Authority Meeting #12/15 was held at TRCA Head Office, on Friday, January 29, 2016. The Chair Maria Augimeri, called the meeting to order at 9:34 a.m. PRESENT Kevin Ashe Member Maria Augimeri Chair Jack Ballinger Member Vincent Crisanti Member Michael Di Biase Vice Chair Jennifer Drake Member Chris Fonseca Member Jack Heath Member Jennifer Innis Member Colleen Jordan Member Maria Kelleher Member Matt Mahoney Member Mike Mattos Member

Jennifer McKelvie Member Ron Moeser Member Linda Pabst Member Anthony Perruzza Member Gino Rosati Member Jim Tovey Member ABSENT Paul Ainslie Member David Barrow Member Glenn De Baeremaeker Member Justin Di Ciano Member Rob Ford Member Rodney Hoinkes Member George Mammoliti Member Glenn Mason Member John Sprovieri Member RES.#A253/15 - MINUTES Moved by: Ron Moeser Seconded by: Jim Tovey THAT the Minutes of Meeting #11/15, held on January 8, 2016, be approved. CARRIED

______________________________

710

PRESENTATIONS (a) A presentation by Joe Lobko, Partner, DTAH Architects Limited, and Brian Denney,

Chief Executive Officer, TRCA, in regard to item 7.1 - Long Term Office Accommodation Project.

(b) A presentation by Kat Runnals and Michael Spaziani, Small Arms Society, in

regard to item 7.11 - Rehabilitation of the Small Arms Inspection Building Project.

RES.#A254/15 - PRESENTATIONS

Moved by: Jack Heath

Seconded by: Linda Pabst

THAT above-noted presentation (a) be received. CARRIED RES.#A255/15 - PRESENTATIONS

Moved by: Jim Tovey

Seconded by: Colleen Jordan

THAT above-noted presentation (b) be received. CARRIED

______________________________

CORRESPONDENCE

(a) A letter dated January 21, 2016 from Marianne Berube, Executive Director,

Wood Works, in regard to item 7.1 - Long Term Office Accommodation Project.

RES.#A256/15 - CORRESPONDENCE

Moved by: Vincent Crisanti

Seconded by: Jack Heath

THAT above-noted correspondence (a) be received. CARRIED

______________________________

711

CORRESPONDENCE (A)

712

Section I – Items for Authority Action RES.#A257/15 - LONG TERM OFFICE ACCOMMODATION PROJECT Report on project status and recommendation to approve in principle, a

project for the construction of a new TRCA head office to be built at 5 Shoreham Drive, based upon the schematic design developed by DTAH.

Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Linda Pabst THAT a project to build a new Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) head office at 5 Shoreham Drive, based upon the schematic design developed by DTAH be accepted in principle, with the condition that staff be directed to: approach TRCA member municipalities for new funding support for the construction

of a new head office building based upon the design developed by DTAH Architects Limited;

initiate a competitive procurement process for a consulting team to lead detail design; confirm financing and borrowing opportunities and strategy (i.e. public private

partnerships, liquidation of assets, government grants and support from industry partners etc.);

proceed with an Expression of Interest (EOI) for the Black Creek Pioneer Village parking lot site, which may consider a design/build option for a new TRCA head office, as part of a potential public private partnership, in accordance with the parameters attached as Attachment 5; and

report back at Authority Meeting #4/16, scheduled to be held on May 27, 2016 on member municipality funding support, financing strategy, outcome of procurement process and EOI.

CARRIED BACKGROUND TRCA has grown considerably since its main office at 5 Shoreham Drive was constructed in the 1970's. Growth coupled with a lack of adequate office accommodations resulted in long term, chronic space shortages; poor working conditions; less efficient business practices as a result of dispersed staff and lack of adequate meeting space to provide optimal customer service. Some of these issues were addressed with the lease of 101 Exchange Avenue in Vaughan; however a long term head office solution must be identified prior to the end of TRCA’s current six-year lease (2021). The purpose of the Long Term Office Accommodation Project and the Long Term Office Accommodation Working Group (LTOAWG), established on May 23, 2008 by Authority Resolution #A126/08, is to determine the office accommodation needs of TRCA over the next 30 years and recommend a comprehensive, cost effective solution. This process began prior to 2003 with the creation of a task group on office accommodation created by TRCA’s Management Committee. The task group’s mandate was to research and report on options to serve TRCA office needs in the long term. One of these options was the use of office space at Parc Downsview Park.

713

From 2003 to 2015 (timeline is presented in Attachment 1), staff has brought forward evidence to support the justification for a larger, long term head office solution for TRCA, as well as multiple long term head office options. These options have included building a new office, leasing required space and purchasing an existing office building. Staff has also considered several financing and funding options, such as, loan financing, public private partnerships, sale lease back, land lease and land sale. A 2006 report prepared for TRCA by CB Richard Ellis Limited Realtor Valuation & Advisory Services (CBRE) noted the 100% ownership model to be the most cost effective solution for TRCA. Furthermore, staff has met with like-minded organizations such as Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, York University, Toronto Transit Commission, York Region, the YMCA, and private land developers, owners and managers to pursue potential partnership and synergy opportunities. While there remain obvious synergies with many of these organizations, no opportunities have been formalized. A list of proposed solutions previously brought forward by staff has included the following:

current lease opportunity at 101 Exchange Avenue, Vaughan (2015 to 2021);

lease of office space Parc Downsview Park 2004 to 2015;

proposed and rejected purchase of a building location at 1235 Ormont Drive, City of Toronto (2011);

proposed construction of a building on the Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) site (2006 and 2008); and

potential partnerships such as with Parc Downsview Park, York University and Regional Municipality of York.

None of the aforementioned has resulted in a long term solution. During this time (2003 to 2015), as a result of TRCA’s regulatory responsibility and commitment to providing an optimal level of customer service, office space requirements have continued to increase. In 2008, a report completed by Integra Architects Inc. (Integra) noted a requirement for an approximately 120,000 square foot building to accommodate 326 staff members, assuming continued growth at 5% per annum (it is important to note that 5% was the actual average annual staff growth from 2004 to 2014). In 2015, staff calculated that by 2021 a head office building would be required to accommodate 446 staff members (assuming 5% annual growth). The current interim head office at 101 Exchange Avenue cannot accommodate 446 staff and TRCA does not have any other existing options. In 2006, 2008 and 2013, with the support of the LTOAWG, staff completed studies for the construction of a long term head office building at the BCPV parking lot site (Integra Architects Inc. 2008 design presented in Attachment 2). This option was investigated based on the strategic location of the property at the centre of the TRCA jurisdiction and its proximity to public transit, Black Creek Pioneer Village and institutional partners such as York University. With the expansion of TTC subway service to York University, the surrounding community is also expected to undergo rejuvenation. A 2008 report completed by Integra Architects Inc. noted associated benefits for TRCA to construct a new head office facility, these included:

improve workplace standards (comparable to current regional/municipal standards);

allow for growth and future mandate requirements;

build for TRCA uses and requirements, including improved public meeting spaces;

maintain asset-ownership of a facility (land and structure);

achieve a cost effective solution;

714

demonstrate green building initiatives;

establish a learning and education space; and

enhance cultural and community opportunities. In 2014, after examining the existing planning and zoning permissions on both sites, it became apparent that developing a new headquarters building on the BCPV parking lot site would involve more challenging planning approvals and involvement of as yet undetermined partnerships with other organizations supportive of TRCA’s mandate, and it would not be possible to construct a new headquarters within the six year term of the 101 Exchange lease. At Authority Meeting #2/15, held on February 27, 2015, the Authority approved appointment of new members to the Working Group and selecting the existing Head Office site at 5 Shoreham Drive as the preferred site for the new headquarters, as follows:

THAT the Chair of the Authority (Maria Augimeri), Jack Heath, Ron Moeser, Jim Tovey, Michael Di Biase, Giorgio Mammoliti, Colleen Jordan, Anthony Perruzza, Ben Cachola, Glenn De Baeremaeker and any another other TRCA Members who are interested, be appointed to the Long Term Office Accommodation Working Group (LTOAWG) until the end of their current term of appointment to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) or until their successor is appointed; THAT the existing Head Office site at 5 Shoreham Drive be selected as the preferred site for TRCA's new headquarters building; AND FURTHER THAT staff prepare a report for consideration at Authority Meeting #2/15, scheduled to be held on February 27, 2015 for award of a preferred source contract to DTAH for the development of a Master Plan for the Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) parking lot site, and the schematic design and costing of a new corporate headquarters building on the existing Head Office site at 5 Shoreham Drive.

At the same meeting, the Authority also approved award of a preferred source contract to DTAH for the development of a Master Plan for the BCPV parking lot site, and the schematic design and costing of a new corporate headquarters building at 5 Shoreham Drive. Therefore, in 2015, DTAH was retained by TRCA to complete a two-phased planning and design approach for 5 Shoreham Drive and the BCPV site that would put TRCA in a position to pursue funding options, site plan approval and building permits, and construct a new headquarters prior to the expiry of the lease at 101 Exchange Avenue. Phase 1 was to establish a master plan for both sites, north and south of Shoreham Drive, building on the existing conceptual development framework completed by DTAH in 2013 /2014 and examining options to accommodate a future development partner that could include an office user, residential development or other institutional and community uses, while considering the ongoing operational needs of Black Creek Pioneer Village. Phase 2 was to develop a schematic design and construction cost estimate for a new +/-100,000 square foot headquarters on the 5 Shoreham Drive site.

715

As directed by the Authority in February 2015, staff under the direction of the LTOAWG, and with the assistance of DTAH began an intensive planning and design process for the BPCV and 5 Shoreham Drive properties. The process included the development of a project charter with objectives for TRCA’s long term head office; a sustainability charter to evaluate proposed designs against; building program and needs assessment; consultation with potential stakeholders such as York University, Tennis Canada, City of Toronto, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, and TRCA staff; design workshops with DTAH’s consulting team; development of independent construction costs by A.W. Hooker and Eastern Construction; and life cycle cost assessments. It is important to note that construction costs estimates were within +/-$1million dollars of each other. TRCA head office project objectives were identified as follows:

strategic location at the geographic centre of Toronto region;

cost effective and efficient to operate;

demonstrate and positively influence actions of others;

positively impact ecology and society; and

be a great place to work.

As part of the building program and needs assessment, staff built upon previous work completed as part of the planning and design of TRCA’s interim head office. Staff, with the assistance of DTAH researched trends in office space and determined that using a flexible and efficient open plan design for 100,000 square feet of office space would be suitable to accommodate staff levels in 2021 and allow for future growth. Under the direction of the LTOAWG and TRCA staff, DTAH’s schematic design is a six-storey, 190,254 square foot building at 5 Shoreham Drive, comprised of 100,000 square feet for office and support functions and a 90,254 square foot, three level underground parking garage (Attachment 3). The resultant design supports TRCA’s business and provides accessible customer service by meeting requirements for office, meeting, collaboration, lunchroom, demonstration, central filling, shipping/receiving and storage spaces. The structure of the building also features a low-carbon wood and concrete hybrid system; and is proposed to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) platinum certification and WELL Building certification. Key building features are as follows:

Flexible and adaptive spaces, including moveable partition walls.

Application of passive house design principles (i.e. simple design, well insulated building envelope, with few to no breaks i.e. terraces).

Optimizes the solar orientation (i.e. slants to the southeast) to allow for appropriate amount of daylighting in the building and solar energy production on the roof.

Allowance for up to three floors of underground parking that could accommodate +/- 223 spots.

Designed to achieve LEED New Construction NC Platinum certification and WELL Building New Construction Silver certification.

A proposed surface parking lot (+/-60 spots) area in the City of Toronto right of way located to the east of the site, that would be built and designed in partnership with Tennis Canada.

Structural Design: a composite wood and concrete solution, that if built, would use 60% less concrete than a conventional concrete structure, reduce the weight by 50%, significant reduction in construction site waste and carbon retention (approximately 200 kg of CO2/m2). Opportunity to prefabricate concrete deck slabs, which could result in construction time saving.

716

Wood structure would extend through the roof to provide a cantilever feature that would support photovoltaic panels.

Mechanical design: building to be heated and cooled through a combination of air source heat pumps and a geo-exchange system. Hot and cool air will be distributed through the building via variable speed drives for fans and pumps, as well as using an under floor air delivery system.

Roof mounted photo voltaic (PV) panels that could provide up to 5% of the total building energy load. Opportunity to add additional PV panels in future as the technology improves.

Greenroof system on top of building and over ramp to underground parking.

Rainwater harvesting for on-site use (i.e. toilets and irrigation).

Site plan to manage on-site runoff (at surface) for between the first 25 mm to 32 mm of local rainfall events.

DTAH also developed a master plan for the BCPV parking lot site, which tested the capacity of the site to support various development scenarios (these will be tested through the proposed release of an Expression of Interest in early 2016). At the LTOAWG meeting held on July 24, 2015, DTAH presented the schematic design and preliminary construction cost estimate. LTOAWG members directed staff to assemble life cycle cost information for the proposed schematic design and compare it to other options such as purchase of an existing building and continue to lease. At the LTOAWG meeting held on November 13, 2015, staff, along with Joe Lobko of DTAH and Bruce Wills of CBRE reported back with an updated build new construction cost estimate; 30 year life cycle cost estimates, operating cost estimate, intangible benefits for each TRCA head office option; a financing proposal for the build new option; and overview of Toronto region commercial building market availability based on existing and previous five year conditions. LTOAWG members agreed with the staff recommendation that the lease option is not a cost effective long term solution and that it should be removed from further consideration. Staff presented that the purchase of an existing building was comparable in price to the build new option; however, with higher risks and less benefits, largely based on the fact of the limited suitable supply. Staff presented that the build new option as designed by DTAH, is also forecasted to have the lowest utility and carbon operating costs. The LTOAWG directed staff to revise the cost analysis and provide more detail on aspects related to past head office design studies (i.e. Integra 2008), parking, existing buildings for sale and funding options. At the LTOAWG meeting held on December 4, 2015, staff reported on parking demand estimates and supply options; offered a comparison between the 2008 Integra design and the 2015 DTAH design, and provided updated financing information. Parking demand estimates and supply options were developed by BA Consulting Group, with the support of staff. It is estimated that staff will require 278 parking spots (based on 65% of staff reporting that they anticipate driving to work in 2021 and assuming 85% daily attendance rate as identified in BA Consulting Group surveys completed in 2015), with the potential overtime for this number to be reduced to demand for 192 spots once subway, improved bus and bike routes come online. Parking is proposed to be accommodated on and off-site (BCPV parking lot), as follows:

+/-220 spaces for fleet and staff via on-site underground parking;

60 spaces via a surface parking lot positioned in the right-of-way between the property and Tennis Canada for staff and visitor use; and

up to 100 spaces at Black Creek Pioneer Village for temporary overflow parking.

717

Staff noted that the BCPV has historically accommodated 5 Shoreham Drive overflow parking and the continuation of this process in 2021 is not anticipated to have significant impacts. Parking demand and supply options will be further assessed in the detail design phase of the project. Staff reported that the 2015 DTAH design is more efficient and scaled down compared to the 2008 Integra design. DTAH’s design is built upon passive house principles, a simple design, well insulated, that limits opportunities for energy loss (for example terraces which were predominantly featured in the 2008 design). Staff has brought forward some positive concepts from 2008, such as the need to achieve a high environmental and social design standard, and improved customer service experience. At the December 4, 2015 LTOAWG meeting, staff confirmed that they would continue to identify and explore opportunities for the purchase of an existing building or one that was set to begin construction in the near term. Staff expressed caution that based on discussions with CBRE, the purchase existing option may not be cost effective and could subject TRCA to increased risk (i.e. 2021 schedule not met, location not acceptable and unknowns during build-out). Staff recommended that the build new option at 5 Shoreham Drive be accepted as the preferred alternative. LTOAWG directed staff to revise the cost analysis, provide more detail on parking and prepare parameters for an Expression of Interest for the proposed development of all or a portion of the BCPV parking lot. At the January 15, 2016 LTOAWG meeting, staff presented a revised cost analysis that included capital, operating and maintenance expenses for each TRCA head office option (i.e. build new at 5 Shoreham, purchase existing and lease). Staff also presented a revised parking summary and figure (as presented as Attachment 4) and draft parameters for an Expression of Interest for the BPCV parking lot (Attachment 5). The revised analysis supported the staff recommendation that the build new option is comparable to or less than the other options. Furthermore, the build new option provides greater benefits and less risk to TRCA and TRCA funding Municipalities. RATIONALE Since before 2003, TRCA has been studying the opportunity for a new head office to resolve issues of long term office accommodation including aging infrastructure, poor working conditions, and lack of adequate meeting space to deal with customer service needs. Staff has recommended that the build new option at 5 Shoreham Drive be adopted as a project, and that direction be provided to proceed. Justification for this recommendation is as follows:

1. TRCA has a long standing requirement for a long term head office to accommodate current and future staff, to provide optimal customer service and support as mandated under TRCA regulatory responsibilities, and to improve operational efficiencies (i.e. less travel for staff between TRCA offices). TRCA interim head office has demonstrated the operational improvements and efficiencies that can be achieved through a single, larger, TRCA Head Office.

2. The building at 101 Exchange Avenue while serviceable, an excellent showpiece of staff dedication to build a positive work environment, and the efficiencies that can be achieved through the creation of larger head office; is not a long term solution. TRCA has signed a six-year lease with the building owner and the size of the building (60,000 square feet) is not adequate to accommodate future TRCA growth and lease renewal is not certain.

718

3. Build new at 5 Shoreham Drive, based on the design prepared by DTAH, is the preferred solution. The building will meet LEED platinum certification and WELL Building Certification. It should contain three levels of underground parking and will be combined with a proposed shared surface lot with Tennis Canada. As recommended in a 2006 CBRE report, the building should be owned, 100% by TRCA. The new build option meets all TRCA objectives.

Key benefits and notes to support the build new option include, but are not limited to the following:

I. Continuing to lease is not a cost effective solution to TRCA’s head office problem. The lease option has the highest costs over the life of the project. Continue to lease also includes many other disadvantages such as: no asset at end of lease term, location and availability subject to market availability and TRCA may be subjected to frequent relocations. Table 1 in Attachment 6 provides a detailed list and comparison of benefits and negatives for the lease option.

II. Purchase of an existing building, while comparable in price to the build new scenario, is negated by an increase in risk to TRCA (negative benefits presented in Table 1 Attachment 6).

III. TRCA has undertaken an extensive property search using the services of CBRE, to find leasable and existing buildings for purchase. In 2015, CBRE provided existing and historic (2010 to 2015) sales data. CBRE has provided data for all of the TRCA jurisdiction, with a high priority placed on the geographic area of North York and Vaughan with requisite transportation and transit requirements. The search confirmed limited availability of buildings that would meet TRCA objectives. These include location, environmental benefits of building and cost effectiveness. Also of note, most existing buildings available for purchase have tenants, which TRCA would have to manage, this would result in increased cost and schedule delays (i.e. time to wait for existing tenants leases to expire).

IV. The build new option, based on the DTAH design has the lowest estimated operating costs (utility and carbon). Staff has assumed an annual savings of approximately $77,000 when compared to a standard Toronto market building.

V. The build new option based on the DTAH design includes innovation features that demonstrate environmental and social responsibility to the development community and serve to reduce TRCA’s operating costs. For example, the building will feature a raised floor system (i.e. cables and duck work distribution within floor as opposed to ceiling space), well insulated envelope and electro-chromic glass system that self-tints to control sunlight exposure into the building. These features contributed to the lower forecasted operating costs and lower overall capital investments required for the building’s mechanical and electrical systems.

719

VI. The wood and concrete hybrid structure of the proposed building will result in lower

carbon emissions during construction and during the production of building materials. A wood structure building would demonstrate application of the recent changes to the Ontario Building Code to allow six-storey wood structure buildings in Ontario. Wood structure buildings have the potential to transform the Ontario building sector for the better: wood is a renewable resource that has multiple environmental benefits (less carbon emissions, which supports the Government of Ontario and Government of Canada’s transition to a low carbon future); social benefits (less construction related vehicular traffic during construction); a cost effective solution for mid-rise buildings, that could support Government of Ontario density targets; and it supports Ontario jobs (wood is Ontario’s second largest industry after automotive sector).

VII. A LEED Platinum certified building is anticipated to deliver the following benefits: lower operating costs, increase staff productivity; public demonstrations of corporate sustainability; high quality building = higher building/asset value in future; TRCA can charge higher rental rates should it decide to rent out a portion of the building; the building will ultimately result in a higher overall return on investment compared to a non-LEED building.

4. While there remain obvious synergies with many of the likeminded organizations TRCA

has met with to date, no opportunities have been formalized. TRCA will continue to explore the partnership opportunity, for example through the issue of an Expression of Interest for the Black Creek Pioneer Village parking lot site (Appendix 5), which will include a design build option for a TRCA head office. Staff caution, that given TRCA’s timeline of requiring a new head office space for occupancy in June 2021, the prospect of securing a partnership, design and build in that timeframe is limited and would place added risk exposure on TRCA.

Therefore, staff recommend that the Authority approve a project to build a new TRCA head office building at 5 Shoreham Drive, based on the design completed by DTAH, on the condition that staff be directed to:

approach TRCA member municipalities for funding support;

complete a competitive procurement process for a consulting team to lead detailed design;

prepare a financing strategy; and

report back to Authority in May 2016. The detailed design consulting team procurement process will consist of two phases. The first to identify a short list of a maximum of three qualified consulting teams, and the second a Request for Proposals for those prequalified in Phase 1. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff requests direction to proceed with:

approach TRCA member municipalities for new funding support for the construction of a new head office building based upon the design developed by DTAH Architects Limited;

initiate a competitive procurement process for a consulting team to lead detail design;

720

confirm financing and borrowing opportunities and strategy (i.e. public private partnerships, liquidation of assets, government grants and support from industry partners etc.);

proceed with an EOI for the Black Creek Pioneer Village parking lot site, which may consider a design/build option for a new TRCA head office, as part of a potential public private partnership, in accordance with the parameters attached as Attachment 8; and

report back at Authority Meeting #4/16, scheduled to be held on May 27, 2016 on member municipality funding support, financing strategy, outcome of procurement process and EOI.

FINANCIAL DETAILS The finance proposal for the build new option is for an upset limit of a $70 million capital asset outlay. A breakdown of project funding sources is presented in Attachment 7. Of the $70 million upset limit, $20.5million is from existing sources and $49.5 million would be from new TRCA member municipal funding sources. New municipal funding has been approved by Peel. Asks to Durham, Toronto and York are pending; however, staff suggests that they could accommodate the annual funding amount from these municipalities, within existing capital envelopes (pending permission from the municipality). A breakdown of annual funding contributions, over a 33 year financing period, from TRCA member municipal partners, as per the 2016 current value assessment formula is presented in Attachment 7. TRCA member municipality funding will include capital, to contribute towards principal repayments, and operating, to cover interest costs. Staff has assumed that growth in operating funds will be at inflation and capital funding will remain at a constant level over a 33 year financing period. Staff has estimated that over the first 10 years of building occupancy, there will be more space than required by TRCA. Therefore, the finance proposal includes a 10 year (2022 to 2031) rental revenue of $4.9m for 16,000 square feet of the building (one floor). Staff discussions with financial institutions have noted the cost of borrowing to be in the order of 3.75%. Staff will continue to explore financing and borrowing opportunities. Report prepared by: Ethan Griesbach, extension 5364 Emails: egriesbach@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ethan Griesbach, extension 5364 Emails: egriesbach@trca.on.ca Date: January 12, 2016 Attachments: 7

721

Attachment 1 TRCA Head Office Project Timeline

2003 At Executive Meeting #11/03, held on Friday, December 5, 2003, Resolution #B188/03 stated:

THAT staff be directed to explore opportunities for additional office accommodation with Downsview Park and other organizations; AND FURTHER THAT staff report on these opportunities and make appropriate recommendations to the Business Excellence Advisory Board at the earliest opportunity

The staff report noted that TRCA has been exploring various options to deal with the immediate office needs as well as long term solutions. A task group on office accommodation was established by TRCA’s Directors Committee to research and report on options to serve the TRCA office needs in the long term, looking out more than five years. This is linked to the TRCA sustainability agenda and the need in the long term to ensure TRCA’s commitment to a sustainable office solution. For example, a building utilizing all available sustainability features or perhaps a partnership with another organization sharing similar values.

2004 At Authority Meeting #12/04, held on Friday January 20, 2004, Resolution #A28/04 stated:

THAT approval in principal be granted for TRCA to enter into a lease of office space with Downsview Park, subject to terms and conditions satisfactory to TRCA and its solicitors and subject to availability of funding; AND FURTHER THAT staff of TRCA be directed to conduct the negotiations for the lease and report to the Business Excellence Advisory Board at such time as lease in final form can be recommended to the Authority.

Subsequently, at Authority Meeting #4/04, held on April 30, 2004, Resolution #A112/04 was approved, in part, as follows:

THAT the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) enter into a lease with Parc Downsview Park Inc. (Downsview Park) and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada Represented Herein By The Department of National Defence (DND), for office space located at 70 Canuck Avenue, City of Toronto; THAT the term of the lease be for 60 months (five years);…

722

2006 TRCA retained CB Richard Ellis Limited Realtor Valuation & Advisory Services (CBRE) to complete an assessment for a proposed new head office building at 1000 Murray Ross Parkway (Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) parking lot site). The report developed scenarios included an approximately 90,000 square foot Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) platinum certified building, supplied with a total of 356 parking stalls met through surface and underground installations. The financial assessment concluded that the 5 Shoreham Drive property and associated building could be sold or leased to support the new development at BCPV; and that 100% ownership by TRCA, of the new building, would have the lowest nominal costs, as opposed to other funding structures such as a joint venture, sale lease-base, land lease and land sale.

2008 At Authority Meeting #3/08, held May 23, 2008, Resolution #A126/08 was approved as follows:

THAT a Long Term Office Accommodation Working Group consisting of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Members representative of the participating municipalities including the Chair, be created to support and guide staff in development and implementation of the Long Term Office Accommodation project; THAT staff include in the 2009 -2013 capital budget projections funding for the project; THAT at Authority meeting on May 23, 2008, members be asked to indicate their interest in servicing on the Working Group which will include Chair Gerri Lynn O’Connor, Councillor Ron Moeser and Councillor Maria Augimeri; AND FURTHER THAT the working group and staff report back to the Executive Committee no later than December 31, 2008.

The purpose of the Long Term Office Accommodation Project is to determine the office accommodation needs of TRCA over the next 30 years and recommend a comprehensive, cost effective solution. Staff with the support of CBRE and Integra Architect Inc. (Integra) undertook a strategic planning assessment, which culminated in the development of a business case report for a new TRCA head office on the BCPV lands. The proposed development would provide 120,000 square foot gross floor area, with approximately 20,000 square feet available for third party lease. The building would be built to a high environmental standard (i.e. LEED platinum certification), include numerous greenroof terraces and be supported by approximately 300 parking spaces supplied both below and at grade.

723

2009 At Authority Meeting #3/08, on held May 23, 2008, Resolution #A295/08 was approved as follows:

That staff be directed to: 1. Begin the preliminary site planning and design phase for the location of

new office space, meeting City of Toronto’s Green Development Standard, LEED standard or equivalent, to be located in the parking lot vicinity of BPVD;

2. Finalize a detailed business and financial plan to secure funding for the project;

3. Work with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority funding partners to determine funding opportunities and requirements;

AND FURTHER THAT the working group and staff report to the Executive committee at regular intervals on the status of the project.

2010 Staff noted that the Integra design may be too ambitious and may not receive financial support by TRCA’s municipal partners. LTOAWG advice to staff was to consider other options to meet long term office requirements, these included: build a new less than 120,000 square foot building to meet current space requirements, not long term; adaptive reuse of industrial/institutional site; lease with York Region, mixed use project (commercial, residential, redevelopment of BCPV lot); purchase of existing office site; short term lease of additional space near 5 Shoreham Drive; and establish virtual office space. LTOAWG members recommended that staff explore purchase of an existing office site, lease with York Region and adaptive reuse of industrial/institutional site options.

2011 Staff brought forward an opportunity to purchase an existing building located at 1235 Ormont Drive, City of Toronto. With the support of LTOAWG members and the Authority, the option was pursued by staff; however, funding support from all of TRCA’s participating member municipalities was not obtained.

2013 DTAH Architects Limited (DTAH) was retained by TRCA, as the design team to prepare integrated conceptual development plans for the parking lot at BCPV. Various international case studies were analyzed, and options for the development of the site were prepared and presented to the LTOAWG in December. At that meeting, the LTOAWG directed staff to investigate alternative methods of financing the proposals, and to refine a preferred alternative, with direction to examine the existing Shoreham office site further.

724

2014 DTAH in partnership with N. Barry Lyon Consulting, was retained by TRCA to examine financing options and begin refining the preferred alternative. During this time, pressures about TRCA’s lease at the Downsview Office rose to the forefront, and the opportunity to lease a temporary interim head office facility at 101 Exchange Avenue for a six year term came forward. A new leasing arrangement at 101 Exchange Avenue was approved at Authority Meeting #2/14, held on March 28, 2014. All staff from the Downsview and Head Office locations was relocated, as well as some groups from other TRCA office locations. The relocation of staff to 101 Exchange Avenue provides efficiencies, a better working environment, and changes the options and time available for developing TRCA’s new, permanent headquarters. After examining the existing planning and zoning permissions on both sites, it became apparent that developing a new headquarters building on the BCPV parking lot site will involve more challenging planning approvals and involvement of as yet undetermined partnerships with other organizations supportive of TRCA’s mandate, and it would not be possible to construct a new headquarters within the six year term of the 101 Exchange Avenue lease at this location.

2015 DTAH was retained by TRCA to complete a two-phased planning and design approach for 5 Shoreham Drive and the BCPV site. Phase 1 was to establish a master plan for both sites north and south of Shoreham Drive. This built on the existing conceptual development framework completed by DTAH in 2013/2014 and examined options to accommodate a future development partner that could include an office user, residential development or other institutional and community uses while considering the ongoing operational needs of Black Creek Pioneer Village. Phase 2 was to develop a schematic design and construction cost estimate for a new +/- 100,000 square foot headquarters on the 5 Shoreham Drive site. Phase 2 puts TRCA in a position to pursue funding options, site plan approval and building permits, and construct a new headquarters prior to the expiry of the lease at 101 Exchange Avenue. At Authority Meeting #2/15, held on February 27, 2015, the Authority approved appointment of new members to the Working Group and selecting the existing Head Office site at 5 Shoreham Drive as the preferred site for the new headquarters, as follows:

THAT the Chair of the Authority (Maria Augimeri), Jack Heath, Ron Moeser, Jim Tovey, Michael Di Biase, Giorgio Mammoliti, Colleen Jordan, Anthony Perruzza, Ben Cachola, Glenn De Baeremaeker and any another other TRCA Members who are interested, be appointed to the Long Term Office Accommodation Working Group (LTOAWG) until the end of their current term of appointment to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) or until their successor is appointed;

At the same meeting, the Authority also approved award of a preferred source contract to DTAH for the development of a Master Plan for the BCPV parking lot site, and the schematic design and costing of a new corporate headquarters building at 5 Shoreham Drive.

725

Attachment 2

726

TRCA HQ: TRCA Long Term Office Accommodation

Committee Presentation

Attachment 3

Site Analysis: HQ

727

Site Plan

1 Woodland Walk2 Rain Gardens3 Demonstration Garden4 Meadow5 Greenway6 Ravine Terrace7 Lookout8 Trail Connection9 Service Court10 Parking Court11 Permeable Paving12 Gardens / Bee Apiary

(Phase 2 Site)

Black

Creek

RavineTennis

Canada

1

2

34

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

2

2

Site Section

728

Building Section

Ground Floor Plan + Typical Floor Plan

729

P1 Parking Level

P2-P3 Parking Levels

730

3D View of Entry

3D View of Entry

731

3D View of Entry

3D View of Typical Office Floor

732

3D View of Ravine Terrace

3D View from Black Creek Ravine Edge

733

Parking Court Detail

Existing:

+/- 96 SpotsPotential:

159 spots

734

Attachment 4

TRCA Parking Analysis of 5 Shoreham Drive and 1000 Murray Ross Parkway

Summary:

The proposed new TRCA head office building will have an estimated capacity of +/- 500 building

occupants. Based on the estimated number of building occupants, approximately 363 parking

spaces will be required. This parking demand forecast has been calculated based on 2015

survey data collected by TRCA’s Transportation Consultant, BA Group. Of the 363 parking

spaces, 25 spaces would be allocated for visitors and 60 for TRCA fleet vehicles. The

applicable City of Toronto zoning by-law would require 194 parking spaces. According to BA

Consulting Group, any less than 217 on-site spaces (2.34 spaces per 100 m2) could reduce

market value of the building.

Parking is proposed to be accommodated on and off-site (Black Creek Pioneer Village parking

lot), as follows: +/-220 spaces for fleet and staff via on-site underground parking; 60 spaces via

a surface parking lot positioned in the right-of-way between the property and Tennis Canada for

staff and visitor use; and up to 100 spaces at Black Creek Pioneer Village for temporary

overflow parking (please refer to Figure 1 for map).

It is estimated that over time, parking requirements may be reduced to +/- 277, as staff and

visitors switch to a less auto centric modes of transportation. This will be supported by

improved public and active transportation infrastructure (i.e. subway, bus and on-street cycling

lanes). As this occurs, TRCA will rely less on the Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) Parking

Lot for overflow parking.

The BCPV parking lot site currently has +/-700 parking spaces, and could likely accommodate

more subject to a re-design and improved layout of spaces. Approximately 150 parking spaces

can be accommodated over 1 acre of land or +/- 1000 parking spaces for a 7 acre parcel of land

such as the BCPV lot. On average, 200 spaces are required to meet BCPV weekday needs (i.e.

visitor and BCPV staff). The remaining spaces are available to the public (i.e. York University

students).

In 2014, $457,000 was generated in parking lot revenue and in 2015 $565,000. It is estimated

that another $200,000 could be generated in annual revenue if current non-paying users were

charged (i.e .TRCA staff, wedding clients, volunteers and other clients).

TRCA has historically relied on the BCPV parking lot to accommodate overflow parking from the

head office located 5 Shoreham Drive and, as noted, staff propose that this practice resume in

2021 with the opening of the new head office building. The practice is anticipated to be

temporary, for the reasons identified herein. Lastly, BA Group does not anticipate significant

future BCPV parking lot revenue increases due to reasons addressed below, and is another

factor in the Staff recommendation that the BCPV parking lot can be used to accommodate

temporary overflow parking for the proposed head office at 5 Shoreham Drive.

735

Notes:

Zoning By-Law Parking Requirements

5 Shoreham Drive is subject to North York Zoning By-law 7625 = 194 spaces (2.08

spaces per 100 m2 gross floor area).

TRCA Parking Demand Surveys – Existing at 101 Exchange with +300 staff

Peak – 257 cars, with average of 215 cars observed during May 2015 and July 2015

surveys (staff and visitors).

80% of staff (240 cars) drive to work according to 2015 staff survey completed by BA

consulting.

TRCA Parking Demand – Proposed 5 Shoreham with +500 staff, assuming 85% daily attendance, as recorded at TRCA Interim Head Office in 2015

363 parking spaces estimated to be required (278 staff + 25 visitor + 60 TRCA fleet).

65% of staff (278 cars) plan to drive (BA Consulting 2015 staff survey).

45% (192 cars) could be achieved (through improved public and active transportation

infrastructure i.e. subway, bus and on-street bike lanes) based on York University

Secondary area transportation data.

Proposed Parking Supply for Redeveloped 5 Shoreham

+/-220 parking spaces in three (3) storey underground parking garage.

+/- 60 parking spaces at surface lot shared with Tennis Canada.

+/-100 parking spaces at BCPV.

$11 - 13.2 m estimated cost for underground parking.

Black Creek Pioneer Village Parking Lot

7 acre parking lot.

Approximately 700 parking spaces, with potential for more if properly designed.

Approximately 150 parking spaces per acre is typically possible.

200 parking spaces required for BCPV staff and visitors.

Weekends and evenings events could require most of the parking lot.

Black Creek Pioneer Village Parking Lot Revenue

$457,826 in 2014.

$565,000 in 2015.

BA Group does not anticipate significant future revenue increases due to: opening of

subway, cheaper parking options at TTC commuter lots at the Black Creek Pioneer

Village and 407 Stations, York University has a parking space surplus and demand

anticipated to drop from students with subway. York University uses approximately

5,000 of their 8,000 spaces.

736

Notwithstanding BA Group’s comments, TRCA does anticipate some revenue increase

in 2016 and beyond, as a result of the newly installed automated gate system, which will

allow for TRCA to capture loss revenue resulting from the unattended parking booth

after-hours.

Figure 1: Proposed parking supply for redeveloped 5 Shoreham Drive.

737

Attachment 5

DRAFT 01/08/2016

Preliminary Parameters for a Request for Expression of Interest (EOI) for the Redevelopment of the Parking Lot at 1000 Murray Ross Parkway, Toronto, Ontario Vision: Innovative, socially just, culturally rich, and ecologically restorative, mixed use, urban

redevelopment that demonstrates Toronto and Region Conservation’s (TRCA) Living City Vision

and Policies.

Opportunity: TRCA is seeking an innovative and experienced partner(s) to design, build,

manage and finance the redevelopment of the parking lot at 1000 Murray Ross Parkway (known

as the Black Creek Pioneer Village Parking Lot Site), hereafter referred to as the “property”.

Please refer to Figure 1 for a map of the property. This is an exciting opportunity to redevelop a

parcel of land, in an area scheduled for rejuvenation with the onset of the Toronto Transit

Commission subway extension through the community to Vaughan. TRCA’s ideal partner(s) will

have both the vision and expertise to realize a sustainable, mixed-use, urban district, through a

master plan process that benefits the property and broader community and demonstrates

innovative and rich city building ideas and principles.

The property is a 2.8 hectare (7 acre) parcel of land, currently used as a gravel and asphalt

surfaced parking lot that serves TRCA’s Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) and TRCA’s

former Head Office located at 5 Shoreham Drive (located south of the property). The 5

Shoreham site is 1.6 hectares (4 acres) with a buildable land area of approximately 0.67

hectares (1.65 acres).

As part of the response to this EOI, potential partner(s) may choose to present an opportunity

for how they may support TRCA in the development of a new Head Office at 5 Shoreham Drive,

as part of the redevelopment of the property.

Structure of EOI: This EOI is comprised of two phases: Phase 1 is to identify a short list of a

maximum of four (4) qualified potential partners; and Phase 2 is a Request for Proposals (RFP)

from those selected in Phase 1. The document herein begins Phase 1. TRCA requests

qualifications and a high level summary of a respondent’s vision for the parking lot at 1000

Murray Ross Parkway. Detailed business cases of for the proposed vision will be requested in

Phase 2. An RFP for those selected in Phase 1 will be issued under a separate document, at a

later date.

Development Framework: Any redevelopment of the property shall adhere to the framework

presented below. TRCA requires that this proposed undertaking be: innovative; dynamic; strive

to enhance the entry way into BCPV and York University; and compliment streetscapes of

BCPV and York University. Therefore, TRCA anticipates that the planning framework will be

738

informed and advanced through a master plan process, and through our discussions with the

successful partner(s), the City of Toronto and the public.

The preliminary development framework is as follows:

Sustainability: Shape the redevelopment of the property as a model sustainable, creative

community. All four pillars of sustainability (economic, social, cultural and environmental

sustainability) need to drive the revitalization of the property. Incorporate planning and

design characteristics from the following standards or equivalents: Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design Version 4 or better; Living Building ChallengeTM 3.0 or better; Living

Community ChallengeTM 1.0 or better; JUSTTM; WELL Building Standard® Declare®; One

Planet Living; Envision Rating System®.

Parks, Open Space, Public Realm and Natural Heritage: An ecological design and

landscape-based strategy for revitalization is the fundamental core of the objectives for this

property. This strategy focuses on the creation of high-quality, interconnected and

ecologically functional open spaces. Incorporation of sustainability practices such as

innovative storm-water management; and increased access to natural light within the urban

fabric, balanced with expanded tree canopy are important. The open space system should

include native species, and be designed to seamlessly integrate with and enhance the

adjacent Black Creek ravine system.

Mobility: A comprehensive forward-thinking mobility strategy must take full advantage of

existing and planned transit service and inclusive transportation infrastructure currently

under construction by Metrolinx, Toronto Transit Commission and York Region Transit. The

property should support a variety of transportation modes, with an emphasis on public and

active transportation to encourage ease of mobility, access to recreation activities and

enhanced public health. The property should be well connected with a thoughtful interior

transportation network aligned with its future urban form and sensitive integration with the

surrounding area.

Land Use: A variety of land uses will be considered to transform the property into a vibrant

and active destination. Future land uses should reflect meaningful economic opportunities,

build upon existing cultural assets, and contribute to the existing and planned uses in the

wider neighborhood (i.e. BCPV, York University, and Black Creek Community).

Built Form: A landmark property, it has the potential to be transformed into a model,

sustainable and resilient creative urban district. Interesting, diverse and iconic design

excellence founded on its surrounding context and existing, as well as future users is

paramount. The redevelopment will enhance the “front door” to BCPV, as well as,

compliment BCPV and York University streetscapes. Impacts on BCPV and the wider

neighborhood must be mitigated.

739

Roles and Responsibilities:

Toronto and Region Conservation - Provide support and guidance in the obtainment of the necessary municipal Zoning

and/or Official Plan Amendments and/or Site Plan Control approval.

- Provide support and guidance in public engagement.

- Provide support and guidance on real estate matters. The preferred option for this

development opportunity would be a long term lease, however, a sale of a portion of

the property may be considered.

- Provide support and guidance in the application of sustainable development,

ecological design and low impact development technologies.

- Participate and have final approval of the development framework.

Successful Proponent

- Design, build, finance and maintain the project.

- At minimum accommodate for weekday parking demands of 200 TRCA parking

spaces for BCPV staff and visitors; and 100 temporary overflow parking spaces for

TRCA’s proposed head office at 5 Shoreham Drive. To be studied further and

revised accordingly.

- Apply for and obtain necessary municipal Zoning and/or Official Plan Amendments

and/or Site Plan Control approval.

- Complete the necessary public engagement.

- Lead and participate in the process to develop the framework and adhere to the

requirements.

City of Toronto Requirements:

- The proposed redevelopment is subject to City of Toronto planning approval. - The City has in preliminary discussions asked TRCA to demonstrate “innovative and

out-of-the box thinking” to meet and preferably exceed the City of Toronto Green

Standards with on-going monitoring of environmental performance and to provide

new and enhanced community amenities for the surrounding priority neighborhood.

Planning Context:

- The property is designated as Parks and Open Space Areas under the City of

Toronto Official Plan and Open Space – Recreation Zone under the City of North

York By-Law No. 7625 - Surrounding lands are influenced by the York University Secondary Plan, York

University Master Plan and Vaughan Steeles West Secondary Plan (OPA 620)

Distribution:

- Post on Biddingo and MERX.

- Direct distribution to potential partners.

- Advertisement in local and national media sources.

740

Figure 1 Property map with redevelopment parcel outlined in red.

741

Attachment 6

Table 1: Benefit Analysis TRCA Head Office Options

Continue to Lease Purchase Existing Build New at 5 Shoreham

Highest 30 year life cycle costs High retrofit costsSlightly higher capital costs compared to

some purchase existing options

No asset at end of 30 years Unknowns that can increase cost

Location subject to market availability and

may not meet TRCA objectives

Location subject to market availability and

may not meet TRCA objectives

Possible multiple relocations, resulting in

increased costs, low staff morale, loss of

productive, staff retention & customer

frustration

Less opportunity to showcase TRCA goals

and objectives

Less efficient, resulting in higher operating

costs

Less efficient, resulting in higher operating

costs

No initial larger capital outlayOpportunity to improve environmental

performance of an existing assetEfficient: lower operating costs, lower carbon

Location: central and accessible for staff and

clients by transit

Lead transformation of the Black Creek

Community

Proximity to York University and BCPV

Allows for access to nature, greenspace and

trails

Healthy building environment for customers

and staff

Demonstration building to showcase Living

City Policies

Adaptable to changes in TRCA’s mandate

and services

Negative Impacts

Benefits

Retain ownership of an asset

742

Table 2: TRCA Head Office Operating Cost Estimates

Building EUI (ekWH/sf/yr) Estimated Energy Cost ($/yr) Estimated Energy Cost ($/30yr)Estimated Energy Cost Savings From Market

AverageComments/Source

Market Average 32 225,000.00$ 8,743,464$ -$ Toronto Average

Good New Build 23 165,000.00$ 6,571,300$ 2,172,165$ Tier1 Bldg. 33% <MNECB

TRCA New Build – Low Op

Cost 17 125,000.00$ 5,133,510$ 3,609,954$ Modeled at 13ekWh/sfTRCA New Building - Low Op

Carbon 13 154,000.00$ 6,324,484$ 2,418,980$ Modeled at 10ekWh/sf

Notes:

Market Average = Average building that may be available on market (not LEED or Toronto Green Standard)

Good New Build = Tier 1 Toronto Green Standard,

TRCA New Build - Low Op

Cost

TRCA New Build - Low Op

Carbon

MNECB = Model National Energy Code for Buildings

Table 3: TRCA Head Office Operating Carbon Cost Estimate

Building EUI (ekWH/sf/yr) Operating Carbon Tonnes/Yr Estimated Carbon Cost ($/30yr)Estimated Carbon Cost Savings From Market

AverageComments/Source

Market Average 32 400.00$ 621,757$ -$ Toronto Average

Good New Build 23 300.00$ 466,318$ 155,439$ Tier1 Bldg. 33% <MNECB

TRCA New Build – Low Op

Cost 17 200.00$ 310,879$ 310,879$ Modeled at 13ekWh/sfTRCA New Building - Low Op

Carbon 13 130.00$ 202,071$ 419,686$ Modeled at 10ekWh/sf

Notes:

Market Average = Average building that may be available on market (not LEED or Toronto Green Standard)

Good New Build = Tier 1 Toronto Green Standard,

TRCA New Build - Low Op

CostTRCA New Build - Low Op

Carbon MNECB = Model National Energy Code for Buildings

=Lowest operating cost option, heating completed with natural gas boiler and cooling with electric air source heat pumps heating - boiler, cooling - air source heat pumps

= Low operating carbon air source heat pumps and ground source heat pumps to heat and cool. Backup natural gas boiler for -20 to -10 degress celcious outdoor temperature

=Lowest operating cost option, heating completed with natural gas boiler and cooling with electric air source heat pumps heating - boiler, cooling - air source heat pumps

= Low operating carbon air source heat pumps and ground source heat pumps to heat and cool. Backup natural gas boiler for -20 to -10 degress celcious outdoor temperature

743

Attachment 7

2016 CVA Apportionment of New Funding for Build New at 5 Shoreham Drive Option

TRCA New Head Office Project: Proposed Annual Municipal Funding Contributions:

Municipality CVA Apportionment

(%)

Annual Amount

Comments

Mono 0.0081 $122 -

Adjala-Tosorontio 0.0067 $101 -

Durham 2.8247 $42,371 Special request will be made, but can accommodate within $800,000 capital envelope.

Peel 11.3733 $170,600 Provision exists within current capital envelope.

Toronto 64.3620 $965,430 Additional funding of $2m available in 2023 cycle. TRCA requires permission from the City to reallocate funds for this project.

York 21.4252 $321,378 Request for additional funding pending, but can accommodate, if necessary, within existing $5m envelope.

TOTAL 100.00 $1,500,000 -

33 Year Financing Period $49,500,000

744

RES.#A258/15 - RULES OF CONDUCT Amendment to Voting Method. Amendment to TRCA’s Procedures for

Election of Officials from secret ballot to open voting. Moved by: Colleen Jordan Seconded by: Kevin Ashe THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority’s (TRCA) Procedures for Election of Officials (Appendix A to TRCA’s Rules of Conduct) be amended so that the voting procedures for election of officers be by open voting; AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff be directed to make all required changes to Appendix A for the Chair, Vice Chair and Budget/Audit Advisory Board positions to bring into effect, and report back on recommended procedures for the Executive Committee. CARRIED BACKGROUND As per the Conservation Authorities Act, each conservation authority (CA) elects from its membership a chair, vice chair and an executive committee. Any additional committees of the Authority are prescribed for in each CAs Rules of Conduct; in this regard, TRCA has a Budget/Audit Advisory Board. Subcommittees or working committees generally follow the Rules of Conduct, but do not have elections for positions so this recommended change does not apply. RATIONALE Staff recommends changing the voting procedures from secret ballot to open voting for the Chair and Vice Chair of the Authority, and positions on the Executive Committee and Budget/Audit Advisory Board for the following reasons:

1. Increased transparency in the election process. Public agencies are increasingly being driven toward open data and to being proactive in disclosure of information to provide more clear, open and transparent processes, and this proposed amendment to the Rules of Conduct entails proactive disclosure.

2. It is in keeping with the Municipal Act, 2001, whereby secret ballots may occur for the head of council of an upper-tier municipality or their presiding officer for meetings, but in all other instances open voting is required. The only exemptions to this are when meetings can be held in closed session, yet the election process does not meet the criteria for exemption. To be in keeping with this Act, by-laws for the regions of Peel and York have been updated in recent years to adopt open voting for the regional chair positions. The Region of Durham Chair and the Mayor of Toronto are elected officials so such a procedure does not apply.

3. To streamline meetings where elections are held, so that the audience does not need to sit through a lengthy ballot counting process and potentially multiple votes, when no other activities can take place.

Staff therefore recommends this process be implemented for full transparency.

745

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA’s Procedures for Election of Officials (Appendix A to TRCA’s Rules of Conduct) would need to be changed to adopt this new procedure. Although approval of procedures has been delegated by the Authority to the Chief Executive Officer, and the Rules of Conduct allows the Chair of the Authority to designate procedures for elections while generally following the procedures as set out Appendix A, this change is being brought to the Authority for approval in principle, while recommending that staff make all required changes to the procedures document. Report prepared by: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca For information contact: Kathy Stranks, extension 5264 Emails: kstranks@trca.on.ca Date: January 11, 2016

______________________________

746

RES.#A259/15 - PLANNING AND PERMITTING ADMINISTRATION COST RECOVERY Assessment of cost recovery and service delivery supporting the

2016-2017 Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Review Services Fee Schedules.

Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Jennifer Innis WHEREAS, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff established the 2014-2015 fees schedules for all plan review services that aimed to achieve a 100% cost recovery target for the development review functions within the Planning and Development section; AND WHEREAS staff has committed to monitor the trends in submission demand, level of service, revenue collection and cost recovery for the transition period to 100% cost recovery and report back to the Authority on the status of cost recovery; AND WHEREAS TRCA follows the guidelines from the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees and TRCA’s Fee Policy Guideline 2009, where a base fee adjustment for cost of living is required every two years, in addition to provision of a comprehensive level of service /cost recovery assessment; AND WHEREAS TRCA has discussed the proposed new fee schedule and cost recovery assessment with the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) prior to seeking Authority approval; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the fee adjustment proposal be approved as outlined within this report and that new 2016-2017 fee schedules be effective immediately. AMENDMENT RES.#A260/15 Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Jennifer Innis THAT the following be inserted after the main motion: AND FURTHER THAT staff review the protocols for small proposals in special policy areas and report back to the Authority. THE AMENDMENT WAS CARRIED THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS CARRIED THE RESULTANT MOTION READS AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff established the 2014-2015 fees schedules for all plan review services that aimed to achieve a 100% cost recovery target for the development review functions within the Planning and Development section;

747

AND WHEREAS staff has committed to monitor the trends in submission demand, level of service, revenue collection and cost recovery for the transition period to 100% cost recovery and report back to the Authority on the status of cost recovery; AND WHEREAS TRCA follows the guidelines from the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry’s Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees and TRCA’s Fee Policy Guideline 2009, where a base fee adjustment for cost of living is required every two years, in addition to provision of a comprehensive level of service /cost recovery assessment; AND WHEREAS TRCA has discussed the proposed new fee schedule and cost recovery assessment with the Building Industry and Land Development Association (BILD) prior to seeking Authority approval; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the fee adjustment proposal be approved as outlined within this report and that new 2016-2017 fee schedules be effective immediately; AND FURTHER THAT staff review the protocols for small proposals in special policy areas and report back to the Authority. BACKGROUND Through its Planning and Development function, TRCA regulates development in valley and stream corridors, wetlands, flood and erosion prone areas, and along the Lake Ontario shoreline, and reviews and comments on development proposals and applications within or adjacent to these natural areas. By doing so, TRCA aims to prevent, eliminate or reduce the risk to life and property from flooding, erosion and slope instability, and to encourage the protection and enhancement of natural systems. Planning and Development provides municipalities with advice on applications made under the Planning Act and the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, applications made pursuant to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, the Greenbelt Act, and other applicable legislation. Planning and Development provides technical and scientific expertise to support the environmental planning function of municipalities, as well as assist the development community and individual landowners to make informed decisions on how development should proceed and how to maintain, and enhance or restore the natural environment. Through this function TRCA assists the development community and the public to prevent and mitigate natural hazard-based risks, while maintaining and where possible enhancing the health of TRCA’s watersheds. In many cases, TRCA has formal memoranda in place with our municipalities through which the TRCA acts as technical environmental advisors to the municipalities through the plan review process. TRCA also has the delegated responsibility to represent the provincial interest for Section 3.1 (Natural Hazards) of the Provincial Policy Statement through the plan review process. As part of TRCA’s plan review service, TRCA’s planners coordinate the integration of TRCA’s Planning and Development technical team of engineers, ecologists and hydrogeologists as well as enforcement and compliance staff. TRCA’s work is supported by the policy team, as well as property, geomatics and records staff. In a similar fashion to TRCA’s municipal partners, Planning and Development assesses fees for TRCA’s services. These fees are to recover the costs of delivering the services, and historically TRCA has recovered less than 100% of the actual cost.

748

Planning and Development staff received direction from the Authority in 2011 to achieve full cost recovery for eligible Planning and Development services. Through the changes to the fee schedules between 2010 and 2014, Planning and Development has substantially achieved full cost recovery in 2015 for the development review function, and it is projected that TRCA will achieve 100% cost recovery through the proposed 2016-2017 fee schedules for the development review function. Current Fee Schedules The last comprehensive fee schedule adjustment and cost recovery assessment for TRCA’s Planning and Development function took place in May, 2014. At that time, the 2014-2015 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule was approved by the Authority (Resolution #A72/14). That fee schedule was created based upon trends of submissions for planning and permitting review and an assessment of the potential forecast of submissions – setting a new approach for fee recovery targeting a 100% revenue stream for development related submissions. The cost of service delivery was also assessed on a projected basis at that time. Planning and Development staff has monitored the project review demands and revenue flow over the last two years to determine TRCA’s current level of service and cost recovery. TRCA has conducted an assessment to meet the Province of Ontario’s guidelines and TRCA’s Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Fees Policy/Guideline 2009 in preparing this report. The Planning and Development section includes four sub-groups – Planning and Regulation Development Review, Policy and Development Regulation, Environmental Assessment Planning, and Compliance functions. These professional teams review all development and infrastructure projects affected by TRCA’s regulation and mandate, from strategic policy planning, development and environmental assessment review through to construction compliance. Primary Objectives for the 2016-2017 Fee Schedules Planning and Development staff assess the volume and evolving nature of the applications that TRCA processes on an on-going basis. Based upon this, TRCA has identified priority areas to be addressed in this fee schedule update. Accordingly, there are four primary objectives for this fee schedule review:

1. fulfill Authority direction with respect to achieving 100% cost recovery; 2. incorporate a cost of living increase of 5% (2.5% increase for two years); 3. provide for some additional funding for addressing staffing deficiencies, where required to

meet service delivery standards and per planner/technical staff file ratios; 4. provide additional opportunities to address expedited review requests.

RATIONALE Trends in Workload and Service Delivery Planning and Development has assessed the workload volume and types of application reviews conducted for both 2014 and 2015. Planning and Development continues to experience a consistently high volume of planning and permitting applications, including large scale Secondary Plans, Block Plans and associated MESP (Master Environmental Services Plans), as well as technically complex submissions. Many of these applications are part of new growth area projects, such as North Markham, North Leslie, North East Brampton, Vaughan Blocks 41 & 27, Vaughan Mills Centre, Stouffville Expansion Area, Buttonville, Langstaff and Markham Centre. TRCA has also observed that the nature of the applications is changing. Some of these changes include:

749

• increasing complexity and duration of planning applications require more senior staff involvement and more staff resources;

• increasing demand for expedited review and faster clearances has put pressure on TRCA teams, and frequently exceeds TRCA’s current capacity;

• all files are ‘high priority’ files; • Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) appeals with environmental issues as a result of “failure to

decide” continues to increase, diverting TRCA review efforts away from the standard review stream;

• as the scope of submission increases, fewer submissions are sufficiently integrated; • the combination of increasing complexity of submissions, expedited timelines and

workload volume is reducing the quality of the submissions that TRCA is receiving; • project management gaps; • development, infrastructure, expedited reviews, OMB, new growth areas are managed by

the same team at TRCA, resulting in competing workloads and deadlines for the same team members.

Attachments 1 and 2 provide the comparative summary of submissions by municipality and by TRCA review team for the last few years including 2014 and 2015. The following is a brief summary of the volume of files. In 2014 and 2015, Planning and Development:

• processed more than 1,000 new permits; • processed more than 600 new planning applications in addition to carry-over files; • reviewed 333 infrastructure projects in 2014 (in addition to permits) – a steady increase

from 129 projects in 2011; • processed an average of 1,000 solicitor/realtor enquiries.

Additionally, TRCA Planning and Development:

• actively participates in OMB hearings affecting TRCA’s interests – increased from 18 in 2011 to 52 in 2014;

• continues to be an active participant in new community planning for an average of 15-20 new communities.

Planning Applications The volume of new planning applications has remained stable over the last five years with a milestone year in volume in 2012 for “base” planning applications. From 2013-2015, the volume of planning applications has remained consistent – over 600 new planning applications per year, with a fluctuation of about 3% per year. Between 2010 and 2015, the numbers of applications in the City of Markham, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and Township King have grown the most. In terms of volume of applications, the City of Toronto, Town of Richmond Hill, City of Vaughan, City of Markham and Town Caledon had the highest numbers of planning applications submitted to TRCA, respectively. All other municipalities remained steady or had fluctuating numbers of applications. The volume of OMB hearings associated with the applications has increased.

750

Permit Applications The number of TRCA (Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended) permit applications that have been received has steadily increased over the last five years. Since 2009, a new ‘norm’ has been established in which - in each year thereafter - more than 1,000 TRCA permit applications have been received. From 2009 to 2014 the number of permit applications remained consistent, with approximately 2-3% variation each year. In 2015 TRCA received the highest number of permit applications of any year on record, with 1,192 permit applications received. This represents a 14% increase in the number of permit applications submitted, over 2014 numbers. Between 2013 and 2015, the volume of permit applications has increased in the rapidly expanding York Region municipalities of Vaughan, Richmond Hill and Markham and King, while permit numbers have remained strong and have grown within the City of Toronto (particularly Etobicoke, East York and North York). Within the other areas of TRCA’s jurisdiction, including TRCA’s portions of Durham Region, Peel Region, and other areas of York Region, the permit application numbers have remained consistent or have increased at a slower pace. With the significant volume of new permits, as well as on-going permits, TRCA’s compliance team conducted a total of 4,843 permit site inspections in 2014. Large-Scale Planning Projects and Infrastructure Growth area MESP’s tied to new growth, secondary plan and block plan projects consumed a huge effort in 2014 and 2015 with 25 projects of various scales. A significant workload volume will continue for these growth areas spread through Caledon, City of Brampton, Vaughan, Markham, Richmond Hill and the developing Seaton community in 2016 and 2017. The number of OMB hearing efforts has increased significantly as an outcome of several Official Plan Reviews in Richmond Hill, City of Mississauga, Brampton and Vaughan, as well as site-specific appeals. TRCA senior staff was actively involved in 52 hearings in 2015, inclusive of mediations and negotiations, with an additional six Official Plan OMB appeals with multiple appellants (Vaughan, for example, has 67 appellants with conservation related issues). TRCA Development Planning and Policy teams are working together to complete 14 flood vulnerable Special Policy Area updates. These include the Woodbridge, Toronto, Brampton (Bram East), Bolton, Lake Wilcox in Richmond Hill, and the initiation of the Mississauga (Dixie Dundas and Dixie) SPA reviews. These SPAs are often in areas needing development revitalization, and where development applications need input with updated hydrology modeling and risk assessment direction. This is a ground breaking work effort tailored to assist municipalities to set land use and development directions within flood vulnerable communities – particularly with the increasing concerns about severe storms and the impacts on older communities that are flood prone. A major shift in service demand continues with increases in expedited reviews driven by the applicants, the municipalities and/or by OMB appeals. Even certain MESP processing has been reviewed through OMB timetables which have put enormous pressure on senior staff time to not only review but attend mediations, strategic meetings and negotiations with TRCA’s lawyers, as well as conduct repetitive engineering modeling reviews to input into complex negotiations. These service delivery pressures are being felt by not just TRCA but by our municipal partners. TRCA's efforts save municipalities significant amounts of money for technical input and legal managing of important environmental issues through the OMB.

751

Fluctuations commonly occur with “base” planning and permitting applications from year to year, but a major shift to process growth area studies with municipal partners will be a huge part of a rapidly increasing workload for 2016-2017. Senior project management and technical capabilities are required from TRCA to support these complex efforts both for greenfield and urban intensification. Staff is projecting that there will be significant effort required in the planning of the future urban areas of Brampton, Caledon, Vaughan, King, Markham, Richmond Hill, Seaton and the intensification areas within Toronto and Mississauga, for 2016-17, on top of the regular base submissions. Plan review continues to be technically complex as applications move into more sensitive landscapes with water balance considerations involving engineering modeling updates, geotechnical and hydrogeology expertise. TRCA’s engineering and hydrogeology staff complement is under increasing service pressure. Environmental Assessment Trends In the suburban municipalities, there has been a steady increase in the number of regional and local infrastructure master plans, as well as, environmental assessment permitting. There has been steady growth in transit related projects, as well as utility projects that include gas lines and telecommunications. With 25 communities currently in the planning stages, it is anticipated that this growth will only continue to increase in future years. In developed communities, particularly Toronto, there has been a steady increase in the number of emergency works projects. This relates directly to the fact that old and failing infrastructure was historically built in valleylands. As the rivers and streams downcut and meander over time (a factor of natural process and exacerbated by poorly situated infrastructure and the effects of climate change), the infrastructure is left exposed. Repair to these pipes and bridges is becoming more complex, as well as, more urgent. As the city continues to intensify, the stress on the older infrastructure will also continue to increase, and it is fully anticipated that the trend in increased emergency projects will continue. Regardless of whether the infrastructure is serving suburban or urban nodes, the complexity of the TRCA review has also changed significantly to account for changes in science and information. Geomorphic assessments, political inputs, redevelopment/intensification occurring in regulated areas including flood vulnerable sites, ecologically sensitive or hazardous areas are all major factors in infrastructure development today. There is also a growing change in partnership opportunities between infrastructure providers and TRCA’s Restoration and Infrastructure division, from monitoring, to planting and stream realignments. These new synergies between the TRCA and the infrastructure provider to work together in the project construction phase provides essential expert services for challenging construction sites, saves public funds and timing delays to support public infrastructure and private community development. TRCA provides our municipal partners with service agreements, with a dedicated planning and technical review team, detailed service delivery standards, project tracking and reporting, monthly team meetings, and weekly in-office staff support. The fees are negotiated annually through the municipal capital delivery programs, including water and wastewater, roads and transit services. Service agreements began in 2015, and are currently in place with York and Peel regions, the City of Brampton, Enbridge Gas, Metrolinx Rapid Transit Implementation (RTI), Metrolinx-GO and the Toronto Transit Commission for the Toronto-York Subway Extension (TYSSE) project and are continually refined to meet shifts in service demands. Cost Recovery Analysis Cost recovery applies to the majority of the planning function. Some exclusions continue to be funded by municipal levy and environmental assessment service agreements.

752

In 2011, the fees assessed by Planning and Development recovered approximately 55-60% of the cost of delivering the services. In 2011, Authority direction was given to work toward 100% cost recovery, and a comprehensive assessment of TRCA’s fees was completed in 2011 to support the transition to full cost recovery. Based upon this assessment, updated fee schedules were put into place for 2012-2013. Based upon these fee schedules, TRCA achieved just over 80% cost recovery for eligible Planning and Development services for 2012-2013. In 2014, the second comprehensive fee schedule update was completed, and this fee schedule remains in place today. Staff analysis indicates that the revenues attained from TRCA’s fees over the 2014-2015 period recovered in excess of 90% of the costs of delivering eligible services (2014) and achieved 100% cost recovery of eligible services in 2015. Between 2011 and 2013/2014, the Environmental Assessment team has increased their agreement-based revenue from approximately $1.2 million in 2011 to $1.8 million. Service agreements achieve 100% cost recovery, but non-service agreement operating budgets have achieved 40-50% cost recovery through fee collection and are primarily funded by levy contributions. With the proposed revisions to the 2016-2017 fee schedules, as outlined in this report, and reflected in the associated fee schedules, staff expects that TRCA will maintain 100% cost recovery for eligible services. Proposal for 2016- 2017 Cost Recovery In addition to an inflationary increase, it is recommended that TRCA should not increase all fees but should adjust those application types that are putting more time/cost pressure on the staffing complement. This strategy is projected to reach and maintain 100% cost recovery. The strategy includes:

• a 5% cost of living increase that applies to most fees (based upon a 2.5% per year increase);

• minor increases to individual fees that are not meeting cost recovery; • additional fee categories where the existing fee schedule has gaps that are too large

between the categories – which are not adequately addressing the range of applications that TRCA processes;

• additional optional fee categories, to reflect increasing demand for expedited services; • providing a broader menu of fee categories, addressing some of the gaps in the current

fee schedule. Negotiations must also continue with municipal partners to build customized budgets for special urban revitalization studies outside the standard fee based structure (e.g. Flood Vulnerable Areas, urban MESP areas). In addition, it is recommended that TRCA’s new proposed fee schedule for 2016-17 include several minor modifications based on our discussions with staff and stakeholders about improved implementation, streamlining and housekeeping. The cost of living inflationary increase will generate about $200,000 of additional revenue for next year. In order to continue to meet the conflicting demands on TRCA’s technical staff team, additional staff will be required. Although substantial increases are not proposed in the proposed 2016-2017 fee schedules, modifications to some of the fees that are not currently covering the cost of delivering the service are expected to provide some additional revenue to meet TRCA’s 100% cost recovery target. If planning and permit application volumes continue into the 2016-2017 period, additional revenues may be available to initiate the process of bolstering TRCA’s technical review team, as required.

753

The Fee Collection Challenge Achieving 100% cost recovery is a constantly evolving target, as Planning and Development staff cannot control the number of files and permit applications that are submitted to TRCA for review. Forecasting is not perfect, and 100% cost recovery must include a margin of flexibility, as TRCA is only able to collect fees to cover the cost of the services that TRCA provides, and cannot run a surplus over multiple years. As such, TRCA will need to continue to update our fee schedules on a regular basis, to respond to changes in the number and type of applications that TRCA receives. Based upon staff predictions for the number of files that TRCA can expect to receive over the 2016-2017 period, the changes proposed in this updated fee schedule are expected to achieve 100% cost recovery. All planning departments in conservation authorities and municipal governments experience fluctuations in types of applications and the roller-coaster of revenue generation due to changes in volume and complexity of applications versus the standard of service delivery. While Planning and Development has met its revenue targets for 2015, and substantially met its targets in 2014, factors outside of TRCA’s control may influence our ability to achieve 100% cost recovery from year to year in the future. It is clear that potential future reductions in volume will affect revenue. Planning and Development staff will continue to monitor performance in achieving 100% cost recovery, and on a biannual basis, will adjust and adapt TRCA fee schedules as required, to respond to changing market forces. Staff will also continue to work on mechanisms for recovering the cost of TRCA service delivery in areas, such as the following, which are on-going challenges for cost recovery:

The loss of adequate fee coverage attributed to planning processes for complex files, MESP’s and special studies supporting growth areas including phasing of work, expedited requirements, inadequate or repetitive submissions, lack of project management, landowner complications and professional integration of technical findings. These workpath deviations have been out of staff’s control.

Lack of mechanisms to collect fees for unusual or prolonged and challenging processes e.g. OMB, Special Policy Area reviews, flood vulnerable growth area negotiations, extended construction periods for permits and management of infractions/lack of compliance.

Planning and Permitting Fee Schedule In addition to an inflationary increase, the focus of the proposed changes to the 2016-2017 Planning and Permitting fee schedules are principally for the following purposes:

provide greater clarity for fee categories and services to provide a more clear understanding for all involved, and to ensure that the fee assessed covers the service;

provide greater clarity on the application of fees, which were not adequately addressed in the fee schedule;

provide a balanced approach: – some minor fees increased to better cover the work involved.; – new fee categories are proposed to provide for more appropriate fee options where

options do not presently exist in the fee schedule for small-scale projects. Key areas of change The following key changes are proposed to the 2016 Planning Fee Schedule:

clarifications to definitions of types of applications (what’s included and limitations);

754

inclusion of a small fee for file continuation – recognizing the extended lifespan of some complex and large-scale projects.;

increases to minor site plans;

changes to subdivision size categories;

incomplete submission fee;

greater clarity around site visits;

changes to SPA/floodplain application fees;

addition of OMB collaborative resolution fee;

removal of screening assessment in some categories . Permitting The following key changes are proposed to the 2016 Permitting Fee Schedule:

addition of scoped category;

increase in minor permit fees;

change to expedited review fee;

addition of voluntary violation resolution fee;

changes to minor works. Environmental Assessment Fee Schedule

cost of living increase;

integration of enhanced true cost accounting for delivery of services;

compliance monitoring – clarification for additional site visits;

costs associated with the review of additional submissions, site visits or meetings that occur beyond the service level provided for in the fees.

Attachments 3, 4 and 5 provide the updated proposals for the Planning, Permitting and Environmental Assessment Fee Schedules, inclusive of the recommendations included above. Discussion with BILD and Municipal Partners The building industry (represented by BILD) has been very helpful in providing their input into TRCA’s planning and permitting fee schedules. As part of the fee review process Planning and Development staff consults with BILD to attain their comments on the proposed changes. A formal presentation was provided to BILD representatives on November 23, 2015 to discuss the draft planning and permitting fee schedules. At the presentation BILD representatives were provided with copies of the draft fee schedules for their comments and consideration. BILD provided a response letter on December 21, 2015 with their comments. TRCA staff has discussed the comments with BILD staff, and has made one adjustment to the proposed planning fee schedule in response to their comments. With this revision, it is TRCA staffs understanding that BILD does not object to proposed planning and permitting fee schedules. Staff also consulted with its municipal partners through their regular meetings. Level of Service Planning application timelines are usually led by the municipal process, however, TRCA works to meet our 30-45 day turnaround for standard applications, with some exceptions for very complex files or where unusual technical assessments are required e.g. engineering modeling. Permitting applications also maintain an 80 to 90% adherence to provincial time guidelines. The Environmental Assessment team tracks and reports on a tight service delivery standard for its service delivery partners, and meets these standards 80-90% of the time. For non-service delivery partners, the standards are met approximately 70% of the time.

755

York Region is the fastest growing area of TRCA’s jurisdiction, with the highest volume of planning applications within TRCA’s jurisdiction. York Region is split between two development planning teams at TRCA for better coverage, however, there are significant pressures for file review and has been addressing over double the volume of planning and permitting files that other regional municipalities forward for TRCA's input. TRCA’s review team will need to be enhanced to maintain requisite service levels and review time standards within York Region. The following detailed summary provides an overview of the service delivery tied to current guidelines for Planning and Development submissions. Staff believes that TRCA’s service delivery is generally excellent under current workload pressures and the complexity of applications. Peel and York Planning Review teams: Standard/Straight forward applications: includes standard permits, Committee of Adjustment,

site plans and condominium applications, very high consistency with service delivery guidelines - 90%+ compliance.

Rezoning applications and Official Plan Amendments (OPA): Very high, 90%+ compliance.

Subdivisions: 75% compliance. Variance typically the result of incomplete or premature applications, and very complex subdivisions. Straight forward subdivisions have very high compliance.

MESPs less complex: generally meeting the 30-60 day review time (close to 60 days) Resubmission generally taking about 30 days, depending upon complexity. Overall compliance 80-90%. Typical reason for variance, workload volume both within and between teams.

MESPs, Complex: Typical review time 90-120 days, where 100% completed within 120 days, 75% completed within 90 days, and approximately 60% completed within 60 days. Typical reasons for variance - lack of integrating of components of MESP, incomplete and piecemeal MESP submissions, errors in the submission, time delay between submission by developer to municipality and TRCA’s receipt, and balancing workload.

The following service delivery comments are provided for Toronto and Durham:

Straightforward applications, includes standard permits, minor variances, site plans: Very high consistency with service delivery guidelines. 100% compliance. Typical minor works are turned around in about two weeks from complete application; variances are turned around within municipal deadline which is typically 20 days from date of notice.

Rezoning applications, OPAs, complex land division applications, major permits, permits associated with violations: Very high. 90%+ compliance. In Toronto there is a strict "complete application determination" process which helps to speed up the process. The Town of Ajax and City of Pickering also require pre-consultation meetings.

Subdivisions: Very high. 90%+ compliance. In Pickering typical delays for the application are the result of incomplete or premature applications, and very complex subdivisions. Straight forward subdivisions or fully complete applications have very high compliance. Clearance of Draft Plan Conditions is usually done in a matter of days.

756

Review times are complicated by incomplete applications, which results in overall delays for the proponent. However, once complete, compliance is very high. Planning and Development staff has observed an increasing trend of unconsolidated technical reports and submissions, and a lack of comprehensive project management on large-scale projects. Efficiency in Operations The plan review teams for Toronto/Durham, Peel/York East and York West continued to run as lean as possible in 2014-15 with minor staffing adjustments to redistribute staffing skills covering submission demands. In 2015 the York East/Peel and York West planning teams were adjusted by 0.5 full time equivalent (FTE) staff (contract) to assist in back-filling senior staff. The following overview provides just a snapshot of the planning team coverage and numbers of new applications per year/per planner/per team (2015): Peel /York East Team (includes Markham and Richmond Hill) New Planning and Concept Applications: 362 Permits: 274 Total new files – exclusive of Large-Scale projects, OMB, Policy Initiatives: 655 (managed by 7 FTE) + Carry-over files (approx. 50%): Additional 318 Toronto/Durham Team (includes Ajax, Pickering, Uxbridge) Planning Applications 218 Permits 399 Total new files – exclusive of Large-Scale projects, OMB, Policy Initiatives: 648 (managed by 5.5 FTE) + Carry-over files (approx. 50%): 308 Vaughan/York West Team (includes Aurora, King, Whitchurch-Stouffville) Planning Applications: 195 Permits: 201 Total files – exclusive of Large-Scale projects, OMB, Policy Initiatives: 426 (managed by 5.5 FTE) Carry-over files (approx. 50%): 198 In addition to the above, Planning and Development staff assisted with the resolution of 63 violations in 2015. Each TRCA planner is managing between 100-150 files per year including a significant carry- over file base from previous years. This does not include responsibilities for other strategic efforts to assist municipalities such as internal and external committees, pre-consultation and development application review collaborations, working meeting with applicants, OMB, policy initiatives, SPA projects, etc. While TRCA has prioritized additional senior involvement for major files, TRCA continues to find pressures with accommodating a workload that comes from multiple municipalities concurrently; each with expectations of expedited reviews for their priority files. In fact, with all municipalities well into their growth plan community plan projects, and gearing up for even more community plans driven by landowner objectives, the multiple pressures will necessitate an infusion of funding tailored for additional technical staff, and senior staff time.

757

The unscheduled “randomness” of applications, re-submissions and the short turnaround expectations for commenting and meetings with agencies has become difficult to coordinate and provide manpower, even with strident streamlining efforts completed every year. A greater level of project management has to be established between the municipalities, TRCA and the landowner teams to work through the processes constructively with high quality submissions, collaborative discussions and realistic scheduling expectations. The Enforcement/Compliance team has been in transition, with retirements. Re-structuring of staff responsibilities and balancing of workload is taking place within refined officer positions and new field boundaries. This re-structuring will result in a re-distribution of field responsibilities and capabilities within the five-officer team, as well as, succession planning for future. The Environmental Assessment team has remained steady with their base workload for lower tier and agency infrastructure, and service agreements for several municipalities in Peel, York, Brampton and Toronto. TRCA continues to expand service delivery capability through new service agreements to foster more responsive service delivery and dedicated staff involvement in submission review. Streamlining Efforts during 2014-2015 Planning and Development continues to work to improve many areas of daily operations, increase efficiency, and enhance customer service. Key areas of focus for 2014 and 2015 were around streamlining TRCA processing of applications, and further developing and enhancing our pre-consultation framework. Planning and Development staff believes that effective pre-consultation is vital to our efficiency and effectiveness, and to ensuring that the public and the development community have important information on potential constraints and opportunities on their properties, from which to make informed planning decisions. As part of TRCA’s pre-consultation framework, we implement a six-prong approach to pre-consultation, the foundation of which is based upon making TRCA’s information and requirements known as early in the planning process as possible. To do so, TRCA offers the following services:

1. Property Enquiry Service/ Concept Development Applications -Through this service, property owners and the development community can enquire about constraints and opportunities on their properties on an expedited basis, which may involve site visits with TRCA technical staff, and culminate in customized formal TRCA correspondence, which can be used for their planning purposes.

2. Solicitor-Realtor Enquiry Service – Through this service, solicitors and realtors can receive a standardized screening letter, outlining TRCA’s interests in a property on an expedited basis.

3. Participation in the municipal pre-consultation process – Planning and Development staff participate in a pre-screening review of materials, and attend meetings with municipal staff and proponents to discuss TRCA interests, and potential constraints, prior to a planning application being submitted to the municipality. Through this service, proponents are aware of TRCA’s requirements prior to the submission of an application, leading to more complete applications, and a more efficient process.

758

4. Priority file strategy meetings with senior municipal planning staff – Planning and Development staff continue to pursue opportunities to establish regular, on-going meetings with key senior municipal planning staff to discuss applications, and to strategize, to enhance collaboration and consistency. In 2014-2015, Markham and Caledon joined TRCA’s list of municipalities for which this process has been established.

5. Walk in service – Planning and Development staff continue to provide a well-used walk in service, in which property owners can visit TRCA’s Planning and Development counter at any time during regular business hours, and talk to a planner about their property.

6. An increasing array of web-based services for self-screening, and enquiries – given the large size of TRCA’s jurisdiction, it is important to provide opportunities for the public to have access to initial screening tools and TRCA information without having to make the trip to TRCA’s Head Office. TRCA’s Regulation mapping is now on-line, on TRCA’s website, which allows residents to enter their address to get an initial indication of whether their property is Regulated, or is within TRCA’s areas of interest. The first phase of TRCA’s enhanced digital services has also been implemented, providing proponents with the opportunity to contact TRCA staff through the website, and even start their planning or enquiry process while they are on-line. Enhancing the services available is an on-going process, and TRCA looks forward to offering additional services in the near future.

In 2014 and 2015, Planning and Development staff worked on a number of initiatives to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of each component of our pre-consultation framework, including seeking streamlining and enhancement opportunities for TRCA involvement in the municipal pre-consultation process, seeking additional opportunities for senior staff collaboration meetings, enhancing TRCA’s walk in and web-based services. Internal Process Improvements In 2014, The Living City Policies were approved, which provide the framework for TRCA’s work in Planning and Development. The Living City Policies incorporate current day best practices and innovation in environmental planning, and provide a cohesive, transparent framework for TRCA’s Planning and Development function. Modifications to the Conservation Authorities Act in 2013 provided for additional opportunities to delegate decision making on routine and standard Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, permits to staff. Planning and Development staff has taken advantage of these tools, which allow for the majority of TRCA permits processed by Planning and Development staff to be approved at a staff level. The result has been a significant streamlining of TRCA processing of permit applications, which has substantially reduced the processing time for routine and standard permits. As part of TRCA’s internal streamlining process, we have continued to work to improve our file tracking system to assist in processing and co-ordination of applications. This is an on-going initiative which will continue to examine opportunities to optimize the way in which TRCA processes applications.

759

Value Added Services TRCA staff continues to be involved in a significant number of OMB hearings, and continues to respond to and attend negotiations for OMB hearings where TRCA has no control over the triggers or process timing. TRCA’s expedited reviews and participation with municipalities assist the process and have usually allowed environmental issues to be mediated out of the hearing process, with benefits to the municipality and the applicant. TRCA has been successful with these OMB endeavours with very limited legal assistance, with the involvement of TRCA’s experienced senior planning staff. As a result, TRCA is able to minimize and carefully manage our legal fee budget. The technical collaborative that TRCA senior staff provides in all areas of environmental planning, engineering and ecology saves the municipalities the cost of individualized consulting and peer review funds associated with meeting complex legislative requirements and high service demand from the development industry. Opportunities and Value Added 2016-2017 Planning and Development staff continually seeks opportunities to improve TRCA’s level of service. The following are some priority areas that staff will further explore in 2016-2017:

additional senior participation in working sessions to problem solve (e.g. emerging issues – groundwater, water balance);

continue to build upon regular senior level file review meetings with municipal partners to coordinate and speed-up review;

project management assistance for some teams to get through complex approvals/site design and scheduling;

expedited reviews within the capacity of our staffing;

training sessions, (e.g. technical submission requirements, enhancing the quality of submissions), and specialized consulting requests.

Report prepared by: Quentin Hanchard, extension 5324 Emails: qhanchard@trca.on.ca, For Information contact: Quentin Hanchard, extension 5324,

Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 Emails: qhanchard@trca.on.ca, cwoodland@trca.on.ca Date: January 29, 2016 Attachments: 5

760

Attachment 1

SUMMARY OF PLANNING APPLICATION RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY 2010-2015

Measure 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 New Planning Applications 658 682 659 622 632

Carry Forward Applications (40%) 263 273 263 249 253

New Permit Applications 1020 1032 1064 1047 1192

Carry Forward Applications (20%) 204 206 212 209 253

Permits Issued 966 944 970 930 1194

Minor Works Issued 290 282 277 254 292

Environmental Assessments 140 103 71 88 83

Environmental Master Plan Studies 3 3 3 7 1

Routine Infrastructure Issued 87 97 156 149 192

EA Permits Issued - - 127 124 128

Solicitor Inquiries 1017 964 949 1045 956

Concept Development Inquiries 152 163 170 150 153

Violations Issued 77 93 131 96 63

Permits Inspected - - 3857 4843 4254

Active OMB/MLC Hearings 18 41 31 52 51

Active Environmental Tribunal Hearings

- 2 2 2 2

Master Environmental Servicing Plans (MESPs)

14 17 18 15 25

Special Planning Committees/Studies

25 24 30 31 30

Official Plan Exercises 6 5 7 6 6

761

Attachment 2

SUMMARY OF PLANNING APPLICATION RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY 2010-2015

Local Municipality 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Adjala-Tos. 1 0 0 2 0 0

Ajax 14 12 12 15 14 11

Aurora 1 0 1 1 1 0

Brampton 31 57 65 46 55 39

Caledon 37 55 68 93 60 64

King 28 22 32 32 28 39

Markham 45 66 56 51 71 71

Mississauga 6 15 28 25 26 19

Mono 0 1 1 2 2 2

Niagara Esc. Com. 12 11 7 12 11 5

Pickering 25 26 24 21 6 18

Richmond Hill 84 115 157 129 124 110

Toronto 133 134 118 94 94 128

Uxbridge 6 7 5 12 3 3

Vaughan 103 130 114 112 118 98

Whitchurch-St. 7 5 19 10 5 27

Durham Region (region

apps.) 0 1 0 0 0 0

Peel Region (region apps.) 0 1 0 2 1 0

York Region (region apps.) 0 0 2 0 3 0

Other

SUB TOTAL: 533 658 709 659 622 633 Add Concept Development 159 152 172 167 190 152

TOTAL: 692 810 881 826 812 785

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES

Peel Region 86 139 168 178 153 128

York Region 268 338 381 335 350 347

Durham Region 45 46 41 48 23 20

Toronto 133 134 118 94 94 128

PLANNING TEAM Adjala, Brampton, Caledon,

Markham, Miss., Mono,

Richmond Hill

216 320 382 360 349 300

Aurora, King, Vaughan,

Whitchurch-Stouffvile 139 157 166 155 152 163

Ajax, Pickering, Toronto,

Uxbridge 178 179 159 142 117 160

762

Attachment 3 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES For Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES 2016-2017

Page 1 of 7 Revised to: 1/22/2016 3:03 PM

Introduction TRCA’s Fee Schedule for Permitting Services for Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) was adopted by Resolution #A237/13 of the Authority on XXXX, 2016. The Fee Schedule adheres to the Provincial Ministry of Natural Resources Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees, the TRCA’s Fee Policy Guideline 2009, and the range of planning services consistent with TRCA’s Memorandums of Understanding with area municipalities. The Fee Schedule includes a broad spectrum of fee categories within each application type to accurately cover the scale of work. The lower fees apply to minor and less complex applications, and modest scale efforts. Higher fees apply to more complex applications requiring a higher level of regulatory and technical review. The Fee Schedule also includes fees for services that assist with streamlining processing and approval efforts for the applicant, such as phased approvals, expedited review charges, red line revision processing (where possible), and a project management assistance fee. Administration of Applications and Fees (General Notes):

1. All permit application submissions and associated fees must be administered through the Planning and

Development Division of TRCA. 2. General inquiries and negotiation of fees will be directed through TRCA's planning area managers and the

Senior Director, Planning and Development on issues of interpretation and scoping of work requirements. 3. Pre-consultation - A pre-consultation meeting with TRCA staff to determine the scope of issues for the permit

application is mandatory. TRCA processing fees will be determined based on a predetermined scope of work. If through the application processing, the scope of the application changes, fee adjustments will be determined. All applications must be deemed complete, inclusive of fee submission, prior to commencement of submission processing.

4. Fee appeal process - Any dispute of fee calculations that can not be resolved through consultation with TRCA's Senior Director, Planning and Development and/or CEO's office, can be appealed through the Budget/Audit Advisory Board and/or the Authority. Delegation format is recommended for an appeal.

5. Any refunds, where applicable, will be approved by the Senior Director, Planning and Development. 6. The permit fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the TRCA. In the event that the permit fee is not

paid at the time of filing an application, the current fee as of the time of issuance of the permit must be paid prior to issuing a permit.

7. The TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort. Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical, and specialized modelling and may be charged to the applicant.

8. All permits are issued for two years. Requests for a permit issuance beyond the standard two year time period, (up to 5 years), will be subject to an additional fee of 50% of the current fee for each additional year to cover compliance monitoring and will require Executive Committee approval.

9. On a one-time basis, applicants may apply for a permit extension provided such requests are made 60 days prior to the expiration of an Ontario Regulation 166/06 permit. In the Application for Permit Re-issuance, applicants shall set out the reasons for which an extension is required. Requests for a permit extension/re-issuance beyond the standard two year time period, (up to 5 years), will be subject to an additional fee of 50% of the current fee for each additional year to cover compliance monitoring and will require Executive Committee approval.

10. TRCA reserves the right to adjust fees related to regulatory legislation changes or updates. 11. Expedited Review Additional Charge applies only to unanticipated circumstances requiring fast-tracked

approvals (primarily clearance), and can only be approved by Senior Director as staffing capability allows. 12. TRCA staff will process permit applications in accordance with Board approved policies and procedures, as per

Authority Resolutions A/198/13, A199/13 and A103/15, (i.e. Major, Standard Delegated, Minor Works, Routine Infrastructure Works). Permit fees are determined by TRCA as set out in this schedule based upon the scale and scope of the component of the project, independent of the administrative review process.

763

Attachment 3 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES For Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES 2016-2017

Page 2 of 7 Revised to: 1/22/2016 3:03 PM

Definitions Minor Ancillary (outside of hazard) – applies to projects that are partially or wholly within TRCA’s Regulated area, but are

entirely outside of all hazards (erosion, slope stability, floodplain). Applies to a single structure, resurfacing, individual site landscaping, with minor intrusion into Regulated Area. Does not include grading works, outfalls, habitable structures, or removal of features. No technical required. Site visits and meetings are not included. If a site visit or meeting is required, the application will be considered to be Minor, Standard or Major. Completion of a Concept Development application prior to submitting for a Minor Ancillary Permit is recommended. Minor Ancillary Residential - only applies to non-habitable minor ancillary structures and landscaping only applications

that are outside of all hazards, valley and stream corridors and are (entirely) setback a minimum of six metres from all hazards, and for which a technical review is not required. Does not include a site visit. Minor – projects for which a letter/response is required from TRCA (e.g. is located adjacent to a natural feature or natural

hazard area) which may affect the program or policy interests of the TRCA, and may require a site visit from a TRCA planner (only) or up to one meeting involving a TRCA planner .without TRCA technical staff. . Projects include ancillary structures such as decks, sheds, garages, and pools and placement of less than 30 cubic metres of fill. A maximum of one submission is included, after which, additional fees will apply. Completion of a Concept Development application prior to submitting for a Minor Permit is recommended. Standard – projects that meet TRCA policies, and require scoped technical review related to one technical discipline (e.g.

review of letter report. Projects include additions, minor additions or ancillary works in the floodplain, structures or buildings that are not within or directly adjacent to flooding or erosion hazards, and placement of fill (over 30 cubic metres) and associated grading/fill placement. May include one meeting or site visit with up to two staff members. A maximum of two submissions are included, after which, additional fees will apply. Completion of a Concept Development application prior to submitting for a Minor Permit is recommended. Major– projects that meet TRCA policies, and require technical analysis is required in up to two technical disciplines (e.g.

standard Environmental Impact Statement review and/or water management screening and assessment, or standard geotechnical review). Projects include additions, new structures or buildings; works in the floodplain and placement of fill (over 30 cubic metres) and associated grading/fill placement, and may include up to one site visit and one meeting. A maximum of two submissions are included, after which, additional fees will apply. Complex– projects which are significant in geographic area, and/or for which submission of several applicable technical

studies is required to demonstrate that TRCA or partner municipality program and policy interests can be met. Complex projects generally require more complex ecological, geotechnical, water resource engineering, hydrogeological, or fluvial geomorphic studies and assessment. Complex projects may require up to three technical team or planning meeting, and two or less site visits. Projects include major additions (greater than 50% of the original ground floor area), new structures or buildings; works in the floodplain; and the placement of 30 cubic metres or more of fill. A maximum of three submissions are included, after which, additional fees will apply. Additional charges will apply for additional meetings or site visits.

764

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES For Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) January, 2016

Page 3 of 7 Revised to: 1/22/2016 3:03 PM

Fee Schedule for Ontario Regulation 166/06 Applications

Application Type Application Fee New Fee Notes

Works on Private Residential Property

minor $380 standard $770 Major $1850 Complex $5,250

Minor Ancillary Residential 200** Minor $440 Standard $820 Major $1850 (new category) Complex $5250 (no change)

Municipal EA Projects See TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment and Infrastructure Permitting Services

See TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment and Infrastructure Permitting Services

Municipal Development Projects (NOT EA related)

$1,210 $5,500

Utilities : • Single residential • Development project based

See TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment and Infrastructure Permitting Services

765

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES For Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) January, 2016

Page 4 of 7 Revised to: 1/22/2016 3:03 PM

Application Type Application Fee New Fee Notes

Projects on Subdivision Lands, Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Properties, Recreation and Other Projects (per component). Ancillary Structures Minor Ancillary – Single Structure Only* (new) Minor Ancillary** - Other (per component, Ancillary Structures, Resurfacing, Individual Site Landscaping)- (new) Minor Projects: • Small-scale topsoil stripping/ individual property

temporary stormwater management • Minor outfalls • Minor Improvements (trails, minor recreational facilities,

etc.) Standard Projects: • Standard topsoil stripping/temporary stormwater

management • SWM Ponds and associated outfalls • Standard Road Crossings • Major Grading/Earth Works • Minor In-stream Remediation Works • Alterations/Restoration of Wetlands Major Projects: • Major Outfalls • Major Road Crossings • Natural Channel Modifications • Major filling (Subdivision, Commercial, Employment,

Institutional, others Complex Projects:

Relocation of Stream Corridor/New Channel Design • Complex Fill Project

per project $4,200 per project $8,400 per project $17,700 $17,700 $17,700 $19,680 $19,680

$820 $2,000 $5,500 $8,950 $18,600 $18,600 $18,600 $20,700 $20,700 $25,000 - $75,000

Must be outside of all hazards and valley and stream corridors, and are setback a minimum of six metres from all hazards. See definitions on Page 2. See definitions on Page 2.

766

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES For Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) January, 2016

Page 5 of 7 Revised to: 1/22/2016 3:03 PM

Application Type Application Fee New Fee Notes

All applications located in a Special Policy Area (SPA)will be charged a 50% or 100% premium on the applicable fee.

minor 25% major 75%

Minor (Ancillary Structures) 25% Standard 50% Major/Complex 100%

Permit Revisions – % of current fee. residential minor/major 25% others 50%

Individual residential 50% Others Minor revisions 25% Major revisions 50% Revision with Re-Issuance 75%

Permit Re-Issuance (Extension) -Ont. Regulation 166/06 50% of current fee

50%

Major or Complex Permit Application with Letter of Undertaking

$1000 in addition to all other permit fees.

Other Applicable Fees

Application Type Application Fee New Fee Notes

Additional Site Visit Charges: Planner Only (minor only) (Scoped staff – up to 2) (Scoped staff – up to 2) (team staff)

Up to 3 hours (including travel time) $350 up to ½ day $735 up to 1 day $1,470 $2,730

$350 $775 $1550 $2870

Includes travel time. First site visit is included as part of processing. Multiple field assessments, stakings and negotiations are charged separately. This is not a mandatory fee. This is a guidance tool at the request of the applicant.

GIS Fee - $50/hour + HST data preparation

- $30 + HST per .pdf or hard copy digital floodline map sheet (CAD)

- $125 + HST per digital floodline map sheet (CAD)

No Change

767

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES For Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) January, 2016

Page 6 of 7 Revised to: 1/22/2016 3:03 PM

Application Type Application Fee New Fee Notes

Engineering Data Request - $100 + HST for HEC-RAS modelling files associated with each floodline map sheet

- $225 + HST per map sheet (Combined hydraulic and modelling files)

No Change

Fish Timing Window Extension $5,775 $6065

Emergency Works $4,330 or as negotiated

100% premium, in addition to applicable permit fee.

Emergency Works fee to be added to applicable permit fee.

Red Line Revisions by TRCA minor $735 major $1,575

$775 $1655

Waterfront Development additional charge for shoreline engineering peer review.

$1,575 - $2,625 $1655-$2760 To be determined based on scope.

Optional Expedited Review additional charge (Director approved) – Percentage of current fee.

minor 25% major 50%

100% additional premium The Expedited Review charge applies to special circumstances around fast-tracked conditions for plan registration and completion of conditions to meet unanticipated circumstances. Applied only on Director’s approval and as workload allows. This generally applies to efforts that are required to be completed within 1 - 2 week period.

Optional Expedited Permit Issuance/ Re-issuance (Director Approved))

Additional 50% of current fee - Issuance timelines will be identified at the time of the request, based upon capacity of TRCA staff at that time.

Additional Meetings 25% TRCA will charge a fee directly to the applicant when additional meetings are required/requested beyond the number included in the base permit fee. The landowner will be notified of additional fees.

768

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule For PERMITTING SERVICES For Development, Interference with Wetlands & Alterations To Shorelines & Watercourses (Ontario Regulation 166/06) January, 2016

Page 7 of 7 Revised to: 1/22/2016 3:03 PM

Application Type Application Fee New Fee Notes

Repeat Submissions – Percentage of current fee for each additional submission

50% 100% - Minor Ancillary

TRCA will charge a fee directly to the applicant when technical reviews of required studies, plans, drawings and models go beyond the number of allotted submissions. first submission and 2 re-submissions. Notification will be provided in writing to the landowner where possible. For Minor Ancillary applications, only one submission is included in the application fee. Any additional submissions will be subject to a new application fee.

Project Management Assistance (voluntary as required)

minor $1,575 - $5,250 major to be negotiated

To be Negotiated. To be determined based on scope. Project Management Assistance fee is applied to assist applicants to address complex technical design issues to meet regulatory requirements. Working sessions are recommended.

Compliance Monitoring: • Permit Non-compliance • Compliance Reports-Clearance Letter

Negotiated Restoration Agreement

$2,310 $170 To be determined

$2425 $225

Fee to resolve each issue, exclusive of permit revision fee. Dependent upon Scope of violation

Voluntary compliance related to resolution of violation (only where supported by TRCA staff)

200% of related fee

769

Attachment 4 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES DRAFT 2016-2017

Page 1 of 12 Last Updated: Friday, January 22, 2016

Introduction

TRCA’s Fee Schedule for Planning Services was approved by Resolution # of the Authority on January XXXX, 2016. The Fee Schedule adheres to the Provincial Ministry of Natural Resources Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees, the TRCA’s Fee Policy Guideline 2009, and the range of planning services consistent with TRCA’s Memorandums of Understanding with area municipalities.

The Fee Schedule includes a broad spectrum of fee categories within each application type to accurately cover the scale of work. The lower fees apply to minor and less complex applications, and modest scale efforts. Higher fees apply to more complex applications requiring a higher level of planning and technical review. This Fee Schedule provides a layered approach, in which base fees are presented in the categories in the front portion of the fee schedule, with additional fees for specialized work in the back portion. These additional fees, (e.g. additional technical review, site visits and meetings) beyond the base fees, may apply. Where possible, TRCA staff will identify as early as possible when additional fees are necessary. We recommend that applicants with more complex applications familiarize themselves with the additional fees that may apply. The Fee Schedule also includes fees for services that assist with streamlining processing and approval for the applicant, such as phased approvals, expedited review, red line revisions (where possible), and project management assistance . Administration of Applications and Fees (General Notes): 1. All planning application submissions and associated fees are administered through the Planning and Development Division

of TRCA. 2. General inquiries and applicability of fees will be directed through TRCA's planning Senior Mangers or Associate Directors

on issues of interpretation and scoping of work requirements. 3. A pre-consultation meeting with the municipality and TRCA staff to determine the scope of issues for the planning

application should be held. TRCA processing fees will be determined based on a predetermined scope of work. If, the scope of the application changes throughout the review process, then fee adjustments will be determined. All applications must be deemed complete, inclusive of fee submission, prior to commencement of the review process.

4. Fee appeal process - Any dispute of fee calculations that can not be resolved through consultation with TRCA's Senior Director, Planning and Development and/or CEO’s office, can be appealed through the Budget/Audit Advisory Board and/or the Authority. Delegation format with justification of appeal request is recommended.

5. Any refunds, where applicable, will be approved by the Director, Planning and Development. 6. The application fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the municipality. The clearance fee will be paid

directly to the TRCA prior to a request for final clearance of an application. All payments must be made within 30 days of TRCA notification in writing. If application fees have not been paid at the time of submission of the application, fees will be assessed in accordance with the fee schedule in place at the time in which payment occurs. Interest will be charged and accumulated beyond 30 days.

7. Re-submission fees will be billed directly by the TRCA and must be paid prior to final clearance of an application. Only one set of fees applies when processing and reviewing a combined application (e.g. a combined Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Subdivision application), however, planning and permit fees are separate. For

combined planning applications, the highest rate of fees applies. Separate fees apply if the applications are received more than 3 months apart. For Minor concept development applications (only) that are immediately followed by associated permit applications, a credit of up to $100 of the Minor Concept Development fee may be applied to the permit application, at the discretion of the TRCA Planner.

8. The TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees or adjust fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort or for development application scenarios not captured in the Fee Schedule. Custom fees will be negotiated for optional expedited review or unique circumstances for large scale or complex review efforts. Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical and specialized modeling and may be charged to the applicant. TRCA reserves the right to re-assess fee requirements after one year of processing planning applications. Additional fees can be charged after one year and for excessive delays.

9. TRCA reserves the right to adjust fees to reflect new planning or regulatory legislative requirements. 10. Base geotechnical and hydrogeology review is included. Applications will be subject to an additional fee for complex

reviews and advisory services. TRCA will inform applicants as early as possible in the process. The standard additional charge is $2,100 and the major additional charge is $3,150 - $4,725 based on scope.

11. Any application that is inactive for 2years or more is considered dormant by TRCA and a new application (or top-up) for processing and fee purposes is required.

12. Federal Fisheries Act changes: Modifications have been made to the fee schedules to reflect recent amendments to the Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s (DFO) Level III partnership agreement under the Fisheries Act for development review applicants. TRCA will continue to

770

Attachment 4 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES DRAFT 2016-2017

Page 2 of 12 Last Updated: Friday, January 22, 2016

deliver services directed toward the protection, restoration and management of aquatic systems, including fish and fish habitat as an integral part of its watershed management and regulatory responsibilities as well as agreements with Ministry of Natural Resources and our memoranda of understanding with municipalities. Fish habitat information and field data will be provided to applicants as needed for the new Fisheries Act self assessment process or any DFO authorizations.

13. Application fees are due at the time of submission of the application. If application fees have not been paid at the time of submission of the application, fees will be assessed in accordance with the fee schedule in place at the time in which payment occurs.

Administration of Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) Applications

The Fee Schedule sets a base fee across the jurisdiction as follows:

Proposals 25ha or less: $ 7,875 Base Fee

Proposals greater than 25ha: $15,750 Base Fee

1. A baseline charge of $475 per gross hectare is applied to each application. The gross area includes natural systems.

2. An additional project management fee will be added to cover meetings for committee and team coordination, as well as, general meeting sessions (Range $25,000 - $50,000).

The following apply to MESP applications:

1. The Fee Schedule assumes an average 2 year timeframe for MESP completion. TRCA reserves the right to re-evaluate the MESP scope of work and progress related to fee status after a two year process. Additional fees will be added for extended timeframes and associated multiple reviews. Payment due for changes in scope and timeline at the 2-year review date.

Standard and Non-standard MESP/subwatershed Studies: Standard fee agreements – all new fee calculations will follow the base guidelines set herein with associated meeting

coordination allowances at the study outset. Timeline schedules and Terms of Reference set with the municipalities and landowners will assist in work flow and anticipated work program completion. All studies will be re-evaluated at the 2-year milestone (or as agreed in a Terms of Reference or upfront agreement) for changes in scope, extent of coordination, and anticipated cost to complete remaining stages of work. Extended project delays may need re-evaluation on an annual basis to fairly determine project progress and adjust work program scoping with the municipality and landowner group participation. All evaluations will be provided in writing. Fees are required to build capacity for complex reviews and to meet service delivery needs for all.

Non-Standard fee agreements – On occasion, study review requirements need to be adjusted to unique circumstances

to assist the municipality and/or landowners meet new conditions or timing considerations. These adjustments need to be incorporated into a non-standard MESP/subwatershed fee agreement to address variables in scheduling, numbers of reviews or staggered submissions, phasing, additional unanticipated technical reviews, updates and transitional files, reasonable expedited requirements. Changes to the base standard costing agreements will be negotiated on a time allowance basis upfront in a new process (when known) or at key annual evaluation milestones in active processes as noted above.

2. A Terms of Reference for the MESP work tasks must be prepared and agreed to by all parties including the municipality, TRCA and the proponent.

3. Fee charges apply to Residential and Industrial/Commercial Block planning. Non-participating landowners need to apply and pay the MESP component commensurate with current fee at the time.

4. All MESP fees are required at the initiation of the study or as negotiated through Terms of Reference and agreement.

The following alternative milestone payment structure still provides the minimum base payment schedule of older MESP agreements and can be adjusted through agreement.

MESP PHASE OF WORK PAYABLE

a. Preliminary Initiation (at Project start-up) (Scoping of MESP/Terms of Reference Initiation) Base Fee applies b. Terms of Reference completion/MESP Initiation 50% payable (Includes existing conditions report/field work/First MESP Submission/Review)

771

Attachment 4 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES DRAFT 2016-2017

Page 3 of 12 Last Updated: Friday, January 22, 2016

c. Prior to First Submission Comments 20% payable d. Prior to issuance of final MESP approval by TRCA (Maximum 3 review submissions) 30% payable

5. All official plan amendment, zoning and draft plans of subdivision fee requirements that evolve out of the Secondary/ Block Plan process and MESP process apply separately as per TRCA's approved Fee Schedule at the time of submission. No additional per lot charges will apply on draft plans of subdivision if an MESP is completed, approved and paid for.

6. Plans of subdivision that have not been studied under the MESP process will be charged an additional fee of $105 per unit, over and above the subdivision base and clearance fees (see schedule). Subdivisions not included as part of original MESP/Block Plan approval will be charged on a per unit basis for updated plans.

7. Construction permits for works under TRCA's provincial regulation are charged separately at the time of detailed design and construction of draft plan components (such as stormwater management facilities, road/bridge crossings, pipe boring and drilling works, stream channel works, etc).

Definitions The following definitions apply to applications to determine fee review category: Screening Letter – Projects that do not affect the program or policy interest of the TRCA and for which a clearance letter is being requested. Clearance may be provided in an e-mail. Site visits, meetings and technical or policy review are

not included, One submission of screening information is included. If the submission materials are updated or amended, a new fee will be applied. Screening Assessment – projects for which a letter is required from the TRCA (i.e. is located adjacent to a natural feature or

natural hazard area) but the proposal does not affect the program or policy interests of the TRCA and technical review comments are not required. One submission is included. If the submission materials are updated or amended, a new fee will be applied. Site visits and meetings are not included, If a site visit or meeting is required, the application will be considered to be Minor, Standard or Major. Minor – projects for which a letter/response is required from the TRCA (for properties located adjacent to a natural feature or

natural hazard area) which may affect the program or policy interests of the TRCA, and for which comments from the TRCA may be provided. Minor projects may require technical review related to only one technical discipline. Up to one site visit or

meeting with a TRCA Planner is included. Up to two submissions (initial and final) are included. Minor Subdivision (less than 5ha) are those with ten or fewer lots, for which a technical review is not required by TRCA, however, TRCA’s participation is necessary. Standard – projects that meet TRCA policies, and require scoped technical analysis in up to two technical disciplines (i.e.

scoped EIS review and/or water management screening and assessment, or standard geotechnical review). Up to one meeting and one site visit with a TRCA Planner and one TRCA technical staff member is included. Up to three submissions are included. Major – projects which are significant in geographic area, and/or for which submission of multi-disciplinary technical studies

are required to demonstrate that TRCA or partner municipality program or complex policy interests can be met (e.g. ORM, Rouge Park, NEC). Major projects generally require more complex ecological, geotechnical, water resource engineering, hydrogeological, or fluvial geomorphic studies and assessment. Major projects may require a site visit and up to two technical team or planning meetings. Up to three submissions are included. Complex – projects for which a full suite of applicable technical studies are required to demonstrate consistency with TRCA or

partner municipality program or complex policy interests (e.g. ORM, Rouge Park, NEC). Complex projects typically involve extensive modifications to the landscape. Complex projects may also be characterized by one or more of the following: a. The need for up to three working meetings and up to three submissions; b. The need for additional TRCA technical assessments (i.e. technical modeling refinements); c. Extensive technical study review in one or more of the following:, including complex hydrogeological, fluvial

geomorphology; natural channel design, wetland interference, environmental impact studies; Or, d. Require more than one day of TRCA fieldwork.

772

Attachment 4 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES DRAFT 2016-2017

Page 4 of 12 Last Updated: Friday, January 22, 2016

Additional Fees Unless otherwise stated, site visits are not included in the fees assessed for all screening letters and screening assessments, “Minor” applications in all categories, and Solicitor-Realtor enquiries. Should site visits be required, or be requested for applications in these categories, additional site visit fees will apply, in accordance with the site visit fees prescribed in this Fee Schedule. Incomplete/unconsolidated Submissions - A submission for review is deemed to be “incomplete” where TRCA has

identified requirements, and the application has not met all requirements. The following scenarios are examples of situations in which an application may be deemed incomplete or unconsolidated: 1. Where all technical or supporting studies that are required to meet TRCA’s submission requirements have not been provided with the application; 2. Where component studies are submitted in a piecemeal fashion, 3. Where the findings and analysis in component reports are not integrated in a multi-discipline submission (e.g. where an Environmental Impact Study, Functional Servicing Report, and Hydrogeological report are packaged together and each report has not considered the findings of the others), Applicant Driven Formal Modification - A fee for an “applicant driven formal modification” will be charged where plans are

submitted for review after the application has been formally circulated by, or received planning approval from the municipality, and TRCA review is still in progress/ on-going. File Continuation - Applicable to files that continue beyond two years from the date of submission of the application. At two

years, and two year intervals thereafter, if the applications are still in the review or approval process, application fees will need to be topped-up to current fees in the applicable fee schedule at that time. This is to be completed through a re-evaluation of the status of the application and scope of the review remaining, to review the need for any additional fee requirements. Major and Complex Files without Prior MESP (non-subdivision) – Where Major or Complex files, (Rezoning Applications,

Official Plan Amendments, Site Plans – not including subdivisions which are addressed separately) are submitted without an MESP, and an MESP has not been completed for the area within the past 10 years, may be subject to additional review fees. At the time of application, where possible, TRCA staff will identify whether additional fees are applicable. Additional charges will apply for additional meetings or site visits. Additional meetings will be assessed the same fee as additional site visits, inclusive of travel and preparation time, in accordance with the site visit fees identified herein.

773

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES PROPOSED AREAS FOR REVISION 2016

Page 5 of 12 Last Updated: Friday, January 22, 2016

Fee Schedule for Planning Services

Application Type Application Fee PROPOSED APPLICATION FEE

Clearance Fee PROPOSED CLEARANCE

FEE

Screening letter (Residential/Minor projects)

$85 $100 $0 $0

Screening letter – other agencies or parties

minor $85 major $150 complex $250

$100 $ 250 $ 1,000

Vulnerable Areas Screening Fees (Source Water Protection)

$85 $90

Source Water Protection – new services

Solicitor/Realtor Screening Service

$290 $325

774

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES PROPOSED AREAS FOR REVISION 2016

Page 6 of 12 Last Updated: Friday, January 22, 2016

Application Type Application Fee PROPOSED APPLICATION FEE

Clearance Fee PROPOSED CLEARANCE

FEE Concept Development/ Property Inquiry – Residential

minor $275 residential concept $750 standard $2,625 major $5,775 technical review $1,000 expedited real estate review $3,000

Minor $350 Standard $790 Major $3,215 Complex $6,065 Additional technical review $1,050 expedited real estate review $3,150 ((NEW)) Concept Development/Property Inquiry – Commercial, Industrial, Institutional Minor $750 standard $2,625 major $5,775 Complex Application specific fee

$0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0

Variance screening assessment $315 minor $525 major $1,680

Screening assessment minor $550 ((NEW))Industrial/Commercial/Subdivision/Institutional - minor $1,050 major $1,765

See notes

$0 $0 $0

Consent/Severance/Land Division (per lot)

screening assessment $315 minor $1,260 major $4,995

$550 $1325 $5345

$0 $0 $0

$0

775

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES PROPOSED AREAS FOR REVISION 2016

Page 7 of 12 Last Updated: Friday, January 22, 2016

Application Type Application Fee PROPOSED APPLICATION FEE

Clearance Fee PROPOSED CLEARANCE

FEE Single Residential Site Plan Minor $735

major $3,060

Minor (outside of hazard) $790 Standard $1250 major $3215 Complex $5775

$0

$665

$0 $250 $700 $1675

Site Plan minor $1,470 standard $5,250 major $18,375 complex $27,565

$2,050 $6,050 $20,000 $29,050

$1,000 $1,575 $3,940 $3,940

$1,050 $1,675 $4,150 $4,150

Multi-Unit Building Site Plan (Rental, Condominium, Mixed Use)

standard $15,910 major $41,020 complex $47,250

$16,700 $43,000 $50,000

$5,460 $15,040 $15,040

$5,750 $15,800 $15,800

Official Plan Amendment (OPA)

screening assessment $315 minor $1,680 standard $7,350 major $10,920 complex $15,330

$490 $2200 $8200 $12000 $20000

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Zoning By-law Amendment/ Rezoning (ZBA/RZ)

screening assessment $315 minor $1,680 standard $7,350 major $10,920 complex $15,330

$490 $2000 $8000 $12000 $20000

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Condominium Agreement Clearance – Admin/Registration

$2,500 $5,250

776

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES PROPOSED AREAS FOR REVISION 2016

Page 8 of 12 Last Updated: Friday, January 22, 2016

Application Type Application Fee PROPOSED APPLICATION FEE

Clearance Fee PROPOSED CLEARANCE

FEE Draft Plan of Subdivision (Residential/Industrial/ Commercial Subdivision) ***Minor – see definition.

less than 5ha Minor*** Standard $18,900 Major $34,125 Complex $45,935 5ha to 10ha Standard $27,300 Major $45,935 Complex $53,810 10ha to 25ha Standard $36,750 Major Complex $53,810 25ha and greater Standard $45,935 Major $49,800 Complex $59,900 For subdivisions with no MESP produced within the last 10 years, the subdivisions will be considered to be Major or Complex. Complex subdivisions without a current MESP will be subject to an additional per unit fee of $105/unit Per ha (if applicable) $475/ha

$6,000 $20,000 $35,000 $48,000 $28,655 $48,250 $56,500 $38,600 $49,800 $56,500 $48,250 $54,990 $59,900

$5,460 $15,040 $15,040 $12,035 $15,040 $15,040 $12,035 $15,040 $15,040 $15,040 $15,040

$2,625 $5,735 $15,800 $15,800 $15,800 $15,800 $15,800 $15,800 $15,800 $15,800 $15,800 $15,800

777

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES PROPOSED AREAS FOR REVISION 2016

Page 9 of 12 Last Updated: Friday, January 22, 2016

Application Type Application Fee PROPOSED APPLICATION FEE

Clearance Fee PROPOSED CLEARANCE

FEE

Clearance fee for Additional Subdivision Phases ***within one year of original subdivision clearance

standard $2,625 with new technical information $5,250

Standard - Within One Year (NEW)*** $2,760 Standard $5,250 with new technical information: Standard clearance fee

Golf Courses, Aggregate Pits or Large-scale Fill Operations *subject to additional technical review and project management services fees, as applicable.

$21,000 $40,000

$22,050 (base fee)* $42,000 (base fee)*

$0

Block and Tertiary Plans and Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP)(Residential & Industrial/Commercial)

Base fee 25ha or less $7,500 Base fee > 25ha $15,000 Comprehensive $475/ha & Project Management Fee $25,000-$50,000

$7,875 $15,750 $475/ha & Project Management Fee $25,000-$50,000

$0

Urban MESP & subwatershed study

Negotiated in a Terms of Reference Agreement.

Negotiated in a Terms of Reference Agreement.

778

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES PROPOSED AREAS FOR REVISION 2016

Page 10 of 12 Last Updated: Friday, January 22, 2016

Application Type Application Fee PROPOSED APPLICATION FEE

Clearance Fee PROPOSED CLEARANCE

FEE Optional Expedited Review per review* Optional Expedited Review for MESP subwatershed or major file* ((NEW)) Optional Expedited Clearance (2 weeks)* ((NEW)) Optional Expedited Clearance (1 week)* *as workload allows. Subject to availability of staff, and subject to Director approval.

$0 $0

$5,000 -20,000 Negotiated based upon scope of work and availability. Additional 75% premium of applicable fee. Additional 150% premium of applicable fee.

Other Applicable Fees

Description Fee Notes

Pre-consultation – meeting (Planner only) no charge Inflationary increases only.

Pre-consultation technical team site visit $2,730 $2870 This is not a mandatory fee. This is a guidance tool at the request of the applicant.Inflationary increase only.

((NEW)) Pre-consultation Technical Team Meeting Up to ½ day (including travel time) Up to 1 day (including travel time)

$1550 $2870

New Category.

779

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES PROPOSED AREAS FOR REVISION 2016

Page 11 of 12 Last Updated: Friday, January 22, 2016

Additional Site Visit Charges (Scoped staff) (Scoped staff) (team staff)

up to ½ day $735 up to 1 day $1,470 per day $2,730

$775 $1550 $2870

Includes travel time. First site visit is included as part of processing. Multiple field assessments, stakings and negotiations are charged separately. This is not a mandatory fee. This is a guidance tool at the request of the applicant. *Scoped staff - includes the planner and up to one more discipline.

Applicant Driven Formal Modification (requiring re-circulation)

minor $1,095 major $3,675

$1500 $5000

See Definitions on page 3. Current fees low – not reflective of cost.

Incomplete submission/ unconsolidated submission coordination – per submission.

Minor $1000 All Others $5,000 - $10,000

Additional Submissions – each submission beyond the third submission

Minor $1,000 All others $2,500 - $10,000

All applications located in a Special Policy Area and Flood Vulnerable Areas (will be charged a premium on the applicable fee).

minor 25% major 75%

Minor 50% major 100%

File Continuation All Files Top-up to current cost in fee schedule

Applicable to files that continue beyond two years from the date of submission of the application.

File Reactivation standard files $525 large files/OMB $1,000

$550 $1050

To reactivate files that have been inactive for 2 years or more.

Waterfront Development additional charge for shoreline engineering peer review

$1,575 - 2,625

$1655-$2760 To be determined based on scope.

GIS Fee - $50/hour + HST data preparation

- $30 + HST per .pdf or hard copy digital floodline map sheet (CAD)

- $125 + HST per digital floodline map sheet (CAD)

No Change

780

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for PLANNING SERVICES PROPOSED AREAS FOR REVISION 2016

Page 12 of 12 Last Updated: Friday, January 22, 2016

Engineering Data Request - $100 + HST for HEC-RAS modelling files associated with each floodline map sheet

- $225 + HST per map sheet (Combined hydraulic and modelling files)

No Change

Optional Provincial Plan Conformity – technical advisory Change to: Optional Terms of Reference Review (EIS, Provincial Plan conformity, Master Plan – not related to an MESP) technical advisory

$250 - $1000 Minor $250 Major $500- $1000

Fee scoped as per application issue. Not a mandatory fee.

Archaeological screening – on TRCA lands only $500+ HST +HST $525+ HST Works on TRCA’s lands require an archaeological assessment by a TRCA Archaeologist. Through the screening process, the archaeologist will determine if any investigation is required. Additional fees will be charged for archaeological investigations.

Collaborative meetings and technical review related to settlement, when applicable

$5,000 - $20,000 Not a mandatory fee. Dependent upon number of TRCA staff involved, number of meetings and submissions.

TRCA Project Management Fee (to assist with coordinating TRCA’s reviews and project timelines associated with TRCA reviews)

$5,000- $20,000 Not a mandatory fee. Dependent upon number of TRCA staff involved, number of meetings and submissions.

781

Attachment 5 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES February 1, 2016

Page 1 of 14 [EA201405-R1]

Introduction

TRCA’s Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment and Permitting Services was adopted by Resolution #A237/13 of the Authority Board on January 31, 2014. The Fee Schedule was developed in consultation with municipalities through an assessment of service delivery which adheres to the Provincial Ministry of Natural Resources Policies and Procedures for Charging of Conservation Authority Fees, the TRCA’s Fee Policy Guideline 2009, and the range of Environmental Assessment (EA) or Infrastructure Review services consistent with TRCA’s Service Delivery Agreements and/or Memorandums of Understanding with area municipalities or agencies.

The Fee Schedule includes a broad spectrum of fee categories within each application type to accurately cover the scale of work. The lower fees apply to minor and less complex applications, and modest scale review efforts. Higher fees apply to more complex applications requiring a higher level of EA and technical review. The Fee Schedule also includes fees for services that assist with streamlining processing and approval efforts for the applicant, such as phased approvals, expedited review charges and red line revision processing (where possible).

General Notes

1. All EA and permit application submissions and associated fees must be administered through the Planning and Development Division of TRCA.

2. General inquiries and negotiation of fees will be directed through TRCA's EA Associate Director or the Senior Director, Planning, Greenspace and Communications on issues of interpretation and scoping of work requirements.

3. Pre-consultation - A pre-consultation meeting with TRCA staff to determine the scope of issues for the EA or permit application is recommended for standard or complex applications. TRCA processing fees will be determined based on a predetermined scope of work. If through the review process, the scope of the application changes, fee adjustments will be determined. All applications must be deemed complete, inclusive of fee submission, prior to commencement of submission processing.

4. Fee appeal process - Any dispute of fee calculations that cannot be resolved through consultation with TRCA's S e n i o r Director, Planning, Greenspace and Communications and/or CEO's office, can be appealed through the Budget/Audit Advisory Board and/or the Authority. Delegation format with justification of appeal request is recommended.

5. Any refunds, where applicable, will be approved by the EA Associate Director or the Senior Director, Planning, Greenspace and Communications.

6. The application fee will be paid at the time of filing an application to the TRCA. Applications will not be processed until fees are received unless approved by the TRCA's EA Associate Director or the Senior Director, Planning, Greenspace and Communications.

7. All permits are issued for two years. Requests for an initial permit issuance beyond the standard two year time period, (up to 5 years), will be subject to an additional fee of 50% of the current fee for each additional year to cover compliance monitoring and will require Executive Committee approval.

8. On a one-time basis, applicants may apply for a permit reissuance/extension provided such requests are made 60 days prior to the expiration of an Ontario Regulation 166/06 permit. In the Application for Permit Reissuance, applicants shall set out the reasons for which an extension is required. Requests for a permit extension/reissuance beyond the standard two year time period, (up to a total of 5 years), will be subject to an additional fee of 50% of the current fee for each additional year to cover compliance monitoring and will require Executive Committee approval.

9. Generally, only one set of fees applies when processing and reviewing a combined application (e.g. an EA Property Screening or Inquiry or an Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application). The highest rate of fees applies. However, when there are two separate approvals required, such as a permit and site plan review, two separate fees are applied in accordance with the respective fee schedules.

10. TRCA reserves the right to request additional fees should the review require a substantially greater level of effort (e.g., Environmental Management Plan Review). Peer reviews may also be required for shoreline works, geotechnical and specialized modeling and may be charged to the applicant.

11. All application fees (except EA Property Screening or Inquiry) include one initial site visit, if needed, up to ½ day for minor or standard files and up to 1 day for major or complex files.

12. Specific Service Delivery Agreements take precedent over the fee schedule. 13. For Class Environmental Assessments, the schedules or categories specific to the respective class EA

document or environmental assessment review procedures of utility boards or commissions, such as oil or gass pipelines, or electricity generation, will be applied.

14. Planning Act application rates can be found in the TRCA Planning Services Fee Schedule.

15. Routine Infrastructure Works Application review is subject to the respective TRCA procedure.

16. Emergency Infrastructure Works Application review is subject to the respective TRCA procedure.

782

Attachment 5 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES February 1, 2016

Page 2 of 14 [EA201405-R1]

17. Development activities within regulated areas that are on lands owned by, and/or conducted by, a provincial or federal agency, are exempt from the regulatory approval process under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. As such, permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 are not required. Notwithstanding, the TRCA Voluntary Project Review process may apply as per #6 of the Proponents and Projects Exempt from the TRCA Regulatory Approval Process below, and review fees will be charged. It should be noted that other legislation and approvals may apply to these projects and it is the responsibility of the proponent to obtain such approvals.

18. Development activities within regulated areas that are conducted by proponents identified through legislation as being exempt from the regulatory approval process under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act, do not

require permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06. Notwithstanding, the TRCA Voluntary Project Review process may apply as per #6 of the Proponents and Projects Exempt from the TRCA Regulatory Approval Process below, and review fees will be charged. It should be noted that other legislation and approvals may apply to these projects and it is the responsibility of the proponent to obtain such approvals.

19. Unless noted above (#17 or 18) development activities within regulated areas, watercourse or wetlands on lands through which an easement, or other form of permission, has been obtained from a crown agency are not exempt from the regulatory approval process of the Conservation Authorities Act. This includes, but is not limited to municipal, gas, oil, electricity or utility projects.

20. Minor project review means that no or limited technical Natural Heritage Impact Studies and engineering review reports are required as part of the submission, together with detailed design drawings if appropriate; standard project review means that scoped technical studies or reports are required as part of the submission (such as hydrology, ecological, stormwater), together with detailed design drawings if appropriate. Major and complex project review means that comprehensive technical studies or reports are required as part of the submission (such as meander belt, hydrogeology, geotechnical, environmental impact studies) together with detailed design drawings if appropriate.

21. TRCA has extensive environmental and cultural data that is available for use by the proponent, subject to the waiver of a legal disclaimer and the provision of user fees. Where there are data sharing agreements in place, municipalities are exempt from these fees and the data will be provided free of charge. All others are expected to purchase data as per the fee schedule. Current data sharing agreements are in place with all municipalities in t h e TRCA jurisdiction, as well as the Ministry of Natural Resources, and various service agreement partners.

Proponents and Projects Exempt from the TRCA Regulatory Approval Process

1. In accordance with the Crown Agency Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 48, s.1, and the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. 27, the following Crown corporations or agencies are exempt from the regulatory approval process under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act:

Metrolinx

GO Transit

Hydro One* (and local subsidiaries, such as Brampton Hydro One)

Ministry of Transportation

Ontario Realty Corporation (Infrastructure Ontario)

Ministry of Natural Resources

Greater Toronto Airports Authority

Parc Downsview Park

* A memorandum of understanding (MOU) has been negotiated with Hydro One and Conservation Ontario and applies to all conservation authorities, including TRCA. The MOU prescribes the communication process to be followed between Hydro One and conservation authorities, as well as best management practices that may be implemented by Hydro One when carrying out construction or maintenance operations. Consultation with conservation authorities is required prior to all planned and emergency activities. It is acknowledged that conservation authorities may charge review fees. Permission to enter is required for works on conservation authority-owned lands, including access.

783

Attachment 5 TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES February 1, 2016

Page 3 of 14 [EA201405-R1]

2. In accordance with the Canadian Transportation Act*, railways are exempt from the regulatory approval process

under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act for works essential to railway operations:

Canadian National Railway

Canadian Pacific Railway

* Under the provisions of the Canadian Transportation Act, CN and CP railway companies are exempt from the regulatory approval process under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act for all works that are

essential to railway operations. These works include, but are not limited to, watercourse alterations and diversions, culvert and bridge modifications, and the construction of tunnels, embankments, bridges and roads. However, the railway is to do as little damage as possible and is to restore watercourses as near as possible t o its former condition.

3. In accordance with CPC-2-0-03 — Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, antenna systems and towers (e.g., Rogers, Bell and TELUS), are exempt from Environmental Assessment Act, Planning Act, and Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act processes and requirements and are the direct responsibility of Industry Canada. Notwithstanding, there are provisions for stakeholder consultation that generally applies to all new towers greater than 15 metres in height. Proponents of these facilities will often use the site plan process under the Planning Act to facilitate such communication.

4. Environmental Assessment Act Requirements:

If projects are subject to a federal or provincial environmental assessment, review fees will be charged.

5. Planning Act Requirements:

If proponents are subject to review under the Planning Act, or seek approval under the Planning Act on a voluntary basis, review fees will be charged.

6. Detailed Design Requirements:

TRCA Permits: These proponents are exempt from the TRCA regulatory approval process (i.e., permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06 are not required),

TRCA Voluntary Project Review:

Proponents may seek TRCA review on a voluntary basis. In such cases, TRCA will charge review fees to compensate for its time. In cases where the proponent requires TRCA Voluntary Project Review for a particular project, TRCA will charge the proponent review fees to compensate for its time.

Fisheries Act Approvals: Proponents are responsible for obtaining appropriate approvals independent of TRCA. Under the Fisheries Act self-assessment process, a proponent can voluntarily seek advice from TRCA as to whether the project is likely to cause “serious harm to fish”. In these instances TRCA, through its review, will assess if the project is likely to cause “serious harm to fish” and advise the proponent. Proponents are responsible for obtaining appropriate approvals independent of TRCA under the Fisheries Act Self-Assessment process. A proponent can voluntarily seek confirmation from TRCA as to whether the proposal project includes the appropriate measures to avoid causing harm to fish and fish habitat as per the requirements of the DFO Self-Assessment process.

Federal and Provincial Endangered Species Act Approvals:

Proponents are responsible for obtaining appropriate approvals independent of TRCA.

784

Page 4 of 14 [EA201405-R1]

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES February 1, 2016

National and Ontario Energy Board Applications

1. National and Ontario Energy Board Applications are a matter of exclusive federal or provincial jurisdiction, respectively, with the board itself being responsible for all decisions. Through these processes, proponents are required to consult community stakeholders, including conservation authorities. TRCA can choose to comment on these applications through the commenting process established by the NEB or OEB. While there are no provisions that would allow TRCA to charge review fees for participation in a NEB or OEB process, if conditions for NEB or OEB approval specifically require TRCA involvement, appropriate fees will be negotiated on a project specific basis.

2. On a case by case basis, an NEB or OEB application may also be subject to the federal or provincial Environmental Assessment Act. In these cases, the appropriate review fee will be charged.

3. These projects are not exempt from provisions under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act and

as such, proponents are not exempt from review fees or the TRCA regulatory approval process (i.e., permits in accordance with Ontario Regulation 166/06) are required.

4. These proponents may or may not be exempt from approvals under the Fisheries Act or the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act and are responsible for obtaining the appropriate approvals independent of TRCA. In accordance with the self-assessment provisions of the Fisheries Act, through the permitting process TRCA will advise the proponent if the project is likely to cause “serious harm to fish”. A proponent can voluntarily seek confirmation from TRCA as to whether the project proposal includes the appropriate measures to avoid causing harm to fish and fish habitat as per the requirements of the DFO Self-

Assessment process.

785

Page 5 of 14 [EA201405-R1]

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES February 1, 2016

Fee Schedule for Environmental Assessment Review

Application Type Application Fee Revised Fee 2016 Notes

Master Plan Minor $11,550 Standard $20,475

Major/Complex $28,875

Minor $12,130 Standard $21,500

Major $26,150

Complex $30,020

Increases reflect:

a) 5% increase from 2014

b) Separation of Major/Complex; new Major Fee

Subject to negotiation

Individual EA $28,875 $30,020

Increases reflect:

a) 5% increase from 2014

Subject to negotiation

Class EA – Schedule/

Category C or equivalent

Minor $5,775 Standard $12,075

Major/Complex $18,480

Minor $9,105 Standard $12,680 Major $20,340 Complex $22,970

Increases reflect:

a) 5% increase from 2014

b) Increase to reflect accurate costing of site visits and meeting times (previously undercharged)

c) Separation of Major/Complex; new Major Fee

Class EA – Schedule/

Category B or equivalent

Minor $5,515 Standard $9,345

Major/Complex $12,810

Minor $5,790 Standard $9,810 Major $12,195 Complex $13,745

Increases reflect:

a) 5% increase from 2014, except “Major” which has a

slight reduction

b) Separation of Major/Complex; new Complex Fee

EA Addendum Reports Minor $2,100 Standard $3,045 Major/Complex $3,990

Minor $2,205 Standard $3,195

Major/Complex $5,760

Increases reflect:

a) 5% increase from 2014

b) Additional charges to Major/Complex to reflect use of entire technical team; add the word “Complex”

786

Page 6 of 14 [EA201405-R1]

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES February 1, 2016

Additional Site Visit Charges

up to ½ day $735 up to 1 day $1,470

Minor $1,405

Standard $2,605

Major/Complex $4,125

Increases reflect:

a) 5% increase from 2014

b) Additional charges to the planning time associated with booking meetings, reviewing materials and reviewing minutes.

c) Standard fee is new

The first site visit is included as part of the application review fee

Additional Meeting Charges

In TRCA Offices:

Minor/Standard $990

Major/Complex $1,565

In Client/Consultant/Municipal Offices:

Minor/Standard $1,405

Major/Complex $2,225

Increases reflect:

a) New fees

Standard meetings are included in EA standard service delivery. Additional meetings may be required at the proponent’s request.

EA Property Screening or Inquiry

$280 $295

Increases reflect:

a) 5% increase from 2014

To be deducted from the application fee if additional review is required.

GIS Fee - $50/hour + HST data preparation

- $30 + HST per .pdf or hard copy digital flood line map sheet (CAD)

- $125 + HST per digital flood line map sheet (CAD)

- $100 for HEC-RAS modelling files associated with each flood line map sheet

- $50/hour + HST data preparation

- $30 + HST per .pdf or hard copy digital flood line map sheet (CAD)

- $125 + HST per digital flood line map sheet (CAD)

- $100 for HEC-RAS modelling files associated with each flood line map sheet

Municipalities, Ministry of Natural Resources and service agreement partners are exempt

,

787

Page 7 of 14 [EA201405-R1]

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES February 1, 2016

Fee Schedule for Permit Review

Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Application

Application Type Application Fee Note1 Revised Fee 2016 Notes

Individual or Municipal Class EA or Schedule B & C or equivalent

Service Agreement $3,045

Minor $4,200 Standard $8,400 Major $14,175 Complex * $15,750

Service Agreement $3,195

Minor $4,410 Standard $8,820 Major $16,060

Complex * $17,240

Increases reflect:

a) 5% increase from 2014

b) Major/Complex – increases

reflect accurate staffing costs

Minor - EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions (including final)

Standard/Major/Complex - EA Service Delivery assumes three submissions (including final)

* A site specific discussion

related to size and complexity of the application will be conducted. Municipal Class EA –

Schedule A/A+ or equivalent.

Service Agreement $1,260

Minor $2,625 Major $3,990

Service Agreement $1,325

Minor $3,475

Standard $4,190

Major $6,750

Increases reflect:

a) 5% increase from 2014

b) Increase to reflect accurate staff costing of site visits

c) Separation of Major/Complex; new Standard category; New Major Fee

EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions (including final)

Routine Infrastructure Works

Service Agreement $370 Minor $790

Major $1,470

Service Agreement $390 Minor $1,750 Major $2,500

Increases reflect:

a) 5% increase from 2014

b) Increase to reflect accurate staff costing of site visits

EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions (including final)

Emergency Infrastructure Works

$4,330 100% of current fee

Increases reflect:

a) Charge Double the Regular Fee to Reflect Expedited Service and account for additional Enforcement & Compliance

To be added to the applicable permit review fee

Meet requirements of TRCA Emergency Infrastructure Works Protocol.

DFO Offsetting Advice To be determined To be determined Subject to negotiation

788

Page 8 of 14 [EA201405-R1]

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES February 1, 2016

Permit Screening or Screening

$280 $295

Increases reflect:

a) 5% increase from 2014

To be deducted from the permit review fee if a permit is required

TRCA Archaeology Screening – TRCA Lands Only

$500 + HST $525+ HST

Increases reflect:

a) 5% increase from 2014

Works on TRCA’s lands require an archaeological assessment by a TRCA Archaeologist. Through the

screening process, the archaeologist will determine if an investigation is required. Additional fees will be charged for archaeological investigations.

GIS Fee - $50/hour + HST data preparation

- $30 + HST per .pdf or hard copy digital flood line map sheet (CAD)

- $125 + HST per digital flood line map sheet (CAD)

- $100 for HEC-RAS modelling files associated with each flood line map sheet

- $50/hour + HST data preparation

- $30 + HST per .pdf or hard copy digital flood line map sheet (CAD)

- $125 + HST per digital flood line map sheet (CAD)

- $100 for HEC-RAS modelling files associated with each flood line map sheet

Municipalities, Ministry of Natural Resources and service agreement partners are exempt

Additional Submissions 25% for each additional submission

25% for each additional submission

Additional Site Visit Charges

up to ½ day $735 up to 1 day $1,470

Minor $1,405

Standard $2,605

Major/Complex $4,125

Increases reflect:

a) 5% increase from 2014

b) Additional charges to the planning time associated with booking meetings, reviewing materials and reviewing minutes.

c) Standard fee is new

The first site visit is included as part of the application review fee

789

Page 9 of 14 [EA201405-R1]

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES February 1, 2016

Additional Meeting Charges

In TRCA Offices:

Minor/Standard $990

Major/Complex $1,565

In Client/Consultant/Municipal Offices:

Minor/Standard $1,405

Major/Complex $2,225

Increases reflect:

b) New fees

Standard meetings are included in EA standard service delivery. Additional meetings may be required at the proponent’s request.

Note 1: Application Fee - The original permit is issued for 2 years. For permit issued for a longer time period (up to 5

years), the permit reissuance/extension fee of 50% of the original permit fee will apply for each additional year (i.e., each of years 3, 4 and 5). These fees cover the compliance monitoring fees. All permit reissuances/extensions require Executive Committee approval.

790

Page 10 of 14 [EA201405-R1]

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES February 1, 2016

Fee Schedule Voluntary Project Review Note 2

Application Type Application Fee Revised Fee 2016 Notes

Individual or Municipal Class EA or Schedule B & C or equivalent

Service Agreement $3,045

Minor $4,200 Standard $8,400 Major $14,175 Complex * $15,750

Service Agreement $3,195

Minor $4,410 Standard $8,820 Major $16,060

Complex * $17,240

Increases reflect:

c) 5% increase from 2014

d) Major/Complex – increases

reflect accurate staffing costs

Minor - EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions (including final)

Standard/Major/Complex - EA Service Delivery assumes three submissions (including final)

* A site specific discussion

related to size and complexity of the application will be conducted.

Municipal Class EA – Schedule A/A+ or equivalent.

Service Agreement $1,260

Minor $2,625 Major $3,990

Service Agreement $1,325

Minor $3,475

Standard $4,190

Major $6,750

Increases reflect:

d) 5% increase from 2014

e) Increase to reflect accurate staff costing of site visits

f) Separation of Major/Complex; new Standard category; New Major Fee

EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions (including final)

Routine Infrastructure Works

Service Agreement $370 Minor $790

Major $1,470

Service Agreement $390 Minor $1,750 Major $2,500

Increases reflect:

c) 5% increase from 2014

d) Increase to reflect accurate staff costing of site visits

EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions (including final)

Emergency Infrastructure Works

$4,330 100% of current fee

Increases reflect:

b) Charge Double the Regular Fee to Reflect Expedited Service and account for additional Enforcement & Compliance

To be added to the applicable permit review fee

Meet requirements of TRCA Emergency Infrastructure Works Protocol.

DFO Offsetting Advice To be determined To be determined Subject to negotiation

791

Page 11 of 14 [EA201405-R1]

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES February 1, 2016

Permit Site Screening or Clearance

$280 $295

Increases reflect:

b) 5% increase from 2014

To be deducted from the permit review fee if a permit is required

TRCA Archaeology Screening – TRCA Lands Only

$500 + HST $525+ HST

Increases reflect:

b) 5% increase from 2014

Works on TRCA’s lands require an archaeological assessment by a TRCA Archaeologist. Through the screening process, the archaeologist will determine if an investigation is required. Additional fees will be charged for archaeological investigations.

GIS Fee - $50/hour + HST data preparation

- $30 + HST per .pdf or hard copy digital flood line map sheet (CAD)

- $125 + HST per digital flood line map sheet (CAD)

- $100 for HEC-RAS modelling files associated with each flood line map sheet

- $50/hour + HST data preparation

- $30 + HST per .pdf or hard copy digital flood line map sheet (CAD)

- $125 + HST per digital flood line map sheet (CAD)

a) $100 for HEC-RAS modelling files associated with each flood line map sheet

Municipalities, Ministry of Natural Resources and service agreement partners are exempt

Additional Submissions 25% for each additional submission

25% for each additional submission

Additional Site Visit Charges

up to ½ day $735 up to 1 day $1,470

Minor $1,405

Standard $2,605

Major/Complex $4,125

Increases reflect:

d) 5% increase from 2014

e) Additional charges to the planning time associated with booking meetings, reviewing materials and reviewing minutes.

f) Standard fee is new

The first site visit is included as part of the application review fee

792

Page 12 of 14 [EA201405-R1]

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES February 1, 2016

Additional Meeting Charges

In TRCA Offices:

Minor/Standard $990

Major/Complex $1,565

In Client/Consultant/Municipal Offices:

Minor/Standard $1,405

Major/Complex $2,225

Increases reflect:

c) New fees

Standard meetings are included in EA standard service delivery. Additional meetings may be required at the proponent’s request.

Note 1: Voluntary Project Review - The activities of all federal and provincial Crown corporations are exempt from conservation authority permitting activities under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act and under Ontario Regulation 166/06 – Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses. Projects on lands owned by a Crown corporation and on behalf of a Crown corporation are also exempt (see “Proponents and Projects Exempt from the TRCA Regulatory Approval Process #1” on page 2). Recognizing this exemption, and in the absence of the formal permitting process, Crown

corporations may voluntarily request TRCA to review and comment on detailed design activities associated with project construction, maintenance or emergency activities. If requested, TRCA will provide an opinion as to whether the project and its implementation will cause “serious harm to fish” as per the self-assessment process under the Fisheries Act. Proponents are responsible for obtaining appropriate approvals independent of TRCA under the Fisheries Act Self-Assessment process. A proponent can voluntarily seek confirmation from TRCA as to whether the project proposal includes the appropriate measures to avoid causing harm to fish and fish habitat as per the requirements of the DFO Self-Assessment process.

793

Page 13 of 14 [EA201405-R1]

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES February 1, 2016

Fee Schedule for Revisions and Permit Reissuances/Extensions

Application Type Application Fee 2016 modifications

Notes

Revision to Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit

Minor/Standard change - 25% of current fee

Major/Complex change - 50% of current fee

EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions.

Revision to Voluntary Project Review Minor/Standard change - 25% of current fee

Major/Complex change - 50% of current fee

EA Service Delivery assumes two submissions.

Ontario Regulation 166/06 Permit Reissuance/Extension (one-time only)

50% of current fee for each additional year {note added for clarity; no change proposed}

See General Notes #8 on page 1.

Revision to MNR Fisheries Timing Window – Request for Extension

$5,775

$6,065

Increases reflect:

a) 5% increase from 2014

TRCA will review request and if appropriate, provide clearance if a Fisheries Timing Window Extension is required to facilitate project implementation. Note that MNR is responsible for timing window modifications related to endangered aquatic species.

Fee Schedule for Environmental Management Plans

Application Type Application Fee Revised Fee 2016 Notes

Environmental Management Plan

Minor $2,100 Standard $5,775 Major $11,550

Minor $4,380

Standard $8,845

Major $14,005

Complex $17,035

Increases reflect:

g) 5% increase from 2014

h) Increase to reflect accurate staff costing of site visits

i) Separation of new Complex Fee

Service agreement partners are exempt. EA Service Delivery assumes three submissions. An EMP may be required as part of the Voluntary Project Review process; appropriate fees will apply.

Repeat Submission 25% for each additional submission

25% for each additional submission

794

Page 14 of 14 [EA201405-R1]

TRCA Administrative Fee Schedule for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT and INFRASTRUCTURE PERMITTING SERVICES February 1, 2016

Fee Schedule for Compliance Monitoring*

Application Type Application Fee Notes

Permit Non-Compliance – Unauthorized Works

Additional 100% of applicable permit fee or fees

Fee to resolve each issue. Fee includes up to two site visits. As needed, “Additional Site Visit” fees will be charged.

Permit Non-Compliance – Authorized Works

Additional 50% of applicable permit fee

Fee to resolve each issue, exclusive of permit revision fee. Fee includes up to two site visits.

As needed, “Additional Site Visit” fees will be charged.

Additional Site Visit Charges up to ½ day $735

$775

up to 1 day $1,470 $1550

Increases reflect:

a) 5% increase from 2014

Additional fees will be charged to projects where ongoing compliance warrants follow-up visits:

1. Up to two site visits are included as part of the initial permit or voluntary project review application.

2. Up to one site visit fee is included in the revision fee.

3. Up to one site visit fee is included in the permit reissuance/extension fee.

Environmental Management Plan Compliance

To be determined Subject to negotiation

Review of Compliance Reports Included in the permit review fee Review and comment on compliance reports as required through the permitting or Voluntary Project Review processes.

Negotiated Restoration Agreements To be determined Based on the scope of compliance issue.

* Note: Service agreement partners are not exempt from Compliance Monitoring Fees unless otherwise noted in specific agreements.

795

RES.#A261/15 - DENISON ROAD WEST MAJOR MAINTENANCE PROJECT Contracts #10001349 and #10001348. Award of Contracts #10001349 and

#10001348 for the supply and delivery of approximately 4,500 tonnes of 150 – 300 mm gabion stone, and approximately 5,500 tonnes of 3 – 5 tonne armourstone, respectively.

Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Jennifer Drake THAT Contract #10001349 for the supply and delivery of approximately 4,500 tonnes of 150 – 300 mm gabion stone to the Denison Road West Major Maintenance Project in the City of Toronto, be awarded to Glenn Windrem Trucking for a total unit price of $31.40 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $141,300.00, plus a contingency of 10% to be expended as authorized by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; THAT Contract #10001348 for the supply and delivery of approximately 5,500 tonnes of 3 – 5 tonne armourstone to the Denison Road West Major Maintenance Project in the City of Toronto, be awarded to B-Town Group for a total unit price of $54.15 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $297,825.00, plus a contingency of 10% to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff, plus HST, it being the lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; THAT should staff be unable to achieve an acceptable contract with the awarded suppliers, staff be authorized to enter into and conclude contract negotiations with the other suppliers that submitted quotations, beginning with the next lowest bidder meeting TRCA specifications; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND The erosion issues affecting the east valley wall of the Humber River below Denison Road West and Sykes Avenue have been of concern to TRCA for several years. An armourstone and rip rap revetment, approximately 350m in length, was constructed by TRCA in 1981 to provide toe protection along the lower slope. Despite the toe protection, severe storms such as those on August 9, 2005 and July 8, 2013 have seen water levels overtop the armourstone and scour the lower slope, triggering failures. In 2009, TRCA retained Golder Associates Limited to undertake a geotechnical assessment along the east bank of the Humber River below Denison Road West and Sykes Avenue. The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate the stability of the slope and the condition of the existing armourstone wall, and to determine the Long Term Stable Slope Crest (LTSSC) position in relation to the residential properties and dwellings on the tableland. The LTSSC determined through the geotechnical assessment showed there is currently a long term risk to the properties and dwellings along the tableland. The report stated that ongoing slope instability is expected to continue if slope stabilization and erosion control measures are not implemented. The Golder report included several conceptual slope rehabilitation designs, and TRCA determined that the options involving constructing a higher toe protection wall in conjunction with upper slope stabilization works were the most feasible. The Golder report was used to inform a Request for Proposal for a Detailed Design of Erosion Control Works issued by TRCA in 2015.

796

In August 2015, TRCA retained Terraprobe Incorporated to undertake a detailed design for erosion control works that will protect the lower slope to the Regional Flood Elevation. The purpose of the design is to provide more robust toe protection and mitigate risk to the residential properties located on the tableland. The project area is located along a 170 metre section of the lower slope of the valley wall at the rear of 48, 50, 52, and 66 Denison Road West, as well as 28 Sykes Avenue, in the City of Toronto. Terraprobe’s design recommended a replacement armourstone retaining wall, measuring approximately 6.5 metres in height, with gabion stone backfill. The wall will extend at least 0.3 metres above the Regional Flood Elevation and will be embedded a minimum of 0.6 metres into the shale riverbed. Although it is less common to design to the Regional Flood Elevation, given the risk to the properties on the tableland along Denison Drive and Sykes Avenue, and the increasing frequency of storms that are surpassing the 100 year flood elevation, the Regional Flood Elevation was determined to be appropriate at this site by TRCA technical staff. The lower slope is primarily TRCA property, and the upper slope is located on private property. Upper slope stabilization works are to be planned and implemented in accordance with the Conservation Ontario Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects process at a later date. The 3-5 tonne armourstone will be used to construct the proposed armourstone retaining wall. The 150 – 300 mm gabion stone will be used to provide the drainage layer for the proposed armourstone retaining wall. RATIONALE Request for Tender #10001349 and #10001348 were publicly advertised on the electronic procurement website Biddingo (http://www.biddingo.com/) on Friday, December 11, 2015, and quotation packages were sent to 27 suppliers as follows:

Allstone Quarry Products Inc.;

Arnts: The Landscape Supplier;

Bot Aggregates Limited.;

Brent Quarry;

Brock Aggregates Inc.;

B-Town Group;

Cambridge Aggregates;

CDR Young’s Aggregates Inc.;

Dufferin Aggregates;

Earthco Soil Mixtures;

Fowler Construction;

Glenn Windrem Trucking;

J.C. Rock Limited;

J. Jenkins & Son Landscape Contractors Limited;

James Dick Construction Limited;

Lafarge Canada;

Maxwell Stone;

Miller Paving Limited;

Natural Stone Source Ontario;

Nelson Aggregate Co.;

R.W. Tomlinson Limited;

Redstone Quarries;

Rock Valley Natural Stone;

St. Marys Cement;

Stonescale Quarry and Fabrication

Strada Aggregates; and

TBG Enviro

nmental Inc. The Procurement Opening Committee subsequently opened tenders on Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 1:00 PM with the following results:

797

Contract #10001349 - Supply and Delivery of Approximately 4,500 tonnes of 150 – 300mm Gabion Stone

BIDDER

TOTAL UNIT PRICE (Plus HST)

TOTAL VALUE OF CONTRACT (Plus HST)

Glenn Windrem Trucking $31.40 $141,300.00

Dufferin Aggregates $33.92 $152,640.00

Brock Aggregates Inc. $36.50 $164,250.00

Bot Aggregates Ltd. $39.00 $175,500.00

James Dick Construction Ltd. Disqualified Disqualified

TBG Environmental Inc. Disqualified Disqualified

Contract #10001348 - Supply and Delivery of Approximately 5,500 tonnes of 3 – 5 Tonne

Armourstone

BIDDER

TOTAL UNIT PRICE (Plus HST)

TOTAL VALUE OF CONTRACT (Plus HST)

B-Town Group $54.15 $297,825.00

Glenn Windrem Trucking $56.75 $312,125.00

Cut Above Natural Stone $57.00 $313,500.00

CDR Young’s Aggregates Inc. $57.56 $316,580.00

Bot Aggregates Ltd. $74.00 $407,000.00

TBG Environmental Inc. Disqualified Disqualified

TBG Environmental Inc. and James Dick Construction Ltd. were disqualified, as they did not acknowledge Addendum #2, which was issued on December 17, 2015. Based on the tenders received, staff recommend that Glenn Windrem Trucking be awarded Contract #10001349 for the supply and delivery of approximately 4,500 tonnes of 150 – 300mm gabion stone for the unit cost of $31.40 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $141,300.00, plus HST; staff further recommend that B-Town Group be awarded Contract #10001348 for the supply and delivery of approximately 5,500 tonnes of 3 – 5 tonne armourstone for the unit cost of $54.15 per tonne and a total cost not to exceed $297,825.00, plus HST; they being the lowest bids meeting TRCA staff specifications. These contracts are subject to a 10% contingency to be expended as authorized by TRCA staff. This project is aligned with leadership strategy number two in TRCA’s new strategic plan, as ensuring that life and property is protected from the hazards of flooding and erosion is an important aspect of managing our regional water resources for current and future generations. FINANCIAL DETAILS Funding for this project is available from the City of Toronto through TRCA’s capital budget for erosion major maintenance in account 134-25, and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, through the Water and Erosion Infrastructure (WECI) 2015-2016 Program, up to a maximum amount of $250,000. Report prepared by: Nivedha Sundararajah, 647-201-8463 Emails: nsundararajah@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ashour Rehana, 647-808-6542 Emails: arehana@trca.on.ca Date: January 8, 2016

798

RES.#A262/15 - GHFFA ASSET MAPPING PROJECTS Data Management Services. Authorization to proceed with amendments to

the Agreement for Agricultural Professional Services with 4DM Inc., for continuation of the Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance Asset Mapping project.

Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Jennifer Drake WHEREAS on November 6, 2014, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) was authorized to enter into an agreement for Agricultural Professional Services with 4DM Inc. to complete the Data Collection and Analysis of Food and Farming Assets in the Golden Horseshoe, to an upset limit of $40,000.00, plus HST; WHEREAS on April 8, 2015, Greater Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance (GHFFA) requested an increase of $31,000.00, plus HST to the upset limit, for a total upset limit of $71,000.00, plus HST, to accommodate a scope change including increased open source data search and processing, as well as the development of a centralized, web-driven data model at the request of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMFRA); WHEREAS GHFFA received funding form OMFRA in March 2015 to further expand the size of the study area and scope of work to capture the Greater Golden Horseshoe geography, resulting in an additional $30,000.00, plus HST included in the total project budget; THERFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the contract for Agricultural Professional Services to complete the Data Collection and Analysis of Food and Farming Assets in the Golden and Greater Golden Horseshoe, be increased to an upset limit of $101,000.00, plus HST; THAT TRCA staff be authorized to approve additional expenditures to a maximum of 10% of the contract cost as a contingency allowance, if deemed necessary; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take all necessary actions to implement the foregoing, including the signing and execution of any documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND In October 2014, TRCA, on behalf of GHFFA, retained 4DM Inc., through a competitive process to conduct data collection modelling and mapping of agrifood assets across the Golden Horseshoe. The project included data standardization, data collection and processing, data modelling, mapping and gaps analysis. As a part of the project, existing data was further refined and the existing database structure was updated. New data collection, from existing municipal project partners, third party and open data sources, was a key part of the project. New data was assessed and processed for completeness, quality, consistency and format, then uploaded to the database structure.

799

RATIONALE As the project progressed, it became clear that project funds set aside for purchasing data were not required, but that free, open source data collected by the team required effort to process for completeness, quality verification, consistency and standardization with the data model. This data processing of open source data was consistent with the processing services 4DM was providing as part of the original scope of work. As such, staff recommended that the original scope of work be expanded to include processing of collected open source data for completeness, consistency and standardization with the project data model for a total additional value of $11,000.

Additionally, the project captured the attention of OMAFRA, who is interested in using the data collected as part of this project to support appropriate policy planning and decision-making in the growth plan area of the Greater Golden Horseshoe geography. OMAFRA asked to be included in the project for provision of:

initial collection of open source data for the Greater Golden Horseshoe;

processing of the data for upload to the database;

inclusion of the data points in the web-based mapping. This represented $20,000 of the previous $31,000 scope change.

Upon receipt of the initial results of the work described above, OMAFRA requested to be included further in the project by applying the complete project approach to the Greater Golden Horseshoe region. The opportunity to work with OMAFRA as part of the project is a great success for the GHFFA, and OMAFRA will provide funds for their portion of the work. This represents an additional $30,000 of the scope change, bringing the overall total to $101,000. Given 4DM’s understanding of the requirements to complete the project in a timely manner, GHFFA and TRCA staff is recommending that the original contract be extended to include the above tasks. The additional work will result in the end date of the overall project schedule of March 31, 2016, to align with the OMAFRA Transfer Payment Agreement. FINANCIAL DETAILS The total value of the contract extension, for the additional, stepped tasks described above, will be $30,000, plus HST, bringing the total contract cost to $101,000, plus HST. The original contract was valued at $40,000, plus HST, plus the previously approved scope change of $31,000. This additional amount is required to complete the remaining work. Funds required to complete the additional work under the current contract are available within Golden Horseshoe Food and Farming Alliance accounts. The funding is y from the Transfer Payment Agreement signed by TRCA on behalf of GHFFA. Report prepared by: Sonia Dhir, extension 5291 Emails: sdhir@trca.on.ca For information contact: Sonia Dhir, extension 5291 Emails: sdhir@trca.on.ca Date: January 11, 2016

______________________________

800

RES.#A263/15 - NASHVILLE CONSERVATION RESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN Final endorsement of the Nashville Conservation Reserve Management

Plan. Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Jennifer Drake WHEREAS the draft Nashville Conservation Reserve Management Plan dated June 2014 was approved in principle at Authority Meeting #6/14 by Resolution #A116/14; AND WHEREAS the draft Nashville Conservation Reserve Management Plan dated June 2014 was endorsed in principle by the Township of King and the City of Vaughan, as well as received by the Region of York; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Nashville Conservation Reserve be officially approved and implemented accordingly; THAT the Region of York, the Township of King and the City of Vaughan be so advised; AND FURTHER THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff work with the Region of York, the City of Vaughan, the Township of King and the surrounding community to foster an integrated stewardship approach on the property. CARRIED BACKGROUND At Authority Meeting #6/14, held on July 25, 2014, Resolution #A116/14 was approved as follows:

THAT the draft Nashville Conservation Reserve Management Plan dated June 2014 be approved in principle; THAT the draft Plan be circulated to the Township of King, the City of Vaughan and the Region of York requesting endorsement of the Plan; THAT following circulation, staff report back to the Authority to confirm endorsement of the final Plan; THAT the lands referred to as "Nashville Conservation Reserve", be renamed and referred to as the "Nashville Conservation Reserve"; AND FURTHER THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff proceed to implement the ‘immediate’ projects outlined in the management plan document, in partnership with project stakeholders.

The Nashville Conservation Reserve (NCR) Management Plan provides direction to protect, conserve and restore the valuable ecological features and functions of the property, while guiding the current and future uses of the conservation land. The plan recognizes that engaging local residents and creating a stewardship mindset in the community is essential for the future health of this natural area. Furthermore, the development of a trail plan that will allow visitors to enjoy and appreciate the NCR is a key component of the management plan.

801

Following the approval in principle of the NCR Management Plan by the Authority, the Plan was presented to King Township, City of Vaughan and the Region of York with the purpose of obtaining endorsement. Municipal approval was crucial to the Plan as there are several ongoing projects in the area that will put increased environmental stress on the lands, including demand for access and recreation. Developers have several plans to build communities in proximity to Nashville and have the potential to impact the hydrology of the site, which many natural systems depend on. In addition, TRCA staff has been working with TransCanada Pipelines Limited, who has determined the need for an additional pipeline that will traverse through Nashville. Finally, the GTA West Highway Environment Assessment, while currently on hold, still has the potential to be approved and the highway constructed through the NCR. These future impacts underscore the need for careful planning, responsible management, and, above all, restoration of the disturbed lands. The central goal is to mitigate environmental impacts and improve and protect the integrity of natural systems within and surrounding NCR. On January 12, 2015, TRCA presented the NCR Management Plan to the Council of the Township of King. At the same meeting, Council considered Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC-2015-07 advising on the development of the Nashville Conservation Reserve Management Plan. The Council received the Parks, Recreation and Culture Report as information and recommended that the NCR Management Plan dated September 2014, prepared by TRCA, be approved in principle. The following recommendations were approved:

a) That report PRC-2015-07 be received as information; and b) That the Nashville Conservation Reserve Management Plan…be supported in principle.

On April 8, 2015, TRCA presented the NCR Management Plan to the Committee of the Whole (Working Session) of the City of Vaughan. At the same meeting, the Committee considered staff report No. 15 and recommendations submitted by City of Vaughan staff advising on the development of the Nashville Conservation Reserve Management Plan. The following recommendations were approved:

a) That the presentation from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be received; and

b) That the Draft Nashville Conservation Reserve Management Plan by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be endorsed in principle with the understanding that future planned transportation and utility corridors will be required and may impact this plan.

On May 14, 2015, TRCA presented the NCR Management Plan to the Committee of the Whole of the Regional Municipality of York. Following the presentation, recommendations were made by the Committee of the Whole and were sent to Council for approval. Regional Council, at its meeting held on May 21, 2015, adopted the following recommendations of Committee of the Whole regarding TRCA’s deputation on the Nashville Conservation Reserve Management Plan.

a) Receipt of the deputation from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority regarding the Nashville Conservation Reserve Management Plan.

b) Referral of this item to staff for a future report.

802

On October 15, 2015 Report No. 16 of Committee of the Whole was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of The Regional Municipality of York. The recommendation of this report was for Council to contribute 50 per cent of the total cost of acquisition, to a maximum of $1,414,500, including all costs and disbursements, to TRCA, toward purchasing the 44.2 hectare Dalton property and expand the Nashville Conservation Reserve. Recommendations within this report dealt with supporting the strategic Nashville Conservation Reserve Dalton property acquisition. The report also satisfied the May 2015 Council direction to report back on the TRCA deputation regarding the Nashville Conservation Reserve Management Plan. York Region staff acknowledged continuing to work with TRCA on this project. Since the endorsement in principle by the Authority, TRCA staff has been working to complete priority goals set out in the management plan document. One of the first goals of the plan was to establish a stewardship committee, which occurred in July 2015. The NCR Stewardship Committee’s mandate is to assist TRCA in implementing the Nashville Conservation Reserve Management Plan, provide a forum for public input, and help TRCA determine priority implementation actions as set forth in the Plan. To date the committee has had an extremely positive impact on the project, with three meetings being held in 2015. Approximately 20 to 25 community members attended each meeting with local and regional council members in attendance. In addition to regularly scheduled meetings, two public events took place in support of the NCR Management Plan. The first was a trail building event in which 25 local community members helped build 1.5 kilometres of trail. The second was a public hike with 30 people in attendance. TRCA staff has also been working to keep Nashville safe for the public to use. Hazard trees were removed along trail corridors and boundaries, and trails and boundaries were audited for encroachments and other safety concerns. The data collected from the inventory and audit of NCR in 2015 revealed that the increased presence and management of the property by TRCA has resulted in an overall decrease of encroachments. The following table provides a summary of the inventory and implementation work. Table 1: 2015 Inventory and Audit Results and Completed Implementation Work

Waste Removal

Hazard Tree Removal

(boundary)

Hazard Tree Removal (trails)

Trails Audited

Fencing Audited

Encroachments

1 tonne 2 5 24km 12km 3 previous audits:

189 (2009), 182 (2010), 49 (2012), 22 (2014)

RATIONALE TRCA has obtained official endorsement in principle from the Township of King and the City of Vaughan and support from the Region of York. TRCA also has the NCR Stewardship Committee, as well as community and stakeholder advocates who are passionate and supportive about the Plan and property. Implementing this plan will signify TRCA’s commitment to work with our partners to achieve shared goals and objectives. Municipally, this plan provides pedestrian and cycling trails that have been determined to be essential to the growth of communities surrounding NCR. The Plan also supports York Regions’ vision and strategy of creating healthy communities and a sustainable natural environment.

803

In addition to moving us towards The Living City Vision, the Management Plan will also help to implement several objectives of TRCA’s 10-Year Strategic Plan, most notably, ‘rethinking greenspace to maximize its value’. This Plan will help develop a network of greenspace for the Toronto region that maximizes community well-being and protection of our local ecosystems. This will include helping people become healthier and happier by promoting appropriate access to existing nature and by creating new green infrastructure in urban areas. The fundamental objective of creating the NCR Management Plan was to put in place specific instruction and direction on how to mitigate the environmental impacts caused by ongoing and future development surrounding the property. This includes residential developments, utility infrastructure and transportation corridors. These future impacts underscore the need for careful planning, responsible management, and above all, restoration of the disturbed lands. The successful stewardship of this valuable greenspace is crucial to the health of the Humber River watershed and as such, it is recommended that the Authority approve the Nashville Conservation Reserve Management Plan. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE The successful implementation of the NCR Management Plan will require the efforts of TRCA and its partners. The following planning actions will be taken by TRCA:

Report back to the municipalities with a letter that outlines the successful endorsement of the Plan from all partners.

Undertake details plans for future recommended implementation projects

Write funding proposals and seek additional funds for plan and project implementation. The following is a list of implementation projects that will be started in 2016:

Natural Surface Multi-Use Trail Construction (Phase 1 - Huntington/Kirby to Cold Creek);

Hiking/Equestrian Trail Construction (Trail Hub Area);

Design and Construction of 30 Car Parking Lot (Huntington and Kirby);

Lookout Node Construction (1);

Primary Trailhead Construction (1);

Primary Trail Hub Construction (1);

Secondary Trailhead Construction (1);

Regulatory Signage Installation;

Gate and Fencing Installation/ Repair;

Garbage Removal;

Hazard Tree Inspection. FINANCIAL DETAILS The development of trails, related infrastructure, and the protection and enhancement of NCR is a large scale project that will be developed in three phases. Subject to further analysis, detailed plans and funding availability – implementation of the NCR Management Plan is estimated to cost $3.3 million over a period of 12 years. TRCA’s York Region Land Care Program has budgeted $45,800 to cover the cost of implementation projects and community engagement activities in 2016. These funds are available in accounts 442-08, 442-09, 442-10, 442-11, 442-12 and 442-13. For Information: Adam Dembe, extension 5939 or Mike Bender, extension 5287 Emails: adembe@trca.on.ca Date: January 14, 2016

______________________________

804

RES.#A264/15 - CANADA CULTURAL SPACES FUND Funding Application Submission for Black Creek Pioneer Village. Board

approval and authorization of a funding application submission to the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund.

Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Jennifer Drake WHEREAS the federal government, led by the Department of Canadian Heritage, provides funding to support the purchase of specialized equipment and/or the costs of renovations for arts and heritage spaces through the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund; AND WHEREAS project applications and the name of the signing authority for the applicant must be duly authorized or endorsed by a resolution of the Authority and submitted as a component of the application; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) submit a funding application to the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund to support the purchase of a new environmental control system at Black Creek Pioneer Village; THAT the signing authority of TRCA’s Chief Financial Officer, Rocco Sgambelluri, be acknowledged as a requirement of the funding application submission; AND FURTHER THAT staff report to the Authority for additional approvals as required. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Department of Canadian Heritage offers the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund (CCSF), a funding program aimed at improving physical conditions for arts and heritage related creation, presentation, preservation and exhibition, and to increasing and improving access for Canadians to performing arts, visual arts, media arts, museum collections and heritage displays. CCSF supports costs associated with construction and/or renovation of arts and heritage facilities, and the acquisition of specialized equipment for eligible organizations. CCSF identifies eligible projects as construction and/or renovation projects, and specialized equipment purchases related to cultural infrastructure projects intended for professional arts and/or heritage activities. CCSF will finance up to 50% of eligible project expenses for successful applications, with the following pertaining directly to TRCA’s potential project:

environmental control systems; and

installation costs and initial training related to the operation of specialized equipment. CCSF accepts applications on an ongoing basis. Project applications and the name of the signing authority for the applicant must be duly authorized or endorsed by a board resolution. The resolution must be submitted at the time of the application. TRCA would like to submit a funding application for a new environmental control system to ensure the safety and preservation of the artifact collections that are stored and/or displayed in the Black Creek Pioneer Village (BCPV) Visitors’ Centre.

805

Project details, costs and grant percentages provided below are preliminary and may be updated as staff work through the application process. RATIONALE Approximately 50,000 historic artifacts are stored at Black Creek Pioneer Village. Many artifacts are displayed at the Visitor’s Centre within the McNair Gallery or stored in one of two storage rooms located on the ground level of the facility. These artifacts are more sensitive or fragile and are preserved by an environmental control system that maintains a stable temperature and humidity at a level that corresponds with professional collections management standards. BCPV is a recipient of the Community Museum Operating Grant (CMOG) from the Ontario Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport, and as such, is provincially mandated to maintain professional collections management and conservation standards. With so many pieces of the South Central Ontario region’s past in its care, BCPV is committed to the responsible stewardship of Ontario’s history and heritage. BCPV has identified a pressing need to replace the Visitor Centre’s aging environmental control system, which is responsible for maintaining the climate of the facility’s two artifact storage rooms and the McNair Gallery. There are two critical roles of environmental control systems for collections conservation:

1) Maintaining climate stability—the consistency of temperature and humidity is essential to the maintenance and safety of historic collections. Fluctuations in humidity and temperature lead to deterioration of artifacts and are therefore extremely problematic in collections management. Depending on the kind of artifact, fluctuations in humidity in particular can cause swelling, warping and cracking, among other kinds of damage.

2) Maintaining a safe level for humidity and temperature also prevents deterioration. For example, when humidity is too high, mold can grow on materials, such as textiles.

Since 1984, an existing environmental control system has helped maintain an optimal climate for BCPV’s artifact storage and display areas; however, over the past several years, a growing number of system deficiencies have been noted. Temperature and humidity readings that are recorded daily by equipment in the Registration Department show that the current unit can no longer reliably maintain a steady humidity and temperature. For example, the ongoing unit malfunctions cause high spikes in temperature and humidity in summer and risk the long-term preservation of BCPV’s artifacts. Further compounding the challenge is that maintenance costs must be expended annually and replacement parts are difficult to source and purchase due to the 30+ year age of the unit. With increasing upkeep costs, growing obsolescence of required parts, and recorded inconsistencies in the climate of the facility’s storage and display areas, the existing unit is beyond its useful life. It is no longer functioning optimally as an efficient, effective or sustainable option for BCPV. FINANCIAL DETAILS The budget for this project is $150,000. TRCA is seeking 50% ($75,000) from CCSF. The remainder of the funding is available from the City of Toronto within the Black Creek Pioneer Village capital account number 503-01. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA staff will complete and submit a funding application to CCSF in February 2016.

806

Should the funding application be successful, the project will be presented to the Authority for further approvals as required. Report prepared by: Stephanie Demetriou, extension 6424 Emails: Sdemetriou@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: Dedwards@trca.on.ca Date: January 15, 2016

______________________________

807

RES.#A265/15 - BLACK CREEK PIONEER VILLAGE HISTORIC BREWERY Contract Renewal. Award of contract renewal between Toronto and Region

Conservation Authority and Pioneer Brewery Limited to continue the operation of the Black Creek Historic Brewery.

Moved by: Jack Heath Seconded by: Vincent Crisanti WHEREAS the brewery has become an important part of the Black Creek Pioneer Village’s (BCPV) educational programming; and AND WHEREAS the involvement of Pioneer Brewery Ltd (PBL) through its subcontractor, Trafalgar Ales and Meads has generated sufficient revenue through retail sales to substantially offset costs associated with the educational programming so that while incurring a net deficit in the past, the proposed agreement will produce a marginal surplus beginning in 2016 and grow in the future as a result of a substantial reduction in overhead costs, renegotiated royalty fees and the availability of additional retail outlets; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a three-year contract with Pioneer Brewery Limited be approved to continue to operate the Black Creek Historic Brewery through its subcontractor, Trafalgar Ales and Meads at an annual administrative cost of $82,400.00, plus HST for a three-year total of $247,200.00, plus reasonable inflationary annual adjustments, plus HST; THAT the contract be subject to the necessary terms and conditions satisfactory to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff and, as necessary, its solicitor; AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED BACKGROUND On April 29th, 2009, TRCA and Pioneer Brewery Ltd (PBL) signed an agreement to jointly operate the Black Creek Historic Brewery (BCHB) from June 10, 2009 to December 31, 2015 through its subcontractor Trafalgar Ales and Meads. At Executive Committee Meeting #10/08, held on December 12, 2008, Resolution #B168/08 was approved, in part, as follows:

THAT a contract with Trafalgar Ales and Meads to establish and operate a pioneer brewery and museum at Black Creek Pioneer Village be approved, at a cost not to exceed $92,000 annually, plus applicable taxes and reasonable inflationary adjustments;…

BCHB, operated by PBL, has become an integrated and essential feature of BCPV. Situated at the heart of the Village in the Halfway House Inn, the Historic Brewery provides an experiential educational opportunity for visitors to BCPV and helps draw thousands of people to the Village on an annual basis. Visitors interact with BCPV’s historical interpreters and take part in interactive education programs to explore the history of beer, brewing and society in 19th century South Central Ontario. They may also taste and purchase specialty ales made onsite that mimic popular historic brews. For many, this multifaceted experiential offering is a primary driver of visitation to BCPV.

808

Programming Daily Public Programs BCHB offers the Historic Brewery Tour and Beer Sampler. Led through the Village by a costumed educator, participants in the Historic Brewery Tour learn firsthand about the beer-making process through a series of entertaining and educational interactive experiences. For visitors seeking a less-structured approach to the brewery experience, the Beer Sampler allows visitors to sit by the bar and enjoy a casual conversation with BCHB’s historical interpreters about beer, brewing and historic society while sampling a variety of traditional ales.

Corporate Programs BCHB is host to corporate groups that book special visits to BCPV to experience the brewery and its related team-building and educational corporate programs.

Brewery Adult Apprenticeship This highly experiential offering is one of BCPV’s most popular and immersive adult programs. Adult apprentices spend the day working alongside the Brewmaster and partaking in every step of the brewing process as they help craft a unique batch of ale. Staff will focus on promoting the immersive and educational brewery apprenticeship program and assessing the possibility of developing related offerings. Operations BCHB operates as a small-scale craft brewery that specializes in the production of historically inspired ales. Visitors enjoy samples of the beer or purchase it in 2L growler bottles. BCHB brews brown ale, India Pale Ale, porter and stout, and features specialty seasonal ales that are made monthly during BCPV’s operating season. In 2016, additional liquor licenses will be acquired to permit beer to be sold by the glass in BCHB and alongside food offerings in the Gift Shop as this is a highly requested service. Branding The BCHB branded ales, available commercially at LCBOs and other vendors, leverage and expand the Black Creek brand while providing key marketing outreach to a wide audience. Royalties earned through sale of this beer provide revenue that helps to sustain the educational programs available at BCPV. These ales are produced in the modern brewing facility of Trafalgar Ales and Meads, as subcontracted by PBL. Being awarded the Gold Ontario Brewing Award for the BCHB Pumpkin Ale provided additional opportunities to increase Black Creek’s brand awareness. Unique Partnerships TRCA has partnered with Ontario Group of Touring Companies to create The Ultimate Canadian Craft Beer Experience. Nationally recognized with the prestigious Canadian Signature Experience designation, this tour attracts additional visitors to BCPV and promotes it internationally. BCHB recently partnered with the Archives of Ontario to produce Benson’s Strong Ale. This beer was made from a 200 year old beer recipe found in the Archives’ records and is currently being sold through the LCBO. Whiskey & Spice partnered with BCHB to produce Porter Pepper Mustard, an artisanal small-batch mustard sold widely throughout the GTA. Partnerships such as these enhance BCHB’s educational offerings, promote the learning of Toronto’s history, and expand BCPV’s marketing reach. TRCA will continue seeking new partnership opportunities for BCHB.

809

RATIONALE TRCA would like to renew its contract with PBL to ensure that BCHB continues to operate as a dynamic, distinct and highly popular feature of BCPV—one that has helped further several of BCPV’s organizational goals. Specifically, BCHB has allowed BCPV to:

engage new audiences, such as craft beer enthusiasts and adult men, who now make up a distinct segment of BCPV’s clientele;

demonstrate its social value and create community links by connecting to contemporary audiences in culturally relevant ways; and

promote the heritage of South Central Ontario through the immensely successful and experiential brewery program offerings.

Between 2009 and 2015 revenue for the brewery fell short of initially anticipated targets. The shortfall is partially attributed to the depressed economic climate, which has had an impact on US tourism and attendance. Additionally, corporate group sales were not as robust as anticipated during the business planning phases of BCHB. BCHB’s business model is unique to TRCA; rather than hire staff to operate a brewery, BCHB contracts out the services and experience of a professional brewer. The vast majority of the annual expenditures ($82,846 in 2015) accounts for this expense. This business model was selected because TRCA staff has neither the experience nor skills required to operate both the onsite brewery and the brewing operations that take place at Trafalgar Ales and Meads. In addition to brewing, PBL staff has the expert knowledge required to complete the administrative work associated with the operation of a brewery in Ontario. Furthermore, the specialized skills and knowledge brought to the project by an onsite professional brewer adds enormous educational value that enhances the visitor experience to BCHB. Staff proposes the retention of this aspect of the agreement with PBL because it provides the interactive and educational aspect of the program while ensuring the beer meets professional standards. Over the past seven years, BCHB has introduced unique educational programs that have received extremely favourable reviews from participants. BCHB has added a new educational component to BCPV’s public program offerings that are unique in Canada. To sustain these programs, BCHB has also introduced several revenue streams to BCPV, including programming sales, branded merchandise sales, additional admissions and parking sales, and revenue associated with beer sales. These revenue streams have helped offset some of the overhead costs associated with BCHB operations; however, there is potential to develop new sources of revenue and enhance existing ones. Moving forward, TRCA plans to position BCHB for greater financial sustainability through negotiated changes to its contract with PBL and through opportunities for new market entry, branding and experiential program development. The following four key changes to the previous contract agreement will ensure BCHB is better positioned for long-term financial sustainability: 1. Shorter length of contract term: TRCA and PBL will enter into a three-year agreement for

production of BCHB branded beer onsite at BCPV and externally at a commercial facility. A shorter contract term will allow TRCA to re-assess the brewery operation and re-negotiate any terms as may be required to accommodate changes associated with the new Black Creek Pioneer Village and emerging retail beer markets.

810

2. Additional retail outlets: In addition to sales through the LCBO, The Beer Store became a primary vendor in 2015 with 27 stores selling BCHB branded ales. In 2016, grocery stores will also be added as additional retail outlets as a result of recent changes that have permitted the sale of craft beers through new retailers. Industry projections suggest that beer sales through grocery stores will grow exponentially over the next few years. These additional retail outlets will increase the availability of BCHB branded ales and introduce new streams of revenue to BCPV.

3. Increased royalty payments: PBL will pay an increased royalty to TRCA for beer sold through the LCBO ($0.60 per litre until previous year’s sales volume has been met; $0.50 per litre thereafter. Currently, PBL pays a royalty of $0.40 per litre) and The Beer Store ($0.50 per litre instead of currently paid $0.40 per litre). PBL will also pay royalties to TRCA for all other commercial sales based on a price negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

4. Direct reduction to overhead costs: Rather than pay an annual equipment rental fee of

approximately $20,000/year, TRCA will pay a maintenance fee of $4,000/year and will purchase the brewery equipment outright from PBL for a nominal price of $2.00 (thereby nullifying the rental fee).

FINANCIAL DETAILS

Black Creek Historic Brewery – Expenditures and Revenue Projections for 2015 to 2018

2015* 2016 2017 2018 Total Program Expenditures

$118,982 $95,602 $105,297 $100,801

Gross Revenue $98,037 $120,694 $130,332 $143,614

Net Revenue ($20,945) $25,092 $25,035 $42,813 * Estimated values for 2015 as expenditures and revenue detail are pending completion. The 2015 numbers shown above are approximate.

The expenditure decrease between 2015 and 2016 can be attributed to renegotiated contract overhead costs. The gross revenue increase can be attributed to the aforementioned renegotiated contract retail (LCBO and The Beer Store) royalty payments, as well as increased BCPV retail sales, sale of beer “By the Glass” and growth in experiential program offerings. Report prepared by: Wendy Rowney, extension 5407 Emails: Wrowney@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Derek Edwards, extension 5672 Emails: Dedwards@trca.on.ca Date: January 12, 2016

______________________________

811

RES.#A266/15 - URBAN CAPITAL (RIVER CITY 3) INC. Request for Limiting Distance Agreement

City of Toronto, Don River Watershed, CFN 54791. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City of Toronto are in receipt of a request from Urban Capital (River City 3) Inc. to enter into a Limiting Distance Agreement for lands located on the south side of Eastern Avenue and west of Bayview Avenue in the City of Toronto, Don River watershed.

Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Jennifer Drake WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the City of Toronto are in receipt of a request from Urban Capital (River City 3) Inc. (Urban Capital) to enter into a Limiting Distance Agreement required for the construction of a residential condominium, located in the Don West Lands, south of Eastern Avenue and west of Bayview Avenue, City of Toronto, Don River watershed; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with Urban Capital and the City of Toronto in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA enter into a Limiting Distance Agreement with Urban Capital relating to TRCA and City of Toronto-owned land containing a total of 0.269 hectares (0.664 acres), more or less, of vacant land, described as Block 8, Plan 66M-2473, City of Toronto, on the following basis: (a) the price to be paid by Urban Capital shall be $48,000.00;

(b) Urban Capital shall be responsible for all legal, survey and other costs associated with

completing the transaction, including any fees required for municipal approvals (such as minor variance application, Site Plan Control application, etc.) as deemed necessary by the City of Toronto;

(c) TRCA lands affected by the agreement are approximately 9 metres in width and the 38 metres in length;

(d) The building restrictions on the approximately 342 square metre strip of TRCA land are to be satisfactorily defined to ensure that normal park operation, paths, trails, etc., are guaranteed without restriction;

(e) This agreement does not restrict City of Toronto or TRCA staff from exercising their normal planning review and commenting responsibilities;

(f) The agreement is to continue and be binding upon TRCA so long as the new construction / renovation remains in place;

(g) The agreement will be revoked or terminated upon receipt of written notice from the City of Toronto that the new construction / renovation has been removed or no longer exists;

812

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documentation. CARRIED BACKGROUND Urban Capital has formally requested that TRCA and the City of Toronto enter into a Limiting Distance Agreement that is required for the construction of a residential condominium building in the Don West Lands adjacent to the Don West Flood Protection Landform. To allow a substantial amount of glass on the side of the proposed building, the City of Toronto requires that the abutting landowner agree not to construct a building within a certain distance of the property line. City of Toronto Legal and Parks, Forestry and Recreation staff have been consulted and are in agreement with the proposed Limiting Distance Agreement. The subject lands form part of a larger parcel containing the Don West Flood Protection Landform, comprised of both TRCA and City of Toronto-owned land. The current zoning on the adjacent TRCA land is Public Open Space and prohibits any form of buildings or structures with the exception of passive, recreational-type development such as pathways and trails. In addition, the TRCA property is situated within the regional storm flood plain of the Don River; consequently, structural development would be precluded at this site. Therefore, the Limiting Distance Agreement will not result in any detrimental impact on the subject TRCA land nor the current use of the property. Attached is a plan showing the location of the subject lands. FINANCIAL DETAILS It is proposed that the compensation obtained from this agreement be utilized for the purchase of priority properties under the Greenlands Acquisition Project 2016-2020 and for TRCA’s long term head office accommodation project. Report prepared by: Nigel Holder, extension 5859 Emails: nholder@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Nigel Holder, extension 5859, Jae R. Truesdell, extension 5247 Emails: nholder@trca.on.ca, jtruesdell@trca.on.ca Date: January 19, 2016 Attachments: 1

813

0 40 8020Meters

F© Queen’s Printer for Ontario and its licensors. [2005] May Not be Reproduc ed without Permis s ion. THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY.

PEEL

YORK DURHAM

TORONTO

Lake Ontario

Key Map

LegendSubject PropertyWatercours es

! ! ! ! ! ! FloodlineRegulation LimitTRCA PropertyParcel As s es s ment

^SITE

#

SUBJECT PROPERTY

#

Don River

DON VALLEY PKWY

BAYVIEW AVE

QUEEN ST E

EASTERN AVE

LIMITED DISTANCEAGREEMENT

Attachment 1

814

RES.#A267/15 - GREAT LAKES PROTECTION ACT AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Legislation Passed to Keep the Great Lakes Drinkable, Swimmable and Fishable. Ontario has passed the Great Lakes Protection Act (the Act) which will strengthen the Province of Ontaris’s ability to keep the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River clean, as well as to protect and restore the waterways that flow into them.

Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Jennifer Drake THAT the Province of Ontario be congratulated on successfully passing the Great Lakes Protection Act after years of extensive partner and public consultation; THAT in recognizing there is a great deal of work to be done, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) recommends that the Province begin addressing those issues that pose the most serious threats to each of the Great Lakes; THAT TRCA’s current programs and initiatives, and the role TRCA can play in the implementation of the Great Lakes Strategy, as articulated in this report, be shared with the Province; THAT the Province be requested to invite TRCA, Conservation Ontario and other conservation authorities to participate at Great Lakes Guardian’s Council meetings as they provide a distinct watershed perspective for each of the Great Lakes; THAT the Province be strongly encouraged to include funding for the implementation of the Great Lakes Strategy in the 2016 Ontario Budget; THAT the provincial and federal governments be encouraged to look for innovative ways for their initiatives to complement each other so that they can maximize outcomes for the benefit of the Great Lakes; AND FURTHER THAT this report be circulated by the CEO’s Office to the Premier of Ontario and Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and TRCA’s partner municipalities. CARRIED BACKGROUND After years of partner and public consultation, the Great Lakes Protection Act received Royal Assent and was passed into law on November 3rd, 2015. Passing the Act enables the Province to address significant environmental challenges to the Great Lakes, including climate change, harmful pollutants and algal blooms. The Act will also:

Establish a Great Lakes Guardian’s Council to provide a collaborative forum for discussing and gaining input on issues and priorities relating to the Great Lakes.

Allow the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to set environmental targets and enable communities to address local problems.

Require the establishment of monitoring programs on a number of water quality indices where needed, as well as regular public reporting.

Require consideration of traditional ecological knowledge in decisions made about the health of the Great Lakes if offered by First Nations or Metis communities.

815

Enshrine Ontario’s Great Lakes Strategy, the Province’s action plan on the Great Lakes, as a living document to be reviewed every six years and reported in the legislature every three years.

The Act establishes the Great Lakes Guardian’s Council which is a forum with the objective of helping to improve collaboration and coordination among partners. The Guardian’s Council will identify priorities for actions to achieve the purposes of the Act; identify potential funding measures and partnerships; and facilitate information sharing to achieve the purposes of the Act. The Council will also provide an opportunity to obtain input, establish targets, set criteria for selection and prioritization of the geographic areas for which initiatives will be developed. The Act allows for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to set targets and to create action plans related to Great Lakes issues. According to the Act the Minister is required to set at least one target to support the reduction of algal blooms within two years of the Act becoming law. No other timelines or targets have been set, however the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change may direct a public body (provincial agency, municipality or conservation authority) to provide information to assist in the establishment of a target and in the determination of actions to achieve said target. The Act also allows for the development and implementation of ‘geographically-focused initiatives’ (GFIs) to address issues that are a priority in a specific location. A GFI would be developed by a municipality, conservation authority or the Province, subject to extensive consultation, and would be approved by Cabinet. Among other inclusions, a GFI must consist of:

a legal policy (or policies) or a recommendation for a shoreline regulation;

description of the applicable geographic area;

objectives of the initiative;

methods to assess achievement of objectives;

a financing strategy; and

benefits and costs to the implementing body. Proposals and ideas for a GFI may come from a variety of sources including local communities, members of the public, First Nations and Métis communities, and government commitments and agreements. The Minister may respond to an idea by initiating the GFI process. The initiation of the GFI process consists of the pre-consultation phase (consultation with other Great Lakes ministers, First Nations and Métis communities, local municipalities, MPPs, conservation authorities). If the decision is made to direct the development of a proposal, the proposal is submitted to the Minister, the Minister consults with other Great Lakes ministers, and the proposal is posted to the Environmental Registry for comment. Once the Minister approves the proposal the GFI is developed through additional consultation, and incorporates existing studies and regulations as they pertain to the area. Once this stage is complete and a draft of the GFI is developed, the Minister refers the draft GFI to Cabinet, and Cabinet makes a decision on whether or not a GFI should be established. The Great Lakes Strategy is designed to focus provincial resources across ministries, and to enhance collaboration and engagement with other governments and the broader Great Lakes community. The Strategy includes Ontario’s portion of the geography of lakes Superior, Huron, Erie and Ontario, their connecting rivers, the St. Lawrence River, Ottawa River and surrounding watersheds and groundwater. Actions identified with the Strategy to protect and restore the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin ecosystem are organized around the Great Lakes Goals:

1. engaging and empowering communities;

816

2. protecting water for human and ecological health; 3. improving wetlands, beaches and coastal areas; 4. protecting habitats and species; 5. enhancing understanding and adaptation; and, 6. ensuring environmentally sustainable economic opportunities and innovation.

The Strategy also indicates how the Province will be measuring performance against these goals. The provinces will report on progress after three years, and review the Strategy in year six. Regular reviews of the Strategy will allow the Province to respond to emerging issues and new science, and to establish new milestones on the way to reaching the Great Lakes Goals. Strong science will continue to be essential to defining issues and suggesting solutions. Research and monitoring partnerships provide the knowledge to set priorities, establish Great Lakes targets, and guide effective Great Lakes protection and restoration. Many provincial ministries work together to care for the Great Lakes. These ministries work together at all levels to integrate government policy and programs for the Great Lakes. Several ministries share resources and coordinate efforts and science to implement agreements on Great Lakes. This Strategy builds on that work. The actions in this Strategy will be led by the Ministries of the Environment and Climate Change, Natural Resources and Forestry, Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Infrastructure, Aboriginal Affairs, Economic Development and Innovation, Tourism, Culture and Sport, Health and Long-Term Care, Transportation and Intergovernmental Affairs. Strategy Vision and Goals Healthy and resilient Great Lakes, their shorelines and their watersheds, have an effect on virtually every aspect of life in Ontario. Much progress has been made but there is considerable work left to do. Focus must be applied to the areas along the coastline that need priority attention. Ontario’s vision is one of healthy Great Lakes for a stronger Ontario – Great Lakes that are drinkable, swimmable and fishable. To achieve this vision, the Province is seeking to protect and restore the ecological health of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin. The Strategy has put forward a number of goals to realize this vision.

1. Engaging and empowering communities – to create opportunities for individuals and communities to become involved in the protection and restoration of the ecological health of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin. This goal focuses on providing opportunities to enjoy, benefit from and connect with the Great Lakes. Individuals and communities can play a part on the Great Lakes by collaborating on setting direction, and by taking action. The Great Lakes Guardian Community Fund provides funding for many small-scale local community actions to restore and protect the Great Lakes. Building awareness by creating more opportunities for all Ontarians to experience the Great lakes, and to build a sense of connection with the ecosystem and with the Great Lakes history and culture. The Province will continue to engage the Great Lakes community to facilitate information sharing, identify priorities for targeted action, identify potential partnerships, and to strengthen and build relationships.

817

2. Protecting water for human and ecological health – to protect human health and wellbeing through the protection and restoration of the ecological health of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin. The Province works to protect and conserve the interconnected system of watersheds and groundwater in the Basin, and the variety of life those waters support, from the cumulative impacts of threats such as climate change, urban growth, growing water use and large volume water diversions. Ontario also works to significantly reduce and, where possible, end the discharge of harmful pollutants into the water, air and land of the Great Lakes ecosystem. Reducing excess phosphorus is an essential element for improving Great Lakes water quality. There will be opportunities to improve stormwater approaches such as “green infrastructure”, including constructed wetlands; and better protection of sources of water.

3. Improving wetlands, beaches and coastal areas – to protect and restore wetlands,

beaches, shorelines and other coastal areas of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin. Wetlands, beaches, waterfronts and other coastal areas are where people meet the lakes, but also where pressures on the lakes are most evident, in the form of unwanted algae, contaminated sediment, shoreline alterations and other impairments caused by human activity. Nearshore areas are the most biologically diverse and productive area in the lakes – restoring and protecting them will have lake-wide benefits. Ontario will work with partners to focus action on priority geographic areas.

4. Protecting habitats and species – to protect and restore the natural habitats and

biodiversity of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin. Biodiversity is the variety of life on earth and for the Great Lakes Basin this includes thousands of wetlands, unique ecosystems, more than 150 native fish species, and thousands of native plants. Habitat loss, invasive species and loos of connectivity of natural systems are the main threats to biodiversity.

5. Enhancing understanding and adaptation – to advance science relating to existing and

emerging stressors, such as climate change, that improves understanding and management of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin. Science is essential to target and prioritize actions to protect and restore the Great Lakes ecosystem. Great Lakes protection is a long term challenge, so monitoring programs are also key to assessing progress, evaluating the effectiveness of policies, programs and partnerships, and adapting them as necessary over time. Scientists must also explore new and innovative ways of obtaining, analyzing and communicating the most current information. Action on Great Lakes climate change impacts is a priority under the Great Lakes Strategy.

6. Ensuring environmentally sustainable economic opportunities and innovation – to

enrich the quality of life in communities in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin through the support of environmentally sustainable economic opportunities and innovation and through environmentally sustainable use of natural resources. To support and foster water technology innovation services and practices and to encourage sustainable Great Lakes tourism and recreation are priorities for the Province.

To monitor progress on Ontario’s Great Lakes Strategy, the Province is developing performance measures. They will track and report on performance measures, and will refine these measures over time. Public progress reports on the Great Lakes will be provided every three years, with reports tabled in the Legislature. These reports would include results of monitoring programs, actions taken and a description of new and emerging issues. In addition, the Act also ensures that monitoring and reporting programs are established and maintained.

818

TRCA Programs and Activities of Interest TRCA is well positioned to play an essential role in supporting the Province in implementing the Act and Strategy. TRCA’s vision for The Living City is firmly based on the four pillars of TRCA’s ongoing commitment to healthy rivers and shorelines, greenspace and biodiversity, sustainable communities, and business excellence within a green economy. In keeping with this vision, TRCA’s Strategic Plan (2013) advocates for the integrity of natural systems, access to greenspace and green jobs, and vibrant sustainable neighbourhoods for the health and wellbeing of the residents of the Toronto region. For almost three decades, TRCA has been providing resources, expertise and implementation support toward delisting the Toronto Harbour as an Area of Concern identified by the International Joint Commission. TRCA has worked with multiple layers of government to find solutions to complex issues and establish common benefits. TRCA’s unique approach to collaboration with agencies, business and to engage and empower communities has been effectively deployed to protect water quality, improve ecological health, and protect Lake Ontario’s shoreline and habitats in the watersheds of Lake Ontario. Through TRCA’s regional watershed monitoring and research programs, TRCA has been able to maintain a long term comprehensive data set and watershed knowledge for evidence based decision making in TRCA’s watersheds. The Great Lakes Strategy recognizes that reducing phosphorous is essential to improving Great Lakes water quality. TRCA’s Sustainable Technology Evaluation Program (STEP) has been actively working to find methods to reduce nutrient releases through green infrastructure and reactive media that will help retain phosphorous and thereby reduce nutrient loading to surface waters. One of the projects currently being undertaken by STEP will evaluate the effectiveness of a reactive media incorporated within the soil media of a bioretention system to help better retain nutrients in stormwater runoff and prevent leaching of nutrients from soil media. Earlier research has shown this to be a common problem with bioretention systems. Various other projects aimed at reducing sediment discharges from construction sites provide guidance and support to ensure existing and future stormwater infrastructure is appropriately maintained. The Great Lakes Strategy also specifically mentions the work being undertaken by TRCA with regard to low impact development (LID). Since its initiation in 2005, STEP has completed over 20 detailed monitoring evaluations of green infrastructure practices. The Program has also prepared design guidance documents, produced literature reviews and developed life cycle costing tools to help accelerate adoption of the technologies. Results of the research are shared through the STEP website, an annual two day conference, e-learning courses on LID and several professional training events delivered across Ontario every year. As a member of Green Infrastructure Ontario (GIO), a group committed to the coordination, promotion and education of green infrastructure opportunities within the urban areas across the Province, TRCA staff provide knowledge synthesis and regular access to the latest in green infrastructure through on-line newsletters and postings. The work of GIO has the potential to address water quality concerns within urban watersheds, sending cleaner water to the Great Lakes and helping to restore more natural water cycles in watercourses that support lake-based fisheries and other ecosystem services.

819

The Great Lakes Strategy identifies climate change as an important priority. In this context, TRCA has been advancing the understanding of science related to climate change and extreme weather, an emerging threat to our watersheds and lakes. In collaboration with York University, TRCA coordinates the work of Ontario Climate Consortium (OCC) a centre of climate change expertise that brings together a network of leading universities and practitioners to advance the science and policy needed by public sector agencies to effectively reduce climate risks and vulnerabilities. It is near unanimous that climate change is and will continue to affect the Great Lakes through changes in water quality and quantity and the corresponding ecosystem responses, however, the uncertainty surrounding these changes presents significant management challenges. Recently, the OCC played a lead role in the coordination and preparation the 2015 State of Climate Change Science in the Great Lakes Basin report which synthesizes available science on the observed and projected impacts of climate change in the Great Lakes Basin, and documents the range of climate change assessment methods used in the region. This report was initiated in support of commitments under the Annex 9 - Climate Change Impacts to account for impacts on the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Great Lakes. The body of work is an example of key guidance material for researchers, managers and decision makers alike. The OCC has also undertaken a series of climate change vulnerability assessments within the watershed, notably on natural systems and near-shore community assets that characterize and spatially reveal where vulnerabilities affecting water quality in rivers, streams and in-land lakes may ultimately contribute to increasing water quality issues within near-shore Lake Ontario. Research, assessment and knowledge dissemination, as well as managing provincial climate data sets and generating climate trends useful at the scale of the Great Lakes, are examples of key services OCC can provide in support of implementing the Great Lakes Strategy. Another critical goal of the Strategy that aligns well with TRCA programs is support of sustainable economic opportunities and innovation. TRCA’s Partners in Project Green (PPG) in partnership with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA), Region of Peel and City of Toronto, aims to create an internationally recognized eco-business community centered around Toronto Pearson International Airport - Canada’s largest employment area with 12,500 businesses and over 350,000 commuters (the “Pearson Eco-Business Zone”). Comprised of businesses, governmental bodies, institutions, and utilities, this community is striving to strengthen and green Toronto region's economy and beyond. PPG’s water programs help to connect businesses and institutions in the Pearson Eco-Business Zone on creative new approaches to water stewardship and cutting-edge technological solutions. . In 2014 alone, Partners in Project Green interacted with more than 550 organizations in the Greater Toronto Area. Members of the PPG community, all together, diverted more than 700 tonnes of waste from landfill, reduced their annual water footprint by more than 180 million litres, and achieved more than 5,000 tonnes in greenhouse gas avoidances.

From time to time TRCA staff is invited to attend binational meetings in the United States as experts in their field - these meetings cover a wide range of topics from climate change, invasive species, groundwater, integrated watershed management, stormwater LIDs, water quality, modelling, data management and GIS mapping, aquatic habitat restoration, water level regulation, Remedial Action Plan Areas of Concern, drinking water source protection, sustainability and basin wide land use planning etc.

820

TRCA staff are members of standing advisory committees for various Annexes of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and are also regular participants in meetings and conference calls on topics as diverse as Binational Biodiversity Conservation Strategies, State of the Great Lakes Reporting, the Internal International Year of Study for Lake Ontario and Lake Partners Management Committee for Lake Ontario. TRCA advises, supports and help implement studies identified under the Canada-Ontario Agreement (COA). TRCA experts are often called upon to assist Conservation Ontario with Great Lakes projects they are coordinating in Lake Erie, Lake Huron, Lake Superior and the St Lawrence River Basin. TRCA welcomes the opportunity to collaborate with the Province to assist in any way possible to meet the goals and objectives of the Great Lakes Strategy and its deliverables. While a great deal of work has been undertaken by many stakeholders, there is a lot of work to be done. Early success for this new legislation is very important and it is in all of our interests to show real progress on the Great lakes in the next few years. DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE Staff will provide periodic updates as to how the Great Lakes Protection Act and Strategy are progressing and identify opportunities for TRCA to advance our own regional goals for watershed and waterfront ecological health through the Province. TRCA will look for opportunities to provide regional expertise and knowledge of TRCA’s watersheds to the Province in order to set targets, develop performance measures and report out on progress towards the Great Lakes Strategy goals. FINANCIAL DETAILS At this time, there are no specific TRCA budgets to support this legislation. To the extent that current programs and funding will allow, TRCA will assist the Province in achieving the deliverables established in the legislation. Report prepared by: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313; Gary Bowen, 416-271-8944 Emails: ngaffney@trca.on.ca and gbowen@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313 Emails: ngaffney@trca.on.ca Date: January 15, 2016

______________________________

821

RES.#A268/15 - REHABILITATION OF THE SMALL ARMS INSPECTION BUILDING PROJECT

Request to City of Mississauga for Support of a Partnership Project. Request to City of Mississauga for support of a partnership project between the Government of Canada, Region of Peel and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority that will include a City funding commitment of $2.5 million to support partial rehabilitation of the Small Arms Inspection Building and up to $1 million over five years, towards the ongoing operation of the building.

Moved by: Jim Tovey Seconded by: Colleen Jordan WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) acquired the culturally significant Small Arms Inspection Building in 1992, as part of a larger strategy to create a regional waterfront park; AND WHEREAS the Small Arms Inspection Building was designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, by City of Mississauga Council on May 13, 2009; AND WHEREAS the designation under the Ontario Heritage Act places responsibility on TRCA as the building owner, to protect the building and the structure’s key heritage attributes; AND WHEREAS TRCA has secured a total of approximately $2.5 million from contributions from the Region of Peel, the Government of Canada and the balance of funds remaining from the original purchase and rehabilitation of the site, towards a total estimated cost of phase one of the building restoration of $5.0 million; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT TRCA staff be directed to submit a formal request to the City of Mississauga for support of a partnership project between the Government of Canada, Region of Peel and TRCA, that will include a City funding commitment of $2.5 million to support partial rehabilitation of the Small Arms Inspection Building and up to $1 million over five years, towards the ongoing operation of the building; THAT staff enter into discussions with City of Mississauga staff to negotiate the terms and conditions of the support, which may consider the option of transferring legal ownership of the building from TRCA to the City; AND FURTHER THAT staff report back at Authority Meeting #4/16, scheduled to be held on April 22, 2016, to confirm the City of Mississauga’s response to TRCA’s request for support. CARRIED BACKGROUND The Small Arms Inspection Building is located at 1352 Lakeshore Road, in the Lakeview community of Mississauga. TRCA acquired the 43,000 ft2 (4,000 m2) building in 1992 as part of the 16 hectare (39 acre) property referred to as the Arsenal Lands, which was purchased for the purposes of developing a regional waterfront park that would link Mississauga and Toronto.

822

The Small Arms Inspection Building and surrounding grounds have played an important role in Canada's history. According to a Heritage Impact Statement completed in 2009 for TRCA, the building was constructed as a wartime project, and comprises of three distinct components: a two-storey front administration wing, a bridge with one and two-storey components and an adjoining rear one-storey inspection plant. The building is the last remaining building of a larger munitions plant that was erected on the site to manufacture firearms used by allied forces overseas during World War II. In 1940, Small Arms Limited was incorporated as a crown company to operate the plant. By 1942, the facility was in full production, and at the height of employment in 1943, the factory employed up to 5,500 workers in three shifts, with women making up 65% of the workforce. Further information pertaining to the history of the building and surrounding grounds, as well as the building’s heritage attributes is available upon request. The City of Mississauga Heritage Advisory Committee recommended that the property be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act and was approved by City Council on May 13, 2009. Since that time, the rich history of the site and its importance within the Lakeview community, has inspired a community-driven and TRCA supported plan to reinvent the building. The proposed vision championed by a group of local residents, known as the Small Arms Society, is for the building to be transformed into a centre for arts, culture, heritage and science. This vision is expected to achieve many benefits including:

transition of the Lakeview community from an industrial use, into a vibrant mixed-use community;

attraction of small businesses to the Lakeview community;

contribution to the health, vibrancy and diversity of the community;

preservation and interpretation of the remaining heritage features that represent the Lakeview area’s contribution to the war efforts in WWI &WWII;

promotion of education and research related to sustainable urban design and planning;

enhancement of public amenities and connected network of regional parks and natural open spaces that bridge Toronto and Mississauga on the Lake Ontario waterfront; and

promotion of art, dance, theatre and culture. To support the community vision and to abide by the preservation requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act, TRCA staff has led numerous initiatives to confirm capital and operating costs, potential financing strategies and tenants for the rehabilitated building. At Authority Meeting #4/12, held on May 25, 2012, Resolution #A78/12 was approved as follows:

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff be directed to enter into discussions with Region of Peel staff to include in the 2013-2022 TRCA capital budget for Peel Region, $2million in special funding for rehabilitation of the Arsenal Building, former Canada Post Corporation property, City of Mississauga.

With the generous support of the Region of Peel, TRCA has been able to fund asbestos removal, mold remediation, conversion of the fire suppression system, undertake general maintenance to keep the building secure and replacement of the building’s roof.

823

In 2014, TRCA staff retained LGA Architectural Partners to develop a schematic proposal for revitalization of the building (architectural drawings available upon request). The design presented by LGA included large conditioned and unconditioned open spaces in the south part of the building, as well as washroom facilities that could serve building and future Arsenal Lands park users. The north part of the building was proposed by LGA to be multi-use space that could support office, artistic, cultural and institutional users. In 2014, following the work completed by LGA, TRCA staff led an Expression of Interest (EOI) process, seeking submissions from qualified potential partners, with their vision for the redevelopment of the building. Proposed uses submitted to TRCA through the EOI included a submission from the Small Arms Society, and proposals for a private school, an innovation hub and a museum to commemorate Canada’s military heritage. Analysis of the submissions by TRCA staff and through consultation with City of Mississauga staff suggested that the proposed uses did not satisfy one or more of the following requirements:

did not meet intended vision for the building as a community space;

did not have adequate capital and operating funding in place to realize the proposed vision; and/or

did not have a complete business plan in place. Therefore, TRCA staff did not enter into an agreement with any of the respondents. In 2015, TRCA staff submitted an application for funding through the Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program (CIP 150), administered by the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev) for a partnership project between the Government of Canada, Region of Peel, City of Mississauga, Government of Ontario for the redevelopment of the Small Arms Inspection Building into a centre for arts, culture, heritage and science. The application was intended for an initial phase of the project that would realize redevelopment of the south part of the building, a space of approximately 18,000 ft2 (1,670m2). According to the CIP 150 Guidelines, the program permitted a Government of Canada contribution of up to 50% of total eligible project costs; however, priority may be given to those projects that require a contribution of only 33%. The support of the City of Mississauga is critical in order to achieve the funding contributions specified in the CIP 150 guidelines. TRCA’s CIP 150 application was successful, and the Government of Canada approved a non-repayable contribution of up to $1,000,000 for a project to rehabilitate the south part of the Small Arms Inspection Building (Phase 1). At Authority Meeting #9/15, held on October 30, 2015, Resolution #A202/15 approved the project as follows: WHEREAS in September of 2015, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) received funding approval for FedDev Ontario for the following projects form Canada 150 Infrastructure Program (CIP 150):

Rehabilitation of the Small Arms Inspection Building – Phase 1

Improvement of Claremont Field Centre

Installation of Fitness Trail at Heart Lake Conservation Area

Expansion of Petticoat Creek Aquatic Facility; AND WHEREAS projects approved for funding must be duly authorized or endorsed by a resolution of the Authority; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the aforementioned projects approved for

funding by FedDev Ontario be approved in principle;

824

AND FURTHER THAT TRCA staff report to the Authority for additional approvals as required. To support the intended vision approved at Authority Meeting #9/15, at Authority Meeting #10/15, held on November 27, 2015, Resolution #A227/15 on Future Directions in Education at TRCA was amended by Resolution #A228/15 as follows: THAT the following be inserted before the last paragraph of the main motion: THAT the Small Arms building at Arsenal Lands be considered within the context of a Community Engagement Centre; Staff has been directed to collaborate with the The Living City Foundation to improve private and public funding support for TRCA activities related to community engagement centres; which now include the Small Arms Inspection Building. RATIONALE The redevelopment of the Small Arms Inspection Building is an exciting opportunity to promote the rejuvenation of Mississauga’s Lakeview community. It is an opportunity to commemorate and celebrate local and national history, while moving toward a sustainable and prosperous future. Lakeview is slated for renewal under the City of Mississauga’s ongoing Inspiration Lakeview and Local Area Plan planning processes. Under the Local Area Plan (adopted by City Council on September 16, 2015), there is consideration for a Special Site on the Arsenal Lands to allow for additional uses such as community facilities, a conference centre, commercial school, restaurant and secondary offices. Furthermore, as presented in the table below, the proposed building vision complements the City of Mississauga’s Lakeview Local Area Plan themes:

Local Area Plan Themes Building Redevelopment Contributions Reconnect Citizens to the Waterfront Serve as a gateway from the urban parts of the

community into the waterfront. Establish itself as a ‘destination’ that will draw people to the waterfront.

Community Health Provide a vibrant and innovative space for meeting, learning, communicating and reflection.

Distinct Neighborhoods – Preserve Heritage Features

Complement, recognize and promote the Buildings key heritage attributes, its role within the Lakeview community and its role within Canada’s military and economic development history.

Under Phase 1 of the building redevelopment proposed works include replacement or upgrades to the following components:

electrical system;

plumbing system;

mechanical system;

825

interior finishes;

windows;

site servicing;

fire safety;

accessibility; and

parking and site access. Capital funding from the City is required to support the aforementioned building and site access upgrades. Furthermore, it is anticipated, that funding will also be required to support the first five years of the building’s ongoing operating budget. Since TRCA is the building owner, one option for the management structure could be as follows:

TRCA maintains overall project management control of Phase 1 of the redevelopment project and implementation of the vision.

City of Mississauga will provide support during Phase 1 of the redevelopment.

City of Mississauga –with support from local community groups such as the Small Arms Society - will be responsible for the ongoing operation and management of the building space redeveloped as part of Phase 1.

Given that the proposed role of the building as a multi-purpose community hub is more traditionally a municipal leadership responsibility; another option for project management could involve transferring ownership of the building to the City. Under this scenario, TRCA staff would support City staff in implementing the vision for the building, including facilitating access to the existing funds available for rehabilitation of the building and the City would take on responsibility for managing all other aspects of the building’s redevelopment and ongoing operation. Ownership of the larger Arsenal Lands is proposed to remain with TRCA. FINANCIAL DETAILS It is estimated that the Building will require, at minimum, a capital investment of approximately $12 million to renovate and redevelop the property to support a sustainable and dynamic multi-use facility; of which approximately $5 million in capital funding would be required for Phase 1. The proposed capital investment has been informed through building condition reports prepared for TRCA in 2003, 2006 and 2013, and TRCA’s experience with other building renovation projects. Funding sources for Phase 1 are proposed as follows:

Amount Source Status $1.2 million Region of Peel Committed in 2012: Amount

that remains from $2.0million in special funding through 2013-2022 TRCA capital budget.

$500,000 TRCA – Canada Post Committed

$1 million Government of Canada – Canada 150 Community Infrastructure Program

Pending agreement documents from Government of Canada

$500,000 Funding from agreements made under Section 37 of Planning Act – City of Mississauga

Pending City of Mississauga Council resolution

826

Amount Source Status $2 million Special Funding - City of

Mississauga Pending City of Mississauga Council resolution

$5.2 million TOTAL DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONE TRCA will request a City of Mississauga capital investment of $2 million in special funding and $500,000 from agreements made under Section 37 of the Planning Act for the partial rehabilitation of the Small Arms Inspection Building (Phase 1) and support of up to $1 million over five years, towards the buildings operating budget. Staff will discuss with City of Mississauga staff the feasibility of the City providing support for the partnership project, as well as the terms and conditions of the support. Staff will continue to explore additional funding opportunities for the building redevelopment, which may include provincial support and identify potential tenants for the building that would achieve the intended vision. Report prepared by: Ethan Griesbach, extension 5364 Emails: egriesbach@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Ethan Griesbach, extension 5364 Emails: egriesbach@trca.on.ca Date: January 26, 2016

______________________________

RES.#A269/15 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed 33 Wigston Place, Vaughan, CFN 55067. Acquisition of property located

east of Bathurst Avenue and south of Regional Road 7 in the City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York Region, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River watershed.

(Executive Res.#B141/15) Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Chris Fonseca THAT 1.664 hectares (4.113 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located east of Bathurst Avenue and south of Regional Road 7, said lands being Part of Lot 34, Concession 1 and designated as Part 1 on Registered Plan 65R-35944 and Part of Lot 34, Concession 1 and designated as Part 1 on Registered Plan 65R-33238, be purchased from Igor Kotler (Owner); THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;

827

THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED

______________________________

RES.#A270/15 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015 Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Petticoat Creek Watershed 1967 Woodview Avenue, CFN 55036. Acquisition of property located south

of Finch Avenue and west of Altona Road, municipally known as 1967 Woodview Avenue, in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Petticoat Creek watershed.

(Executive Res.#B142/15) Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Chris Fonseca THAT 0.849 hectares (2.098 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located south of Finch Avenue and west of Altona Road, municipally know as 1967 Woodview Avenue in the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham, said land being Part of Lot 18, Registered Plan 329, designated as Part 3 on Registered Plan 40R-28868, be purchased from Giuseppe Gareri, Vincenzo Figliano, Palma Barbieri and Catarina Barbieri (Owners); THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED

______________________________

828

RES.#A271/15 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015 Flood Plain and Conservation Component Humber River Watershed Infrastructure Ontario, CFN 54893. Acquisition of property located north of

Finch Avenue and east of Kipling Avenue in the City of Toronto, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015," Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Humber River watershed.

(Executive Res.#B143/15) Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Chris Fonseca THAT 7.683 hectares (18.984 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located north of Finch Avenue and east of Kipling Avenue in the City of Toronto, said land being Part of Lot 36, Concession A, designated as Parts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Draft Plan of survey prepared by Ivan B. Wallace, Ontario Land Surveyor Ltd., Dwg: 1-0219-R v1, dated December 11, 2015, be purchased from Infrastructure Ontario; THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED

______________________________

RES.#A272/15 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2011-2015 Waterfront Component, Scarborough Sector 347-355 Centennial Road, City of Toronto, CFN 54870. Acquisition of

property located south of Kingston Road and east of Meadowvale Road in the City of Toronto, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2011-2015," Waterfront Component, Scarborough Sector.

(Executive Res.#B144/15) Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Chris Fonseca THAT 0.071 hectares (0.177 acres), more or less, of vacant land, located south of Kingston Road and east of Meadowvale Road in the City of Toronto, said land being Part of Lots 37, 38 and 39, Registered Plan 3255, designated as Part 5, Part 9 and Part 16 on a Draft Plan of survey prepared by D. Popa Surveying, Ontario Land Surveyor, Job 14-467, dated January 20, 2015, be purchased from Taryn Properties Inc., John Scharkov and Theodora Scharkov (Owners);

829

THAT the purchase price be $2.00; THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements; THAT the firm Gardiner Roberts LLP, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED

______________________________

RES.#A273/15 - CITY OF BRAMPTON Transfer of Permanent Easements

Etobicoke Creek Watershed, CFN 55062. Receipt of a request from the City of Brampton to transfer permanent easements that are no longer required by TRCA, located at 58, 64 and 66 Main Street South, in the City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, Etobicoke Creek watershed. (Executive Res.#B145/15)

Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Chris Fonseca WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the City of Brampton to transfer permanent easements, located at 58, 64 and 66 Main Street South, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with the City of Brampton in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT permanent easements containing a total of 0.222 hectares (0.547 acres), more or less, located at 58, 64 and 66 Main Street South, City of Brampton be transferred to the City of Brampton, said easements being instrument number BR 33520 and instrument number BR 31737; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00, in addition all legal, survey and other costs be paid by the City of Brampton; THAT the City of Brampton is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the transfer of this easement; THAT said transfer be subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required;

830

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED

______________________________

RES.#A274/15 - CITY OF TORONTO Request for Permanent Easement Required for Storm Sewer Construction

City of Toronto, Don River Watershed, CFN 55037. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to provide a permanent easement for the construction of a new storm sewer at Harryetta Gardens, located west of Bathurst Avenue and south of Steeles Avenue, in the City of Toronto, Don River watershed. (Executive Res.#B146/15)

Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Chris Fonseca WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to provide a permanent easement for the construction of a new storm sewer, located west of Bathurst Avenue, south of Steeles Avenue, in the City of Toronto; AND WHEREAS it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act to cooperate with the City of Toronto in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing a total of 0.057 hectares (0.142 acres), more or less, be granted in favour of the City of Toronto, said lands being Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Registered Plan 66R-28355; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00, in addition all legal, survey and other costs be paid by the City of Toronto; THAT the City of Toronto shall fully indemnify and save harmless TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or loss of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from the granting of this easement or the carrying out of construction; THAT said easements be subject to the approval of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents. CARRIED

______________________________

831

RES.#A275/15 - THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL Conveyance of Land for the rehabilitation of The Gore Road, from

Patterson Sideroad to Highway 9, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, Humber River Watershed, CFN 54891. Receipt of a request from the Regional Municipality of Peel for conveyance of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned lands required for the rehabilitation of The Gore Road, from Patterson Sideroad to Highway 9, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, Humber River watershed.

(Executive Res.#B147/15) Moved by: Michael Di Biase Seconded by: Chris Fonseca WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the Regional Municipality of Peel for conveyance of land for the rehabilitation of The Gore Road, from Patterson Sideroad to Highway 9, Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, Humber River watershed; AND WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with the Regional Municipality of Peel in this instance; THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT two parcels of TRCA-owned land containing 0.166 hectares (0.411 acres), more or less, required for the reconstruction of The Gore Road, in the Town of Caledon, Regional Municipality of Peel, said land being Part of Lot 31, Concession 4 and designated as Part 1 on Draft Plan of Survey prepared by J.D. Barnes Ltd., Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Reference No. 15-30-796-00-17 (Part of Pin 14346-0029) and; Part of Lot 32, Concession 3 and designated as Part 1 on Draft Plan of Survey prepared by J.D. Barnes Ltd., Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Reference No. 15-30-796-00-36 (Part of Pin 14345-0014), be conveyed to the Regional Municipality of Peel; THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00, in addition to all legal, survey and other costs be paid by the Regional Municipality of Peel; THAT the Regional Municipality of Peel is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from this conveyance or the carrying out of construction; THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of the Regional Municipality of Peel; THAT a landscape plan be prepared for TRCA staff review and approval, in accordance with existing TRCA landscaping guidelines; THAT a permit pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, be obtained by the Regional Municipality of Peel prior to commencement of construction;

832

THAT said conveyance be subject to approval of the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended, if required; AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including obtaining any necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. CARRIED

______________________________

Section IV – Ontario Regulation 166/16, As Amended RES.#A276/15 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06, AS AMENDED Moved by: Matt Mahoney Seconded by: Jennifer Innis THAT Section IV item 10.2 – Ontario Regulation 166/06, As Amended, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #13/15, held on January 15, 2016, be received. CARRIED

______________________________ TERMINATION

ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 11:12 a.m., on Friday, January 29, 2016.

Maria Augimeri Vice Chair /ks

Brian Denney Secretary-Treasurer

833