HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-47-89 DN: 4
5(f)
TOWN OF NEWCASTLE
t REPORT File #
Res. #
By-Law #
MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee
DATE: Monday, February 20, 1989
REPORT #: PD-47-89 FILE #: PLN 17.2
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES PROGRAMS
FILE: PLN 17.2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration
Committee recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-47-89 be received; and
2. THAT Report PD-47-89 be adopted as the Town of Newcastle's Supplementary
comments to the Minister of Natural Resources on the recommendations of the
report "A Review of the Conservation Authorities Program"; and
3. THAT a copy of Report PD-47-89 be forwarded to the Minister of Natural
Resources, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, Ganaraska Region
Conservation Authority, Kawartha Region Conservation Authority, and the
Region of Durham.
1. BACKGROUND:
1.1 The Ministry of Natural Resources has conducted a "Review of the
Conservation Authorities Program" and submitted their report for
public review inviting municipalities, among others, to provide input
on the proposed changes.
II
. . .2
REPORT 00. : PD-47-89 PJ&]D 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2 In response, Staff prepared Report PD-200-88 (Attachment No. l) as the
Town's preliminary commen ts on the recommendations on the Report. The
Staff Report provided essential background information, outlined the
recommendations and examined the issues directly related to the Town
of Newcastle. The position taken on the four items considered was:
- The Town is satisfied with the proposed division of
responsibilities with regard to urban and rural drainage
- The Town endorsed the proposed roles of the Conservation
Authorities and the Town for the provision of outdoor recreation
with the proviso that the Town will only accept transfers of land
which meets the Town's established priorities and fiscal ability.
It was also recommended that Conservation Authorities be adequately
funded to fulfill their role to regional outdoor recreation
- The Town supported the concept of amalgamation of Conservation
Authorities since it would provide for consistency in
administration and policies across the Town of Newcastle
- The Town supported the reduction of the size of membership of the
Authorities
1.3 On October 3' 1988' Council adopted the recommendation contained in
Staff Report 9D-200-88. It is noted one of the recommendations stated
as follows:
"THAT the Minister of Natural Resources be advised that the Town is
continuing its review with regard to the fiscal impact of the
proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Program" .
DEPORT K0. : PD-47-89 PAGE 3
_______________________________________________________________________________
1.4 At its meeting held October 24, 1988, Council received correspondence
dated October 17, 1988 from Mr. Ian Man0ab, General Manager of the
Kawartba Region Conservation Authority (K.R.C.A.) and referred the
matter to Staff for investigation and report. Mr. Mao0ab was seeking
the Tomo"a support in opposing the amalgamation of the Kawactho Region
Conservation Authority with the Otnuobee Region Conservation Authority
(O.B.C.A.) .
2. RESPONSE TO THE REVIEW
2.1 Since the time of Report PD-200-88, a number of agencies and
aoaocat1000 have responded to the Iotecmiuisterial Review. The
Association of Municipalities of Ontario (&.M.0.) and the Association
of Conservation Authorities of Ontario (A.C.&.O.) has submitted their
ceoDouoea. The three conservation authorities with jurisdiction in
the Town have prepared responses. In addition, the Regional staff
have prepared a response which will be considered by Regional Council
shortly.
2.2 All of these submissions have provided for a comprehensive review of
the recommendations of the Review. Given their detail, it is not
possible to summarize these various submissions. They are available
for review in the offices of the Planning and Development Department.
Some of these submissions have raised alternatives to the proposals
contained in the Review.
3. AMALGAMATION
3.1 As noted previously, the Town has supported the proposed amalgamation
of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (C.L.8.C.J\.) and
the Qauaraoka Region Conservation Authority (G.8,C.&.) on the basis
that it would provide for consistency of administration and policies
across most of the Town.
REPORT N0. : 9D-47-89 PAGE 4
_______________________________________________________________________________
The three conservation authorities with jurisdiction in the Town have
taken the following positions:
C,L.0.C.&. - Agree in principle with amalgamation. Realignment of
boundaries by adding lands to the east and west of
their current limits from M.T.D.C.A. and Q.R.C,&.
watersheds so that their jurisdiction would be more or
Ieon co-terminus with the Region's boundaries.
G.B.C.&. - Agree in principle with amalgamation for improved
efficiency. Suitable uoiuoo should be arranged after
the issue of Conservation Authorities responsibilities
are finalized. An arbitrator should be assigned to
assist in amalgamation.
K.R.C.&. - opposed to amalgamation. It will not result in
increased efficiency or economy and it seriously erodes
local autonomy and local representation. There are
significant differences in programming between K.B.C.A.
and O.B.C.&.
Regional Staff have expressed concern that with the amalgamation
scheme proposed in the Review, the new authorities would be Ieoo
accountable to the Region and area municipalities because they would
have extensive areas of jurisdiction outside Durham Region.
In addition, the Region and a number of agencies have expressed doubts
that amalgamation would ueoeoonciIy result in increased efficiency or
economy. They have noted that the desired "economies of 000leo would
be offset by the need for bcauob offices, increased travelling
expenses and the loss of local involvement.
3.2 In response to Council's request for Staff to investigate the 00000cuo
expressed by Mr. Mar0ab of B.R.C.&. , Staff re-examined the position
previously recommended and adopted by Council. One of the inherent
problems with Conservation Authorities, organized on a watershed basis,
is that they do not match political boundaries. As n result, larger
municipalities, like the Town of Newcastle, may be within the
jurisdiction of several different conservation authorities. Each
Conservation Authority administers m different type of program, related
REPORT 0U. : PD-47-89 PAGE 5
_______________________________________________________________________________
to both the peoulacities of its watershed, it financial abilities, and
the role established by its governing body. As a result, policies and
administration from one authority to another are quite different.
The advantage for Newcastle of a consolidated C.L.0.C.&. and G.B.C.&. '
is that a consistent set of conservation policies would be applied
aocuoa 90% of the municipality. For some other municipalities, this
advantage does not 0000z under the proposed amalgamation scheme.
Furthermore, with the much larger amalgamated authorities, there may be
less accountability to local concerns. The concerns of the K.D,C.&.
are quite legitimate in this regard.
3.3 After review of the various documents prepared on this issue, Staff
remain convinced that amalgamation is important to provide for a more
sound financial base and reduce the differences in administrative and
technical capabilities of conservation authorities. This amalgamation
process should, however, be negotiated with substantial local input
and obuoId not use the current boundaries as the basis for unions.
Entirely new watershed boundaries should be established with o greater
orientation to major political jurisdictions (Regions or counties) .
4. FINANCIAL IMPACT OF PROPOSED CHANGES
In addressing the question of the financial impact of implementing the
proposed changes, Staff have identified the following components:
- Responsibilities of Conservation Authorities
- Amalgamation
- Funding Formula
- Transfers of Parkland
4.1 Responsibilities of Conservation Authorities
The focus of the Iotermiuioteciol Review was the examination of the
role and responsibilities of conservation authorities. Until such
time as this has been determined, for all intents and purposes, it is
speculative to comment on the fiscal implications of the changes.
Several general comments can be considered.
REPORT 00. : PD-47-89 PAGE 0
_______________________________________________________________________________
Recommendation #2 of the Review was that "once specific
responsibilities have been assigned to conservation authorities,
individual conservation authorities cannot decide to opt in or out of
various programs or components thereof". While the purpose is to
ensure a much greater consistency to conservation programming, the
implication is that, despite variation of the municipal assessment base
and Provincial grant rates, the conservation authorities would be
obligated to provide the same level of service.
While Staff is supportive of achieving a greater consistency of
program delivery, there needs to be an ability for the conservation
authorities to respond to local needs with the adequate anucoeo of
funding to meet these needs. Indeed, it has generally been the
Provincial restraint in recent years which has presented problems for
the conservation authorities to meet their mandate.
It is recommended that the Town support the three-tiered system of
program delivery proposed by the Association of Municipalities of
Ontario. This is:
Core Program - jointly funded by the Province and the participating
municipalities in the primary areas of the
conservation authorities mandate as determined in
this Review (ie. fIoodplaiu management, erosion
control)
Non-Core Program - Fully funded by the Province as programs delegated
on a contract basis to conservation authorities
(ie. water quality sampling)
Fringe Programs - Locally important programs funded by the
participating municipalities (ie. heritage
conservation or locally-significant parks)
If such an approach was adopted and the core program defined, the
financial implications could then be properly assessed.
REPORT 0O. : PD-47-89 PAGE 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.2 Impact of Amalgamation
As noted in Report PD-380-88" amalgamation would allow for the
municipal levy to be split proportionately over the larger watershed
area on the basis of assessment. It would imply that the more
populous municipalities would share their tax base to finance their
programs over a larger area. In essence, a union of C.L.0.C.A. and
g.R.C.&. would be to the benefit of G.R.C.&. for municipal funding
purposes.
Staff do not feel that this is necessarily problematic. It would
allow the larger population centres to participate in the decisions
and funding of the Qaoacaoka Watershed which is already utilized by
many of these residents for recreational opportunities like sports
fishing and cross-country skiing.
The Region of Durham has examined the impact of amalgamation and has
concluded that under the proposed grant rates, the impact of
amalgamation of C.L.O.C.A. and Q.B.C.&. would amount to an increase of
the 1987 Regional levy by $87'499. The impact of amalgamation of
K.R.C.&. and 0.B.C.&. would amount to an increase of the 1987 Regional
levy by $47,5II. . These increases would impact the Region's levy from
the Town of Newcastle.
4.3 Impact of Revised Grant Rates
Report PD-200-88 outlines the proposal to revise the system of grants
to eliminate the need for supplementary grants. Regular grants would
be provided at the rate of 40%, 50% or 70% for all programs of a
conservation authority. The amalgamated C.L.O.C.&./G.Il.C.A. would be
eligible for the 50% grant rate. At the present time, G.B.C,A. is
eligible for supplementary grants which increases the rate of
Provincial assistance in recognition of smaller tax base.
'
DEPORT 00. : PD-47-89 PAGE 8
_______________________________________________________________________________
Again, until the issue of the mandate of the conservation authorities
is determined, the real impact of the revised funding formula cannot
be determined. If a three-tiered system of programs was adopted with
full Provincial funding provided for the implementation of provincial
programs such as forest management, the impact may be reasonable.
On the basis of the present program, Regional Staff have calculated
that the impact of the proposed grant rates on the 1987 Durham Region
levy for the C.L.0.C.A./G.R.C.&. amalgamation would mnmout to an
increase of $48"062.
4.4 Transfers of Parkland
The Zotermiuiaterial Review considers the role of conservation
authorities in the provision of outdoor recreation. A full discussion
of this is documented in Report ID+200-88. Although speculative, the
recommendations could result in the transfer of some conservation
areas to the local municipality if deemed to be only locally
significant. Candidate sites include Hampton Pond, BowmauvilIe
Valley, and Tbucoe Bazh lands.
The I988 budgets for the development, maintenance and operation of
these ucemo was $3I'280. It should be noted, however, that the
development of these properties is partial, at best. If these lands
were to be transferred, the Town would incur some obligation to
improve these lands. One could, reasonably assume that development,
maintenance and operation costs would be significantly higher in years
to come. Staff previously noted nnuoerua that the transfers of
tloodproue lands may skew the Town's priorities for DnckIaod
development. It obooId be noted that this would be a direct financial
impact on the Town (not as part of the Regional levy) .
REPORT 00. : PD-47-89 PAGE 9
_______________________________________________________________________________
The other transfer which has been mentioned, would see Darlington
Provincial Pork become a conservation area. C.L.O.C.&. staff are
interested in acquiring these lands since development subsidies for
other recreational areas have been minimal. As a project of the
conservation authority, the funding would be cost-shared between the
Province and the Region. This again, would represent a further shift
of the costs for conservation programs to the municipal level.
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:
Having reviewed the submissions of various agencies and associations
and having regard for the financial implications of the proposed
recommendations of the Zotecmiuioteciol Review, it is recommended that
the following be adopted as the Town's final submission on the "Review
of the Conservation Authorities Program":
I. The Town supports the amalgamation of conservation authorities
for the purpose of providing a epood financial base and teobuiomI
capability for the operation of its core responsibilities. This
amalgamation process should be negotiated with substantial local
input. Entirely new watershed boundaries should be established
with a greater orientation to major political jurisdictions.
2. The Town supports the proposal to reduce the size of membership
of the Authorities and the continuation of the current system of
appointment through Regional Council.
3. The Tnvm) supports the three-tiered concept of program delivery
and funding as proposed by A.M.O. that would allow core programs
to be cost-shared, provincial programs to be fully funded by the
Province and fringe programs to be funded by the municipality in
response to local needs.
REPORT 00. : PD-47-89 PAGE lO
_______________________________________________________________________________
4. The Town is unable to comment on the proposed funding formula
until the question of responsibilities is determined. It is,
however, necessary that increased provincial funding be allocated
for conservation programs. The Town does not support the
proposals which seek to transfer responsibilities to the
conservation authorities or the municipalities without an equal
oommittmeut to provide the necessary funding.
5. The Town supports the proposed division of responsibilities with
regard to urban and rural drainage provided that the role of
conservation authorities is limited to "reviewing" and
"/commenting" and that the "approval" power still resides with the
municipality. Znnomuob as master drainage planning is related to
the role of conservation authorities for flood and erosion
control, these studies obooId be funded, at least in part, through
the conservation authorities.
6. The Town supports the proposed role for conservation authorities
in the provision of regionally-significant parkland but this
responsibility nmot be matched with adequate funding to provide
for outdoor recreational opportunities.
7. The Town ooDpocto the proposed role for the muoicipaIitiy to
provide for locally-significant Dacba but with the proviso that
the Town will only accept transfers of laud whereby it meets the
Town's eotabIoihed priorities and is within its fiscal ability to
effectively maintain and operate.
8. The Town does not support the transfer of Darlington Provincial
Park to o conservation authority.
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
,
-------------------------- - ---------------
Franklin Wu, M.C.I.P. rawreu Kotaeft
Director of Planning & Development Chief &d�i �otrative officer
"
DJC*FW* 'ip
*Attach.
February 13, 1989
„ DN: 200-88 f
TOWN OF.:-.NEWCASTLE
REPORT
File #
Res_ #
-- By-Law #
MEETING: Council
DATE: Monday, September 26, 1988
REPORT #: PD-Zoo-s8 'FILE #: PLN 17.2
MIJECT: REVIEW OF CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES
FILE: PLN 17.2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended to Council the following:
1. THAT Report PD-200-88 be received; and
2. ` THAT Report PD-200-88 be adopted as the Town of Newcastle's comments to the
Minister of Natural Resources on the recommendations of the report "A Review
of the Conservation Authorities Program";
3. THAT the Minister of Natural Resources be advised that the Town is
continuing its review with regard to the fiscal impact of the proposed
changes to the Conservation Authorities Program; and
4. THAT a copy of Report PD-200-88 be forwarded to the Minister. of Natural
Resources, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority,. Ganaraska Region .
Conservation Authority, Kawartha Region Conservation Authority, and the
Region of Durham.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 A Provincial Committee comprised of representatives from six (6) ministries
recently released their report which reviewed the responsibilities,
effectiveness, organization, and funding of conservation authorities. This
is the first comprehensive review undertaken in the last twenty (20) years.
The Conservation Authorities Act dates back to 1946 and was directly an
outcome of the conservation movement of the 19301s. The Ganaraska River
Conservation Authority was one of the first authorities formed dating back
to October 8, 1946.
. ..2
REPORT NO. : PD-200-88 PAGE 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.2 Three (3) fundamental concepts of the Conservation Authorities
movement have been embodied in the legislation since 1946.
i) A Conservation Authority could only be formed as the result of a
local initiative.
ii) The costs of projects would be shared between the Province and
the municipality and would only flourish when local people are
willing to support it financially.
iii) Conservation Authorities were to have jurisdiction over one or
more watersheds (and thus not organized on the basis of political
boundaries) .
1.3 Since the enactment of the original Conservation Authorities Act,
several amendments have been enacted to broaden the scope of the
Authorities mandate and adjust administrative arrangements.
1.4 Today there are 38 Conservation Authorities across Ontario covering
most of the southern portion of the Province and several areas in
northern Ontario. A total of 90% of the population of Ontario resides
in areas under the jurisdiction of'Conservation Authorities. The Town
of Newcastle is covered by four authorities: Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority (C.L.O.C.A.) , Ganaraska Region Conservation
Authority (G.R.C.A.) , Kawartha Region Conservation Authority
(K.R.C.A.) , and Otonabee Conservation Authority (O.C.A.) covering a
small portion along the northern boundary (see Attachment #1) .
1.5 Conservation Authorities vary greatly both in size, physical
characteristics of the watersheds, population and assessment base and
the type of resource issues addressed in their programs.
2. ISSUES IDENTIFIED
The Interministerial Steering Committee conducted a consultation with
their various ministries, the Association of Municipalities of
Ontario, the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario to
identify common issues and proposed solutions to problems being noted.
. ..3
REPORT NO. : PD-200-88 PAGE 3'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The major issues identifed were as follows:
i) There is a lack of agreement between the Province and the
municipalities on the specific responsibilities of Conservation
Authorities. As it stands, the overlapping jurisdictions creates
public confusion and inefficiencies since Conservation Authorities
mandate is not clearly defined.
ii) There is an inconsistency in the delivery of programs and services
since Conservation Authorities can opt in or out of various
programs.
iii) The ability of Conservation Authorities to deliver programs is
adversely affected by the extreme variability of their local
financial base and administrative/technical capabilities.
iv) 'The large numbers of members on Conservation Authorities result in
a lack of accountability.°
V) The appointment process requires review to ensure that appointed
members effectively represent the interest of and are accountable
to the appointing body.
vi) The funding process creates problems and skews priorities. In
particular, Provincial funding has been virtually frozen since
1980 resulting in decline of roughly 35% in real dollars to 1985.
vii) Existing water control structures and recreation facilities cannot
be properly maintained, let alone allowing for major new capital
acquisitions and development.
viii) Conservation authorities do not have multi-year committment to
base level funding which creates problems in scheduling projects
and arranging the necessary municipal funding.
ix) The internal approvals and external controls on Conservation
Authorities should be reviewed to ensure greater accountability
for their individual actions.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REVIEW
The main recommendations of the Report are as follows:
1. Conservation authorities should continue to operate on a watershed
basis with strong local initiative and a cost-sharing of project
costs between the Province and the member municipalities. In
this, the three (3) fundamental principles were re-affirmed.
...4
REPORT NO.: PB-200-88 PAGE 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. That once specific responsibilities have been assigned to
Conservation Authorities, individual conservation authorities
cannot opt in or out of various programs or components thereof.
In other words, there should be a consistent delivery of specified
services across the Province.
3. Smaller conservation authorities be amalgamated to provide the
population and assessment base to deliver programs which require
the funding or technical expertise not available to the smaller
authorities.
4. Conservation authorities should have full responsibility for the
following:
a) all aspects of flood control
b) all aspects of erosion control
c) low-flow augmentation (release of water from dams and
reservoirs during low periods)
d) wetlands which provide significant natural flood storage and
flow augmentation
e) provincial water quality monitor activities
f) regionally significant parks
g) public information on natural resource management
_ 5. Conservation authorities should have limited or shared
responsibilities for the following activities:
a) non-point pollution (surface run-off from agricultural and
urbanized areas)
b) urban drainage
c) rural drainage
d) water supply (reservoirs)
e) heritage conservation
f) forest management
g) fish and wildlife management (primarily on conservation
authority property only)
h) soil erosion and sediment control (on conservation authority
property, non-agricultural areas)
i) wetlands that protect significant flora and fauna
j) areas of natural and scientific interest
k) conservation education (on cost recovery basis primarily under
contract with Boards of Education) .
The programs are shared with various Provincial ministries or the
municipalities with a more clear definition of specific
responsibilities.
6. Conservation authorities should not be responsible for the
following activities:
a) point pollution (sewage treatment facilities and industrial
discharges)
. ..5
REPORT NO. : PD-200-88 PAGE 5
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b) water-taking permits
c) provincially-significant parks (transferred to Ministry of
Natural Resources)
d) locally significant parks (transferred to area municipalities)
e) any aspect of waste management
7. The membership of Conservation Authorities should be reduced to
one third of their present size to increase involvement in
decision making and the accountability of members to
municipalities. The municipal members would be appointed by the
Regional municipalities or counties (as currently done in Durham
Region) .
8. The municipal share of costs should be levied against the Regional
municipalities or counties (as currently done in Durham Region) .
9. Supplementary grants should be eliminated and regular grants of
40, 50 or 70 percent should be provided for all programs of a
Conservation Authority. The rate of the grant would be a function
of the total assessment and population within the watershed. The
authorities in less urbanized centres would receive a higher
funding level to be able to provide the same services.
10. Funding freed up through the revised grant process (approximately
$5 million) would be increased by another $5 million for a total
of $10 million additional annual funding for maintenance of
existing dams and water control structures, maintenance of
existing recreation facilities and a backlog of new flood and
erosion control projects.
4. COMMENT
The proposed recommendations are reviewed under four (4) broad
categories.
4.1 Responsibilities of Conservation Authorities
As noted previously, one major issue is the overlapping jurisdictions
of Conservation Authorities with either Provincial ministries or
municipalities. The Report attempts to provide a rationale division of
responsibilities. Only the three which have a major impact on the
Town are examined below.
REPORT NO. : PD-200-88 ( PAGE 6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.1.1 urban Drainage
It has been proposed that Conservation Authorities share responsibility
for urban drainage with area municipalities. The Conservation
Authorities' primary mandate is for flood and erosion control, and as a
result it is recommended that the role of Conservation Authorities
would be to undertake surveys and studies to assess the effect of urban
development on surface run-off and establish targets for allowable
increases in flows to receiving watercourses. Municipalities would
have the mandate to prepare master drainage plans in accordance to the
established targets, review and approve site specific stormwater
management and construct and operate any necessary structural works
(ie. retention ponds) . As development occurs, Conservation Authorities
would review the Master Drainage Plans and stormwater management plans.
They would also monitor the effect of urban development.
It is recommended that the division of responsibilities for urban
drainage be endorsed. The Town's Works Department is satisfied
that the above arrangement is satisfactory provided that the role of
the Conservation Authorities is limited to "reviewing" and
"commenting" on stormwater management issues and that the "approval'~ -'
power still resides with the municipality.
4.1.2 Rural Drainage
It has been recommended that a similar arrangement be followed for
rural areas although The Drainage Act is in the enabling legislation.
It should be noted that -given the topography of the Town, rural
drainage has not usually required the construction of major municipal
drains under the provisions of The Drainage Act.
It is recommended that the proposed division of responsibilities be
endorsed. The Town's Works Department is satisfied with the
proposals for the sharing of rural drainage responsibilities.
. . .7
• sue-- ,
REPORT NO, : PD-200-88 PAGE 7
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.1.3 Outdoor Recreation
The Report tries to clarify the role of Conservation Authorities in
providing outdoor recreation facilities. In essence, the Conservation
Authority would operate as the Regional Parks System. A Regional Park
is defined as a facility which would serve two or more municipalities.
They should not be responsible for provincially significant parks or
locally significant parks.
As a result, several parks or properties could be expected to be
transferred. Although it is just.speculative, it may be deemed that
Darlington Provincial Park isInot serving a provincial function due to
its limited size and natural features. Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority has expressed an interest in assuming
responsibility for the Park. On the other hand, there are several
Conservation Areas which could be deemed of municipal significance
- only. Several candidates are the Hampton Pond lands and the
Bowmanville Creek valley lands currently administered by Central Lake
Ontario Conservation Authority and Thurn Park on the Wilmot Creek
currently administered by Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority.
As a result of these sort of possible transfers, it could reasonably be
expected that the Town would be required to absorb a greater share in
the costs of developing and operating these sites. Darlington
Provincial Park, if transferred, would be funded on a cost-shared
basis. The other parks noted above would be the full responsibility of
the municipality.
In principle, the suggested roles for the various parties in outdoor
recreation is appropriate. Notwithstanding there are significant
fiscal implications concerns with regard to this proposal. It is
important to note that the development of conservation areas for
recreation purposes has been underfunded for years and has limited the
ability of the Authorities to effectively meet the growing need.
. . .8
REPORT NO.: PD-200-88 PAGE 8
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Community Services Department have expressed concern that the
transfers of floodprone lands may skew the Town's abilities to
establish its own priorities for parkland development. In particular,
the Town's limited assessment base and rapid growth make it difficult
to meet the demands for active recreation facilities, let alone
passive open space.
In light of the above, it is recommended that the Town endorse the
proposed roles for conservation authorities and the Town with the
proviso that the Town will only accept transfers of lands whereby it
meets the town's established priorities and it is within its fiscal
ability to effectively maintain and operate any such lands or
facilities.
Furthermore, it is recommended that the Conservation Authority be
adequately funded to provide Regional outdoor recreation opportunities
- for a growing population.
4.2 Amalgamation
Under the proposal, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and
Ganaraska Conservation Authority would amalgamate as one Conservation
Authority. The one major benefit to the Town is that there would be a
consistent application of responsibilities across the Town. At
present, there is a difference in the programs offered by the two
authorities, the technical resources of each authority and the
application of the authorities' responsibilities.
In many ways, the two authorities have similar watersheds. Both
consist of relatively short streams flowing from the Oak Ridges
Moraine to Lake Ontario. Both share a common waterfront on Lake
Ontario with the same intendent problems and opportunities. Both
contain populations within the influence of the greater Toronto
market.
.. .9
REPORT NO. :- PD-200-88 PAGE 9
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The major differences are that the Ganaraska River itself is a much
larger watershed than all others and has been an ongoing flood threat.
As a result the activities of the Ganaraska Region Conservation
Authority are more oriented to flood control. This accounts for
almost 60 percent of its budget whereas flood control accounts for
only 11 percent of the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
budget (see Attachment #2) . In addition, with significant land
holding in the Ganaraska headwaters and with jurisdiction over both
the Wilmot Creek and Ganaraska River, Ganaraska Region Conservation
Authority has taken some responsibilities for forestry and fisheries
management. Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, on the other
hand, has assumed a significant role in outdoor recreation to meet the
demands of its larger population.
Amalgamation would provide for a larger assessment base for activities
in the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority watershed. It would
allow.the larger population centres in Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority to actively -participate in the decisions and
funding of programs in the Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority
watershed which are currently providing recreational opportunities for
residents of these larger population centres. On the other hand,
however, it would mean that there would be less funding available for
current Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority programs.
It is recommended that the Town support the amalgamation of the
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and the Ganaraska Region
Conservation Authority since it would provide for consistency across
the Town of Newcastle and enable the larger population centres to
share in the decisions and the funding of programs presently carried.
. . .10
REPORT.NQ. : PD-200-C- PAGE 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3 Membership
At the present time, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and
Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority have 14 members each,
including 3 Provincial appointees. This total of 28 members would be
reduced to 11 after amalgamation and would include only 2 Provincial
appointments.
Under the recommended approach for the appointment of members, the
population guidelines would be utilized iri accordance with the
Conservation Authorities Act. These are as follows:
i) Appointment from participating municipalities where the population
is:
Over 250,000 persons 5 representatives
100,000 - 250,000 persons 4 representatives
50,000 - 100,000 persons 3 representatives
10,000 - 50,000 persons 2 representatives
Under 10,000 persons . 1 representative
ii) Area municipalities with a population greater 50,000 are entitled
to the appropriate number.
iii) Area municipalities with a population less. than 50,000 are grouped
as one municipal unit and entitled to the appropriate number.
iv) Provincial appointments are based on one for every ten municipal
members of part thereof with a minimum of two per conservation
authority.
The membership proposals in the report were made on the basis of 1985
year end Assessment populations. The calculation was as follows:
Municipality Population Representatives
Oshawa 121,669 4
Durham - Newcastle 37,712
- Whitby 44,241 3
- Ajax 1,620
Northumberland 34,890 2
Peterborough 81 0
Victoria 41 0
Provincial Appointments 2
11
. . .11
REPORT NO. : PD-200-88 PAGE 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is likely that Regional Council would only appoint one member from
Newcastle on this basis.
Membership on the basis of current assessed populations for July 1,
1988 would be as follows:
Municipality Population Representatives
Oshawa 120,904 4
Whitby 50,201 3
Durham - Newcastle 37,769 2
- Ajax 1,700 (Est.)
Northumberland N/A 2
Peterborough N/A 0
Victoria N/A 0
Provincial Appointments 2
13
Under the revised population figures, it is likely Newcastle would
have 2 representatives and could expect a third representative
sometime in the next five years. On this basis, it would seem that
the Town is adequately represented- under amalgamation and revised
membership proposals. The Town's representatives would be recommended
to and appointed by Regional Council.
It is recommended that the Town support the proposal to reduce the
size of membership of the Authorities and the continuation of the
current system of appointment through Regional Council.
4.4 Funding
Any discussion of funding must be prefaced with the caution that the
actual impact cannot be ascertained until there is a clear definition
of responsibilities and an understanding of the programs that the
Conservation Authority will undertake. Nevertheless, the Review
estimated the impact or the grants and the general levies on the basis
of the average annual budgets for the Authorities between 1985 and
1987.
. ..12
REPORT NO.: PD-2001, PAGE 12
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the proposed changes with a grant rate of 50%, the cost
sharing of funding for an amalgamated Central Lake Ontario and
Ganaraska Conservation Authority has been calculated as follows:
Current Proposed
Provincial Grant 931,339 819,574
Municipal Levy 1,098,527 1,208,992
Total 2,029,886 2,028,566
Source: Appendix 15 and 16 to Review of Conservation Authorities
Program
Of the municipal levy, the portion assigned to Durham Region has
increased from $904,149 to $1,051,581. At this time, it is not known
what portion of this levy would be assigned to the Town of Newcastle.
Given the time constraints of Council's request to report on this
matter by September 26, 1988, it has not been possible for Staff to
explore the fiscal implications of the proposed changes. In light of
this and the importance of this Report, it is necessary that this
matter be referred back to Staff for a further review, in particular,
the fiscal impact of the Report's recommendations.
4.5 For the information of Council, a representative from the Ministry of
Natural Resources will be making a presentation to Regional Planning
Committee on October 11, 1988. The Manager of Strategic Planning will
be attending. Any interested Councillors could attend as well.
Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation
to the Committee
------------ ------ -----------------------------
Franklin Wu Lawrence E. Rotseff
Director of Planning & Development Chief Administrative Officer
DJC*FW*jip
*Attach.
September 20, 1988
1
�.,,,. —__ sir:_ 1��,�.•j_ _ �-. 1 �ed® ' • \f=.!�E:�.. c�'�, Q; �,s-,, y
a,. -. "^�;�f'e,�-,�ps!�... � ; F .....� ��,�r•:- .' ` :`�►_"iiO��S,w,¢i,.&a.�;''��' :c516��.�... .. _ ,�
-
�♦r� � ��aiirN�l 1;
ATTACHMENT
AVERAGE ANNUAL EXPENDITURE (1985 - 1987)
000 S
C.L.O.C.A. G.R.C.A. TOTAL
Water Management
Flood Control 177 783 960
Erosion Control 266 22 288
Low Flow Augmentation 0 0 0
Urban and Rural Drainage 0 1 1
Wetland 0 8 8
Water Quality 0 35 35
Water Supply 0 0 0
Outdoor Recreation
Conservation Area 419 59 478
Heritage Conservation 0 0 0
Resource Management
Forest Management 0 88 88
Fish -& Wildlife Management 0 25 25
Soil Erosion/Sediment Control 0 0 0
Other
Conservation Education 179 146 325
Conservation Information 28 13 41
offices/Workshop 156 12 168
Administration
Staff/Supplies/etc. 297 127 424
1,522 1,319 2,841
Staff 19 12 31