BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

Friday, May 14, 2021 Meeting to be Held Electronically

MEMBERS

K. (Karen) Ras (Chair) T. (Tom) Adams (Vice Chair) J. (John) Brennan S. (Stephen) Dasko J. (Johanna) Downey A. (Ann) Lawlor M. (Matt) Mahoney M. (Martin) Medeiros M. (Michael) Palleschi G. (Grant) Peters R. (Ron) Starr J. (John) Stirk

Pages

1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

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

2. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

3. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

Recommended Resolution: RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the 557th meeting of Credit Valley Conservation Authority held April 9, 2021 be approved.

4. PRESENTATION / DELEGATION

4.1. PRESENTATION: CVC PLAN REVIEW AND PERMITTING USER FEE REVIEW

Sean-Michael Stephen from Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. will give a presentation to members on the above-mentioned subject. 2

Recommended Resolution: RESOLVED THAT the presentation entitled "Credit Valley Conservation Authority – Plan Review and Permitting User Fee Review" presented by Sean- Michael Stephen of Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. be received.

4.2. PRESENTATION: FLOODLINE MAPPING UPDATE

Tim Mereu, Technical Director, Watershed Management will give a presentation to members on the above-mentioned subject.

Recommended Resolution: RESOLVED THAT the presentation "Floodline Mapping Update" presented by Tim Mereu, Technical Director, Watershed Management be received.

5. BUSINESS ARISING FROM MINUTES

6. NEW BUSINESS STAFF REPORTS

6.1. DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS, AND ALTERATIONS 6 TO SHORELINES & WATERCOURSE APPLICATIONS

Attached as Schedule 'A' are Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourse applications, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 160/06, as approved by staff and presented for members' information.

Recommended Resolution: RESOLVED THAT the Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourse applications, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 160/06, as approved by staff, be received and appended to the minutes of this meeting as Schedule 'A'; and further

THAT the staff approvals for each be endorsed.

6.2. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 12 REVIEW AND PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE REVIEW UPDATE

A report on the above-mention subject as submitted by Josh Campbell, Director, Planning and Development Services is included in the agenda package as Schedule 'B'.

Recommended Resolution: WHEREAS CVC Planning and Development Services (PDS) staff engaged a consultant to assist in undertaking a comprehensive review of plan review and permit fees in the fall of 2020; and

WHEREAS the CVC Board of Directors directed PDS staff to report back on the findings and recommendations or the review in the spring of 2021; and

WHEREAS a final draft report detailing the methodology, findings, 3 recommendations and next steps for fee schedule and policy updates has been completed and is attached as Schedule ‘B’, Appendix 1 of this report;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “ Planning and Development Services Comprehensive Plan Review and Permit Fee Schedule Review Update” be received and appended to the minutes of this meeting as Schedule ‘B’; and

THAT the CVC Board of Directors endorses the recommendations of the final draft report; and

THAT CVC PDS staff continue to further consult with development industry and watershed stakeholders on the recommended full cost recovery fee schedules and policies prior to developing final recommendations for implementation in 2022; and

THAT CVC PDS staff report back to the CVC Board of Directors in November 2021 with final fee schedule recommendations and an implementation and phasing strategy as necessary; and further

THAT a copy of this report be circulated to member municipalities, Conservation Ontario, Greater Golden Horseshoe Conservation Authorities, and the Building Industry and Land Development Association for their information, as well as posted on the CVC PDS webpage along with notice of the on-going fee review.

6.3. UPPER CREDIT CONSERVATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN - FIVE YEAR 78 REVIEW AND UPDATE

A report on the above-mentioned subject as submitted by Eric Baldin, Manager, Land Planning and Management; Terri LeRoux, Sr. Manager, PARCS; and Jeff Payne, Deputy CAO and Driector, Corporate Services is included in the agenda package as Schedule 'C'.

Recommended Resolution: WHEREAS the Upper Credit Conservation Area Management Plan was approved by the Board of Directors of CVC in 2016 through Resolution #45/16; and

WHEREAS implementation of key performance indicators identified in the management plan is on track for management plan completion in 2026;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “Upper Credit Conservation Area Management Plan - Five Year Update” be received and appended to the minutes of this meeting as Schedule ‘C’; and further

THAT staff be directed to provide a ten-year update to the Board of Directors in 2026.

6.4. CONSERVATION ONTARIO GOVERNANCE ACCOUNTABILITY AND 93 TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE 4 A report on the above-mentioned subject as submitted by Deborah Martin- Downs, CAO is included in the agenda package as Schedule 'D'.

Recommended Resolution: WHEREAS the provincial government has passed legislative amendments related to the governance of Conservation Authorities; and

WHEREAS the conservation authorities remain committed to fulfilling accountable and transparent governance;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “Conservation Ontario Governance Accountability and Transparency Initiative” be received and appended to the minutes of this meeting as schedule ‘D’; and

THAT the Board of Directors of Credit Valley Conservation Authority endorse the three key actions developed by the Conservation Ontario Steering Committee to update conservation authority administrative by-laws, to report proactively on priorities, and to promote/demonstrate results; and further

THAT staff be directed to work with Conservation Ontario to implement these actions, report on progress and to identify additional improvements and best management practices.

7. CORRESPONDENCE/INFORMATION ITEMS DISTRIBUTED TO MEMBERS

7.1. CORRESPONDENCE: MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS AND 102 EFFECTS ON BROOK TROUT IN THE CREDIT RIVER

Email dated April 23, 2021 to Chair Ras from Lou Maieron regarding a journal article on municipal sewage plants and effects on brook trout in the Credit River.

7.2. BRIEFING NOTE: RESEARCH ON TRACE WASTEWATER COMPOUNDS 103 AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO BROOK TROUT IN THE CREDIT RIVER

Briefing note dated May 14, 2021 from Jennifer Dougherty, Sr. Manager, Water and Climate Change Science to the CVC Board of Directors regarding research on trace wastewater compounds and potential impacts to brook trout in the Credit River.

7.3. CORRESPONDENCE: CONSERVATION ONTARIO COUNCIL EBULLETIN - 106 April 2021

Conservation Ontario Council meeting eBulletin - April 2021

8. NOTICE OF MOTION

9. QUESTION PERIOD

10. OTHER BUSINESS 5

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

Recommended Resolution: RESOLVED THAT the Board move to 'In-Camera' session to discuss personnel matters.

11.1. ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW SUMMARY

2020 performance review summary.

12. RESOLUTION TO MOVE TO OPEN SESSION

Recommended Resolution: RESOLVED THAT the Board proceed to open session.

13. RESOLUTION FOLLOWING 'IN-CAMERA' SESSION

14. MEETING ADJOURNED 6 DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS, AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES Schedule 'A' WATERCOURSES APPLICATIONS (STAFF APPROVED, FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ ENDORSEMENT) 2021-05-14 Complete Permit Permit Ward Owner Agent Address Proposed Works Application Issued No. No. Date Date Brampton Development in the Regulated 54 Haverstock Crescent Area to facilitate construction of a 21/042 RDA Designs 2021-04-14 2021-04-14 6 Part Lot 17, Concession 4 WHS below grade entrance and windows. Out of the Development in the Regulated 50 River Rock Crescent 21/073 Box Area to facilitate construction of a 2021-04-14 2021-04-14 6 Part Lot 14, Concession 2 WHS Engineering below grade entrance. Development in the Regulated 100 Dells Crescent 21/074 Area to facilitate construction of in- 2021-04-06 2021-04-06 6 Part Lot 12, Concession 2 WHS ground pool, shed and deck. Branthaven Development in the Regulated 1817 & 1831 Queen Street West 21/084 Queen West Area for earthworks to facilitate a 2021-04-07 2021-04-14 4 Part Lot 5, Concession 4 WHS Inc. residential subdivision. Development in the Regulated Leisure Pools 56 Antibes Drive 21/097 Area to facilitate construction of an 2021-04-20 2021-04-20 5 GTA Part Lot 7, Concession 3 WHS in-ground pool. Development in the Regulated 2207 Embleton Road Area for the purpose of 21/111 2021-03-18 2021-05-04 6 Part Lot 5, Concession 5 WHS constructing a new home and associated grading. Caledon Development in the Regulated The Area for the purpose of Chisholm Chinguacousy Road Corporation undertaking road improvements 20/048 Fleming & Part Lot 32, 2020-03-11 2021-04-16 2 of the Town and an alteration to a watercourse Associates Concessions 2 & 3 WHS of Caledon to facilitate the replacement of a culvert. Development in the floodplain 13-923 Caledon/East Garafraxa RJ Burnside & associated with Shaw's Creek for 20/228 Townline 2020-09-24 2021-03-29 1 Associates the purpose of reconstructing a Part Lot 31, Concession 5 WHS two-storey dwelling. Development in the Regulated 6 Chisholm Street 20/257 Area to facilitate construction of a 2021-04-29 2021-04-29 1 Part Lot 9, Concession 4 WHS shed. Complete Permit Permit Ward Owner Agent Address Proposed Works Application Issued No. No. Date Date

Page 1 of 6 7 DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS, AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES Schedule 'A' WATERCOURSES APPLICATIONS (STAFF APPROVED, FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ ENDORSEMENT) 2021-05-14

Caledon Development in the Regulated 1346 Mill Street 21/024 Excavating & Area for the purpose of replacing a 2021-03-26 2021-04-06 2 Part Lot 29, Concession 4 WHS Grading failed septic system. Development in the Regulated 14513 Winston Churchill Boulevard 21/028 Area for the purpose of 2021-03-30 2021-03-30 2 Part Lot 30, Concession 6 WHS constructing a deck. Development in the Regulated Mississauga Road & Area for the purpose of facilitating Region of Charleston Sideroad 21/041 replacement of culverts including 2021-02-11 2021-04-13 1 Peel Lots 10, 15, 16, 31, 32 34 RR001-0384/0385, 0392/0393, Concessions 1 EHS, 4 & 5 WHS 0394/0395 Development in the Regulated Area to facilitate construction of a Municipal new single family dwelling, 16740 St. Andrew's Road 21/066 Planning attached garage and terrace, and 2021-03-23 2021-03-23 1 Part Lot 7, Concession 4 EHS Consultants associated driveway, septic system, and site grading (including geothermal loop). Development in the Regulated 18585 Shaws Creek Road 21/071 Area to facilitate construction of a 2021-03-23 2021-03-31 1 Part Lot 16, Concession 5 WHS new garage. Development in the Regulated Gara Fram 36 Caledon Mountain Drive Area for the purpose of 21/079 2021-04-06 2021-04-06 1 Buildings Inc. Part Lot 8, Concession 4 WHS constructing a garage addition to an existing dwelling. Development in a Regulated Area and alteration to a watercourse Credit Valley Belfountain Conservation Area 21/081 including grading to facilitate 2021-04-06 2021-05-14 1 Conservation Part Lot 10, Concession 5 WHS restoration and pond decommissioning works. Development in the Regulated Area to facilitate construction of a 15429 Chinguacousy Road 21/103 single family dwelling, attached 2021-04-26 2021-04-26 1 Part Lot 1, Concession 2 WHS deck, septic system, and detached accessory structure (workshop). Complete Permit Permit Ward Owner Agent Address Proposed Works Application Issued No. No. Date Date East Garafraxa

Page 2 of 6 8 DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS, AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES Schedule 'A' WATERCOURSES APPLICATIONS (STAFF APPROVED, FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ ENDORSEMENT) 2021-05-14

Development in the Regulated New Wave 5 Nature's Landing Area for the purpose of 21/109 2021-04-12 2021-04-27 N/A Pool & Spa Part Lot 1, Concession A constructing a 14' x 40' inground pool and patio. Erin Development in the Regulated Area to facilitate the construction Homes of 141 Perryman Court 21/086 of a single family dwelling, 2021-04-07 2021-04-09 N/A Distinction Part Lot 1, Concession 8 attached garage and front yard septic system.

Development in the Regulated 176 Delarmbro Drive Area for the purpose of 21/091 2021-04-09 2021-04-13 N/A Part Lot 13, Concession 9 constructing a 14' x 14' pool cabana and two 16' x 12' pergolas. Halton Hills Development in the Regulated Area for the purpose of Hungry Hollow Ravine Town of constructing limestone screenings 20/070 West Branch Drive to Park Avenue 2020-04-23 2021-04-21 3 Halton Hills trail, wooden boardwalk and Lots 15-18, Concession 9 bridges through Hungry Hollow Ravine. Development in the Regulated 12932 Sixth Line Area for the purpose of 21/078 2021-03-30 2021-03-30 2 Part Lot 25, Concession 6 constructing an above ground pool and deck. Development in the Regulated Unique 288 Eaton Street Area for the purpose of 21/083 Hardscapes 2021-04-06 2021-04-08 4 Part Lot 14, Concession 9 constructing a 12' x 28' in-ground Inc. pool and patio. Development in the Regulated Robt Noble 20 Confederation Street 21/088 Area for the purpose of replacing a 2021-04-08 2021-04-13 2 Ltd. Part Lot 20, Concession 9 septic tank. Complete Permit Permit Ward Owner Agent Address Proposed Works Application Issued No. No. Date Date DK Development in the Regulated 14249 Trafalgar Road North 21/102 Excavating Area for the purpose of replacing a 2021-04-23 2021-04-23 2 Part Lot 32, Concession 8 Ltd. failed septic system.

Page 3 of 6 9 DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS, AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES Schedule 'A' WATERCOURSES APPLICATIONS (STAFF APPROVED, FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ ENDORSEMENT) 2021-05-14

Development in the Regulated Area for the purpose of 10916 22 Side Road constructing an addition to the 21/113 2021-04-29 2021-05-04 2 Part Lot 22, Concession 5 existing dwelling and attached garage with rear yard septic system. Development in the Regulated 14029 Third Line Area for the purpose of 21/115 2021-04-30 2021-05-04 1 Part Lot 31, Concession 4 constructing a 254.4m2 bungalow, driveway and septic system. Mississauga Development in the Regulated Area for the purpose of constructing a two-storey 19/218 Brejnik Fine 1525 Lochlin Trail replacement dwelling, driveway, 2021-04-21 2021-04-22 1 revised Homes Inc. Part Lot 13, Concession 2 SDS rear two-level balcony, rear patios, planter boxes, and associated grading. Development in the Regulated FDL Design 20/246 323 Mississauga Valley Boulevard Area for the purpose of and N/A 2021-04-12 4 revised Part Lot 14, Concession 1 SDS constructing an addition to an Construction existing dwelling. Alteration to a watercourse in the Lornewood Creek Region of Matrix Regulated Area to facilitate repairs 21/023 South of Indian Road 2021-01-29 2021-04-16 2 Peel Solutions Inc. to channel works in Lornewood Part Lot 23, Concession 2 SDS Creek. Development in the Regulated Area for the purpose of site 21/044 Archisystem 5214 Creditview Road grading and deck. N/A 2021-04-15 6 revised Inc. Part Lot 2, Concession 4 WHS *Note the house is outside of the Regulated Area Complete Permit Permit Ward Owner Agent Address Proposed Works Application Issued No. No. Date Date Development in the Regulated City of Ecosystem Bristol Rd West & Creditview Rd Area for the purpose of facilitating 21/060 2021-03-04 2021-04-30 6 Mississauga Recovery Inc. Part Lots 2 & 3, Concession 3 WHS sediment pond (SWMF 3801) cleanout and repairs.

Page 4 of 6 10 DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS, AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES Schedule 'A' WATERCOURSES APPLICATIONS (STAFF APPROVED, FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ ENDORSEMENT) 2021-05-14

Development in a Regulated Area for the purposes of implementing Daniels HR 2475 Eglinton Avenue West 21/072 ESC measures for the construction 2021-03-19 2021-04-30 11 Corporation Part Lot 1, Concession 5 WHS works (including shoring) of three mixed-use residential buildings. Development in the Regulated 1717 Kentchester Place 21/075 Area to facilitate construction of a 2021-04-14 2021-04-14 11 Part Lot 12, Concession 2 WHS below grade entrance. Development in the Regulated Area to facilitate construction of 441 Niar Avenue 21/085 paverstone terrace and patios, 2021-04-22 2021-04-26 1 Part Lot 12, Concession 2 SDS pergola, hot tub, reconstructed planter, and retaining wall. Development in the Regulated Area to facilitate construction of a Hicks Design 2265 Gordon Drive new two-storey dwelling, driveway, 21/092 2021-04-09 2021-04-13 7 Studio Inc. Part Lot 1, Range 3 CIR terrace, pool, retaining wall, landscaping and associated grading. Development in the Regulated Dusil Design Area to facilitate construction of an and 1712 Mazo Crescent 21/096 in-ground pool, patio, rebuilt deck, 2021-04-19 2021-04-20 2 Landscaping Part Lot 28, Concession 2 SDS landscaping and associated Inc. grading. Development in the Regulated 822 Silverthorn Mill Ave 21/101 Area for the purpose of 2021-04-22 2021-04-21 11 Part Lot 10, Concession 2 WHS constructing a covered porch. Development in the Regulated 2035 Lorelei Road 21/107 Area to facilitate construction of a 2021-04-23 2021-04-26 7 Part Lot 14, Concession 1 SDS treehouse. Complete Permit Permit Ward Owner Agent Address Proposed Works Application Issued No. No. Date Date

Page 5 of 6 11 DEVELOPMENT, INTERFERENCE WITH WETLANDS, AND ALTERATIONS TO SHORELINES Schedule 'A' WATERCOURSES APPLICATIONS (STAFF APPROVED, FOR BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ ENDORSEMENT) 2021-05-14

Development in a Regulated Area for the purposes of implementing Lakeview 800 & 985 Hydro Road and ESC measures for the earthworks UrbanTech 21/117 Community 1082 Lakeshore Road East and the construction of three 2021-02-17 2021-05-03 1 Consulting Partners Lot 8, Concession 3 SDS sediment ponds in support of site alteration of the proposed development. Mono Development in the Regulated Northridge 47 Starrview Crescent 21/087 Area for the purpose of 2021-04-08 2021-04-09 N/A Homes Ltd. Part Lot 4, Concession 2 WHS constructing an addition. Orangeville Development in the Regulated New Wave 182 Broadway Area for the purpose of 21/108 2021-04-12 2021-04-27 N/A Pool & Spa Part Lot 4, Concession C constructing a 4.26m x 7.92m inground pool and interlock patio.

Development in the Regulated 430 Scott Drive 21/112 Area for the purpose of 2021-04-29 2021-04-30 N/A Part Lot 3, Concession 2 WHS constructing a semi-inground pool.

Page 6 of 6 12

SCHEDULE ‘B’ PAGE -1- 2021-05-14

TO: The Chair and Members of the Board of Directors, Credit Valley Conservation

SUBJECT: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW AND PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE REVIEW UPDATE

PURPOSE: To inform the Board of Directors of CVC the status of the Planning and Development Services Comprehensive Plan Review and Permit Fee Schedule Review, and to seek approval to further consult with stakeholders and report back to the Board in November 2021 with final proposed updated fee schedules for 2022

BACKGROUND:

In November 2020, the CVC Board of Directors (the Board) received a report titled ‘Planning and Development Services Cost Recovery and Fee Schedule Update’. The purpose of that report was to inform the Board of the status of cost recovery for Planning and Development Services (PDS) Plan Review and Permitting programs, and to seek approval of the proposed 2021 fee schedules. While the report provided an analysis of the PDS cost recoverable programs (including proposed 2021 fee schedules), it also updated the Board on the status of the comprehensive fee review initiative being undertaken by a consultant (Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.).

Comprehensive Fee Review Process Included as Appendix 1 of the November 2020 staff report was the consultant’s final proposal. Among other items, the proposal included a detailed overview of the fee review process to assess the full cost of planning/permitting services (direct, indirect, and capital costs), including the following activities:

1. Review of background information, costing categories and application patterns; 2. Document fee categorization and development review process maps; 3. Design processing effort estimates and staff capacity utilization analysis; 4. Develop activity-based costing model to generate draft full cost fee schedules; 5. Calculate full cost recovery and policy driven fees, and test using CA/municipal comparison survey, market competitiveness, and applicant affordability; and 6. Prepare draft report and recommendations for further stakeholder consultation and implementation planning.

13

SCHEDULE ‘B’ PAGE -2- 2021-05-14

CVC Board Direction to PDS Staff Recognizing the comprehensive fee review being undertaken was not anticipated to be completed until spring 2021, that inflation estimates for 2020/21 were very low, and the on-going efforts of CVC to support the provinces’ economic recovery, the Board approved the proposed 2021 fee schedules (no changes from 2020) and directed staff to report on the findings and recommendations of the on-going comprehensive fee review in the spring of 2021 (CVC Board Resolution #105/20).

ANALYSIS:

Attached to this report as Schedule ‘B’, Appendix 1 is the Watson and Associates Ltd. final draft report titled ‘Plan Review and Permit Fees Review: Credit Valley Conservation Authority’. It is important to note that while the analysis reviewed PDS’s cost recoverable programs (Plan Review and Permit programs), it did not include a review or consideration for non-cost recovery programs including Plan Input (levy), Peel Predevelopment (special levy), or partner funded Environmental Assessment (EA) Review programs.

Included in the attached draft report are the proposed full cost recovery fee structures for Plan Review and Permit Fee schedules (including recommended fee administration policies) to be considered for further stakeholder consultation and implementation/phasing planning (see Figures 6-1 and 6-2 on pages 6-2 and 6-3 of the attached draft report).

Full Cost Recovery Activity-Based Costing Methodology The first step to generate the proposed full cost recovery fee schedules was to undertake an activity-based costing (ABC) assessment. In general, the ABC method assigns an organization’s resource costs through activities to the services provided. This approach best identifies all the costs associated with the application processing activities for specific user-fee types (or categories) and is an ideal method for determining full cost recovery with involvement from multiple departments.

Below, Figure 1 illustrates the ABC methodology which attributes processing effort and associated costs from all participating departments and individuals to the appropriate plan review and permitting categories. As shown, the resource costs attributed to processing activities and application categories includes indirect, direct, and capital costs.

Figure 1. Illustration of activity-based costing methodology

Indirect Costs Direct Costs Categories (e.g., corporate services and (e.g., operating and capital asset overhead) replacement costs) Plan Review Planning and Development - Subdivision Support Overhead Services Service - OPA Function Function Delivery - ZBA “Cost “Cost Watershed Activities/ - etc. Support Drivers” Overhead Drivers” Knowledge Effort

Functions Functions Watershed Permitting Management - Development - Interference Other Support Function “Cost Drivers” with Wetlands - etc. 14

SCHEDULE ‘B’ PAGE -3- 2021-05-14

Overall, this component of the analysis confirmed that existing costing categories in PDS fee schedules generally reflected current CVC plan review and permitting activities (including non-partner funded EA/infrastructure applications) and recognized:

 The differences in complexity and (costs of review associated with minor vs. major application types and level of effort/technical analysis required;  Activities undertaken in advance of formal applications being submitted (e.g., pre- consultation and preliminary technical review);  Other plan review and permitting activities not associated with fees such as enforcement and compliance, Niagara Escarpment Commission development applications, municipally initiated planning activities, watershed/subwatershed studies, CVC initiated planning/permit application reviews etc.

Staff Capacity Utilization Analysis The next stage in developing the full cost recovery fee schedules was to undertake a staff capacity utilization analysis. In general, this analysis takes the application processing effort estimates for all staff involved in the Plan Review and Permit programs and generates staff resource use estimates for the Plan Review and Permit programs.

Figure 2 illustrates the staff resource utilization distribution for Plan Review and Permit programs across CVC departments involved. Overall, it was found that approximately 20.3 full time equivalents (FTEs) of annual staff involvement from PDS (19.8 FTEs), Watershed Management (0.4 FTEs), and Watershed Knowledge (0.1 FTEs) were exclusively used in Plan Review and Permit program activities (currently, PDS has 26 FTEs – includes one contract position, and one maternity leave).

Figure 2. Illustration of staff resource utilization distribution among departments. Staff Resource Utilization

Watershed Management Department 2 % Planning & Development Services

20.3 FTEs Department 97 %

Watershed Knowledge Department (1%)

15

SCHEDULE ‘B’ PAGE -4- 2021-05-14

Figure 3 illustrates the PDS staff resource utilization by activity type for the Plan Review and Permit programs. Annually, PDS staff resource use was determined based on current staffing levels and average annual historical plan review and permit volumes (again, excluding staff resources required to support Plan Input, Peel Predevelopment, and partner funded EA programs).

As illustrated in Figure 3, most staff resources were being used on cost recoverable plan review and permitting activities (65%), followed by ‘other’ activities (24%) such as enforcement and compliance, and ‘other CVC reviews’ (11%) such as NEC development applications and CVC led applications/activities (no associated fees).

Figure 3. Illustration of PDS staff resource utilization by activity type for Plan Review and Permit programs. PDS Resource Utilization Other Activities (e.g., enforcement, compliance, appeals etc.) 24%

Other C.V.C. Plan Review and Reviews 11% Permitting, 65%

Annual Plan Review and Permit Program (full) Costs Using the Plan Review and Permit program activity-based costing methodology, and the 2021 PDS budget (including proxy costs for external department staff involved in Plan Review and Permit programs), annual program costs were generated for direct, indirect, and capital costs to evaluate full cost impacts.

Overall, the total combined full costs for PDS Plan Review and Permit programs were determined to be approximately $2,700,000. Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of program cost types between direct, indirect, and capital costs. As illustrated, most combined program costs were attributed to direct costs (86%), followed by indirect (14%) and capital costs (<1%). Additionally, of the $2,700,000 combined program cost, it was determined that approximately $2,300,000 was associated with cost recoverable plan review and permitting activities while the remaining $400,000 was associated with other (non-cost recovery) plan review and permitting activities such as NEC development applications, municipally driven secondary plans etc. 16

SCHEDULE ‘B’ PAGE -5- 2021-05-14

Figure 4. Illustration of distribution of activity-based costing results using 2021 budget information.

Distribution of Program Cost Type

Direct Costs 86 %

Capital Costs $2.7 million 0% Distribution of Activity Type

Indirect Costs 14%

$2.3 million , Plan Review and $2.7 million Permitting 85%

$0.4 million , Other C.V.C. Reviews 15%

PDS Program Cost and Revenue Impacts Annual cost and revenue impacts of the Plan Review and Permit programs were evaluated using the information presented above. The overall cost recovery levels were based on the weighted average of annual historical application and permit volume data over the 2015 to 2020 time periods, and current 2021 application fees. Table 1 below provides the annual program costs, annual revenue, and cost recovery level based on a full cost recovery basis (100% cost recovery for combined programs).

Table 1. Plan Review and Permit program full cost impacts based on 2021 budget.

Annual Cost Recovery Annual Costs Revenue (%) Description (Current Fees) Millions ($)

Plan Review and Permitting 2.3 0.9 39

Other CVC Reviews 0.4 - 0

Total 2.7 0.9 33 17

SCHEDULE ‘B’ PAGE -6- 2021-05-14

As shown in Table 1, based on planning and permit application trends and current Plan Review and Permit program fee schedules it is anticipated that a (full) cost recovery level of 39% will be reached. While this is below the average PDS cost recovery level reported in previous reports (57%), it should be recognized that this analysis was based on a more sophisticated activity-based (full) cost analysis and whereas previous results are typical/comparable to more simple analyses undertaken by other Conservation Authorities (CAs).

The 39% (full) cost recovery level indicates a $1,400,000 gap between annual costs ($2,300,000) and anticipated annual revenue ($900,000). Of that gap, the majority is attributed to the following:

 $403,000 for pre-development technical review such as terms of reference and/or draft technical reports (no current fee);  $720,000 for permit reviews (31% cost recovery); and  $199,000 for site plan and minor variance reviews (35% cost recovery).

Notably, a key trend in plan review and permitting fees for major applications, or those requiring review of technical reports (intermediate, major, or complex application categories), were anticipated to recover a greater share of costs than minor, or small scale, application types. While this reflects the strategic fee pricing decision to ensure watershed resident/applicant affordability and consistency with municipal, other CA, and industry standards, it remains a significant contribution to the annual cost/anticipated revenue gap.

To bridge the $1,400, 000 gap between the annual costs and anticipated annual revenue levels, it was recommended that further consideration be given to updating fees to be more consistent with the recommended full cost recovery fee schedules contained in the attached report.

Fee Survey and Development Impact Analysis To ensure the recommended full cost recovery fee schedules were consistent with industry best standards, comparable/competitive to/with similar municipal and CA application fees and affordable, a fee survey and development impact analysis were undertaken. Sections 3 and 4 of the attached final draft Watson report provides a detailed review of the fee survey and impact analysis method and results.

In general, the fee survey confirmed the proposed full cost recovery fee schedules remained comparable and competitive with other surrounding CAs, and within an acceptable range of industry best standards for similar types of application fees.

Further analysis was undertaken to assess the recommended full cost recovery fees against municipal development fees (including planning application fees, building permit fees, and development charges) for several different types of routine development applications (subdivision, multi-use condominium, commercial site plan, and industrial site plan). Based on this impact analysis the recommended full cost recovery plan review fees would have relatively little impact on the total development fees payable, with the total development fees decreasing in some cases (between a 0.1% decrease and 0.1% increase in total development fees payable). 18

SCHEDULE ‘B’ PAGE -7- 2021-05-14

Recommendations for Plan Review and Permit Fee Schedules The attached final draft Watson and Associates Ltd. report provides the results of the full cost analysis of plan review and permit services, including proposed draft fee schedule structure and application category/sub-category fees required to reach full cost recovery, as well as recommended fee administration policies (and/or notes). Below is a list of the key recommendations:

Fee Schedule Structure  Include an additional fee category for pre-consultation technical review (i.e., review of scoped (minor) or draft (major) technical reports prior to the submission of formal applications);  Include additional fee sub-categories (minor, intermediate and major) for residential site plan categories to recognize range in complexity of application types;  Continue use of resubmission fee category (additional 25% of original application fee) and expedited review fee (additional 100% of original application fee), recognizing each application category’s fee was determined based on a specific number of submissions and timeframe through process mapping (e.g., minor one to two submissions, intermediate two to three submissions, and major/complex three submissions over a maximum of regulated or adopted review timelines);  Fees for GIS information requests should be charged per request (as opposed to current per hour rate); and  Fee for additional site visits should be charged per technical staff required for visit (as opposed to current flat rate fee).

Application Category/Sub-Category Fees  To reach full cost recovery levels, the Plan Review and Permit fee schedule’s category specific fees should consider being updated in 2022 as identified in detail in Figures 6-1 and 6-2 on pages 6-2 and 6-3 of the attached draft report; and  At a minimum, to keep pace with cost of living and inflation, and to continue to reach maximum program full cost recovery potential, the Plan Review and Permit fee schedules should be updated annually with consideration for cost-of-living allowance/inflation rates as approved by the Board, at a minimum.

Fee administration Policies The un-proclaimed Section 21.2 of the Conservation Authorities Act sets out minimum requirements for CA fee schedules and documentation of fee policies. While CVC generally already follows these un-proclaimed requirements as a best practice (CVC fee policies as administered from municipal best practices and Conservation Ontario’s ‘Guideline for CA Fee Administrative Policies for Plan Review and Permitting’, June 24, 2019), the following additional fee administration policies are recommended to further improve clarity and transparency:

 Further clarify and document how fees, or groups of fees, were determined (e.g., full cost recovery, market-based assessment, costs targeted for recovery etc.);  Include a policy (or note to schedules) identifying intent to increase fees to keep pace with annual cost of living/inflation; 19

SCHEDULE ‘B’ PAGE -8- 2021-05-14

 That fee policy/schedules further identify process for requests for fee reconsideration to improve clarity;  More clearly identify frequency and process for undertaking fee and fee policy reviews; and  Additional information be included in posting notice and making fee schedules publicly available – including notice timeframe, stakeholders targeted, method(s) of consultation, and approval process.

Next Steps Considering the report findings and the above recommendations, the following are the suggested next steps for this fee review:

 further consult with the development industry (BILD) and watershed stakeholders regarding the report findings and recommendations (including implementation and phasing strategy);  develop an implementation strategy and final fee recommendations to achieve a higher standard of full cost recovery for CVC Plan Review and Permit programs; and  present 2022 fee schedule update and implementation strategy recommendations to the Board for consideration in annual fall update (November 2021 Board meeting).

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN:

Copies of this report will be forwarded to member municipalities, Conservation Ontario, Greater Golden Horseshoe Conservation Authorities, and the Building Industry and Land Development Association for their information and in preparation for further consultation.

In addition, notice of the on-going fee review and a copy of this report will be posted on the CVC PDS webpage.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

The proposed full cost recovery Plan Review and Permit fee schedules will form the basis for further consultation and staff analysis for implementation, to assist in developing 2022 PDS budgetary projections and final recommended fee schedules for 2022 This will be presented for the Board’s consideration at their November 2021 meeting.

CONCLUSION:

In November 2020, the Board received an update on the status of PDS cost recovery for Plan Review and Permit programs, and to seek approval of the proposed 2021 fee schedules. Also included in that report was a status update of the comprehensive fee review initiative being undertaken by a consultant (Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.) to be completed and presented to the Board for consideration in the spring of 2021. 20

SCHEDULE ‘B’ PAGE -9- 2021-05-14

The report summarizes the methodology undertaken in assessing PDS cost recoverable activities on a full cost recovery basis (excluding non-cost recoverable programs such as Plan Input, Peel Predevelopment, and partner funded EA Review programs), activity- based costing results, and full cost of services, proposed fee structure, proposed full cost application category/sub-category fees, and recommended fee administration policies.

In developing the proposed full cost recovery fee schedules, careful consideration was given to the market competitiveness and affordability of the proposed fee impacts. The recommended fees were designed to align the full cost of services with the benefiting parties and are anticipated to achieve full cost recovery (100%) for the Plan Review and Permit programs. Ultimately, the level of cost recovery, implementation and phasing strategy requires further staff analysis, consideration for affordability/consistency, and consultation with development industry stakeholders.

In this regard, PDS staff will be engaging further with development industry and watershed stakeholders on the proposed fees and fee policies, before coming forth to the Board with final recommended fee schedule updates to be implemented in 2022 (to be presented to the Board for consideration in November 2021).

RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION:

WHEREAS CVC Planning and Development Services (PDS) staff engaged a consultant to assist in undertaking a comprehensive review of plan review and permit fees in the fall of 2020; and

WHEREAS the CVC Board of Directors directed PDS staff to report back on the findings and recommendations or the review in the spring of 2021; and

WHEREAS a final draft report detailing the methodology, findings, recommendations and next steps for fee schedule and policy updates has been completed and is attached as Schedule ‘B’, Appendix 1 of this report;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “ Planning and Development Services Comprehensive Plan Review and Permit Fee Schedule Review Update” be received and appended to the minutes of this meeting as Schedule ‘B’; and

THAT the CVC Board of Directors endorses the recommendations of the final draft report; and

THAT CVC PDS staff continue to further consult with development industry and watershed stakeholders on the recommended full cost recovery fee schedules and policies prior to developing final recommendations for implementation in 2022; and

THAT CVC PDS staff report back to the CVC Board of Directors in November 2021 with final fee schedule recommendations and an implementation and phasing strategy as necessary; and further

21

SCHEDULE ‘B’ PAGE -10- 2021-05-14

THAT a copy of this report be circulated to member municipalities, Conservation Ontario, Greater Golden Horseshoe Conservation Authorities, and the Building Industry and Land Development Association for their information, as well as posted on the CVC PDS webpage along with notice of the on-going fee review.

Submitted by:

______Josh Campbell Director, Planning and Development Services

Recommended by:

______Deborah Martin-Downs Chief Administrative Officer SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE22 1 2021-05-14

Plan Review and Permit Fees Review Credit Valley Conservation Authority ______

Draft Report

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 905-272-3600 April 23, 2021 [email protected]

SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE23 2 2021-05-14

Table of Contents

Page 1. Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Background ...... 1-1 1.2 Objectives ...... 1-1 1.3 Study Process ...... 1-2 1.4 Legislative Context for Fees Review ...... 1-3 1.4.1 Conservation Authorities Act, 1990 ...... 1-4 1.4.2 Planning Act, 1990 ...... 1-5 2. Activity-Based Costing Methodology ...... 2-1 2.1 Methodology ...... 2-1 2.2 Application Category Definition ...... 2-2 2.3 Processing Effort Cost Allocation ...... 2-8 2.4 Direct Costs ...... 2-9 2.5 Indirect Cost Functions and Cost Drivers ...... 2-9 2.6 Capital Costs ...... 2-10 3. Plan Review and Permitting Fees Review ...... 3-2 3.1 Staff Capacity Utilization Results ...... 3-2 3.2 Impacts ...... 3-3 3.2.1 Plan Review and Permitting ...... 3-4 3.2.2 Other Credit Valley Conservation Authority Reviews ...... 3-5 3.2.3 Summary...... 3-6 3.3 Fee Recommendations ...... 3-6 3.3.1 Plan Review ...... 3-7 3.3.2 Permitting ...... 3-10 4. Impact Analysis of Proposed Plan Review Fees ...... 4-1 4.1 Impact Analysis ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision Application for a Residential 100-unit Low-Density Subdivision ...... 4-1

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE24 3 2021-05-14

Table of Contents (Cont’d)

Page

4.1.2 Site Plan, Plan of Condominium, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications for a Residential 25-unit Medium-Density Development ...... 4-2 4.1.3 Site Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications for a 1,000 m2 Retail Development ...... 4-2 4.1.4 Site Plan Application for a 10,000 m2 Industrial Development ...... 4-3 4.1.5 Residential Minor Variance Application ...... 4-3 4.2 Impact Analysis Summary ...... 4-4 5. Fee Policy ...... 5-1 5.1 Fee Schedule ...... 5-3 5.2 Circumstances for Request of Reconsideration of Fees ...... 5-3 5.3 Frequency and Process for Review ...... 5-4 5.4 Notice and Public Availability ...... 5-4 6. Conclusion ...... 6-1 Appendix A Conservation Authority Fee Survey ...... A-1

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE25 4 2021-05-14

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations A.B.C. Activity-Based Costing

C.A. Conservation Authority

C.A.A. Conservation Authorities Act, 1990

E.A. Environmental Assessment

F.T.E. Full Time Equivalent

H.S.T. Harmonized Sales Tax

L.P.A.T. Local Planning Appeal Tribunal

M.N.R.F. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry

M.O.U. Memorandum of Understanding

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE26 5 2021-05-14

Chapter 1 Introduction

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE27 6 2021-05-14

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Credit Valley Conservation Authority (C.V.C.) provides plan review services and approvals to provincial agencies, municipalities, and landowners throughout its watersheds within the Region of Halton, Region of Peel, Wellington County, and Dufferin County. Additionally, C.V.C. regulates the development, interference with wetlands, and alterations to shorelines and watercourses through Conservation Authorities Act, 1990 (C.A.A.) section 28 permits granted under O. Reg. 160/06.

Changes to the C.A.A. through the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watershed Act, 2017 and the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 (which are discussed further in section 1.4 herein) have implications for the types of services provided by Conservation Authorities (C.A.s) and the available funding sources for the services provided. The potential impact of these changes on the ability of C.A.s to recover costs through municipal levies, agreements, memorandums of understanding, and fees and charges, suggest there will be a greater need for full cost accounting principles (i.e. direct, indirect, and capital costs) and transparency in the determination of fees and charges for all programs and services provided.

1.2 Objectives

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (Watson) has been retained by C.V.C. to undertake a review of plan review and permitting fees imposed by C.V.C.

The primary objectives of the fee review are to assess the full cost of providing plan review and permitting services and the sufficiency of current C.V.C. fees to recover the anticipated costs of service. Evidence based support is provided for fee structure recommendations to recover the full cost of service while:

• being defensible and conforming with the policies of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (M.N.R.F.) regarding planning and compliance-oriented activities and the requirements of the C.A.A.; • balancing C.V.C.’s need to maximize cost recovery with stakeholder interests, affordability, and competitiveness;

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-1 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE28 7 2021-05-14

• reflecting industry best practices; and • considering the administrative process for the implementation of fees.

In addition to making fee recommendations, the fee review also recommends principles of a fee policy in accordance with section 21.2 of the C.A.A. (yet to be proclaimed at the time of writing).

The analysis provided herein, and ultimate fee recommendations, have been developed to provide for the full recovery of plan review and permit review costs. Implementation and cost recovery targets for these fees will then subsequently be determined through consultation with external stakeholders and C.V.C.’s Board of Directors.

This technical report summarizes the legislative context for the fees review, provides in detail, the methodology utilized to assess the full costs of service, and presents the calculated full cost recovery fees and fee administration policies.

1.3 Study Process

Set out in Table 1-1 is the project work plan that has been undertaken in the review of C.V.C.’s plan review and permit fees.

Table 1-1 Plan Review and Permit Fees Review Study Work Plan

Work Plan Description Component 1. Project Initiation • Undertook an initial start-up meeting with C.V.C. staff to and Orientation review project scope, work plan, legislative context, fee review trends, and activity-based costing full cost methodology 2. Review • Reviewed cost recovery policies Background • Assessed annual application patterns and characteristics Information 3. Document Fee • Met with C.V.C. staff members to review and refine fee Categorization design parameters and establish costing categories and Processes • Developed, in collaboration with C.V.C. staff, process maps for categories/processes established through these discussions • Established participating C.V.C. departments/staff positions

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-2 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE29 8 2021-05-14

Work Plan Description Component 4. Design and • Produced (by C.V.C. staff) effort estimates for each Execution of costing category across established processes Direct Staff • Examined effort estimates to quantify and test overall Processing Effort staff capacity utilization (i.e. capacity analysis) for Estimation reasonableness • Reviewed the results of the staff capacity utilization analysis with C.V.C. staff and refined effort estimates 5. Develop A.B.C. • Developed A.B.C. model to reflect the current cost base Model to (i.e. 2021$), fee costing categories, direct and indirect Determine the Full cost drivers, and generated full cost fee schedule Cost Processes 6. Calculation of Full • Used modelled costing results to generate full cost Cost Recovery recovery and policy-driven fee structure options and Policy Driven • Prepared comparison survey for conservation authorities Fees and Fee (C.A.s) and municipal development fees Comparisons • Calculated full cost recovery and policy-driven fee structures and compared fees to other C.A.s • Developed a recommended fee structure to achieve full cost recovery while maintaining market competitiveness and considering applicant affordability • Provided impact analysis for sample development types and for C.A./municipal comparators • Presented draft fee structure and findings to C.V.C. staff 7. Draft Report • Prepared the Draft Report 8. Stakeholder • Subsequent to the preparation of the Draft Report, Consultation and C.V.C. will be engaging with stakeholders to inform the Final Report final fee recommendations and implementation of those fees and policies

1.4 Legislative Context for Fees Review

The context for the fees review is framed by the statutory authority available to C.V.C. to recover the costs of service. The statutory authority for imposing fees for services, including plan review and section 28 permits, is conferred through the C.A.A. and section 69 of the Planning Act.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-3 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE30 9 2021-05-14

1.4.1 Conservation Authorities Act, 1990 Currently, section 21 of the C.A.A. provides the authority for C.A.s to charge fees for services. Recent changes to the C.A.A. through the Building Better Communities and Conserving Watershed Act, 2017 (Bill 139) and the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 (Bill 108), have implications for the types of services C.A.s provide and how costs are recovered. While these pieces of legislation have received Royal Assent, the sections that pertain to the provision of fees for programs and services will come into effect on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor. Section 21.1 of the C.A.A. identifies the programs and services that a C.A. is required or permitted to provide within its area of jurisdiction. These programs and services include:

1. Mandatory programs and services that are required by regulation; 2. Municipal programs and services that the authority agrees to provide on behalf of municipalities situated in whole or in part within its area of jurisdiction under a memorandum of understanding (M.O.U.); and 3. Such other programs and services as the authority may determine are advisable to further its objectives.

The proposed changes to the C.A.A. will redefine these programs and services to include:

• Mandatory programs and services (section 21.1) related to: o Risk of natural hazards, conservation, and management of lands owned or controlled by the authority, source protection authority under the Clean Water Act, 2006, and as prescribed by regulation. • Municipal programs and services (section 21.1.1) o Provided through an M.O.U. or agreement with municipal partners. • Other programs and services (section 21.1.2).

C.A.s may apportion operating costs of “mandatory” and “municipal” programs and services to participating municipalities. “Other” programs and services may be included in the apportionment if identified in an M.O.U. or agreement. The apportionment of costs may also be appealed by the participating municipalities.

The changes to the C.A.A. will require fees, including those for plan review, section 28 permitting, and other programs and services, to be determined by the C.A. if not

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-4 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 1031 2021-05-14

prescribed through regulation. C.A.s will be required to maintain a fee schedule that sets out the programs and services it provides and for which it charges a fee, the amount of the fee, and the manner in which the fee has been determined.

C.A.s will be required to adopt a fee policy, including fee schedule, frequency, and process for review (including notice and public availability), and circumstances for the request of reconsideration. The fees and fee policy shall be made available to the public and reviewed at regular intervals. Notice of any changes to the list of fees, amount of any fee, or the manner in which the fees were determined, shall be given to the public.

1.4.2 Planning Act, 1990 The M.N.R.F. sets additional principles and policies for charging fees, including:

• Fees should be set to recover the full cost of administering and delivering the service; and • For planning services, fees should be designed and administered in accordance with section 69 of the Planning Act:

The Planning Act, 1990 governs the imposition of fees for recovery of the anticipated costs of processing each type of planning application. The following summarizes the provisions of this statute as it pertains to planning application fees.

Section 69 of the Planning Act allows municipalities to impose fees through by-law for the purposes of processing planning applications. In determining the associated fees, the Act requires that:

“The council of a municipality, by by-law, and a planning board, by resolution, may establish a tariff of fees for the processing of applications made in respect of planning matters, which tariff shall be designed to meet only the anticipated cost to the municipality or to a committee of adjustment or land division committee constituted by the council of the municipality or to the planning board in respect of the processing of each type of application provided for in the tariff.”

Section 69 establishes many cost recovery requirements that municipalities imposing fees under section 69 must consider when undertaking a full cost recovery fee design study. The Act specifies that municipalities may impose fees through by-law and that

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-5 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 1132 2021-05-14

the anticipated costs of such fees must be cost justified by application type as defined in the tariff of fees (e.g. Subdivision, Zoning By-law Amendment, etc.). Given the cost justification requirements by application type, this would suggest that cross- subsidization of planning application fee revenues across application types is not permissible. For instance, if Site Plan Application fees were set at levels below full cost recovery for policy purposes, this discount could not be funded by Subdivision Application fees set at levels higher than full cost recovery. Our interpretation of section 69 is that any fee discount must be funded from other general revenue sources.

It is noted that the statutory requirement is not the actual processing costs related to any one specific application. As such, actual time docketing of staff processing effort against application categories or specific applications does not appear to be a requirement of the Act for compliance purposes. As such our methodology, which is based on staff estimates of application processing effort, meets with the requirements of the Act and is in our opinion a reasonable approach in determining anticipated costs.

The Act does not specifically define the scope of eligible processing activities and there are no explicit restrictions to direct costs as previously witnessed in other statutes. Moreover, recent amendments to the fee provisions of the Municipal Act and Building Code Act are providing for broader recognition of indirect costs. Acknowledging that staff effort from multiple departments can be involved in processing planning applications, it is our opinion that such fees may include direct costs, capital-related costs, support function costs directly related to the service provided, and general corporate overhead costs apportioned to the service provided.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 1-6 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 1233 2021-05-14

Chapter 2 Activity-Based Costing Methodology

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 1334 2021-05-14

2. Activity-Based Costing Methodology

2.1 Methodology

An activity-based costing (A.B.C.) methodology, as it pertains to C.A.s, assigns an organization's resource costs through activities to the services provided to the public. Conventional public sector accounting structures are typically not well suited to the costing challenges associated with development or other service processing activities, as these accounting structures are department focussed and thereby inadequate for fully costing services with involvement from multiple departments. An A.B.C. approach better identifies the costs associated with the processing activities for specific user-fee types and thus is an ideal method for determining full cost recovery plan review and permit fees.

As illustrated in Figure 2-1, an A.B.C. methodology attributes processing effort and associated costs from all participating departments and individuals to the appropriate plan review and permit categories. The resource costs attributed to processing activities and application/permit categories include direct operating costs, indirect support costs, and capital costs. Indirect support function and corporate overhead costs are typically allocated to direct departments according to operational cost drivers (e.g. facility-related operating costs allocated based on the relative share of facility space occupied). Once support costs have been allocated amongst direct departments, the accumulated costs (i.e. indirect, direct, and capital costs) are then distributed across the various fee categories, based on the department’s direct involvement in the processing activities. The assessment of each department’s direct involvement in the plan review and permitting process is accomplished by tracking the relative shares of staff processing effort across each fee category’s sequence of mapped process steps. The results of employing this costing methodology provides organizations with a better recognition of the costs utilized in delivering plan review and permitting processes, as it acknowledges not only the direct costs of resources deployed but also the operating and capital support costs required by those resources to provide services.

The following sections in this chapter review each component of the A.B.C. methodology as it pertains to the planning review and permit fees.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-1 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 1435 2021-05-14

Figure 2-1 Activity-Based Costing Conceptual Cost Flow Diagram

2.2 Application Category Definition

A critical component of the full cost recovery fees review is the selection of the plan review and permitting costing categories. This is an important first step as the process design, effort estimation, and subsequent costing are based on these categorization decisions. It is also important from a compliance standpoint where, as noted previously, the Planning Act requires application fees to be cost justified by application type consistent with the categorization contained within the tariff of fees. Moreover, the cost categorization process will provide insight into any differences in processing costs for each costing category within an application/permit type, which is informative to the fee structure design exercise.

Fee categorization decisions were made using C.V.C.’s existing fee structure and discussions on the potential further disaggregation of application/permit types to understand differences in costs by application complexity and size. Through these discussions it was determined that costing categories used in the fee review should reflect C.V.C.’s current application and permit fee types as well as additional categories for processes in which there is currently no associated fee. These discussions and the

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-2 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 1536 2021-05-14

fee categorization process were undertaken during the working sessions with C.V.C. staff at the outset of this review.

Given the cost justification requirements of the Planning Act and comments of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (L.P.A.T.) with respect to marginal costing, this level of disaggregation within application types is in direct response to the comments of the L.P.A.T. Furthermore, this reflects an evolution in the costing methodology to exceed the statutory requirements and to better understand the factors influencing processing effort.

Summarized in Table 2-1 are the planning application and permitting costing categories that have been included in the A.B.C. model. These costing categories have been used to rationalize changes to C.V.C.’s plan review and permitting user fee schedule and understand the full costs of other processes.

The following explains the rationale for the major plan review and permitting categorization decisions utilized in the fee review:

Plan Review

• Plan of Subdivision Applications have been separated into 2 costing categories, those that include 1 development permit and are less than 5 hectares and those that are greater than 5 hectares to understand how processing costs change as applications increase in size; • Site Plan Control Applications have been assessed to reflect 3 sub-categories: Single Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional, and Multi-unit Buildings and Condominiums. The latter 2 sub-categories were then further disaggregated into minor, intermediate and major application types. These decisions were made to reflect C.V.C.’s current fee schedule structure and to acknowledge the variation in required efforts across the different types and complexities of applications; • Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment Applications and Aggregate Applications have been disaggregated into sub-categories including, minor, intermediate, and major applications to reflect the differences in process and level of effort involved; • Committee of Adjustment Applications (i.e. Consents and Minor Variances) have been assessed to reflect C.V.C.’s current fee schedule. This resulted in two

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-3 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 1637 2021-05-14

costing categories (minor and major types) for Consent Applications and one type for Minor Variance applications; • One costing category has been included for each of Golf Course Applications, Resubmission of Applications and Individual EA/Master Plan Reviews; • Class E.A. Reviews have been assessed based on 3 subtypes that are reflective of C.V.C.’s current fee schedule (i.e. Schedule A, B, and C reviews); and • Additional costing categories have also been included for the process of undertaking Technical Report Reviews in advance of the receipt of formal applications or permits. Two costing categories had been identified by staff in this regard including the process of a scoped review (which generally involves a review of the Terms of Reference) and a full report review including the review of technical studies.

Permitting

• Development permits and interference with wetlands and alterations to watercourses and shorelines permits have been assessed for small, medium, large, and major scale projects; • In stream timing window extensions have been assessed for minor and major applications; • Fill placement permits have been assessed for applications less than 500m3 and greater than 500m3; • One costing category has been included for each of the following permit types: o Permit for Minor Works; o Permit Revisions; o Expedited Review; o Additional Site Visits; o Solicitor/Realtor/Property Inquiry; and o GIS Information Request/Service. • Violation Surcharges have been assessed for 3 situations, Violation (Permit Issued), Violation (No Permit Issued) – Compliance and Violation (No Permit Issued) – Non-Compliance

Other C.V.C. Reviews:

• Other C.V.C. reviews that are undertaken primarily for municipal and provincial agencies with no current cost recovery mechanisms, such as Official Plan

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-4 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 1738 2021-05-14

reviews, comprehensive Zoning By-law reviews, municipally initiated Secondary Plans and Official Plan Amendments, Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendment (Municipally Driven), Subwatershed Studies and Provincially led E.A. Reviews were also assessed to understand the level of effort and associated costs being expended in this regard.

In addition to the effort spent on the above activities, C.V.C. staff expend effort on other organizational reviews and activities not included in the fee review, such as provincial reviews, C.V.C. policy development, public consultation, provincial and federal E.A. reviews, C.V.C. internal reviews for other departments, administration, etc.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-5 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 1839 2021-05-14

Table 2-1 Plan Review and Permitting Fee Types and Costing Categories

Costing Category Name

Plan Review Official Plan Amendment or Zoning By-law Amendment Minor Intermediate Major Site Plan Control Single Residential Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Minor Intermediate Major Site Plan Multi-unit Building and Condominiums Minor Intermediate Major Included in Site Plan process steps Site Plan Water Balance Review Only (WHPA Q2 Area) Consents (Severences) Minor Major Minor Variance Plan of Subdivision/Condominium Including 1 development permit and less than 5 ha Greater than 5 ha Clearances Included in Subdivision process steps Included in Subdivision process steps Golf Courses Aggregate Applications Minor Intermediate Major Class EA Review Schedule A Schedule B Schedule C Technical Report Review Scoped - Terms of Reference Full - Full report review Resubmission Individual EA/Master Plan Review

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-6 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 1940 2021-05-14

Table 2-1 (Cont’d) Plan Review and Permitting Fee Types and Costing Categories

Costing Category Name

Permitting Development Small Scale Medium Scale Large Scale Major Scale Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Watercourses and Shorelines – Small Scale Small Scale Medium Scale Large Scale Major Scale Permit for Minor Works Permit Revisions/Review of Repeat Submissions Expedited Review (Director approved – subject to resources available) In Stream Timing Window Extension Minor Major Fill Placement less than 500 m3 greater than 500 m3 Additional Site Visit Solicitor/Realtor/Property Inquiry GIS Information Request/Service Violation Surcharge Violation (Permit Issued) Violation (No Permit Issued) - Compliance Violation (No Permit Issued) - No Compliance Other Fee Catgories OP Reviews Comprehensive Zoning By-Law Reviews Municipaly Initiated Scondary Plans Municipaly Initiated OPAs Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendment (Municipally Driven)

Subwatershed Studies Provincially led EA Reviews

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-7 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 2041 2021-05-14

2.3 Processing Effort Cost Allocation

To capture each participating C.V.C. staff member’s relative level of effort in processing plan review applications and permits, process templates were prepared for each of the above-referenced costing categories. The process templates were generated using sample templates based on established processes from other C.A.s. C.V.C. then refined and modified the process steps to reflect the current plan reviews and permitting processes undertaken by C.V.C.

The individual process maps were populated by C.V.C. staff in internal working sessions with the typical effort spent by staff for each process step and costing category. The effort estimates generated reflect the time related to the plan review and permitting processing activities by participating C.V.C. staff and by application type. These effort estimates were applied to average historical plan review and permitting application volumes, by type, to produce annual processing effort estimates by C.V.C. staff position.

Annual processing efforts per staff position were compared with available capacity to determine overall service levels. Subsequent to this initial capacity analysis, working sessions were held with the C.V.C. staff to further define the scope and nature of staff involvement in plan review and permitting activities to reflect current staff utilization levels. These refinements provided for the recognition of efforts within the fees review ancillary to direct processing tasks, i.e. departmental support activities, management and application oversight activities by departmental senior management. Effort related to planning policy, preparation for and defense of applications at LPAT, and special projects and other organizational initiatives were not included in the definition of planning review and permitting application processing activities.

The capacity utilization results are critical to the full cost recovery fee review because the associated resourcing costs follow the activity-generated effort of each participating staff member into the identified costing categories. As such, considerable time and effort was spent ensuring the reasonableness of the capacity utilization results. The overall departmental fee recovery levels underlying the calculations are provided in Chapter 3 of this report.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-8 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 2142 2021-05-14

2.4 Direct Costs

Direct costs refer to the employee costs (salaries, wages, and benefits), supplies, materials, and equipment, and purchased services, that are typically consumed by directly involved departments. Based on the results of the staff capacity analysis summarized above, the proportionate share of each individual’s direct costs is allocated to the respective fee categories. The direct costs included in C.V.C.’s costing model are taken from their 2021 Operating budget for the Planning & Development Services (P.D.S.) department, and include cost components such as:

• Labour Costs, e.g. salary, wages, and benefits; • Materials & Supplies; and • Training & Development.

Based on the modelling results (and as summarized in Section 3.1), the P.D.S. department provide the majority of the plan review and permitting efforts. Minor amounts of involvement are also provided by staff within the Watershed Knowledge (W.K.) department and Watershed Management (W.M.) department.

Labour costs for staff within the W.K. and W.M. departments were provided based on the salary bands of the individual positions with plan review and permitting involvement. Other departmental direct costs per position within these departments were based on the costs per position in the P.D.S. department budget.

2.5 Indirect Cost Functions and Cost Drivers

An A.B.C. review includes both the direct service costs of providing service activities and the indirect support costs that allow direct service departments to perform these functions. C.V.C. currently budgets for these indirect costs through their annual budgeting process. C.V.C.’s methodology for developing these indirect costs has been maintained within the A.B.C. model.

Budgeted indirect and corporate overhead costs within the supporting the P.D.S. department include:

• Information Technologies/Telecommunications; • Administration; and

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-9 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 2243 2021-05-14

• Fleet Services.

These budgeted indirect costs have been allocated to each costing category using the staff capacity utilization results discussed in section 3.1. Furthermore, consistent with the approach for direct costs, the indirect costs per staff position within the P.D.S. department has been utilized for the for the W.K. and W.M. departments’ indirect cost allocation.

2.6 Capital Costs

The inclusion of capital costs within the full cost plan review and permitting fees calculations follow a methodology similar to indirect costs. The annual replacement value of assets commonly utilized to provide direct department services has been included to reflect capital costs of service. The replacement value approach determines the annual asset replacement value over the expected useful life of the respective assets. This reflects the annual depreciation of the asset over its useful life based on current asset replacement values using a sinking fund approach. This annuity is then allocated across all fee categories based on the capacity utilization of the direct service departments.

The annual capital replacement contribution has been calculated using an annual sinking fund replacement cost calculation for facility space. The replacement cost of the C.V.C. administrative office space utilized by P.D.S. staff has been based on the cost per sq.ft. from the 2021 Altus Group Canadian Cost Guide’s for municipal office space (i.e. $340/sq.ft.) and an assumed square foot per employee (i.e. 35 square feet). The annual capital cost contribution was then allocated to the fee categories based on resource capacity utilization.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 2-10 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 2344 2021-05-14

Chapter 3 Plan Review and Permitting Fees Review

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 2445 2021-05-14

3. Plan Review and Permitting Fees Review

3.1 Staff Capacity Utilization Results

The plan review, permitting, and other C.V.C. review processes considered within this assessment involves to varying degrees, staff from the P.D.S., W.K., and W.M. departments. The processing effort estimates in this report reflect C.V.C.’s current business processes, 2015 to 2020 average annual application/permit volumes, and staffing allocation patterns currently in each respective department.

Table 3-1 summarizes the annual staff resource utilization and number of full-time equivalent (F.T.E.) positions attributable to plan review and permitting and other review processes considered as part of this review (i.e. excluding non-processing effort provided by staff for L.P.A.T. appeals, other provincial reviews, corporate management, policy initiatives, and other organizational initiatives, consistent with the approach utilized in other Ontario municipalities and C.A.s.).

Table 3-1 Staff Resource Utilization by F.T.E.

Staff Resource Utilization Staff Description Plan Review Other C.V.C. Utilized Compliment Total and Permitting Reviews F.T.E. Planning and Development Services Department Director of Planning and Development Services 1 64.9% 11.2% 76.1% 0.76 Administrator 1 92.2% 1.8% 94.0% 0.94 Engineering Plan Review Division 6 71.6% 5.4% 76.9% 4.62 Planning Ecology Division 6 64.0% 12.9% 76.9% 4.62 Plan Review Division 8 54.8% 20.0% 74.8% 5.98 Regulation and Enforcement Division 4 69.9% 2.1% 72.0% 2.88 Subtotal - Planning and Development Services Department 26 64.9% 11.2% 76.1% 19.80 Watershed Knowledge Department Natural Heritage Management Division 8 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 Water and Climate Change Science Division 17 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.01 Source Protection and Geoscience Division 2 4.8% 0.1% 4.9% 0.10 Other Staff 25 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - Subtotal - Watershed Knowledge Department 52 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.11 Watershed Management Department Manager, Hydrology and Hydraulics 1 9.7% 4.9% 14.6% 0.15 Flood Risk Mapping Division 3 4.1% 2.1% 6.2% 0.18 Hydrology Division 3 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00 Fluvial Geomorphology Division 4 1.4% 0.7% 2.0% 0.08 Other Staff 50 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% - Subtotal - Watershed Management Department 61 0.5% 0.2% 0.7% 0.41 Grand Total 139 12.4% 2.2% 14.6% 20.32

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-2 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 2546 2021-05-14

The following observations are provided based on the results of the capacity analysis presented in Table 3-1:

• In total, 64.9% of the P.D.S. department is utilized annually on plan review and permitting activities. Efforts of 19.8 F.T.E. positions (approximately 76% of the annual staff capacity) in the P.D.S. department are being consumed annually when including other C.V.C. reviews within the scope of the review. An additional 0.1 and 0.4 F.T.E. are being utilized from the W.K. and W.M. departments annually on these activities, respectively. This results in a total of 20.3 F.T.E.s utilized across the entire organization. • In aggregate, approximately 8.2 F.T.E. positions are consumed annually processing plan review applications, 9.0 F.T.E. positions are consumed annually processing permitting applications and 3.1 F.T.E. positions are consumed annually processing other C.V.C. reviews. • Within C.V.C., the most significant amount of involvement is provided by the P.D.S. department with 97% of the annual efforts included within the review coming from P.D.S. department staff (i.e. 19.80 out of 20.32 F.T.E.s):

3.2 Impacts

As discussed in section 1.4, the Planning Act requires fees to be cost justified at the planning application type level. Moreover, recent L.P.A.T. decisions require that there be consideration given to the marginal costs of processing applications of varying sizes and complexity. In this regard, plan review processes have been costed at the application type and sub-type level. This level of analysis goes beyond the statutory requirements of cost justification by application type to better understand costing distinctions at the application sub-type level to provide the basis for a more defensible fee structure and fee design decisions.

The review of C.A.A. section 28 permits is cost justified across the overall service category versus the individual application type as per the Planning Act. The following subsections summarize the overall cost recovery levels for plan review, permitting, and other C.V.C. reviews.

Annual cost impacts include the direct, indirect, and capital costs by costing category and are based on the C.V.C.’s 2021 budget. The overall recovery levels are based on

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-3 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 2647 2021-05-14

the weighted average annual historical application and permit volumes over the 2015 to 2020 period and current 2021 application fees.

3.2.1 Plan Review and Permitting As summarized in Table 3-2 below, the annual processing costs of plan review and permitting is $2.3 million. Within the various plan review and permitting fee categories, the greatest share of staff costs is related to Development Permits, and Wetland Interference ($484,600 and $432,800 respectively) and Technical Reviews in advance of formal applications (i.e. $403,100). These three areas represent 57% of the total annual costs of plan review and permitting services. Other notable areas include Subdivision (11.8% of annual costs) and Site Plan (9.0% of annual costs).

Current plan review and permitting fees are recovering 39.2% of the total annual cost of processing. The following plan review fee categories are currently recovering more than the full cost of service with an annual surplus of approximately $22,000 (representing 4.2% of the total revenues):

• Official Plan Amendment/Zoning By-law Amendment; • Subdivision; • Golf Courses; • Aggregates; and • Individual EA/MP Review.

Within permitting, In Stream Timing Window Extension permits and Solicitor, Realtor, Property Inquiries fees are recovering the full cost of service, while all other fees are recovering less that the full cots.

Of the $1.4 million cost recovery shortfall, 81% or $1.1 million is related to four of the fees with the greatest share of costs (i.e. Development Permits, Wetland Interference, Technical Reviews and Site Plan). Most notably, the annual costs of Technical Reviews for which there is not currently a fee, total $403,100.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-4 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 2748 2021-05-14

Table 3-2 Plan Review and Permitting Impacts (2021$)

Annual Costs 2021 Fees Costing Category Total Indirect and Capital Facility Total Annual Total Direct Costs Total Annual Costs Cost Recovery % Overhead Costs Costs Revenue Plan Review Official Plan Amendment/Zoning By-law Amendment 26,312 4,170 52 30,535 41,950 137.4% Site Plan 178,962 29,055 364 208,380 84,622 40.6% Consent 23,216 3,953 49 27,218 18,903 69.4% Minor Variance 82,112 14,767 185 97,063 22,170 22.8% Subdivision 237,759 36,426 455 274,640 280,723 102.2% Golf Courses 43 6 0 49 158 321.2% Aggregates 184 27 0 211 889 421.0% EA Review 69,895 10,984 137 81,017 40,303 49.7% Technical Review 348,527 53,879 676 403,081 - 0.0% Individual EA/MP Review 23,510 3,270 41 26,821 30,455 113.5% Permitting Development Permits 416,715 67,062 875 484,652 127,345 26.3% Wetland Interference 373,443 58,600 765 432,807 173,533 40.1% Minor Works 103,865 17,657 230 121,753 18,702 15.4% Minor Permit Revisions 397 66 1 464 60 12.9% In Stream Timing Window Extension 8 1 0 9 55 583.0% Fill Placement 1,488 228 3 1,719 417 24.2% Additional Site Visit 41 6 0 47 33 70.6% Solicitor, Realtor, Property Inquiry 41,909 7,789 102 49,800 52,241 104.9% GIS Information Request 13,853 2,519 33 16,406 - 0.0% Violation 56,685 8,283 108 65,076 16,907 26.0% Total - Plan Review and Permitting 1,998,924 318,748 4,076 2,321,749 909,465 39.2%

The general pattern across all plan review and permitting categories is that fees for major application/permit types or those requiring the review of technical studies are recovering a greater share of the full costs of service than minor or small-scale application/permit types. This pattern is indicative of strategic pricing decisions that have been made historically to address applicant affordability concerns.

3.2.2 Other Credit Valley Conservation Authority Reviews The total annual costs of other C.V.C. reviews included in the costing exercise is $397,000. The majority of these costs (81%) applicant driven N.E.C. Development Permits and pre-consultations. C.V.C. does not currently, nor does it intend to, impose fees for any of the categories listed under other C.V.C. reviews. The purpose of the inclusion of these reviews in this exercise is to better understand the full C.V.C. costs of participating in these reviews and providing these services.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-5 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 2849 2021-05-14

Table 3-3 Other Credit Valley Conservation Authority Review Impacts (2021$)

Annual Costs 2021 Fees Costing Category Total Indirect and Capital Facility Total Annual Total Direct Costs Total Annual Costs Cost Recovery % Overhead Costs Costs Revenue Other Fee Categories Comprehensive Zoning By-Law Reviews 32 4 0 36 - 0.0% Municipaly Initiated Scondary Plans 20,563 2,642 34 23,239 - 0.0% Municipaly Initiated OPAs 8,778 1,118 15 9,910 - 0.0% Niagara Escarpment Plan Amendment (Municipally Driven) 1,282 202 3 1,486 - 0.0% Subwatershed Studies 8,423 1,053 14 9,490 - 0.0% Provincially led EA Reviews 26,732 3,374 44 30,150 - 0.0% NEC Development Permits (Applicant Driven) 231,742 37,274 487 269,503 - 0.0% Pre-Consultations 45,808 7,588 99 53,495 - 0.0% Total - Other Fee Categories 343,360 53,255 695 397,310 - 0.0%

3.2.3 Summary In aggregate, the processing costs for plan review, permitting and other C.V.C. reviews total $2.7 million. Annual revenues based on current fees and historical application volumes total $909,500 or 33.4% of the annual cost of service.

3.3 Fee Recommendations

Proposed fee structure recommendations were developed with regard to the cost and revenue impacts presented in Table 3-2. The proposed fee structures, presented in Tables 3-4 and 3-5, seek to align the recovery of processing costs to application/permit characteristics to recover the full costs of service while balancing Planning Act compliance, applicant benefits and affordability, and revenue stability. C.V.C.’s current fee structure has been generally maintained within the proposed fee structures.

Proposed plan review and permitting fees have been designed to achieve full cost recovery. Based on the 2015 to 2020 average plan review and permit volumes and characteristics the full cost recovery fees would increase annual revenue from $909,500 (39.2% of costs) to $2.3 million or a 156% increase in revenue. Moreover, the proposed fee recommendations have been made with input from C.V.C. staff to consider applicant affordability for individual landowners and other stakeholder interests.

In making the fee recommendations, a survey of the fees imposed for a select group of neighboring C.A.s was undertaken to assess the relative competitiveness of the current and recommended fees. This comparison is included in Appendix A to this report.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-6 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 2950 2021-05-14

The calculated full cost fee recommendations have been calculated in 2021$ values and exclude H.S.T.

As discussed in section 3.2.2, no fee recommendations have been made for the other C.V.C. reviews considered within the full cost assessment.

3.3.1 Plan Review The current fees and full cost fee recommendations for plan review are summarized in Table 3-4. Notable changes to the plan review fees while maintaining Planning Act compliance are summarized below:

Official Plan Amendments and Zoning By-law Amendments

It has been recommended that the fees for all types (i.e. minor, intermediate and major) be reduced by 67% to 80% (dependent on the fee type). This has been done to better reflect the level of effort for processing these types of applications undertaken by C.V.C. and to maintain Planning Act compliance

Site Plan Applications

Two additional residential site plan application fees have been recommended to improve cost recovery. The two additional residential site plan categories include a fee for applications that require a scoped technical review and a fee for applications that require a full technical review. These additional categories have been included to reflect the increase in staff efforts that can be involved in residential site plan applications requiring technical reviews vs. the more limited level of effort for basic residential site plan review which the current residential site plan fee is designed to recover.

Technical Reviews:

As summarized in Section 3.1, $403,100 (17.4% of the annual plan review and permitting costs) are for staff involvement in full and scoped technical reviews in advance of receiving a formal application. It is still the desire of C.V.C. not to charge a pre-consultation fee, however, as applications are becoming more complex, it has become a more common occurrence for staff to need to undertake significant technical review before a planning application is submitted. The intent of these fees is to provide C.V.C. a mechanism in these situations to be able to recover costs related to this

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-7 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 3051 2021-05-14

technical review process during the pre-consultation phase of plan review and permitting activities. Furthermore, if a formal application or permit is submitted in relation to the technical review, it is recommended that 50% of the technical review fee is credited against the subsequent application/permit fee to reflect the technical review efforts that would not be duplicated while processing the formal application/permit.

Resubmission Fees:

Resubmission fees are currently not charged by the C.V.C. It is recommended that the organization consider including a resubmission fee in their fee schedule and it is proposed that resubmission fees be charged at 25% of the full application fee. This policy is reflective of the average cost of processing resubmission and practices in other C.A.s.

Golf Courses and Aggregates

Fees for Golf Courses and Aggregate applications are recommended to remain at the current fees (which are currently above the calculated cost recovery levels). The decision to maintain current fees was made because C.V.C. does not experience many applications for Golf Courses and Aggregates and it was identified that the provided effort estimates may not reflect the true level of effort required for these application types. To inform the fee recommendations for these types, an assessment against peer C.A.s was undertaken to determine the reasonableness of the current fee levels. As a result of this analysis the decision was made to continue with the current fees.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-8 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 3152 2021-05-14

Table 3-4 Proposed Full Cost Recovery Fee Structure Plan Review Fees Applications

Current Fees Calculated Fees % User Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Base Fee Variable Fee Increase

Plan Review OPA or ZBA - Minor 1,225 892 -27% OPA - Intermediate 3,100 2,065 -33% ZBA - Intermediate 2,575 2,065 -20% OPA or ZBA - Major 6,200 4,513 -27%

Site Plan - Residential 625 900 44% Site Plan - Residential (with scoped review) 625 5,449 772% Site Plan - Residential (with full review) 625 7,332 1073% Site Plan - Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Minor 1,550 2,245 45% Intermediate 4,150 6,011 45% Major 7,250 10,502 45% Site Plan Multi Unit - Minor 6,200 6,200 0% Site Plan Multi Unit - Intermediate 12,425 12,425 0% Site Plan Multi Unit - Major 31,050 31,050 0% Site Plan - Water Balance Review Fee Only (WHPA Q2 Areas) 1,550 1,550 0% Site Plan Clearance 2,075 5,938 186%

Consent - Minor 725 1,044 44% Consent - Major 3,100 3,100 0%

Minor Variance 310 1,357 338%

Subdivision - <5 ha (incl. 1 permit) - 4,000 per net ha - 4,000 per net ha 0% Subdivision - >5 ha (includes multiple permits - development and interference) - 4,000 per net ha - 4,000 per net ha 0% Minor Clearance 5,000 5,000 0% Major Clearance 12,000 12,000 0%

Golf Courses 15,750 15,750 0%

Aggregates - Minor 6,200 6,200 0% Aggregates - Intermediate 20,700 20,700 0% Aggregates - Major 62,000 62,000 0%

EA Review - Class A - - EA Review - Class B 2,500 5,136 105% EA Review - Class C 5,000 9,852 97%

Technical Review - Scoped - 2,372 n/a Technical Review - Full - 4,631 n/a

Individual EA or Master Plan Review 15,000 15,000 0% Resubmission 25% of permit fee n/a

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-9 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 3253 2021-05-14

3.3.2 Permitting Permit fee structures have been largely maintained with the most significant fee increases imposed for large and major scale development and wetland interference or alterations to watercourse permits. The current cost recovery policies have been maintained in which minor and small-scale permits have been priced to consider the affordability of the fees for the applicant.

Other notable fee structure changes include:

Additional Site Visits:

Historically this fee was a flat fee per visit. It is recommended that the fee structure be changed to a flat fee per technical staff required for the additional visit to acknowledge the additional effort where multiple staff are required to attend the visit.

GIS Information Requests:

GIS information requests are currently charged on a per hours basis. To ensure greater clarity and transparency for the fee the applicant will be required to pay and to increase the administrative ease of implementation, it is proposed that information requests be charged on a flat rate basis.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-10 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 3354 2021-05-14

Table 3-5 Proposed Fee Structure Permitting

Current Fees Calculated Fees % User Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Base Fee Variable Fee Increase

Permitting Review Development - Small Scale 450 1,053 134% Development - Medium Scale 1,350 2,700 100% Development - Large Scale 3,250 18,000 454% Development - Major Scale 5,500 25,000 355%

1. Wetland Interference or Alteration to Watercourse - Small Scale 800 1,872 134% 2. Wetland Interference or Alteration to Watercourse - Medium Scale 2,250 9,000 300% 3. Wetland Interference or Alteration to Watercourse - Large Scale 6,500 22,000 238% 4. Wetland Interference or Alteration to Watercourse - Major Scale 11,000 29,000 164%

Minor Works Permit 150 515 243%

25% of permit fee for small scale. 50% of permit fee for 50% of all Minor Permit Revision others - permit fees n/a

In Stream Timing Window Extension - Minor 500 500 0% In Stream Timing Window Extension - Major 5,000 5,000 0%

Fill Placement - <500 m3 400 1,651 313% Fill Placement - >500 m3 1,000 1.00 per m3 4,126 4.13 per m3 313%

per technical Additional Site Visit 200 - 283 staff required n/a

Solicitor, Realtor, Property Inquiry 325 325 0%

GIS Information Request 50.00 per hr 282 n/a

x application x application Violation (Permit Issued) 2.00 fee 3.00 fee 50% x application x application 1. Violation (No Permit Issued) - Compliance 2.00 fee 3.00 fee 50% x application x application 2. Violation (No Permit Issued) - No Compliance 2.00 fee 3.00 fee 50%

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 3-11 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 3455 2021-05-14

Chapter 4 Impact Analysis of Proposed Plan Review Fees

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 3556 2021-05-14

4. Impact Analysis of Proposed Plan Review Fees

4.1 Impact Analysis

In order to understand the impacts of the proposed plan review fee structure (in 2021$), an impact analysis for sample developments has been prepared.

Five development types have been considered, including:

• Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision Applications for a residential 100-unit low-density subdivision; • Site Plan, Plan of Condominium, Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications for a residential 25-unit medium-density development; • Site Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications for a 1,000 m2 retail development; • Site Plan Application for a 10,000 m2 industrial development; and • A residential Minor Variance Application.

The development fee comparisons are shown for the fees payable in municipalities across the Greater Toronto Hamilton Area (GTHA). In addition to the C.A. plan review fees, the development fee comparisons include municipal planning application fees, building permit fees, and development charges. The comparisons illustrate the impact of the proposed C.V.C. planning application fees in the context of the total C.A. and municipal development fees payable to provide a broader context for the affordability fee considerations. For municipalities that are within the watersheds of multiple C.A.s, the C.A. used for comparison purposes is identified in parenthesis.

The positions of the municipalities that are charged C.V.C.’s fees are identified by arrows in Figures 4-1 through 4-4 (i.e. Mississauga, Brampton, Caledon, and Halton Hills).

4.1.1 Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision Application for a Residential 100-unit Low-Density Subdivision A 100-unit, single detached, low-density residential subdivision within the C.V.C. watershed would pay $6,200 for the required Zoning By-law Amendment Application and $8,175 for the Subdivision Application under C.V.C.’s current fee structure.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-1 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 3657 2021-05-14

Under the proposed fee structure, Zoning By-law Amendment Application fees would decrease by 27.2% to $4,513. Subdivision fees would remain unchanged at $8,175. In total, C.V.C. application fees would decrease by 11.7% or $2,525. Including municipal planning application fees, building permit fees and development charges, total development fees for this type of applicant would decrease in all areas within C.V.C.’s watershed by <0.1%. The changes in planning application fees would not change the C.V.C. area municipalities’ position within the overall ranking of the municipalities surveyed. Figure 4-1 displays this comparison graphically with Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon maintaining their position in the upper-mid-range and Halton Hills in the mid-range of the comparison.

4.1.2 Site Plan, Plan of Condominium, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications for a Residential 25- unit Medium-Density Development A 25-unit, medium-density residential development within the C.V.C. watershed would pay a combined $6,200 for the required Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan Amendment Applications, $31,050 for the Site Plan Application (which includes the effort/fees required for the review of a Plan of Condominium) under the current fee schedule.

Under the proposed fee structure, combined Zoning By-law Amendment and Official Plan amendment fees would decrease by 27.2% to $4,513. The fees required for the review of a Plan of Condominium would remain constant at $31,050. In total, C.V.C. application fees would decrease by 4.5% or $1,687. Including municipal planning application fees, building permit fees, and development charges, total development fees for this type of applicant would decrease by 0.1% in Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon and 0.2% in Halton Hills. The changes in planning application fees would not change the area municipalities’ positions within the overall ranking of the municipalities surveyed with the exception of Halton Hills which falls one position. Figure 4-2 displays this comparison graphically with the four municipalities of interest maintaining their positions in the mid-upper-range and bottom of the comparison.

4.1.3 Site Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications for a 1,000 m2 Retail Development Under the current C.V.C. fee structure a retail development of 1,000 m2 would pay $6,200 in Zoning By-law Amendment Application fees and $4,150 in Site Plan

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-2 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 3758 2021-05-14

Application fees. The proposed fees would increase the total application fees payable for this type of development by $174 (a decrease of $1,687 for the Zoning By-law Amendment Application and an increase of $1,861 for the Intermediate Site Plan Application) or +1.7%.

When considering the impact of other municipal development fees (planning applications, building permits, and development charges), a 1.7% increase in C.V.C. planning application fees would result in a <0.1% increase in total development fees in all municipalities of interest. The impact on the positioning of these municipalities would be relatively minor as all will maintain their relative positions in the mid-range of the comparison. This is illustrated graphically in Figure 4-3.

4.1.4 Site Plan Application for a 10,000 m2 Industrial Development C.V.C. planning application fees for this type of development would be $7,250 under their current fee structure. The proposed fee structure includes a 44.9% increase in applicable Site Plan Application fees, increasing C.V.C.’s Site Plan Application fees by $3,252.

Similar to the comparisons for the other development types, the impact on this applicant would be relatively nominal, with total development fees increasing by 0.1% for those applicants in Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon and 0.2% for those applicants in the Halton Hills. These increases generally maintain each municipality’s relative position which is evidenced in Figure 4-4.

4.1.5 Residential Minor Variance Application C.V.C.’s Minor Variance Application fees are currently $310. The proposed fee increases would result in those fees increasing by 338% to $1,357. In combination with municipal Minor Variance fees, the impacts are less significant, with total fees increasing 31.4% in Halton Hills, 59.9% in Caledon, 69.4% in Mississauga and 111.3% in Brampton. In the context of other comparator C.A.s, the proposed minor variance application fee would rank second in comparison to those other C.A.s surveyed (Conservation Halton’s current fees for minor variances are $1,902).

The proposed fee increases would increase the relative position of all municipalities within C.V.C.’s watershed. These increases can be seen in Table 4-1.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-3 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 3859 2021-05-14

4.2 Impact Analysis Summary

Based on the impact analysis assessment contained herein, the proposed plan review fees have relatively little impact on the total development fees payable, with the total development fees decreasing in some cases. Furthermore, the ranking of the municipalities within the C.V.C. watershed amongst the municipal comparators remains unchanged, except for Minor Variances where the increases are more significant. Finally, while the isolated plan review impacts are significant in some cases, when measured on a total C.A. and municipal development cost basis (including planning application fees, building permit fees, and development charges), the overall cost impacts are nominal.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-4 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 3960 2021-05-14

Figure 4-1 Development Fee Impacts Survey Residential 100-unit Low Density Subdivision

Survey of Fees Related to a Residential Subdivision Development (100 Single Dwelling Units, 204 m² GFA each) 14,000,000

12,000,000

10,000,000

8,000,000

6,000,000

4,000,000

2,000,000

-

Conservation Authority Planning Fees - Plan of Subdivision Conservation Authority Planning Fees - Zoning By-Law Amendment Municipal Fees - Planning Application Fees Municipal Fees - Building Permit Fees Municipal Fees - Development Charges

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-5 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 4061 2021-05-14

Figure 4-2 Development Fee Impacts Survey Residential 25-Unit, Medium-Density Development

Survey of Fees Related to a Medium Density Condominium Development (25 Units, 139 m² GFA each) 2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

-

Conservation Authority Planning Fees - Zoning By-Law Amendment Conservation Authority Planning Fees - Site Plan Conservation Authority Planning Fees - Condo Conservation Authority Planning Fees - OPA Municipal Fees - Planning Application Fees Municipal Fees - Building Permit Fees Municipal Fees - Development Charges

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-6 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 4162 2021-05-14

Figure 4-3 Development Fee Impacts Survey 1,000 m2 Retail Development

Survey of Fees Related to Retail Development (1,000 m² GFA) 1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

-

Conservation Authority Planning Fees - Site Plan Conservation Authority Planning Fees - Zoning By-Law Amendment Municipal Fees - Planning Application Fees Municipal Fees - Building Permit Fees Municipal Fees - Development Charges

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-7 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 4263 2021-05-14

Figure 4-4 Development Fee Impacts Survey 10,000 m2 Industrial Development

Survey of Fees Related to Industrial Development (10,000 m2 GFA) 5,000,000

4,500,000

4,000,000

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

-

Conservation Authority Planning Fees - Site Plan Municipal Fees - Planning Application Fees Municipal Fees - Building Permit Fees Municipal Fees - Development Charges

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-8 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 4364 2021-05-14

Table 4-1 Development Fee Impacts Survey Residential Minor Variance Application

Survey of Fees Related to a Minor Variance Conservation Rank Upper Tier Conservation Authority Lower Tier Municipality Municipal Fees Total Authority Fee 1 Halton Conservation Halton Oakville, Town of 3,770 1,902 5,672 2 York Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Richmond Hill, City of 4,426 830 5,256 3 Halton Conservation Halton Halton Hills, Town of 3,022 1,902 4,924 4 Halton Credit Valley Conservation Authority - Calculated Halton Hills, Town of 3,022 1,357 4,379 5 Hamilton Hamilton Conservation Authority Hamilton, City of 3,320 893 4,213 6 Hamilton Grand River Conservation Authority Hamilton, City of 3,320 625 3,945 7 Halton Conservation Halton Milton, Town of 2,006 1,902 3,908 8 Hamilton Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority Hamilton, City of 3,320 410 3,730 9 York Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Vaughan, City of 2,803 830 3,633 10 Halton Credit Valley Conservation Authority - Current Halton Hills, Town of 3,022 310 3,332 11 York Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Markham, City of 2,321 830 3,151 12 Halton Conservation Halton Burlington, City of 1,001 1,902 2,903 13 Niagara Hamilton Conservation Authority Grimsby, Town of 1,925 893 2,818 14 Peel Credit Valley Conservation Authority - Calculated Caledon, Town of 1,438 1,357 2,795 15 Halton Grand River Conservation Authority Milton, Town of 2,006 625 2,631 16 Peel Credit Valley Conservation Authority - Calculated Mississauga, City of 1,200 1,357 2,557 17 Niagara Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority Grimsby, Town of 1,925 410 2,335 18 Peel Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Caledon, Town of 1,438 830 2,268 19 Peel Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Mississauga, City of 1,200 830 2,030 20 Peel Credit Valley Conservation Authority - Calculated Brampton, City of 631 1,357 1,988 21 Peel Credit Valley Conservation Authority - Current Caledon, Town of 1,438 310 1,748 22 Durham Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Whitby, Town of 928 815 1,743 23 Durham Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Pickering, City of 820 830 1,650 24 Durham Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Ajax, Town of 800 830 1,630 25 Durham Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority Oshawa, City of 736 815 1,551 26 Peel Credit Valley Conservation Authority - Current Mississauga, City of 1,200 310 1,510 27 Peel Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Brampton, City of 631 830 1,461 28 Peel Credit Valley Conservation Authority - Current Brampton, City of 631 310 941

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 4-9 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 4465 2021-05-14

Chapter 5 Fee Policy

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 4566 2021-05-14

5. Fee Policy

The un-proclaimed section 21.2 of the C.A.A. sets out the requirements for fee schedules and the documentation of fee policies. Specifically, section 21.2 identifies:

Fee schedule

(6) Every authority shall prepare and maintain a fee schedule that sets out,

(a) the list of programs and services that it provides and in respect of which it charges a fee; and

(b) the amount of the fee charged for each program or service or the manner in which the fee is determined. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21.

Fee policy

(7) Every authority shall adopt a written policy with respect to the fees that it charges for the programs and services it provides, and the policy shall set out,

(a) the fee schedule described in subsection (6);

(b) the frequency within which the fee policy shall be reviewed by the authority under subsection (9);

(c) the process for carrying out a review of the fee policy, including the rules for giving notice of the review and of any changes resulting from the review; and

(d) the circumstances in which a person may request that the authority reconsider a fee that was charged to the person and the procedures applicable to the reconsideration. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21.

Fee policy to be made public

(8) Every authority shall make the fee policy available to the public in a manner it considers appropriate. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21.

Periodic review of fee policy

(9) At such regular intervals as may be determined by an authority, the authority shall undertake a review of its fee policy, including a review of the fees set out in the fee schedule. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5-1 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 4667 2021-05-14

Notice of fee changes

(10) If, after a review of a fee policy or at any other time, an authority wishes to make a change to the list of fees set out in the fee schedule or to the amount of any fee or the manner in which a fee is determined, the authority shall give notice of the proposed change to the public in a manner it considers appropriate. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21.

Reconsideration of fee charged

(11) Any person who considers that the authority has charged a fee that is contrary to the fees set out in the fee schedule, or that the fee set out in the fee schedule is excessive in relation to the service or program for which it is charged, may apply to the authority in accordance with the procedures set out in the fee policy and request that it reconsider the fee that was charged. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21.

Powers of authority on reconsideration

(12) Upon reconsideration of a fee that was charged for a program or service provided by an authority, the authority may,

(a) order the person to pay the fee in the amount originally charged;

(b) vary the amount of the fee originally charged, as the authority considers appropriate;

(c) order that no fee be charged for the program or service. 2017, c. 23, Sched. 4, s. 21.

The following subsections of this report identify suggested principles of a fee policy to meet the requirements of section 21.2 (once proclaimed) and how C.V.C. may already be meeting those requirements. The suggested fee policy principles are based on municipal best practices and the Conservation Ontario Guideline for C.A. Fee Administration Policies for Plan Review and Permitting (June 24, 2019). The components of the written fee policy have been grouped as follows:

1. Fee schedule

2. Circumstances for request of reconsideration of fees

3. Frequency and process for review

4. Notice and public availability.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5-2 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 4768 2021-05-14

5.1 Fee Schedule

Section 21.2 (6) states that the C.A. must maintain a fee schedule setting out the list of programs and services for which a fee is charged, the amount of the fee, and the manner in which the fee is determined.

The current C.V.C. fee schedule sets out the full list of programs and services and associated fees. The fee schedule also summarizes that C.V.C. may reassess the fees for technical reviews that span multiple years or fee schedules. The fee schedule also identifies that the fees may be adjusted where a substantially greater or lower level of review is required.

The fee schedule could be improved in terms of compliance with the C.A.A. by:

• Identifying how the fee or group of fees was determined, e.g. full cost recovery, market based, types of costs to be recovered (direct, indirect, and capital); and • Including provision for annual cost of living increases.

5.2 Circumstances for Request of Reconsideration of Fees

If any person considers the fee charged by the C.A. is in contrary to the fee schedule or excessive in relation to the service or program provided, they may apply to the C.A. for reconsideration of the fee charged. Section 21.2 (6) identifies that the request for reconsideration must be in accordance the procedures in the fee policy. As such, the fee policy shall include the procedures for which requests of reconsideration of fees must follow.

It is recommended that the fee policy and fee schedule identify that a request for reconsideration can be made first to the C.A. general manager or chief administrative officer and then to the board of directors (or sub-committee) if not satisfied.

The fee schedule and policy should also clearly identify any circumstances in which the payment of fees will be exempted to decrease the administrative burden of assessing the merits of individual applications and to provide clarity to the public.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5-3 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 4869 2021-05-14

5.3 Frequency and Process for Review

The fee policy shall identify the frequency and process for undertaking future fee and policy reviews.

Based on the findings of this fee review and industry best practices in the municipal sector, the following recommendations are provided:

• Fees are reviewed annually as part of the budget process; • Comprehensive review of fees and full costs of service is undertaken at least every five years, including o Assessment of the full cost of service (including direct, indirect, and capital costs) to be the starting point of all fee reviews; o Review of cost recovery targets for plan review and permitting with regard for current cost recovery performance, available funding sources, and current legislation; o Consideration of variable pricing (e.g. minor vs. major) of fees to reflect the marginal costs of processing applications and applicant affordability; o Undertaking a survey of C.A. and municipal fees to assess applicant affordability of fee recommendations; • The intended process for public input into recommendations is identified; and • That any changes to the fee policy are endorsed by the C.A. Board.

5.4 Notice and Public Availability

It is recommended key stakeholders (e.g. development industry representatives, home builders’ associations, frequent users, neighbouring C.A.s, and municipal partners) are consulted in advance of implementing any proposed changes to the fee schedule or policies for plan review and permitting fees. The objectives of this consultation process would be to better understand their concerns with the current fees and policies, their suggestions for improvements, and what concerns they may have regarding the implementation of the newly proposed fees and policies.

It is recommended that at least two months’ notice be given of the proposed change in fees and policies to provide sufficient time to receive and address stakeholder concerns to the extent possible. The method of consultation, which could include circulation of

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5-4 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 4970 2021-05-14

information, written correspondence, in-person/virtual consultations, or open houses, should be adapted to individual stakeholder groups depending on the situation and their desired level of engagement.

The fee policy, including fee schedules, should be available at all times on C.V.C.’s website.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 5-5 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 5071 2021-05-14

Chapter 6 Conclusion

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 5172 2021-05-14

6. Conclusion

Summarized in this technical report is the legislative context for the plan review and permitting fees review, the methodology undertaken, A.B.C. results and full cost of service, proposed fee structures, and recommended fee administration policies. In developing the proposed fee structure, careful consideration was given to the affordability and market competitiveness of the fee impacts. The proposed fee structures contained in Tables 3-4 and 3-5 herein are provided below for convenience.

The proposed plan review and permit fees have been designed to provide C.V.C. with a fee structure for consideration. The recommended fees would align the cost of service with the benefitting parties and are anticipated to achieve full cost recovery. C.V.C. will ultimately determine the level of cost recovery and phasing strategy that is suitable for their objectives. In this regard, staff will be engaging further with development industry stakeholders, the general public, and the C.V.C. board of directors on the proposed fees and fee policies before considering the recommendations herein.

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6-1 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 5273 2021-05-14

Figure 6-1 Proposed Fee Structure

Current Fees Calculated Fees % User Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Base Fee Variable Fee Increase

Plan Review OPA or ZBA - Minor 1,225 892 -27% OPA - Intermediate 3,100 2,065 -33% ZBA - Intermediate 2,575 2,065 -20% OPA or ZBA - Major 6,200 4,513 -27%

Site Plan - Residential 625 900 44% Site Plan - Residential (with scoped review) 625 5,449 772% Site Plan - Residential (with full review) 625 7,332 1073% Site Plan - Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Minor 1,550 2,245 45% Intermediate 4,150 6,011 45% Major 7,250 10,502 45% Site Plan Multi Unit - Minor 6,200 6,200 0% Site Plan Multi Unit - Intermediate 12,425 12,425 0% Site Plan Multi Unit - Major 31,050 31,050 0% Site Plan - Water Balance Review Fee Only (WHPA Q2 Areas) 1,550 1,550 0% Site Plan Clearance 2,075 5,938 186%

Consent - Minor 725 1,044 44% Consent - Major 3,100 3,100 0%

Minor Variance 310 1,357 338%

Subdivision - <5 ha (incl. 1 permit) - 4,000 per net ha - 4,000 per net ha 0% Subdivision - >5 ha (includes multiple permits - development and interference) - 4,000 per net ha - 4,000 per net ha 0% Minor Clearance 5,000 5,000 0% Major Clearance 12,000 12,000 0%

Golf Courses 15,750 15,750 0%

Aggregates - Minor 6,200 6,200 0% Aggregates - Intermediate 20,700 20,700 0% Aggregates - Major 62,000 62,000 0%

EA Review - Class A - - EA Review - Class B 2,500 5,136 105% EA Review - Class C 5,000 9,852 97%

Technical Review - Scoped - 2,372 n/a Technical Review - Full - 4,631 n/a

Individual EA or Master Plan Review 15,000 15,000 0% Resubmission 25% of permit fee n/a

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6-2 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 5374 2021-05-14

Figure 6-1 (Cont’d) Proposed Fee Structure

Current Fees Calculated Fees % User Fees Base Fee Variable Fee Base Fee Variable Fee Increase

Permitting Review Development - Small Scale 450 1,053 134% Development - Medium Scale 1,350 2,700 100% Development - Large Scale 3,250 18,000 454% Development - Major Scale 5,500 25,000 355%

1. Wetland Interference or Alteration to Watercourse - Small Scale 800 1,872 134% 2. Wetland Interference or Alteration to Watercourse - Medium Scale 2,250 9,000 300% 3. Wetland Interference or Alteration to Watercourse - Large Scale 6,500 22,000 238% 4. Wetland Interference or Alteration to Watercourse - Major Scale 11,000 29,000 164%

Minor Works Permit 150 515 243%

25% of permit fee for small scale. 50% of permit fee for 50% of all Minor Permit Revision others - permit fees n/a

In Stream Timing Window Extension - Minor 500 500 0% In Stream Timing Window Extension - Major 5,000 5,000 0%

Fill Placement - <500 m3 400 1,651 313% Fill Placement - >500 m3 1,000 1.00 per m3 4,126 4.13 per m3 313%

per technical Additional Site Visit 200 - 283 staff required n/a

Solicitor, Realtor, Property Inquiry 325 325 0%

GIS Information Request 50.00 per hr 282 n/a

x application x application Violation (Permit Issued) 2.00 fee 3.00 fee 50% x application x application 1. Violation (No Permit Issued) - Compliance 2.00 fee 3.00 fee 50% x application x application 2. Violation (No Permit Issued) - No Compliance 2.00 fee 3.00 fee 50%

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE 6-3 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 5475 2021-05-14

Appendix A Conservation Authority Fee Survey

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-1 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 5576 2021-05-14

Table A-1 Survey of Conservation Authorities Plan Review Fees

Current Fees Calculated Fees Conservation Authority Fee Comparisons % User Fees Toronto and Region Central Lake Ontario Hamilton Conservation Grand River Conservation Niagara Peninsula Base Fee Variable Fee Base Fee Variable Fee Increase Conservation Halton Kawartha Conservation Conservation Authority Conservation Authority Authority Authority Conservation Authority

Plan Review OPA or ZBA - Minor 1,225 892 73% 3,780 1,161 Base Fee 1,980 Minor 725.66 Minor 430 Standard 570 500 OPA - Intermediate 3,100 2,065 67% 9,780 3,997 Per Technical Report 3,190 Major 3,654.87 Major 2,335 Major - OPA 2,770 ZBA - Intermediate 2,575 2,065 80% 9,780 3,997 Review Major - ZBA 1,875 OPA or ZBA - Major 6,200 4,513 73% 13,430 6,043

Site Plan - Residential 625 900 144% 2,145 1,683 Site Plan or Minor 1,039 Minor 430 Single Residential 570 Single Lot Res 500 Site Plan - Residential (with scoped review) 625 5,449 872% Comparable Condo Intermediate 3,969 Major 3,280 Multi Res, 800 Multi Res Site Plan - Residential (with full review) 625 7,332 1173% Application Major 5,207 Commercial & Minor 3,000 Site Plan - Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Base Fee 1,980 Complex 9,393 Industrial Major 6,000 Minor 1,550 2,245 45% 2,950 1,753 Per Technical 3,190 Complex 7,425 Commercial/Industrial 6,000 Intermediate 4,150 6,011 45% 8,950 8,300 Report Review /Institutional Major 7,250 10,502 45% 14,950 10,022 Site Plan Multi Unit - Minor 6,200 6,200 0% 17,550 1,753 Site Plan Site Plan Multi Unit - Intermediate 12,425 12,425 0% 24,950 8,300 Comparable to a Site Plan Multi Unit - Major 31,050 31,050 0% 37,500 10,022 Draft Plan of Site Plan - Water Balance Review Fee Only Subdivision (WHPA Q2 Areas) 1,550 1,550 0% n/a n/a Base Fee 14,115 Site Plan Clearance 2,075 5,938 186% 5,938 1,938 Per Technical Report 3,190 n/a

Consent - Minor 725 1,044 44% 1,400 2,001 Base Fee 1,280 726 430 250 Consent - Major 3,100 3,100 0% 3,375 3,786 Per Technical Report 3,190 1,562 1,105 570 500/lot

Base Fee 815 Minor 446 Minor 280 Per Technical Report 3,190 Major 893 Major 625 Minor Variance 310 1,357 338% 830 657 Review 410 500

Subdivision - <5 ha (incl. 1 permit) - 4,000 per net ha - 4,000 per net ha 0% Less than 5 ha 21,000 Base Fee 6,270.80 Base Fee 14,115 Minor 1,252 Base Fee 2,340 Less than 100 lots 570 Less than 5 ha 7,500 Subdivision - >5 ha (includes multiple permits - 5 ha to 10 ha 30,100 Residential per lot Per ha 3,775 Intermediate 5,008 Per ha 1,220 More than 100 lots 2,770 Greater than 5 ha 15,000 development and interference) - 4,000 per net ha - 4,000 per net ha 0% 10 ha to 25 ha 40,550 up to 25 283.19 Major 9,389 Max Fee 30,000 Minor Clearance 5,000 5,000 0% 6,025 Per Phase 1,176 Clearance Letter 3,495 Minor Clearance 633 Technical Review 6,260 Less than 100 lots 570 2,000/ha Major Clearance 12,000 12,000 0% 16,600 Per Phase 3,450 Clearance Letter 1,750 Major Clearance 4,693 Required More than 100 lots 2,300

Base Fee 14,115 Per Technical Report 3,190 Golf Courses 15,750 15,750 0% 23,200 n/a Review n/a 9,550 7,425 6,000

Aggregates - Minor 6,200 6,200 0% Base Fee 14,115 Aggregate Application 58,875 Above Water Table: 6,000 Aggregates - Intermediate 20,700 20,700 0% 33,650 81,600 Per Technical Report 3,190 Fee No Feature of Interest 430 Aggregates - Major 62,000 62,000 0% Review Feature of Interest 9,550 7,425

EA Review - Class A - - - - - n/a EA Review - Class B 2,500 5,136 105% 5,665 4,830 - n/a EA Review - Class C 5,000 9,852 97% n/a 9,064 7,220 - n/a

Technical Review - Scoped - 2,372 n/a Base Fee Minor 1000 Technical Review - Full - 4,631 n/a 5,000 to 20,000 less than 25ha 10,724 n/a n/a n/a Major Cost

Individual EA or Master Plan Review 15,000 15,000 0% n/a 13,596 7,220 to 18,035 n/a n/a

Third Submission 25% up to 12,750 Subsequent 50% up Resubmission 1,602 25% of permit fee n/a n/a Submission to 26,520 n/a 15% of permit fee n/a n/a

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-2 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx SCHEDULE 'B', APPENDIX 1 PAGE 5677 2021-05-14

Table A-2 Survey of Conservation Authorities Permitting Fees

Current Fees Calculated Fees Conservation Authority Fee Comparisons % User Fees Toronto and Region Central Lake Ontario Hamilton Conservation Grand River Conservation Niagara Peninsula Base Fee Variable Fee Base Fee Variable Fee Increase Conservation Halton Kawartha Conservation Conservation Authority Conservation Authority Authority Authority Conservation Authority

Permitting Review Development - Small Scale 450 1,053 134% 860 Private Landowner Base Fee 1,750 Minor Development Minor 430 350 to 1875 500 to 2,500 Development - Medium Scale 1,350 2,700 100% 9,950 Minor 515 Per Technical Report 3,190 Basic Application 393 Standard 625 Development - Large Scale 3,250 18,000 454% 19,550 Intermediate 1,680 Base Fee 3,495 Major Development Major 9,550 Development - Major Scale 5,500 25,000 355% 21,750 to 75,000 Major 5,474 Per Technical Report 3,190 Basic Application 1,652

1. Wetland Interference or Alteration to Private Landowner Base Fee 1,750 Minor 774 Minor 430 350 to 3,185 250 to 2,500 Watercourse - Small Scale 800 1,872 134% 860 to 6,500 Minor 515 Per Technical Report 3,190 Intermediate 2,093 Standard 1,105 2. Wetland Interference or Alteration to Intermediate 1,680 Review Major 4,173 Major Watercourse - Medium Scale 2,250 9,000 300% 9,950 Major 5,474 Per Additional Site 290 Culvert/Bridge 6,260 3. Wetland Interference or Alteration to Other Base Fee 3,495 All Other 9,550 Watercourse - Large Scale 6,500 22,000 238% 19,550 to 21,750 Minor 2,000 Per Technical Report 3,190 4. Wetland Interference or Alteration to Intermediate 4,202 Review Watercourse - Major Scale 11,000 29,000 164% 21,750 to 75,000 Major 21,710 Per Additional Site 290

Letter of Permission with site visit 257 Minor Works Permit 150 515 243% 470 515 155 to 470 no site visit 177 n/a n/a n/a

Individual Res 50% Application in Minor (Admin) 125 Others: Progress: Major (Proposal 50% of 25% of permit - Minor Revision 25% Minor 35% Revision) original fee for small - Major Revision 50% Major 75% fee scale. 50% of Approved Permits: permit fee for 50% of all Minor 50% Minor Permit Revision others - permit fees n/a Major 100% n/a 261 85 n/a

In Stream Timing Window Extension - Minor 500 500 0% n/a n/a n/a n/a In Stream Timing Window Extension - Major 5,000 5,000 0% 6,065 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Fill Placement - <500 m3 400 1,651 313% Less than 30 m3 470 Less than 30 m3 515 Base Fee 3,495 Minor 393 Base Fee 9,550 Fill in excess of 25 1,565 Base Fee 500 Fill Placement - >500 m3 1,000 1.00 per m3 4,126 4.13 per m3 313% Greater than 30m3 3,000 30 m3 to 200 m3 Per m3 Fee 1.85 Intermediate Per m3 0.50 m3 Per m3 0.5

Single Residential/ 235 Applicant Driven. 250 Farm Information 500 per technical Other 1,913 Acquisition to Additional Site Visit 200 - 283 staff required n/a 350 to 2,870 290 n/a n/a n/a Complete Application

with site visit 257 Solicitor, Realtor, Property Inquiry 325 325 0% n/a 345 350 no site visit 177 240 250 250

GIS Information Request 50.00 per hr 282 n/a n/a n/a 350 n/a n/a n/a n/a

x application x application Violation (Permit Issued) 2.00 fee 3.00 fee 50% 2x application fee x application x application 1. Violation (No Permit Issued) - Compliance 2.00 fee 3.00 fee 50% 2x application fee x application x application 100% of current fee + 2x application fee + 150 admin 2. Violation (No Permit Issued) - No Compliance 2.00 fee 3.00 fee 50% 2x application fee administrative fee n/a 75% Surcharge (+ permit fee) 2x application fee fee n/a

Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. PAGE A-3 H:\Credit Valley Conservation\2020 User Fees\Report\Planning and Permitting Fees Review Report - DRAFT.docx 78

SCHEDULE ‘C’ PAGE -1- 2021-05-14

TO: The Chair and Members of the Board of Directors, Credit Valley Conservation

SUBJECT: UPPER CREDIT CONSERVATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN – FIVE YEAR REVIEW AND UPDATE

PURPOSE: To inform the Board of Directors of CVC on implementation progress for the Upper Credit Conservation Area Management Plan

BACKGROUND:

Upper Credit Conservation Area (UCCA) is located within the Towns of Caledon and Orangeville and is comprised of seven unique parcels (Schedule ‘C’, Map 1). Commencing with the acquisition of the Safari parcel in 2005, UCCA has since grown significantly with the acquisition of and merger with additional lands. Securement of these lands is a CVC success story made possible through donations and funding from several sources, including private individuals, provincial and municipal governments, the Nature Conservancy of Canada and Ducks Unlimited. Today UCCA spans an area of 162 hectares, or 400 acres, contributing to one of the longest stretches of publicly owned lands along the Credit River.

The Credit River serves as the ecological backbone of UCCA, connecting the various parcels of land as well as the diverse ecosystems found throughout the property. UCCA contains 3.5 kilometres of the Credit River and is largely comprised of wetland (26.7%), forest (including coniferous plantations, 30%), and meadow habitats (33%). The varied landscape of UCCA acts as an important natural corridor and contributes to the watershed’s Natural Heritage System; a network of physically and functionally linked natural areas and green space.

UCCA also provides important public access to the Credit River and offers opportunities for hiking, fishing and nature appreciation. After the first parcel (Safari) was acquired in 2005 a parking lot and access point was developed and UCCA officially opened to the public in 2007. UCCA’s main recreation asset is its trail system, a portion of which serves as the optimum route of the Credit Valley Trail (CVT).

A management plan for UCCA was developed to guide the management of the property’s natural, social, and cultural resources and in May 2016 the management plan was approved by CVC’s Board of Directors (Resolution #45/16). Although management plans are industry best practice, CVC provides additional direction to complete management plans for CVC properties through the CVC Strategic Plan (Our Future Taking Shape 2020- 2022) and the Conservation Areas Master Strategy (2018). 79

SCHEDULE ‘C’ PAGE -2- 2021-05-14

The UCCA management plan states CVC’s vision for UCCA as follows: “To connect and protect the natural landscape of the upper Credit River through land securement and restoration initiatives and to enrich the communities and people of the watershed by providing opportunities to appreciate Upper Credit Conservation Area’s diverse ecosystems, scenic vistas and unique rural character through a publicly accessible and continuous trail system.”

The overarching goal of the UCCA management plan is to balance the protection of natural heritage features and their functions with the development of visitor experience opportunities and recreation amenities. It identifies a phased approach for developing a property-wide trail system including sections of the CVT, implementing restoration projects, and enhancing passive recreation opportunities.

Over the past five years concerted efforts have been made to implement the directions and projects outlined in the UCCA management plan and, where appropriate, directions have been updated to reflect current corporate directions and priorities. Through Resolution #45/16 staff were directed to provide the Board with a five-year review and update on the status of the management plan directions. Details below outline the overall progress made toward achieving the plan’s objectives and realizing its overarching purpose of connecting the natural spaces, people, and communities of the upper Credit River.

ANALYSIS:

UCCA’s management plan aims to balance its protection, appreciation, and recreation values. It is a ten-year plan (2016-2026) that identifies a phased approach to implementation. Key management directions include:  Providing opportunities for passive recreation and appreciation;  Developing a property-wide trail system that functions as part of the CVT and links to other trail systems;  Managing unsanctioned uses and activities; and,  Implementing ecological restoration projects.

The UCCA management plan identifies a series of performance indicators to be reviewed at the five-year mark to assess progress. These performance indicators and the five-year evaluation of the UCCA management plan are divided into three broad sections:

1. Resource Protection and Stewardship; 2. Recreation, Education and Infrastructure; and, 3. Conservation Area Operations.

80

SCHEDULE ‘C’ PAGE -3- 2021-05-14

1. Resource Protection and Stewardship

UCCA contributes to the Credit River Watershed Natural Heritage System and provides a number of important ecological functions that provide refuge to more than 700 species, including several species at risk. Although much of the property was once used for agricultural purposes, many regionally and provincially significant environmental features are also associated with the site, including Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSW), a candidate Earth Science Area of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI), the Credit River Valley, and the province’s Greenbelt Natural Heritage System. UCCA’s expansive area and position near the Headwaters of the Credit River fosters large scale movement and migration of wildlife, helps to maintain biodiversity and supports species habitat.

Resource protection and stewardship activities within the Complex adhere to the following principles:  All protection and stewardship activities will be a coordinated effort between all disciplines, including aquatic, terrestrial, forestry, fisheries, geology, hydrogeology, and conservation area operations;  Activities will be undertaken using approaches that result in minimal conflict and that help achieve the overall goals and objectives for UCCA;  Natural features and functions will be maintained, enhanced or restored while recognizing linkages between and within terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and social systems;  Invasive, non-native species that threaten the function of natural systems and/or the components of that system will be controlled where appropriate; and  The quality and quantity of appreciation and recreation opportunities will be improved through selective management of species and habitats while maintaining or enhancing existing natural heritage features and functions.

The protection and enhancement of UCCA’s significant natural features is a management plan priority and several performance indicators highlight implementation results, including details on select projects.

81

SCHEDULE ‘C’ PAGE -4- 2021-05-14

Resource Protection and Stewardship Directions: Five-year Review Stage of Performance Indicator Comment Completion A forestry management CVC recently completed the Sustainable plan for the plantations on Forestry Management Plan (2020) which the McIlwraith Parcel has directs and prioritizes CVC’s forest been developed management at a watershed level. Forestry management is undertaken on On-Track an as-needed basis. The grassland restoration 7.5 ha of land has been converted to a area is being managed to tallgrass prairie, supporting numerous encourage grassland bird grassland birds. Management of this Good breeding feature is ongoing, with a prescribed burn completed in April 2021. Progress Instream and riparian Restoration of the Credit River (Safari restoration activities have parcel) is largely complete. Monitoring been completed for the data shows a substantial narrowing of Good Credit River (Safari parcel) the channel over a five-year period. Progress If habitat enhancement A pilot project for monitoring and projects have been maintaining nest boxes is planned for implemented (e.g. bird 2021. boxes, turtle nesting Some habitat etc.), a program is in place to monitor the Progress habitat enhancements. An Invasive Species CVC recently completed the Invasive Management Plan has Species Strategy (2020) which prioritizes been developed and CVC’s invasive species management at priority areas are being a watershed level. Invasive species managed management is undertaken on an On-Track ongoing, priority basis. Areas identified for tree Planting has been completed for all planting have been planted areas identified in the Bringing Back and are being monitored Brookies Restoration Plan. Monitoring for success has recorded an 80% success rate. Completed Long-term environmental Monitoring UCCA, as part of CVC’s trends are being monitored Integrated Watershed Monitoring and impacts addressed Program. On-Track Priority properties have CVC’s Land Acquisition Plan (draft) been identified and identifies criteria for land acquisition on a opportunities for watershed-wide basis. Acquisition acquisition are being targets set with priorities for securing On-Track pursued optimum route of the CVT.

82

SCHEDULE ‘C’ PAGE -5- 2021-05-14

Grassland Restoration A 7.5 hectare area that was previously an old farm field has successfully been converted into a tallgrass prairie. It is now a thriving grassland with native plants and grasses that supports the recovery of at-risk grassland birds, such as the eastern meadowlark and bobolink (Figure 3).

Several stages are involved in the development of this ecosystem, including:  Overseeding to increase native plant presence  5 years of strategically timed mowing to inhibit Figure 1: Bobolink, a species at risk weed growth grassland bird, found at UCCA  Ongoing monitoring to assess success  Ongoing management

As part of the ongoing management efforts, a prescribed burn was undertaken in April 2021. Prescribed burns mimic the effect of a natural wildfire and encourage the establishment of native species, while removing non-native species. An educational sign has been installed at UCCA to provide information on the importance of grassland communities and CVC’s restoration efforts.

Instream and Riparian Restoration In 2015, the ‘Bringing Back Brookies UCCA Brook Trout Habitat Restoration Plan’ was prepared by CVC in collaboration with Trout Unlimited Canada’s Greg Clark Chapter (TUC GCC). The five-year restoration plan focused on restoring the Credit River in the Safari parcel to support brook trout, a sensitive cold-water species. From 2015 - 2019, CVC and TU GCC secured $120,000 towards project implementation.

This was a collaborative undertaking between several organizations who contributed financially or in-kind (equipment or volunteer time) including CVC, TUC GCC, Izaak Walton Fly Fishing Club, Halton Peel Woodlands and Wildlife Stewardship and the Upper Credit Trout Club. Over the past five years, 85 workdays were attended by over 1,500 volunteers that planted 3,244 trees and shrubs; installed 25 habitat structures or supplements in-stream; and planted 2,650 Willow and Dogwood cuttings. These activities contributed to the restoration of one kilometer of the Credit River. The once over-widened river resulting from cattle access was narrowed to 3 m (10 ft) from 5 m – 6 m (16 ft – 20 ft). This is comparable to pre-disturbance widths and supports a lower water temperature and improved water quality (Figures 1 and 2). 83

SCHEDULE ‘C’ PAGE -6- 2021-05-14

Figure 2: Credit River at UCCA before restoration Figure 3: Credit River at UCCA – after restoration efforts (fall 2005) efforts (summer 2018)

Invasive Species Management More than 25% of the plant species recorded at UCCA are non-native. This relatively high percentage is largely attributed the property’s previous agricultural land uses. Invasive species management targets high priority ‘transformer’ species including garlic mustard and buckthorn as well as the impacts of emerald ash borer through hazard ash tree management. Over the past five years:  Staff and volunteers have spent more than 300 hours pulling out over 750 kg of garlic mustard  Galerucella beetles have been released to help control purple loostrife  Buckthorn and honeysuckle have been removed along the trail system  Invasive species educational signage has been Figure 4. Staff removing garlic installed mustard at UCCA

There are still priority invasive species management projects to be undertaken, including phragmites management on the Tranmer parcel.

84

SCHEDULE ‘C’ PAGE -7- 2021-05-14

2. Recreation, Education and Infrastructure

UCCA is a popular local destination for hikers and dog walkers and provides excellent bird watching and nature appreciation opportunities as well as fishing in the Credit River.

The recreation, education and infrastructure directions in the UCCA management plan aim to support:  The development of consistent, inclusive visitor experiences by focusing on improving, creating or deterring specific activities or opportunities;  Increasing opportunities for interpretation;  Creating facilities and ancillary features that promote accessibility and enable social and group activities for all ages and skill levels; and  Connecting the trail system (including the CVT), developing trail linkages, enhancing accessibility, providing safe river crossings, and improving signage.

Enhancing existing appreciation and recreation opportunities is a management plan priority and several performance indicators highlight implementation results, including details on select projects.

85

SCHEDULE ‘C’ PAGE -8- 2021-05-14

Recreation, Education and Infrastructure Directions: Five-year Review Stage of Performance Indicator Comment Completion The many ecological, social, A Sign Plan identifying and culturally significant locations for wayfinding and aspects of UCCA are interpretive signage was communicated and promoted implemented in 2020. onsite through interpretive Completed signage. UCCA is promoted as a Core CVC moved away from the 10 Conservation Area through ‘Core 10’ system for marketing initiatives marketing in 2018. UCCA is now classified as a Credit Completed Valley Park in CAMS. Opportunities to showcase the CVC’s stewardship and restoration projects at UCCA, restoration staff have led such as guided or virtual hikes, several tours and site visits are being explored showcasing UCCA’s On-Track restoration project successes. Recreation within UCCA is Passive recreation activities characterized as mostly such as hiking, nature passive and low impact appreciation and fishing remain the most popular visitor activities. Completed

Implementation plans for trail Implementation is behind development, signage and schedule due to funding major infrastructure are on availability. A recent grant schedule has provided funding for 3 major trail projects to be implemented 2021 – 2023. Some Progress CVT route established with interactive features through Ondago Trail app. Accessible features ensure that Accessibility information people of all ages, backgrounds related to trails is now and abilities are able to visit standard on all new trail UCCA maps. New trails will be designed to meet accessibility On-Track standards, as feasible.

Visitor Use Visitation at UCCA has increased steadily over the past several years, and the property received over 50,000 visits in 2020 – a 32% increase from 2019 or nearly a 100% increase since 2017 (Figure 5). This increase is driven in part by population growth in the GTA, increased awareness of our conservation areas, growth in outdoor activities, an increasing 86

SCHEDULE ‘C’ PAGE -9- 2021-05-14 awareness of the benefits of connecting with nature especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Upper Credit Conservation Area Yearly Visitation 60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Figure 5. Trend of visitation growth at UCCA.

Connecting the Credit Valley Trail (CVT) On November 3, 2020, the first official wayfinding (Figure 6) and interpretive signage (Figure 7) for the CVT was unveiled at UCCA. With COVID-19 restrictions in place, a small in-person gathering was held with representatives from the Credit Valley Trail Leadership Council, Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) Board of Directors, CVC Foundation Board of Directors, Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation Community and CVT funders, the Greenbelt Foundation and 407 ETR.

Figure 6: Credit Valley Trail sign unveiling took place at UCCA with project partners

87

SCHEDULE ‘C’ PAGE -10- 2021-05-14

Trail Development and Infrastructure Projects While many of the trail improvement projects identified in the management plan have not moved forward as originally planned, progress is being made with several major components planned over the next few years (2021 – 2023):  Replacement of the Safari parcel bridge;  Installation of over 800 m of boardwalk on the Tranmer parcel;  New bridge on the Tranmer parcel; and,  New pylon sign at main entrance.

These four trail projects are critical components of the CVT’s optimum route. CVC has recently secured a substantial grant to support the implementation of these projects. In addition, the Credit Valley Conservation Foundation recently announced a $10 million fundraising campaign to support the development of the CVT throughout the watershed.

Figure 7. CVT interpretive signage was installed at UCCA in 2020

88

SCHEDULE ‘C’ PAGE -11- 2021-05-14

3. Conservation Area Operations

CVC’s Property Management Team monitors UCCA on a bi-weekly basis, ensuring that the area is clean, safe, and well-managed for visitors. Unsanctioned and illegal activities, including poaching, tree removal, dumping and off-road vehicles have been reported at UCCA in recent years. These activities are dealt with as a matter of priority.

Hikers with off-leash dogs continue to be a major issue on site, causing riparian erosion issues and visitor conflict. Property management staff have noted that education and staff presence have done little to reduce this activity. Moving forward, ongoing enforcement is recommended to manage this concern.

Providing a visitor experience that supports the protection of the natural environment is a management plan priority that is accomplished through effective conservation area operations. Several conservation area operations performance indicators highlight implementation results, including details on select projects.

Conservation Area Operations Directions: Five-year Review Stage of Performance Indicator Comment Completion Impacts from unsanctioned Poaching, off-road vehicles and activities are being rectified; unsanctioned trail development ongoing monitoring tracks have been recorded in recent trends and impacts of years. Management and On-Track unsanctioned activities enforcement are ongoing. Boundary Line Assessments Encroachments have been identified numerous inventoried, prioritized, and encroachments. Management managed and enforcement are prioritized On-Track at the watershed-level. Impacts from sanctioned Ongoing property monitoring visitor activities are at ensures that sanctioned uses sustainable level remain at an appropriate level. On-Track 89

SCHEDULE ‘C’ PAGE -12- 2021-05-14

Looking Ahead: Ten-Year Review The next formal evaluation of the UCCA management plan’s progress will be undertaken at the ten-year mark in 2026. Looking ahead to 2026 and the ten-year review of the plan, it is expected that most performance indicators will be achieved. 2026 will mark the end of the current plan, as we near the end of the plan staff will assess if a new plan will be required or if the current plan can simply be updated.

Future projects at UCCA to enhance current progress or to be incorporated into a renewed plan could include:  Additional land acquisition to increase park size, protect natural features, and provide additional space for desired recreational activities;  Continued acquisition and development of the optimum route of the CVT;  Enhanced connections to Island Lake Conservation Area through the CVT or other municipal trail routes;  Installation of one or more picnic pavilions to support park activities and programming;  Expanding the parking lot to meet and accommodate visitor demand;  Availability of vault or compostable toilets; and,  Introduction of an automated gate system to control access and collect entry fees.

In addition to the opportunities above, the ten-year review will include the following items to set the stage for the 2026 management plan:  Identify the necessary inventories, research and studies that need to be undertaken;  Provide a discussion on current opportunities and constraints; and  Provide initial recommendations and direction.

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN:

There are no communications implications for this report.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no financial implications of this report.

CONCLUSION:

Significant progress has been made on key performance indicators since the UCCA management plan was approved in 2016. CVC has completed many of the restoration- related actions identified in the plan. Recreation and infrastructure development projects have been largely delayed due to funding limitations. However, with the recent confirmation of a substantial grant, significant trail work will be completed between 2021 - 2023.

90

SCHEDULE ‘C’ PAGE -13- 2021-05-14

UCCA is a unique and important part of CVC’s conservation areas system and provides opportunities for passive recreation as well as for the public to gain an understanding and appreciation of the exceptional restoration work that has taken place. As CVC continues to secure funds, design, and construct the CVT, UCCA will continue to transform, providing new and enhanced opportunities for visitors to learn and appreciate the upper Credit River. Staff anticipate key performance indicators will be achieved by 2026 at which time staff will explore options to develop a new plan or revise and renew the existing plan to reflect current corporate and community priorities.

RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION:

WHEREAS the Upper Credit Conservation Area Management Plan was approved by the Board of Directors of CVC in 2016 through Resolution #45/16; and

WHEREAS implementation of key performance indicators identified in the management plan is on track for management plan completion in 2026;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “Upper Credit Conservation Area Management Plan - Five Year Update” be received and appended to the minutes of this meeting as Schedule ‘C’; and further

THAT staff be directed to provide a ten-year update to the Board of Directors in 2026.

Submitted by:

______Eric Baldin Terri LeRoux Manager, Land Planning & Management Senior Manager, PARCS

______Jeff Payne Deputy CAO and Director, Corporate Services

91

SCHEDULE ‘C’ PAGE -14- 2021-05-14

Recommended by:

______Deborah Martin-Downs Chief Administrative Officer 92

SCHEDULE ‘C’, MAP 1 2021-05-14

Map 1: Upper Credit Conservation Area 93

SCHEDULE ‘D’ PAGE -1- 2021-05-14

TO: The Chair and Members of the Board of Directors, Credit Valley Conservation

SUBJECT: CONSERVATION ONTARIO GOVERNANCE ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE

PURPOSE: To request endorsement by the Board of Directors of CVC of the Conservation Ontario Governance Accountability and Transparency Initiative

BACKGROUND:

Recent amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act (CAA) include a number of provisions that relate to governance in support of a provincial government commitment to improving conservation authority (CA) accountability and transparency.

Conservation Ontario (CO) and the CAs share the provincial government’s commitment to governance accountability and transparency. As required by amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act (CAA) in Bill 139 (December 2017), Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) along with all CAs approved revised Administrative By-Laws in compliance with prescribed deadline of December 2018.

The province continued to emphasize the importance of governance accountability and transparency and further amendments were made to the CAA through Schedule 6 of Bill 229 which received Royal Assent on December 8, 2020.

ANALYSIS:

On February 2, 2021 a number of clauses related to CA governance included in Bill 229 Schedule 6 were proclaimed resulting in discussion of actions related to these clauses among the leadership of the CAs.

Conservation Ontario prepared a chart found as Schedule ‘D’, Appendix 1, outlining required actions as a result of the legislation, as well as a number of best management practice (BMP) actions with the intent to demonstrate accountability and transparency to the province through compliance with the legislation, and of course also to municipalities and the public in their implementation.

A Governance Accountability and Transparency Initiative (GATI) steering committee of CAOs/General Managers was formed to advise on additional actions going forward.

94

SCHEDULE ‘D’ PAGE -2- 2021-05-14

The Steering Committee drafted a proposed CO Governance Accountability and Transparency Initiative that includes the following three actions to demonstrate CA commitment to accountability and transparency:

a) Updates to CA Administrative By-laws, b) Proactive Reporting on Priorities, and c) Promotion/Demonstration of Results.

The details of each of these actions as found in the initiative are expanded on in the following sections and can be found in Schedule ‘D’, Appendix 2 as a PDF for sharing.

Action 1: Updates to CA Administrative By-Laws

Ensure CA Administrative By-Laws are updated in fulfillment of legislative amendments to the CAA being proclaimed over the course of 2021. This will be accomplished through the following activities: i) Notwithstanding that some CAs have already updated their bylaws further to the Feb 2nd proclamations; ASAP review understanding with Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) staff regarding sections to be proclaimed, scheduling, and the need for updates to CA administrative bylaws; and obtain any other confirmations as required. ii) Subject to i), undertake a comprehensive update of the Conservation Authority Best Management Practices (BMP) and Administrative By-Law Model (Conservation Ontario, April 2018 as amended), obtain legal review of amendments as necessary, and provide training to CAOs as necessary iii) Track all 36 CAs re: status of updated administrative bylaws iv) Provide ability for CAs to share sample policies in support of the new clauses.

Action 2: Proactive Reporting on Governance Accountability and Transparency Priorities

Ensure proactive reporting on GATI priorities as initially identified as those governance- related clauses in the CAA that were proclaimed on February 2, 2021. This will be accomplished through the following activities: i) Identification and communication of Required Actions and BMP Actions for each of the newly proclaimed governance-related clauses. ii) Implementation of a tracking system to enable easy reporting on the status of the Actions and for collection of information that will enable the analysis of CA issues/impacts raised in relation to implementation of the clauses. iii) Bi-annual reports to CO Council on the status of priority Actions.

Action 3: Promotion/Demonstration of Results

Evidence of governance accountability and transparency results will be promoted and demonstrated through advocacy materials and websites. This will be accomplished through the following activities: i) Promote the initiative and prepare analyses of results and appropriate advocacy materials, as necessary 95

SCHEDULE ‘D’ PAGE -3- 2021-05-14

ii) Develop Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) checklist of governance material that should be available on CA websites to permit ease of public access. The checklist is proposed to include: a. Members (individuals and Member agreements) b. Administrative by-laws c. Annual Meeting Schedule with information on how to participate d. Agendas – full package e. Minutes (to be posted within 30 days of meeting) f. Audited financial statements g. Annual Fee schedule h. Other corporate documentation as available including Strategic Plans, Annual Reports, Watershed Report Cards iii) CO to track implementation of the QA/QC checklist and create CO webpage promoting Initiative and that this information can be found on CA webpages.

CVC has for some time now, provided on our website the items listed in Action 3 ii). Our by-laws will need to be updated to be compliant with the revised board terms outlined in Bill 229. We have not pursued an update pending release of other requirements and some legal interpretations of the provisions in the Act. As we have undertaken elements of reporting we have provided updates to CO for tracking purposes.

Demonstrating the collective commitment to governance accountability and transparency enables conservation authorities to control the narrative that has been attributed to conservation authorities in general for the past several years.

Conservation Ontario has requested that all 36 CAs have their Board of Directors endorse the GATI.

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN:

The CVC website will need to be updated to ensure compliance with requirements of the legislation and make materials easily found. The website is currently being updated and changes will be undertaken in stages as new sections are completed.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There is no financial impact to CVC for this project.

CONCLUSION:

A CO ‘Governance Accountability and Transparency Initiative’ includes the following three actions to demonstrate CA commitment to demonstrating compliance with the requirements, spirit and intent of the new provisions in the updated CAA: a) Updates to CA Administrative By-laws, b) Proactive Reporting on Priorities, and 96

SCHEDULE ‘D’ PAGE -4- 2021-05-14

c) Promotion/Demonstration of Results.

Conservation authorities were asked to support this initiative through Board resolutions endorsing the three actions identified.

RECOMMENDED RESOLUTION:

WHEREAS the provincial government has passed legislative amendments related to the governance of Conservation Authorities; and

WHEREAS the conservation authorities remain committed to fulfilling accountable and transparent governance;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the report entitled “Conservation Ontario Governance Accountability and Transparency Initiative” be received and appended to the minutes of this meeting as schedule ‘D’; and

THAT the Board of Directors of Credit Valley Conservation Authority endorse the three key actions developed by the Conservation Ontario Steering Committee to update conservation authority administrative by-laws, to report proactively on priorities, and to promote/demonstrate results; and further

THAT staff be directed to work with Conservation Ontario to implement these actions, report on progress and to identify additional improvements and best management practices.

Recommended by:

______Deborah Martin-Downs Chief Administrative Officer

SCHEDULE 'D', APPENDIX 1 PAGE97 1 Appendix 1: Governance Accountability and Transparency Initiative Current Priorities: Governance-related Clauses of the Conservation Authorities Act Proclaimed February2021-05-14 2, 2021 with Actions Required and Draft BMP Actions Area of Section Change to Act Interpretation, Required Actions Impact and DRAFT BMP Actions Recommended for CAs Municipal 14(1.1), At least 70% of a municipality’s appointees must be municipal Current members may complete the remaining duration of their appointment. As Appointments councillors. new members are appointed, participating municipalities must appoint them in

accordance with the new requirements. Exceptions can be requested from the 14(1.2) Municipality can apply to Minister to have percentage reduced; the Minister (See ca.office MECP Feb 22, 2021 email re: Complete application decision is at the Minister’s direction (including adding any conditions or requirements). restrictions). Required Action: letters to municipalities notifying them of changes and exception process; update to Administrative bylaw re: ‘Governance: Member appointments’ BMP Action: send letters as soon as possible re: above and reminding them of their next scheduled appointment date. Coordinate with your neighbouring CAs that share a municipality. Municipal 14(2.2) & The Minister is to be provided with a copy of any agreement amongst The number of members is established through the population formula under the Agreements 14(2.3) participating municipalities affecting the number of members. Must be CAA (s.2(2)) or under a past Order in Council unless there is an agreement confirmed available to the public (on website or by any other means) by municipal resolutions (s.14(2.1)) Required Action: Existing agreements sent to Minister by April 3, 2021 and made available to the public (s14(2.2) & 14(2.3)) BMP Action: letter to the Minister (b.c.c. CO) advising if CA does not have any agreements with respect to the number of members and confirming compliance with current legislation BMP Action: post member status documentation on website Agricultural 14(4), The Minister has the authority to appoint an additional member to a No Action at this time. If the Minister appoints an agricultural representative staff Appointee conservation authority to represent the agricultural sector. will provide an orientation briefing to the new member. 14(4.0.1), The voting powers of such a representative are limited (i.e. can’t vote on a decision to enlarge, amalgamate or dissolve an authority or on BMP Action: Possibility to include reference in the CO Model Administrative Bylaw budgetary matters presented at a meeting). document and an update to the Administrative By-law re: ‘Governance: Member 14(4.1) Term up to 4 years, as determined by Minister appointments’ e.g. voting powers Agenda/ 15(2.1), Authority and executive committee meeting agendas to be available to Required Action: ensure agenda is available to the public in advance of meetings Minutes the public before a meeting takes place and the minutes are to be and minutes are available to the public within 30 days after the meeting; update to available to the public within 30 days following a meeting. the Administrative By-law re: ‘Meeting Procedures’

Page 1 of 3

SCHEDULE 'D', APPENDIX 1 PAGE98 2 Appendix 1: Governance Accountability and Transparency Initiative Current Priorities: Governance-related Clauses of the Conservation Authorities Act Proclaimed February2021-05-14 2, 2021 with Actions Required and Draft BMP Actions Area of Section Change to Act Interpretation, Required Actions Impact and DRAFT BMP Actions Recommended for CAs 15(2.2) Both to be available by posting on website or by any other means the authority considers appropriate. BMP Action: make agendas and minutes available to public on CA website Chair/Vice 17(1.1), A chair or vice-chair shall hold office for a term of one year and shall From Feb 2, 2021 an individual is not eligible for appointment if they have just Chair Term serve for no more than two consecutive terms. finished servicing in the position for two years or if they are from the same 17(1.2), Appointments must rotate amongst participating municipalities, a municipality as the previous incumbent. Any appointments made under the old rules member from a specific municipality cannot be appointed to succeed an prior to Feb 2nd are valid until the next election. Exceptions can be requested from outgoing chair or vice-chair appointed by the same municipality. the Minister (see ca.office MECP Feb 22, 2021 email re: Complete application 17(1.3) The Minister may grant permission to appoint a chair or vice-chair for a requirements) term of more than one year or to hold office for more than two consecutive years or waive the rotating provision Required Action: review of Chair/Vice Chair history; adjust elections accordingly or request an exception; update to the Administrative By-law re: ‘Governance: Terms & Election Chair & Vice Chair’

BMP Action: if you are out of compliance; send Minister email (b.c.c. CO) with plan to get into compliance Powers of 21(1) Amendments were made to sub-clauses (a),(b),(c) and, (p). Required Action: Update to the Administrative By-law re: ‘Introduction: Powers of authorities authorities’. Appointment 23.1 (1)- Minister can appoint one or more investigators to conduct an No Action at this time. If the Minister appoints an investigator then CA Members of an (10), investigation of an authority’s operations, including the programs and and staff may be required to appear before investigator and give evidence under Investigator services it provides. oath. There may be unplanned expenses in a given year, if required to pay for the and Investigator powers: investigation. CA must comply with all resultant orders. Appointment • Inquire into any or all of the authority’s affairs, financial or of an otherwise BMP Action: Possibility to include reference to these new sections in the Administrator • Require production of records Background section of the CO Model Administrative Bylaw document. • Inspect, examine, audit and copy anything • Conduct financial audit • Require any member of the authority and any other person to appear before the investigator and give evidence under oath. Investigator shall provide copy of report to Minister, who shall promptly transmit a copy to the authority. Minister may require CA to pay all or part of cost of investigation.

Page 2 of 3

SCHEDULE 'D', APPENDIX 1 PAGE99 3 Appendix 1: Governance Accountability and Transparency Initiative Current Priorities: Governance-related Clauses of the Conservation Authorities Act Proclaimed February2021-05-14 2, 2021 with Actions Required and Draft BMP Actions Area of Section Change to Act Interpretation, Required Actions Impact and DRAFT BMP Actions Recommended for CAs Investigators have immunity (if done in good faith). 23.2 (1)- After Minister’s review of report, and CA has failed or is likely to fail to (3), comply with a provision of this Act, the Minister can: • Order Authority to do or refrain from doing anything • Recommend to LGIC that an administrator be appointed to take over control and operation of authority • CAs must comply with any issued orders by a specified date • Orders to be made public.

23.3 (1)- Administrator has power to: (6) • May exercise all the powers and shall perform all the duties of the administrator and of its members subject to such terms and conditions as outlined by Minister • Minister shall notify Authority and member municipalities • Minister may issue directions to the administrator • Administrator has immunity (if done in good faith) Annual Audit 38 (1), Annual audits are still required by a person licensed under the Public Required Action: Review current audit practices and make any required Accounting Act, 2004 and it is additionally specified that it be prepared adjustments to align with legislative requirements e.g. advise Audit firm when in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for local contracted. Ensure audit report is available to the public within 60 days of receipt by governments recommended by the Public Section Accounting Board of the authority; possible update to the Administrative By-law re: ‘Governance: audited the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada, as they exist from financial statements’. time to time. BMP Action: make audit report available to public on CA website 38(4) Within 60 days of receiving audit report, must make available to public on its website and any other means the authority considers appropriate.

Page 3 of 3

SCHEDULE 'D', APPENDIX 2 PAGE100 1 2021-05-14

Conservation Ontario Governance Accountability and Transparency Initiative

Conservation Authorities are committed to Governance Accountability and Transparency and will demonstrate that they have fulfilled requirements recently established in legislative amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act including a number of governance-related sections which were proclaimed on February 2, 2021.

CO Governance Accountability and Transparency Initiative Working with Conservation Ontario, conservation authorities have identified 3 key actions that demonstrate their commitment to governance accountability and transparency including:

1. Updates to CA Administrative By-Laws

Ensure CA Administrative By-Laws are updated in fulfillment of legislative amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act being proclaimed over the course of 2021. This will be accomplished through the following activities:

i) Notwithstanding that some CAs have already updated their bylaws further to the Feb 2nd proclamations; ASAP review understanding with MECP staff regarding sections to be proclaimed, scheduling, and the need for updates to CA administrative bylaws; and obtain any other confirmations as required. ii) Subject to i), undertake a comprehensive update of the Conservation Authority Best Management Practices (BMP) and Administrative By-Law Model (Conservation Ontario, April 2018 as amended), obtain legal review of amendments as necessary, and provide training to CAOs as necessary iii) Track all 36 CAs re: status of updated administrative bylaws iv) Provide ability for CAs to share sample policies in support of the new clauses.

2. Proactive Reporting on Governance Accountability and Transparency Priorities

Ensure proactive reporting on GAT priorities as initially identified as those governance-related clauses in the CAA that were proclaimed on February 2, 2021. This will be accomplished through the following activities: i) Identification and communication of Required Actions and BMP Actions for each of the newly proclaimed governance-related clauses. ii) Implementation of a tracking system to enable easy reporting on the status of the Actions and for collection of information that will enable the analysis of CA issues/impacts raised in relation to implementation of the clauses. SCHEDULE 'D', APPENDIX 2 PAGE101 2 2021-05-14

iii) Bi-annual reports to Conservation Ontario Council on the status of priority Actions.

3. Promotion/Demonstration of Results

Evidence of governance accountability and transparency results will be promoted and demonstrated through communication materials and websites. This will be accomplished through the following activities:

i) Promote the initiative and prepare analyses of results and appropriate communication materials, as necessary ii) Develop QA/QC checklist of governance material that should be available on CA websites to permit ease of public access. The checklist is proposed to include: a. Members (individuals and Member agreements) b. Administrative by-laws c. Annual Meeting Schedule with information on how to participate d. Agendas – full package e. Minutes (to be posted within 30 days of meeting) f. Audited financial statement g. Annual Fee schedule h. Other corporate documentation as available including Strategic Plans, Annual Reports, Watershed Report Cards iii) CO to track implementation of the QA/QC checklist and create CO webpage promoting Initiative and that this information can be found on CA webpages

INFORMATION ITEM #7.1 PAGE102 1 2021-05-14

From: Lou Maieron Date: April 23, 2021 at 10:22:10 AM EDT To: Karen Ras Subject: FW: article link; Municipal sewage plants and effects on Brook trout on Credit river

Hello Ms. Ras:

This scientific paper came into my possession very recently. I am sharing it with you and the CVC board members. I think it’s a very important that CVC directors read this paper, so to better understand serious potential impacts the west credit river and brook trout are likely to face. As we all know that the definition of insanity is; “continuing to do things the same way and expecting a different outcome.” Perhaps we can do something different, something better, that is less harmful to the our rivers natural environment and the brook trout, the few that still manage to call it home . I believe this request is in line with the CVC mandate.

Would you please ask Ms. Chipperfield to email this article to all members of the CVC board.

Thank You

Lou Maieron https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321729670_Biological_Responses_in_Brook_Trout_Salvelinu s_fontinalis_Caged_Downstream_from_Municipal_Wastewater_Treatment_Plants_in_the_Credit_River _ON_Canada

INFORMATION ITEM #7.2 PAGE103 1 2021-05-14

BRIEFING NOTE

CREDIT VALLEY CONSERVATION 1255 Old Derry Road, Mississauga, Ontario L5N 6R4 Tel: (905) 670-1615 Fax: (905) 670-2210 1-800-668-5557

May 6, 2021 To: CVC Board of Directors From: Jennifer Dougherty - Senior Manager, Water and Climate Change Science cc Re: RESEARCH ON TRACE WASTEWATER COMPOUNDS AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO BROOK TROUT IN THE CREDIT RIVER

An email was received by Chair Ras from a resident of the Town of Erin (and former Board member of CVC) Lou Maieron with a request that a recently completed scientific paper on the effects of sewage effluent on brook trout, a species of considerable importance in the Credit River, be circulated to the Board of Directors (See abstract attached as Appendix 1). He felt it was very important that CVC Board members read this paper to better understand the serious potential impacts to the West Credit River and brook trout from wastewater. Staff have prepared the following brief synopsis of the paper for the Board and will be available to answer any questions.

A short-term study was conducted in November of 2016 downstream of the wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) in Orangeville and Acton, with a focus on trace compounds not typically removed through wastewater treatment processes, and their response in brook trout.

In the study, hatchery raised brook trout were caged for two weeks, 50 metres upstream and 100, 200 and 600 metres downstream of each WWTP to evaluate whether contaminants in wastewater are affecting brook trout. This study looked at one indicator of exposure to estrogenic substances and two indicators of weakened immunity (oxidative stress) in the fish and water chemistry of the steam.

Estrogenic substances found in wastewater can be from medications and other personal care products. Fish exposed to high levels of estrogen can experience sexual development and reproduction problems. The results show estrogen exposure downstream of both wastewater treatment plants and suggest that the main sources are likely the WWTPs.

Oxidative stress is an imbalance in fish cells which can weaken the immune system and DNA. Oxidative stress can be caused by exposure to contaminants associated with wastewater effluent. It can also be caused by exposure to pesticides and environmental stressors such as water temperature and dissolved oxygen. The study looked at two indicators of oxidative stress and found the first indicator was significantly different 100 m downstream of the Acton WWTP from the upstream station. The second indicator of oxidative stress was detected but with high variability. brook trout at both WWTPs showed signs of oxidative stress.

Water chemistry results showed that water temperature, dissolved oxygen and pH were all within acceptable ranges and suitable for brook trout at the time of the study, and therefore not the cause of the weakened immunity. The study also sampled water chemistry for caffeine and sucralose upstream and downstream of both treatment plants. The results found both parameters at all sites sampled suggesting that wastewater also enters the stream from sources other than the WWTPs (e.g., private septic systems).

INFORMATION ITEM #7.2 PAGE104 2 2021-05-14

The study concluded that overall, there was evidence of potential for endocrine response and oxidative stress in brook trout inhabiting the Credit River downstream of sources of municipal wastewater. However, due to the limited scope of the study and small sample size more work would be required to confirm the impacts to brook trout.

The Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) is the approval authority for wastewater, and they regulate specific wastewater chemicals through compliance permits. Estrogenic compounds have been gaining interest in wastewater treatment in recent years but at this time are not regulated.

References: McGovarin, S. et al. 2017. Biological Responses in Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) Caged Downstream from Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Credit River, ON, Canada. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 6. INFORMATION ITEM #7.2, APPENDIX105 1 2021-05-14

INFORMATION ITEM #7.3 PAGE106 1 2021-05-14

From: Conservation Ontario Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 9:19 AM To: Martin Downs, Deborah Subject: Conservation Ontario Council Meeting eBulletin - April 2021

Join Our Mailing List

This Council eBulletin provides members with a summary of discussions and decisions that took place at the Conservation Ontario Council and Annual General Meeting on Monday, April 12, 2021. For additional information, please contact the Conservation Ontario staff member listed below.

General Manager's Report

Following Council’s December 2020 meeting, Conservation Ontario was directed to submit a letter to the Province asking for them to amend the Conservation Authorities Act and/or regulations to add a clause of indemnification for the good faith operations of essential flood and erosion control infrastructure and programming and/or issue indemnities under the appropriate Acts and regulations to conservation authorities that are compelled to issue permits due to the new provisions of the Conservation Authorities Act and associated Planning Act Minister Zoning Order decisions. To date, Conservation Ontario has yet to receive a response from the Province.

The Conservation Authorities Act Working Group created by Minister Yurek at the end of last year and chaired by Hassaan Basit has met a total of five times to date. The work of the group has been divided into two phases. Phase 1 is focusing on

1 INFORMATION ITEM #7.3 PAGE107 2 2021-05-14 mandatory programs and services, municipal agreements and transition plans for non-mandatory programs, consolidation of section 29 regulations, community advisory boards and section 28 regulations updates. Phase 2 will focus on the municipal levy and non-mandatory programs and services. Notwithstanding the varying opinions from stakeholders, the discussions have been honest and productive with a goal of trying to find practical and achievable solutions. It is anticipated that the Province will be releasing regulatory and governance proposals through the Environmental Registry in the near future. For more information, please see the Council Report. CO Staff Contact: Kim Gavine

2021 Orientation for New Council Members

A presentation is available to help new Conservation Ontario Council Members to familiarize themselves with Council and Conservation Ontario. Please access the presentation here. If members do not yet have access to the CO Members website, usernames and passwords are available from either the local conservation authority administration personnel, or by contacting Kristin Bristow (905-895-0716 Ext. 232). CO Staff Contact: Jane Lewington

Conservation Ontario’s 2020 Annual Report

Conservation Ontario’s annual report provides information on CO’s work around milestones such as COVID-19 Protocols, changes to the Conservation Authorities Act, provincial Flooding Strategy, policy programs, training, information management, communications and the Latornell Leadership Project (see presentation). Additional details can be found in Conservation Ontario’s 2020 Workplan Report Back. CO Staff Contact: Jane Lewington

Overview of Amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act and Next Steps

Conservation Ontario staff will continue to engage with the Province and CAs as the Province proceeds with proclamations and the anticipated regulatory consultations to implement the amendments to the Conservation Authorities Act. The amendments to the Act are summarized in a Table with their ‘date in force’ and next steps are identified in terms of Actions (Required, BMP, Anticipated) based upon our current interpretation of the clauses. See full report and summary table here. The table will be continually updated as a reference resource. CO Staff Contact: Bonnie Fox

New Conservation Ontario Governance and Accountability Initiative

Conservation Ontario Council passed the following resolution:

WHEREAS the provincial government has passed legislative amendments related to the governance of Conservation Authorities;

2 INFORMATION ITEM #7.3 PAGE108 3 2021-05-14 AND WHEREAS the Conservation Authorities remain committed to fulfilling accountable and transparent governance;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Conservation Ontario Council endorse the Governance Accountability and Transparency Initiative and that the resolution be sent to the Minister of Environment, Conservation and Parks;

AND THAT Conservation Ontario Council request that all Conservation Authorities endorse a commitment to pursue governance accountability and transparency measures

Further details on the Conservation Ontario Governance Accountability and Transparency Initiative and a draft resolution for each Conservation Authority to endorse can be found in the Council report (Word Version) (PDF Version with attachments). The Initiative includes the following three actions to demonstrate CA commitment in this regard:

1. Updates to CA Administrative By-laws, 2. Proactive Reporting on Priorities, and 3. Promotion/Demonstration of Results

To deliver on these actions and to advise CO staff, a Steering Committee comprised of eight CAOs was endorsed. CO Staff Contact: Bonnie Fox

Update on the CO Client Service and Streamlining Initiative and First Annual Report on Section 28 Permit Timelines

As part of the ongoing Conservation Ontario Client Service and Streamlining Initiative, over the past year 14 high-growth CAs have tracked and reported on review and approval timelines for section 28 permit applications. As part of this work, each CA reports based on timelines outlined in the provincial “Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Permitting Activities”, as well as the more challenging CO Best Practice timelines. Throughout 2020, the high- growth CAs were highly successful in issuing permits within both sets of timelines, with 92% of permits issued within the provincial timelines, and 83% within the CO best practice timelines. Through the reporting, CAs provided details on variances from both sets of timelines, which included: staffing and operational challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, complex applications requiring multiple re-submissions, and an overall increase in permit application volume.

As part of the 2021 workplan for this initiative, annual reporting on the permit review and approval timelines has been extended on a voluntary basis to all CAs, with seven CAs joining in the annual reporting cycle for 2021. A select group of non-high-growth CAs will further be working toward implementing a client-centric checklist on their websites to provide transparency of process and rules regarding CA planning and permitting programs. For more information, please see the Council Report. CO Staff Contact: Leslie Rich

April 2020 - March 2021 Annual Update on Conservation Ontario Representatives and Committees

3 INFORMATION ITEM #7.3 PAGE109 4 2021-05-14 Conservation Ontario provides an annual list of CO Representatives and CA Discussion Groups to recognize the significant, volunteer contributions provided through your Conservation Authority staff to collective strategic priorities. The Annual General Meeting Report including the attached tables provides the Committees that were active and the committee members present during the time period April 2020-March 2021. Missing from Table 3 are the members of the four CO Strategic Plan committees and those members can be found listed in the associated Council Report. CO Staff Contact: Bonnie Fox

2020 Latornell Leadership Project Webinars

As a result of pandemic conditions, the Latornell Conservation Symposium was replaced in 2020 with a five-part webinar series hosted by the Latornell Professional Development subcommittee. The presentations looked at the evolution of conservation authorities, a planning and ecology workshop, communicating in a pandemic, diversity and inclusion, as well as leadership development. A link to the recordings can be found here. CO Staff Contact: Jane Lewington

Conservation Ontario’s Pass Program for CA Staff and Members

A review of the current CO Conservation Areas Pass Program for CA staff and members is underway due to changes within various conservation areas. A report outlining this work can be found here. In the meantime, the current pass program continues for 2021 and CA templates are available from Jane Lewington. CO Staff Contact: Jane Lewington

Proposed Canada Water Agency

The Federal Government is considering creation of a Canada Water Agency to keep water safe, clean and well- managed. Conservation Ontario provided extensive feedback (see CO submission attached to report) to questions raised in a Discussion Paper entitled “Towards the Creation of a Canada Water Agency”. If a new federal agency is created we’ve encouraged strong support of the CA role in integrated watershed management; including support in the form of stronger partnerships and investments as summarized in the Council Report.

Environment and Climate Change Canada is currently incorporating feedback received into a “What We Heard” report, which will be made public once it’s available. The mandate and priorities of a Canada Water Agency are still to be confirmed and the timing of its creation is unknown as well. Conservation Ontario will be monitoring progress. CO Staff Contact: Bonnie Fox

Conservation Ontario’s comments on the Ontario Professional Foresters Association’s Review of the Professional Foresters Act, 2000

4 INFORMATION ITEM #7.3 PAGE110 5 2021-05-14 Conservation Ontario received a request from the Ontario Professional Foresters Association (OPFA) to participate in a scoped review of the Professional Foresters Act, 2000 to collect stakeholder feedback on proposed amendments to the Professional Foresters Act.

Conservation Ontario’s consolidated CA response was generally supportive of the proposed amendments, however, greater clarity on the potential impacts of the amendments, as well as new supplemental guidance documents was requested. Comments collected by the OPFA during the stakeholder consultation period may be shared directly with the MNRF for consideration in potential future changes to the Professional Foresters Act.

On March 29th, Conservation Ontario received a response (appended to the Council report) to our comments from, Fred Pinto, RPF (OPFA Executive Director).

The OPFA is also preparing suggested revisions to the Professional Foresters Act to ensure that the unique skills of professional foresters are more clearly defined so that the list of exclusions under O. Reg. 145/01 can be removed (e.g., further defining the scope of “urban forestry” within the Act). For more information, please see the Council Report. CO Staff Contact: Jo-Anne Rzadki

Ontario Flooding Strategy

There continues to be a considerable amount of activity focused on flood mapping at provincial and federal levels. There is communication and some alignment of work being initiated between the Province and Federal Government. This includes the initiation of work associated with Ontario’s Flooding Strategy and the Flood Mapping Technical Team (FMTT) where federal and municipal representatives are participating along with the Conservation Authority network. This includes the recent addition of CA staff who will be participating on FMTT Task Groups. For more information, please see the Council Report. CO Staff Contact: Jo-Anne Rzadki

National Flood Mapping Guidelines (New Flood Mapping Standards Sub-Group)

This initiative has been launched with representatives across Canada. CA members of the FMTT for Ontario’s Flood Mapping Strategy as well as MNRF staff are participating along with others from across the country. This work aligns with work some of the work of the Ontario FMTT and there may be opportunity to exchange knowledge and expertise. Please see the summary of this initiative in the Business Development and Partnerships December 2020 Report to CO Council. Updates will be provided as significant progress is made in addition to requests for CA input as appropriate. CO Staff Contact: Jo-Anne Rzadki

Program Updates

i. Drinking Water Source Protection (Deborah Balika) ii. Marketing and Communications (Jane Lewington and Nekeisha Mohammed)

5 INFORMATION ITEM #7.3 PAGE111 6 2021-05-14 iii. Business Development and Partnerships (Jo-Anne Rzadki) iv. Information Management (Rick Wilson)

Conservation Ontario's 2020 Annual Report

#ConservationMatters

Read the 2020 Annual Report here.

Conservation Ontario Follow Us 905-895-0716 | [email protected]

www.conservationontario.ca

Conservation Ontario | 120 Bayview Parkway, Newmarket, L3Y 3W3 Canada

Unsubscribe [email protected] Update Profile | Customer Contact Data Notice Sent by [email protected] powered by

Try email marketing for free today!

6