INDEX TO
BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD MEETING #2/11
Friday, October 14, 2011
MINUTES Minutes of Meeting #1/11, held on April 8, 2011 70
PRESENTATIONS Dillane, Jim, Director, Finance and Business Services, TRCA re: 2012 Preliminary Capital Estimates and Operating Budget Guidelines 70
2012 PRELIMINARY CAPITAL ESTIMATES AND OPERATING BUDGET GUIDELINES 71
PARTICIPATING MUNICIPALITY FUNDING New Municipal Funding Arrangements Policy 82
PLANNING AND PERMIT ADMINISTRATION COST RECOVERY 82 MEETING OF THE BUDGET/AUDIT ADVISORY BOARD #2/11 October 14, 2011
The Budget/Audit Advisory Board Meeting #2/11, was held in the Victoria Room, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, October 14, 2011. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m.
PRESENT Arrival Time Departure Time Maria Augimeri 12:00 p.m. 1:30 p.m. Member David Barrow 12:00 p.m. 1:30 p.m. Member Bob Callahan 12:00 p.m. 1:30 p.m. Member
ABSENT Gerri Lynn O'Connor Chair Dave Ryan Member
RES.#C9/11 - MINUTES
Moved by: Bob Callahan Seconded by: David Barrow
THAT the Minutes of Meeting #2/11, held on April 8, 2011, be approved. CARRIED ______
PRESENTATIONS
(a) A presentation by Jim Dillane, Director, Finance and Business Services, in regard to item BAAB7.1 - 2012 Preliminary Capital Estimates and Operating Budget Guidelines.
RES.#C10/11 - PRESENTATIONS
Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Bob Callahan
THAT above-noted presentation (a) be heard and received. CARRIED ______
70 SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION
RES.#C11/11 - 2012 PRELIMINARY CAPITAL ESTIMATES AND OPERATING BUDGET GUIDELINES Recommends approval of 2012 preliminary capital estimates and operating budget guidelines
Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Bob Callahan
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the preliminary estimates for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) 2012 - 2021 participating municipality capital budgets, as outlined in Attachment 1, be approved for submission to the respective municipalities;
THAT the preliminary estimates for the 2012 operating budget make provision for a cost of living adjustment of three per cent (3%) effective in April, 2012;
THAT the preliminary estimates for the 2012 operating budget include municipal levy increases consistent with the guidelines determined by the respective participating municipality;
AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to submit the 2012 preliminary estmates to the City of Toronto, the regional municipalities of Peel, York and Durham, the Town of Mono and the Township of Adjala-Tosorontio in accordance with their respective submission schedules. CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA has begun the process of submitting preliminary estimates to its municipal funding partners. The process began in May and submissions have been made to staff of the various participating municipalities commencing in July. TRCA staff has met with staff of the regions of Peel, Durham and York and the City of Toronto to present TRCA budget requirements. Meetings with Peel, York and Durham included representatives of the other conservation authorities which have jurisdiction in those regions.
Meetings with the participating municipalities to finalize the budget will occur over the next five months. Each jurisdiction has its own unique process to be followed for the budget submissions which ultimately must be approved by the respective municipal councils.
Staff is presenting the summary level information on the capital budget requests submitted to each jurisdiction. Staff has not provided details of the operating estimates because the detail is subject to considerable change between now and the end of February when TRCA has the results of the funding decisions of its municipal partners and TRCA's 2011 year end results.
71 RATIONALE Operating Budget Staff is in process of completing the preliminary estimates for the 2012 operating budget. As always, staff will recommend a final budget in which expenditures are equal to the revenues including revenue from operations, grants and municipal levy. Municipal levy accounts for about one third of the annual operating budget.
Expenditures At this time, staff estimate an increase in expenditures of 4.9% or about $1.7 million. Pressures on the operating budget include an increase in OMERS contributions of 1% (about $285,000), health benefit cost increases of 1.8%, property insurance costs, rising energy costs as well as annualization of salary changes in 2011.
Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) TRCA salary and wage COLA adjustments have been: 2009 0% 2010 2% 2011 0% in 2012, staff recommends a 3% COLA effective the first pay in April of 2012. This will cost an estimated $439,000. The effect of the 3% increase averaged over 5 years is about 1% annually. This is well below most municipal increases over the same time frame.
Preliminary estimates provide for maintenance of existing programs and services at the 2011 level of service. Any additional new services to be introduced in 2012 will be funded from non-municipal levy sources. Additional staffing is for the most part in area of seasonal and part-time staff or in programs that have additional, non-levy funding.
Revenues MUNICIPAL LEVY As a separate report, staff has described a proposed change to the traditional funding arrangements which would result in additional municipal levy from the Regions. Provision is made for a modest levy increase in 2012 of $225,000. To date, staff at the City of Toronto are recommending a flat lined TRCA levy (0%) in 2012. Staff at the regions of Peel and York are considering increases in 4 to 4.5% range. The guideline at the Region of Durham for conservation authority operating funds is 2%.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES As a separate report, and at the direction of the Authority, staff has recommended a program to increase planning and development fees to achieve 100% recovery of costs to process development applications. In 2012, the preliminary estimates make provision for a 5.8% increase in planning fees. If the Authority approves the planning fee proposal, staff project that additional funds will be available and those projections can incorporated in the 2012 final budget.
72 CONSERVATION (THE LIVING CITY) FOUNDATION In previous budgets, TRCA has relied on up to $800,000 in unrestricted revenue from the Foundation. The 2012 operating estimates include no funding from the Foundation which is a pressure since in past years such funding has been included (although not realized). In future, staff will apply unrestricted funds from the Foundation in the year following the year in which the funds are secured. These funds will be applied first to offset any cumulative deficit.
OPERATING REVENUES In total, about $1 million of additional operating revenue from planning fees, interest earnings, various parks fees and other programs is included. This represents an increase of about 4.4% over 2011. These estimates will be refined when staff complete the 2011 year end results.
PROVINCIAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS Staff aniticipate that once again there will be no increase in provincial transfers estimated at $846,000. This issue has persisted for more than 10 years. Conservation Ontario continues to meet with the province and lobby for additional funding.
ROUGE NATIONAL PARK In 2011, the Government of Canada announced support for creation of the Rouge National Park. Representatives of Parks Canada have met with the Rouge Park Alliance, Rouge Park staff and TRCA staff to initiate the process to create the National Park. Staff is hopeful that some level of funding for this work may be available in 2012 but nothing is budgeted.
Capital Budgets Staff has completed the municipal portion of the 2012-2021 capital program. Participating municipalities usually require that TRCA provide 10 year capital budget projections and each municipality has their own requirements and format for this information. Obviously, most attention is paid to the 2012 and 2013 capital programs.
Attachment 1 includes summary tables for each of the following: City of Toronto, regions of Peel, York and Durham. Staff prepares for the City and Peel and York Regions, budget binders which include detailed information on each capital project and program. These binders are in the process of being finalized and will be available to Members who require them.
CITY OF TORONTO The capital submission is based on core funding for longstanding programs which meet the existing City of Toronto targets. The City funds TRCA capital programs from both debt and water reserve funding, in roughly 50/50 proportions. The City annual debt guideline for TRCA is $3 million and has remained unchanged for many years. The portion of the capital from water reserves has increased marginally, about 2 to 3% annually.
Funding from the City remains inadequate to meet critical state of good repair and infrastructure requirements of TRCA's work within the City. Erosion sites, shoreline protection and repairs to waterfront parks require additional commitment from the City. Accordingly, in 2010, staff prepared a prioritized list of critical infrastructure needs which are additional to the core funding request. This list was extensive and reflected the fact the capital funding from the City has been inadequate in terms of asset maintenance for many years.
73 In 2011, the City of Toronto agreed to fund an additional $5 million in critical erosion and flood management works. This work is being completed and TRCA asked for the same amount in 2012 to continue to deal with the back log of state of good repair projects in the City. The City determined that $2 million could be made available for erosion work on the Meadowcliffe project and flood work in Hogg's Hollow, although this amount has yet to be finalized.
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK The capital submission is based on core funding for longstanding programs. York Region guidelines provide for an increase in core programs of no more than 4.5%. Staff has met this guideline.
In the 2012 submission, staff has included a list of priority projects reflecting needs that extend beyond the core funding. The Region has made a significant investment in conservation programs but there is still much to be done. TRCA staff anticipate making a submission to the Region's Finance and Administration Committee to request support for these additional projects.
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL The capital submission is based on core funding for longstanding programs. Peel Region guidelines provide for some increase in key programs and require TRCA to submit a rationale to demonstrate needs beyond the guidelines. The 2012 capital program is based on estimates submitted as part of the 2011 program.
Staff made a presentation to Regional Council in June of 2011 outlining accomplishments of the climate change adaptation and mitigation programs from 2007 to 2010. Staff will do a further presentation to Regional Council in October describing the 2012 program.
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM Capital funding for Durham Region totals $825,000. Included is $125,000 as Durham's share of a pooled capital program for groundwater management in which TRCA holds funds from participating municipalities spent at the discretion of a steering committee of regional works and conservation authority staff. TRCA's capital funding from Durham is $700,000 which has remained the same since about 2004.
The 2012-2021 Durham submission includes significant increases to meet the backlog of needs in Durham. Staff of the five conservation authorities have met with Planning Department and Finance Department staff to consider growing unmet needs of the five conservation authorities. Staff also made a presentation to the Region Planning Committee describing the work of the five conservation authorities and its importance to the growth of the Region. Staff has recently been advised that Durham Regional Council approved 2012 budget guidelines that have once again frozen capital funding to the five conservation authorities and recommended a 2% increase in operating funds.
2011 Projected Year End Results Staff has completed variance reports to the end of August, 2011 and projecting revenue and expenditures to year end. The projection is that 2011 actuals will be very close to the approved budget. Less than budgeted revenue due to lower attendance at some parks and Black Creek Pioneer Village is being off set by expenditure reductions. Interest revenues are slightly higher than budgeted. 74 In terms of capital, the Petticoat Creek Pool project is on track: $3 million project of which $1.2 million will be spent in 2011 to complete the work. The funding shortfall in 2011 is projected to be about $400,000 to bring the total funding shortfall to $1 million. This amount will be repaid from Petticoat pool revenues as reported and agreed to by the Authority in approving the project. Overall, staff project that the capital budget will be on target and should produce the $300,000 surplus to be used to offset a portion of the cumulative deficit.
Cumulative Deficit Position As of December 31, 2010, the cumulative "cash basis" deficit for operating and capital was $2.4 million of which $1.7 million related to general operations and $600,000 to the Petticoat creek pool project. $75,000 related to the final payment toward the capital cost of the Restoration Services Centre building which will be paid in full in 2011.
TRCA has no debt. The cash flow position has always been very positive and this continues in 2011. Based on the projected year end results, the cumulative "cash basis" deficit will be about $2.5 million of which $1 million will be related to the repayment of the Petticoat Creek Pool project and $1.5 million would be related to operations.
As of December 31, 2010, the book value of TRCA tangible assets was $518.2 million and the unamortized balance or net book value is $402.2 million.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Following year end, the 2012 - 2021 capital budget can be finalized and will include the municipal capital projects as approved by the respective participating municipalities as well as all other capital projects such as Waterfront Toronto work and land acquisition.
The operating estimates will become final following year end at which time staff can determine the impact of reserve contributions and any decisions made by the Authority relating to the proposed 100% recovery of planning and development fees. With respect to the latter, staff has included a modest increase in planning fees of 5.8% and will apply new fees if approved. Also, staff await direction from the Authority that the 3% COLA is to be implemented and that the proposed changes to the municipal levy formula are to proceed.
Staff is prepared to describe in detail the capital projects and programs included in the submissions at the meeting of the Board or at the Authority on October 28th. Approval of the preliminary estimates by the Authority enables staff to go forward with discussions knowing that the Chair and members are in support of the proposed projects and programs subject to the funding capacity of the respective municipal jurisdictions.
Report prepared by: Jim DIllane, extension 6292 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Jim Dillane, extension 6292 Emails: [email protected] Date: October 05, 2011 Attachments: 4
75 ! " # Attachment 1 $%&'%$$
() ** " !! + , - .! !/ 0 12 3 45%6%%% 456%%% $$%6%%% $6%%% $776%%% ''&6%%% 83 0 9 68 0 4756%%% 4$%&6%%% 4$'&6%%% 4$'6%%% 4$:6%%% 4$&6%%% ; 2 4$'6%%% 4$'6%%% 4$%6%%% 4$%6%%% 4$6%%% 4$6%%% 0 4&6%%% 456%%% 456%%% 4:6%%% 47%6%%% 4$%%6%%% 3<= 4'%6%%% 4'6%%% 4%6%%% 4%6%%% 4%6%%% 4%6%%% 3< 4%6%%% 46%%% 4&%6%%% 4&6%%% 45%6%%% 4:%6%%% > 2 ? 4'%:6%%% 4'6%%% 4'76%%% 4'56%%% 4'5:6%%% 4'&6%%% 2 @ A 46%%% 4:6%%% 6%%% $$&6%%% $:'6%%% $:6%%% 0 ! " # 3 4$6%%% 4$6%%% 4$56%%% 4$6%%% 4$76%%% 4':56%%% 3$! 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% $!
1B31 ! 4:'6%%% 4:76%%% 477%6%%% 4$6$%6%%% 4$66%%% 4$66%%%
*)% !&# .!/
#' 4% 4$%%6%%% 4'5'6%%% 46%%% 4:$&6%%% 4$6%::6%%% 83 3 30 9 4% 4% 4% 4$%6%%% 4%6%%% 4&%6%%% " # 3 ; 2 33() *83 4% 4$%%6%%% 4$%%6%%% 4$6%%% 1 9$! 4%%6%%% 4%%6%%% 4%%6%%% 4%%6%%% 4%%6%%% 76 C 9 < 1 ! + 4%%6%%% 4%%6%%% 4%%6%%% 4%%6%%% 4%%6%%%
; )" , )' 4:'6%%% 4$6&76%%% 4$67&'6%%% 4'656%%% 4'6:%$6%%% 46':6%%% Attachment 2
!"#
! $%"& !"# ! !## ' ( ) * + , -hr .r/0T123hr .r/Qyhvt0Ay/h4 5"'#6 5"'(6 5"'(6 5#!!6 5#%#6 5$!6 5#('6 5#&(6 5#("6 5$6 5$6 5$6 7 1/3hr HhhtrrT hrt85 !$6 5 "6 ' 5 #6 5 #6 5 $6 5 $6 5 $6 5 $6 5 $6 5 $6 5 $6 Ur r vhyIh1 hy9r vhtr 5 '"6 5 ##6 (( 5 ##6 5 $$6 5 $$6 5 %&6 5 %&6 5 %&6 5 %&6 5 %&6 5 %&6 Ih1 hy9r vhtrSrtrr hvQ wrp 5%"&6 5% "6 ' 5%#!6 5%&6 5&6 5&" 6 5&%6 5&( 6 5' !6 5'##6 5'##6 T1hvh2yr81vvr 5'&(6 5'# 6 5(! 6 5'$"6 5( &6 5(((6 5 6$&6 5 6""6 5 6$$6 5 6 $%6 5 6 %#6 5 6 '&6 Srtvhy-hr .r/Hv vth/Sr4 vt 5"&6 5"'&6 '+* 5#$6 5#!&6 5#$6 5#&%6 5$!6 5#'6 5#'6 5#'6 5#'6 Ay/8 y- :0-h vt 5"&"6 5"(#6 5"(#6 5# !6 5#"&6 5#$'6 5#%(6 5#'$6 5#((6 5$(6 5$(6 5$(6 @;v rhy6rrSr;vr35!(6 5"6 '') 5""$6 5"#'6 5"#'6 5"%!6 5"%!6 5"&&6 5"&&6 5"(!6 5"(!6 X !x# i " '( ' ,+ '' ' '')' '))+ '* ', ','+ ( ( ) ( (, Hhw AhpvyvvrSr sv 5'6 5'6# +( 5'6# 5'6# 5'6# 5'6# 5'6# 5'6# 5'6# 5'6# 5'6#
#!" " " i " ') '( '( ',' ', *( '+* '+** )(* )++* )+,* )+,* ( ) * ( )+* ( ,* ')* )** *',* *,)* + +* u!! $#)
Qrry8yvhr8.htrHvvthv 5$6%6 5%6#$(6 5%6"$"6 5%6&"6 5%6"(#6 5%6# %6 5%6&"&6 5%6$#&6 5%6&"$6 5%6& #6 5%6%''6 5%6'((6 B %9 + + +* * , ,+ ++ '** +** '' * '()'* '(+'* '* ** 77 Attachment 3
!
"# $% / *+,- & '() ". & 0 * , $ 1 2 3
"./ .456(" (..7/(8 95/(.55 5.:;
<= > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
> @ !=< " ? # ? # ? # ? ? # ? $ ? ? ?$ ?# ?# ?
%>&"'& ? ? ? ? $ ? ? ? ? $ ? $ ? ## ? ?
( ) >* +*, ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
( <* ? ? ? ?$ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? # ? #
( +% ,AB* ? ? ? ? $ ? ? ? ? $ ? ? ? ?
( % A* +*, ? # ? # ? # ? ? ? ? ? $ ? $ ? $ ? # ? #
>! ( ?# ?# ?# ? ? ? ? ? ? $ ? $ ? ?
&-C& .!+, ? ? ? ? # ? $ ? #$ ? # ? ? ? $$ ? ?$ #
D(/0.! ? # ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
5# 1" 2%,$% 2%$1,% 2%$1,% 20%,% 20%3% 20%00% 20%,*% 20%$,% 20%3$% 2*%1*% 2*%0% 2*%*,*%
E "&9&5 " "./ .45EF ) ##
'!D(/ .! 3? ?3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
'! > =>4> > ?3 ?3 ? ? ? ? ? ?
'!<'**! +, ?3 ?3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
!& & (!=4!= ?3 ?3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
5# & #!#2 2 2$,% 21% 23% 2%% 2%% 2%% 21% 21% 21% 21%
5//!4!! .! 2 2 21,%, 21,%, 21,%, 21,%, 21,%, 21,%, 21,%, 21,%, 21,%,1 21,%,
" 6"7/. &/ 6.G9.5 5 2%,$% 2 20%$%, 20%32%, 2*%0*%, 2*%$$%, 2*%2$%, 2*%22%, 2*%30,%, 2,%*3%, 2,%11%,1 2,%*3%, 78 Attachment 4
City of Toronto 2012-2021 Capital Programs Summary
2011 2012 From 2012 In Project Name 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 Water 2012 Debt Approved Last year Progress Waterfront and Valley Erosion Control City of Toronto Totals Valley and Shoreline Monitoring and Minor Maintenance Program 360,000 360,000 360,000 390,000 360,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 180,000 180,000 Erosion Major Maintenance Program 490,000 1,140,000 1,140,000 1,140,000 1,240,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 570,000 570,000 More Waterfront MAJOR MAINTENANCE (& futures sites) 0 2,050,000 0 Toronto Parks Sites to Major Maintenance Program 200,000 Meadowcliffe Drive* 450,000 1,750,000 2,000,000 1,750,000 1,750,000 Denison Road Erosion Control 250,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 Guild Inn Erosion Control 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 Yonge / York Mills (Hoggs Hollow) 250,000 250,000 Subtotal 1,500,000 3,550,000 3,500,000 3,530,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 2,750,000 750,000 * Land Acq $ Enhancements: More Floodworks i.e. Hoggs Hollow, 2011, $250,000; from Land Acq Funds: Troutbrooke topup, 2011, $1,250,000; first Meadowcliffe topup (from Land Acq $), 2011, $3,500,000.
2011 2012 From 2012 In Project Name 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 Water 2012 Debt Approved Last year Progress Waterfront Development City of Toronto Totals Keating Channel Flood Control Project 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,000 320,0000 TTP - Cell 1 & 2 Capping 100,000 129,000 129,000 200,000 200,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 129,000 0 Tommy Thompson Park Capital Improvements (Interim Management Program) 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 240,000 0 240,000 Arsenal Lands - Park Development 150,000 00 Reallocated for Waterfront MAJOR MAINTENANCE 100,000 245,000 245,000 223,000 188,000 188,000 188,000 188,000 188,000 188,000 188,000 188,000 0 245,000 Waterfront Environmental Monitoring 235,000 240,000 240,000 245,000 245,000 245,000 245,000 245,000 245,000 245,000 245,000 245,000 0 240,000 Waterfront Information Management 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 50,000 Scarborough Shoreline Waterfront Access Plan 78,000 78,000 78,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 0 78,000 Ashbridge's Bay - Coatsworth Cut 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 125,000 125,000 Subtotal 1,523,000 1,552,000 1,552,000 1,608,000 1,573,000 1,423,000 1,423,000 1,423,000 1,423,000 1,423,000 1,423,000 1,423,000 574,000 978,000
2011 2012 From 2012 In Project Name 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 Water 2012 Debt Approved Last year Progress Toronto RAP Regeneration City of Toronto Totals Etobicoke-Mimico Habitat Implementation Program (ongoing) 32,000 33,000 33,000 34,000 35,000 36,000 37,000 38,000 39,000 40,000 41,000 41,000 33,000 0 South Mimico Barrier Mitigation Project (various years) 10,000 40,000 0 40,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Toronto Golf Club Barrier Mitigation 0 0 40,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,000 0 Bundle Total 42,000 73,000 73,000 74,000 35,000 36,000 37,000 38,000 39,000 40,000 41,000 41,000 73,000
Toronto Waterfront Terrestrial & Aquatic Restoration Program (ongoing) 85,000 90,000 90,000 94,000 97,000 100,000 103,000 106,000 109,000 112,000 115,000 115,000 90,000 0 Waterfront/Moraine Migratory Bird Corridor Program (ongoing) 20,000 25,000 25,000 27,000 28,000 29,000 30,000 31,000 32,000 33,000 34,000 34,000 25,000 0 Bundle Total 105,000 115,000 115,000 121,000 125,000 129,000 133,000 137,000 141,000 145,000 149,000 149,000 115,000
BioRegional Seed Crop Program (ongoing) 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 Canada Goose Management Program (ongoing) 30,000 32,000 32,000 33,000 34,000 35,000 36,000 37,000 38,000 39,000 40,000 40,000 32,000 0 Habitat for Wildlife Program (ongoing) 10,000 10,000 10,000 11,000 11,000 12,000 12,000 13,000 13,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 10,000 Bundle Total 60,000 62,000 62,000 64,000 65,000 67,000 68,000 70,000 71,000 73,000 74,000 74,000 62,000 79 City of Toronto 2012-2021 Capital Programs Summary
Humber Habitat Implementation Program (ongoing) 45,000 50,000 50,000 54,000 56,000 58,000 60,000 62,000 64,000 66,000 68,000 68,000 50,000 0 Don River Valley & Stream Restoration Program (ongoing) 55,000 60,000 60,000 64,000 66,000 68,000 70,000 72,000 74,000 76,000 78,000 78,000 60,000 0 Rouge Watershed Plan Implementation in Toronto (ongoing) 50,000 55,000 55,000 56,000 58,000 60,000 62,000 64,000 66,000 68,000 70,000 70,000 55,000 0 Subtotal 357,000 415,000 415,000 433,000 405,000 418,000 430,000 443,000 455,000 468,000 480,000 480,000 415,000 0
2011 2012 From 2012 In Project Name 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 Water 2012 Debt Approved Last year Progress Toronto RAP: Stewardship, Education, Sustainable Communities & Technology City of Toronto Totals Family Nature Events Program (ongoing) 11,000 11,000 11,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 11,000 0 Multicultural Environmental Stewardship Program (ongoing) 30,000 35,000 35,000 38,000 38,000 43,000 43,000 43,000 43,000 43,000 43,000 43,000 35,000 0 Healthy Yards Program (ongoing) 24,000 24,000 24,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 24,000 Rural Clean Water Program (ongoing) 15,000 15,000 15,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 15,000 0 Toronto Stewardship(ongoing) 80,000 83,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 0 Bundle Total 160,000 168,000 165,000 171,000 171,000 176,000 176,000 176,000 176,000 176,000 176,000 176,000 165,000
Etobicoke Mimico Community Environmental Projects 20,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 25,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 35,000 0 South Mimico Green Neighourhood Program former South Mimico Community Action Area 10,000 (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) 0 Etobicoke Mimico Riparian Zone Restoration Strategy 20,000 20,000 20,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 20,000 0 Sherway Trail & Restoration 40,000 (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) (blank) 0 City of Toronto Humber Community Environmental Projects 53,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 70,000 100,000 100,000 105,000 105,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 56,000 0 Bundle Total 143,000 111,000 111,000 91,000 135,000 160,000 160,000 165,000 165,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 111,000 0
Yellow Fish Road Program (ongoing) 23,000 23,000 23,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 23,000 0 Watershed on Wheels Program (ongoing) 43,000 43,000 43,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 43,000 0 Aquatic Plants Program (ongoing) 22,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 0 Bundle Total 88,000 89,000 89,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 92,000 89,000 0
Community Transformation Partnership Program (ongoing) 70,000 76,000 76,000 76,000 81,000 81,000 81,000 81,000 81,000 81,000 81,000 81,000 76,000 0 Living City Centre Campus Programming (ongoing) 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 25,000 0 Sustainable House Programming (ongoing) 6,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 0 Canada Green Building Council - Greater Toronto Chapter (ongoing) 32,000 27,000 27,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 27,000 Living City Report Card Project (Various years) 10,000 30,000 75,000 75,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 0 0 Cultural Heritage Master Plan (ongoing) 14,000 14,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 20,000 21,000 22,000 22,000 14,000 0 Bundle Total 157,000 149,000 149,000 153,000 189,000 260,000 261,000 187,000 188,000 274,000 275,000 275,000 149,000 0
Natural Channel: Monitoring & Database to test Design 18,000 19,000 19,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 21,000 19,000 0 Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program- Air, Energy 37,000 39,000 39,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 39,000 Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program- Water (ongoing) 52,000 53,000 53,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 53,000 0 Bundle Total 107,000 111,000 111,000 116,000 116,000 116,000 116,000 116,000 116,000 116,000 116,000 116,000 111,000 0
Pearson Eco-Industrial Park 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 75,000 Subtotal 730,000 703,000 700,000 698,000 778,000 879,000 880,000 786,000 787,000 878,000 879,000 879,000 700,000 0
2011 2012 From 2012 In Project Name 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 Water 2012 Debt Approved Last year Progress Toronto RAP Regional Watershed Monitoring Program City of Toronto Totals Regional Watershed Monitoring Program 330,000 330,000 330,000 330,000 340,000 340,000 382,000 382,000 382,000 382,000 382,000 382,000 330,0000 Terrestrial Natural Heritage Program 100,000 110,000 110,000 115,000 115,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 110,000 0 Subtotal 430,000 440,000 440,000 445,000 455,000 465,000 507,000 507,000 507,000 507,000 507,000 507,000 440,000 0 80 City of Toronto 2012-2021 Capital Programs Summary
2011 2012 From 2012 In Project Name 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 Water 2012 Debt Approved Last year Progress
Toronto RAP Regional Watershed Management City of Toronto Totals Regulation Line Mapping Technical Updates Program 25,000 26,000 26,000 27,000 29,000 31,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 26,000 Planning & Regulation Policy Updates Program 31,000 33,000 33,000 35,000 37,000 39,000 22,000 23,000 24,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 33,000 0 Growth Management and Specialized Planning Studies Program 36,000 38,000 38,000 40,000 42,000 44,000 27,000 28,000 29,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 38,000 0 Special Policy Areas:Flood Risk/Emergency Planning 30,000 31,000 31,000 33,000 35,000 37,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 31,000 Bundle Total 122,000 128,000 128,000 135,000 143,000 151,000 119,000 126,000 133,000 135,000 135,000 135,000 128,000 0
Flood Forecasting and Warning System Program (ongoing) 40,000 50,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 60,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 50,000 0 Flood Protection and Remedial Capital Works Program (ongoing) 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 80,000 76,000 122,000 250,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 100,000 0 Large Dams, Capital Works Program (ongoing) 23,000 23,000 23,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 23,000 0 Small Dams and Flood Control Facilities, Capital Works Program (ongoing) 26,000 29,000 29,000 31,000 31,000 35,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 29,000 0 Bundle Total 189,000 202,000 202,000 211,000 196,000 196,000 254,000 382,000 392,000 397,000 397,000 397,000 202,000 0
Highland Creek Valley & Stream Greening Program (from Watershed Plan) 67,000 62,000 62,000 62,000 66,000 70,000 80,000 129,000 124,000 121,000 120,000 120,000 62,000 0 Watershed Plan Updates & Followup Program 0 0 0 0 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 0 0 Sustainable Neighbourhood Retrofit Action Plan Program 91,000 90,000 90,000 100,000 100,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 90,000 0 Aquatic Systems Priority Planning Program 38,000 40,000 40,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 40,000 0 Water Mngmnt. Analysis & Guidelines Program 22,000 13,000 13,000 0 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 13,000 0 Climate Change - Water Management Research & Adaptation Program 27,000 30,000 30,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 30,000 TRCA Flood Line Mapping Program (ongoing) 65,000 65,000 65,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 65,000 0
York/Peel/Durham/Toronto Groundwater Program 125,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 140,000 140,000 145,000 145,000 150,000 150,000 130,000 0
Subtotal 746,000 760,000 760,000 775,000 772,000 894,000 940,000 1,124,000 1,216,000 1,220,000 1,224,000 1,224,000 760,000 0
2011 2012 From 2012 In Project Name 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 Water 2012 Debt Approved Last year Progress Infrastructure City of Toronto Totals Black Creek Pioneer Village Retrofit Program (100% Levy) 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 0 350,000 Major Facilities Retrofit Program (ongoing) 460,000 460,000 460,000 460,000 460,000 460,000 460,000 460,000 460,000 460,000 460,000 460,000 0 460,000 Information Technology Replacement Program (ongoing) 264,000 264,000 264,000 264,000 264,000 264,000 264,000 264,000 264,000 264,000 264,000 264,000 0 264,000 Public Use Infrastructure Retrofit Program (ongoing) 198,000 198,000 198,000 198,000 198,000 198,000 198,000 198,000 198,000 198,000 198,000 198,000 0 198,000 Office Accomodation Project 0 921,665 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 1,272,000 2,193,665 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 1,272,000 0 1,272,000
2011 2012 From 2012 In Project Name 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012 Water 2012 Debt Approved Last year Progress Greenspace Land Acquisition City of Toronto Totals Greenspace Land Acquisition Program (ongoing) 87,000 93,000 93,000 99,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 93,000 0 Subtotal 87,000 93,000 93,000 99,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 93,000 0
GRAND TOTAL 6,645,000 9,706,665 8,732,000 8,860,000 8,955,000 9,051,000 9,152,000 9,255,000 9,360,000 9,468,000 9,485,000 9,485,000 5,732,000 3,000,000 8 1 RES.#C12/11 - PARTICIPATING MUNICIPALITY FUNDING New Municipal Funding Arrangements Policy. Presents new funding arrangements policy for consideration by participating municipalities.
Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Bob Callahan
THAT item BAAB7.2 - Participating Municipality Funding be referred to the Executive Committee. CARRIED ______
RES.#C13/11 - PLANNING AND PERMIT ADMINISTRATION COST RECOVERY 100% cost recovery for Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Fee Schedule - adjustments for 2012-2013.
Moved by: David Barrow Seconded by: Bob Callahan
WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has established administration fees to provide service delivery for municipalities and the development industry for the review of a wide range of applications requiring environmental planning technical expertise and regulatory approvals;
AND WHEREAS TRCA staff monitor the level of service demands for planning, ecology, engineering, hydrogeology, geotechnical and compliance reviews and report on an annual basis on the implications of cost recovery;
AND WHEREAS the Authority has directed staff to report back with an assessment of full cost recovery related to the service delivery for comprehensive planning and permitting review operations;
AND WHEREAS TRCA’s assessment of service delivery adheres to the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees, TRCA’s Fee Policy Guideline 2009 and provides a range of services according to TRCA's Memorandums of Understanding with area municipalities;
THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMENDS TO THE AUTHORITY THAT the cost recovery recommendations, inclusive of the Proposed Fee Schedule for 2012 be endorsed, and that staff be instructed to consult with the development industry, the Province of Ontario and TRCA's municipalities prior to final approval as per the provincial and TRCA guidelines;
AND FURTHER THAT staff report back to the Authority as to the comments received during the consultation process, and provide recommendations for approval of the final form of schedules, effective January 1, 2012. CARRIED
82 BACKGROUND TRCA staff has reviewed and monitored the level of service for plan and permitting review over a period of over eight (8) years, and has periodically adjusted the administrative fee schedule to reflect changes in volume, scale and complexity of project submissions and to build efficient service delivery over time. Ongoing streamlining of the plan review process has been a priority and refining the fee schedule commensurate with the specific assignment has been part of all negotiations with the development industry and municipalities over the last few years. TRCA's last substantial fee adjustment was approved in 2008. At that time, a fee schedule was approved that made changes in the order of 15 to 20% to main charges. At the same time, TRCA introduced a new major review fee to be applied to Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESPs) technical reviews. This fee schedule was controversial with the development industry and took a two-year period of working sessions and negotiations to reach a mutually acceptable MESP payment approach with the Building, Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) and TRCA. TRCA's 2010-2011 fee schedule incorporated a modest inflationary increase of 2% respectively for each year, and the MESP fee requirements were implemented.
A provincial Omnibus Bill was passed in January 1996 which empowered conservation authorities (CA) to collect fees for services approved by the Minister of Natural Resources (MNR). Conservation authorities are entitled to set rates, charge and collect fees for services rendered. The document entitled Policies and Procedures for the Charging of Conservation Authority Fees (June 1997) included in the MNR Manual sets guidelines for fee collection. The document states that CA fee structures should be designed to recover, but not exceed, the costs associated with administering and delivering the services on a program basis. The manual also states that setting fees are dependent on the complexity of applications and the level of effort required to administer the application.
In 2007, the Province established the Conservation Authority Liaison Committee (CALC) to address issues related to planning and permitting mandate and process, and fee structures across the CAs in the Province. CALC includes representatives from the ministries of Natural Resources, Municipal Affairs and Housing, and Energy and Infrastructure, Conservation Ontario, select CA’s, development industry, NGOs and municipal sectors. CALC produced a policies and procedures document in 2010 to assist CAs, municipalities and the development community to understand the roles and responsibilities of CAs in the planning and permitting process. CALC has also conducted a review of fee schedule standards and cost recovery across all CAs in Ontario, and is assessing potential updates to the 1997 MNR fee guideline document. Conservation Ontario has had input into the cost factors that should be incorporated into the cost recovery guidelines.
At Authority Meeting #10/10, held on January 7, 2011, TRCA staff recommended delaying the 100% cost recovery assessment for TRCA until we had more input from the CALC discussion about fee collection standards and policies, and had an opportunity to fully assess TRCA’s cost recovery implications for 2010, inclusive of the collection of backdated MESP requirements. With a cost recovery target of 55-60% of the total plan review budget costs in January of this year, the Authority modified staff recommendations, and instructed staff to re-assess the Fee Schedule for 100% cost recovery and bring back a proposal for full cost recovery by 2012. The resulting Resolution #A231/09 was approved, in part, as follows:
83 THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the 2010-2011 Fee Schedule for Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Review Services dated December 18, 2009 and incorporating a 2% cost of living increase for each of 2010 and 2011, be approved, to be effective January 8, 2010;......
AND FURTHER THAT in future amendments to the Fee Schedule for Planning, Permitting and Environmental Review Services, TRCA moves towards full cost recovery as soon as possible, and no later than January 1, 2012.
The last major fee adjustment took place in 2008, but funds for MESPs were not paid by landowners in most cases until 2010 and 2011. As of July 2011 all outstanding MESP fees from 2008 have been collected. Minor inflationary adjustments of 2% in 2010 and 2011 were implemented most recently. TRCA must move forward in terms of fee coverage for the anticipated workload in 2012-2013, and to address current pressures on operating budgets corporately. TRCA has followed the Province’s guidelines and TRCA’s Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Fees Policy/Guideline 2009 in preparing this report.
TRCA is the first conservation authority to move towards 100% cost recovery in the Province, however, several other urbanizing authorities have prepared their assessment and will be reviewing this issue with their boards.
Trends in Workload and Service Delivery Demand Attachment 1 provides a summary of the volume of files that have been reviewed by TRCA for three consecutive years (2008 - 2010), inclusive of a projected estimated file volume for 2011 based on the trends that have been established to July 2011. Volume of files helps to establish a baseline of workload, however, does not reflect the increasing complexity of major files. The majority of files are not simple in nature - many require planning technical or regulatory advice as per our Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) and most files require both. Minor and standard files traditionally have included involvement of a planner, water resources engineer and ecologist. However, currently the majority of files are located in complex intensification and greenfield situations requiring technical review and negotiations for an expanded team inclusive of planning, water resources, ecology (terrestrial, aquatic), geotechnical, hydrogeology, geofluvial and, with permits, the added responsibilities of compliance monitoring (enforcement). Often differences exist between municipalities as to the level of technical review that they require particularly in the engineering fields.
The changing nature of development in the GTA adds many new challenges to the planning process for both TRCA and our municipal partners. A new focus on intensification and redevelopment, the cost of land and complex development sites is increasingly a significant factor in managing planning and technical review. Additional pressure for higher densities on developable lands, and on the use of valleys, buffers, wetlands and on the urban/natural interface for development and infrastructure demand extensive negotiation time and senior attention. Achieving the appropriate balance between development, and protection and restoration of natural systems has become a difficult technical and legal challenge. The time factor has also become of greater essence given the significant amounts of investment and carrying costs, placing greater emphasis and strain on staff review timelines.
84 Planning and Permitting Volume The volume of Planning and Permitting applications has remained steady from 2008 to 2010, and into the second quarter of 2011 at TRCA. TRCA had a record year in terms of permits approved for construction with well over 1,000 permits issued in 2010.
TRCA met our fees revenue target for 2009 and met the increased target for 2010 with the infusion of outstanding MESP fees. A total of almost $700,000 has been negotiated over the last year to contribute to work already in progress in 2011 and into the next few years. Secondary planning processes and associated MESP processes can span over several years and we must be able to fund them over time. MESPs cover a significant amount of technical work supporting the environmental feasibility of the community and secondary plan process and technical servicing of these planning efforts. As these large scale projects progress, careful monitoring of these funds is needed to ensure that sufficient monies are in place to cover workload and special technical needs over the next 2-3 years. These are committed funds built into the budget process for ongoing project management of large scale assignments, and are not a reserve.
Workload for the review of Secondary/Block plans and associated MESPs formed an increasing component of work in 2010 and continues to create a significant component of the development review function. Several key MESP fee negotiations took place in 2010 and early 2011. TRCA has 17 active MESP processes ongoing this year. A huge workload driver is the MESP review process around the new Town of Seaton, which incorporates the equivalent of 15 neighbourhood/block plan exercises. Other drivers include Mayfield in Caledon, Countryside/Springdale North in Brampton, Duffin Heights/Area A9 in Pickering and Ajax, and several new communities in Vaughan and King. In addition to TRCA's regular file management, these efforts demand expedited efforts that put strain on senior staff resources. With the continuing health of the urban real estate market, TRCA's advisory services for solicitor/realty inquiries and concept reviews have increased in volume. These services help many landowners get oriented about the environmental features, hazard constraints and legislative requirements for their properties or lands that they wish to purchase.
Planning and Development will be relying heavily on our comprehensive fee schedule for funding of the general staff complement, as well as this year’s MESP fee negotiations to set funds in place for 2012 and 2013.
OMB (Ontario Municipal Board) and MLC (Mining and Lands Commission) hearings have been on a significant increase over the last couple of years, although in most cases we have been able to settle out of these proceedings after negotiations/mediation with landowners. These efforts, however, do put pressure on TRCA's legal budget and senior staff resources as do the increasing pressure for enforcement court hearings. It should be noted that OMB and MLC hearings have exceeded our projections from the beginning of the year. Fees for hearings have been considered part of levy expense.
85 Environmental Assessment Volume Trends in the Environmental Assessment (EA) workload remained high for 2009/2010, particularly with the impact of the new infrastructure stimulus funding. Although this funding is over, emergency works projects for infrastructure repair have increased this year for many municipalities requiring expedited review and approvals. 2011 has had a slower start to EA projects as municipal partners re-prioritized projects in January/February of this year. Spring and summer work levels are beginning to reach the volume of the previous year.
The Environmental Assessment team has relied heavily on levy to support the small core team function. However, TRCA has moved to establish specialized service agreements to fund review efforts for major infrastructure projects such as TTC (subway/transit systems), Coxwell Emergency Works Project, key regional infrastructure assignments such as Viva/Rapidco, Brampton infrastructure review, and recently the Seaton Environmental Assessment in Durham. These specialized agreements set up a dedicated review team to manage volume hotspots and improve service delivery for high priority growth related areas of the jurisdiction or large scale projects.
Level of Service Under the CALC process, all CAs in Ontario have been required to undertake a service delivery tracking process for permitting activities for 2011 to determine the extent to which CAs are about to meet recommended service delivery timelines as stipulated in the procedural manual. TRCA has maintained a positive 80 to 90% adherence rate to provincial time guidelines.
Planning applications timelines are very much tied to the municipal process, however TRCA's 30-45 day turnaround is achievable with the exception of very complex files or where special technical assessments are required e.g. modelling.
Environmental Assessment applications have also met the majority of timeline requirements for standard EAs and permits. The EA team tracks and reports on a tight service delivery standard for its service delivery partners, and meets these standards 80-90% of the time. For the non-service delivery partners, the standards are met approximately 70% of the time.
Major staffing restructuring of positions and expertise was made in 2010 in the development review teams and EA team to provide more senior input and supervision of major/complex files. Improvements to the quality of file management and file timeline management are positively visible for 2011 timelines.
86 Operating Lean One of the critical cost saving measures for TRCA review operations is that our planning and technical staff reviewers are organized in teams to “integrate” expertise and provide tailored capabilities to all 15 municipal agencies within TRCA's jurisdiction. For instance, our environmental planners and technical experts review and process planning applications and construction permits, as well as assist enforcement on compliance issues. Continuity of the knowledge of the files from planning policy decisions to ultimate construction and on-site implementation is of great environmental and financial value to all agencies. Although cost effective, this approach is challenging to manage from a time management perspective and can periodically cause backlogs in staff time as they try to cover many differing facets of the business obligations. A conservative and flexible approach to building staff capability in a team structure to cover growth demands is in place in TRCA's management of the planning and ecology divisions. Our team coverage of busy municipalities is very lean in all areas - for example, a snapshot of the current development planning review teams (only project management of files) is as follows:
Toronto Team 3.25 FTE Durham Team (Pickering, Ajax, Durham) 1.75 FTE 258 planning files plus carry over files 310 permits York West Team (Vaughan, King, Whitchurch Stouffville) 4.0 FTE 219 planning files plus carry over files 99 permits Peel and York East 3.5 FTE Richmond Hill, Markham 2.5 FTE 295 planning applications plus carry over files 223 permits
These teams also cover OMB and MLC coordination and testimony, as well as assisting with negotiations for permit compliance and violation resolution.
Enforcement coverage for compliance review will be discussed in a separate report to the Executive Committee, anticipated before the end of 2011. Projected needs include two additional officers to cover existing and increasing demands with construction growth.
Value Added Services For many landowners and community members, obtaining approvals from conservation authorities is a perceived red tape barrier that many do not understand. The legislative requirements are layered and sometimes complex. Many of these requirements tie directly to provincial policy and municipal Official Plan requirements that are mandated to safeguard public investment and ensure that provincial interests are addressed at the site level. Significant public savings are afforded due to the conservation authority approach to water management and flood and erosion risk. Residential clients often do not understand how technical advice from specialists at TRCA help to add value to their properties or safeguard their investment, particularly around erosion and flooding potential.
87 Negotiations with development landowners not only requires extensive technical input and creative solutions to meet a variety of legislative requirements but sets an essential open space system in place as a long term legacy for new and redeveloped communities. The protection of natural systems, as well as the remediation and restoration efforts that go into these large proposals through the development process, will result in a healthier open space amenity for growing communities of tomorrow. Appropriate attention paid to ecologically-based site design today will assist to create essential green infrastructure and amenities for the future, alleviating expensive remediation costs for taxpayers in the years to come. Risk such as the blow out of roads and culvert bridges, storm sewer and piping destruction, and private development flooded in sudden storms are just a few of the unexpected risks that demand costly remediation. TRCA’s watershed studies have gone a long way over the last few years to identify the need for wholesale change in the way we conduct watershed-based natural system management and these issues need to translate into site level approvals and negotiations. Approval requirements are never intended to be a “barrier” to development or good site design proposals.
The pool of TRCA senior technical expertise in all areas of environmental planning, engineering and ecology saves municipalities the cost of individualized consulting and peer review funds associated with addressing complex legislative requirements, and dealing with the large volume of planning, building and infrastructure applications coming forward. Both municipalities and TRCA, despite solid supportive working relationships, are struggling to keep up with the increasing demands for fast track development approvals while maintaining the quality of the approval outcome.
Cost Recovery Analysis
Methodology for Estimating 100% Cost Recovery The methodology used to establish a full cost recovery proposal has been founded on five key analyses: Determination of all associated direct costs to the plan and permit review functions for TRCA. This includes inter-divisional calculations of budget components that contribute to the “development plan review function”, using 2011 budget figures. Determination of the projected revenue targets to move towards a full cost recovery for 2012. Preparation of detailed analysis of types of planning, permitting and EA applications and averaged time/cost incurred to meet full cost recovery. Incorporation of input from stakeholders related to file and fee negotiations during 2010 and 2011. Incorporation of streamlining efforts to manage file cost and ensure efficient timelines to meet service delivery targets.
The results of this work has been integrated to prepare a new fee proposal that would move towards full cost recovery. Obviously, many factors can change the types and volume of applications in any given year. With best efforts to analyze our needs today, a conservative fee schedule is proposed.
88 Overview of the Cost of the Plan and Permit Review Function The plan review function at TRCA does not just rest with one division eg. Planning and Development but crosses over several divisions and business areas to include a comprehensive assessment for full cost recovery. Table 2 (Attachment 3) summarizes the various cost inputs to the review function, inclusive of overhead and current deficiencies in TRCA's existing operations that are affecting service delivery. In projecting cost recovery for 2012 - 2013, staff has based our assumptions on the volume of work estimated above for 2010 (the most recent complete year of service) and projected volume of workload for 2011.
The existing expenditure for 2011, directly associated with the plan review function is $4,386,700. This budget amount has been adjusted to include key staffing and expense deficiencies that currently exist in providing the required level of service to move into 2012-13 at full cost recovery. Based on existing budget numbers, the total cost for plan review and plan input responsibilities in 2012 dollars total:
Direct Plan and Permit Review Cost $5,157,200 Levy Support for Plan Input (Policy & EA) $2,650,670 TOTAL Planning, EA and Permitting Function $7,807,870
The total cost of plan and permit review includes current staff costs for planning and permit applications for private landowner development (see Table 2). Also included are engineering and ecology technical staffing, permit compliance, IT and GIS support to file management, and property staff input to plan review. A 15% overhead estimate has been added to cover supporting expenses for accounting, provision of vehicle fleet for meeting and field work, insurance, accommodation costs, miscellaneous expenses, etc.
In addition, the planning and development review function has operated with staff and expense deficiencies in the following areas for several years. Allowances have been added to the total cost estimate for improvements needed to be made in the following areas for 2012-13 to address service demand in new growth areas:
Technical Improvements: Geotechnical engineering, water resources engineering, enforcement officers, geofluvial/shoreline engineering peer advisory services.
Management Improvements: IT/GIS system improvements, digital project management/tracking system, digital circulation and associated printing, customer assistance, consulting, office administration assistance.
An allowance of $670,000 has been added for the plan review cost summary.
Total levy based costs for plan input (Table 2), inclusive of policy and technical studies that directly support development review are estimated at $2,650,670. Of this amount, $1,592,170 covers the Environmental Assessment core function, inclusive of a $200,000 deficiency allowance.
In addition, levy has also covered the difference between fee revenue and full expenditures for plan review totalling $1,336,700 in 2011 dollars.
89 Projected Revenue Targets In 2011, TRCA’s projected fee revenue target is approximately $3,500,000. This revenue target is divided into two parts - $3,050,000 for development plan review and permitting, and $450,000 for environmental assessment planning and permitting.
As per TRCA policy, a 55-60% cost recovery for all plan review functions is targeted for fee revenue. This target is similar in other urban conservation authorities. In 2010, TRCA met its revenue target but only with the additional fees charged to cover TRCA's work on MESPs.
In 2012, the projected revenue target will need to be $5,157,000.
In 2012, TRCA fee revenue must increase to achieve $2,107,000 at 100% recovery. This is calculated as the difference between TRCA's projected target of $5,187,000, and the current revenue actuals of $3,050,000.
Environmental Assessment review/permitting fees cover a much lower percentage of recovery. With only a 30% fee recovery, the EA core team relies on a series of individualized service agreements to more effectively cover intensive EA work program review and approvals. Non - service agreement municipalities and private corporations should be paying closer to full cost recovery, particularly for capital-based construction permitting. A projected revenue target of $1,600,000 is established for 2012.
Time/Cost Analysis of Applications TRCA staff has generated a detailed analysis of the various types of applications and their averaged cost ranges. The time based cost analysis reflects a breadth of complexity in application categories and an estimate of technical input for approvals to achieve cost recovery. The summary of this analysis is provided in Attachment 2.
These cost estimates include standard engineering, ecology and geotechnical review time estimates. Specialized hydrogeology and geofluvial requirements would need to be added to these base calculations, on an as needed basis in complex assignments.
A similar exercise has been completed for the environmental assessment fee review analysis.
This time-based analysis for cost recovery by application type helped in establishing a revised fee cost for TRCA application review, based on real time input to reach cost recovery targets.
Stakeholder Input Ongoing discussions about fees for service has taken place over the last couple of years with BILD, individual development landowners and municipalities. Several key issues have come to the forefront: Permitting projects, where more than the standard 2-3 submissions for approvals are required due to the inability of the consultants or owners to resolve standard design issues should be charged additional fees, with notification to the project owner. Repeat submissions with little quality control or fragmented submissions of technical reports with no integration of study results is a major workload (and costing) challenge for TRCA staff. The principle of charging fees for repeat submissions beyond basic reviews was suggested by BILD.
90 Landowners and municipalities want TRCA to move towards delegated staff approvals of standard /minor permit applications. (A new report will be forthcoming on these regulatory revisions later this fall).
Rural municipalities have expressed concerns over the cost and service delivery of minor infrastructure upgrades (e.g. culverts, maintenance and upgrading of bridges, roads) and minor residential permits.
All stakeholders are concerned about the change in MNR’s ESA (Endangered Species Act) approval requirements on project cost and time delays. This is a direct provincial approval process that TRCA does not manage.
Streamlining Efforts The following streamlining efforts have been made this year or will be continued into 2012-2013:
Regular development file review TRCA has established regular working sessions/meetings with most of our municipal partners to coordinate the comprehensive review and commenting on Planning Act and CA permitting applications. With regular working sessions every 2 to 4 weeks (or as workload warrants), a streamlined commenting effort and discussions of technical issues moves files ahead faster and with mutual agreement.
Senior Project Management A focused effort has been undertaken in 2010 to incorporate Senior Manager and Director involvement in MESP and major file review processes, as well as attendance at Pre-consultation meetings to ensure complete applications. Senior efforts assist in project management, planning and technical negotiations, resolving complex issues, as well as trouble-shouting. Fee costs can also be part of these initial discussions, as needed.
Minor Works/Permit Delegation The Ministry of Natural Resources has amended Ontario Regulation 97/04 (content regulation) to allow the Executive Committee to delegate positive permit decisions to conservation authority staff. MNR is currently undertaking the legislative process for all CAs to update their individual regulations accordingly, which will simplify and streamline the permitting process in the near future.
Training TRCA senior staff organized a training presentation with BILD members earlier in the year, covering topics of complete submissions, avoiding technical pit-falls, and providing more comprehensive ecology and engineering submissions for planning and permitting applications. Senior staff has also prepared a presentation on the policies and regulations around bridge and culvert design for councillors and municipal staff. This work has been presented to Caledon Council and will form part of on-going training in other municipalities in the fall. Topics for continuing learning educational sessions will continue to be formulated with BILD and our municipal partners.
91 Additional training sessions and workshops will be hosted to address specific issues for the development industry and with staff within our municipal partner’s offices. We will continue to communicate our roles and responsibilities, service standards, and policy/guidelines as needed.
Streamlining Infrastructure Communications will be improved with rural engineering departments to assist in streamlining new infrastructure approvals and work towards fair cost recovery. Improvements of technical guidelines for stream crossings will be considered.
Service Level Agreements The Environmental Assessment team will continue to monitor changes in infrastructure review and negotiate service level agreements where dedicated staff review would benefit the service delivery and cost efficiency of infrastructure EA approvals. New opportunities for specialized service level agreements will be pursued with municipalities or private organizations that are experiencing increases in infrastructure growth.
Fisheries Review Fisheries review and in-stream construction works are completed under a Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) Level III Agreement. Approximately 90% of all projects requiring this review are approved by TRCA and Letters of Advice are issued to meet DFO requirements. This one-windowed approval approach provides effective service and cost savings to all proponents.
IT/Project Management Interface Planning and Development’s IT systems and database are in need of a major overhaul and updating to upgrade our ability to accept digital applications, manage file review efficiently between divisions, and improve our time tracking and archival systems. Improvement to web-based communications with our client group is also in need of improvement. These efforts will form part of an ongoing process to improve digital file management over the next few years. Our GIS group is just exploring a self-screening web based mapping system to assist the customer service needs for TRCA’s huge jurisdiction.
Revised Fee Schedule The proposed fee schedule includes a number of new categories of fees that will help to streamline file approvals including phased approvals, expedited reviews where necessary, red line revision, etc.
The Proposal - Towards Full Cost Recovery The following fee adjustments have been proposed based on three key strategies: 1. Broaden the spectrum of fee categories within each application type to cover the scale of work more accurately, based on time analysis and to ensure that more costly complex applications recover extra costs. Maintain reasonable fees for less complex files, primarily residential applications, minor applications and modest scale efforts. Time analysis indicated that many applications were seriously undercharged particularly for major development applications, major EAs, Special Policy Area applications and permitting. A more comprehensive coverage of full technical input and standard compliance review has been adjusted in the new schedule.
92 2. Add new fee categories for reviews that are not cost recovered now - such as planning screening, repeat submissions, plans of subdivisions for industrial and commercial, major filling and grading, topsoil stripping and temporary stormwater management, and commercial filling pit applications. 3. Adjust or add new fees for services that will assist with streamlining approval and processing efforts for the applicant, such as phased approvals, expedited review charges, red line revision processing (where possible), and a project management assistance fee. Delegated authority to staff for the approval of certain straight-forward permits will assist greatly in moving applicants directly to construction, avoiding the constraint of Executive Committee schedules. This legislative authority will be coming forward from the Province to Conservation Authorities.
It should be noted that the MESP fee guidelines have been refined for clarification purposes. No other increases are recommended for MESPs. Clarification around these fees has been made related to inclusion of industrial/commercial sites, non-participating landowner requirements, and potential re-assessment fees for unapproved draft plans of subdivision as part of the MESP area.
Tables 3, 4 and 5 outline the fee recommendations for Planning Services, Permitting Services under Ontario Regulation 166/06, and Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Review Services, and include the amendments to achieve full cost recovery. The amendments reflect a fair assessment of cost recovery based on an estimate of staff time required to facilitate each application category as we can currently determine, with a view to build revenue in 2012 to a target of $ 5,157,000. The Environmental Assessment revenue target will aim to reduce dependence on operating levy and move towards a target of approximately $1,600,000 for 2012. However, our fee increase for EAs and associated permitting will impact some of our municipal partners who currently do not have service agreements.
TRCA’s financial administration reserves the right to add an inflationary increase to the fee schedules in years after 2012, if required.
Fees In Perspective Municipalities have for some time had a comprehensive system of charging for development review and growth related applications inclusive of development charges, application fees, building permits and engineering fee charges. Conservation authorities have one application fee process that applies to planning applications and permitting - covering development environmental feasibility studies and plan review tied to our commenting role, and site planning/construction permitting tied to our regulatory mandate. Fee recovery is an important aspect of our ability to provide the calibre of technical input needed to support complex applications involving many ecological and engineering requirements not provided by our municipalities. Our fees are still reasonable compared to the scale of application and input required.
For example, a standard subdivision within TRCA’s jurisdiction includes about 300 to 500 units/lots on sites that range from 10 to 25 hectares. If we outline the composite fees for a standard, streamlined subdivision review process the total TRCA fee would cumulatively total $89,500. These fees would include the Secondary Plan/MESP review, Draft Plan of Subdivision review (with an OPA/ZBA blended fee), and approximately four regulation permits. The standard fee breakdown would look like this: 93 MESP Base fee $7,285 Comprehensive review $11,250 ($450 X 25ha)
Draft Plan of Subdivision review $26,000 - Clearance $11,460 - (OPA/ZBA included as blended fee) -----
Regulation Permits - one minor permit (topsoil stripping) $4,000 - two stormwater management ponds $16,000 - one major feature-based permit $13,500
TOTAL project review fees $89,495
Based on a subdivision scenario such as highlighted above, the cost per unit for this environmental and natural hazard review would amount to $178.00 per unit/lot. In addition, an open space amenity is established for the future health and enjoyment of the new community - a key marketable component of any residential plan.
Obviously, there are many variables to each application and community plan, but this baseline scenario is a common standard in TRCA’s jurisdiction.
On the infrastructure picture for TRCA’s jurisdiction, massive transportation, transit and servicing infrastructure projects thread through the urban and rural landscape with significant implications for environmental, natural hazard and engineering challenges. The value added for TRCA to advise on risk-based assessment and ecological remediation for 100's of thousands of dollars of infrastructure across the GTA is a huge benefit for agencies, the broader population and local community. Infrastructure can be 50 to 100 years old in parts of our watersheds and these projects require a serious assessment of investing in the long term life cycle costing for future infrastructure needs. A snapshot of order of magnitude costs for standard infrastructure costs includes:, for example: new span bridge - $8 Million for a 30-45 metre bridge; replacement of old culvert/bridges with new bridge - $11- $12 million for spans ranging for 20-30 metres; culvert extension associated with road widening - $200,000 -$400,000 for culvert extension; road widening cost in the millions of dollars Average Road rehabilitation, including average 2 CSP culvert replacements costs - approximately $1 million.
TRCA review fees are modest in relation to the financial cost and scale of these assignments across the GTA. Our permit fee, for instance, would be $13,500 for a major replacement bridge of 20-30 metres (A potential EA planning fee of $11,500 may be applicable if there is no EA service agreement). Our environmental assessment fee schedule range addresses the complexity of the assignment but it is clear that for the environmental value added to the EA process, that TRCA input is critical to the achievement of essential natural hazard and ecological remediation for the future. These natural system legacies save municipalities long term remedial costs and establish an amenity system of community value into the future.
94 No fee schedule is an absolute to achieve full cost recovery - types of applications and volume change from year to year. TRCA has experienced a relatively high volume of work but with few downward fluctuations for 3-4 years. Ongoing monitoring of the fee schedule, demands of the workload and cost recovery targets will be conducted as we move into 2012-2013. Building a modest fee reserve for revenue fluctuations would be desirable from a corporate financial management perspective as the economy changes and file volume and associated revenues adjust. This would facilitate maintaining the most experienced staff in a downturn of work, and would maintain efficiency and experience that has been built over the last 10 years in TRCA.
DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will continue to represent TRCA on the CALC Committee on issues of conservation authority procedures, fee schedule standards and service delivery.
TRCA sent the draft report to BILD early in September and currently are conducting working sessions to go through fee schedule rationale and analysis.
Staff is available to conduct working sessions with BILD to provide clarification of our analysis and fee proposals as soon as possible. Formal comments from BILD need to be brought back to the Authority.
Staff will report to the Authority on consultation efforts on this report in order to finalize fee recommendations and incorporate the results into the operating budget finalization for 2012.
Report prepared by: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 Emails: [email protected] For Information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 Emails: [email protected] Date: October 5, 2011 Attachments: 6
95 Attachment 1 Budget Performance /Notes and Trends 2011 Updated July 2011
Mandated Activity: Conservation Authorities Act, Planning Act, Environmental Assessment Act
Measure 2008 2009 2010 2011 Pj Actual Actual Actual
New Planning Applications 708 538 772 772 Carry Forward Appl. (40%) 215 308 300 New Permits Applications 1000 1019 1062 1020 Carry Forward Appl. (20%) 203 212 204 Permits Issued 923 849 1026 1025 Minor Works Issued 278 280
Environmental Assessments 177 125 115 125 EMPS 11 - 1 3 Routine Infrastructure Issued 110 120
Solicitor Inquiries 631 520 835 835 Concept Development Inquiries 159 150 Violations Issued 67 91 112 100
Active OMB/MLC hearings 8 11 12 15 Active Env. Tribunal hearing 5 8 14 17 (+ Seaton 15 plans)
Special Planning Committees 30 30 25 25 Official Plan Exercises 4465 Special Policies Areas (SPAs) 14 14
96 Attachment 2
Time/Cost Analysis of Applications
Planning Applications Average Prof. Hrs. Range of cost
Minor Variances Minor Issues 10 hours $500 to $700 Major Issues 20 hours $1500 to $2000
Consent Minor Issues 16 hours $1200 to $1500 Major Issues 45 hours $4000 to $4500
Residential Site Plan Minor 6 hours $700 to $1000 Major 26 hours $2950 to $3630
Site Plan Control Minor 18 hours $1000 to $1390 Standard 52 hours $5175 to $6745 Major 92 hours $9935 to $12,710 Complex 152 hours $15,160 to $20,000
OPA/ZBA Standard 42 hours $3150 to $4410 Major 70 hours $5570 to $7800 Complex 150 hours $11,920 to $16,700
Subdivision Standard 150 hours $13,250 to $18,050 Major 200 hours $19,160 to $25,600 Complex 330 hours $30,000 to $41,000
Permit Applications Average Prof. Hrs. Range of cost
Residential Standard 15 - 20 hours $750 to $2268 Major 52 hours $3815 to $5340
Development Project Standard 55 hours $5585 to $8060
Major/Complex 80 - 150 hours $11,180 to $15,650
Minor Works Minor 3 hours $300 to $450
97 Attachment 3 Table 2 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT / ECOLOGY PLAN REVIEW FUNCTION Cost Assessment For 2011 Direct Levy/Capital Support for Direct Plan & Permit Review Costs Stream Corridor Stabilization Works $ Plan Input (Policy, Technical, Public $ $ (Private Landowner Development) Supporting Levy Infrastructure) Planning staff 846,500 EA core staff (Planning) 549,000Erosion works (natural channel 2,230,000 remediation/erosion infrastructure risk) Regulation staff 931,000 Expenses 40,000 Expenses 115,000 EA core staff (Ecology/engineering) 230,500 1,892,500 EA Property 90,000 Monitoring 200,000 EA Permit Compliance 175,000 SWM Retrofit & SNAP 300,000 IT Records/GIS 100,000Toronto stabilization/erosion 1,000,000 infrastructure risk Permit Compliance 345,000 (2011 base) Subtotal 1,184,500
Ecology (Development Review) 1,219,500 Planning/Ecology Service Level Deficiencies 200,000 IT/Records/GIS 207,500 plus OVERHEAD 15% 207,670 Property 150,000 Total Levy Based EA Costs 1,592,170 Total existing operation 3,814,500 Policy/Supporting: 9 Planning Admin./Policy 209,500 8 plus OVERHEAD 15% 572,200 Growth planning 147,000 (accounting/vehicles, insurance, etc.) Technical Regulation mapping 120,000 (2011 base) * 4,386,700 SPA/Flood Risk 95,000 Planning Service Level Deficiencies 570,000 Regulation/Prov. Policy 137,000 Ecology Service Level Deficiencies 100,000 Floodplain mapping & modelling 200,000 plus OVERHEAD 15% 100,500 FVA & SPA technical studies 150,000 Total Plan & Permit Review Costs 5,157,200 Total Levy Capital support for Plan 2,650,670 Total (not including impacts to dams 3,730,000 Input and EA Review and flood control structures)
Separate Service Agreements 1,212,000
* Assumptions: - 20% removed for staff admin./policy/other responsibilities. - No policy in direct operations costs. - overtime not in/or full overhead.
SUMMARY: TOTAL Direct Plan and Permit Review Costs $5,157,200 TOTAL Levy Support for Plan Input $2,650,670 TOTAL Planning, EA and Permitting Function $7,807,870
October 14, 2011 Table 3
TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For Attachment 4 Planning Services October 14, 2011
APPLICATION TYPE APPLICATION FEE REVISED CLEARANCE REVISED APPLICATION FEE FEE CLEARANCE FEE Screening letter $80 $80 N/A no change (Residential/Minor projects) (Refer to Note #9) Concept Development/ *minor $250 minor $260 N/A no change Property Enquiry *major $5,200 standard $2,500 N/A (Refer to Note #10) with one site visit $360 major $5,500 N/A Variances $360 screening Refer to Note #5 assessment $300 minor $500 major $1,600
9 Consent/Severance/Land screening 9 Division assessment $300 (Refer to Note #3) *minor $720 minor $1,200 N/A no change *major $1,725 major $4,000 $755 Single Residential Site Plan *minor $500 $700 N/A no change (Refer to Note #3, 11) *major $2,915 No change $630 Site Plan *minor $1,090 minor $1,400 N/A (Refer to Note #3, 11) *intermediate $4,160 standard $5,000 $1,040 $1,500 *major - 25ha or less $9,950 major $14,000 $2,190 $3,000 - greater than 25ha $14,350 complex $21,000 $2,190 $3,000 Official Plan Amendment (OPA) screening (Refer to Note #3, 11) assessment $300 *minor $1,090 minor $1,600 N/A *major $4,320 standard $4,400 $1,875 $2,600 major $7,800 complex $12,000
Page 1 of 9 APPLICATION TYPE APPLICATION FEE REVISED CLEARANCE REVISED APPLICATION FEE FEE CLEARANCE FEE Zoning By-law Amendment/ screening Rezoning (ZBA/RZ) assessment $300 (Refer to Note #3, 11) *minor $1,090 minor $1,600 N/A *major $4,320 standard $4,400 $2,190 $2,600 major $7,800 complex $12,000 Multi-Unit Building Application *minor (Rental, Condominium, mixed - 5ha or less $10,825 standard $15,150 $3,590 $5,200 use) *major (Refer to Note # 11) - 25ha or less $21,540 major $31,250 $7,905 $11,460 - greater than 25ha $28,715 complex $36,000 $7,905 $11,460
Draft Plan of Subdivision *minor standard (Residential/Industrial/ - 5ha or less $10,825 (base fee) -5ha or less $18,000 $3,590 $5,200 Commercial Subdivision) *major major (Refer to Note #3, 11) - 25ha or less $21,540 (base fee) 25ha or less $26,000 $7,905 $11,460 10
- greater than complex 0 25ha $28,715 (base fee) 25ha - 50ha $35,000 $7,905 $11,460 > 50ha $41,000 $11,460 Subdivisions without prior comprehensive MESP review will be charged an additional $100 per unit. Industrial subdivision plans without prior comprehensive review will be charged an additional $450/hectare. Golf courses, Aggregate pits or - 25ha or less $7,285 $20,000 N/A Commercial Fill pits - complex or (Refer to Note #11) greater than 25ha $14,565 $30,000 N/A Block and Tertiary Plans and - 25ha or less $7,140 No Change N/A Master Environmental Servicing (base fee) N/A Plan (MESP)(Residential & - greater than 25ha $14,280 Industrial/Commercial) (base fee) (Refer to MESP Fee Guidelines Additional charge of $450 per for implementation) hectare for comprehensive MESP
Page 2 of 9 APPLICATION TYPE APPLICATION FEE REVISED CLEARANCE REVISED APPLICATION FEE FEE CLEARANCE FEE Urban MESP Negotiated by Terms of tbd Reference Agreement Expedited Review Optional $5,000 (Director approved) (See Note #12) 1 01
Page 3 of 9 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For Planning Services October 14, 2011
OTHER APPLICABLE FEES
Description Fee NEW FEE
Pre-consultation meeting No charge no change
Pre-consultation technical team site visit (Refer to Note #10) $2,600 no change
Additional Site Visit Charges up to ½ day $630 $700 up to 1 day $1,250 $1,400 (First site review is allowed as part of processing. Multiple field including travel time assessments, stakings and negotiations are charged separately.) (Refer to Note #10)
Additional Clearance fee for Subdivision Phases $1,560 standard $2,500
10 with new technical information $5,000 2 *Applicant Driven Formal Modification (requiring re- $1,040 minor $1,040 circulation) major $3,500
Re-submission due to *incomplete submissions $3,125 $3,500
All applications located in Special Policy Area (SPA) or Flood minor 25% Vulnerable Area will be charged a 25% or 75% premium on the major 75% applicable fee
File Reactivation File (inactive files for 2 years & more) $500
Waterfront Development additional charge - shoreline $1,500 - 2,500 engineering peer review (tbd based on scope)
*See Definitions
Page 4 of 9 Notes 1. The application fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the municipality. The final clearance fee will be billed directly by the TRCA and paid prior to final clearance of an application. All payments must be made within 30 days of TRCA notification in writing. Interest will be charged and accumulated beyond 30 days. 2. Re-submission fees will be billed directly by the TRCA and must be paid prior to final clearance of an application. 3. Only one set of fees apply when processing and reviewing a combined application (e.g. a subdivision/OPA/ZBA). The highest rate of fees applies if review at the same time. 4. The TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees or adjust fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort or development application scenarios not captured in the schedule. Custom fees will be negotiated for fast-tracked or unique circumstances for large scale/complex review efforts. Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical and specialized modelling and may be charged to the applicant. TRCA reserves the right to assess fee requirements after one year of processing planning applications. Additional fees can be charged post one year and unreasonable delays. 5. Where a site visit and/or extended review is required for a Variance application, a clearance fee of $100 $145 is applicable. 6. Subdivisions that have several phases, will be charged a separate clearance fee of $1,560 $2,500 at the time of clearing each phase. 7. All application fees (except Concept Development) include one initial site visit, where appropriate. 8. TRCA reserves the right to adjust fees to reflect requirements under Bill 51 for either planning or regulatory legislation. 9. Generally, this fee does not apply to major developments. 10. This is not a mandatory fee. This is a guidance tool at the request of the applicant. 11. Base geotechnical and hydrogeology review included. Applications subject to an additional fee charge for complex reviews and advisory services. TRCA will inform applicants as early as possible in the process. - standard charge $2,000 - major charge $3,000 - 4,500 (based on scope) 12. Expedited Review charge applies to special circumstances around fast-tracked conditions for plan registration and completion of conditions to meet 10 unanticipated circumstances. Applied only on Director’s approval and as workload allows (Efforts that are required to be completed within 1-2 week period). 3
Page 5 of 9 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For Planning Services IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES October 14, 2011
MESP Fee Guidelines for Implementation
The Fee Schedule sets a generic cost across the jurisdiction as follows:
Proposals 25ha or less $ 7,140 Base Fee Proposals greater than 25ha $14,280 Base Fee An additional charge of $450 per hectare (gross) is applied to each application inclusive of natural systems.
The TRCA fee assumes an average 2 year timeframe for MESP completion. TRCA reserves the right to re-evaluate the MESP work scope and progress related to fee status after a two year process.
A Terms of Reference for the MESP work tasks must be prepared and agreed to by all parties – the municipality, TRCA and the proponent. Fee charges apply to Residential and Industrial/Commercial Block planning. Non-participating landowners need to apply and pay MESP
10 component commensurate with current fee at the time. .
4 TRCA's 2010 fee schedule includes the following MESP milestone payment structure:
MESP PHASE OF WORK PAYABLE
1. Preliminary Initiation (at Project start-up) Base Fee applies (Scoping of MESP/Terms of Reference Initiation) 2. Terms of Reference completion/MESP Initiation 50% payable (Includes existing conditions report/field work First MESP Submission/Review) 3. Prior to First Submission Comments 20% payable 4. Prior to issuance of final MESP approval by TRCA 30% payable (Maximum 3 review submissions)
All official plan amendment, zoning and draft plans of subdivision fee requirements that evolve out of the Secondary/Block planning and MESP process apply separately as per TRCA's approved fee schedule at the time of submission. No additional per lot charges will apply on draft plans if a MESP is completed, approved and paid for.
Plans of subdivision that have not been studied under the MESP process, will be charged an additional fee of $100 per unit, over and above the subdivision base and clearance fees (see schedule). Subdivisions not included as part of original MESP/Block approval will be charged on a per unit basis for updated plans. Page 6 of 9 On occasion, MESP fee requirements may be scoped to the type of municipal process and scheduling parameters (e.g. fast-tracked, updates and transitional files, reduced scope of work).
Construction permits for works under TRCA's provincial regulation are charged separately at the time of detailed design and construction of draft plan components (such as stormwater management facilities, road/bridge crossings, pipe boring and drilling works, stream channel works, etc). 10 5
Page 7 of 9 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For Planning Services IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES October 14, 2011
Definitions
Minor - An application is determined to be “minor” where no technical studies are required, or only a scoped Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required.
Minor Subdivision - A subdivision application is determined to be “minor” where no technical studies, or only a scoped Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required and where the site is 5ha or less.
Intermediate - Non-residential site plans of a mid-scale requiring technical studies for estate residential and commercial/industrial site plans.
Major - An application is determined to be “major” where technical studies beyond a scoped Environmental Impact Statement (such as Stormwater Management or Geotechnical) are required.
Screening Assessment – projects for which a letter/response is required from the TRCA (i.e. is located adjacent to a natural feature or 10 natural hazard area) but does not affect the program or policy interests of the TRCA. No technical review is associated with this project. 6 Minor – projects for which a letter/response is required from the TRCA (i.e. is located adjacent to a natural feature or natural hazard area) which may affect the program or policy interests of the TRCA, and requires technical review related to only one technical discipline.
Standard – projects that meet TRCA policies, and require routine technical analysis (i.e. standard EIS review and/or water management screening and assessment, or standard geotechnical review).
Major – projects which are significant in geographic area, and/or for which submission of a suite of applicable technical studies is required to demonstrate that TRCA or partner municipality program or policy interests can be met. Major projects generally require more complex ecological, geotechnical, water resource engineering, hydrogeological, or fluvial geomorphic studies and assessment. Major projects may require more than one technical team or planning meeting.
Complex – projects for which a full suite of applicable technical studies are required to demonstrate consistency with TRCA or partner municipality program or policy interests. Complex projects typically involve extensive modifications to the landscape. Complex projects may also be characterized one or more of the following:
· The need for multiple resubmissions or extensive working meetings;
· The need for additional TRCA technical assessments (i.e. technical modeling refinements);
Page 8 of 9 · Extensive technical study review, including complex hydrogeological, fluvial geomorphology; natural channel design, wetland interference, environmental impact studies;
· Require more than one day of TRCA fieldwork.
Incomplete Submissions - A submission for review is deemed to be “incomplete” where TRCA has provided a checklist of requirements, and the application has not met all requirements.
Applicant Driven Formal Modification - A fee for an “applicant driven formal modification” will be charged where plans are submitted for review after the application has received draft plan approval from the municipality. 10 7
Page 9 of 9 Table 4
TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For Attachment 5 Permitting Services for Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) October 14, 2011
ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 FEE REVISED APPLICATION FEE PERMIT APPLICATION Works on Private Residential Property *minor $360 minor same *major $730 standard $730 major $5,000 Municipal Projects: • Regional/Local; NO EA required $1,082 $1,150 • Emergency Works (to be added to applicable permit fee) $3,540 $4,120 Utilities • Single residential $1,040 $1,100 • Development project based $2,860 minor $2,000 major $4,000 10 8
Page 1 of 5 ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 FEE REVISED APPLICATION FEE PERMIT APPLICATION Projects on Subdivision Lands, Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Properties, Resource-based Recreation and Other Projects. Fee charged per project component within a larger submission. Multiple permit fees are common for subdivision and site plan applications.
Minor Projects: • Topsoil stripping/temporary stormwater management $4,000 • minor outfalls • minor alterations/restoration of watercourse and wetlands • Minor Improvements (trails, minor recreational facilities, etc.) $2,155 per project $4,000
Standard Projects Include: $4,020 per project $8,000 • SWM ponds and associated outfalls • Standard road Crossings • Major Filling/Grading/Earth works •In-stream Remediation Works • Alterations/Restoration of Wetlands • Major Outfalls 10
Major Projects: 9 • Major Road Crossings $6,035 per project $13,500 • Natural Channel Modifications $13,500 • Relocation of Stream Corridor/New Channel Design $15,000 • Major Commercial Fill Project $15,000
Red Line Revisions by TRCA $510 minor $700 major $1,500 All applications located in a SPA (Special Policy Area) or Flood minor 25% Vulnerable Area will require an additional 25% or 75% on standard fee major 75% Permission for Minor Works - Letter of Approval $80; $360 with site visit $100; $360 with site visit (see qualification criteria, as approved June 9, 2006) Municipal: $2,155 Municipal: $2,800 Permit Revisions Residential minor/major: No change 25% of current fee Others: 50% of current fee
Page 2 of 5 ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 FEE REVISED APPLICATION FEE PERMIT APPLICATION Permit Re-Issuance for Ontario Regulation 158 (1 time only) 50% of current fee No change Permit Re-Issuance for Ontario Regulation 166/06 (1 time only) 50% of current fee No permit required/regulatory and fisheries review & advice only $630 Minor $650 Review of works for applications under Section 35 of the Fisheries Standard $2,800 Act (no permit required). Major $4,800 OTHER APPLICABLE FEES
GIS Fee Direct Charge
File Reactivation Fee (inactive files for 2 years & more) $500
Waterfront Development Additional Charge - shoreline engineering $1,500 - 2,500 peer review (tbd based on scope) Expedited Review Additional Charge (Director approved) (Note #7) minor 25% of current fee major 50% of current fee Negotiated Technical/Management Agreements (management $1,000 - $1,500 agreements, major filing grading, etc.) 11 Repeat Submissions (Note #8) 25% for each
0 additional submission Project Management Assistance (voluntary as required) (Note #9) $1,500 - $5,000 (tbd based on scope) Compliance Monitoring: $2,200 • Permit Non-compliance (Fee to resolve each issue, exclusive of permit revision fee) $160 • Compliance Reports - clearance letter
ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 FEE REVISED APPLICATION FEE PROPERTY INFORMATION
Solicitor/Realtor/Property Inquiry $250 $280 *See Definitions
Page 3 of 5 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For Permitting Services for Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES October 14, 2011
Notes
1. The permit fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the TRCA. In the event that the permit fee is not paid at the time of filing an application, fees must be paid prior to issuing a permit.
2. The TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort. Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical, and specialized modelling and may be charged to the applicant.
3. All permits are issued for two years.
4. Ontario Regulation 158 was revoked with the approval of Ontario Regulation 166/06. Any request for an extension for a permit under Ontario Regulation 158 not granted before May 8, 2006, will be considered under Ontario Regulation 166/06. One permit re-issuance extending the permit approval for a period of two years will be granted before the works are considered new works. Such requests will be assessed in accordance with any new updated technical hazard information. Extensions will not be required for those works not located within an area regulated under the new regulation. 11 5. There are no extensions for permits issued under Ontario Regulation 166/06. On a one-time basis, and upon notification 60 days prior to the expiration
1 of an Ontario Regulation 166/06 permit, applicants may apply for re-issuance of a new permit for the original approved works, before the works are considered new. Such requests will be assessed in accordance with any new updated technical hazard information and the current policies in place. There is no guarantee of an automatic approval.
6. TRCA reserves the right to adjust fees related to regulatory legislation changes or updates.
7. Expedited Review Additional Charge applies only to unanticipated circumstances requiring fast-tracked approvals (primarily clearance).
8. TRCA will charge a fee directly to the applicant when technical reviews of required studies, plans, drawings and models go beyond the first submission and 2 re-submissions. Notification will be provided in writing to landowner.
9. Project Management Assistance fee is applied to assist applicants to address complex technical design issues to meet regulatory requirements. Working sessions are recommended.
Page 4 of 5 Definitions
Residential Property
Minor – projects for which a letter/response is required from TRCA (i.e. is located adjacent to a natural feature or natural hazard area) which may affect the program or policy interests of the TRCA, and requires technical review related to one technical discipline. Projects include ancillary structures such as decks, sheds, garages, and pools and placement of less than 30 cubic metres of fill.
Standard – projects that meet TRCA policies, and require routine technical analysis (i.e. standard EIS review and/or water management screening and assessment, or standard geotechnical review). Projects include additions, structures or buildings; works in the floodplain and placement of fill (over 30 cubic metres) and associated grading/fill placement.
Major – projects which are significant in geographic area, and/or for which submission of a suite of applicable technical studies is required to demonstrate that TRCA or partner municipality program and policy interests can be met. Major projects generally require more complex ecological, geotechnical, water resource engineering, hydrogeological, or fluvial geomorphic studies and assessment. Major projects may require more than one technical team or planning meeting. Projects include major additions (greater than 50% of the original ground floor area), new structures or buildings; all works in the floodplain; and the placement of 30 cubic metres or more of fill. 11 2
Page 5 of 5 Attachment 6 Table 5
TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment and Permitting Services October 14, 2011
APPLICATION TYPE APPLICATION FEE REVISED APPLICATION FEE
ONTARIO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT APPLICATIONS OR APPLICATIONS MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH UTILITY BOARD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS
Environmental Assessment Review
Master Plan $10,400 Minor $11,000 Minor $26,000 Major $19,500 Standard (subject to negotiation) $27,500 Major (subject to negotiation)
Individual EA $26,000 $27,500 (subject to negotiation) (subject to negotiation)
Class EA - Schedule/Category C $10,405 $5,250 Minor $11,500 Standard $17,600 Major
Class EA - Schedule/Category B $5,200 $5,500 Minor $8,900 Standard $12,200 Major
Class EA - Schedule/Category A n/a n/a - EA pre-approved * see below * see below - Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit may be required
EA Addendum Reports $1,875 $2,000 Minor $2,900 Standard $3,800 Major
EA Property Screening or Inquiry $250 $265
GIS Fee Direct charge to non- Direct charge to non-levy levy partners through partners through GIS GIS
Detailed Design Review
Project Clearance - No Permit Required $1,875 $2,000 Minor (note: EA Service Delivery assumes two $4,600 Major submissions)
Review of works for application of $630 $650 Minor Section 35 of the Fisheries Act - (No $2,800 Standard permit required) $4,800 Major (note: EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions)
Page 1 of 5 113 APPLICATION TYPE APPLICATION FEE REVISED APPLICATION FEE
Project Clearance and Fisheries Act $1,875 $2,000 Minor Review - Environmental Management Plan $11,000 Major for Dewatering (note: EA Service Delivery assumes three submissions)
Repeat Submission n/a 25% for each additional submission
EA Related Planning Act Application See TRCA Planning See TRCA Planning Services Fees Services Fees Schedule for Schedule for appropriate rates appropriate rates
*Regulatory Review
Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit Application $2,500 $2,900 Service Agreement - Individual or Class EA - $8,000 Standard Schedule/Category B & C $13,500 Major (note: EA Service Delivery assumes three submissions)
Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit Application $1,080 $1,200 Service Agreement - Class EA - Schedule/Category A (or $2,500 Minor equivalent) $3,800 Major (note: EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions)
Routine Infrastructure Works - Letter of $310 plans only $350 Service Agreement Approval $630 technical reports $750 Minor (note: EA Service Delivery assumes two or site visit $1,400 Major submissions)
Emergency Works $3,540 $4,120 (to be added to the applicable permit or detailed design review fees)
Expedited Review 25% of current fee - within 2 (per submission, to be added to the weeks of submission applicable permit or detailed design 50% of current fee - within 1 review fees) week of submission
Additional Review Fees
Permit Screening $250 $265
Review of works for application of Section 35 of the Fisheries Act. DFO Submission (HADD-related $3,000 projects only) (note: EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions)
Page 2 of 5 114 APPLICATION TYPE APPLICATION FEE REVISED APPLICATION FEE
TRCA Property & Archaeology $1,500 Submission (project management time only)
Fish Timing Window Extension $5,200 $5,500
Additional Site Visit Charges up to ½ day $630 up to ½ day $700 (First site review is allowed as part of up to 1 day $1,250 up to 1 day $1,400 processing)
Red Line Revisions by TRCA $510 $550 Minor $1,100 Major
Additional Submissions 25% for each additional submission
GIS Fee Direct charge to non- Direct charge to non-levy levy partners through partners through GIS GIS
Permit Revisions and Reissuances
Revision to Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit 25% of current fee - 25% of current fee - minor (note: EA Service Delivery assumes two minor change change submissions) 50% of current fee - 50% of current fee - major major change change
Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit Reissuance 25% of current fee 25% of current fee (one-time only)
Compliance Monitoring
Permit Non-Compliance $2,200 (Fee to resolve each issue, exclusive of permit revision fee)
Environmental Management Plan TBD - subject to Compliance negotiation
Compliance Reports - Clearance Letter $160
Page 3 of 5 115 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment and Permitting Services IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES October 14, 2011
NOTES 1. The application fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the TRCA. Applications will not be processed until fees are received. 2. Only one set of fees apply when processing and reviewing a combined application (e.g. an EA Property Screening or Inquiry or an Ont. Reg. 166/06 Permit Application). The highest rate of fees applies. 3. TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort (e.g., Environmental Management Plan Review). Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical and specialized modelling and may be charged to the applicant. 4. All application fees (except EA Property Screening or Inquiry) include one initial site visit. 5. Specific Municipal Service Delivery Agreements take precedent over the fee schedule. 6. For the Class Environmental Assessment Act Applications, the schedules or categories specific to the respective class EA document or environmental assessment review procedures of utility boards or commissions, including Enbridge, Consumers Gas or Bell Canada, will be applied. 7. Routine Infrastructure Works Application review is subject to the respective TRCA procedure. 8. Emergency Works Application review is subject to the respective TRCA procedure. 9. Minor project review means that no or limited technical Natural Heritage Impact Studies or reports are required as part of the submission, together with detailed design drawings if appropriate; Intermediate project review means that scoped technical Natural Heritage Impact Studies or reports are required as part of the submission (such as hydrology, ecological, stormwater), together with detailed design drawings if appropriate; Major project review means that comprehensive technical Natural Heritage Impact Studies or reports are required as part of the submission (such as meanderbelt, hydorgeology, geotechnical), together with detailed design drawings if appropriate. 10. In accordance with the Crown Agency Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 48, s.1, and the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 27 the following Crown corporations or agencies are exempt from the Conservation Authorities Act: •Go Transit •Hydro One • Ministry of Transportation • Ontario Realty Corporation • Ministry of Natural Resources • Greater Toronto Airports Authority, and •Downsview Park As such, these proponents are exempt from review fees and exempt from the TRCA regulatory approval process (i.e., permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 are not required). However, in circumstances where the review is considered major, TRCA can negotiate funding to compensate for its review time. These proponents may not be exempt from approvals under the Fisheries Act or the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and are responsible for obtaining the appropriate approvals independent of TRCA. In accordance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. E.18, s.4 these proponents are required to consult with TRCA throughout the EA process.
10. The following corporations are not exempt from the Conservation Authorities Act: • Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation (TWRC) •CN Rail, and •CP Rail As such, these proponents are not exempt from review fees or the TRCA regulatory approval
Page 4 of 5
116 process (i.e., permits in accordance with Ont. Reg. 166/06 are required). In accordance with agreements between TRCA and Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Ministry of Natural Resources, TRCA will also conduct reviews under the Fisheries Act or the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act. In accordance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. E.18, s.4 these proponents are required to consult with TRCA throughout the EA process.
11. TRCA has extensive environmental and cultural data that is available for use by the proponent, subject to the waiver of a legal disclaimer and the provision of user fees. Where there are data sharing agreements in place, municipalities, agencies and Crown corporations or agencies are exempt from these fees and the data will be provided free of charge. For all others, an application form for the purchase of such data will be forwarded to the proponent for use at their discretion.
Page 5 of 5
117 TERMINATION
ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 1:30 p.m., on Friday, October 14, 2011.
Maria Augimeri Brian Denney Chair Secretary-Treasurer
/ks
118