the 2011-2014 Municipal Levy Investment Plan that were not achieved for austerity reasons.

Upper Thames River Conservation Authority2014 - 2018 Budget Forecast & Staffing

($000's)

2013 Revised Budget

2014 to 2018 Projected Increase

2014 Requested

Budget

2015Forecast

2017Forecast

2018Forecast

2016Forecast


_________________ Page 127

Documents

Conservation Authorities Summary of Submitted 2014 Budgets · 2013-12-03 · • Secure a contract for services with OPG for the planting of 100,000 trees or find an alternate funding