Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-200-88 DN: 200-88 REPORT #4 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE REPORT File # w Res. # = ,' By-Law # MEETING: Council I DATE: Monday, September 26, 1988 REPORT #: PD-200-88 FILE #: PLN 17.2 SIJBJECT: REVIEW OF CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES FILE: PLN 17.2 i 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 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. i . . .2 REPORT 00. : PD-200-88 PAGE 2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.2 Three (3) fundamental concepts of the Conservation Authorities movement have been embodied in the legislation oiuoa 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 tboa 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. & total of 90% of the population of Ontario resides in arena under the jurisdiction of Conservation Authorities. The Town of Newcastle is covered by four authorities: Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority (C.L.O.C.&.) , Ganacaoka Region Conservation Authority (Q.R.C.8.) , Kawactba Region Conservation Authority ' (D.D.C.A.) , and Otouabee Conservation Authority (U.C.A.) covering a small portion along the northern boundary (see Attachment #l) . 1.5 Conservation Authorities vary greatly both in size, physical characteristics of the watersheds, population and assessment base and the type of resource i000eo addressed in their programs. 3. I88D8G IDENTIFIED | ! The ZutermioiateciaI Steering Committee conducted n 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 00. : PD-200-88 PAGE 3 _______________________________________________________________________________ The major issues ideutifed were as follows: i) There is o 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 euaoce 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 350 in zeal dollars to 1985. vii) Existing water control otrootocea 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 nommittmeot to / base level funding which creates problems in scheduling prn 'mota and arranging the necessary municipal funding. ix) The internal approvals and external controls on Conservation Authorities should be reviewed to euaorm greater accountability for their individual actions. ]. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REVIEW The main recommendations of the BoDnrt are as follows: I. 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 DciuoiDlea were re-affirmed. . . .4 DEPORT NO. : PD-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 n consistent delivery of specified services aocooa 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 abnold have full responsibility for the following: a) all aspects of flood control b) all aspects of erosion oouLcnI o) low-flow augmentation (release of water from dams and reservoirs dozing 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 abnold 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) b) soil erosion and sediment control (on conservation authority property, non-agricultural areas) i) wetlands that protect significant flora and fauna ') areas of natural and scientific interest k) conservation education (on coot 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. G. Conservation authorities should not be ibl for the following activities: a) point pollution (sewage treatment facilities and industrial discharges) 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 REPORT 0O. : PD-200-88 D&QE 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. & Regional Park is defined as n 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 'oat speculative, it may be deemed that Darlington Provincial Park is not 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 8cema which could be deemed of municipal significance only. Several candidates are the Hampton Pond lands and the BovonuoviIle Creek valley lands currently administered by Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and Tbuco Park on the Wilmot Creek currently administered by Gauacaoka Bagiuo Conservation Authority. As n result of these sort of DuooibIe 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 parka 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 fionoI implications n000ecna with regard to this proposal. It is important to note that the development of conservation areas for recreation gocpooea has been underfunded for years and has limited the ability of the Authorities to effectively meet the growing need. 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. 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 00. : PD-200-88 PAGE 10 -----------------------------------------------_-------------------------_----- 4.3 Membership At the present time, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and gaoazaoko Region Conservation Authority have 14 members each, including 3 Provincial appointees. This total of 28 members would be reduced to Il after amalgamation and would include only 2 Provincial appointments. Under the recommended approach for the appointment of members, the population guidelines would be utilized in 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 I00,000 - 250,000 persons 4 representatives 50'000 - I00,000 pecauua 3 representatives I0,000 - 58,800 persons 3 representatives Under I8,000 persons l representative ii) Area municipalities with a population greater 50'008 are entitled to the appropriate number. iii) Area municipalities with m population less than 60,080 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 pcopnooIo in the report were made on the basis of I985 � 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 O Provincial Appointments 2 D8P0KT 00, : PD_200_88 PAGE Il _______________________________________________________________________________ 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 l, 1988 ;mold be as follows: Municipality Pl ti Representatives Oshawa 120r904 4 Whitby 50,201 3 Durham - Newcastle 37,769 2 - Ajax 1,700 (Eat.) Northumberland N/A 2 Peterborough N/& 0 Victoria 0/A 0 Provincial Appointments 2 Under the revised population figures, it is likely Newcastle *noId have 3 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 oauont be ascertained until there is a oIauc 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-200-88 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 I 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. I Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation to the Committee !-= --®-® -- 4 4-7 °- ------------------ Franklin Wu Lawrenc Kotseff Director of Planning & Development Chief d�inistrative Officer DJC*FW*jip *Attach. September 20, 1988 I i i _ 1 L 1 _ it ©'�.� � �� •a p1mmm"PI Inn INN .fittn 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 i 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 I i I I i