Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
October 06, 2016 - Council
THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MUNICIPAL OFFICE 9344 Plank Road, Straffordville, ON Council Chambers Thursday, October 6, 2016 7:00 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST & THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF 3. REVIEW OF ITEMS NOT LISTED ON AGENDA 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS 5. DELEGATIONS A. 7:05 p.m. – Susan Chilcott on behalf of the Friends of Edison re Edison Museum of Vienna 6. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) A. Regular Meeting of Council held September 15, 2016 B. Public Meeting held September 15, 2016 7. MOTIONS AND NOTICE OF MOTION 8. RECREATION, CULTURE, TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 8.1 Correspondence 8.1.1 Receive for Information 8.1.2 Requiring Action 8.2 Reports to Council 9. PHYSICAL SERVICES – EMERGENCY SERVICES 9.1 Correspondence 9.1.1 Receive for Information 9.1.2 Requiring Action 9.2 Reports to Council 10. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES – SUSTAINABILITY AND CONSERVATION 10.1 Correspondence 10.1.1 Receive for Information A. Notice of Public Meeting re Zoning By-law Amendment Living Gospel Mennonite Church 10.1.2 Requiring Action 2016 Council Agenda October 6, 2016 10.2 Reports to Council A. Report DS-40/16 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator re Drainage Agreement – Max Underhill’s Farm Supply, Town of Tillsonburg B. Report DS-41/16 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator re Official Plan Amendment No. 17 and Zoning By-Law Z653-2016 11. FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION 11.1 Correspondence 11.1.1 Receive for Information A. Town of Aurora re Ontario Municipal Board Reform Update letter to Premier Wynne B. Municipality of Dutton/Dunwich re Hydro Cost Resolution C. Transport Canada re Grade Crossings Regulations pursuant to the Railway Safety Act D. Thames Valley District School Board re Proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 01 E. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry re Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report F. Notice re Straffordville Community Centre Rental Booking 11.1.2 Requiring Action A. Serge Pieters re Parking in Port Burwell and Wheelhouse Committee Contribution B. Port Burwell Historical Society Members re Wheelhouse Project C. Museums Bayham Advisory Board & Committee Resolution 11.2 Reports to Council A. Report CAO-57/16 by Paul Shipway, CAO re Bell Small Cell Agreement B. Report CAO-58/16 by Paul Shipway, CAO re St. Thomas Community Recycling Centre 12. BY-LAWS A. By-Law 2016-083 Being a By-law to authorize the execution of a contribution agreement between The Municipality of Bayham and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs regarding The Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund – Formula-Based Component (This by-law authorizes provision of funding under the Formula-Based Component of the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund) B. By-Law 2016-084 Being a By-law to authorize the execution of a drainage agreement between The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham and Max Underhill Farm Supply 2016 Council Agenda October 6, 2016 Limited and The Corporation of the Town of Tillsonburg (This by-law follows the recommendation made in Report DS-40/16 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator during the regular meeting of Council of October 6, 2016) C. By-Law 2016-085 Being a By-law to adopt Official Plan Amendment No. 17 regarding lands designated as “Institutional” being changed to “Industrial” in the Municipality of Bayham Official Plan (This by-law follows the recommendation made in Report DS-41/16 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator during the regular meeting of Council of October 6, 2016) D. By-Law Z653-2016 Being a By-law to further amend By-Law Z456-2003 (First and Second Reading only. This by-law follows the recommendation made in Report DS-41/16 by Margaret Underhill, Deputy Clerk/Planning Coordinator during the regular meeting of Council of October 6, 2016) 13. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 14. OTHER BUSINESS 14.1 In Camera A. Confidential item regarding a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board (Eden Community Centre) B. Confidential Item regarding personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees (Staffing) 14.1 Out of Camera 15. BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL A. By-Law 2016-086 Being a By-law to confirm all actions of Council 16 ADJOURNMENT MUNICIPAL SUMMIT OMB REFORM: PROCESS & POWERS RECOMMENDATIONS Attachment 1 1 MUNICIPAL SUMMIT ON OMB REFORM: PROCESS AND POWERS While each community is indeed unique, when it comes to planning matters, many of our communities encounter the same issues. When considering development proposals within the context of approved Official Plans – there is on-going pressure to alter their Official Plans to approve project-specific amendment requests. Repeated appeals to the OMB of Municipal councils’ planning decisions to uphold their Official Plans and deny project-specific amendment requests, results in multiple communities fighting the same fight - wasting untold taxpayer dollars in the process. It is a lengthy, costly, and frustrating process and one that is clearly not working. Discussions around the need for OMB reform are not new. As an issue it has jumped from the back burner to the front burner and back again many times over the past two decades. However, despite the many years of discussion, there has been little material change to the scope of powers, procedures or predictability of decision making of the OMB. This had led to frustration for the key stakeholders in the process – Municipal leaders, the development community and - most important - the residents and communities affected by planning decisions and OMB rulings regarding same. OMB processes and scope of power have not kept pace with the changes in municipal planning necessitated by the explosion of growth in our communities. Effective planning requires certainty and predictability in the processes that govern it. What is needed, therefore, is clarity of the role and scope of power of all those with the authority for decision making. In light of the pending Provincial review of the OMB, this is an opportune time for elected representatives – those decision-makers on the front lines of municipal planning - to work together and advocate for appropriate and effective reform(s) of the OMB. Elected officials from across the Province have been asking for change for a long time and now, as a result of the Summit on OMB Reform – Process and Powers have come together to identify common goals and common solutions and to advocate for those changes in planning legislation. With reform, it is hoped that Municipalities will have more authority and predictability in local planning decisions. Background The impetus for the Municipal Summit on OMB Reform came from a motion brought forward by Councillor Tom Mrakas to Aurora Town Council in January of 2016 that spoke to the need to address the scope and powers of the OMB. Subsequent to that, and within the context of the need for OMB reform, an additional motion was put forward jointly by Councillor Michael Thompson and Councillor Tom Mrakas that spoke to the specific planning issue of development of open space/parkland and the need for criteria against which both municipalities and the OMB can consider when reviewing said development requests. 2 It was in the context of these two unanimously supported motions that the idea for a Municipal Summit on OMB reform was born. Following quickly on the heels of the passing of both motions, a Municipal Summit Planning Working Group was created to begin the work of creating the Summit. The event, held in the Markham Civic Centre on May 14th, was the result of months of hard work by this dedicated group of 17 elected officials from 12 municipalities across the GTA. The Municipal Summit was a unique event; a grass roots gathering of elected officials from every corner of our Province, working together towards the common goal of affecting real change in the decision-making processes that affect how our communities are planned. The daylong event featured a number of important speakers including Ms. Helen Cooper, Former Mayor of Kingston, Chair of the Ontario Municipal Board, AMO President; Mr. John Chipman, Author “Law Unto Itself”, former editor of the Ontario Municipal Board Reports; Ms. Valerie Shuttleworth Chief Planner for York Region; Mr. Leo Longo, Senior Partner Aird & Berlis LLP and Mr. Joe Vaccaro, CEO of the Ontario Home Builders Association. The panelists engaged attendees and solicited their input directly through breakout groups. Our guest Moderator, Mr. Bill Hogg, brought together the outcome of both the broader discussions as well as the break out groups so as to identify common themes that would inform the proposed recommendation(s) Recommendations At the outset, the purpose of the Summit was to identify common themes and common principles of reform that would modernize the process and procedures of the OMB. The purpose of which is to ensure that decisions of the Board reflect and respect the uniqueness of every community. In reviewing the comments of the attendees and the panelists as well as the municipal leaders that have weighed in through emails and other communication, and taking into consideration the over 100 municipalities that have endorsed the motion(s) advocating reform, the consensus view spoke to a clear need to review the scope of powers of the OMB. Thus, the recommendations of the Summit can be boiled down to one overarching recommendation: Limit the jurisdiction of the OMB to questions of law or process. Specifically, when considering appeals, require the OMB to uphold any planning decision(s) of Municipal Councils unless said decision(s) is contrary to the processes and rules set out in legislation. A decision by a Municipal Council to uphold their Official Plan – a Plan that conforms to provincial legislation and is approved by the Province through the delegated authority of the relevant Regional government - should not be subject to appeal unless that decision is contrary to the processes and rules set out in legislation. Further, OMB decision- making processes/procedures should be predicated on the principle that planning 3 decisions of a local Municipal Council as they relate to their Official Plan will be upheld unless they are contrary to the processes and rules set out in legislation. The recent changes to the Planning Act (Bill 73) as they speak to limits on appeals – namely that Official Plans cannot be appealed within the first two years of adoption - are a good first step, but they don’t go far enough. The consensus of attendees was that appeals should be strictly limited. Some felt that amendment requests should not be allowed to be put forward at all unless proponents can demonstrate that the proposed changes to the Official Plan or zoning by-law fulfill a changing community need or in some way better the community. The onus should be on the applicant to demonstrate to the local Municipal Council that the changes to the Official Plan necessitated by a proposed project or development benefit the community and/or enhance it. If a Council sees that there is a clear benefit to the community then it is within the Councils authority to grant the amendments. However, if a Council feels that the application does not somehow better the community, then Council has full authority to deny the application without it being subject to appeal. There should be consistency in the scope of authority of Municipal Councils. Any other decision by a Municipal Council is only subject to appeal through a judicial review the scope of which is errors in process or law. The question then is - why are planning decisions different? The answer is they should not. As it stands now, Municipalities are required to review application after application, requesting amendment after amendment; considering each in isolation as opposed to the integrated whole. Piecemeal planning negates the utility and functionality of Official Plans. Multiple changes to a Municipal Plan required by multiple project-specific amendment requests compromises the integrity of the Official Plan and indeed the planning process as a whole. Municipal planning is a complex process. But the current legislation does not recognize or reflect that complexity. The legislation does not adequately address what can be appealed, who can put forward an appeal, and the relative weight that Municipal Council decisions will be given in the adjudication of appeals. Similarly, vague terminology – such as “…due consideration” – significantly impacts the predictability of decision making processes of the Board. Even timelines for decision-making are unworkable. Despite the fact that even mildly contentious development proposals require considerable amount of time to compile the information necessary for informed Council decisions, a decision must be rendered within 180 days or face appeal. This is not good planning. This is ineffective and inefficient public planning. Clearly there does still need to be a degree of flexibility in the decision making processes. It is not the expectation that Official Plans are carved in stone. However, the drivers of community change should be the community itself. Planning legislation – including the OMB Act - should outline in very specific and very limited terms the basis upon which a Municipal Council decision to refuse an amendment to its Official Plan or zoning bylaw can be appealed. Concomitantly, decisions by the OMB when considering appeals of local Council planning decisions should reflect and respect the vision of the communities as defined in their Official Plans. 4 In closing, we recognize that our communities are dynamic. They continue to grow and evolve over time. But with that evolution comes a very real pressure to manage that growth in a way that is respectful of the unique character of the affected communities. Through necessary legislative reform and the clarification of the scope of power and authority of all decision making bodies – both elected and appointed - predictable, appropriate decision-making processes can be achieved. We thank the panelists, our moderator, our sponsors and most of all everyone who participated in this process, for the incredible input and hard work that has been undertaken. Sincerely, The Members of the OMB Reform Summit Working Group: Councillor Tom Mrakas, Chair (Aurora) Councillor Michael Thompson (Aurora). Councillor Marianne Meed Ward (Burlington) Councillor Nicholas Ermeta (Cambridge) Councillor Frank Sebo (Georgina) Councillor Cathy Downer (Guelph) Councillor Yvonne Fernandes (Kitchener) Councillor Karen Rea (Markham) Regional Councillor Nirmala Armstrong (Markham) Councillor Don Hamilton (Markham) Councillor Christina Bisanz (Newmarket) Councillor Karen Cilevitz (Richmond Hill) Councillor David West (Richmond Hill) Councillor & Deputy Mayor Pat Molloy (Uxbridge) Councillor Marilyn Iafrate (Vaughan) Councillor Alan Shefman (Vaughan) Councillor Mary Ann Grimaldi (Welland) Councillor Steve Yamada (Whitby) Grade Crossings Regulations: what you need to know There are about 14,000 public and 9,000 private grade crossings along more than 40,000 kilometres of federally regulated railway track in Canada. Transport Canada’s Grade Crossings Regulations (the Regulations) help to improve safety at these crossings by: • establishing comprehensive and enforceable safety standards for both new and existing crossings in Canada; • clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of railway companies and road authorities; and • ensuring that railway companies and road authorities share key safety information with each other. What is a grade crossing? A grade crossing is an intersection where a road or path crosses railway tracks at the same level. Grade crossings are also known as level crossings, railway crossings, or train crossings. What is a public grade crossing? A public grade crossing is where railway tracks intersect with a road that is owned by a public authority, such as a province, municipality or band council, and is used by the general public. What is a private grade crossing? A private grade crossing is where railway tracks intersect with a road that is owned and used by private parties, such as farmers, commercial businesses or private individuals. Did you know that you may have responsibilities under the Regulations? Railway companies, road authorities (provinces, municipalities and band councils) and private crossing owners are each responsible for managing the safety at grade crossings. The Regulations identify the roles and responsibilities of railway companies and road authorities that relate to: • Information sharing • Crossing surfaces • Sightlines • Roadway and railway signs • Traffic signals • Warning systems Do you know what’s expected of you? Greater Collaboration Through Information Sharing Transport Canada has developed forms that may be used by the railway company or the road authority to facilitate information sharing. These forms can be found at www.Canada.ca/grade-crossings. The Regulations require that railway companies and road authorities share safety-related information on their grade crossings. Sharing this information with each other will allow them to determine what they need to do to make their crossings safer. What’s happening when? • Immediately: When constructing a new grade crossing or making a change to an existing grade crossing. • By November 28, 2016: To share safety information with each other for existing public grade crossings. Enforceable Grade Crossings Standards The Regulations incorporate standards based on the best engineering practices known today and make them law. This requires all federally regulated grade crossings in Canada to meet the same standard. Railway companies and road authorities will continue to apply the best options, building on the existing guidelines, for making their crossings safe.* What’s happening when? • Immediately: The standards will apply to new grade crossings; or when making a change to an existing grade crossing – widening the road, for example. • By the end of 2021: The standards will apply to surfaces, signs, sightlines and warning systems for existing grade crossings. *Note: Immediate action can and will be taken by Transport Canada where a serious safety deficiency is identified. Effective Sightlines A safe crossing is a visible crossing — so the Regulations contain formulas for defining the area that road authorities, railway companies and private land owners must keep clear of anything that could block a road user’s view of an oncoming train. What’s happening when? The Regulations prescribe customizable requirements for your crossings. • Immediately: When constructing new grade crossings, or making a change to an existing grade crossing. • By the end of 2021: To existing grade crossings. Available funding for grade crossings Transport Canada can provide funding for eligible costs related to a grade crossing improvement project. To learn more visit: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/transport/rail.html Working Together to Safeguard Public Grade Crossings The Regulations and standards require road authorities and railway companies to work together on: Blocked public crossings Under the Grade Crossings Regulations: • Railway equipment cannot block a public grade crossing for more than five minutes when a road user requires passage, unless the railway equipment is moving. • When emergency vehicles require passage, railway companies must immediately clear any grade crossing. If the municipality has a safety concern relating to a crossing that is blocked, both parties must work together to find a solution to the safety concern. After 90 days, if they find no solution, the municipality can inform Transport Canada. Activity on/near a crossing The requirements are that if a railway company or road authority performs any activity, such as rail or road repair at or near a crossing, they must: • Share information about the activity with each other, and • Take temporary protection measures (e.g. detours) to address any threat to the safety of railway operations. Train whistling cessation Train whistling is an important way to keep drivers, cyclists and pedestrians safe when using public grade crossings. Whistling cessation • Section 23.1 of the Railway Safety Act provides a process for whistling cessation at a public grade crossing subject to certain requirements outlined in the Regulations. • Crossings must be equipped with an appropriate warning system based on railway speed design, vehicle and pedestrian use, and the number of railway tracks going through the crossing. • The municipality must also pass a resolution agreeing that the whistle should not be used at that crossing. Transport Canada encourages railway companies and municipalities to work together to ensure that all the requirements have been met. Should these two parties disagree that the requirements have been met, they may approach Transport Canada for a final decision. Should a road authority wish to pursue whistling cessation, the procedure for train whistling at public crossings can be found at www.canada.ca/grade-crossings. Complaint and Dispute Resolution Who can help when complaints or issues become disputes that railway companies and road authorities cannot resolve? If the complaint or dispute is about grade crossing safety, contact Transport Canada. Learn more at www.Canada.ca/grade-crossings. If a railway company and a road authority disagree on who should pay for railway work at a crossing, either party can ask the Canadian Transportation Agency to apportion the costs of the project. Learn more at the Canadian Transportation Agency at www.otc-cta.gc.ca. Need help? For general inquiries: Email: RailSafety@tc.gc.ca Phone: 613-998-2985 Toll-free: 1-844-897-RAIL (1-844-897-7245) Fax: 613-990-7767 Transport Canada Rail Safety Branch Mailstop: ASR 427 Laurier Street West, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 Pacific: 604-666-0011 Prairie and Northern: 1-888-463-0521 Ontario: 416-973-9820 Quebec: 514-283-5722 Atlantic: 506-851-7040 www.canada.ca/grade-crossings 20 1 5 20 1 4 2 0 1 7 20 1 6 20 1 8 20 1 9 20 2 0 20 2 1 Ti m e l i n e s As o f N o v e m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 Ra i l w a y c o m p a n i e s a n d r o a d au t h o r i t i e s w e r e r e q u i r e d t o : • Me e t s u r f a c e c o n d i t i o n d e s i g n an d r a i l w a y s i g n a g e r e q u i r e m e n t s • Te s t a n d i n s p e c t w a r n i n g s y s t e m s • Me e t n e w c o n s t r u c t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s fo r n e w c r o s s i n g s • Re s p e c t n e w p r o v i s i o n s f o r pr e v e n t i n g b l o c k e d c r o s s i n g s • Fo l l o w n e w t r a i n w h i s t l i n g ce s s a t i o n p r o c e s s • Ap p l y n e w a n d e x i s t i n g pr o t e c t i o n m e a s u r e s • Ke e p r e c o r d s As o f N o v e m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 1 6 Ra i l w a y c o m p a n i e s a n d r o a d au t h o r i t i e s m u s t s h a r e t h e f o l l o w i n g sa f e t y i n f o r m a t i o n : • Po i n t o f c o n t a c t ( r e g u l a r , e m e r g e n c y ) • Lo c a t i o n o f g r a d e c r o s s i n g • De t a i l s o n t h e r o a d a p p r o a c h a n d r a i l co n f i g u r a t i o n ( n u m b e r o f l a n e s , g r a d i e n t , tr a c k s , w h i s t l i n g , s i g n a g e , e t c . ) • Ro a d / r a i l v o l u m e s a n d s p e e d s • Cr o s s i n g u s e r d e t a i l s ( v e h i c l e s , p e d e s t r i a n s , as s i s t i v e d e v i c e s , e t c . ) As o f N o v e m b e r 2 8 , 20 2 1 Cr o s s i n g s m u s t m e e t c e r t a i n r e q u i r e m e n t s de f i n e d i n t h e R e g u l a t i o n s s u c h a s : • Si g h t l i n e s • Cr o s s i n g s u r f a c e d e s i g n • Ro a d a n d r a i l w a y s i g n s • Cr o s s i n g W a r n i n g S y s t e m s • Tr a f f i c S i g n a l s t i m i n g w i t h w a r n i n g s y s t e m s © H e r M a j e s t y t h e Q u e e n i n R i g h t o f C a n a d a , r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e M i n i s t e r o f T r a n s p o r t , 2 0 1 6 Ce t t e p u b l i c a t i o n e s t a u s s i d i s p o n i b l e e n f r a n ç a i s s o u s l e t i t r e Rè g l e m e n t s u r l e s p a s s a g e s à n i v e a u : c e q u e v o u s d e v e z s a v o i r . Ca t a l o g u e N o . T 8 6 - 1 9 / 2 0 1 6 E - P D F I S B N : 9 7 8 - 0 - 6 6 0 - 0 6 0 3 9 - 2 Subject: Proposed Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 01 (EPAR 01) Dear Community Partner: In compliance with the TVDSB Community Planning and Facility Collaboration Opportunities Procedure (No. 4015b), TVDSB is required to contact listed Community Organizations, when proposing to conduct a Pupil Accommodation Review. Senior Administration is proposing the following Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review, be approved by the Board on November 22, 2016, for the following schools: Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review 01: • Davenport Public School • McGregor Public School • Mitchell Hepburn Public School • New Sarum Public School • Northdale Central Public School • Port Stanley Public School • River Heights Public School • South Dorchester Public School • Sparta Public School • Springfield Public School • Summers’ Corners Public School • Westminster Central Public School The Draft Elementary Accommodation Study (2016 April 12) identified a number of issues in Elgin County which merit an Elementary Pupil Accommodation Review (EPAR-01): projected enrolment, school condition and proximity to students, as well as existing school model organizations. Future enrolment projections suggest that fewer and more central schools could be used to accommodate these students. Through proposed school consolidations and new school openings, attendance area adjustments and school model re-organization, the distribution of students would become more balanced, the number of eligible walking students would increase, and school and facility operations would become more efficient. The following proposed solution to the accommodation issues in this region will be presented in an Initial Senior Administration Report: • Attendance area adjustments to Davenport PS, McGregor PS, Mitchell Hepburn PS, Northdale Central PS, Port Stanley PS, River Heights PS and Summers’ Corners PS; • Modification of the school model organizations of Davenport PS and McGregor PS; • Closure and disposition of South Dorchester PS, Springfield PS, Westminster Central PS and New Sarum PS; • Repurposing of a school (Sparta PS) for the creation of a second SK-8 (single track) French Immersion elementary school in Elgin County; • Possible school improvements (such as renovations or program enhancements) may be required at Davenport PS, McGregor PS and Port Stanley PS; • Two new JK-8 elementary schools located in Belmont and Southeast St.Thomas areas. Your organization has the opportunity to provide to the Board, by email addressed to planning@tvdsb.on.ca, the following: • A clear indication of any community planning or facility collaboration opportunities which relate to the schools identified; and • any relevant technical information you may have and wish to provide including, but not limited to, in the case of any municipal level of government, the municipal level of government’s population and future development projections for the affected region. Please respond to TVDSB, by email, with your information no later than Thursday, October 13, 2016. Laura Elliott Director of Education Theresa Levschuk Executive Assistant to the Director Thames Valley District School Board 1250 Dundas Street London, Ontario N6A 5L1 Ph: 519-452-2000 ext. 20222 Fax: 519-452-2396 email: t.levschuk@tvdsb.on.ca Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report Prepared by Lura Consulting and Planning Solutions Inc. for: The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry August 2016 Conservation Authorities Act Review This report was prepared by Lura Consulting and Planning Solutions Inc., the independent facilitators and consultation specialists for the Conservation Authorities Act Review Stage II engagement sessions conducted in June 2016. If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please contact: Susan Hall 505 Consumers Road, Suite 1005 Toronto, Ontario M2J 4Z2 416-886-8205 shall@lura.ca MNRF Conservation Authorities Act Review Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report Table of Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Methodology for Stage II Multi-Stakeholder Consultation Program .................................................... 3 3. Summary of Participant Feedback ........................................................................................................ 3 4. Action Ranking Exercise ...................................................................................................................... 16 Appendix A – Workshop Summary Reports MNRF Conservation Authorities Act Review Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report Page | 1 1. Introduction Background The Conservation Authorities Act, enacted in 1946, allows municipalities in a common watershed to establish a conservation authority in conjunction with the province to deliver a local resource management program at the watershed scale for both provincial and municipal interests. In November 2014, the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) was given a mandate to engage with ministries, municipalities, Indigenous Peoples and stakeholders to initiate a review of the Conservation Authorities Act. The review was launched the following summer, with the objective to identify opportunities to improve the legislative, regulatory and policy framework that currently governs the creation, operation and activities of conservation authorities, including addressing roles and responsibilities, governance and funding of conservation authorities in resource management and environmental protection. Overall Conservation Authorities Act Review Process There are several stages in the Conservation Authorities (CA) Act Review process, with opportunities for public input at each stage. The first stage began in July 2015 and sought feedback on opportunities to improve the CA Act. A discussion paper was posted on the Environmental Registry (EBR Registry Number 012-4509) for a 91-day public review and comment period. Stage2 began in May 2016 and focused on seeking feedback on proposed priorities identified from feedback during the first stage, as well as the development of specific actions for implementation over the short, medium and long term. A consultation document outlining proposed priorities for updating the Act was posted on the Environmental Registry (EBR Registry Number 012-7583) for a 120 day public review and comment period. During the third stage specific changes to the CA Act will be proposed and further consulted on. MNRF Conservation Authorities Act Review Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report Page | 2 Overview of Stage I Stage I consultations included over 20 stakeholder and Indigenous engagement sessions in addition to targeted meetings across the province to obtain feedback on three areas: Governance: The processes, structures, and accountability frameworks within the Act which direct conservation authority decision-making and operations; Funding mechanisms: The mechanisms put in place by the Act to fund conservation authorities; and Roles and responsibilities: The roles and associated responsibilities that the Act enables conservation authorities to undertake. The Stage I review process resulted in extensive feedback. Over 270 submissions were provided to the Ministry during the public commenting period from individuals and groups representing 10 different sectors. Analysis of this feedback helped to identify a number of priority areas for improvement. Objectives for Stage II In response to feedback obtained through the initial stage of the Ministry’s review, the government established five priorities for updating the Act’s legislative, regulatory and policy framework: 1. Strengthening oversight and accountability in decision-making. 2. Increasing clarity and consistency in roles and responsibilities, processes and requirements. 3. Improving collaboration and engagement among all parties involved in resource management. 4. Modernizing funding mechanisms to support conservation authority operations. 5. Enhancing flexibility for the province to update the Conservation Authorities Act framework in the future. These priority areas as well as a series of potential actions were outlined in the discussion paper – Conserving Our Future: Proposed Priorities for Renewal. In May and June 2016, MNRF led a second round of public and stakeholder consultations through 5 regional multi-stakeholder engagement sessions. The sessions provided an opportunity for participants to learn about and provide input to the five priority areas. Lura Consulting and Planning Solutions Inc. were retained to facilitate the engagement sessions and report on the feedback provided by participants. This report provides a summary of the consultation program and key consultation activities undertaken as part of the regional multi-stakeholder engagement sessions, as well as the feedback received through those sessions. It does not include feedback submitted to the Environmental Registry, or input from Indigenous engagement sessions which took place and will be reported on separately. Feedback obtained through Stage II consultations will be used by MNRF staff to develop specific changes to the Conservation Authorities Act and associated policy and regulatory framework. Any specific MNRF Conservation Authorities Act Review Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report Page | 3 proposed changes will be subject to further public consultation as appropriate, for example through subsequent Environmental Registry postings. 2. Methodology for Stage II Multi-Stakeholder Consultation Program Throughout June 2016, MNRF hosted full-day workshops in five locations across Ontario as part of the Stage II consultation program. The dates, locations and number of participants at each workshop are listed in the table below. The purpose of the workshops was to provide an overview of and receive feedback on the five priority areas for improving the CA Act. The workshops consisted of an overview plenary presentation with time for questions of clarification, followed by facilitated discussion. The facilitated discussions were designed to encourage dialogue and obtain feedback on the five priority areas for improving the CA Act. A discussion guide was provided to participants during the workshops as well as form to rank the proposed actions. Date Location Number of Participants June 3, 2016 Ottawa 23 June 7, 2016 Thunder Bay 7 June 9, 2016 London 57 June 13, 2016 Newmarket 59 June 15, 2016 Sudbury 12 Total 158 A summary of the comments and suggestions provided by participants during the workshops is presented in the next section. 3. Summary of Participant Feedback This section presents the overarching key themes that emerged from the feedback obtained at the regional sessions, and is followed by a summary of participant feedback organized according to the five priority areas: (1) Strengthening Oversight and Accountability, (2) Increasing Clarity and Consistency, (3) Improving Collaboration and Engagement, (4) Modernizing Funding Mechanisms, and (5) Enhancing Flexibility for the Province. Each section contains highlights and common themes that emerged throughout the sessions. Sector-specific perspectives are also noted. Individual workshop summary reports are provided in Appendix A. Overarching Key Themes The following points highlight the recurring comments, concerns and/or advice which emerged from the five sessions. MNRF Conservation Authorities Act Review Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report Page | 4 Include integrated watershed management (IWM) in the Act as the overarching approach to conservation. Recognize that each CA is inherently unique. Local conditions and circumstances influence programs and services (particularly in Northern and rural communities); legislative changes must recognize the need for continued local autonomy (i.e., flexibility). Reinstate the provincial/municipal partnership as the collaborative model that was envisioned for CAs. Establish a multi-ministerial body to promote dialogue and collaborative decision-making regarding CA roles and responsibilities. Increase and diversify provincial funding to CAs to support the implementation of conservation programs and services. Ensure that any new or additional programs and services are delegated with adequate resources (particularly funding). Update provincial policies and technical guidelines to ensure they reflect the current suite of issues facing CAs. Ensure the interests of all stakeholders (e.g., OFAH members, agricultural sector, landowners, Indigenous Peoples) are considered during decision-making processes. Establish a provincial “one-window” to streamline planning processes and approvals, with clear expectations for provincial, municipal and CA roles and responsibilities. Concerns, as expressed by CAs, that the potential actions do not reflect the fundamental issues affecting CAs (e.g., reinstating the pre-1995 relationship between the province and CAs, provincial support in terms of funding, etc.). Concerns, as expressed by CAs, that the review focuses on CA Act processes and procedures instead of protecting and enhancing the natural environment through the CA Act. Priority #1: Strengthening Oversight and Accountability A. Updating the Act to reflect modern legislative structures and accountabilities Participants consistently expressed support for including a purpose statement in the CA Act that includes integrated watershed management (IWM) as the overarching approach to conservation. There was also support from participants at the Newmarket session for including a vision, mission, and values for CAs that can be updated on a regular basis. There was consistent feedback that the province needs to ensure there is flexibility within the legislation as priorities vary across different watersheds and will change over time (e.g., climate change considerations). Local autonomy is very important to CAs. Feedback from participants at the Ottawa, Thunder Bay, and London sessions indicated support for defining the roles and responsibilities of various parties involved in providing oversight. It was noted that there is a misunderstanding among the public, municipalities, and other ministries about what CA responsibilities entail. MNRF Conservation Authorities Act Review Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report Page | 5 It was suggested by participants at the London session that the CA Act be modernized so that it is easier to update in the future (i.e., include certain aspects as regulation and policy rather than legislation so they can be updated more frequently). There was also support from participants at the Thunder Bay and Newmarket sessions to update provincial policies and technical guidelines to ensure they reflect the current suite of issues facing CAs. Feedback from participants at the Ottawa, Thunder Bay, London, and Newmarket sessions suggested that updates to the CA Act should include an improved appeal process for planning and permitting. B. Adopting and/or aligning with governance best management practices Feedback from the Newmarket session indicated that the existing governance model is working well; it was also noted that many CAs comply with codes of conduct and/or currently provide board member orientation. On the other hand, participants from the Ottawa, Thunder Bay and London sessions indicated a need for more training and guidance to improve consistency in governance. It was also noted that there is a need to clarify how conflicts of interest among board members should be addressed. It was suggested that the MNRF should provide some minimum guidance for governance best management practices which CAs can then adapt at the local level. Some participants (London) suggested that operational audits of CAs should be reinstated. Feedback from participants at the Ottawa, Thunder Bay and London sessions suggested following the governance model used by Public Health Units as an example of best practices, particularly with respect to determining an avenue for appeals regarding codes of conduct or conflict of interest. C. Enhancing provincial oversight Participants from all the sessions raised the concern that if the province is going to delegate additional CA programs and services, or increase direction and oversight of programs, additional funding should be provided to CAs. Participants also cautioned that local flexibility for CAs should not be reduced through increased provincial oversight. Feedback from the Newmarket session suggested establishing a third-party process or mechanism to address public concerns and ensure CAs are accountable to their legislated roles and responsibilities (e.g., Ontario Municipal Board, appeal mechanism, penalties); while there is currently a process for CA permit applicants to appeal permit decisions to the Mining and Lands Commissioner, there are no formal mechanisms to appeal other matters (e.g., disclosure of information). Feedback from the Ottawa session suggested establishing meaningful key performance indicators to measure the impact of CA programs and services for larger, strategic and regional initiatives. Examples of key performance indicators suggested by participants focused on ecological services provided MNRF Conservation Authorities Act Review Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report Page | 6 through CA, regional and provincial initiatives, and climate change and carbon sequestration results associated with CA programs and initiatives. Participants from the Thunder Bay and Sudbury sessions highlighted the need to achieve a balance of provincial and municipal oversight to allow local flexibility based on watershed needs. D. Enhancing municipal oversight Participants from the Ottawa and Thunder Bay sessions expressed support to enhance municipal oversight, but indicated there is a need to clearly articulate what the enhancement entails. Participants from the Ottawa and Sudbury sessions noted that there is already accountability and oversight at the municipal level through the CA board. Feedback from the Sudbury session indicated concern that enhancing municipal oversight may impact the ability of CAs to make critical decisions objectively (e.g., review permits, perform advisory function). It was suggested that the roles and responsibilities of municipalities in relation to CAs should be clarified, including fiduciary duties. There was a suggestion from participants at the Newmarket session that mandatory review periods for municipality/CA Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) and Service Level Agreements be considered (e.g., every five years); this would ensure that MOUs and service agreements remain current. E. Developing or updating criteria for establishing, enlarging, amalgamating or dissolving a CA Participants expressed support for developing criteria for establishing, enlarging, amalgamating or dissolving a CA. It was noted by participants from the Thunder Bay session that regional differences should be reflected in the criteria (e.g., if the CA were to be enlarged in Northern Ontario there is no mechanism to levy unorganized townships). Participants from the London session suggested implementing a process to achieve minor CA boundary adjustments as some municipalities are located in two or more CAs. Several participants raised concerns about municipalities within a watershed having the opportunity to opt out of a CA as there needs to be holistic management of natural resources on a watershed scale. Priority #2: Increasing Clarity and Consistency A. Clearly delineating between mandatory and optional programs and services Participants generally expressed support for this potential action, specifically as a means to enhance the clarity and consistency of CA regulatory roles and responsibilities. Participant feedback from the Newmarket session cautioned that there are trade-offs to delineating between mandatory and optional programs and services, including the concern that doing so will reduce CA flexibility and autonomy. MNRF Conservation Authorities Act Review Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report Page | 7 Feedback from the Ottawa session also highlighted the need to consider different watershed needs across the province and the ability of different CAs to deliver mandated programs and services (i.e., different capabilities in terms of resources). There was some feedback from the London session which suggested that programs and services pertaining to flood and hazard management, in particular, should be mandatory, however IWM was iterated as the preferred approach to conservation at all the sessions (and as a means to provide flexibility). It was also repeatedly noted that appropriate tools (e.g., sustainable funding from the province, provincial guidance/collaboration) are needed to ensure the delivery of CA programs and services. B. Establishing a Provincial Policy Directive Participant feedback consistently voiced support to establish a Provincial Policy Directive. The benefits associated with this potential action include: Clarifying CA roles and responsibilities; Developing an integrated policy framework (that aligns with other provincial legislation and identifies the hierarchy between them); and Establishing a policy framework that has a purpose and is tied to outcomes. Participants from the Ottawa session iterated the concern that specifying CA roles and responsibilities will limit CA flexibility and autonomy, as the Act is currently written to allow CAs to adapt to the needs of their watershed. Feedback from the Newmarket and London sessions echoed the need to retain flexibility, but noted that enough direction should be provided to facilitate compliance. IWM was suggested by CAs as the basis of the policy directive as it recognizes the multiples roles and responsibilities CAs undertake. C. Providing clarity and consistency in CA’s regulatory roles and responsibilities Participant feedback indicated broad support for this potential action and its intended outcomes. It was noted that consolidating and codifying regulatory requirements will help reduce the potential for misinterpretation, and associated legal disputes. Several key terms were also identified that are used inconsistently and need to be clarified: conservation land, wetland, watercourse, natural heritage, natural resources and integrated watershed management. It was suggested at the Sudbury session that clarifying key terms can be addressed through the Act or supporting regulations, while most of the objectives of this potential action could be implemented through responsive policies or enabling provisions. Feedback from participants in Ottawa suggested the use of legislative mechanisms, such as the statute’s preamble, to clarify CA roles and responsibilities. MNRF Conservation Authorities Act Review Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report Page | 8 Concerns were raised at the Newmarket session, particularly by landowners, regarding the inconsistent delivery of CA programs and services. It was noted by CA staff that this is a separate issue from clarifying CA roles and responsibilities, and is primarily due to resource constraints facing CAs (e.g., qualified staff, mapping tools, funding, etc.); the need for more funding, as well as coordinating and sharing resources between provincial, municipal and CA partners were suggested to help address this issue. A few participants also advised that promoting consistency in the delivery of CA programs and services is well defined in the Conservation Authority Liaison Committee (CALC) Report. Participant feedback also highlighted the following considerations with regard to this potential action: Recognize the multiple roles and responsibilities CAs currently undertake in the Act (e.g., hazard management, watershed management, commenting on environmental assessments, service provider, regulator, and land owner). Update policy and procedure documents to clarify areas of jurisdiction, roles and responsibilities. Note that communication and public education are important “soft tools” that can help improve clarity, consistency and transparency (in terms of CA roles and responsibilities). The need to ensure a balance between clarifying CA roles and responsibilities while retaining flexibility to respond to individual watershed needs, as well as using IWM as an overarching framework for CAs was also iterated in the feedback to this potential action. D. Enhancing compliance and enforcement of regulatory requirements Support for this potential action varied among participants. Feedback from the Ottawa, Newmarket, and London consultations expressed support to update regulatory compliance tools and mechanisms (e.g., stop work orders, increasing fines, etc.), while feedback from Thunder Bay participants expressed concerns about the cost of implementing this action, and suggested that it should be less of a priority. There was no feedback specific to this potential action from the Sudbury session. Participant feedback from the Ottawa, Newmarket, London and Thunder Bay consultations all indicated that current regulatory compliance tools are insufficient, and that legal proceedings are costly and time consuming, negatively impacting limited CA resources. More provincial support for legal proceedings (e.g., funding, guidance, creating a mechanism to recover costs from appeals and fines) was suggested. Feedback from landowners at the Newmarket session identified the need for a process to address conflicts of interests to ensure CAs (and their boards) are accountable and transparent. Feedback from both the Newmarket and London sessions suggested that education and collaboration should be promoted to improve CA’s relationships with landowners regarding the enforcement of regulations. MNRF Conservation Authorities Act Review Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report Page | 9 E. Streamlining planning and permitting requirements and processes Feedback obtained from all the regional sessions consistently expressed support for this potential action. It was noted that it is important to make planning and permitting processes more user-friendly as this will result in more buy-in and positive relationships between CAs and their watershed communities. Several suggestions to streamline planning and permitting requirements and processes were raised by participants, including but not limited to: pre- consultation meetings and/or checklists; establishing universal review timelines; updating guidance documents; using different classes of approvals (e.g., Class Environmental Assessment (EA) approach), establishing a “one-window” permit approval approach, updating administrative processes and procedures; and increasing collaboration and partnerships between the province, municipalities and CAs, with input from stakeholders and the public. Priority #3: Improving Collaboration and Engagement A. Establishing a provincial “one-window” Participants generally expressed support for the establishment of a provincial “one-window” to act as a single point of contact for CAs at the Ministry level. This approach would be beneficial to enhance communication and exchange information between the province and CAs, and provide support/advice to CAs. It was noted by participants at the Thunder Bay session that this approach could also provide efficiencies for CAs with respect to gaining access to funding opportunities. Participants at the Newmarket session suggested that MOUs should be required to ensure the “one- window” approach is clear to all parties involved and that a provincial “one-window” should also address challenges facing the development community regarding permitting issues. B. Establishing a business relationship with Conservation Ontario Regarding the role of Conservation Ontario (CO) and its relationship with CAs, participants from the Ottawa and London sessions suggested that MNRF should consider the model used by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) as a best practice. There was concern expressed by CAs at most of the sessions that CO should not take on a governing or oversight role. It was noted that CO’s current role is working well. With dedicated provincial funding, CO could provide strategic guidance and coordinate resources (e.g., training, best practices, templates) more consistently. There was also support for CO’s ongoing role in public education, communication and advocacy for CAs. MNRF Conservation Authorities Act Review Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report Page | 10 C. Enhancing Indigenous Peoples’ participation Participants consistently noted that enhancing Indigenous Peoples’ participation in CA processes is important; however resources and guidance are needed as there are many challenges in conducting meaningful engagement. CAs would like to see the province provide templates and best practices for engaging with Indigenous Peoples. It was also noted by participants at the London session that Indigenous Peoples’ participation should be at a watershed and strategic planning level rather a project by project level; however there is a need for more support in achieving this. In some areas, First Nations advisory committees are working well. It was suggested that the Federal government should also provide funding to CAs for facilitating Indigenous Peoples’ participation. D. Enhancing public and stakeholder participation There was general support for enhancing public and stakeholder participation in CA processes to ensure a broad range of interests are considered (e.g. landowners, farmers) and increase transparency. From the perspective of some landowners, stakeholder engagement is not occurring consistently across CAs. A guidance document for CAs could help improve consistency. It was noted that some CAs have more capacity and experience than others in engaging the public and stakeholders. Additional staff and financial resources are needed by smaller CAs to manage stakeholder engagement. Feedback from the Ottawa, London and Sudbury sessions noted that advisory or ad hoc committees have worked well to enhance stakeholder participation. Some participants feel that there is a lack of understanding amongst community members regarding the mandate and role of CAs. Enhancing education and awareness of the various roles of CAs, municipalities and the province would be beneficial. Similarly, it is important to employ a culture of collaboration with landowners. There needs to be more transparency, two-way communication and sharing of information between CAs and landowners. E. Supporting CAs in sharing and coordinating resources There was support for encouraging CAs to share data, science and information as well as achieve administrative efficiencies; however this should not be prescribed in the CA Act. It was noted that sharing and coordinating resources and best practices between CAs is already happening at the local level. MNRF Conservation Authorities Act Review Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report Page | 11 Concerns were expressed that it may be challenging to share information and resources in an equitable manner. The province should provide resources to CAs. Questions were raised regarding who would be financially responsible for coordinating resources. Priority #4: Modernizing Funding Mechanisms There was consensus across the regional sessions that long-term sustainable funding must be prioritized for CAs to be able to deliver programs and services effectively. A multi-ministry approach to funding was emphasized because CAs deliver locally on priorities for many ministries (e.g., MOECC). A. Enhancing clarity, consistency and accountability around municipal levies Participant feedback consistently indicated that there is a need to simplify and clarify the funding formula for municipal levies and clarify the intent of the levy. There was concern raised by participants at the Ottawa, Thunder Bay, London and Newmarket sessions that smaller municipalities do not have the capacity (e.g., tax base) to support CAs. It was suggested that a funding formula should be considered to equalize funding between CAs (based on population, programming, species at risk, watershed characteristics, etc.) paid by the province. Participants at the Newmarket and Sudbury sessions expressed concerns that the present funding model creates a conflict of interest between CAs and municipalities and limits CA autonomy from municipalities. There was a suggestion from participants at the Newmarket and London sessions for municipal levies for CA programs and services to be included as a separate line item on municipal tax bills (e.g., comparable to water rates) to increase public awareness. B. Promoting clarity, consistency and accountability around fees and generated revenue Participants noted that clarity around fees and how they can be used by a CA would be beneficial. It was suggested that MNRF should provide clear guidance on acceptable revenue streams. Similarly, there was support from participants at the Ottawa session for establishing a framework to calculate fees to improve transparency as it is undertaken differently by all CAs. Participants suggested that other mechanisms to generate revenue be included in the CA Act (e.g., development charges). There was support from participants at the Newmarket session for establishing a mechanism for CAs to capture funds from compliance and enforcement activities (e.g., penalties, legal processes). It was also suggested that the opportunity for CAs to release conservation land with marginal natural heritage benefits for other uses be considered; the resources spent to maintain these lands could be re-deployed elsewhere. Participants from the Thunder Bay session were also supportive MNRF Conservation Authorities Act Review Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report Page | 12 of innovative opportunities for municipal funding arrangements (e.g., new tax classification for CA owned hazard-related lands, tax rates reflective of the land use and benefit provided). Participants at the Ottawa and London sessions noted that some CAs need support to justify user fees as the public does not understand how they are established. Participants at the Newmarket session also suggested encouraging regular communication and collaboration on fees (e.g., liaison committee, bi- annual meetings with stakeholders). Participants from the Newmarket and Thunder Bay session stated that there is also a need to establish a mechanism to mediate disputes regarding fees (e.g., appeal to a third-party such as the OMB). C. Improving fiscal oversight and transparency Many participants expressed that municipal oversight and transparency is already strong. Participants from the Ottawa and Sudbury sessions expressed the need to ensure board members understand the fiduciary responsibility of their role to the CA and watershed (e.g., provide training). Feedback from the Ottawa, London, and Sudbury sessions indicated that there is a desire for standardized and consistent budgeting practices; however, participants from the Newmarket session expressed that standardizing budget templates may add complexity and an administrative burden. It was noted that some municipalities currently ask for compliance with their own budget formats. D. Improving clarity in the use of provincial funding processes Participants at all the session continually indicated that more provincial funding and resourcing is needed and that this should be a prioritized action. Diversifying the funding mechanisms available to CAs was broadly supported (e.g., development charges, utility fees, external funding). There was concern raised by participants at the Newmarket session about the requirement to reapply for certain grants annually as it is an administrative burden for many CAs. Feedback from the Thunder Bay and London sessions indicated that CAs should be able to apply directly for Trillium funding to streamline the process. Participants at the London session noted that the timing of the release of transfer payments creates challenges for CAs (i.e. fiscal years are not aligned). A multi-year funding model would create greater efficiencies in administering programs. It was also noted that the transfer payment should be indexed to the rate of inflation. Municipalities are currently making up the difference for inflation increases. MNRF Conservation Authorities Act Review Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report Page | 13 Priority #5: Enhancing Flexibility for the Province A. Giving the Minister the authority to use the Act to develop additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services in the future Participant feedback expressed general support regarding this potential action if the purpose is to enable the Minister to be more responsive to contemporary issues (e.g., climate change), and recognize the multiple roles and responsibilities CAs currently undertake. It was suggested by participants at the Newmarket session that more information about this potential action is needed to clarify its intent (and what types of programs and services could be delegated), as it could be misinterpreted as a movement toward a more “command and control” approach by the province. There was some concern raised that specifying too many details in the Act will reduce flexibility for CAs and municipalities, and that other mechanisms or tools should be considered to delegate responsibilities (e.g., MOUs, Ministerial Mandates, Provincial Policy Statement, regulations). Feedback from most of the regional sessions also stressed that if new or additional programs and services are delegated, they should be accompanied by appropriate tools and resources, particularly funding, to ensure they are implemented. B. Giving the Minister the authority to formally delegate the delivery of current and additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services to conservation authorities in the future Participant feedback regarding this potential action was similar to that received for the preceding action; as such, participants from the Sudbury session suggested combining the first two potential actions under this priority area. Feedback iterated the need to clarify the intent of the potential action and provide examples of what may be delegated to provide CAs with more certainty. Comments also emphasized that the province should provide appropriate tools and resources, especially funding, with any new delegated programs and services. Participant feedback from the Newmarket session also suggested establishing a multi-ministerial body to delegate additional programs and services through a collaborative decision-making process, while feedback from the London session indicated that there is a general feeling that this kind of delegation already can and does take place. MNRF Conservation Authorities Act Review Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report Page | 14 C. Giving the Minister the authority to formally delegate the delivery of current and additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services to other public bodies, not-for-profit organizations, municipalities and other Ministries Participant feedback regarding this potential action varied. On one hand, feedback from the Newmarket and London sessions expressed support for this potential action, as it would potentially increase or free CA capacity for other programs and services. There was some support to delegate education and outreach activities to other bodies, but not regulatory CA functions. On the other hand, feedback from the Ottawa session raised a broad range of concerns that this potential action: will lead to the privatization of programs and services, delegate responsibilities away from CAs; impact the ability of CAs to negotiate funding; and that CA programs and services will be duplicated by other organizations leading to inefficiency and increased confusion regarding CA roles. Participants at the London session also conveyed concerns that focused on the need to consider CAs before external partners, and ensuring appropriate oversight and accountability of external partners if programs and services are delegated to them. Feedback also iterated the idea that it may be more appropriate for a multi-ministerial body to delegate programs and services to other organizations, and that the province should provide appropriate tools and resources, especially funding, with any new delegated programs and services. D. Giving the Minister the authority to deliver additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services throughout the province Participant response to this potential action varied by region. Participants at the Sudbury session expressed support for this potential action as it would enable the consistent delivery of CA programs and services outside CA boundaries by MNRF or another organization. They suggested delegating programs and services to other bodies through other legislation. Feedback from Thunder Bay participants highlighted the need to communicate and consult on any proposed changes to the regulations of the Act. Feedback from the remaining sessions is consistent with the comments reported for the preceding potential action. Other Actions Being Considered A. Reducing administrative burdens associated with appointing and replacing board members and obtaining approval of board per diems Participant feedback indicated support for this potential action. Comments regarding per diems revealed a range of concerns that need to be addressed, including reducing the administrative burden associated with obtaining approval of board per diems, particularly if they are appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). Participants from London and Ottawa suggested the need to explore existing best practices for approving per diems to avoid OMB approval, or letting the CA board decide. There is MNRF Conservation Authorities Act Review Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report Page | 15 also some concern that per diems are not equitable across CAs, and that some municipalities permit them while others do not. Feedback also highlighted the need to clarify the process to appoint and remove CA board members. Concerns were expressed at the Newmarket session that some CA boards are not reflective of watershed stakeholders (e.g., farmers, landowners, etc.) and that there is a need to balance CA board composition to reduce political influence. Participants highlighted the need for more provincial guidance and collaboration with CAs, and suggested establishing an accreditation process to appoint members (e.g., university accreditation panels) or a code of conduct to address these concerns. B. Aligning board terms with the municipal elections cycle Participants at the London, Newmarket and Ottawa sessions generally support aligning board terms with the municipal elections cycle. They also highlighted: the need to maintain flexibility for CAs; consider term limits for board members (e.g., 8 years), and consider appointing members as outlined in the Municipal Act (i.e., eliminate the three-year maximum term). There were no comments specific to this potential action from participants at the Thunder Bay and Sudbury sessions. C. Developing and orientation and training program for board members There was agreement among participants regarding the need to develop a provincially mandated orientation and training program for board members to ensure that they are informed of their role and function, particularly their fiduciary obligations. Feedback indicated that many CAs already provide training for board members; it was suggested that training tools and best practices should be shared via CO. Some participants also feel that the provision of board member training should be led by CO, with provincial support. D. Developing a coordinated communications plan outlining any changes to conservation authority operations, programs and services resulting from the review in partnership with municipalities and conservation authorities Feedback in response to this potential action varied. Participants in London expressed support for a coordinated communications plan, while participants in Newmarket suggested that the province should provide more guidance on communications related to specific issues (e.g., outreach, consultation and managing controversial matters). It was noted in Ottawa that some CAs already coordinate communications, however there is support to align them with CO communications. Participant feedback in Thunder Bay acknowledged the importance of consultation and communication between CAs and the MNRF regarding changes to the regulations of the CA Act, and iterated the need to maintain flexibility for CAs. Comments specific to this potential action were not conveyed in Sudbury. MNRF Conservation Authorities Act Review Stage II Engagement Sessions Summary Report Page | 16 4. Action Ranking Exercise At the end of each of the engagement sessions, participants were asked to choose the most important potential action under each priority area. The combined results of this optional exercise are presented in the graph below. Note that some attendees did not participate in the ranking because they felt the potential actions do not reflect the fundamental issues affecting CAs. The results in the graph represent the number of attendees that chose to respond and do not represent a statistically significant sample. A total of 90 completed forms were received. The potential actions under each priority area are represented by the letters A to E in the graph below. 52 21 33 28 15 14 30 9 19 33 8 16 10 13 11 7 6 19 21 8 3 14 19 Priority 1- Strengthening Oversight and Accountability Priority 2 - Increasing Clarity and Consistency Priority 3 - Improving Collaboration and Engagement Priority 4 - Modernizaing Funding Mechanisms Priority 5 - Enhancing Flexibility for the Province Priority Area Ranking Results A B C D E Appendix A – Workshop Summary Reports Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 1 This summary of participant feedback has been prepared by Lura Consulting and Planning Solutions Inc. to provide the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry with the recurring themes and priorities raised by participants during the Ottawa session of the Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II. The feedback from each individual session will be used to compile a final engagement session report. Introduction The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) is undertaking a phased review of the Conservation Authorities Act. The intent of the review is to identify opportunities to improve the legislative, regulatory and policy framework that currently governs the creation, operation and activities of conservation authorities (CAs). In Phase I of the review, completed in 2015, MNRF led an extensive consultation process to engage stakeholders in a discussion about opportunities to improve the Conservation Authorities Act, which resulted in extensive feedback. Based on the input received in Phase I of the review, MNRF has released the document, Conserving Our Future: Proposed Priorities for Renewal, that outlines a series of actions that could be taken under five proposed priority areas for improvement: (1) Strengthening Oversight and Accountability, (2) Increasing Clarity and Consistency, (3) Improving Collaboration and Engagement, (4) Modernizing Funding Mechanisms, and (5) Enhancing Flexibility for the Province. In June 2016, MNRF led a second round of consultations with a diversity of stakeholders to obtain input on the potential actions outlined within the five priority areas. On June 3, 2016, the MNRF hosted a full-day workshop in Ottawa, at the Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites Ottawa West - Napean as part of the Phase II consultation program. The purpose of the workshop was to provide an overview of the five priority areas for improving the Conservation Authorities Act. The workshop consisted of an overview plenary presentation with time for questions of clarification, followed by three rounds of facilitated small group discussions. The facilitated discussions were designed to encourage dialogue and obtain feedback on the five (5) priority areas for improving the Conservation Authorities Act. A total of 23 individuals participated in the workshop, including participants from the following organizations: Cataraqui Region CA City of Ottawa Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital Minto Communities Mississippi Valley CA Ontario Federation of Agriculture Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Rideau Valley CA Robinson Consultants / DSAO South Nation River CA Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 2 Township of Leeds and the Thousand Islands Township of Montague This report presents a summary of the comments and suggestions provided by participants during the workshop. Summary of Participant Feedback The summary of participant feedback is organized according to the five priority areas: (1) Strengthening Oversight and Accountability, (2) Increasing Clarify and Consistency, (3) Improving Collaboration and Engagement, (4) Modernizing Funding Mechanisms and (5) Enhancing Flexibility for the Province. Each priority area contains a synopsis of the overall key themes and issues as well as specific feedback received through plenary discussions (see Appendix A) and completed discussion guides relating to each discussion question. The following points highlight the recurring comments, concerns and/or advice which emerged from the Ottawa session. Ensure additional programs and services are delegated with adequate resources (particularly funding). Ensure CAs have the resources (e.g., funding, skilled staff, etc.) and tools (e.g., updated mapping) to deliver the variety of mandated programs and services they are responsible for, including tools to enforce regulatory compliance (e.g., stop work orders). Consider legislative (e.g., an appeal mechanism) and non-legislative mechanisms (e.g., add a purpose statement to the act, update the policies and procedures manual, identify key performance indicators, develop a communications strategy, etc.) to update the act. Ensure the proposed changes maintain flexibility and local autonomy (for municipalities and CAs). Move forward with the establishment of a provincial “one-window” approach and ensure it is adequately resourced. Establish a multi-ministry body to coordinate CA programs and services. Prioritize efforts to enhance First Nations, public and stakeholder engagement; suggested mechanisms include (e.g., ad hoc committees, advisory committees, staffing policies). Establish a strategy to improve the sharing and coordination of resources among CAs (e.g., who, what, where, how, etc.). Diversify the funding mechanisms available to CAs (e.g., development charges, utility fees, external funding). Ensure fees are established in a transparent manner and correspond to the services provided by CAs. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 3 Ensure funding mechanisms are flexible to meet the diverse needs of CAs across the province (i.e., flexible fee structure). Provide board members with training to ensure they understand their fiduciary responsibilities to the authority and watershed (e.g., budgeting, reporting, etc.). Consider other mechanisms or tools to delegate programs and services to other bodies or organizations (e.g., MOUs, Ministerial Mandates, Provincial Policy Statement, regulations, other statutes, etc.) Priority #1: Strengthening Oversight and Accountability A. Updating the Act to reflect modern legislative structures and accountabilities Participant feedback expressed support to: Update the Act to reflect modern legislative structures and accountabilities (e.g., purpose statement). Clarify the roles of parties that provide oversight (e.g., municipalities, CA board). Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Ensure there is an opportunity for stakeholders (e.g., the province, municipalities and CAs) to comment and agree on the purpose statement before it is added to the Act and regulations. Clarify the process to appoint CA board members. Consider appointing non-municipal representatives to CA boards to ensure broad representation of stakeholder perspectives (e.g. agricultural representatives). Update the policies and procedures manual (which has not been undertaken since 1985). B. Adopting and/or aligning with governance best management practices Participant feedback expressed support to: Update best management practices to enhance governance (and transparency); integrated watershed management was noted as the most important approach. Overall key themes/issues: Consider legislative (e.g., add a purpose statement to the act, add an appeal mechanism) and non-legislative opportunities (e.g., update the policies and procedures manual, identify key performance indicators, develop a communications strategy, etc.) to strengthen oversight and accountability. Ensure delegated programs and services are accompanied by adequate resources (particularly funding). Clarify the intent of enhancing provincial and municipal oversight and how it will be applied in practice; there were comments both in support of and against increasing oversight. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 4 Participants highlighted the need to consider the model used by health units (as an example of a governance best practice). C. Enhancing provincial oversight Participants expressed support to enhance provincial oversight (as long as resources are sufficient to implement delegated programs and services). Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Concerns about enhancing provincial oversight – clarify how enhanced oversight will operate in practice; Concerns about introducing new acts or regulations that would “limit” decision-making by municipalities – ensure flexibility at the local level; Concern that there is no simple or streamlined alternative dispute resolution process for CA decisions (e.g., bottleneck of issues pending before the mining commissioner); and Clarify the role of CAs in terms of provincial oversight (i.e., what are CAs providing?). Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Ensure new programs or services are delegated to CAs with appropriate resources and support (particularly funding); Establish meaningful key performance indicators to measure the impact of CA programs and services (for larger, strategic and regional initiatives); Consider an appeal mechanism/alternative dispute resolution process for CA decisions – look to other agencies for models or best practices of appeal mechanisms. Consider the need for a communications strategy that can be used by all CAs to increase awareness of the purpose of CAs; promote accountability and transparency, etc. D. Enhancing municipal oversight Participants expressed support to enhance municipal oversight, but indicated there is a need to clearly articulate what the enhancement would be. The CA board (which is comprised of municipal representatives) already provides municipal oversight. E. Developing or updating criteria for establishing, amalgamating or dissolving a CA Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Consider opportunities for CAs to share administrative roles and responsibilities (e.g., two boards, one administration in Quinte). Consider the model used to provide additional resources for prescribed tasks to implement Source Water Protection (SWP) initiatives. Consider amalgamating some CAs to overcome issues related to limited resources. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 5 Priority #2: Increasing Clarity and Consistency A. Clearly delineating between mandatory and optional programs and services Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Concern about changing processes abruptly; there needs to be a transition plan. Concern about reducing local autonomy (both municipal and CA). Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Ensure mandated programs and services are accompanied by supporting tools (e.g., funding, provincial guidance/assistance). Clarify what will be mandatory and what will be optional, if the terms are retained. Consider the ability of different CAs to deliver mandated programs and services (i.e., different capabilities in terms of resources) and different watershed needs. B. Establishing a Provincial Policy Directive Participant feedback expressed support to: Address the overlap and/or misalignment between different statutes that delegate programs and services to CAs; this may require updating other legislation. Develop an integrated policy framework. Specify CA roles and responsibilities through a Provincial Policy Directive (e.g., Provincial Policy Statement) Participants raised the concern that specifying CA roles and responsibilities will limit flexibility; the Act is currently written to allow CAs to adapt to the needs of their watershed. Overall key themes/issues: Ensure delegated programs and services are accompanied by adequate resources (particularly funding). Ensure the potential actions maintain flexibility and local autonomy (for municipalities and conservation authorities). Move forward with the development of an integrated legislative and policy framework. Ensure conservation authorities have the tools needed to deliver the variety of programs and services delegated to them, including tools to enforce compliance with regulatory requirements. Consider a suite of mechanisms to increase clarity and consistency (e.g., a preamble, Provincial Policy Statement). Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 6 C. Providing clarity and consistency in conservation authorities’ regulatory roles and responsibilities Participant feedback expressed support to: Consolidate CA roles and responsibilities outlined in other statutes. Define undefined terms. Align terminology used in different statutes (e.g., wetland). Participants raised the concern that policies and regulations are not applied consistently by CAs. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Clarify the purpose of the act, its objectives and the tools available to implement them. Recognize the multiple roles and responsibilities CAs currently undertake in the Act (e.g., hazard management, watershed management, commenting on environmental assessments, service provider, regulator, and land owner). Consider the unintended consequences of clarifying CA roles and responsibilities (e.g., limiting the scope of CA activities). Consider legislative mechanisms to clarify roles and responsibilities (e.g., the statute’s preamble). D. Enhancing compliance and enforcement of regulatory requirements Participants expressed support to update regulatory compliance tools and mechanisms. Some participants noted that the Ontario Building Code could be used as a model for implementing stop work orders. Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Concern that regulatory compliance tools are insufficient. Concern that legal proceedings are costly and time consuming, negatively impacting limited CA resources. E. Streamlining planning and permitting requirements and processes Participant feedback expressed support to: Streamline planning and permitting requirements and processes (e.g., simplify the process). Ensure the right tools are available to streamline planning and permitting processes. Adopt a risk-based approach to approvals; it was noted that more information is need to articulate how this will be applied in practice. Participants raised concerns about a one-window approach as the “big picture” impact of iterative decisions is not clear. Participants highlighted the need to define the value of watersheds/natural resources in the act. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 7 Priority #3: Improving Collaboration and Engagement A. Establishing a provincial “one-window” approach Participants were supportive of prioritizing the establishment of a provincial “one-window” approach; it was noted that this potential action is closely linked to sharing and coordinating resources among CAs. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Establish a “one-window” approach to streamline the approval process for site plan assessments; CAs could serve as the primary point of contact. Ensure the “one-window” approach is appropriately resourced. Establish a multi-ministry body (instead of promoting multi-ministry coordination) to coordinate CA programs and services. B. Establishing a business relationship with Conservation Ontario Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Recognize that Conservation Ontario is already undertaking this potential action. Concern about Conservation Ontario being a governing body. Participants suggested that MNRF consider the model used by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) as a best practice. C. Enhancing Indigenous People’s participation Participant feedback expressed support to: Enhance the capacity of First Nations to participate in CA processes. Provide resources to enhance First Nation participation in CA processes. D. Enhancing public and stakeholder participation Participant feedback expressed support to: Overall key themes/issues: Move forward with the establishment of a provincial “one-window” approach and ensure it is adequately resourced. Establish a multi-ministry body to coordinate CA programs and services. Prioritize efforts to enhance First Nations, public and stakeholder engagement, suggested mechanisms include (e.g., ad hoc committees, advisory committees, staffing policies). Establish a strategy to improve the sharing and coordination of resources among CAs (e.g., who, what, where, how, etc.). Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 8 Enhance public and stakeholder participation to ensure a broad range of interests is considered; this should be prioritized. It was noted that some CAs have more capacity and experience engaging the public and stakeholders than others. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Consider the use of advisory committees or ad hoc committees to enhance stakeholder participation; Ensure a broad representation of stakeholder interests on CA boards (e.g., farmers); Consider the need for a communications strategy that can be used by all CAs to broaden awareness and engage stakeholders and the public; and Consider developing a CA staffing policy to employ more First Nations and/or newcomers. E. Supporting conservation authorities in sharing and coordinating resources Participant feedback expressed support to: Promote sharing and coordinating resources among CAs (e.g., GIS, data, etc.); it was noted that this is already happening between some CAs (e.g., program level staff sharing data, issuing joint publications; meetings involving CA board members). Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Concern that current efforts to share and coordinate resources are ineffective; it was suggested that the province should establish a strategy to improve data sharing. Clarify who will be financially responsible for coordinating resources. Consider other mechanisms to encourage collaboration between CAs (e.g., Source Water Protection model). Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Consider cost-sharing or equalization payments across CAs. Consider the need for mechanisms to enable collaboration between CAs and CAs and their government partners. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 9 Priority #4: Modernizing Funding Mechanisms A. Enhancing clarity, consistency and accountability around municipal levies Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Recognize that the apportionment process is fair, but too complicated. Concern about changing the process by which CAs work with participating municipalities; the current process works well. Concern that smaller municipalities do not have the capacity (e.g., tax base) to support CAs; some of the financial responsibility should be “uploaded” to the province. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Consider simplifying the funding process (instead of clarifying it). Clarify the process regarding municipal levies for the public. Consider a minimum value for levies (e.g., $10,000 to $15,000). Ensure proper representation and/or transparency in the process to determine levies; it should reflect the ability of municipalities to pay. Consider a charge on the water rate as a mechanism to generate revenue. Eliminate geo-referencing – maintaining the current system is not equitable. Ensure efforts to standardize processes are also flexible to recognize the needs/diversity of CAs. Advocate for more provincial funding; there is a need to diversify funding sources. B. Promoting clarity, consistency and accountability around fees and generated revenue Participants raised the concern that more transparency is needed in how fees are established; consistency is an issue across the province, but may not be practical/achievable. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Include the purpose of fees and what they include in the act. Overall key themes/issues: Prioritize the need for additional funding to implement the delivery of CA programs and services. Diversify the funding mechanisms available to conservation authorities (e.g., development charges, utility fees, external funding). Ensure fees are established in a transparent manner and correspond to the services provided by conservation authorities. Ensure funding mechanisms are flexible to meet the diverse needs of conservation authorities across the province (i.e., flexible fee structure). Provide board members with training to ensure they understand their fiduciary responsibilities to the board and watershed (e.g., budgeting, reporting, etc.). Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 10 Consider a fee structure that recognizes the variation of CA needs and resources across the province. Establish a framework to calculate fees (that will improve transparency as it is undertaken differently by all CAs). Recognize that provincial direction should focus on cost recovery. Consider an appeal mechanism instead of a fee structure. Consider the model used in the Municipal Act. Consult stakeholders and the public about the fee structure, if one is proposed. Consider the need for fees to correlate to the service provided. Ensure fees are relevant for farmers (it could be too costly for some/not relevant). Include other mechanism to generate revenue in the Act (e.g., development charges). Clarify the status of CAs (e.g., non-profit vs. government agency) as this impedes access to funding. Need to invest in water protection and define mechanisms to fund water protection (not infrastructure) and plan for natural asset management, ecological goods and services). C. Improving fiscal oversight and transparency Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Look at governance in a collective way (e.g., working relationship between the board and municipalities should be governance-based). Ensure board members understand the fiduciary responsibility of their role to the authority and watershed (e.g., provide training). Provide guidance in terms of a standard budgeting process for operations (e.g., group budgeting items such as land management, water management, etc.). Consider requiring the Chair of CAs to report to councils. Consider the need for consistency in terms of reporting to municipalities how funding is spent. Make information regarding fees and revenue generated accessible to the public. Consider opportunities to strengthen reporting to Councils. D. Improving clarity in the use of provincial funding processes Participants raised the following concerns and/or issues: Recognize that some CAs are limited in their ability to raise funds. Recognize that CAs cannot apply for external funding (e.g., Ontario Trillium grants). Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Consider the need for more provincial funding; this should be a prioritized action. Ensure the information required to meet eligibility criteria is useful to both the province and municipalities (i.e., avoid creating an administrative burden). Recognize that third-party audits already ensure accountability. Clarify the eligibility criteria for all groups, not just CAs. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 11 Priority #5: Enhancing Flexibility for the Province A. Giving the Minister the authority to use the Act to develop additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services in the future Participants were supportive of this potential action in principle if the intent is to consolidate roles and responsibilities from different statutes, not “download” more responsibilities without resources (e.g., funding). Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Concerns that specifying too many details in the Act will reduce flexibility for CAs and municipalities. Concern that CAs will be required to undertake the delivery of more programs and services without the required funding. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Clarify the purpose of the Conservation Authorities Act (operations vs. programming). Consider other mechanisms or tools to delegate responsibilities (e.g., MOUs, Ministerial Mandates, Provincial Policy Statement, regulations). Ensure collaboration between CAs to encourage consistency in the delivery of programming and services. Recognize the unique capabilities and needs of each CA and the need for flexibility. B. Giving the Minister the authority to formally delegate the delivery of current and additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services to conservation authorities in the future Participant feedback expressed support to: Support this potential action if the intent is to consolidate roles and responsibilities from different statutes, not “download” more responsibilities. Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Overall key themes/issues: Ensure delegated programs and services receive the appropriate resources (particularly funding) to facilitate implementation. Clarify the intent of the potential actions to ensure they are interpreted consistently and correctly. Consider other mechanisms or tools to delegate programs and services to other bodies or organizations (e.g., MOUs, Ministerial Directives, Provincial Policy Statement, regulations, other statutes, etc.) Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 12 Concern about the “heavy handed” approach and language of the potential actions; the concern is that the province is moving toward a “command and control” approach. Concern about the capacity of different CAs to implement additional programs and services (particularly without additional funding). Clarify what will be delegated to provide more certainty. Concern that municipalities will be financially responsible for the additional programs and services if funding is not provided. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Clarify the intent of the potential actions to ensure they are interpreted consistently and correctly. Clarify the types of programs and services that could be delegated. C. Giving the Minister the authority to formally delegate the delivery of current and additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services to other public bodies, not-for-profit organizations, municipalities and other Ministries Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Concern that delegating programs and services to other bodies will lead to the privatization of these programs and services (i.e., flexibility without accountability). Concern that this potential action will delegate responsibilities away from CAs. Concern about losing the ability to negotiate funding if programs and services are delegated to other bodies or organizations. Concern about the delivery of programs and services through other organizations or bodies given the retrenchment of MNRF resources. Concern that delegating programs and services to other bodies or organizations will duplicate the services and programs provided by CAs. D. Giving the Minister the authority to deliver additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services throughout the province Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Note that in some cases, there is already wording in the Act that addresses the intent of this potential action (e.g., where there is no CA). Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 13 Other Actions to Consider A. Reducing administrative burdens associated with appointing and replacing board members and obtaining approval of board per diems. Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Concern regarding the approval of per diems as they are appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB); it was suggested that the CA board should decide, not the OMB. Concern that compensation is not equitable across CAs. Participant noted that appointing and replacing board members is not a problem for all CAs. B. Aligning board terms with the municipal elections cycle. Participants support the action to align board terms with the municipal elections cycle. Participants suggested the need to consider term limits for board members (e.g., 8 years). C. Developing and orientation and training program for board members. Participants were supportive of developing a training program for board members; specifically fiduciary training (functional responsibility for reporting to municipalities and responsibility of municipality to select board members). D. Developing a coordinated communications plan outlining any changes to conservation authority operations, programs and services resulting from the review in partnership with municipalities and conservation authorities Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Note that some CAs already coordinate communications. Align CA communications with communications at Conservation Ontario. Foster effective exchange of programs needed to support collaboration. Additional Comments Additional comments provided by participants include: Overall key themes/issues: Continue exploring opportunities to improve the role and function of board members (e.g., fiduciary duties, decision-making authority, compensation, terms, etc.). Build on existing communication efforts utilized by conservation authorities. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 14 Ensure the interests of all stakeholders (e.g., OFAH members, agricultural sector) are considered during decision-making processes; this can be achieved in part through more outreach and education. Suggest that CAs fill the gap in forest management and protection in Southern Ontario; forests play an important role in the hydrological cycle. Conservation authorities may be better positioned to undertake on the ground initiatives that MNRF does not have capacity for. Consider monitoring landscape management at multiple scales (e.g., provincial, watershed, etc.). Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 15 Appendix A – Questions of Clarification The following topics and themes were discussed after the overview presentation: Presentation Ensure the presentation includes a balanced summary of the feedback received during the first phase of consultations (e.g., positive feedback, opportunities for improvement, feedback by sector, etc.). Highlight the range of comments received regarding the CAs’ Mandate (presented as an area of general disagreement). Concern that a focus on a “core hazards role” will limit the scope of CA roles and responsibilities; there is a need to recognize the diversity of programs and services CAs provide. Clarify whether the amalgamation of CAs is being considered by the province. Priority Areas Ensure the potential actions proposed to improve the coordination of CA services (e.g., one- window approach) are carefully considered and will be adequately resourced. Note that the potential actions do not reflect the fundamental issues affecting CAs (i.e., they miss the mark). Include integrated watershed management as an overarching approach in the Act. Recognize the multiple roles and responsibilities CAs currently undertake under the Act. Recognize that each CA is different; while consistency is an important objective it may lead to structural issues. o Each CA provides services that reflect the needs of its respective watershed. o Some CAs do not have the capacity (e.g., staff, financial resources, tools, etc.) to undertake integrated watershed management. Explain the rationale to include policies formally requiring CAs to undertake “other duties as assigned” given that they do not have the ability to say “no”. o Concern was expressed that municipalities will be financially responsible for “other duties as assigned” if funding is not provided with the assigned duties. o Concern was expressed that this potential action is a “command and control” approach and that other mechanisms could be used to delineate roles and responsibilities (e.g., MOUs, Ministerial Mandates). Include the six primary roles and responsibilities CAs currently undertake in the Act (e.g., hazard management, watershed management, commenting on environmental assessments, service provider, regulator, and land owner). o Conservation authorities can coordinate processes requiring collaboration among multiple stakeholders (e.g., integrated watershed management). o Ensure watershed management is integrated (i.e., someone need to be the “stick”). Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 16 Consider the unintended consequences of clarifying CA roles and responsibilities (e.g., limiting the scope of CA activities). Consider clarifying certain issues (e.g., roles and responsibilities, climate change) in the statute’s preamble. Participation and Feedback during Consultations Ensure stakeholders who participated in the first phase of consultations receive notification of consultation sessions going forward. Other Recognize that there is no CA that oversees the Ottawa River. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 17 Appendix B – Ranking Results At the end of the session participants were asked to choose the most important potential action under each priority area. The results of this optional exercise are presented in the graph below. Note that some attendees did not participate in the ranking because they felt the potential actions do not reflect the fundamental issues affecting CAs. The results represent the number of attendees that chose to respond and do not represent a statistically significant sample. Eighteen (18) completed forms were received. The potential actions under each priority area are represented by the letters A to E in the graph below. Additional comments Reduce red tape! Streamline permit application process. Clarify the intent of the potential actions under Priority #5. Develop opportunities to distribute funds across regions/province more effectively (e.g., cost sharing). Align the Conservation Authorities Act with other provincial legislation (e.g., Drainage Act, Ontario Water Resources Act). Make as many changes by updating the policies and procedures manual instead of revising the act. Include integrated watershed management in the purpose statement of the act. 8 4 8 2 4 2 6 1 6 9 3 3 2 4 2 1 0 3 5 1 3 3 5 Priority 1- Strengthening Oversight and Accountability Priority 2 - Increasing Clarity and Consistency Priority 3 - Improving Collaboration and Engagement Priority 4 - Modernizaing Funding Mechanisms Priority 5 - Enhancing Flexibility for the Province Priority Area Ranking Results A B C D E Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 18 Concern about the need for the potential actions under Priority #5 in the act. Align board member appointments with the municipal election cycle. Concern about the need for Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) approval for board per diems. “Upload” funding of CAs to the province. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 19 This summary of participant feedback has been prepared by Lura Consulting and Planning Solutions Inc. to provide the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry with the recurring themes and priorities raised by participants during the Thunder Bay session of the Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II. The feedback from each individual session will be used to compile a final engagement session report. Introduction The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) is undertaking a phased review of the Conservation Authorities Act. The intent of the review is to identify opportunities to improve the legislative, regulatory and policy framework that currently governs the creation, operation and activities of conservation authorities. In Phase I of the review, completed in 2015, MNRF led an extensive consultation process to engage stakeholders in a discussion about opportunities to improve the Conservation Authorities Act, which resulted in extensive feedback. Based on the input received in Phase I of the review, MNRF has released the document, Conserving Our Future: Proposed Priorities for Renewal, that outlines a series of actions that could be taken under five proposed priority areas for improvement: (1) Strengthening Oversight and Accountability, (2) Increasing Clarity and Consistency, (3) Improving Collaboration and Engagement, (4) Modernizing Funding Mechanisms, and (5) Enhancing Flexibility for the Province. In June 2015, MNRF led a second round of consultations with a diversity of stakeholders to obtain input on the potential actions outlined within the five priority areas. On June 7, 2016, the MNRF hosted a full-day workshop in Thunder Bay at the West Thunder Community Centre as part of the Phase II consultation program. The purpose of the workshop was to provide an overview of the five priority areas for improving the Conservation Authorities Act. The workshop consisted of an overview plenary presentation with time for questions of clarification, followed by three rounds of facilitated small group discussions. The facilitated discussions were designed to encourage dialogue and obtain feedback on the five (5) priority areas for improving the Conservation Authorities Act. A total of 7 individuals participated in the workshop, including participants from the following organizations: Lakehead Region Conservation Authority (LRCA) Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Township of Gillies This report presents a summary of the comments and suggestions provided by participants during the workshop. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 20 Summary of Participant Feedback The summary of participant feedback is organized according to the five priority areas: (i) Overview Summary (1) Strengthening Oversight and Accountability, (2) Increasing Clarify and Consistency, (3) Improving Collaboration and Engagement, (4) Modernizing Funding Mechanisms and (5) Enhancing Flexibility for the Province. Each priority area contains a synopsis of the overall key themes and issues as well as specific feedback received through plenary discussions (see Appendix A) and completed discussion guides relating to each discussion question. The following points highlight the recurring comments, concerns and/or advice which emerged from the Thunder Bay session. Northern Ontario in general and northwestern Ontario specifically exhibits a number of unique conditions, circumstances and challenges, not the least of which include unorganized territory, a large geography/spatial extent and frequently, an inaccessible land base. Local autonomy is critical; flexibility is essential to long term success. Education is imperative to improved understanding and awareness of the role and responsibilities of conservation authorities (CAs). Collaboration and cooperation are important fundamental principles. There are many examples where fees are set collaboratively and instances where CAs advance win/win solutions that promote mutually beneficial results. This latitude and flexibility is necessary and CAs must be given the opportunity to continue to develop workable solutions on a project-specific basis. Recognize that legislative changes need to be supported by long term sustainable funding. A long term financial commitment is essential. There are a number of legislative changes that should be considered as priorities by the province including: o Defining a clear purpose and meaning in the Act regarding the role and mandate of CAs; o Coordination and collection of scientific data and information – potential role for Conservation Ontario; o The need to enhancing the dialogue with First Nations but also with other stakeholders. There are a number of supporting actions that can realize significant change including training for CA Board Members, and province-wide initiatives led by Conservation Ontario to improve communication, education and awareness of the role of CAs. Need to ensure that municipalities are not handicapped by new statutory provisions. Recognize that these actions are not mutually exclusive and that some may be associated with increased funding requirements. Any ministerial changes to the regulation must be done in consultation with CAs. Legislative changes need to reflect the diversity that exists in conditions, circumstances and situations across the province (e.g. use of, access to and management strategies associated with conservation areas – very different in northern Ontario than in southern Ontario.) Keep it flexible. “Max flex” needs to be the operative principle moving forward regarding legislative change. Stay true to the role and mandate of CAs. Be realistic and be innovative. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 21 Priority #1: Strengthening Oversight and Accountability A. Updating the act to reflect modern legislative structures and accountabilities Participant feedback expressed support to modernize the Act to define a clear statement of purpose and the roles and responsibilities of various parties in providing oversight. It was noted that there is a misunderstanding among the public, municipalities, and other ministries about what a CA is responsible for. Participants highlighted that communication between CA board members and with participating municipalities across a CA is important to establish a clear understanding of which programs are managed by CAs and why. B. Adopting and/or aligning with governance best management practices Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: CAs should already be following governance best management practices and this is less of a priority than other actions. The MNRF should provide some minimum guidance for best management practices which CAs can then adapt at the local level. The model followed by Health Units should be examined when determining an avenue for appeals regarding codes of conduct or conflict of interest. C. Enhancing provincial oversight Participants raised the concern that CAs may lose local flexibility through actions that increase provincial oversight. D. Enhancing municipal oversight Participant feedback expressed support to: Enhance municipal oversight regarding the scope and focus of CA programs and services. Achieve a balance of provincial and municipal oversight to allow local flexibility. Overall key themes/issues: Maintaining local autonomy for CAs and flexibility in the CA Act is important for long term success. Enhancing communication and dialogue is important for improving understanding and awareness of a CAs role and mandate. The unique set of circumstances and challenges in northern Ontario should be considered in changes to the Act. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 22 E. Developing or updating criteria for establishing, amalgamating or dissolving a CA Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Regional differences should be reflected in the criteria for establishing, enlarging, amalgamating or dissolving a CA. Enlargement of CAs in northern Ontario to follow the scientific watershed would require additional provincial funding. There is no mechanism to levy unorganized townships and there would be a large financial burden on member municipalities of the LRCA. Priority #2: Increasing Clarity and Consistency A. Clearly delineating between mandatory and optional programs and services Participant feedback expressed support to: Clearly delineate between mandatory and optional programs and services. Provide clarity and consistency in a CAs regulatory roles and responsibilities. B. Establishing a Provincial Policy Directive No specific feedback on this topic. C. Providing clarity and consistency in conservation authorities’ regulatory roles and responsibilities Participants were supportive of providing clarity and consistency in a CAs regulatory roles and responsibilities. Participants noted that consolidating and codifying regulations would reduce the potential for misinterpretation of the regulations and the associated legal disputes. Defining undefined terms in the Act was also supported. D. Enhancing compliance and enforcement of regulatory requirements Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Enhancing compliance and enforcement of regulatory requirements was identified as an expensive action and therefore less important. Overall key themes/issues: There is support for providing clarity and consistency in a CAs regulatory roles and responsibilities. Consolidating and codifying regulations would reduce the potential for misinterpretation of the regulations. There are challenges in negotiating with landowners and enforcing regulatory requirements. Education and enhancement of the CAs relationship with landowners is important to address this. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 23 There are challenges in negotiating with landowners and enforcing regulatory requirements. The appeal process is expensive for CAs. CAs want to be viewed as an approachable body that works with landowners rather than an enforcement authority. Education is important to enhance this relationship. Technical guidelines need to be updated (e.g., guidelines with respect to bedrock) to improve enforcement of regulations. It is easier for staff to administer regulations when they are provided with clear definitions. E. Streamlining planning and permitting requirements and processes Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: CAs will get more buy in from the community when they have positive relationships through planning and permitting processes. It is important to make planning and permitting processes user-friendly to the public. Priority #3: Improving Collaboration and Engagement A. Establishing a provincial “one-window” approach Participants expressed support to prioritize the establishment of a provincial “one-window”. It was noted that this approach could also provide efficiencies with respect to gaining access to funding opportunities. Participants expressed that coordinating the collection and sharing of science and information should be done by one body for cost and operational efficiencies as opposed to coordinated by both Conservation Ontario and a provincial “one-window”. B. Establishing a business relationship with Conservation Ontario Participants raised the following concerns and/or issues: There was a preference for Conservation Ontario to remain an advocate of CAs rather than a body that directs how programs should be run or what programs should be delivered. Overall key themes/issues: The establishment of a provincial “one-window” should be prioritized. There is support for Conservation Ontario to remain an advocate of CAs rather than provide specific direction on CA programs. Actions relating to enhancing Indigenous Peoples’, public, and stakeholder participation would require additional financial and staff resources for CAs to manage. Enhancing education and awareness in the community of the various roles of CAs, municipalities and the province would be beneficial. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 24 Providing education and raising awareness on the role of CAs was a suggested role for Conservation Ontario. C. Enhancing Indigenous People’s participation Participants raised the following concerns and/or issues: There are challenges with engaging Indigenous Peoples’. It requires a more fulsome consultation process. It was suggested that the federal government should provide funding for Indigenous People’s participation in CAs. Given the ability for the province to effect change in this area, it is less of a priority action. D. Enhancing public and stakeholder participation Participants raised the following concerns and/or issues: Actions relating to enhancing Indigenous Peoples’, public, and stakeholder participation are important; however they would require additional financial and staff resources for CAs to manage. A lot of resources are required to engage the public with a small amount of feedback received in return. Education may be more effective in terms of use of CA resources. Participants highlighted that there is a lack of understanding amongst the community regarding a CAs mandate and role. Enhancing education and awareness of the various roles of CAs, municipalities and the province would be beneficial. E. Supporting conservation authorities in sharing and coordinating resources Participants noted that supporting CAs in sharing and coordinating resources is less of a priority. Sharing of resources is already happening at the local level where it makes sense. Priority #4: Modernizing Funding Mechanisms Overall key themes/issues: Sustainable long term funding is required to deliver CA programs and services and support provincial direction. A multi-ministry approach to funding should be considered. Regional differences should be taken into account when determining funding levels (e.g., lower population base and greater distances in northern Ontario). Consider innovative opportunities for municipal funding arrangements, e.g., new tax classification for CA owned hazard-related lands, tax rates reflective of the land use and benefit provided. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 25 A. Enhancing clarity, consistency and accountability around municipal levies Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: It is important to avoid downloading provincial costs to municipalities through CA levies. Regional differences should be taken into account when determining funding levels (e.g., lower population base, greater distances in northern Ontario). It was noted that population data being used is inaccurate; Stats Canada data is preferred. B. Promoting clarity, consistency and accountability around fees and generated revenue Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: CAs in northern Ontario experience challenges in generating funds through the operation of conservation areas. Member municipalities must be levied for the maintenance of conservation lands. Delivering consistent permitting fees across northern Ontario is a challenge when travel distances vary greatly. C. Improving fiscal oversight and transparency Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Improving fiscal oversight and transparency was indicated as less important. There is a sense that municipal oversight and transparency is already strong. Standardizing budgeting requirements may not be suitable for all CAs. Adjusting existing processes will require additional resources. A clarification was made that municipalities have a role in CA budget approval as opposed to oversight. D. Improving clarity in the use of provincial funding processes Participants highlighted that if a CA could apply directly for Trillium funding the process would be more streamlined. E. Other Feedback on Priority #4 Additional participant feedback on priority #4 included: Sustainable long term funding is required to deliver CA programs and services and support provincial direction. CAs provide a range of environmental and health benefits. A multi-ministry approach to funding should be explored, e.g., funding from the Ministry of Health. Consider innovative opportunities for municipal funding arrangements, e.g., new tax classification for CA owned hazard-related lands, tax rates reflective of the land use and benefit provided. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 26 Priority #5: Enhancing Flexibility for the Province A. Giving the Minister the authority to use the act to develop additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services in the future B. Giving the Minister the authority to formally delegate the delivery of current and additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services to conservation authorities in the future C. Giving the Minister the authority to formally delegate the delivery of current and additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services to other public bodies, not-for-profit organizations, municipalities and other Ministries D. Giving the Minister the authority to deliver additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services throughout the province Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations related to Priority #5: Consultation and communication between CAs and the MNRF is important regarding changes to the regulations of the CA Act. Ensuring flexibility is maintained in the CA Act is important to allow for consideration of future emerging issues such as climate change impacts. Other Actions to Consider Overall key themes/issues: It was emphasized that the CA Act should be written broadly to allow for flexibility and consideration of future emerging issues. There is a preference for consultation and communication between CAs and the MNRF regarding changes to the regulations of the CA Act. Overall key themes/issues: All potential actions should be considered in conjunction with fiscal realities. A low cost form of alternative dispute resolution for permitting appeals should be made mandatory prior to matters being handled through the court system. There is concern that judges do not have the same knowledge as the Ontario Mining and Lands Commissioner. Education should be provided to the judiciary on conservation so that informed decisions can be made. The CA Act should be written broadly to allow for flexibility. Control is better applied through directives and regulations. Actions should reflect the diversity of conditions and circumstances of the CAs across the province. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 27 A. Additional actions for the Ministry to take Participant feedback highlighted the following actions for the Ministry to take: A regular review of the regulations and directives of the CA Act should be undertaken; however the legislation itself does not need to be reviewed as frequently. Regarding the enforcement of regulations, it was suggested that all appeals should go to the Ontario Mining and Lands Commissioner (OMLC) or another form of dispute resolution where the costs are lower before going through the court system. o There was concern that judges do not have the same knowledge as the OMLC. Education should be provided to the judiciary on the role of conservation and the CA Act to allow them to make informed decisions. B. Considerations when developing any additional actions Participants highlighted the following considerations when developing additional actions: It was emphasized that the CA Act should be written broadly to allow for flexibility. Control is better applied through directives and regulations. Northern Ontario faces unique challenges with an expansive geography and an absence of infrastructure and transportation modes. There should also be recognition that there is a large geographical area outside of CA jurisdiction in northern Ontario and what happens within the greater watershed affects other CA municipalities. C. Feedback on additional potential actions proposed by the Ministry Participants highlighted that reducing the administrative burden associated with appointing or replacing board members is less of a priority. With respect to aligning board terms with the municipal election cycle, there is a preference for ensuring some continuity and knowledge transfer of board members between terms. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 28 Appendix A – Questions of Clarification The following topics and themes were discussed after the overview presentation: Q. Prior to 1995 there was a formal CA branch within MNR. Is there any consideration for reinstating that branch? LRCA is the only CA in northwestern Ontario and we are delivering the mandated programs. How does MNRF engage with those other municipalities about things like flood plain mapping? We also have unorganized townships adjacent to us where people are building without permits in the flood plain. Where could those municipalities go? The CA branch concept may still have some validity. Lots of northern Ontario is not covered by a CA. A. We have heard from other stakeholders that the MNRF needs to be right-sized to reflect the CA program. With respect to your point about unorganized townships, outside of CA territory the natural hazard program is delivered by the MNRF. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 29 Appendix B – Ranking Results At the end of the session participants were asked to choose the most important potential action under each priority area. The results of this optional exercise are presented in the graph below. Note that some attendees did not participate in the ranking because they felt the potential actions do not reflect the fundamental issues affecting CAs. The results represent the number of attendees that chose to respond and do not represent a statistically significant sample. Five (5) completed forms were received. The potential actions under each priority area are represented by the letters A to E in the graph below. At the end of the session, participants were asked to choose the most important potential action under each priority area. The results of this exercise are presented below. 3 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Priority 1- Strengthening Oversight and Accountability Priority 2 - Increasing Clarity and Consistency Priority 3 - Improving Collaboration and Engagement Priority 4 - Modernizaing Funding Mechanisms Priority 5 - Enhancing Flexibility for the Province Priority Area Ranking Results A B C D E Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 30 This summary of participant feedback has been prepared by Lura Consulting and Planning Solutions Inc. to provide the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry with the recurring themes and priorities raised by participants during the London session of the Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II. The feedback from each individual session will be used to compile a final engagement session report. Introduction The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) is undertaking a phased review of the Conservation Authorities Act. The intent of the review is to identify opportunities to improve the legislative, regulatory and policy framework that currently governs the creation, operation and activities of conservation authorities. In Phase I of the review, completed in 2015, MNRF led an extensive consultation process to engage stakeholders in a discussion about opportunities to improve the Conservation Authorities Act, which resulted in extensive feedback. Based on the input received in Phase I of the review, MNRF has released the document, Conserving Our Future: Proposed Priorities for Renewal, that outlines a series of actions that could be taken under five proposed priority areas for improvement: (1) Strengthening Oversight and Accountability, (2) Increasing Clarity and Consistency, (3) Improving Collaboration and Engagement, (4) Modernizing Funding Mechanisms, and (5) Enhancing Flexibility for the Province. In June 2016, MNRF led a second round of consultations with a diversity of stakeholders to obtain input on the potential actions outlined within the five priority areas. On June 9, 2016, the MNRF hosted a full-day workshop in London at the Double Tree by Hilton as part of the Phase II consultation program. The purpose of the workshop was to provide an overview of the five priority areas for improving the Conservation Authorities Act. The workshop consisted of an overview plenary presentation with time for questions of clarification, followed by three rounds of facilitated small group discussions. The facilitated discussions were designed to encourage dialogue and obtain feedback on the five (5) priority areas for improving the Conservation Authorities Act. A total of 57 individuals participated in the workshop, including participants from the following organizations: Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority Bruce County Federation of Agriculture Canadian Environmental Law Association Catfish Creek Conservation Authority Chippewas of the Thames First Nation City of Cambridge City of Hamilton Conservation Ontario County of Oxford Ducks Unlimited EnPointe Development Essex Region Conservation Authority Grand River Conservation Authority Halton Region Conservation Authority Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 31 Hamilton Region Conservation Authority Kettle Creek Conservation Authority Lake Erie North Shore Landowners Association London Development Institute Long Point Region Conservation Authority Lower Thames Valley Conservation Authority Maitland Valley Conservation Authority Municipality of Brockton Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority Niagara Region Ontario Farm Environment Coalition Ontario Federation of Agriculture Saugeen Conservation Authority Six Nations Lands and Resources St. Clair Region Conservation Authority Stantec Town of Hanover Upper Thames River CA Watterworth Farms This report presents a summary of the comments and suggestions provided by participants during the workshop. Summary of Participant Feedback The summary of participant feedback is organized according to the five priority areas: (1) Strengthening Oversight and Accountability, (2) Increasing Clarify and Consistency, (3) Improving Collaboration and Engagement, (4) Modernizing Funding Mechanisms and (5) Enhancing Flexibility for the Province. Each priority area contains a synopsis of the overall key themes and issues as well as specific feedback received through plenary discussions (see Appendix A) and completed discussion guides relating to each discussion question. The following points highlight the recurring comments, concerns and/or advice which emerged from the London session. There is support for updating the CA Act to reflect modern legislative structures, specifically by adding a clear purpose statement and principles/objectives that the legislation is trying to achieve. The core mandate of CAs can fluctuate so it must be flexible with a focus on Integrated Watershed Management (IWM). There needs to be more training across all CAs to improve consistency in governance. Establishing a provincial “one-window” approach is a top priority. CAs need more provincial assistance to undertake precise mapping; it is challenging to make good decisions with inaccurate and inconsistent data. Indigenous Peoples’ participation should be at a watershed and strategic planning level rather than a project by project level, however there is not a clear path to achieve this. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 32 It is important to foster a culture of CAs working together with landowners with regard to planning and permitting. There needs to be more transparency, communication and sharing of information between CAs and landowners to enhance this relationship and achieve solutions. Increasing access to funding should be a top priority; funding should be aligned with a CAs mandate. A multi-ministry approach to funding should be undertaken. There is support for clarifying municipal levies. Apportionment of levies and the funding formula need to be enhanced, better defined and made consistent. Clarity around fees and how they can be used by a CA would be beneficial. It was suggested that the Ministry should provide clear guidance on acceptable revenue streams. There is a desire for standardized and consistent budgeting practices; however, standardizing budget templates may add complexity and an administrative burden. There is support from some participants for the Minister to have authority and flexibility to expand natural resource conservation and management programs and services. Appropriate support and funding is required for any additional programs or services delegated to CAs. Priority #1: Strengthening Oversight and Accountability A. Updating the Act to reflect modern legislative structures and accountabilities Participant feedback expressed support to: Update the CA Act to reflect modern legislative structures, specifically by adding a clear purpose statement and principles/objectives that the legislation is trying to achieve. Clearly define and communicate to the public the purpose of CAs. Define the roles and responsibilities of various parties. Overall key themes/issues: There is support for updating the CA Act to reflect modern legislative structures, specifically by adding a clear purpose statement and principles/objectives that the legislation is trying to achieve. When adding a purpose statement to the CA Act, it is important to find a balance and provide enough flexibility to accommodate the context-specific circumstances of each CA. There needs to be more training across all CAs to improve consistency in governance. If the province is going to direct additional CA programs and services, the necessary funding should be provided. Municipalities should not be able to remove themselves from a CA as this would have a large financial impact on a CA. Developing or updating criteria for establishing, amalgamating or dissolving a CA is necessary, however it might not have a place within the CA Act. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 33 Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: It is important to find a balance and provide enough flexibility to accommodate the context- specific circumstances of each CA. Focus on articulating desired outcomes, rather than how to achieve them. This will provide guidance while also allowing some flexibility. Look to the model of Public Health Units for structuring the CA Act and regulations. Changes to the CA Act should be aligned with the Municipal Act. Modernize the CA Act so it is easier to update in the future (i.e., include certain aspects as regulation and policy rather than legislation so they can be adapted more frequently). Updates to the CA Act should include an improved appeal process for planning and permitting. B. Adopting and/or aligning with governance best management practices Participants expressed that there needs to be more training across all CAs to improve consistency in governance. It was noted that there needs to be clarity on how conflicts of interest among board members are addressed. Participants suggested that operational audits should be reinstated. C. Enhancing provincial oversight Participants expressed support to enhance provincial oversight if it results in more standardized operating practices for all CAs. Participants raised the concern that if the province is going to direct additional CA programs and services, the necessary funding should be provided. D. Enhancing municipal oversight Participants emphasized that municipalities do not want to be the regulatory body for flooding and hazards; the CA model is best for this. E. Developing or updating criteria for establishing, amalgamating or dissolving a CA Participants expressed concern that municipalities should not be able to remove themselves from a CA as this would have a large financial impact on a CA and its ability to fulfill its roles. If a municipality were to be removed it would continue to receive benefits provided by a CA without having to provide funding. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Developing or updating criteria for establishing, amalgamating or dissolving a CA is less important. Having criteria is necessary, but this might not have a place within the CA Act. Consider a process to achieve minor CA boundary adjustments as some municipalities are located in two or more CAs. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 34 Priority #2: Increasing Clarity and Consistency A. Clearly delineating between mandatory and optional programs and services Participants expressed support for clearly delineating between required programs and services (with appropriate funding sources) and those that are discretionary. Participants raised the concern that appropriate funding mechanisms are needed to support the required programs and services. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Flood and hazard issues should be mandatory and everything else should be discretionary. Stronger collaboration needs to happen to support integrated watershed planning. B. Establishing a Provincial Policy Directive Participant feedback expressed support for providing some level of provincial policy direction. Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: The position of the policy directive needs to be clear in terms of how it falls in the hierarchy of other provincial policy directives. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Consider developing agreements between CAs and the provincial government (similar to agreements with universities) to outline roles and responsibilities specific to each CA. Overall key themes/issues: There is support for clearly delineating between required programs and services (with appropriate funding sources) and those that are discretionary. Appropriate funding mechanisms are needed to support the required CA programs and services. The core mandate of CAs can fluctuate so it must be flexible with a focus on IWM. Clarify the hierarchy of various legislation, regulations, policies, and plans. It is important to update regulatory requirements and keep them current rather than create additional requirements. A solutions-based approach rather than a fine-based approach should be established to address compliance and enforcement issues. More collaborative decision-making should be implemented to improve the relationship with landowners regarding enforcement of regulations. There is support for establishing and encouraging streamlined and consistent planning and permitting processes among the different CAs. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 35 The core mandate of CAs can fluctuate so it must be flexible with a focus on IWM. Policy directives should be outcome-based rather than prescriptive. C. Providing clarity and consistency in conservation authorities’ regulatory roles and responsibilities Participant feedback expressed support to: Clarify the hierarchy of various legislation, regulations, policies, and plans. Clarify the roles and responsibilities of the various provincial ministries and stakeholders (e.g. municipalities, agencies, etc.). Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: There is a need for watershed plans to have a formal status/authority and fit within the hierarchy of policy documents and link to municipal plans. Public perceptions of a CA’s role are often unclear; CAs are seen as regulators more than conservation champions. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: It is important to update regulatory requirements and keep them current rather than create additional requirements. Many CAs are not aware of the provincial resources and guidance tools available to them. Policy and procedure documents should be updated to clarify areas of jurisdiction, roles and responsibilities. There is support for creating consistency across CAs but if this cannot be achieved the rationale for inconsistency should be communicated. There is a need for greater clarity on who is responsible for the regulation of wetlands and natural heritage among municipalities, provincial agencies and CAs. D. Enhancing compliance and enforcement of regulatory requirements Participant feedback expressed support to: Modernize the regulatory compliance and enforcement approach. Increase clarity and transparency in compliance and enforcement processes. Provide CAs with the ability to issue stop work orders. Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: CAs do not have the same abilities as municipalities to issue stop work orders. Fines are not high enough to deter some landowners from noncompliance with regulations. The cost of legal action against landowners is prohibitively expensive for CAs. Money collected from fines does not go directly back to CAs. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 36 There are sometimes perceived conflicts of interest between CA board members and landowners. There is a need to provide clarity on where the authority lies for planning and permitting. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Enforcement is currently complaint-based; there is a need for more proactive enforcement of regulations. A solution-based approach rather than a fine-based approach should be established to address compliance and enforcement issues. More collaborative decision-making should be implemented to improve the relationship with landowners regarding enforcement of regulations. Establish a mechanism for CAs to receive the money collected from fines. E. Streamlining planning and permitting requirements and processes Participant feedback expressed support to: Establish and encourage streamlined and consistent planning and permitting processes among the different CAs. Expedite the permitting process and reduce duplication in the review of applications. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Explore the use of different classes of approvals to expedite the permitting process (similar to the Class Environmental Assessment (EA) approach). Use collaborative multi-departmental/agency committees to review permits (similar to some drainage committees) rather than a linear process. Landowners see five levels of government regulation for their land (federal, provincial, regional, municipal and CA). There needs to be coordinated and streamlined “one-window” permit approval approach. The permitting process is currently set up for “getting to no”; it needs to be rethought as a process for “getting to yes”. Liaison committees should be considered as an effective tool for sharing knowledge with the public on completing permit applications. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 37 Priority #3: Improving Collaboration and Engagement A. Establishing a provincial “one-window” approach Participant feedback expressed support to: Establish a provincial “one-window” approach as a top priority. Develop a single point of contact at the ministry level to exchange information and provide support/advice. Develop a “multi-ministry body” where inquiries are filtered through a group rather than one person. The committee should have representation from different ministries and CAs. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: CAs need more provincial assistance to undertake precise mapping; it is challenging to make good decisions with inaccurate and inconsistent data. A “one-window” approach will facilitate more interaction between CAs and ministries. B. Establishing a business relationship with Conservation Ontario Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Some CAs do not want Conservation Ontario to be an oversight body or have an oversight role. Conservation Ontario’s current role is working well. No regulation role for Conservation Ontario is required. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Define ‘business relationship’ and consult with CAs on this. Look at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) model for ideas on enhancing the relationship between CAs and Conservation Ontario. Overall key themes/issues: Establishing a provincial “one-window” approach should be a top priority. CAs need more provincial assistance to undertake precise mapping; it is challenging to make good decisions with inaccurate and inconsistent data. Some CAs do not want Conservation Ontario to be an oversight body or have an oversight role. Conservation Ontario’s current role is working well. Indigenous Peoples’ participation should be at a watershed and strategic planning level rather than a project by project level, however there is not a clear path to achieve this. Develop a guidance document on public and stakeholder participation. Engagement should be considered as a guideline, rather than a regulation. It is important to employ a culture of collaboration with landowners. There needs to be more transparency, communication and sharing of information between CAs and landowners. In some areas landowners are not sure who to contact when they have questions/concerns. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 38 C. Enhancing Indigenous Peoples’ participation Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Indigenous Peoples’ participation should be at a watershed and strategic planning level rather than a project by project level, however there is not a clear path to achieve this. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Indigenous Peoples’ participation requires more discussion and direction from the province. CAs would like to see the province provide templates/best practices for agreements for engaging with Indigenous Peoples. D. Enhancing public and stakeholder participation Participant feedback expressed support to: Develop a guidance document on public and stakeholder participation. Engagement should be considered as a guideline, rather than a regulation. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Some CAs are already incorporating multiple opportunities for public and stakeholder participation, however funding and resources are limited. It is important to employ a culture of collaboration with landowners. There needs to be more transparency, communication and sharing of information between CAs and landowners. In some areas landowners are not sure who to contact when they have questions/concerns. There needs to be a standardized process in place that CAs must follow when entering a landowners’ property including providing adequate notification. Ad hoc and advisory committees for CAs have been successful for enhancing stakeholder engagement. The Planning Act outlines mandatory public consultation policies, but they do not foster authentic and genuine engagement opportunities. This should not be repeated in the CA Act. The aim should be on leading genuine engagement that is reflective of modern engagement and communication mechanisms. E. Supporting conservation authorities in sharing and coordinating resources Participant feedback expressed support to: Encourage CAs to share data, science, and information. Explore the opportunity for certain CAs to be ‘centers of excellence’ for specific topic areas to reduce duplication of resources. Encourage CAs to work together to achieve administrative efficiencies, but do not prescribe it. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 39 Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Supporting CAs in sharing and coordinating resources is important, but language and liability need to be considered (e.g., risk management on sharing information). Each CA has a different way of sharing information (e.g., they don’t all have an open-data policy). It will be challenging to share information and resources in an equitable manner. Perhaps the provincial and federal government should be providing resources to CAs. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: There is a need to draw provincial and federal governments back into Great Lakes shoreline protection. Everyone needs to be involved. Consider shared target setting for CA Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) across larger eco-zones rather than a single CA. Priority #4: Modernizing Funding Mechanisms A. Enhancing clarity, consistency and accountability around municipal levies Participants expressed support for clarifying municipal levies. It was noted that apportionment of levies and the funding formula need to be enhanced, better defined and made consistent. Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: There is some discrepancy between the CA Act and Ontario Regulation 139/96 (Municipal Levies). The language needs to be clarified. This would help avoid lengthy appeal processes. Overall key themes/issues: Increasing access to funding should be a top priority. Funding should be aligned with CAs’ mandate. There is support for clarifying municipal levies. Apportionment of levies and the funding formula need to be enhanced, better defined and made consistent. Clarity around fees and how they can be used by a CA would be beneficial. It was suggested that the Ministry should provide clear guidance on acceptable revenue streams. There is a desire for standardized and consistent budgeting practices; however, standardizing budget templates may add complexity and an administrative burden. The timing of the release of transfer payments creates challenges for CAs (i.e. fiscal years are misaligned). A multi-year funding model would create greater efficiencies in administering programs. Multi-ministerial funding opportunities should be explored as well as federal funding opportunities to address the sustainable funding needs of CAs. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 40 Some member municipalities feel they don’t have enough influence on the CA budget and that there is an imbalance of representation of municipalities on CA boards. The intent of the municipal levy has to be made clear. There is confusion regarding whether the levy is a tax or a collection of charges for the CA. If it is not a tax, municipalities should have more of a say with respect to its uses. Participants emphasized that there is a desire for fairness and impartiality among small and large CAs; one size does not fit all. Population density and different sizes of CAs mean that a standard formula is likely not effective. There needs to be an equalization mechanism for municipal levies. B. Promoting clarity, consistency and accountability around fees and generated revenue Participants expressed that clarity around fees and how they can be used by a CA would be beneficial. It was suggested that the Ministry should provide clear guidance on acceptable revenue streams. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Ensure changes to the CA Act do not limit a CAs ability to raise funds. Some CAs need support in justifying user fees as the public does not usually understand how they are derived. C. Improving fiscal oversight and transparency Participants expressed that there are no major issues with fiscal oversight and transparency. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: There is a desire for standardized and consistent budgeting practices; however, standardizing budget templates may add complexity and an administrative burden. Some municipalities currently ask for compliance with their own budget formats. There is concern that municipalities may ask to have too much involvement in budgeting by increasing municipal oversight through changes to the CA Act. D. Improving clarity in the use of provincial funding processes Participants raised the following concerns and/or issues: The timing of the release of transfer payments creates challenges for CAs (i.e. fiscal years are misaligned). A multi-year funding model would create greater efficiencies in administering programs. The transfer payment should be indexed to the rate of inflation. Municipalities are currently making up the difference for inflation increases. CAs should be eligible for Trillium funds and development charges. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 41 Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Increasing access to funding should be a top priority. Funding should be aligned with a CAs mandate. Multi-ministerial funding opportunities should be explored as well as federal funding opportunities to address the sustainable funding needs of CAs. Without secure and stable funding there is an inability to plan for the future. New legislation that impacts CAs (e.g., Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, Health and Safety legislation) is increasing costs for CAs but budgets are not increasing to reflect this. Priority #5: Enhancing Flexibility for the Province A. Giving the Minister the authority to use the Act to develop additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services in the future Participant feedback expressed support for giving authority to the Minister to develop additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services. It was noted that duplication of efforts should be avoided. B. Giving the Minister the authority to formally delegate the delivery of current and additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services to conservation authorities in the future Participants emphasized that additional programs and services delegated to CAs must be accompanied by appropriate funding. There was a general feeling that delegation is already happening but there is a need to better define the scope of what/when/how delegation can occur. C. Giving the Minister the authority to formally delegate the delivery of current and additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services to other public bodies, not-for-profit organizations, municipalities and other Ministries Participants expressed support for enhancing natural resource conservation and management in areas not currently within the jurisdiction of a CA. Overall key themes/issues: There is support from some participants for the Minister to have authority and flexibility to expand resource conservation and management programs and services. Appropriate support and funding is required for any additional programs or services delegated to CAs. External partners need to have the right expertise and capacity to deliver natural resource conservation and management programs and services. Appropriate oversight and transparency is required for any external partner activities. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 42 Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: External partners need to have the right expertise and capacity to deliver natural resource conservation and management programs and services. Appropriate support and oversight of external partners is needed if they are delegated to deliver programs and services. Appropriate accountability and transparency measures must be in place. CAs should be considered before external partners in the delivery of additional programs and services since the framework is already in place. D. Giving the Minister the authority to deliver additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services throughout the province Participants noted the importance of avoiding any duplication of services or programs already in place. Other Actions to Consider A. Reducing administrative burdens associated with appointing and replacing board members and obtaining approval of board per diems. Participants expressed that it is important to reduce the administrative burden associated with obtaining approval of board per diems. It was suggested that existing best practices be applied as an alternative to requiring OMB approval for per diems. B. Aligning board terms with the municipal elections cycle. Participants expressed support for aligning board terms with the municipal elections cycle, while still maintaining flexibility for individual CAs to determine term length. Overall key themes/issues: It is important to reduce the administrative burden associated with obtaining approval of board per diems. Existing best practices should be applied as an alternative to requiring OMB approval for per diems. There is support for aligning board terms with the municipal elections cycle, while still maintaining flexibility for individual CAs. Orientation and training should be developed for board members with acknowledgement of local differences in each CA. CAs should be encouraged to share code of conduct documents and tools to support board member training. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 43 C. Developing an orientation and training program for board members. Participants expressed support for developing an orientation and training program for board members. Many CAs already undertake new board member training. It was suggested that CAs share code of conduct documents and tools to increase the level of board member competence. It was noted that training should also acknowledge the local differences in each CA. D. Developing a coordinated communications plan outlining any changes to conservation authority operations, programs and services resulting from the review in partnership with municipalities and conservation authorities Participants expressed support for a coordinated communications plan; however questions were raised regarding who would be responsible for this and whether it is a potential role for Conservation Ontario. Additional Comments Additional comments provided by participants include: A multi-stakeholder CA commission that reports to the Minister should be established. It could act as a review and guidance body and ongoing communication channel between CAs and the MNRF. Education and training should be provided to the courts/legal system to provide a stronger foundation of knowledge when addressing appeals to planning and permitting in the CA Act. Regarding composition of the CA board, it was suggested that it is unfair to grant additional seats to double-tier municipalities. There is a need for more consistency among all CAs. It was also noted that the ideal board composition is a mixture of individuals engaged in governance (e.g., municipal councillors) and those who are experts in the field (e.g., engineers, environmental groups, etc.). It was suggested that an agriculture expert be employed by the CA so landowners can reach out to discuss agriculture-related questions/concerns. Participants discussed the idea of listing CA levies separately on property tax bills to draw the connection that it is a levy on the homeowner. There was support for maintaining biophysical boundaries for CAs rather than municipal/political boundaries. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 44 Appendix A – Questions of Clarification The following topics and themes were discussed after the overview presentation: Q. What is the timeline for amending the CA Act? A. That is up to the government. Our plan is to report back on the feedback that we receive from these sessions and the Environmental Registry to the Minister and Cabinet in the fall 2016. Based on what they hear, they will make decisions about whether legislative changes will move forward and where it will fit on the legislative agenda. Q. Should we try to involve our MPP in the proposed changes? A. If you have concerns locally that you feel that your MPP should be made aware of, you can copy them on you correspondence with us. Your MPP would welcome talking to you about it. Q. With the introduction of the provincial Climate Change Action Plan, will this slow down the process to update the CA Act? How does that plan fit in? A. There are so many different pieces that are ongoing and that fit together. There is work being done on the four land use plans, the Aggregate Resources Act, and climate change. The government has a broad and aggressive agenda. Because of that, we are having a lot of inter-ministerial discussion about the various reviews that are ongoing and how we can coordinate. Q. Once the legislative changes are proposed, do you anticipate it going to Committee? A. That is a decision that is made by the government and Cabinet. Q. Every ministry or group has a Provincial Policy Statement on what the province wants them to do and a lot of them are conflicting. Which one has as higher priority? As a private landowner, how do we know what takes precedent? It is not clear. A. That is common feedback we have heard. The Drummond Report released a few years ago highlighted this overlap and confusion between provincial/municipal/CA roles and responsibilities in permitting. We will talk about that today. We would like your thoughts on how to streamline it and where those issues exist. We also encourage you to submit your comments to the Environmental Registry so it can be received formally in writing. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 45 Appendix B – Ranking Results At the end of the session participants were asked to choose the most important potential action under each priority area. The results of this optional exercise are presented in the graph below. Note that some attendees did not participate in the ranking because they felt the potential actions do not reflect the fundamental issues affecting CAs. The results represent the number of attendees that chose to respond and do not represent a statistically significant sample. Thirty-seven (37) completed forms were received. The potential actions under each priority area are represented by the letters A to E in the graph below. Additional comments Collaborate with other ministries to prevent overlap and accelerate the process to update the CA Act. Provide clear direction on IWM as the prime focus for CAs. Add a separate CA levy line on property tax bills. Developing an inter-ministerial committee should be a priority. Any of the actions to enhance flexibility for the province should come with financial support if mandated. 28 13 15 19 6 4 9 6 7 16 2 6 2 3 5 3 4 7 6 3 0 6 6 Priority 1- Strengthening Oversight and Accountability Priority 2 - Increasing Clarity and Consistency Priority 3 - Improving Collaboration and Engagement Priority 4 - Modernizaing Funding Mechanisms Priority 5 - Enhancing Flexibility for the Province Priority Area Ranking Results A B C D E Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 46 Focus should be on clearly identifying roles and providing appropriate funding levels. Any delegation of new responsibility requires funding resources. Prioritize a “one-window” approach for direction on legislation/regulation at the CA level (e.g., Department of Fisheries and Oceans Agreements) to reduce duplication and maintain a strong local watershed perspective. Clarify the role of board members as representing the watershed, not the municipality. Promote/incent/encourage CA partnerships where capacity is needed. Reduce administrative burdens experienced by CAs in the delivery of programs and services. Move CA oversight to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. Remove planning and permitting from CA programs. Improve the appeal process if planning is to remain under CA jurisdiction and make it consistent with the Planning Act. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 47 This summary of participant feedback has been prepared by Lura Consulting and Planning Solutions Inc. to provide the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry with the recurring themes and priorities raised by participants during the Newmarket session of the Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II. The feedback from each individual session will be used to compile a final engagement session report. Introduction The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) is undertaking a phased review of the Conservation Authorities Act. The intent of the review is to identify opportunities to improve the legislative, regulatory and policy framework that currently governs the creation, operation and activities of conservation authorities (CAs). In Phase I of the review, completed in 2015, MNRF led an extensive consultation process to engage stakeholders in a discussion about opportunities to improve the Conservation Authorities Act, which resulted in extensive feedback. Based on the input received in Phase I of the review, MNRF has released the document, Conserving Our Future: Proposed Priorities for Renewal, that outlines a series of actions that could be taken under five proposed priority areas for improvement: (1) Strengthening Oversight and Accountability, (2) Increasing Clarity and Consistency, (3) Improving Collaboration and Engagement, (4) Modernizing Funding Mechanisms, and (5) Enhancing Flexibility for the Province. In June 2015, MNRF led a second round of consultations with a diversity of stakeholders to obtain input on the potential actions outlined within the five priority areas. On June 13, 2016, the MNRF hosted a full-day workshop in Newmarket, Holiday Inn Express & Suites Newmarket as part of the Phase II consultation program. The purpose of the workshop was to provide an overview of the five priority areas for improving the Conservation Authorities Act. The workshop consisted of an overview plenary presentation with time for questions of clarification, followed by three rounds of facilitated small group discussions. The facilitated discussions were designed to encourage dialogue and obtain feedback on the five (5) priority areas for improving the Conservation Authorities Act. A total of 59 individuals participated in the workshop, including participants from the following organizations: AWARE Simcoe Blue Mountain Watershed Trust Building Industry and Land Development Association Central Lake Ontario CA Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario Conservation Ontario County of Simcoe Credit Valley CA Dillon Consulting Limited Ducks Unlimited Canada Friends of the Rouge Watershed Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 48 Ganaraska Region CA Green Durham Association Halton Region CA Kawartha Region CA Lake Erie North Shore Landowners Association Lake Simcoe Region CA Mattamy Corporation Member of the Public Midhurst Ratepayers Association MMM Group Limited Niagara Peninsula CA Nottawasaga Valley CA Ontario Federation of Agriculture Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters Ontario Home Builders Association Ontario Stone, Sand and Gravel Association Peterborough County Region of Peel Regional Municipality of Durham Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture Toronto and Region CA Town of Bradford West Gwillimbury Town of Springwater Waterfront Toronto This report presents a summary of the comments and suggestions provided by participants during the workshop, and received during the two-week comment period after the session. Summary of Participant Feedback The summary of participant feedback is organized according to the five priority areas: (1) Strengthening Oversight and Accountability, (2) Increasing Clarify and Consistency, (3) Improving Collaboration and Engagement, (4) Modernizing Funding Mechanisms and (5) Enhancing Flexibility for the Province. Each priority area contains a synopsis of the overall key themes and issues as well as specific feedback received through plenary discussions (see Appendix A) and completed discussion guides relating to each discussion question. The following points highlight the recurring comments, concerns and/or advice which emerged from the Newmarket session. Concern that the potential actions do not reflect the fundamental issues affecting CAs. Concern that the review focuses on processes and procedures instead of protecting and enhancing the natural environment. Increase and diversify provincial funding to CAs to support the implementation of conservation programs and services (e.g., access to funds generated through the provincial cap and trade system). Reinstate the provincial partnership; this is a critical component that is missing from the collaborative model that was envisioned for CAs. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 49 Establish a multi-ministerial body to promote dialogue and collaborative decision-making regarding CA roles and responsibilities. Consider an evolving provincial role that could see Provincial Resource Managers (under the leadership of MNRF) act as information coordinators and process conveners. Add a purpose statement to the Act that includes Integrated Watershed Management (IWM) as this is the tool and the basis for collaboration, partnership and engagement of all stakeholder and government interest. Consider legislative changes that focus on positive approaches (e.g., relationship building, collaboration, IWM) to improve conservation efforts instead of increasing oversight. Recognize that CAs are inherently unique. Local conditions and circumstances influence programs and services; legislative changes must recognize the need for continued local autonomy (i.e., flexibility). Establish a third-party process or mechanism to resolve disputes with CAs (e.g., Ontario Municipal Board, appeal mechanism, penalties). Update and expand the tools available to support compliance and enforcement of regulatory requirements (e.g., stop work orders). Provide provincial support to navigate legal proceedings (e.g., funding, guidance). Establish a mechanism for CAs to capture funds from compliance and enforcement activities (e.g., penalties, legal processes). Consider non-legislative approaches to streamline planning and permitting requirements and processes (e.g., pre-consultation meetings and/or checklists, collaborating with municipalities, updating guidance documents). Establish a provincial “one-window”, with clear expectations for provincial, municipal and CA roles and responsibilities. Increase funding to Conservation Ontario (CO) to enhance capacity, consistency and transparency through leadership. Consider the provision of orientation and training by CO, with assistances from CAs. Promote two-way dialogue with a broad spectrum of stakeholders, particularly landowners and farmers, through a variety of mechanisms (e.g., committees, online participation). Build on existing communication and public education strategies to increase clarity, consistency and transparency. Consider mandatory requirements for public meetings (comparable to provisions under the Planning Act). Consider a funding formula to equalize funding between CAs (based on population, programming, species at risk, watershed characteristics, etc.) paid by the province. Promote the establishment of fees through a collaborative process to ensure they are clear and predictable. Address gaps in the potential actions identified by participants (e.g., actions to enhance land securement). Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 50 Learn from other reviews that have been completed in the past and have been carried out across other jurisdictions (e.g., Coordinated Review). Priority #1: Strengthening Oversight and Accountability A. Updating the Act to reflect modern legislative structures and accountabilities Participants expressed support to update the vision of the Act. Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Concern that consultations on potential policy changes are not being undertaken consistently by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). Concern that there are no clear objectives or outcomes that the review is trying to address (e.g., a healthy watershed). Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Define the purpose and mandate of the Act in the legislation (i.e., form follows function). Add a purpose statement to the Act that: o Includes integrated watershed management (IWM) as the overall approach to conservation; o Includes a vision, mission, and values for CAs that can be updated on a regular basis. Include a purpose statement in the legislation or in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS); the PPS must indicate that it is mandatory for CAs to develop watershed and subwatershed plans. Overall key themes/issues: Concern that the potential actions do not reflect the fundamental issues affecting CAs; the review should focus on collaboration and partnership and advancing a healthy watershed. Add a purpose statement to the Act that includes integrated watershed management as the overall approach to conservation. Establish a multi-ministerial body to promote dialogue and collaborative decision-making. Consider legislative changes that focus on positive approaches (e.g., relationship building, collaboration, integrated watershed management) to improve conservation efforts (instead of increasing oversight). Find a balance between prescriptive policies and maintaining flexibility for CAs. Establish a third-party process or mechanism to resolve disputes with CAs (e.g., Ontario Municipal Board, appeal mechanism, penalties). Reinstate MNRF representation on CA Boards. Consider mandatory review periods for municipality/CA MOUs and Service Level Agreements (e.g., every five years). Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 51 Focus legislative changes on positive approaches (e.g., relationship building) rather than oversight. Ensure flexibility within the legislation as priorities vary across the region and will change over time (e.g., climate change considerations). Ensure policies are prescriptive (to improve clarity) and flexible to address the diverse qualities and circumstances of CAs throughout the province. Find a balance between prescriptive policies and maintaining flexibility for CAs; avoid creating or exacerbating inconsistencies. Consider including best practices from other statutes (e.g., Not-For-Profit Corporations Act) in the legislation to increase transparency. Update provincial policies and technical guidelines to ensure they reflect the current suite of issues facing CAs. Update and revise legislative requirements for watershed and subwatershed planning, using the approach that was in place when CAs submitted watershed plans to the province for review and approval (and funding). Reinstate compulsory integrated watershed planning and subwatershed planning; the model worked and was highly effective. B. Adopting and/or aligning with governance best management practices Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Note that the existing governance model is working well; many CAs comply with codes of conduct or provide board member orientation. Establish an inter-ministerial body to promote dialogue and collaborative decision-making; funding should be tied to the provincial mandate; the Fish and Wildlife Commission was offered as a suggestion. Enhance CA collaboration and governance; there is a need to improve relationship building rather than changing the governance structure. Note that CA boards are following best management practices; this does not need to be included in the legislation. Consider formal agreements with sectoral groups (e.g., MOUs with agricultural community; MOUs with development community, etc.) to formalize the approach on a watershed basis and ensure that those working with CAs promote the collaborative partnership model. This should be an enabling provision and not a prescriptive provision to allow for local flexibility. C. Enhancing provincial oversight Participants expressed support to enhance provincial oversight; however it was noted that CA autonomy is also important. Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 52 Concern that CAs are not accountable to any organization/the public. Concern that more programs and services will be delegated to CAs without funding through increased provincial oversight. Concern that CAs have lost a partner at the provincial level. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Note that there is already accountability and oversight at the provincial level. Broaden the provincial oversight model to a multi-ministerial approach with dedicated funding. Establish a third-party process or mechanism to address public concerns and ensure CAs are accountable to their legislated roles and responsibilities (e.g., Ontario Municipal Board, appeal mechanism, penalties); while there is currently an appeal process of a CA decision/lack of decision to the Mining and Lands Commissioner, there are no formal mechanisms to appeal any matter that is unrelated to a board decision (e.g., disclosure of information). Consider retaining a third-party consultant to review each CA to identify what is working well and where there is room for improvement. Consider an “accreditation” process to assesses CA operations and provide advice on an annual basis, serving a peer-review, assistance-based function. Enhance provincial coordination of CA programs and services to enhance consistency (leadership rather than oversight). Reinstate MNRF representation on CA boards to improve consistency in governance. Focus on relationship building between CAs, municipal and provincial partners and watershed stakeholders. Move away from organizational silos. Strengthen the research efforts at MNRF to provide CAs with better policy direction. Consider a role for MNRF to serve as a resource manager at the province, playing a stronger liaison role with other ministries and agencies. Ensure CA partners (e.g., non-profit organizations) are given the opportunity to comment on any proposed changes related to this potential action that would affect their operations (e.g., CA approvals). D. Enhancing municipal oversight Participants expressed support to enhance local decision-making; accountability should be at the local level. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Note that there is already accountability and oversight at the municipal level. Consider mandatory review periods for municipality/CA MOUs and Service Level Agreements (e.g., every five years); this would ensure that MOUs and Service Level Agreements remain current. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 53 E. Developing or updating criteria for establishing, enlarging, amalgamating or dissolving a CA Participants raised concerns about municipalities within a watershed opting out of a CA; there needs to be holistic management of natural resources on a watershed scale. Priority #2: Increasing Clarity and Consistency A. Clearly delineating between mandatory and optional programs and services Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Provide sustainable funding for mandated programs and services. Provide provincial direction for funding (instead of delineating between mandatory and optional programs and services). Participants noted that there are trade-offs to clearly delineating between mandatory and optional programs and services (e.g., increasing clarity/reducing flexibility). B. Establishing a Provincial Policy Directive Participant feedback expressed support to: Establish a provincial policy directive to identify and define CA roles and responsibilities that is current and up to date. Establish a provincial policy directive that has a purpose and is tied to outcomes. Establish a harmonized policy framework (that aligns with other provincial legislation). Overall key themes/issues: Add IWM to the Act to help increase clarity and consistency. Clarify CA roles and responsibilities (including non-regulatory expectations). Ensure CAs have access to the tools and resources (e.g., funding, maps, and communication materials) required to implement the consistent delivery of programs and services. Clarify the roles of various ministries (e.g., Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change). Build on communication and public education strategies to increase clarity, consistency and transparency. Update and expand the tools available to support compliance and enforcement of regulatory requirements (e.g., stop work orders). Provide provincial support for legal proceedings (e.g., funding, guidance). Consider non-legislative approaches to streamline planning and permitting requirements and processes (e.g., pre-consultation meetings and/or checklists, collaborating with municipalities, updating guidance documents). Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 54 Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Use integrated watershed management (IWM) as an approach to recognize the multiples roles and responsibilities CAs undertake. Develop a policy “roadmap” to delineate which policies CAs must adhere to (e.g., what’s in/what’s out). Retain flexibility, but provide enough direction in the provincial policy directive to facilitate compliance. C. Providing clarity and consistency in CA’s regulatory roles and responsibilities Participant feedback expressed support to: Enhance the clarity and consistency of CA roles and responsibilities (this is beneficial from a staffing/resourcing perspective). Provide clarification of key terms (e.g. conservation of land, wetland). Ensure nomenclature is aligned across different statutes (e.g. natural heritage, natural resources, etc.). Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Concern that some CAs do not have staff with the requisite skills (e.g., engineers) to review permit applications. Recognize that some CAs do not have the capacity (e.g., resources such as qualified staff, mapping tools, funding, etc.) to deliver programs and services consistently; more funding is needed to address this issue. Concern that CAs address landowner concerns inconsistently. Concern that CA Act regulations are implemented inconsistently by CA boards (e.g., s. 28 regulations pertaining to certain categories of wetlands). Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Add IWM to the legislation to help increase clarity and consistency (and identify linkages to other legislation with corresponding policies). Emphasize that the core focus of CAs should be watershed planning. Note that clarity and consistency are two different issues: o There is a need to clarify CA roles and responsibilities (including non-regulatory expectations); and o There is a need to ensure the consistent delivery of programs and services across the CA landscape; this is well defined in the Conservation Authority Liaison Committee (CALC) Report. Ensure CAs staff have access to the tools and resources (e.g., funding, maps, and communication materials) required to implement policy objectives consistently; it was noted that municipal staff also need clarity and tools to support CAs. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 55 Establish rules/procedures to ensure programs and services are delivered consistently in areas where there is no CA (i.e., by MNRF or another body). Clarify the roles of various ministries (e.g., Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change) as they relate to supporting CAs regulatory roles and responsibilities. Suggest sharing and coordinating resources between MNRF and CAs to overcome resource limitations. Note that communication and public education are important “soft tools” that can help improve clarity, consistency and transparency (in terms of CA roles and responsibilities). Provide training for CA staff. Note that the programs and services delivered by CAs are based on the needs of their respective watersheds. Consider the need to increase transparency; freedom to access MOUs was suggested as an option. Recognize that CAs are the conduit to the province, municipality and landowners. Provide provincial leadership and funding. Learn from the original establishment of the Conservation Authorities Act developed for planning at the watershed level. D. Enhancing compliance and enforcement Participants expressed support to enhance compliance and enforcement. Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Concern that there is no process to address conflicts of interest (i.e., ensure CAs are accountable and transparent). Concern that legal proceedings are costly and time consuming, negatively impacting limited CA resources. Concern that too much flexibility makes compliance and enforcement a challenge. Concern about inconsistent CA board decisions. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Update and expand the tools available to support compliance and enforcement of regulatory requirements (e.g., stop work orders). Clarify which tools will be updated. Provide provincial support for legal proceedings (e.g., funding, guidance). Establish a mechanism to recover legal costs. Update fines to ensure they correspond to the environmental impact incurred. Ensure that municipalities comply with legislation designed to protect watersheds (e.g., Lake Simcoe Protection Act). Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 56 Ensure individuals adjudicating legal proceedings understand the CA Act. Establish linkages between Acts that promote Integrated Watershed Management to enhance consistency and facilitate compliance. E. Streamlining planning and permitting requirements and processes Participant feedback expressed support to: Streamline planning and permitting requirements and processes to increase clarity and predictability for end-users (e.g., landowners, developers, non-profit partner organizations). Increase consistency on rules of engagement, performance standards and timelines (aligned with the Planning Act). Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Consider pre-consultation meetings and/or checklists; these have worked well in municipal planning processes. Collaborate with municipalities to identify what constitutes a complete application. Establish universal timelines for permit reviews with municipalities. Update guidance documents to help streamline processes (e.g., flood line mapping). Update administrative processes and procedures to improve CA efficiencies. Promote the management of natural resources on a watershed basis; this requires collaboration and partnerships between the province, municipalities and CAs with input from the public and stakeholders. Consider a triage approach for fast tracking urgent applications (e.g., emergency works). Priority #3: Improving Collaboration and Engagement Overall key themes/issues: Concern that the potential actions in this priority area do not reflect the fundamental issues affecting CAs. Support to establish a “one-window”, with clear expectations for provincial, municipal and CA roles and responsibilities. Support Conservation Ontario’s efforts to provide more strategic and policy direction, with dedicated funding. Provide more guidance and resources (e.g., funding) to CAs to enhance First Nations engagement in CA processes. Include IWM in the Act to as an approach to promote partnerships and relationship building (i.e., consultation should be included in the development of integrated watershed plans). Promote two-way dialogue with a broad spectrum of stakeholders, particularly landowners and farmers, through a variety of mechanisms (e.g., committees, online participation). Provide funding to support collaboration and engagement. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 57 A. Establishing a provincial “one-window” Participants expressed support to enhance communication and coordination with the province and CAs. Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Concern about the effectiveness of a “one-window” approach; there is a need to clarify roles and responsibilities at each legislative/planning layer to ensure the approach streamlines the current planning and approvals process. Concern about “silos” at the provincial level and the need for multi-ministry alignment and integration. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Bring provincial ministries together to address challenges facing the development community regarding permitting issues. Require MOUs to ensure the “one-window” approach is clear to all parties involved. B. Establishing a business relationship with Conservation Ontario Participants expressed support for Conservation Ontario (CO), with dedicated provincial funding, to provide strategic direction and planning policy coordination. CO could provide a coordinated service on behalf of the province, tied to CA MOUs. CO could also provide more comprehensive training for conservation authorities. Participants (some) raised concerns that there is no oversight of Conservation Ontario. C. Enhancing Indigenous Peoples’ participation Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Concern that there is a lack of funding provided to CAs to conduct engagement with Indigenous Peoples. Concern that there are challenges in engaging Indigenous Peoples (no examples were provided), requiring a more thoughtful process. Do not legislate the duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples to municipalities or CAs. There is a unique process and timeframe required; First Nations groups have different needs and preferences for participation. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Create opportunities for Indigenous Peoples to serve on CA boards; this is welcomed by CAs. Note that First Nations advisory committees are working well in some areas. Provide guidance on how to engage Indigenous Peoples. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 58 D. Enhancing public and stakeholder participation Participant feedback expressed support to: Increase stakeholder representation in CA decision-making processes (specifically the agricultural sector). Establish agriculture advisory committees for CAs. Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Concern that meaningful engagement with landowners is not taking place consistently across the province. Concern that there is a lack of appreciation of agricultural goods and services provided by farmers. Note that farmers are experiencing engagement fatigue. Concern that there is no mention of IWM; it is a critically important approach and tool to promote partnerships and relationship building. Enhance two-way dialogue with stakeholders (e.g., instead of education). Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Include engagement activities in process improvements and guidelines, not in the Act. Ensure a broad spectrum of stakeholders (e.g., landowners, farmers) is represented/consulted in CA decision-making processes. Consider a mechanism to address complaints regarding CAs. Inform CA board decisions through proactive discussions with multiple stakeholders; this will improve transparency. Note that the development of integrated watershed plans should include consultation as part of the process to identify priorities. Consider mandatory requirements for public meetings if there are changes that impact landowners. Improve relationship building through ancillary means (e.g., engagement and information sharing can be made more effective by using technology to live-stream meetings, etc.) It is important that landowners are informed of significant natural features (e.g., wetlands) located on their properties. Consider a Conservation Authority Liaison Committee to improve harmonization. E. Supporting CAs in sharing and coordinating resources Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Consider the need for additional funding to support collaboration and engagement (e.g., staff, financial resources). Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 59 Note that many CAs already share best management practices and resources; there is no need to set prescriptive guidance. Promote partnerships and relationship building between CAs, municipalities and the province. Promote service level agreements between CAs and municipalities to coordinate the sharing of resources. Strengthen partnerships with non-profit organizations. Priority #4: Modernizing Funding Mechanisms A. Enhancing clarity, consistency and accountability around municipal levies Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Concern that the present funding model creates a conflict of interest between CAs and municipalities (and limits opportunities for CAs to disagree with municipalities); the province should provide funding. Concern about the varying ability of different municipalities, particularly smaller or rural municipalities, to provide funding and the impact to CA programs and services. Concern that the varying levels of financial resources available to CAs throughout the province contributes to inconsistent program delivery and implementation of CA Act regulations. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Note that some CAs have good relationships with the municipalities in their watersheds; there is no need to include prescriptive language regarding this potential action. Provide direction to encourage CA and municipal collaboration (where it is needed). Overall key themes/issues: Increase and diversify provincial funding to CAs to support the implementation of conservation programs and services (e.g., provincial cap and trade system). Concern that the present funding model creates a conflict of interest between CAs and municipalities. Consider a funding formula to equalize funding between CAs (based on population, programming, species at risk, watershed characteristics, etc.) paid by the province. Include levies for CA programs and services as a separate line item on municipal tax bills. Promote the establishment of fees through a collaborative process to ensure they are clear and predictable. Establish a mechanism to mediate disputes regarding fees (e.g., appeal to a third-party such as the OMB). Establish a mechanism for CAs to capture funds from compliance and enforcement activities (e.g., penalties, legal processes). Increase funding to CO to enhance capacity, consistency and transparency. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 60 Consider a funding formula to equalize funding between CAs (based on population, programming, species at risk, watershed characteristics, etc.) paid by the province. Include levies for CA programs and services as a separate line item on municipal tax bills (e.g., comparable to water rates). Do not define eligibility criteria for municipal levies within the Act. Establish a working group with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) regarding funding; the current budgeting process is not adequate. Consider the other models for funding to address the disparity of CA resources (e.g., Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund). B. Promoting clarity, consistency and accountability around fees and generated revenue Participants expressed support to enhance accountability around fees and generated revenue (e.g., report on how/where funds used). Participants raised concerns about the exclusion of other revenue generating mechanisms in the proposed actions; existing mechanisms to generate revenue (e.g., the delivery of recreational programs and services) should be maintained, and new ones considered. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Undertake an evidence-based review of fees (e.g., similar to the study completed on development charges). Consider the need to standardize fees; CO could facilitate this, but would require financial support from the province. Promote collaborative fee setting but recognize that there are many CAs who already do this. Encourage regular communication and collaboration on fees (e.g., liaison committee, bi-annual meetings with stakeholders). Ensure the fee structure is clear and predictable. Educate stakeholders to convey that fees vary for multiple reasons (e.g., reflect internal capacity and capabilities, complexity, etc.). Establish a minimum standard of service delivery for CAs; some flexibility is needed to recognize the capabilities of different CAs. Establish a mechanism to mediate disputes regarding fees (e.g., appeal to a third-party such as the OMB). Ensure the language regarding fees in the Act is defensible. Establish a mechanism for CAs to capture funds from compliance and enforcement activities (e.g., penalties, legal processes). Consider the opportunity for CAs to release conservation land with marginal natural heritage benefits for other uses; the resources spent to maintain these lands could be re-deployed elsewhere. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 61 C. Improving fiscal oversight and transparency Participants are concerned that CA roles and responsibilities are expanding without a parallel increase in funding. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Ensure funding is tied to programs and services to enhance accountability. Provide funding through CO to enhance capacity, consistency and transparency. Provide support to publicly share financial statements. Note that CAs support the need to be fiscally accountable, however staff time should not be scrutinized. Consider increasing the percentage of funding allocated for administrative responsibilities (e.g., grant writing, financial reporting, etc.); a considerable amount of staff time is spent on these duties. D. Improving clarity in the use of provincial funding processes Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Concern about the historical decrease of provincial funding. Concern about the requirement to reapply for certain grants annually; this is an administrative burden for many CAs. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Increase and diversify provincial funding to CAs to support the implementation of conservation programs and services (e.g., provincial cap and trade system). Increase provincial funding to support CO policy development and leadership. Facilitate access to federal funding for water management (e.g., Building Canada Fund). Link the natural heritage system to green infrastructure to access new funding streams. Establish eligibility criteria for Ontario Trillium grants. Restrict CA access to Ontario Trillium grants; they are a critical source of funding for non-profit organizations. Note that municipalities do not fund CAs, they levy on behalf of the province. Partner with post-secondary institutions to explore alternative funding mechanisms. Consider a mechanism for CAs to negotiate natural heritage benefits through new development (e.g., new access roads, riparian improvements, etc.). Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 62 Priority #5: Enhancing Flexibility for the Province A. Giving the Minister the authority to use the Act to develop additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services in the future throughout the province Participants expressed support to give the Minister authority to use the Act to develop additional programs and services, recognizing that this enables the Minister to be more responsive to contemporary issues. Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Concern that this potential action will be misinterpreted as the province moves toward a “command and control” approach. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Clarify the intent of this potential action. Note that the Minister already has the flexibility to do this. B. Giving the Minister the authority to formally delegate the delivery of current and additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services to conservation authorities in the future Participants support this potential action in principle as long as any additional programs and services are delegated with funding. Participants suggested establishing a multi-ministerial body to delegate additional programs and services through a collaborative decision-making process. Overall key themes/issues: Supportive of developing or delegating additional programs and services to CAs as long they are appropriately funded. Include IWM as an approach to conservation in the Act to provide ongoing flexibility. Establish a multi-ministerial body to delegate programs and services to CAs or other bodies through a collaborative decision-making process. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 63 C. Giving the Minister the authority to formally delegate the delivery of current and additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services to other public bodies, not-for-profit organizations, municipalities and other Ministries Participant feedback expressed support to delegate the delivery of programs and services to other bodies or organizations to eliminate duplication; this will increase capacity for other programs and services. Participants raised concerns that regulated programs and services should not be delegated to other bodies; there was support to delegate education and outreach activities to other bodies. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Clarify the mandate of CAs; ensure stakeholders (e.g., landowners) have the opportunity to review the revised mandate. Note that it may be more appropriate for a multi-organizational body to delegate programs and services to other organizations. Provide funding to CAs to deliver programs and services. Delegate programs and services with funding to CAs first as there is a framework for delivery already in place. D. Giving the Minister the authority to deliver additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services throughout the province Actions C and D were discussed together; comments regarding this action were captured under the preceding Action C. Other Actions to Consider A. Reducing administrative burdens associated with appointing and replacing board members and obtaining approval of board per diems Participants expressed support for the potential actions in this priority area. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Overall key themes/issues: Consider the provision of orientation and training by CO, with assistances from CAs. Reinstate provincial presence on CA boards (to enhance the relationship between MNRF and CAs). Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 64 There is a need to balance CA board composition to reduce political influence. Ensure representation on CA boards is reflective of watershed stakeholders (e.g., farmers). Consider an accreditation process to appoint members (e.g., university accreditation panels). Provide provincial guidance to help resolve issues and ensure adherence to policies. B. Aligning board terms with the municipal elections cycle Participants expressed support to align board terms with council terms. Participants suggested that appointing CA board members should be undertaken in the same way members are appointed to other committees under the Municipal Act (i.e., eliminate the three-year term). C. Developing an orientation and training program for board members Participants expressed support to educate CA board members to enhance governance. Participants expressed concerns that some CA boards function as a regulatory body. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Include natural heritage as a topic for orientation and training. Consider the provision of board member orientation and training by CO, with assistances from CAs; however this should not be mandatory. Share best practices through CO (e.g., orientation manuals). Reinstate provincial presence on CA boards (to enhance the relationship between MNRF and CAs). Consider an oath of office requirement for CA board members. D. Developing a coordinated communications plan outlining any changes to conservation authority operations, programs and services from the review in partnership with municipalities and conservation authorities Participants suggested providing CAs with guidance and/or training on outreach, consultation and managing controversial issues. Additional Comments There is a strong need to align provincial policies (e.g., Drainage Act, Conservation Authorities Act), not just modify the Conservation Authorities Act, and address any inconsistencies in a holistic manner. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 65 Consider a land securement strategy for CAs. Recognize that government funding and support is aligned with the social service and health sector; there is a strong connection and alignment between environmental health and human health – this connection needs to be made as CA priorities are connected to environmental health and human health outcomes. Concern that the current view of the environment is too myopic – there is a tendency to focus on the environment from the lens of toxics and contaminants. There is a need to view the environment and the natural world as the foundation for healthy communities and healthy people. CAs already adopt this view. Organizationally particularly at the provincial level, the environment needs to be managed holistically. Recognize the need for planning based on the carrying capacity of a watershed. Concern that review of provincial legislation and supporting policies is being conducted on an ad hoc basis; there is a need for outcome specific directions and a general clean-up of provincial legislation overall. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 66 Appendix A – Questions of Clarification The following topics and themes were discussed after the overview presentation: Conserving our Future (Document) Concern that the potential actions do not reflect the fundamental issues affecting CAs Concern that too much weight was placed on negative issues raised during the first round of consultations. Priority Areas Clarify whether the potential actions include direction for a land securement strategy. Confirm the roles of elected board members. Establish a working group with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) regarding funding; the current budgeting process is not adequate. Concern that feedback obtained during consultations will be influenced by the discussion questions; a bigger picture perspective is needed. Concern that the potential actions are a misguided attempt to reduce CA autonomy. Speak to the implications of the proposal to increase watershed planning presented during the current round of consultations on the Coordinated Review. Clarify who will lead the proposed one-window approach (e.g., province, CAs). Note that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change need to resume a leadership role (in terms of funding and resources). Review the opportunities and solutions that have emerged through academic research with respect to the role and function of CAs. Concern that the terms “natural heritage” and “natural resources” are defined and applied inconsistently. Consider a mechanism for municipalities to opt out of conservation programs. Consider the other provincial reviews that are currently underway (e.g., Coordinated Review, Aggregates Act Review); ensure that provincial legislation is aligned. Consider restoring the funding that was allocated to watershed and sub-watershed studies, which are being proposed in the Coordinated Review. Concern that the review focuses on processes and procedures instead of protecting and enhancing the natural environment; note that integrated watershed management (IWM) provides a comprehensive approach. Support the need for a clear purpose statement. Acknowledge that the ability of CAs to deliver programs and services varies based on available resources (e.g., funding, tools, staff, etc.), as demonstrated in the implementation of source water protection initiatives. Consider a mechanism for third party appeals. Consider a mechanism for landowners to ensure CAs are accountable. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 67 Support the priorities and potential actions proposed through this review. Ensure a broad spectrum of stakeholder interests (e.g., landowners) are considered in decision- making processes or the formation of a multi-body organization; there is a need for CAs to enhance current engagement and outreach efforts. Note that some CAs have a long history of working collaboratively with landowners; agree there is a need to resume the education and outreach that used to be done, and the funding to make it feasible. Ensure there is a clear delineation between Priorities 1 (Oversight and Accountability), 4 (Funding Mechanisms) and 5 (Flexibility); any delegated responsibilities must be funded. Consider how the potential actions work together to provide clarity and predictability for end- users (e.g., industry, landowners). Ensure the cost structure for permits is transparent (e.g., different prices for different applications). Concern about the priority areas and potential actions; the review should focus on how CAs can help realize provincial and municipal sustainability objectives. Note that the Conservation Authorities Act does provide direction for programming and is intended to be broad; do not introduce changes that would restrict the original vision of the act. Recognize that environmental outcomes are based in part on the attitudes and actions of landowners. Ensure CAs have the requisite tools and resources to translate policies into action. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 68 Appendix B – Ranking Results At the end of the session participants were asked to choose the most important potential action under each priority area. The results of this optional exercise are presented in the graph below. Note that some attendees did not participate in the ranking because they felt the potential actions do not reflect the fundamental issues affecting CAs. The results represent the number of attendees that chose to respond and do not represent a statistically significant sample. Twenty-Four (24) completed forms were received. The potential actions under each priority area are represented by the letters A to E in the graph below. Additional comments Acknowledge integrated watershed management (IWM) as CA focus. Align provincial funding with CAs core mandate. Establish the purpose of the CAs in order to develop and implement an IWM program within their watersheds. The function and accountability, consistency, engagement and funding will follow. Establish a vision for CAs then set priorities from there. Implement IWM at the local level with strong provincial (i.e., inter-ministerial) policy and guidance. 7 3 6 5 4 6 10 0 5 3 3 3 3 5 4 0 1 7 3 2 0 1 2 Priority 1- Strengthening Oversight and Accountability Priority 2 - Increasing Clarity and Consistency Priority 3 - Improving Collaboration and Engagement Priority 4 - Modernizaing Funding Mechanisms Priority 5 - Enhancing Flexibility for the Province Priority Area Ranking Results A B C D E Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 69 Disband Conservation Ontario (CO). Concern that the priorities and actions are not in line with the issues facing CAs (the ranking exercise is not valuable). Consult with municipalities and CAs regarding the potential actions in Priority #5. Amalgamate small CAs. Ensure CAs have qualified staff. Mandate stakeholder/landowner positions on each CA Board of Directors. Consider the need for creative discussion about a broad suite of funding approaches and mechanisms. Set the value of CAs (and IWM) within complete communities and a sustainable future; this is the first priority. Concern that the potential actions are too obscure to rank; the detailed proposals will be more important. Create a provincial based commission or committee that is multi-stakeholder. Increase provincial funding and accountability to eliminate conflict of interest. Note that all the priorities go hand in hand. Support training for CA board members. Consider the need for an ombudsman. Consider the mandate should focus on conservation or sustainability. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 70 This summary of participant feedback has been prepared by Lura Consulting and Planning Solutions Inc. to provide the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry with the recurring themes and priorities raised by participants during the Sudbury session of the Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II. The feedback from each individual session will be used to compile a final engagement session report. Introduction The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) is undertaking a phased review of the Conservation Authorities Act. The intent of the review is to identify opportunities to improve the legislative, regulatory and policy framework that currently governs the creation, operation and activities of conservation authorities. In Phase I of the review, completed in 2015, MNRF led an extensive consultation process to engage stakeholders in a discussion about opportunities to improve the Conservation Authorities Act, which resulted in extensive feedback. Based on the input received in Phase I of the review, MNRF has released the document, Conserving Our Future: Proposed Priorities for Renewal, that outlines a series of actions that could be taken under five proposed priority areas for improvement: (1) Strengthening Oversight and Accountability, (2) Increasing Clarity and Consistency, (3) Improving Collaboration and Engagement, (4) Modernizing Funding Mechanisms, and (5) Enhancing Flexibility for the Province. In June 2015, MNRF led a second round of consultations with a diversity of stakeholders to obtain input on the potential actions outlined within the five priority areas. On June 15, 2016, the MNRF hosted a full-day workshop in Sudbury, 117 Elm Street as part of the Phase II consultation program. The purpose of the workshop was to provide an overview of the five priority areas for improving the Conservation Authorities Act. The workshop consisted of an overview plenary presentation with time for questions of clarification, followed by three rounds of facilitated small group discussions. The facilitated discussions were designed to encourage dialogue and obtain feedback on the five (5) priority areas for improving the Conservation Authorities Act. A total of 12 individuals participated in the workshop, including participants from the following organizations: Nickel District CA Sault Ste. Marie Region CA North Bay-Mattawa CA Conservation Ontario Ontario Rivers Alliance Junction Creek Stewardship Committee Inc. Mattagami Region CA Ontario Federation of Agriculture Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 71 This report presents a summary of the comments and suggestions provided by participants during the workshop. Summary of Participant Feedback The summary of participant feedback is organized according to the five priority areas: (1) Strengthening Oversight and Accountability, (2) Increasing Clarify and Consistency, (3) Improving Collaboration and Engagement, (4) Modernizing Funding Mechanisms, and (5) Enhancing Flexibility for the Province. Each priority area contains a synopsis of the overall key themes and issues as well as specific feedback received through plenary discussions (see Appendix A) and completed discussion guides relating to each discussion question. The following points highlight the recurring comments, concerns and/or advice which emerged from the Sudbury session. Include integrated watershed management (IWM) in the Act as the overarching approach to conservation. Recognize that the interface between CAs and municipalities is multifaceted. Recognize that CA roles and responsibilities have expanded beyond hazard management. Establish a multi-ministerial body to promote dialogue and collaborative decision-making regarding CA roles and responsibilities (i.e., enhance provincial partnership). Consider opportunities to effect positive change from a non-statutory lens (e.g., resource sharing). Find a balance between clarifying roles and responsibilities and ensuring CAs have the flexibility (and autonomy) to respond to the needs of their respective watersheds. Build on existing CA communication and education initiatives. Ensure a broad spectrum of stakeholder interests are represented and considered in CA processes. Increase and diversify funding sources to enable the delivery of CA programs and services. Ensure that new or additional programs and services are delegated with funding. Clarify the process to appoint (and remove) CA board members. Emphasize collaboration and partnership. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 72 Priority #1: Strengthening Oversight and Accountability A. Updating the Act to reflect modern legislative structures and accountabilities Participants expressed support to add a purpose statement to the Act. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Include integrated watershed management (IWM) in the Act as the approach to conservation. Recognize the range of CA roles and responsibilities (i.e., the core focus has expanded beyond hazard management). There are multiple provincial acts and policies that rely on CAs to implement them. Support outreach and education initiatives to increase awareness and accountability of CA roles and responsibilities. B. Adopting and/or aligning with governance best management practices Participants raised the need to establish a multi-ministerial body to oversee the multiples roles and responsibilities of CAs. C. Enhancing provincial oversight Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Provide CAs with assistance to ensure programs and services are delivered consistently (e.g., best practices, resources, etc.). D. Enhancing municipal oversight Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Concern that enhancing municipal oversight will impact the ability of CAs to make critical decisions objectively (e.g., review permits, perform advisory function). Overall key themes/issues: Include integrated watershed management (IWM) in the Act as the overarching approach to conservation. Recognize that CA roles and responsibilities have expanded beyond hazard management. Concern that there is a conflict of interest between municipalities and CAs due to the current funding structure; the province should fund CAs. Clarify the role and responsibilities of municipalities in relation to CAs. Establish a multi-ministerial body to promote dialogue and collaborative decision-making regarding CA roles and responsibilities. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 73 Note that while many CAs carry out services per the Planning Act, they do not have planning agreements with municipalities. Remove this potential action; there should be no municipal oversight or direction of CAs. Concern that there is a conflict of interest between municipalities and CAs due to the current funding structure; the province should fund CAs. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Clarify the role and responsibilities of municipalities in relation to CAs, including fiduciary duties. Different municipal departments (e.g., planning, engineering, politicians) have different expectations of CAs which can be difficult to navigate. Note that CAs need to maintain a strong collaborative relationship with municipalities. Note that municipal oversight is important; CAs have to be accountable to municipalities as they provide funding through levies. Ensure municipal oversight allows flexibility of CA roles based on watershed needs. E. Developing or adopting criteria for establishing, enlarging, amalgamating or dissolving a CA Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Ensure the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) is properly resourced to follow through with any proposed actions to strengthen oversight and accountability. Concern that there is a disconnect between CAs (particularly smaller CAs) and MNRF (i.e., in terms of guidance and support). Priority #2: Increasing Clarity and Consistency A. Clearly delineate between mandatory and optional programs and services Participants expressed support to delineate between mandatory and optional programs and services (to enhance consistency and certainty in their delivery). B. Establishing a Provincial Policy Directive Overall key themes/issues: Concern that CA roles and responsibilities are being expanded without the appropriate funding. Define IWM to establish an overarching framework for CAs. Find a balance between clarifying roles and responsibilities and ensuring CAs have the flexibility to respond to the needs of their respective watersheds. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 74 Participants expressed the need to update provincial policies and guidelines to reflect contemporary issues facing CAs. C. Providing clarity and consistency in CA’s regulatory roles and responsibilities Participants are concerned that CA roles and responsibilities are being expanded without the appropriate funding. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Note that clarifying definitions and terminology can be addressed through the Act or supporting regulations, while most of the other potential actions can be implemented through responsive policies or enabling provisions. Clarify the following terms and definitions: watercourse, conservation land, wetlands. Note that all the potential actions under this priority are important. Support the provision of ongoing training (i.e., non-regulatory actions) to enhance consistency. Define IWM to establish an overarching framework for CAs. Find a balance between clarifying roles and responsibilities and ensuring CAs have the flexibility to respond to the needs of their respective watersheds. D. Enhancing compliance and enforcement of regulatory requirements No comments specific to this potential action were received. E. Streamlining planning and permitting requirements and processes Participants expressed support to establish a streamlined approach for planning and permitting requirements, as long it recognizes the need for flexibility (i.e., one size fits all is not appropriate). Participant feedback raised the following concerns and/or issues: Concern that streamlining will eliminate safeguards that are currently in place. A risk-based approach should be based on a comprehensive approach to conservation. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Establish a risk-based approach that is common to all CAs, particularly staff who make decisions. Provide enabling tools to guide and define CA decision-making (e.g., communication tools, MNRF permit by regulation). Identify where known wetlands are to better communicate regulated areas during land transfer processes. Ensure information is readily accessible to the public and on the internet (i.e., a different business model based on openness and transparency that is resourced). Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 75 Priority #3: Improving Collaboration and Engagement A. Establishing a provincial “one-window” Participants are concerned that changes in provincial or municipal support (i.e., staffing, funding, etc.) will impact the “one-window” approach. B. Establishing a business relationship with Conservation Ontario Participants expressed support to establish a business relationship with Conservation Ontario (CO), particularly to coordinate resources among CAs (e.g., training, best practices, templates). It was noted that this already takes place but is not applied consistently in practice as more funding is needed for implementation. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Strengthen collaboration between MNRF, CO and CAs. Provide funding to establish a central repository of CA resources. C. Enhancing Indigenous Peoples participation Participants expressed support to enhance indigenous participation. D. Enhancing public and stakeholder participation Participants are concerned that different stakeholder perspectives are not voiced often; different perspectives can enlighten the discussion and should not be confused with being non-compliant. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Ensure CA board members represent a diversity of interests. Provide funding for the educational programming that CAs provide; it is an essential component of collaboration and engagement. Note that some CAs are very good at engaging stakeholders and the public (e.g., committees, advisory groups, etc.). Overall key themes/issues: Note that the five priority areas are not mutually exclusive. Establish a business relationship with Conservation Ontario. Provide funding to coordinate resource sharing (e.g., databases). Ensure a broad spectrum of stakeholder interests are represented and considered in CA processes. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 76 E. Supporting CAs in sharing and coordinating resources Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Note that partnerships can increase capacity and flexibility for CAs, particularly from a community perspective (e.g., collect data, etc. with minimal funding). Provide funding to establish a resource database of studies, data, etc. that is available to the public. Priority #4: Modernizing Funding Mechanisms A. Enhancing clarity, consistency and accountability around municipal levies Participants expressed support for the need to define costs in municipal levies. Participants noted that it is not clear whether reviewing apportionment is valuable as it will be difficult to do so. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Note that there is already significant consultation between some CAs and municipalities before the CA budget is voted on. Provide CAs with the leverage to ask municipalities for more funding. Enhance communication and education to realize the potential actions listed here. B. Promoting clarity, consistency and accountability around fees and generated revenue Participants noted that fees vary by watershed to reflect local needs. Reconvening the CALC table should be considered as a non-regulatory change. C. Improving fiscal oversight and transparency Participants expressed support to clarify the role of municipalities in overseeing CA budget processes if the intent is to educate (as opposed to a change in the budget process). Some participants are concerned about the conflict of interest between municipalities and CAs due to the current funding structure; the province should fund CAs. It was noted that CAs exist at the request Overall key themes/issues: Provide CAs with the leverage to ask municipalities for more funding. Concern about the conflict of interest between municipalities and CAs due to the current funding structure; the province should fund CAs. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 77 of their municipalities, and while it essential to ensure CAs can make decisions objectively there is an underlying relationship between municipalities and CAs that cannot be severed. Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Consider the need to provide funding based on the value (for money) of CA programs and services. Build on existing communication and education efforts to broaden awareness of the benefits of CA programs and services. Create a reporting template for financial reporting. D. Improving clarity in the use of provincial funding processes One participant explained that municipal representatives sit on CA boards that can provide clarity regarding eligibility criteria. Increase awareness to ensure this is universally known. Priority #5: Enhancing Flexibility for the Province A. Giving the Minister the authority to use the Act to develop additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services in the future throughout the province B. Giving the Minister the authority to formally delegate the delivery of current and additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services to conservation authorities in the future Participants suggested combining the first two potential actions under this priority area. They noted that new or additional programs and services should be delegated with funding. Participants raised the need to ensure delegated programs and services are implemented (i.e., accountability mechanisms for reporting outcomes and auditing, MOUs). C. Giving the Minister the authority to formally delegate the delivery of current and additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services to other public bodies, not-for-profit organizations, municipalities and other Ministries D. Giving the Minister the authority to deliver additional natural resource conservation and management programs and services throughout the province Overall key themes/issues: Ensure that new or additional programs and services are delegated with funding. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 78 Participants expressed support for this potential action as it would enable the consistent delivery of CA programs and services outside CA boundaries by MNRF or another organization. Participants suggested delegating programs and services to other bodies through other legislation. Other Actions to Consider A. Reducing administrative burdens associated with appointing and replacing board members and obtaining approval of board per diems Participant feedback highlighted the following considerations: Clarify the process to appoint (and remove) CA board members; this could be included in a regulation. Consider a mechanism (at the municipal level) to remove CA board members. Clarify who is responsible for approving CA board per diems. Some municipalities permit them while others do not. Consider a code of conduct for CA board members (including non-politicians). B. Aligning board terms with the municipal elections cycle No comments specific to this potential action were received. C. Developing an orientation and training program for board members Participants noted that that board members need to be educated and informed (i.e., provide training where needed). D. Developing a coordinated communications plan outlining any changes to conservation authority operations, programs and services resulting from the review in partnership with municipalities and conservation authorities No comments specific to this potential action were received. Overall key themes/issues: Clarify the process to appoint (and remove) CA board members. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 79 Additional Comments Concern that the CA Act review is not focusing on what CAs are doing well. There are also other CA roles and responsibilities that need to be captured (e.g., low impact development, Great Lakes Initiative, etc.). The legislation should empower CAs help the province meet its objectives (i.e. enabling change). Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 80 Appendix A – Questions of Clarification The following topics and themes were discussed after the overview presentation: Priority Areas Clarify the intent of the potential actions under Priority #5. Concern that the potential actions under Priority #5 could be used to reduce or expand CA roles and responsibilities unilaterally. Note that CAs can only legally operate within their watershed boundaries; some CAs have had to decline programs and services outside their watershed boundaries for this reason. This is an important opportunity to address this gap as it is more likely to occur in Northern Ontario. Concern that there is a conflict of interest between municipalities and CAs due to the current funding structure (i.e., CAs carrying out municipal interests, CAs treated as municipal department). Note that CAs require flexibility and autonomy (from municipalities) to deliver programs and services based on their watershed needs. Ensure CA Act legislation recognizes the different capabilities across CAs. There may be opportunities for some CAs to share resources, but the full spectrum of implications should be considered (i.e., CAs with large watersheds and small staff, instances where best practices are not transferrable as in Northern Ontario). Note that there are trade-offs in terms of CA autonomy and independence when it comes to sharing resources (e.g., office space) with municipalities. Consider the opportunities and gaps not captured in the priority areas and potential actions. Concern that an increase in CA autonomy will lead to the inconsistent application of provincial policies and regulations, particularly in Northern Ontario. CAs and municipalities should operate collaboratively (this would be beneficial from an agricultural perspective). Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 81 Appendix B – Ranking Results At the end of the session participants were asked to choose the most important potential action under each priority area. The results of this optional exercise are presented in the graph below. Note that some attendees did not participate in the ranking because they felt the potential actions do not reflect the fundamental issues affecting CAs. The results represent the number of attendees that chose to respond and do not represent a statistically significant sample. Ten (10) completed forms were received. The potential actions under each priority area are represented by the letters A to E in the graph below. Additional comments Increase provincial funding to meet the mandate requirements of the provincial government. Empower CAs with a motherhood statement as a precursor to the Act – as the leaders of integrated watershed management (IWM) and all the provincial goals that can be achieved (e.g., climate change, wetland policy, etc.). Prioritize funding to CAs. Address core issues before contemplating flexibility. Resource everything. Note that municipalities should not have more oversight or be allowed to provide more direction. 6 1 1 2 1 2 4 1 0 5 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 7 1 0 3 5 Priority 1- Strengthening Oversight and Accountability Priority 2 - Increasing Clarity and Consistency Priority 3 - Improving Collaboration and Engagement Priority 4 - Modernizaing Funding Mechanisms Priority 5 - Enhancing Flexibility for the Province Priority Area Ranking Results A B C D E Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry Conservation Authorities Act Review, Phase II Page | 82 Strengthen CA capacity to enforce compliance. Enhance data sharing and collaboration with relevant community partners. Recognize that funding for large CAs with a small tax base (e.g., Conservation Sudbury is inadequate to support a broad/comprehensive range of programs. Good morning members of Bayham council and CAO Shipway.. Subsequent to the meeting last week of Sept. 15th.. I have decided to once again, weigh in on these 2 subjests. The parking Issue in Port Burwell.... seeing now council has decided to change the exsiting recently placed signs at the Marine Museum to No Overnight Parking and now that the Museum is closed until spring, I am sure you are aware that overnight parking there has not been a serious issue in the past. There are usually only 1 or 2 vehicles there so I don't see that as a big problem. If it says as such then there is also no specific reason the snow plough this area. The money saved by the Municipality then could be used to help the parking situation on Robinson St by properly identifying the available legal parking spaces there. I am suggesting that parking lines be painted on the road to identify proper parking locations. Right now there are 27 spots but they cannot be used properly as they are not identified which then does not allow for those number of spots to be used efficiently. For example.. between 29 Robisnon St (THe Sweet Spot) and Erie Cove Restaurant, there are easily 5 parking spots but, typically only 3 cars can park there as they are not properly indicated spots. This is also the case on the east side of Robinson St north and south of the liquor store in front of the Red and White and The Lighthouse restaurant.. I am certain that at least another 5 spots could be gained just in those areas and this attempt at idenbtifying those spots would also stop people from blocking private drives along both the east side and west side of Robinson St. I have personally seen people leave the downtown area because parking cannot be found. The Marine Museum parking area went a very long way to accomodsating those pesky visitors and pesky tourists. Please consider my proposal and suggestions on bahalf of the businesses in beautiful Port Burwell. Rant #2 The Wheelhouse committee contribution.. Why would council decide to not waive the fees for The Wheelhouse Group? It is not that council has not made exceptions in the past. The Wheelhouse Group has commited hundredds if not thousands of hours and mutltiple thousands of $$ to bring the Wheelhouse to Port Burwell. There have been many community volunteers involved, they have provided the site plan to you and it can only help augment the visitor experience in Port Burwell when completed and placed in its final location. They have donated something that the Municipality should be proud of and yet, now they are asked to pay a couple of thousand dollars for bringing it here. So far the wheelhouse has cost the municiplaity absolutely zero. They have raised funds through lotteries for seats on the Harvards to help pay the costs and the benifit of this was evident on the fly over for the last 2 yrs on the August 1st long weekend and parade througb PB.. in conjuction with the fireworks display and Beachfest weekend. At a recent council meeting, council agreed to partially waive the fees for a local baseball event by not charging for the Pavillion use and only for the night lighting. The wheelhouse contribution to Bayham is a much more significant and voluntary effort and has a much greater inpact on the community than a baseball tournament (No disrespect). In summary, I respectfully ask council that you reconsider the request for fee waivers to the wheelhouse committee and recognize the contribution that they have made to Bayham.. I have been witness to their efforts and their contribution should not be undermined.. and That council also reconsider their recent decision on Parking at the Marine Museum and seriously consider allocating the necessary funds to next years budget to help alleviate the parking issues in downtown Port Burwell by painting lines for proper parking allocations. This could only help the visitor and tourism experience and help relieve the frustration of many downtown business owners and tax payers. This is a daily disucssion by business owners in PB and with several new businesses opening this past summer, your decsion would go a long way to indicate Bayham council's support to the Port Burwell business community. Thank you for your time, and please excuse my typos as my eyes are weak.. Respectfully, Serge A Pieters Subject: Wheelhouse Project. Your Worship Mayor Paul Ens, Deputy Mayor Tom Southwick, Councilors, Randy Breyer, Ed Ketchabaw, and Wayne Casier: We hate to keep on this subject, but it still requires more thought. As was stated in my previous letter to council, we need some help. Some of our members, along with other volunteers, have spent countless hours, driven hundreds, if not thousands, of kilometers, and donated a variety of expertise, to see this project through, so far. The foregoing of the permit fees was requested along with the fees for variance, We appreciate the consideration you gave to the variance fees, but were disappointed and, somewhat discouraged, as a group, about continuing requirement to pay permit fees and a deposit, for placement. Consider this. In order to have the funds to pay these fees, we will have to raise funds. To do this, one of the main options is to organize a lottery draw, purchase the required prizes, apply to the Municipality for a Lottery License, pay the license fee to the Municipality, and work hard for countless hours, to sell tickets. When time for the draw arrives and the draw is made, we will then have to turn the net proceeds over to the Municipality, to pay for the permits and the deposit, in order to proceed to place the Fern Glen ship’s wheelhouse on the Marine Museum lot, and then donate it to the Municipality to attract more attention to the Museum and to enhance the experience of visitors to our area. As with the Mariner’s Tower and the Port Burwell Harbour Mural on the grocery store, which, incidentally, was a joint Centennial project with the, then, Municipal Council, but, since, has been maintained by The Port Burwell Historical Society, under our mandate to promote and display, the heritage of our community. This ongoing maintenance and improvement, would, also, apply to the Ship’s Wheelhouse, unless our group were to become discouraged, due to uphill battles and other factors, although we are determined to see this through, somehow. Much of the money raised, on this project, has been raised in our neighboring Municipality of Malahide, through Nevada tear off ticket sales, with their encouragement, although the net proceeds have been used to enhance the visitor experience in our Municipality. We do hope that you, as our Municipal Council, will revisit this request, and decide favourably, for the benefit, and satisfaction, of everyone involved. Thanks again, for your careful consideration. C.E. (Chuck) Buchanan, Treasurer, for The Port Burwell Historical Society members and volunteers. ADVISORY BOARD & COMMITTEE RESOLUTION Date: October 6, 2016 To: Mayor & Members of Council From: Museums Bayham Museums Bayham respectfully requests the following resolution be passed by the Council of the Municipality of Bayham at the regular Council meeting October 6, 2016: THAT the Council of the Municipality of Bayham approves request from Museums Bayham to re-advertise the posting of vacancy for a new board member on the Municipality of Bayham website and follow consistent and proper procedure regarding the new application process. REPORT CAO TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Paul Shipway, CAO DATE: October 6, 2016 REPORT: CAO-57/16 SUBJECT: BELL SMALL CELL AGREEMENT BACKGROUND The demand for bandwidth to satisfy users (due to uses such as data transmission, high definition video streaming, gaming, media and increased use of mobile applications, smart phone, tablet and laptop devices), has increased dramatically in Ontario. To satisfy these public and business requirements, Bell has made efforts to secure its equipment on locations throughout Municipalities by entering into non-exclusive Master License Agreements for placement of Small Cell Technology on municipal infrastructure. Bell and other wireless carriers approach Municipalities with interest in licensing publicly-owned property for their equipment to meet the growing bandwidth demand. DISCUSSION The initiative would place small cell antenna systems in select areas to improve mobile data coverage without the need for a traditional cellular tower. Weighing approximately 30 pounds, each small cell uses far less power than a traditional site cell site while providing approximately 150 metres of coverage. Installation is simple, efficient and does not compromise existing service to residents. The initiative would also provide the opportunity to place ‘Indoor Pico Cell Antennas’ in the Community Centres to improve coverage within the same. This agreement has an opportunity to enhance high-speed wireless broadband service for residents, businesses and showcase the Municipality as a developing smart community. The initial intent of Bell is to commence rollout in populous areas, specifically Port Burwell and the East Beach area. The Master Licence Agreement would provide the following revenues to the Municipality: Facility Charge Outdoor Small Cell Antennas: one-thousand dollars ($1000) per year, payable annually per unit Indoor Pico Cell Antennas zero ($0) per year, payable annually per unit Hydro Consumption Surcharge Outdoor small cell antennas: two-hundred dollars ($200) per year, payable annually Indoor Pico Cell Antennas two-hundred dollars ($200) per year, payable annually The Municipal Solicitor has reviewed the non-exclusive Master Licence Agreement and approves the form of the same. RECOMMENDATION 1.THAT Report CAO-57/16 re Bell Small Cell Agreement be received for information; 2.AND THAT Council direct staff to bring forward a by-law to authorize the execution of a Master License Agreement with Bell for Small Cell Technology. Respectfully Submitted by: Paul Shipway CAO SMALL CELL - MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this X day of X, X B E T W E E N: THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM (hereinafter called the “Municipality”) OF THE FIRST PART - and - BELL MOBILITY INC. (hereinafter called “Bell”) OF THE SECOND PART WHEREAS this license agreement (the “Agreement”) between the above parties outlines the terms and conditions of a license from the Municipality to Bell for the use of certain Municipality-owned facilities by Bell to attach telecommunications equipment and provide wireless telecommunications services. NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the sum of Two Dollars ($2.00) now paid by each party hereto to the other and other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged), the Municipality and Bell covenant and agree as follows: 1.Grant: The Municipality hereby grants to Bell a non-exclusive right, by way of a license (the “License”), to place, attach, install, operate, repair, replace, upgrade, maintain, relocate and remove accessories, structures, devices, and equipment used for the transmission of Bell’s wireless communications and other communication services (collectively, the “Equipment”) in, on or to certain of the Municipality’s property and facilities (including, but not limited to, buildings, light poles, utility poles, traffic light poles, or any other pole owned by the Municipality), each of which are specifically listed in Schedule “A” (collectively, the “Facilities”, or, individually, a “Facility”). The work performed by Bell pursuant to this Agreement is hereinafter referred to as the “Work”. APPENDIX 'A' - 2 - 2. Application Fees: Bell shall pay to the Municipality a one-time application fee of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) per facility (plus any Sales Taxes (as defined herein) which Bell is required to pay by law) for the review, processing and approval of Bell’s proposed Equipment installation at each Facility. 3. Annual Fee: On the Commencement Date (as defined herein), and on each anniversary thereafter during the Term, Bell shall pay to the Municipality an annual fee set out in Schedule “B” for the Facilities, based on the amount of Facilities listed in Schedule “A” as at such date, as same may be amended from time to time. Notwithstanding any amendment to Schedule “A” which may add or remove Facilities to this Agreement during the Term, the Municipality and Bell agree that the annual fee shall not be increased or decreased until the next anniversary of the Commencement Date (being the next date upon which payment of the annual fee is due). 4. Additional Fees: Bell covenants and agrees to pay any and all fees associated with any permits that Bell is required to obtain by law in connection with any Work. Furthermore, Bell covenants and agrees to pay the fees and charges set out in Schedule “B” with respect to the hydro consumption of the Equipment. Taxes: The Municipality confirms that its HST (as defined in this Section) number is 874182769RT001, and acknowledges and agrees that notwithstanding the forgoing or anything else contained in this Agreement, Bell’s obligation to pay to the Municipality any goods and services tax or harmonized sales tax in addition to the annual fee is conditional upon such HST number being valid and correct. 5. Payment of Fees: At the discretion of Bell, the Municipality agrees that any amount owed by Bell to the Municipality pursuant to this Agreement may be paid by electronic funds transfers (“EFT”). Upon request by Bell, the Municipality agrees to provide Bell with all of the necessary information in order to effect an EFT to the Municipality. 6. Approval: Bell shall not place, attach or install any Equipment on a Facility without first obtaining the prior written approval of the Municipality’s CAO or designate regarding the location of the Equipment and the proposed method of placement, attachment or installation of the Equipment to the Facilities. Any such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. In applying for said approval, Bell shall submit to the CAO : (a) a description of the Equipment; (b) a plan showing the proposed location of the Equipment; (c) a description of the scope of the Work required to place, attach or install the Equipment; (d) a schedule setting out the proposed timetable for the commencement, performance and completion of the Work; and 7. Term: The License shall be for a “Term” of ten (10) years commencing on the 1st day of ●, ● (the “Commencement Date”) and ending at 11:59 pm on the ● day of ●, ●, unless sooner terminated in accordance with this Agreement. - 3 - 8. Extension: The Municipality grants and agrees that the Term of this Agreement may be extended by two (2) successive five (5) year terms on the same terms and conditions. Each extension period shall form part of the “Term”. Unless Bell provides the Municipality with written notice of its intention not to extend this Agreement at least six (6) months prior to the expiration of the Term or the then current extension period, as the case may be, this Agreement shall automatically extend for an extension period. 9. Conditions of the Work: The Work conducted by Bell is subject to the following conditions: (a) the Work shall conform to all applicable federal, provincial and municipal statutes, laws and by-laws, and other applicable rules and regulations, having jurisdiction over Bell’s operations, including those regarding telecommunications, construction, safety and the environment; (b) the Work shall be conducted and completed to the reasonable satisfaction of the CAO, in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and in compliance with any terms and conditions established under Section 7; (c) the Work shall be performed in a manner that safeguards and protects all other support structures, transmission lines, equipment, facilities and improvements of any kind (“Improvements”) present on the Facilities at the time of installation; (d) upon completion of any Work, Bell shall repair and restore any damage to the Facilities or Improvements caused by the Work to the condition in which they existed prior to the Work, reasonable wear and tear excepted. If Bell fails to repair and restore the Facilities and Improvements within thirty (30) days of being notified by the Municipality, the Municipality may make such repairs and Bell shall pay the Municipality’s reasonable repair costs, upon presentation of a detailed invoice; (e) Bell shall immediately cease the Work, as the Municipality reasonably requires for the operation, repair or maintenance of the Facilities or Improvements, or for any emergency purposes, following receipt of written notice in a reasonable time from the Municipality containing the Municipality’s bona fide reasons for stopping the Work. Bell may resume the Work once notice is given by the Municipality that the repair or maintenance is completed, or the emergency has been resolved; and (f) Bell shall be responsible for all Work, including the costs of such Work. 10. Bell’s Covenants: Bell represents and warrants to and covenants and agrees with the Municipality that: (a) all Work undertaken shall be carried out diligently, in a good and workmanlike manner, in accordance with good engineering practices, and in a manner that shall: (i) not damage or unduly interfere with the improvements of the Municipality or a third party; (ii) minimize disruption to private and public lands adjacent to the Facilities; and - 4 - (iii) minimize interference with the public’s use and enjoyment of the Facilities; (b) after completing any Work, Bell shall comply with Section 10(d) and leave the Facilities in a clean, tidy and safe condition, to the reasonable satisfaction of the CAO, reasonable wear and tear excepted; (c) Bell shall not suffer or permit any claims or liens to be filed or registered against the Facilities; (d) Bell shall notify the Municipality of any damage to the Facilities or Improvements arising from the Work (excluding any reasonable wear and tear); (e) The Municipality may place, attach, install, operate and maintain Improvements on the Facilities, and may use the Facilities for any purpose, and subject to Section 19, may allow other parties to place, attach, install, operate and maintain Improvements and use the Facilities, provided that such use, placement, attachment, installation, operations and maintenance of Improvements on the Facilities shall not interfere with Bell’s Equipment and operations; (f) the Municipality has made no representations or warranties as to the state of repair of the Facilities, or the suitability of the Facilities for any business, activity or purpose whatsoever, and Bell hereby agrees to use the Facilities on an “as is” basis; and (g) Bell shall, at all times, maintain the equipment in a safe condition and good state of repair. 11. Access: The Municipality grants to Bell, its agents, employees and contractors, unrestricted and direct access to each Facility, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week at no additional cost to Bell (“24/7 Access”). The Municipality acknowledges that 24/7 Access is critical to Bell and its business operation. 12. Drawings: Bell shall provide “as built” drawings to the Municipality within sixty (60) days of completing the installation or relocation of any Equipment at a Facility. 13. Third Party Use: Bell shall not permit any third party who is not an Affiliate (as defined herein) of Bell to use the Equipment, without the prior written approval by the CAO , which prior written approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. For the purpose of this Agreement, an “Affiliate” means any entity (including a partnership) now or hereafter existing, who directly or indirectly Controls, is Controlled by or is under common Control with Bell. “Control” means: (i) the power, by ownership of voting equity, contract or otherwise, to elect a majority of the board of directors or other governing body of the subject person or to otherwise direct the management and policies of the subjects person; or (ii) the record of beneficial ownership, directly or indirectly, alone or in combination with one or more Affiliate(s), other than by way or security interest only, of more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting rights, income or capital of the subject person; and “Controlled” has the corresponding meaning. 14. Bell Termination: This Agreement may be terminated by Bell at any time during the Term, on ninety (90) days prior written notice to the Municipality, if Bell believes that operating its Equipment on the Facilities is no longer commercially desirable. In addition - 5 - to the above, Bell may terminate this Agreement as it relates to any one or more Facilities listed in Schedule “A” hereto by giving ninety (90) days prior written notice to the Municipality. In the event of such termination, both the Municipality and Bell shall be released from any further obligations with respect to any matter under this Agreement as it relates to such terminated Facility or Facilities (as the case may be), and Bell shall remove the Equipment from the relevant Facility or Facilities (as the case may be) in accordance with Section 18 of this Agreement. In the event that this Agreement is terminated as it relates to a Facility or Facilities (as the case may be) in accordance with this Section, the parties hereto agree to enter into a written agreement to amend Schedule “A” hereto to accurately account for the Facilities subject to this Agreement. 15. Bell Default: This Agreement may also be terminated: (a) either in its entirety or as it relates to any one or more Facilities, in the sole and absolute discretion of the Municipality, by written notice from the Municipality to Bell, in the event Bell fails to pay any amount payable under this Agreement, which is not subject to bona fide dispute, within thirty (30) days of when the payment was due, and Bell does not rectify this default within thirty (30) days of being notified in writing by the Municipality; (b) as it relates to any one Facility, by written notice from the Municipality to Bell, in the event Bell unduly interferes with the public’s use and enjoyment of such Facility, and does not rectify this interference within thirty (30) days of being notified in writing by the Municipality. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that the aforementioned interference reasonably requires more time to cure than thirty (30) days, the Municipality shall only have the right to terminate pursuant to this Section if Bell has not commenced remedying the interference by the thirty-first (31st) day, or, is not diligently pursuing remediation of the interference after the thirty-first (31st) day in the opinion of the Municipality, acting reasonably; or (c) in its entirety, by written notice from the Municipality to Bell, in the event there is filed by or against Bell, in any court, an uncontested petition in bankruptcy or insolvency, or for reorganization, or for the appointment of a liquidator for Bell’s property. In the event that this Agreement is not terminated in its entirety, and is rather terminated as it relates to a Facility or Facilities (as the case may be) in accordance with this Section, the parties hereto agree to enter into a written agreement to amend Schedule “A” hereto to accurately account for the Facilities subject to this Agreement; 16. Surrender: Upon termination of this Agreement as it relates to any one or more Facilities listed in Schedule “A” hereto, Bell shall remove the applicable Equipment within no less than one-hundred and eighty (180) days of such termination, and Bell shall repair and restore the applicable Facilities, as the case may be, to the same or similar condition in which they existed prior to any Work, reasonable wear and tear excepted, to the reasonable satisfaction of the CAO . 17. Municipality’s Interference: In using its Facilities and accessing its Improvements, the Municipality will use best efforts to avoid interfering with the Equipment (which, for clarification purposes, includes impairing the quality of the telecommunications services being rendered by Bell at the Facilities). However, Bell acknowledges and accepts that - 6 - the Municipality may, acting reasonably, interfere with the Equipment for the operation, repair or maintenance of the Facilities and/or Improvements. The Municipality agrees that in the event of any such repair or maintenance of the Facilities or for Improvements it shall provide Bell thirty (30) business days’ prior written notice, unless the requirement to repair and/or maintain a Facility is due to an emergency situation involving the health and safety of the public. Bell agrees that the Municipality will not be responsible for any costs, losses or damages suffered by Bell, as a result of the Municipality’s interference with the Equipment, unless caused by the willful misconduct or negligence of the Municipality, its elected officials, appointed officers, employees, agents or contractors, and or anyone for whom the Municipality is responsible by law. The Municipality agrees to use best efforts to: (i) cause any third party using the Facilities to covenant that it shall use best efforts to avoid interfering with the Equipment and Bell’s operations at the Facilities; (ii) cause any third party using the Facilities to covenant that it shall cooperate with Bell to remedy any interference with Equipment that may arise as a result, in part or in whole, of the third party’s use of the Facilities; and (iii) fully cooperate with Bell if any third party using the Facilities interferes with the Equipment. 18. Temporary Removal: Bell acknowledges that the Municipality may require certain Equipment to be temporarily removed from a Facility for the purposes of conducting work at such Facility. Within thirty (30) days of written request by the Municipality, Bell agrees to temporarily remove its Equipment, as requested by the Municipality, for the Municipality’s work. The Municipality covenants and agrees to use best efforts to complete such work as expeditiously as possible. Following completion of the Municipality’s work, Bell may, at its expense, reinstall the removed Equipment. 19. Damage and Destruction: The Municipality shall have no obligation to repair or replace any Facilities in the event of any damage or destruction to any Facilities. 20. Review: The Municipality and Bell agree to use reasonable commercial efforts to meet (through their agents or otherwise) two (2) times each year during the Term to review the performance of the parties under this Agreement, including identifying any opportunities to expand the relationship of the parties hereto. 21. Release: Bell, its Affiliates and their respective directors, officers and employees, or any person or persons claiming by, through or under them hereby release and forever discharge the Municipality of and from any and all actions, damages, losses, causes of actions, claims and demands of any kind or nature whatsoever, which Bell may have against the Municipality for or by any reason arising from, or out of, or connected in any way to the Work or to the transmission of wireless services, except for any actions, damages, losses, causes of actions, claims and demands caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the Municipality, its elected officials, appointed officers, employees, agents, contractors or any person the Municipality is responsible for in law. 22. Indemnity: Bell further agrees, at its own cost and expense, to indemnify, protect and save the Municipality harmless from and against any and all actions, damages, losses, causes of actions, claims and demands of any kind or nature whatsoever, which may be ordered or awarded against the Municipality by third parties or lawful authority arising from, or out of, or connected in any way to the Work or to the transmission of wireless services, except for any actions, damages, losses, causes of actions, claims and demands caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the Municipality, its elected officials, appointed officers, employees, agents, contractors or any person the Municipality is responsible for - 7 - in law. In no event shall Bell be liable for or indemnify and save harmless the Municipality from and against any indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages, including loss of revenue, loss of profits, loss of business opportunity or loss of use of any Facilities or property, even if advised of the possibility of such damages. 23. Hazardous Substances: Bell specifically acknowledges that the Municipality is not responsible for the escape, discharge or release of any hazardous substances from the Equipment, and specifically agrees to indemnify, protect and save the Municipality harmless from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands regarding any such hazardous substance that has escaped, been discharged or released from the Equipment unless caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of the Municipality, its elected officials, appointed officers, employees, agents, contractors or any person the Municipality is responsible for in law. “Hazardous Substance” means any hazardous or toxic substance, and includes radiofrequency electromagnetic energy, or other radiation, petroleum products and byproducts, industrial wastes, contaminants, pollutants, dangerous substances, and toxic substances, as defined in or pursuant to any law, ordinance, rule, regulation, bylaw or code, whether federal, provincial or municipal. 24. Environmental Liability: Bell agrees to assume all environmental liability under federal, provincial and local government laws in Canada, as a responsible person or otherwise, relating to its occupancy and use of the Facilities, including but not limited to any liability for clean-up of any Hazardous Substance in, on, under, along, across and around the Facilities, which are proven to result directly from: (a) the installation, occupation, operation and removal by Bell of the Equipment; (b) any materials or goods brought to the Facilities by Bell, or by any other person with the express or implied consent of Bell. If a Hazardous Substance is discovered at a Facility by Bell during the Term and such Hazardous Substance did not arise out of the occupancy or use by Bell of the Facility or was not occasioned by any act or omission of Bell or those for whom Bell is in law responsible, at the Municipality’s sole expense, the Municipality shall remove any or all such Hazardous Substances as directed by Bell (without any obligation on Bell to act reasonably), and furthermore, indemnify and hold Bell harmless from any liability arising from the presence of such Hazardous Substances at the Facility. For further clarification, Bell shall not be responsible for, or required to remove or remediate any Hazardous Substances that have migrated onto or into a Facility or which existed at a Facility prior to Bell’s occupation or use of such Facility. 25. Insurance: For the duration of the Term: (a) Bell shall maintain comprehensive general liability insurance with coverage up to five million dollars ($5,000,000.00), per occurrence and in the annual aggregate for products and completed operations, to protect Bell from claims for personal injury, bodily injury or property damage arising out of Bell’s Work and/or operation of the Equipment. In addition, Bell agrees that: (i) the Municipality shall be added as an additional insured but only with respect to Bell’s legal liabilities arising out of Bell’s operations under this Agreement; and - 8 - (ii) the insurance shall include coverage for: products and completed operations; blanket contractual liability; cross-liability; non-owned automobile liability; and broad form property damage. (b) Bell shall also maintain automobile liability insurance, with coverage for bodily injury and property damage, for any Bell owned or leased vehicles used in the performance of the Work in the amount of two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) per accident. (c) The comprehensive general liability insurance policy shall contain a provision whereby the insurers will endeavour to provide the Municipality with sixty (60) days’ notice of cancellation. (d) Upon execution of this Agreement, Bell shall file with the Municipality a certificate of insurance of each insurance policy required. Bell shall also provide a certificate of insurance at any time upon reasonable written request by the Municipality. Failure to maintain the insurance policies as required by this Agreement is a material breach of contract. (e) Excess (umbrella) liability insurance may be used to achieve the required insured limits. 26. Notice: Any notice to be given under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be sufficiently given if delivered personally or by courier to the party for whom it is intended, sent by facsimile to the party for whom it is intended, or, if mailed, postage prepaid, by registered mail addressed to the party for whom it is intended. The facsimile numbers and the addresses for notice are set forth for each party below. To the Municipality: THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM 9344 Plank Road Straffordville, Ontario, N0J 1Y0 Attention: CAO Fax Number: 519-866-3884 To Bell: BELL MOBILITY INC. Real Estate Department 5099 Creekbank Rd., Building D, Floor 6N Mississauga, ON, L4W 5N2 Attention: Real Estate Services Fax Number: (905) 282-3102 Either party to this Agreement may change its address for notices or facsimile number by notice to the other party in accordance with the provisions of this Section. Any notice delivered personally, by courier or registered mail shall be deemed to have been given and received on the day it is so delivered at such address, provided that if such day is not a business day such notice or other communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the next following business day. Any notice sent by facsimile, shall be deemed to have been given upon the date receipt by facsimile is confirmed, provided, however, if receipt is confirmed after 5:00 p.m. or on a Saturday, Sunday or statutory holiday, such notice shall be deemed to have been given on the next business day. - 9 - 27. Assignment: The Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns. Bell shall not assign or transfer any rights or privileges granted herein without prior written consent of the Municipality, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Bell may assign this Agreement, the Equipment, or any rights or privileges granted herein, without the consent of the Municipality, to: (i) a purchaser of a material portion of its assets; (ii) an Affiliate; (iii) a principal lender to Bell; (iv) a corporation or other person with which Bell is merged or consolidated; (v) a corporation or other person who is an “associate” (as that term is defined in the Canada Business Corporations Act or any successor legislation in force) of Bell; or (vi) a corporation or other person that “controls” or “is controlled by” (as those terms are defined in the Canada Business Corporations Act or any successor legislation in force) Bell. In the event that the Municipality’s written consent is required by virtue of this provision, such consent shall be deemed granted if the Municipality does not deliver a written response to Bell’s written request for consent within fifteen (15) days of Bell delivering its written request for consent to the Municipality. 28. Transfer by Municipality In the event the Municipality intends, proposes or plans to assign, transfer or sell a Facility, the Municipality covenants and agrees that it shall provide Bell with written notice of such assignment, transfer or sale one hundred and twenty (120) days prior the effective date of such assignment, transfer or sale, and, in such written notice, the Municipality shall request that Bell relocate its Equipment to another facility location owned by the Municipality. The Municipality and Bell agree that the process for such relocation shall be made in accordance with the terms set out in Section 14 herein. 29. Contractual Rights: The relationship between the Municipality and Bell and established by this Agreement is that of independent contractors, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed: (a) to create or confer any real property interests to Bell; (b) to constitute the parties as partners, joint ventures, co-owners or otherwise as participants in a joint or common undertaking; or (c) to allow either party to create or assume any obligation on behalf of the other party for any purpose whatsoever (other than as set out in this Agreement). 30. Non-exclusivity: Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as affecting any rights or otherwise of others not a party to this Agreement to use any of the Facilities in accordance with the Municipality’s lawful authority, provided such use will not interfere with Bell’s operation of the Equipment. 31. No Derogation: Nothing contained or implied in this Agreement will derogate from the obligations of Bell under any other agreement with the Municipality, or prejudice or affect the Municipality’s rights, powers, duties or obligations in the exercise of its functions under all public and private statutes, by-laws, orders and regulations, which may be as fully and effectively exercised in relation to the Facilities as if this Agreement had not been executed by Bell and the Municipality. - 10 - 32. Bell’s Representation and Warranty: Bell represents and warrants to and in favour of the Municipality that it has the good right, full power and absolute authority to enter into this Agreement. 33. Municipality’s Representations and Warranties: The Municipality represents and warrants to and in favour of Bell that: (i) neither the entering into nor the delivery of this Agreement nor the completion by the Municipality or Bell of the transactions contemplated under this Agreement will conflict with or constitute a default under or result in a violation of, or require a consent of anyone under any agreement to which the Municipality is a party or by which the Municipality or the Facilities are bound; and (ii) the Municipality has the good right, full power and absolute authority to enter into this Agreement and grant this License and all of the rights hereunder to Bell. The Municipality shall indemnify Bell with respect to all claims, actions, damages, liabilities and expenses in the connection with any breach of the representations or warranties in this Section, and the Municipality agrees to be liable for and to pay all costs, claims, damages and expenses to Bell associated with any breach of the representations or warranties in this Section. 34. Force Majeure: Except for the obligation to make payments or advance funds when due hereunder, which may not be claimed as force majeure by any party, the obligations of the parties shall be suspended to the extent and for the period that performance is prevented by any cause, whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, beyond its reasonable control, including, without limitation: (i) labour disputes (however arising and whether or not employee demands are reasonable or within the power of the party to grant); (ii) acts of God; (iii) laws, regulations, orders, proclamations, instructions or requests of any government or governmental entity; (iv) judgments or orders of any court; (v) inability to obtain on reasonably acceptable terms, or unreasonable delays in obtaining, any public or private license, permit or other authorization; (vi) acts of war or conditions arising out of or attributable to war, whether declared or undeclared; (vii) riots, acts of terrorism, civil strife, insurrection or rebellion; (viii) fire, explosion, earthquake, storm, flood, sink holes, drought or other adverse weather condition; (ix) delay of failure by suppliers or transporters of materials, parts, supplies, services or equipment or by contractors’ or subcontractors’ shortage of, or inability to obtain, labour, transportation, materials, machinery, equipment, supplies, utilities or services; (x) accidents; (xi) power failure; (xii) breakdown of equipment, machinery or facilities; (xiii) actions by native rights groups, environmental groups or other similar special interest groups; or (xiv) any other cause, whether similar of dissimilar to the foregoing that is beyond the reasonable control of the affected party. The time for performance of all obligations hereunder (except for the obligation to make payments or to provide funds when due) shall be extended for a period equivalent to any period(s) of force majeure, as described above. A party that claims force majeure shall promptly notify the other party and shall: (a) take all reasonable steps to remove or remedy the cause of the prevention or delay insofar as the party claiming force majeure is reasonably able to do so and as soon as reasonably possible; and (b) use commercially reasonable efforts to mitigate any effect which an occurrence of an event of force majeure might have on the performance of such party’s obligations under this Agreement. 35. Entire Agreement: This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Facilities and there are no prior representations, either oral or written, between them other than those set forth in this Agreement. The parties agree to execute such further and other agreements from time to time as may be reasonably necessary in order to give effect to this Agreement. For clarification purposes, the parties agree that - 11 - Schedule “A” attached hereto may be amended from time to time by written agreement between the parties, and that such amended Schedule “A” shall form part of this Agreement and shall supersede any prior Schedule “A”. 36. Schedules: The Schedules attached to this Agreement form a part of this Agreement and any obligation imposed on Bell in a Schedule will be deemed to be a covenant of Bell in this Agreement. 37. Severability: The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision, but shall be deemed to be severable. 38. Other Payments: Bell’s obligations to pay money under this Agreement are additional to, and not in substitution for, all other amounts payable by Bell to the Municipality by separate agreement or by-law. 39. Governing Law: This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the Province in which the Facilities are located, and the parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of such Province. 40. Time of the Essence: Time shall be of the essence in this Agreement. 41. Waiver: No alleged waiver or breach of this Agreement is effective unless it is an express waiver in writing of the breach in respect of which it is asserted against the party alleged to have given the waiver. No waiver by a party of any breach of this Agreement operates as a waiver of any other breach of this Agreement. 42. Gender: In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires, the singular includes the plural and the masculine includes the feminine gender and a corporation. 43. Ownership: The Municipality acknowledges that, notwithstanding any rule of law or equity to the contrary, the Equipment will remain the property of Bell even though it is attached to the Facilities. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this Agreement as of the date first above written. - 12 - THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM Per: Name: Title: Per: Name: Title: I/We have authority to bind the corporation. BELL MOBILITY INC. Per: Name: Title: I have authority to bind the corporation. SCHEDULE “A” FACILITIES SCHEDULE “B” FEES Outdoor small cell antennas: one-thousand dollars ($1000) per year, payable annually per unit Indoor Pico Cell Antennas zero ($0) per year, payable annually per unit Hydro Consumption Surcharge Outdoor small cell antennas: two-hundred dollars ($200) per year, payable annually Indoor Pico Cell Antennas two-hundred dollars ($200) per year, payable annually REPORT CAO TO: Mayor & Members of Council FROM: Paul Shipway, CAO DATE: October 6, 2016 REPORT: CAO-58/16 SUBJECT: ST. THOMAS COMMUNITY RECYCLING CENTRE (CRC) BACKGROUND The City of St. Thomas has recently opened a Community Recycling Centre (CRC) located at 330 South Edgeware Road, St. Thomas, ON. The City of St. Thomas has entered into agreements to date with the Municipality of Central Elgin and the Township of Southwold for utilization of the CRC. The Municipality of Bayham is a member of the Material Recycling Facility (MRF) group (where Municipal recyclables are processed) with the City of St. Thomas and at a recent quarterly MRF meeting requested information on utilization of the CRC. Attached hereto as Appendix ‘A’ is a Municipal Partner Agreement for Council review. The annual costs for utilization of the CRC is based on the population of those CRC utilizing municipalities. With the current complement of users and site expenses the Municipality of Bayham cost would be $19,272/year. Should the other Municipalities join or leave the costs would fluctuate as prescribed within the agreement. Details pertaining to the CRC are as follows: Hours of Operation: Tuesday - Friday: 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. Saturday: 8 a.m. - 3 p.m. Closed on all statutory holidays. Winter Hours of Operation: November 28, 2016 – April 3, 2017 Wednesday: 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Saturday: 8 a.m. - 3 p.m. Household Hazardous Waste Accepted on Saturdays Only Rate Structure/Accepted Items Material Type User Fee Tires Free of Charge Cardboard Free of Charge Curbside Recyclable material Free of Charge Waste Electronics Free of Charge Scrap Metal (including non-refrigerant bearing appliances) Free of Charge Yard Waste and brush Free of Charge Mixed Solid Waste (including mattresses, furniture, carpeting, flooring, household waste) $120/tonne Shingles $85/tonne Mixed Construction and Demolition Material (wood, drywall etc.) $85/tonne Concrete, brick and block $45/tonne Untagged refrigerant bearing appliances $50/unit Clean Wood $85/tonne Household Hazardous Waste Accepted Items: •Aerosol containers •Propane cylinders •Fluorescent bulbs/tubes •Fire extinguishers and smoke detectors •Fertilizers and pesticides •Paints and coatings •Oven and window cleaners •Batteries household and automotive •Motor oil •Disinfectants •Mercury switches and thermometers •Pharmaceuticals •Needles and syringes (in a puncture proof container) When dropping off hazardous waste please ensure: •All materials should be in the original or well-marked container to indicate the contents •All containers are securely capped and sealed •Liquid wastes must be no larger than 20L each. Barrels or drums of waste will not be accepted •Material will not be decanted, the container and its contents must be left at the depot DISCUSSION Municipality of Bayham background pertaining to Large Item Depot/Transfer Stations since 2011 is outlined below. Historically, as a Strategic Plan issue, the municipally negotiated with Tillsonburg regarding use of the Tillsonburg Transfer Station. The process was complicated as follows: 1)Negotiate use of the Tillsonburg Transfer Station In 2013 staff commenced initial discussions with the Town of Tillsonburg to utilize the Tillsonburg Transfer Station. Upon further investigation, the exact impediments to Municipality Bayham utilization of the Tillsonburg transfer station were as follows: i.Tillsonburg CA No. 5638-76BR2S– Section 20(a) – Cannot accept waste from outside of Tillsonburg, with the exception of leaf and yard waste from within Oxford County ii.Oxford County By-law No. 4954-2008 – By-law to establish, maintain and operate facilities to provide for the management, transfer and disposal of solid waste and recyclable materials. – No waste permitted from outside of Oxford County (Nothing in the CA for the landfill or the design and operations manual, upon initial assessment, prohibits waste from outside Oxford County) If Council elected to attempt to overcome the aforementioned impediments a resolution could be sent to Tillsonburg Council and to Oxford County respectfully requesting consideration of the following: i.Oxford County amend By-law No. 4954-2008 to permit waste from Bayham, via the Tillsonburg Transfer Station, at the Oxford County landfill contingent upon approval of waste being deposited at the Tillsonburg Transfer Station; ii.That should Tillsonburg agree to accept the waste types permitted at the Tillsonburg Transfer Station as dictated in Section 21 of CA No. 5638-76BR2S the Municipality of Bayham pay for all costs of said amendment to the Tillsonburg CA. Staff did pursue discussions however the obstacles were too great to overcome. The Municipality also conducted a Large Item/Hazardous Waste Day that was ended in 2016. The event had historically cost the Municipality approximately $30,000 plus staff time. Due to OMPF funding decreases and budget pressures the event was funded from a reserve in 2015 and ended in 2016 in favour of the community utilizing the private sector for bulk item and hazardous waste services. The Large Item/Hazardous Waste Day has averaged approximately 350 vehicles annually. Of those 350 vehicles, 182 vehicles utilized the hazardous waste section of the event. This averaged out to an approximate 15% of household utilization of the event. The Large Item/Hazardous Waste portion of the website now provides information on disposal alternatives, including but not limited to: Tri Recycling Inc. A: 3544 Dingman Dr, London T: 519-457-1566 W: www.tryrecycling.com Green Valley Recycling Corp. A: 1200 Green Valley Road, London T: 519-681-0606 W: www.greenvalleyrecycling.ca Norfolk Disposal Services Limited A: 380 Main Street South. Waterford, Ontario N0E 1Y0 T: 519-443-8022 W: www.norfolkdisposal.ca Putnam's Waste Disposal A: 10609 Imperial Road, Aylmer, Ontario T: 519-765-1888 The St. Thomas CRC Agreement and supporting information is provided for Council information as a service option. The travel distance may or may not be viable in the opinion of council. Status quo would continue with public utilization of private sector services. Should Council wish to conduct a one year trial of the St. Thomas CRC the cost could be funded from the Waste Transfer Reserve. RECOMMENDATION 1.THAT Report CAO-58/16 re St. Thomas Community Recycling Centre (CRC) be received for information; 2.THAT Council provide staff direction. Respectfully Submitted by: Paul Shipway CAO Community Recycling Centre Agreement for Use This Agreement made the ________ day of _________, 2016 BETWEEN: CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF ST. THOMAS hereinafter referred to as the "City" OF THE FIRST PART - and - COPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF hereinafter referred to as the "Partner Municipality" OF THE SECOND PART Whereas the City owns the Community Recycling Centre, the purpose of which is to collect, waste materials that can not be disposed at the curb; And Whereas the Partner Municipality wishes to purchase for the benefit of its ratepayers certain depot collection services from the City and the City has agreed to provide these services on the terms and conditions set forth herein; Now Therefore Witnesseth that in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows: 1.Definitions As used in this Agreement, the following definitions shall apply unless otherwise indicated: 1.1 1.2 “Acceptable Materials” means those categories of Materials designated on Schedule “A” as being acceptable for the purposes of this Agreement. “Annual Fees” means the fees payable by the Partner Municipality for the provision of services under this agreement to the City and does not include the fees paid by individual users for tipping fees for certain materials as listed in Schedule "B". 1.2.1 “City” means the Corporation of the City of St. Thomas 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 “Commencement Date” means immediately upon the agreement being executed “Facility” means the building, equipment and machinery located at 330 South Edgeware Road, St. Thomas, Ontario, to be used for the receipt, and storage of Acceptable Materials in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. “Non-Acceptable Materials” means materials not listed in Schedule “A”. “Operating Costs” the costs to run the facility including but not limited to the operating contract, building maintenance and overhead, handling fees for designated material streams, City staff costs, and administrative costs. “Partner Municipality” means the Corporation of the Municipality of xxxxxxxxx. 2.Provision of Services by the City 2.1 Provide Depot Collection Services to the Partner Municipality over the course of the Term, for the fees and in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in this agreement. 2.2 Shall set the schedule of fees for each material stream payable by each individual user of the facility. 2.3 Maintain and deliver upon request detailed occurrence reports including date, time complainant, details, and particulars of any investigations related to site operations, to the Partner Municipality 2.4 Will provide the Partner Municipality access to all promotion and educational material produced related to the Community Recycling Centre noting all promotion or advertising by the Partner Municipalities will be at their costs. 2.6 On a quarterly basis render an invoice to Partner Municipality, for one fourth of the annual user fee 2.7 Provide upon request to the Partner Municipality an annual report identified the volume of material disposed of and specific material type by the residents of the Partner Municipality which may be helpful for their annual reviews and reporting. 2.8 Shall retain the sole and exclusive right to reject loads and/or refuse service to specific individuals for repeated violations of site rules. 2.9 In providing Collection Services hereunder, the City shall retain the sole and exclusive right to redefine and revise, in its sole discretion and exercisable from time to time, the materials included as Acceptable Materials provided at least ninety (90) day’s notice of its intention to revise or redefine is delivered to the Partner Municipality, together with a copy of all such proposed revisions or redefinitions. The City will consult with the Partner Municipality prior issuing the notice of intention to redefine or revise the list of acceptable materials. 2.10 The City will not be responsible for any costs incurred by the Partner Municipality for any temporary or permanent suspension of service. 3.Obligations of the Partner Municipality 3.1 Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice, pay the monthly invoice for services rendered as delivered by the City 3.2 Residents may be required to provide proof of residency at the Facility 3.3 Save the City harmless from any action or cause of action arising out of the proper exercise of their duties under this Agreement 4.Annual Adjustment 4.1 Effective the first day of January 2018 and for each subsequent year the agreement exists the annual fee will be adjusted based changes to operating costs and CPI for the Province of Ontario for the previous twelve months, all items seasonally adjusted January over January. Additionally, any change in population in St.Thomas or the partner municipalities will also be prorated into the adjustment. 5.Public Liaison Committee 5.1 A Public Liaison Committee has been established as a condition of the site’s ECA comprised of representatives from the City, adjacent properties, members of the public and representatives of each Partner Municipality. The purpose of the Public Liaison Committee is to provide input and transparency to the management and operation of the Facility. 5.2 As the contracting authority, the City will retain responsibility for all final decisions related to the management and operation of the facility. 6.Term of Agreement 6.1 This agreement shall continue from the Commencement Date until terminated in accordance with Section 7. 7.Default and Termination 7.1 This agreement may be terminated by either party effective midnight 120 days after providing written notice setting out the intention to so terminate. 7.2 Failure by either party to pay any sum due under this Agreement on the day or dates appointed for the payment thereof, or to perform or observe any other provision of this Agreement to be observed or performed by it, shall entitle the other party to terminate this Agreement in the event that such default has continued for a period of thirty (30) days after the defaulting party has been advised of such default in writing. 8.Dispute Resolution 8.1 All disputes, claims, controversies or questions arising out of, under, or in connection with, or in relation to this Agreement or its interpretation, performance or non-performance, or any breach of it, shall be submitted to binding arbitration as follows: A.the Partner Municipality and the City may agree to appoint a single arbitrator whose decision shall be final and binding; or B.in the event that the Partner Municipality and the City cannot agree upon a single arbitrator, then the Partner Municipality shall select one individual and the City shall select one individual and the resulting two individuals shall select a third individual who shall be the sole arbitrator. If either the Partner Municipality or the City fails to appoint a nominee within fifteen (15) days after receipt of a written notice from the other of them requiring that such appointment be made, then the individual chosen by either the Partner Municipality or the City, as the case may be, shall be the sole arbitrator. 8.2 In all other respects, the rules and procedures to be used by the arbitrator shall be as set out in the Arbitrations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.24 and every statutory provision that may be substituted for it or for any provision in it. The parties agree that the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding and that there shall be no appeal from it; that the arbitrator shall have the discretion to award the non-offending party his or its costs and expenses incurred in connection with or as a result of such arbitration and on a solicitor and his client basis; and, further, that the decision and award of the arbitrator may be entered and enforced in the relevant courts having jurisdiction. 9.Governing Law 9.1 This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario. 10.Notices 10.1 Any written notice given pursuant to this agreement must be addressed to: In the case of the Partner Municipality, at: ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Attention:… In the case of the City, at: City of St. Thomas 545 Talbot Street P.O. Box 520 St. Thomas, Ontario N5P 3V7 Attention: Manager of Development and Compliance, Environmental Services 10.2 If hand delivered, the notice is effective on the date of delivery; if faxed, the notice is effective on the date and time the fax is sent; if sent by registered mail, the notice is deemed to be effective on the fifth business day following the day of mailing. 11.Entire Agreement 11.1 The parties agree that this Agreement and any Schedules attached hereto constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject-matter hereof, and that this Agreement supersedes all proposals, oral or written, all previous negotiations and all other communications between the parties with respect to the subject-matter hereof. 11.2 No amendment to this agreement shall be effective unless it is made in writing with the mutual consent of both parties. 12. Binding Effect 12.1 This agreement will ensure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties and their respective successors, administrators and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have caused this agreement, which shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors of the respective parties, to be signed and entered as of the date first mentioned above. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED in the presence of: The Corporation of the City of St. Thomas Per: ________________________________ Mayor - Heather Jackson ________________________________ City Clerk - Maria Konefal The Corporation of the Municipality of xxxxxxxx Per: ________________________________ Mayor - ____________________________________ _ CAO & Clerk - Schedule “A” Acceptable Materials For the purposes of this agreement the following are Acceptable Materials and accepted by the Facility MATERIAL DEFINITION IF ANY Residential and Small quantity generator of Industiral and Commercial non hazardous solid waste Curbside recyclable materials Blue and grey box materials Mixed construction and demolition waste Wood waste, drywall, shingles, metal, concrete mixed together Separated construction and demolition waste Brush and leaf and yard waste Mattresses Tires Carpet Furniture Waste electronics Computers and Computer equipment, televisions, audio video equipment etc Clean Wood Skids, 2x4’s no contaminants Appliances(including refrigerant bearing) Household hazardous waste Paints, thinners, solvents, pesticides, cleaners etc Scrap Metal Old Corrugated Cardboard Schedule “B” Partner Municipality Fee Schedule 2016 Site operating Cost Total Population Served Population Partner Municipality Annual Cost $227,000 *Population based on Statistics Canada 2011 Census * Partner Municipality Annual Cost subject to adjustment as outlined in Section 4 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. 2016-083 A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS REGARDING THE ONTARIO COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE FUND – FORMULA-BASED COMPONENT WHEREAS the Government of Ontario has created the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund to: (1) provide stable funding to help small communities address critical core infrastructure needs in relation to roads, bridges, water and wastewater; (2) further strengthen municipal asset management practices within small communities; and (3) help small communities use a broad range of financial tools to address critical infrastructure challenges and provide long-term financial support for the rehabilitation and repair of core infrastructure for those in most need; WHEREAS the Municipality of Bayham is eligible and desirous of receiving funding under the Formula-Based Component of the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund; AND WHEREAS the Parties wish to proceed with the required Contribution Agreement; THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the Mayor and Clerk be and they are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Agreement attached hereto as Appendix “A” and forming part of this by-law between the Municipality of Bayham and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2. THAT this by-law shall come into full force and effect upon final passing. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 6th DAY OF OCTOBER 2016. ___________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK File Number: OCIF FC-026 ONTARIO COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE FUND FORMULA-BASED COMPONENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO as represented by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (the “Province”) – and – The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham (the “Recipient”) BACKGROUND The Province created the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund to: (1) provide stable funding to help small communities address critical core infrastructure needs in relation to roads, bridges, water and wastewater; (2) further strengthen municipal asset management practices within small communities; and (3) help small communities use a broad range of financial tools to address critical infrastructure challenges and provide long-term financial support for the rehabilitation and repair of core infrastructure for those in most need. The Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund is composed of two components: (1) the Application- Based Component; and (2) the Formula-Based Component. The Formula-Based Component of the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund is based on a municipality’s local fiscal circumstances and its total core infrastructure assets with a minimum grant of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00). The Recipient is eligible to receive funding under the Formula-Based Component of the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund. CONSIDERATION In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is expressly acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1.0 ENTIRE AGREEMENT 1.1 This Agreement, including: Schedule “A” – General Terms And Conditions, Schedule “B” – Additional Terms And Conditions, Schedule “C” – Operational Requirements Under The Agreement, Schedule “D” – Eligible Project Categories, Schedule “E” – Eligible And Ineligible Costs, Page 1 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 Schedule “F” – Financial Information, Schedule “G” – Aboriginal Consultation Requirements, Schedule “H” – Communications Protocol, and Schedule “I” – Reports, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter contained in this Agreement and supersedes all prior oral or written representations and agreements. 2.0 COUNTERPARTS 2.1 This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. 3.0 AMENDING AGREEMENT 3.1 This Agreement may only be amended by a written agreement duly executed by the Parties. 4.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 4.1 The Recipient acknowledges and agrees that: (a) By receiving Funds it may become subject to legislation applicable to organizations that receive funding from the Government of Ontario, including the BPSAA, the PSSDA and the AGA; (b) Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario has issued expenses, perquisites and procurement directives and guidelines pursuant to the BPSAA that may be applicable to the Recipient; (c) The Funds are (i) To assist the Recipient to carry out the Project and not to provide goods or services to the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund – Formula-Based Component, and (ii) Funding for the purposes of the PSSDA; and (d) The Province is not responsible for, nor does the Province have a managerial role in, the undertaking, implementation, completion, operation and/or maintenance of any Project to which Funds are directed. The Recipient will not seek to hold the Province responsible for the undertaking, implementation, completion, operation and/or maintenance of any Projects to which Funds are directed through recourse to a third party, arbitrator, tribunal or court. 5.0 IMPACT OF RECEIVING FUNDING UNDER THIS AGREEMENT ON ANY EXISTING ONTARIO COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE FUND FUNDING COMPONENT AGREEMENT 5.1 The Recipient acknowledges and agrees that if the Recipient receives Funds under this Agreement, the Recipient will be ineligible to receive any additional funds under any existing Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund Formula-Based Component agreement that it may Page 2 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 have with the Province. By way of example only, if the Recipient has an existing Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund Formula-Based Component agreement with the Province and was eligible to receive Funds for 2017 under that existing Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund Formula-Based Component agreement and receives Funds for 2017 under this Agreement, the Recipient is not eligible to receive any Funds for 2017 under its existing Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund Formula-Based Component agreement. [REST OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK – SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] Page 3 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties have executed this Agreement on the dates set out below. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO, as represented by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs ______________________________________ ___________________ Name: Randy Jackiw Date Title: Assistant Deputy Minister I have the authority to bind the Crown pursuant to delegated authority. THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ______________________________________ ___________________ Name: Insert Name Date Title: Insert Position AFFIX CORPORATE SEAL ______________________________________ ___________________ Name: Insert Name Date Title: Insert Position I/We have the authority to bind the Recipient. [REST OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK – SCHEDULE “A” FOLLOWS] Page 4 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 SCHEDULE “A” GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARTICLE A1 INTERPRETATION AND DEFINITIONS A1.1 Interpretation. For the purposes of interpreting this Agreement: (a) Words in the singular include the plural and vice versa; (b) Words in one gender include all genders; (c) The headings do not form part of this Agreement; they are for reference purposes only and will not affect the interpretation of the Agreement; (d) Any reference to dollars or currency will be in Canadian dollars and currency; (e) Any reference to a statute means a statute of the Province of Ontario, unless otherwise indicated; (f) Any reference to a statute is to that statute and to the regulations made pursuant to that statute as they may be amended from time to time and to any statute or regulations that may be passed that have the effect of supplanting or superseding that statute or regulation unless a provision of this Agreement provides otherwise; (g) All accounting terms will be interpreted in accordance with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and all calculations will be made and all financial data to be submitted will be prepared in accordance with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (h) The words “include”, “includes” and “including” denote that the subsequent list is not exhaustive. A1.2 Definitions. In this Agreement, the following terms will have the following meanings: “Aboriginal Group” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada or any other group holding Aboriginal or treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. “Additional Terms and Conditions” means the terms and conditions referred to in section A9.1 of Schedule “A” to this Agreement and specified in Schedule “B” of this Agreement. “AGA” means the Auditor General Act. “Agreement” means this agreement entered into between the Province and the Recipient and includes all of the Schedules listed in section 1.1 of this Agreement and any amending agreement entered into pursuant to section 3.1 of this Agreement. “Allocation Notice” means the notice that the Recipient received from the Province setting out the amount of Funds the Recipient is eligible to receive from the Province for the Funding Year in which the notice was issued. The “Allocation Notice” also includes the proposed allocation of Funds that the Recipient is eligible to receive for the following two Funding Years (although these proposed allocations are subject to change). “Annual Financial Report” means the report that the Province will provide, either in paper or electronically, to the Recipient pursuant to this Agreement. Page 5 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 “Arm’s Length” has the same meaning as set out in the Income Tax Act (Canada), as it read on the Effective Date of this Agreement, and as treated or defined under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. “Auditor General” means the Auditor General of Ontario. “BPSAA” means the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010. “Business Day” means any working day, Monday to Friday inclusive, excluding statutory and other holidays, namely: New Year’s Day; Family Day; Good Friday; Easter Monday; Victoria Day; Canada Day; Civic Holiday; Labour Day; Thanksgiving Day; Remembrance Day; Christmas Day; Boxing Day; and any other day on which the Province is closed for business. “Communications Protocol” means the protocol set out under Schedule “H” of this Agreement. “Consultant” means any person the Recipient retains to do work related to this Agreement. “Conflict Of Interest” includes any circumstances where: (a) The Recipient; or (b) Any person who has the capacity to influence the Recipient’s decisions, has outside commitments, relationships or financial interests that could, or could be seen to, interfere with the Recipient’s objective, unbiased and impartial judgment relating to the Project, the use of the Funds or both. “Contract” means an agreement between the Recipient and a third-party whereby the third- party provides a good or service for the Project in return for financial consideration that may be submitted by the Recipient for the Province’s consideration as an Eligible Cost. “Effective Date” means the date on which this Agreement is effective, as set out under section C1.1 of Schedule “C” of this Agreement. “Eligible Costs” means those costs set out under section E1.1 of Schedule “E” of this Agreement. “Event of Default” has the meaning ascribed to it in section 15.1 of Schedule “A” this Agreement. “Expiry Date” means the date on which this Agreement will expire, as set out under section C1.2 of Schedule “C” of this Agreement unless amended or terminated prior to this date in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. “FAA” means the Financial Administration Act. “Failure” means a failure to comply with any term, condition, obligation under any other agreement that the Recipient has with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario or one of Her agencies. “FIPPA” means the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1990. “First Nation” means a band, as defined under section 2(1) of the Indian Act (Canada). Page 6 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 “Funding Year” means the period commencing January 1st of one calendar year and ending December 31st of the same calendar year. “Funds” means the money the Province provides to the Recipient pursuant to this Agreement, as set out in an Allocation Notice or Revised Allocation Notice issued under this Agreement each Funding Year. “Indemnified Parties” means Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, Her Ministers, agents, appointees and employees. “Ineligible Costs” means those costs set out under section E2.1 of Schedule “E” of this Agreement. “Interest Earned” means the amount of money earned by the Recipient from placing the Funds in an interest bearing account as set out under section A3.4 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement. “Local Services Board” means a board established under the Northern Services Boards Act. “MA” means the Municipal Act, 2001. “Notice” means any communication given or required to be given pursuant to this Agreement. “Notice Period” means the period of time within which the Recipient is required to remedy an Event of Default, and includes any such period or periods of time by which the Province considers it reasonable to extend that time. “Parties” means the Province and the Recipient collectively. “Party” means either the Province or the Recipient. “Project” means the undertaking: (a) Described in the Project Information Form the Province provides to the Recipient pursuant to this Agreement; and (b) Approved by the Province. “Project Information Form” means the form that the Province will provide, either in paper or electronically, to the Recipient pursuant to this Agreement. “PSSDA” means the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, 1996. “Reports” means the reports set out under Schedule “I” of this Agreement. “Requirements of Law” means all applicable statutes, regulations, by-laws, ordinances, codes, official plans, rules, approvals, permits, licenses, authorizations, orders, decrees, injunctions, directions and agreements with all authorities that now or at any time hereafter may relate to the Recipient, the Project, the Funds and this Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, if the Recipient is subject to the BPSAA, the PSSDA or any other type of broader public sector accountability legislative provisions, the BPSAA, the PSSDA Page 7 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 and those broader public sector accountability legislative provisions are deemed to be a Requirement of Law. “Revised Allocation Notice” means an Allocation Notice that the Province issues that alters an Allocation Notice that the Province previously issued. “Term” means the period of time beginning on the Effective Date of this Agreement and ending on the Expiry Date unless terminated earlier pursuant to Articles A13, A14 or A15 of this Agreement. A1.3 Conflict. Subject to section A9.1 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement, in the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions set out in this Schedule “A” of the Agreement and the terms or conditions set out in any other Schedule of this Agreement, the terms and conditions set out under this Schedule “A” of the Agreement will prevail. ARTICLE A2 REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS A2.1 General. The Recipient represents, warrants and covenants that: (a) It is, and will continue to be for the Term of this Agreement, a validly existing legal entity with full power to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement; (b) It has, and will continue to have for the Term of this Agreement, the experience and expertise necessary to carry out the Project; (c) It has the financial resources necessary to carry out any Projects to which it directs any of the Funds being provided under this Agreement and is not indebted to any person to the extent that that indebtedness would undermine the Recipient’s ability to complete the Projects to which it directs the Funds; (d) It is in compliance with all Requirements of Law and will remain in compliance with all Requirements of Law related to any aspect of the Project, the Funds or both for the Term of this Agreement; and (e) Unless otherwise provided for in this Agreement, any information the Recipient provided to the Province in support of its request for Funds, including any information relating to any eligibility requirements, was true and complete at the time the Recipient provided it. A2.2 Execution Of Agreement. The Recipient represents and warrants that it has: (a) The full power and authority to enter into this Agreement; and (b) Taken all necessary actions to authorize the execution of this Agreement. A2.3 Governance. The Recipient represents, warrants and covenants that it has, and will maintain, in writing for the Term of this Agreement: (a) A code of conduct and ethical responsibilities for all persons at all levels of the Recipient’s organization; (b) Procedures to ensure the ongoing effective functioning of the Recipient; (c) Decision-making mechanisms for the Recipient; (d) Procedures to enable the Recipient to manage the Funds prudently and effectively; (e) Procedures to enable the Recipient to successfully complete the Project; (f) Procedures to enable the Recipient to, in a timely manner, identify risks to the completion of the Project and develop strategies to address those risks; Page 8 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 (g) Procedures to enable the preparation and delivery of all Reports required under this Agreement; and (h) Procedures to enable the Recipient to deal with such other matters as the Recipient considers necessary to ensure that the Recipient carries out its obligations under this Agreement. A2.4 Approvals, Licenses And Permits. The Recipient represents, warrants and covenants that it has or will apply for any approval, license, permit or similar authorization necessary to carry out the Project before carrying out the Project. For greater clarity, the Recipient acknowledges and agrees that the entering into this Agreement does not in any way obligate any regulatory authority established under an Act of the Ontario Legislature to issue any type of approval, license, permit or similar authorization that the Recipient may need or want in relation to undertaking any Project to which Funds are directed or to meet any other term or condition under this Agreement. A2.5 Supporting Documentation. Upon request, and within the time period indicated in the Notice, the Recipient will provide the Province with proof of the matters referred to in this Article A2 of this Agreement. A2.6 Additional Covenants. The Recipient undertakes to advise the Province within five (5) Business Days of: (a) Any changes that affect its representations, warranties and covenants under sections A2.1, A2.2, A2.3 or A2.4 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement during the Term of the Agreement; and (b) Any actions, suits or other proceedings which could or would reasonably prevent the Recipient from complying with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. ARTICLE A3 FUNDS AND CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT A3.1 Funds Provided. The Province will: (a) Provide the Recipient up to the amount of Funds set out in the Allocation Notice for each Funding Year during the Term of this Agreement for the sole purpose of carrying out one or more Projects; (b) Provide the Funds to the Recipient in accordance with Schedule “F” of this Agreement; (c) Deposit the Funds into an account designated by the Recipient, provided that account: (i) Resides at a Canadian financial institution, and (ii) Is in the name of the Recipient. A3.2 Limitation On Payment Of Funds. Despite section A3.1 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement: (a) The Province is not obligated to provide any Funds set out in an Allocation Notice or Revised Allocation Notice to the Recipient in any Funding Year until: (i) The Recipient provides the insurance certificate or other proof as the Province may request pursuant to section A12.2 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement, (ii) The Recipient has submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs any outstanding financial information returns by December 31st of each calendar year, Page 9 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 (iii) The Recipient has submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs all outstanding reporting under any other Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund contribution agreement, and (iv) The Recipient has submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs a copy of their asset management plan and any subsequent updates by December 31st of each calendar year if not previously submitted; (b) The Province is not obligated to provide any instalments of Funds set out in an Allocation Notice to the Recipient in any Funding Year until the Province is satisfied with the progress of the Project; (c) The Province may, acting reasonably: (i) Adjust the amount of Funds set out in the Recipient’s Allocation Notice or Revised Allocation Notice, and/or (ii) Adjust the amount of Funds the Province actually provides to the Recipient in any Funding Year, and/or (iii) Hold all or a portion of the Funds set out in the Recipient’s Allocation Notice or Revised Allocation Notice based upon the Province’s assessment of the information provided by the Recipient pursuant to Article A7 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement; and (d) If, pursuant to the FAA, the Province does not receive the necessary appropriation from the Ontario Legislature for any payment under this Agreement, the Province is not obligated to make any such payment, and, as a consequence, the Province may: (i) Reduce the amount of Funds and, in consultation with the Recipient, change the Project without liability, penalty or costs; or (ii) Terminate the Agreement pursuant to section A14.1 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement. A3.3 Use Of Funds And Project. The Recipient will: (a) Only use the Funds being provided under this Agreement toward Projects that fall within the category of projects set out under section D1.1 of Schedule “D” of this Agreement; (b) Carry out and complete any Projects in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (c) Use the Funds only for Eligible Costs that are necessary to carry out the Project; and (d) Not use the Funds for Ineligible Costs. A3.4 Interest Bearing Account. If the Province provides Funds to the Recipient before the Recipient’s immediate need for the Funds, the Recipient will place the Funds in an interest- bearing account in the name of the Recipient at a Canadian financial institution. The Recipient will hold the Funds plus the Interest Earned in trust for the Province until the Recipient needs the Funds for the Projects. A3.5 No Provincial Payment Of Interest. The Province is not required to pay interest on any Funds under this Agreement. For greater clarity, this includes interest on any Funds that the Province has withheld paying to the Recipient pursuant to a term or condition set out in this Agreement. A3.6 Funds For Funding Year Limited To Amount Set Out In Allocation Notice Or Revised Allocation Notice. The Recipient acknowledges and agrees that the Funds available to it for a Funding Year will not exceed the amount set out in the Recipient’s Allocation or Revised Allocation Notice for that Funding Year. Page 10 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 A3.7 Recipient May Save Funds From One Funding Year To Use In Later Funding Years. The Recipient may save any Funds that it receives in one Funding Year, including any interest earned thereon, for use in later Funding Years. Where the Recipient saves Funds from one Funding Year to use in later Funding Years, the Recipient will be deemed to have spent any Interest Earned first, followed by the principal. A3.8 Saved Funds From One Funding Year Must Be Spent Within Five Funding Years Of The Year The Funds Were Allocated. Despite anything else in this Agreement, the Recipient will spend any Funds, including any interest earned thereon, that it received and has saved within five (5) Funding Years in which those Funds were received. By way of example only, if a Recipient received Funds from the Province in 2017 and decided to save those Funds, the Recipient must spend those Funds, including any interest earned thereon, by December 31, 2021. In the event that the Recipient does not spend those saved Funds in accordance with the requirements set out in this section A3.8 of the Agreement, those saved Funds, including any Interest Earned thereon, will be returned to the Province. A3.9 Transfer Of Funds. The Recipient may transfer Funds provided under this Agreement to another entity provided the following is met: (a) The transfer of Funds is for a Project that is set out under section D1.1 of Schedule “D” of this Agreement; (b) The Project is in both the Recipient and the other entity’s asset management plan; and (c) The entity receiving the Recipient’s Funds must be eligible to receive those Funds. A3.10 Funds May Be Used For Projects Under Other Federal Or Provincial Funding Programs. The Recipient may use the Funds being provided under this Agreement for projects covered under other provincial or federal funding programs provided the following is met: (a) The project is also a Project that is set out under section D1.1 of Schedule “D” of this Agreement; and (b) The other provincial or federal funding program allows for Funds being provided under the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund to be used toward a project under that other provincial or federal funding program. A3.11 Rebates, Credits and Refunds. The Recipient acknowledges and agrees that the amount of Funds available to it pursuant to this Agreement is based on the actual costs to the Recipient, less any costs, for which the Recipient has received, will receive or is eligible to receive, a rebate, credit or refund. ARTICLE A4 ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION A4.1 Provision Of Funds Dependent Upon The Province Meeting Its Duty To Consult Obligations. The Recipient acknowledges and agrees that the provision of any Funds under this Agreement is strictly conditional upon the Province satisfying any obligations it may have to consult with and, if appropriate, accommodate any Aboriginal Group with an interest in any Project in which Funds are directed in order for the Project to proceed. A4.2 Recipient Is The Province’s Delegate For Purposes Of Consultation With Aboriginal Groups. By entering into this Agreement, the Province delegates the procedural aspects of Page 11 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 any consultation obligations the Province may have with any Aboriginal Group in relation to any Project in which Funds are directed to the Recipient as set out in Schedule “G” of this Agreement. The Recipient, by signing this Agreement acknowledges that the Province has delegated the procedural aspects of any consultation obligations that the Province may have with any Aboriginal Group in relation to any Project in which Funds are directed and accepts said delegation and agrees to act diligently as the Province’s delegate so as to preserve the Honour of the Crown in relation to any consultation obligations that the Province may have in relation to any Project in which Funds are directed. A4.3 Recipients Obligations In Relation To Consultations. The Recipient will: (a) Be responsible for consulting with any Aboriginal Group that has an interest in any Project in which Funds are directed on behalf of the Province in accordance with Schedule “G” of this Agreement; (b) Take directions from the Province in relation to consulting with any Aboriginal Group with an interest in any Project in which Funds are directed as well as any other directions that the Province may issue in relation to consultations, including suspending or terminating any Project in which Funds are directed; and (c) Provide a detailed description of any actions it took in relation to consultation with any Aboriginal Group with an interest in any Project in which Funds are directed in its Reports. A4.4 Recipient Will Not Start Construction On Any Project Until Recipient Provides Evidence To The Province That Notice Of Project Has Been Given To Identified Aboriginal Groups. Despite anything else in this Agreement, the Recipient will not commence or allow a third party to commence construction on any aspect of any Project in which Funds are directed for forty-five (45) Business Days, or such other longer or shorter time as the Province may direct, after it has provided the Province with written evidence that the Recipient has sent notice about any Project in which Funds are directed to the Aboriginal Groups the Province has identified in accordance with Schedule “G” of this Agreement. ARTICLE A5 RECIPIENT’S ACQUISITION OF GOODS AND SERVICES AND DISPOSAL OF ASSETS A5.1 Acquisition Of Goods And Services In Competitive Procurement Process. The Recipient will acquire any goods and services for the Project through a transparent, competitive process that ensures the best value for any Funds expended and at no greater value than fair market value, after deducting trade discounts and/or other discounts available to the Recipient. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, where the Recipient is a municipal entity to which the MA applies, the Recipient will follow its procurement policies required under the MA. Where the Recipient is a Local Services Board, the Recipient will obtain a minimum of three (3) written quotes for any goods or services which exceed twenty- five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), unless the Province provides its prior written approval to obtain such goods or services in another manner. The Province may waive the requirements of this section A5.1 of the Agreement if: (a) The goods or services the Recipient is purchasing are not readily available; or (b) The Recipient has researched the market for a similar purchase within the last two (2) years and knows prevailing market costs for those good or services being purchased. Page 12 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 A5.2 BPSAA. For greater clarity, if the Recipient is subject to the BPSAA and there is a conflict between the BPSAA and a requirement under this Article A5 of the Agreement, the BPSAA will apply and prevail to the extent of that conflict. A5.3 Contracts. The Recipient will ensure that all Contracts: (a) Are consistent with this Agreement; (b) Do not conflict with this Agreement; (c) Incorporate the relevant provisions of this Agreement to the fullest extent possible; (d) Require that any parties to those Contracts comply with all Requirements of Law; and (e) Authorize the Province to perform audits of the parties to those Contracts in relation to the Project or any Funds provided to those parties. A5.4 Use Of Consultants. The Province recognizes and acknowledges that the Recipient may engage one or more Consultants for the purposes of carrying out any Projects in which Funds are directed. The Recipient will have sole responsibility for hiring and terminating the employment of said Consultants. The Recipient further acknowledges and agrees that the Recipient will be responsible for all acts and actions of the Recipient’s Consultants and that all such acts and actions will be treated as acts and actions of the Recipient for the purposes of this Agreement. A5.5 Asset Retention. The Recipient will comply with section C1.3 of Schedule “C” of this Agreement as it relates to the retention of any assets purchased, built or rehabilitated with Funds being provided under this Agreement. A5.6 Trade Agreements. If the Recipient is subject to any provincial or federal trade agreements to which the Province is a party, the Recipient will comply with the applicable requirements of such trade agreements. In particular, and without limitation, if the Recipient is subject to Annex 502.4 of the Agreement on Internal Trade, the Recipient will comply with all applicable requirements of Annex 502.4. In the event of any conflict between any requirement under Annex 502.4 and a requirement under this Article A5 of the Agreement, Annex 502.4 will apply and prevail to the extent of that conflict. ARTICLE A6 CONFLICT OF INTEREST A6.1 No Conflict Of Interest. The Recipient will carry out the Project and use the Funds without an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest. A6.2 Disclosure To The Province: The Recipient will: (a) Disclose to the Province, without delay, any situation that a reasonable person would interpret as an actual, potential or perceived Conflict Of Interest; and (b) Comply with any terms and conditions that the Province may impose as a result of the disclosure. ARTICLE A7 REPORTS, RECORDS, INSPECTION, AUDITS AND THE PROVISION OF INFORMATION A7.1 Preparation And Submission. The Recipient will: Page 13 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 (a) Submit to the Province at the address referred to in section C1.4 of Schedule “C” of this Agreement all Reports in accordance with the timelines and content requirements set out in Schedule “I” of this Agreement, or in a form as specified by the Province from time to time; (b) Ensure that all Reports are completed to the satisfaction of the Province; and (c) Ensure that all Reports are signed on behalf of the Recipient by an authorized signing officer and that the accompanying attestation has been completed. A7.2 Records Maintenance. The Recipient will keep and maintain: (a) All financial records, including invoices, relating to the Funds or otherwise to the Project in a manner consistent with generally acceptable accounting principles; and (b) All non-financial documents and records relating to the Funds or otherwise to the Project in a manner consistent with all Requirements of Law. A7.3 Inspection. The Province, its authorized representatives or an independent auditor identified by the Province may, at its own expense, upon twenty-four (24) hours’ Notice to the Recipient during normal business hours, enter the Recipient’s premises to review the progress of the Project and the Recipient’s allocation and expenditure of the Funds and, for these purposes, the Province, its authorized representatives or an independent auditor identified by the Province may take one or more of the following actions: (a) Inspect and copy the records and documents referred to in this section A7.2 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement; (b) Remove any copies made pursuant to section A7.3(a) of Schedule “A” of this Agreement from the Recipient’s premises; and (c) Conduct an audit or investigation of the Recipient in respect of the expenditure of the Funds, the Project or both. A7.4 Disclosure. To assist in respect of the rights set out under section A7.3 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement, the Recipient will disclose any information requested by the Province, its authorized representatives or an independent auditor identified by the Province and will do so in the form requested by the Province, its authorized representatives or an independent auditor identified by the Province, as the case may be. A7.5 No Control Of Records. No provision of this Agreement will be construed so as to give the Province any control whatsoever over the Recipient’s records. A7.6 Auditor General. For greater certainty, the Province’s rights under this Article of the Agreement are in addition to any rights provided to the Auditor General pursuant to section 9.1 of the AGA. A7.7 Provision Of Information. The Recipient will provide to the Province, within the time period set out in the Notice, such information in respect of this Agreement or any Project in which Funds are directed as the Province requests. ARTICLE A8 COMMUNICATIONS A8.1 Recipient To Follow Communications Protocol. The Recipient will follow the Communications Protocol set out under Schedule “H” of this Agreement. Page 14 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 A8.2 Publication By The Province. The Recipient agrees the Province may, in addition to any obligations the Province may have under FIPPA, publicly release information under this Agreement, including the Agreement itself, in hard copy or in electronic form, on the internet or otherwise. ARTICLE A9 ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS A9.1 Additional Terms and Conditions. The Recipient will comply with any Additional Terms and Conditions set out under Schedule “B” of this Agreement. In the event of a conflict or inconsistency between any of the requirements of the Additional Terms and Conditions and any requirements of this Schedule “A” of this Agreement, the Additional Terms and Conditions will prevail. ARTICLE A10 DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE PROVINCE A10.1 FIPPA. The Recipient acknowledges that the Province is bound by the FIPPA. A10.2 Disclosure Of Information. Any information provided to the Province in connection with the Project or otherwise in connection with the Agreement may be subject to disclosure in accordance with FIPPA and any other Requirements of Law. ARTICLE A11 INDEMNITY, LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND DUTY TO DEFEND A11.1 Indemnification. The Recipient hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties from and against any and all direct or indirect liability, loss, costs, damages and expenses (including legal, expert and consultant fees), causes of action, actions, claims, demands, lawsuits or other proceedings, by whomever made, sustained, incurred, brought or prosecuted, in any way arising out of or in connection with the Project or otherwise in connection with this Agreement, unless solely caused by the gross negligence or wilful misconduct of the Province. A11.2 Exclusion Of Liability. The Recipient acknowledges and agrees that in no event will the Province be liable for any general, compensatory, incidental, special or consequential damages, or any loss of use, revenue or profit by the Recipient or the Recipient’s officers, servants, employees and agents arising out of or in any way related to this Agreement. A11.3 Recipient’s Participation. The Recipient will, at its expense, to the extent requested by the Province, participate in or conduct the defence of any proceeding against any Indemnified Parties and any negotiations for their settlement. A11.4 Province’s Election. The Province may elect to participate in or conduct the defence of any proceeding by providing Notice to the Recipient of such election without prejudice to any other rights or remedies of the Province under this Agreement, at law or in equity. Each Party participating in the defence will do so by actively participating with the other’s counsel. Page 15 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 A11.5 Settlement Authority. The Recipient will not enter into a settlement of any proceeding against any Indemnified Parties unless the Recipient has obtained the prior written approval of the Province. If the Recipient is requested by the Province to participate in or conduct the defence of any proceeding, the Province will co-operate with and assist the Recipient to the fullest extent possible in the proceeding and any related settlement negotiations. A11.6 Recipient’s Co-operation. If the Province conducts the defence of any proceedings, the Recipient will co-operate with and assist the Province to the fullest extent possible in the proceedings and any related settlement negotiations. ARTICLE A12 INSURANCE A12.1 Recipient’s Insurance. The Recipient represents and warrants that it has, and will maintain for each Project being funded under this Agreement for a period of ninety (90) days after the Recipient has submitted a Project Information Form attesting that the Project is complete , at its own cost and expense, with insurers having a secure A.M. Best rating of B+ or greater, or the equivalent, all necessary and appropriate insurance that a prudent person carrying out a project similar to the Project would maintain, including commercial general liability insurance on an occurrence basis for third party bodily injury, personal injury and property damage, to an inclusive limit of not less than the amount set out under section C1.5 of Schedule “C” of this Agreement per occurrence. The policy will include the following: (a) The Indemnified Parties as additional insureds with respect to liability arising in the course or performance of the Recipient’s obligations under, or otherwise in connection with, the Project or under this Agreement; (b) A cross-liability clause; (c) Contractual liability coverage; (d) Products and completed operations liability coverage; (e) Employer’s liability coverage; (f) Tenant’s legal liability coverage (for premises/building leases only); (g) Non-owned automobile coverage with blanket contractual and physical damage coverage for hired automobiles; and (h) A thirty (30) day written notice of cancellation provision. A12.2 Proof Of Insurance. The Recipient will provide the Province with certificates of insurance, or other proof as the Province may request within the time limit set out in that request, that confirms the insurance coverage as required under section A12.1 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement. A12.3 Right Of “First Call” On Insurance Proceeds. The Recipient will provide the Indemnified Parties with a right of “first call” or priority over any other person, including the Recipient, to use or enjoy the benefits of the proceeds from the insurance policy required under section A12.1 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement to pay any suits, judgments, claims, demands, expenses, actions, causes of action and losses (including without limitation, reasonable legal expenses and any claim for a lien made pursuant to the Construction Lien Act and for any and all liability, damages to property and injury to persons (including death)) that may be brought against the Indemnified Parties as a result of this Agreement. Page 16 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 ARTICLE A13 TERMINATION ON NOTICE A13.1 Termination On Notice. The Province may terminate this Agreement at any time without liability, penalty or costs upon giving at least thirty (30) days’ Notice to the Recipient. A13.2 Consequences Of Termination On Notice By The Province. If the Province terminates this Agreement pursuant to section A13.1 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement, the Province may take one or more of the following actions: (a) Direct that the Recipient does not incur any costs for the Project that are Eligible Costs under this Agreement without the Province’s prior written consent; (b) Cancel any further installments of the Funds; (c) Demand the repayment of any Funds remaining in the possession or under the control of the Recipient; and (d) Determine the reasonable costs for the Recipient to wind down the Project, and do either or both of the following: (i) Permit the Recipient to offset such costs against the amount owing pursuant to section A12.3(c) of Schedule “A” of this Agreement; and (ii) Subject to section A3.9 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement, provide Funds to the Recipient to cover such costs. ARTICLE A14 TERMINATION WHERE NO APPROPRIATION A14.1 Termination Where No Appropriation. If, as provided for in section A3.2(d) of Schedule “A” of this Agreement, the Province does not receive the necessary appropriation from the Ontario Legislature for any payment the Province is to make pursuant to this Agreement, the Province may terminate the Agreement immediately without liability, penalty or costs by giving Notice to the Recipient. A14.2 Consequences Of Termination Where No Appropriation. If the Province terminates this Agreement pursuant to section A14.1 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement, the Province may take one or more of the following actions: (a) Cancel any further installments of the Funds; (b) Demand the repayment of any Funds plus any Interest Earned on the unspent Funds remaining in the possession or under the control of the Recipient; and (c) Determine the reasonable costs for the Recipient to wind down the Project and permit the Recipient to offset such costs against the amount owing pursuant to section A14.2(b) of Schedule “A” of this Agreement. A14.3 No Additional Funds. For greater clarity, if the costs determined pursuant to section A14.2(c) of Schedule “A” of this Agreement exceed the Funds remaining in the possession or under the control of the Recipient, the Province will not provide additional Funds to the Recipient. Page 17 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 ARTICLE A15 EVENT OF DEFAULT, CORRECTIVE ACTION AND TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT A15.1 Events Of Default. Each of the following events will constitute an Event of Default: (a) In the opinion of the Province, the Recipient breaches any representation, warranty, covenant or other term of the Agreement, including failing to do any of the following in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement: (i) Carry out the Project, (ii) Use or spend the Funds, (iii) Provide any Reports required under this Agreement, or (iv) The Recipient fails to follow any directions that the Province provides under this Agreement; (b) The Recipient has provided false or misleading information to the Province; (c) The Recipient is unable to continue any Project in which Funds are directed or the Recipient is likely to discontinue any Project in which Funds are directed; (d) The Recipient’s operations, or its organizational structure, changes such that it no longer meets one or more of the eligibility requirements of the program under which the Province provides the Funds; (e) The Recipient makes an assignment, proposal, compromise, or arrangement for the benefit of creditors, or a creditor makes an application or an order adjudging the Recipient bankrupt, or applies for the appointment of a receiver; or (f) The Recipient ceases to operate. A15.2 Consequences Of Events Of Default And Corrective Action. If an Event of Default occurs, the Province may, at any time, take one or more of the following actions: (a) Initiate any action the Province considers necessary in order to facilitate the successful continuation or completion of the Project; (b) Provide the Recipient with an opportunity to remedy the Event of Default; (c) Suspend the payment of Funds for such a period as the Province determines appropriate; (d) Reduce the amount of Funds; (e) Cancel any further installments of the Funds; (f) Demand the repayment of any Funds remaining in the possession or under the control of the Recipient; (g) Demand the repayment of an amount equal to any Funds the Recipient used, but did not use in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (h) Demand the repayment of an amount equal to any Funds the Province provided to the Recipient, even though the Project is partially completed; and (i) Terminate this Agreement at any time, including immediately, without liability, penalty or costs to the Province upon giving Notice to the Recipient. A15.3 Opportunity To Remedy. If, in accordance with section A15.2(b) of Schedule “A” of this Agreement, the Province provides the Recipient with an opportunity to remedy the Event of Default, the Province will provide Notice to the Recipient of: (a) The particulars of the Event of Default; and (b) The Notice Period. A15.4 Recipient Not Remedying. If the Province has provided the Recipient with an opportunity to remedy the Event of Default pursuant to section A15.2(b) of Schedule “A” of this Agreement, and; (a) The Recipient does not remedy the Event of Default within the Notice Period; Page 18 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 (b) It becomes apparent to the Province that the Recipient cannot completely remedy the Event of Default within the Notice Period; or (c) The Recipient is not proceeding to remedy the Event of Default in a way that is satisfactory to the Province, the Province may extend the Notice Period, or initiate any one or more of the actions provided for in sections A15.2(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of Schedule “A” of this Agreement. A15.5 When Termination Effective. Termination under this Article A15 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement will take effect as set out in the Notice. ARTICLE A16 LOBBYISTS AND AGENT FEES A16.1 Lobbyists And Agent Fees. The Recipient represents and warrants: (a) Any person hired by the Recipient to speak or correspond with any employee or other person representing the Province concerning any matter relating to any Funds under this Agreement or any benefit hereunder is registered, if required to register, pursuant to the Lobbyists Registration Act, 1998; (b) It has not and will not make a payment or other compensation to any other legal entity that is contingent upon or is calculated upon the provision of any Funds hereunder or negotiating the whole or any part of the terms or conditions of this Agreement; and (c) No money from the Province was used or will be used to lobby or otherwise secure the provision of any Funds in relation to this Agreement. ARTICLE A17 FUNDS UPON EXPIRY A17.1 Funds Upon Expiry. The Recipient will, upon the expiry of the Agreement, return to the Province any unspent Funds remaining in its possession or under its control plus any Interest Earned on the unspent Funds. ARTICLE A18 REPAYMENT A18.1 Repayment Of Overpayment Or Unspent Saved Funds. If at any time during the Term of this Agreement the Province provides Funds in excess of the amount to which the Recipient is eligible to receive under this Agreement or the Recipient does not spend any Funds that it has saved in accordance with section A3.8 of this Agreement, the Province may: (a) Deduct an amount equal to the excess or saved Funds plus Interest Earned from any further installments of the Funds; or (b) Demand that the Recipient pay an amount equal to the excess or saved Funds plus Interest Earned to the Province. A18.2 Debt Due. If, pursuant to this Agreement: (a) The Province demands the payment of any Funds or an amount equal to any Funds from the Recipient; or (b) The Recipient owes any Funds or an amount equal to any Funds to the Province, whether or not their return or repayment has been demanded by the Province, Page 19 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 such Funds or other amount will be deemed to be a debt due and owing to the Province by the Recipient and the Recipient will pay or return the amount to the Province immediately, unless the Province directs otherwise. For greater clarity, in the event that the Recipient makes an assignment, proposal, compromise or arrangement for the benefit of creditors or a creditor makes an application for an order adjudging the Recipient bankrupt or applies for the appointment of a receiver, this section A18.2 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement will not affect any Funds that the Recipient is holding in trust for the Province under section A3.4 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement. A18.3 Interest Rate. The Province may charge the Recipient interest on any money owing by the Recipient at the then current interest rate charged by the Province of Ontario on accounts receivable. A18.4 Payment Of Money To Province. If the Province requires the Recipient to repay any Funds or Interest Earned to the Province, the Recipient will pay any money owing to the Province by cheque payable to the “Ontario Minister of Finance” and delivered to the Province at the address referred to in section A19.1 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement. A18.5 Repayment. Without limiting the application of section 43 of the FAA, if the Recipient does not repay any amount owing under this Agreement, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario may set off any unpaid amount from any money payable to the Recipient by Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario. A18.6 Funds Are Part Of A Social Or Economic Program. The Recipient acknowledges and agrees that any Funds provided under this Agreement are for the administration of social or economic programs or the provision of direct or indirect support to members of the public in connection with social or economic policy. ARTICLE A19 NOTICE A19.1 Notice In Writing And Addressed. Notice will be in writing and will be delivered by email, postage-paid mail, personal delivery or fax and will be addressed to the Province and the Recipient respectively as set out in section C1.6 of Schedule “C” of this Agreement or as either Party later designates to the other by written Notice. A19.2 Notice Given. Notice will be deemed to have been given: (a) In the case of postage-paid mail, five (5) Business Days after the Notice is mailed; or (b) In the case of email, personal delivery or fax, one (1) Business Day after the Notice is delivered. A19.3 Postal Disruption. Despite section A19.2(a) of Schedule “A” of this Agreement, in the event of a postal disruption, (a) Notice by postage-paid mail will not be deemed to be received; and (b) The Party giving Notice will provide Notice by email, personal delivery or fax. ARTICLE A20 CONSENT BY PROVINCE AND COMPLIANCE BY RECIPIENT Page 20 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 A20.1 Consent. When the Province provides its consent pursuant to this Agreement, that consent will not be considered valid unless that consent is in writing and the person providing the consent indicates in the consent that that person has the specific authority to provide that consent. The Province may also impose any terms and conditions on the consent and the Recipient will comply with such terms and conditions. ARTICLE A21 SEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS A21.1 Invalidity Or Unenforceability Of Any Provision. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision in this Agreement will not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement. Any invalid or unenforceable provision will be deemed to be severed. ARTICLE A22 WAIVER A22.1 Waivers In Writing. If a Party fails to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement that Party may only rely on a waiver of the other Party if the other Party has provided a written waiver in accordance with the Notice provisions in Article A19 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement. Any waiver must refer to a specific failure to comply and will not have the effect of waiving any subsequent failures to comply. For greater clarity, where the Province chooses to waive a term or condition of this Agreement, such waiver will only be binding if provided by a person who indicates in writing that he or she has the specific authority to provide the waiver. ARTICLE A23 INDEPENDENT PARTIES A23.1 Parties Independent. The Recipient acknowledges and agrees that it is not an agent, joint venturer, partner or employee of the Province and the Recipient will not represent itself in any way that might be taken by a reasonable person to suggest that it is or take any actions that could establish or imply such a relationship. ARTICLE A24 ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT OR FUNDS A24.1 No Assignment. The Recipient will not, without the prior written consent of the Province, assign any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement. A24.2 Agreement Binding. All rights and obligations contained in this Agreement will extend to and be binding on the Parties’ respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and permitted assigns. ARTICLE A25 GOVERNING LAW Page 21 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 A25.1 Governing Law. This Agreement and the rights, obligations and relations of the Parties will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario and the applicable federal laws of Canada. Any actions or proceedings arising in connection with this Agreement will be conducted in the Courts of Ontario, which will have exclusive jurisdiction over such proceedings. ARTICLE A26 FURTHER ASSURANCES A26.1 Agreement Into Effect. The Recipient will provide such further assurances as the Province may request from time to time with respect to any matter to which the Agreement pertains and will otherwise do or cause to be done all acts or things necessary to implement and carry into effect the terms and conditions of this Agreement to their full extent. ARTICLE A27 JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY A27.1 Joint And Several Liability. Where the Recipient is comprised of more than one entity, all such entities will be jointly and severally liable to the Province for the fulfillment of the obligations of the Recipient under this Agreement. ARTICLE A28 RIGHTS AND REMEDIES CUMULATIVE A28.1 Rights And Remedies Cumulative. The rights and remedies of the Province under this Agreement are cumulative and are in addition to, and not in substitution of, any of its rights and remedies provided by law or in equity. ARTICLE A29 JOINT AUTHORSHIP A29.1 Joint Authorship Of Agreement. The Parties will be considered joint authors of this Agreement and no provision herein will be interpreted against one Party by the other Party because of authorship. No Party will seek to avoid a provision herein because of its authorship through recourse to a third party, court, tribunal or arbitrator. ARTICLE A30 FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH OTHER AGREEMENT A30.1 Other Agreements. If the Recipient: (a) Has committed a Failure; (b) Has been provided with notice of such Failure in accordance with the requirements of such other agreement; (c) Has, if applicable, failed to rectify such Failure in accordance with the requirements of such other agreement; and (d) Such Failure is continuing, Page 22 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 the Province may suspend the payment of Funds under this Agreement without liability, penalty or costs for such period as the Province determines appropriate. ARTICLE A31 SURVIVAL A31.1 Survival. The provisions of this Agreement that by their nature survive the expiration or early termination of this Agreement will so survive for a period of seven (7) years from the Expiry Date expiry or date of termination. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following Articles and sections, and all applicable cross-referenced sections and schedules will continue in full force and effect for a period of seven (7) years from the Expiry Date or the date of termination: Article A1 and any other applicable definitions, sections A3.2(d), A3.5, section 4.2, section A7.1 (to the extent that the Recipient has not provided the Reports to the satisfaction of the Province), section A6.2 , Article A7, Article A11, section A13.2, sections A14.2 and A14.3, sections A15.1, A15.2(d), (e), (f), (g) and (h), Article A17, Article A18, Article A19, Article A21, section A24.2, Article A25, Article A27, Article A28, Article A29, Article A30 and this Article A31. A31.2 Survival After Creation. Despite section A31.1 of this Agreement, section A7.2 of this Agreement, including all cross-referenced provisions and Schedules, will continue in full force and effect for a period of seven (7) years from the date in which that document or record referred to in section A7.2 of this Agreement was created. [REST OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK – SCHEDULE “B” FOLLOWS] Page 23 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 SCHEDULE “B” ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS B1.1 No Additional Terms And Conditions: There are no additional terms or conditions for this Agreement. [REST OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK – SCHEDULE “C” FOLLOWS] Page 24 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 SCHEDULE “C” OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE AGREEMENT C1.1 Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Agreement is as of the date that the Province signs it. C1.2 Expiry Date. The Expiry Date of this Agreement is March 31, 2027. C1.3 Disposal Of Assets. The Recipient will retain any assets purchased, rehabilitated or built with the Funds under this Agreement for a period of five (5) years from the date that the Project is completed. Within this five (5) year period, the Recipient may ask for the Province’s consent to dispose of any assets purchased, rehabilitated or built with the Funds under this Agreement. The Province may impose any reasonable conditions, including requesting the return of Funds from the Recipient, in return for its consent. C1.4 Submission Of Reports. All Reports under this Agreement will be submitted to the Province using the address supplied under section C1.6 of this Schedule “C” of the Agreement or any other person identified by the Province in writing. C1.5 Insurance Amount. The amount of insurance the Recipient will have for the purposes of section A12.1 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement is no less than two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) in general commercial liability insurance per occurrence. C1.6 Providing Notice. All Notices under this Agreement will be provided to: TO THE PROVINCE TO THE RECIPIENT Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Rural Programs Branch 1 Stone Road West, 4NW Guelph, Ontario N1G 4Y2 Attention: Manager, Infrastructure Renewal Programs Fax: 519-826-3398 Email: OCIF@ontario.ca The Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham PO Box 160, 9344 Plank Road Strafforville, Ontario N0J 1Y0 Attention: Paul Shipway Fax: Email: pshipway@bayham.on.ca or any other person identified by the Parties in writing. [REST OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK – SCHEDULE “D” FOLLOWS] Page 25 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 SCHEDULE “D” ELIGIBLE PROJECT CATEGORIES D1.1 Eligible Project. Eligible Projects include: (a) The development and implementation of asset management plans (e.g. software, training, inspections) and the implementation of Composite Correction Program recommendations. (b) Capital projects and capital maintenance for the renewal, rehabilitation and replacement of core infrastructure assets or capital construction of new core infrastructure that addresses an existing health or safety issue, including: (i) Water: a. Water treatment, and b. Water distribution/transmission. (ii) Wastewater: a. Wastewater treatment and disposal, b. Sanitary sewer systems, and c. Storm sewer systems (urban and rural). (iii) Roads: a. Paved roads, b. Unpaved roads, c. Bus-only lanes, d. Street lighting may be included as an eligible item when part of a road project, and e. Sidewalks and/or cycling lanes located along an existing road. (iv) Bridges and Culverts: a. Sidewalks and/or cycling lanes located along an existing road. Without limiting the foregoing, the Project must be part of the Recipient’s asset management plan in order to be eligible. A Recipient may transfer its yearly allocation to another recipient in the furtherance of a joint project, provided: (a) The joint project is listed as a priority in the asset management plans for the Recipient and other recipients; (b) The Recipient and other recipients inform the Province in writing that they are undertaking a joint project prior to implementation; and (c) The Recipient and other recipients have an agreement in place governing the joint project, including how the joint project is being funded. D2.1 Ineligible Projects. Ineligible projects are any project not part of the Recipient’s Asset Management Plan, and also include: (a) Projects that are routine upgrades or improvements to storm water infrastructure and drainage (Note: an eligible project must eliminate or significantly reduce the potential for serious damages to adjacent critical infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges, etc.)); (b) Growth-related expansion projects (e.g. new subdivision infrastructure); (c) Infrastructure expansion projects to accommodate future employment or residential development on greenfield sites; and (d) Recreational trail projects. Page 26 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 SCHEDULE “E” ELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE COSTS E1.1 Eligible Costs. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and section E.2 of this Schedule “E” of the Agreement, Eligible Costs shall only include all direct and incremental costs that are attributable to the development and implementation of the Project and are in the Province’s sole and absolute discretion, properly and reasonably incurred as well as necessary for the Project. Eligible Costs must also be actual, verifiable cash outlays that are documented through invoices, receipts or other records that is acceptable to the Province. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Eligible Costs shall only include the following: (a) The capital costs of constructing, rehabilitating, replacing or improving, in whole or in part, a tangible core infrastructure asset; (b) Development and implementation of asset management plans (e.g. software, training third-party condition assessments), including Consultant costs; (c) Activities that improve the performance or increase the capacity of existing water and wastewater infrastructure under the Composite Correction Program including third- party comprehensive performance evaluations and third-party comprehensive technical assistance; (d) Up to 40% of the annual Funds allocation to a maximum of eighty thousand dollars ($80,000.00) per year for Recipient staff members whose responsibilities include asset management and/or Composite Correction Program implementation while receiving third-party comprehensive technical assistance; (e) All capital planning and assessment costs, such as the costs of environmental planning, surveying, engineering, architectural supervision, testing and management consulting services; (f) The costs for permits, approvals, licences and other authorizing documents, as well as inspections and other fees directly attributable to obtaining a permit, approval, licence or other authorizing document, provided those costs are directly attributable to the construction and implementation of Project; (g) Loan payments and interest charges on eligible core infrastructure activities started after January 1, 2017 that the Recipient has obtained financing to complete; (h) The costs for consulting with an Aboriginal Group, including the Recipient’s legal fees, provided they are reasonable, on matters pertaining to the Project, including the translation of documents into languages spoken by the affected Aboriginal Group, but does not include any capacity-building funding unless specifically approved by the Province in writing prior to being incurred; (i) The costs of Project-related signage, lighting, Project markings and utility adjustments; (j) The costs of joint communication activities, such as press releases, press conferences, translation and road signage recognition, as described in Schedule “H” of this Agreement; and (k) Other costs that are, in the Province’s sole and absolute discretion, direct, incremental and necessary for the successful implementation of the Project, provided those costs have been approved by the Province in writing prior to being incurred. E2.1 Ineligible Costs. The following costs are Ineligible Costs and are therefore ineligible to be paid from the Funds being provided under this Agreement: (a) Costs incurred which are not in accordance with section A5.1 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement; Page 27 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 (b) Any costs related to any ineligible projects set out under section D2.1 of Schedule “D” of this Agreement; (c) Costs associated with the acquisition or leasing of: (i) Land, (ii) Buildings, (iii) Equipment, (iv) Other facilities, and (v) Obtaining easements, including costs or expenses for surveys, and includes real estate fees and other related costs; (d) Costs associated with moveable / transitory assets (e.g. portable generators, etc.) or rolling stock (e.g. trucks, graders, etc.); (e) Costs related to recreational trails; (f) Legal fees, other than those association with consultation with Aboriginal Groups (provided such legal fees are reasonable), as well as loan and interest payments that do not comply with section E1.1(g) of Schedule “E” of this Agreement; (g) Taxes, regardless of any rebate eligibility; (h) The value of any goods and services which are received through donations or in kind; (i) Employee wages and benefits, overhead costs as well as other direct or indirect operating, maintenance and administrative costs incurred by the Recipient for the Project, and more specifically, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, costs relating to services delivered directly by permanent employees of the Recipient; (j) Meal, hospitality or incidental costs or expenses of Consultants; (k) Costs associated with completing Expressions of Interest and/or applications for the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund or the Building Canada Fund – Small Communities Fund; (l) Costs of accommodation for any Aboriginal Group; and (m) Costs incurred contrary to section A16.1 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement. E2.2 Costs Of Non-Arm’s Length Parties. The costs or expenses of goods or services acquired from parties that are not Arm’s Length from the Recipient must be valued at the cost of the supplying entity and shall not include any mark up for profit, return on investment or overhead costs and shall not exceed fair market value. The Province may not consider the eligibility of any of these costs unless access is provided to the relevant records of the supplying entity. [REST OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK – SCHEDULE “F” FOLLOWS] Page 28 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 SCHEDULE “F” FINANCIAL INFORMATION F1.1 Allocation Notices Form Part Of Schedule “F” Upon Being Issued. The Parties agree that when the Province issues an Allocation Notice to the Recipient for a Funding Year, that Allocation Notice will become part of this Schedule “F” of the Agreement upon being issued by the Province and is enforceable under this Agreement. F1.2 Revised Allocation Notices Form Part Of Schedule “F” Upon Being Issued. The Parties agree that in the event that the Province issues a Revised Allocation Notice for whatever reason, that Revised Allocation Notice will revoke and replace the Allocation Notice for which the Revised Allocation Notice was issued and that Revised Allocation Notice will become part of this Schedule “F” of the Agreement upon being issued by the Province and will be enforceable under this Agreement. F1.3 No Amending Agreement Needed To Have Allocation Notice Or Revised Allocation Notice Become Part Of Schedule “F” Of Agreement. For greater clarity, and despite section 3.1 of the Agreement, the Parties agree that this Schedule “F” may be altered by the issuance of an Allocation Notice or a Revised Allocation Notice without having to amend this Agreement. F2.1 Payment Of Funds. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Province will provide any Funds pursuant to this Agreement in accordance with the following: (a) Where the Funds are less than one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00), the Province will make one (1) payment to the Recipient by March 31 of the allocation year; (b) Where the Funds are more than one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00), but less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00), the Province will make six (6) payments to the Recipient over the calendar year; and (c) Where the Funds are more than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00), the Province will make twelve (12) payments to the Recipient over the calendar year. [REST OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK – SCHEDULE “G” FOLLOWS] Page 29 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 SCHEDULE “G” ABORIGINAL CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS G1.1 Purpose. This Schedule sets out the responsibilities of the Province and the Recipient in relation to consultation with Aboriginal Groups on the Project, and to delegate procedural aspects of consultation from the Province to the Recipient. G1.2 Definitions. For the purposes of this Schedule: “Section 35 Duty” means any duty the Province may have to consult and, if required, accommodate Aboriginal Groups in relation to the Project flowing from section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. G2.1 The Province’s Responsibilities. The Province is responsible for: (a) Determining the Aboriginal Groups to be consulted in relation to the Project, if any, and advising the Recipient of same; (b) The preliminary and ongoing assessment of the depth of consultation required with the Aboriginal Groups; (c) Delegating, at its discretion, procedural aspects of consultation to the Recipient pursuant to this Schedule; (d) Directing the Recipient to take such actions, including without limitation suspension as well as termination of the Project, as the Province may require; (e) Satisfying itself, where it is necessary to do so, that the consultation process in relation to the Project has been adequate and the Recipient is in compliance with this Schedule; and (f) Satisfying itself, where any Aboriginal or treaty rights and asserted rights of Aboriginal Groups require accommodation, that Aboriginal Groups are appropriately accommodated in relation to the Project. G3.1 Recipient’s Responsibilities. The Recipient is responsible for: (a) Giving notice to the Aboriginal Groups regarding the Project as directed by the Province, if such notice has not already been given by the Recipient or the Province; (b) Immediately notifying the Province of contact by any Aboriginal Groups regarding the Project and advising of the details of the same; (c) Informing the Aboriginal Groups about the Project and providing to the Aboriginal Groups a full description of the Project unless such description has been previously provided to them; (d) Following up with the Aboriginal Groups in an appropriate manner to ensure that Aboriginal Groups are aware of the opportunity to express comments and concerns about the Project, including any concerns regarding adverse impacts on hunting, trapping, fishing, plant harvesting or on burial grounds or archaeological sites of cultural significance to the Aboriginal Groups, and immediately advising the Province of the details of the same; (e) Informing the Aboriginal Groups of the regulatory and approval processes that apply to the Project of which the Recipient is aware after reasonable inquiry; (f) Maintaining the Aboriginal Groups on the Recipient’s mailing lists of interested parties for environmental assessment and other purposes and providing to the Aboriginal Groups all notices and communications that the Recipient provides to interested parties and any notice of completion; Page 30 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 (g) Making all reasonable efforts to build a positive relationship with the Aboriginal Groups in relation to the Project; (h) Providing the Aboriginal Groups with reasonable opportunities to meet with appropriate representatives of the Recipient and meeting with the Aboriginal Groups to discuss the Project, if requested; (i) If appropriate, providing reasonable financial assistance to Aboriginal Groups to permit effective participation in consultation processes for the Project, but only after consulting with the Province; (j) Considering comments provided by the Aboriginal Groups regarding the potential impacts of the Project on Aboriginal or treaty rights or asserted rights, including adverse impacts on hunting, trapping, fishing, plant harvesting or on burial grounds or archaeological sites of cultural significance to an Aboriginal Group, or on other interests, or any other concerns or issues regarding the Project; (k) Answering any reasonable questions to the extent of the Recipient’s ability and receiving comments from the Aboriginal Groups, notifying the Province of the nature of the questions or comments received and maintaining a chart showing the issues raised by the Aboriginal Groups and any responses the Recipient has provided; (l) Where an Aboriginal Group asks questions regarding the Project directly of the Province, providing the Province with the information reasonably necessary to answer the inquiry, upon the Province’s request; (m) Subject to section G3.1(o) of this Schedule “G” of the Agreement, where appropriate, discussing with the Aboriginal Groups potential accommodation, including mitigation of potential impacts on Aboriginal or treaty rights, asserted rights or associated interests regarding the Project and reporting to the Province any comments or questions from the Aboriginal Groups that relate to potential accommodation or mitigation of potential impacts; (n) Consulting regularly with the Province during all discussions with Aboriginal Groups regarding accommodation measures, if applicable, and presenting to the Province the results of such discussions prior to implementing any applicable accommodation measures; (o) Complying with the Province’s direction to take any actions, including without limitation, suspension or termination of the Project, as the Province may require; and (p) Providing in any contracts with Third Parties for the Recipient’s right and ability to respond to direction from the Province as the Province may provide. G3.2 Acknowledgement By Recipient. The Recipient hereby acknowledges that, notwithstanding section A4.2 of Schedule “A” of this Agreement, the Province, any provincial ministry having an approval role in relation to the Project, or any responsible regulatory body, official, or provincial decision-maker, may participate in the matters and processes enumerated therein as they deem necessary. G3.3 Recipient Shall Keep Records And Share Information. The Recipient shall carry out the following functions in relation to record keeping, information sharing and reporting to the Province: (a) Provide to the Province, upon request, complete and accurate copies of all documents provided to the Aboriginal Groups in relation to the Project; (b) Keep reasonable business records of all its activities in relation to consultation and provide the Province with complete and accurate copies of such records upon request; (c) Provide the Province with timely notice of any Recipient mailings to, or Recipient meetings with, the representatives of any Aboriginal Group in relation to the Project; Page 31 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 (d) Immediately notify the Province of any contact by any Aboriginal Groups regarding the Project and provide copies to the Province of any documentation received from Aboriginal Groups; (e) Advise the Province in a timely manner of any potential adverse impact of the Project on Aboriginal or treaty rights or asserted rights of which it becomes aware; (f) Immediately notify the Province if any Aboriginal archaeological resources are discovered in the course of the Project; (g) Provide the Province with summary reports or briefings on all of its activities in relation to consultation with Aboriginal Groups, as may be requested by the Province; and (h) If applicable, advise the Province if the Recipient and an Aboriginal Group propose to enter into an agreement directed at mitigating or compensating for any impacts of the Project on Aboriginal or treaty rights or asserted rights. G3.4 Recipient Shall Assist The Province. The Recipient shall, upon request lend assistance to the Province by filing records and other appropriate evidence of the activities undertaken both by the Province and by the Recipient in consulting with Aboriginal Groups in relation to the Project, attending any regulatory or other hearings, and making both written and oral submissions, as appropriate, regarding the fulfillment of Aboriginal consultation responsibilities by the Province and by the Recipient, to the relevant regulatory or judicial decision-makers. G4.1 No Acknowledgment Of Duty To Consult Obligations. Nothing in this Schedule shall be construed as an admission, acknowledgment, agreement or concession by the Province or the Recipient, that a Section 35 Duty applies in relation to the Project, nor that any responsibility set out herein is, under the Constitution of Canada, necessarily a mandatory aspect or requirement of any Section 35 Duty, nor that a particular aspect of consultation referred to in subsection G2.1 hereof is an aspect of the Section 35 Duty that could not have lawfully been delegated to the Recipient had the Parties so agreed. G5.1 No Substitution. This Schedule shall be construed consistently with but does not substitute for any requirements or procedures in relation to Aboriginal consultation or the Section 35 Duty that may be imposed by a ministry, board, agency or other regulatory decision-maker acting pursuant to laws and regulations. Such decision-makers may have additional obligations or requirements. Nonetheless, the intent of the Province is to promote coordination among provincial ministries, boards and agencies with roles in consulting with Aboriginal Groups so that the responsibilities outlined in this Agreement may be fulfilled efficiently and in a manner that avoids, to the extent possible, duplication of effort by Aboriginal Groups, the Recipient, the Province, and provincial ministries, boards, agencies and other regulatory decision-makers. G6.1 Notices In Relation To Schedule. All notices to the Province pertaining to this Schedule shall be in writing and shall be given sent to the person identified under section C1.6 of Schedule “C” of this Agreement. [REST OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK – SCHEDULE “H” FOLLOWS] Page 32 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 SCHEDULE “H” COMMUNICATIONS PROTOCOL H1.1 Application Of Protocol. This Protocol applies to all communications activities related to any funding the Recipient receives under this Agreement. Communications activities may include, but are not limited to: (a) Project signage; (b) Media events and announcements, including news conferences, public announcements, official events or ceremonies, news releases; (c) Printed materials; (d) Websites; (e) Photo compilations; (f) Award programs; or (g) Awareness campaigns. H2.1 Project Signage. The Province may require that a sign be installed at the site of the Project. If the Recipient installs a sign at the site of a Project, the Recipient shall, at the Province’s request, provide acknowledgement of the provincial contribution to the Project. Sign design, content and installation guidelines will be provided by the Province. Where the Recipient decides to install a permanent plaque or other suitable marker with respect to a Project, it must recognize the provincial contribution to the Project and be approved by the Province prior to installation. The Recipient is responsible for the production and installation of Project signage, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing prior to the installation of the signage. H3.1 Media Events. The Province or the Recipient may request a media event, announcement or recognition of key milestones related to Project. In requesting a media event or an announcement, the Party requesting the event will provide at least twenty-one (21) Business Days’ notice to the other Party of its intention to undertake such an event. The event will take place at a date and location that is mutually agreed to by the Parties. The Parties will have the opportunity to participate in such events through a designed representative. Each participant will choose its designated representative. All joint communications material related to media events and announcements must be approved by the Province and recognize the funding provided by the Province. Media events and announcements include but are not limited to: (a) News conferences; (b) Public announcements; (c) Official events or ceremonies; or (d) News releases. H4.1 Awareness Of Project. The Recipient may include messaging in its own communications products and activities with regards to the Project. When undertaking such activities, the Recipient will provide the opportunity for the Province to participate and will recognize the funding provided by the Province. Page 33 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 H5.1 Issues Management. The Recipient will share information promptly with the Province should significant emerging media, Project or stakeholder issues relating to a Project arise. The Province will advise the Recipient, when appropriate, about media inquiries concerning the Project. H6.1 Communicating Success Stories. The Recipient agrees to communicate with the Province for the purposes of collaborating on communications activities and products including but not limited to success stories and features relating to the Project. The Recipient acknowledges and agrees that the Province may publicize information about the Project. The Province agrees it will use reasonable efforts to consult with the Recipient about the Province’s publication about the Project prior to making it. H7.1 Disclaimer. If the Recipient publishes any material of any kind relating to the Project or the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund, the Recipient will indicate in the material that the views expressed in the material are the views of the Recipient and do not necessarily reflect the Province’s views. [REST OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK – SCHEDULE “I” FOLLOWS] Page 34 of 35 File Number: OCIF FC-026 SCHEDULE “I” REPORTS I1.1 Reports. The Recipient will submit the following Reports in accordance with the reasonable directions provided by the Province by the date indicated in the chart immediately below. The Province will provide the contents of the Report at a later date. NAME OF REPORT DUE DATE Annual Financial Report See section I2.1 of this Schedule. Project Information Report See section I2.1 of this Schedule. Other Reports Within the time period set out in the written request from the Province. I2.1 Timing Of Reports. The Recipient will provide to the Province the following Reports at the times noted below: (a) By January 15th of each year: (i) Project Information Report Project Status and Financial Update for all Projects For Asset Management Planning or Composite Correction Program, Implementation Staff Time Attestations (as appropriate) Completed Project Being Debt Financed – Yearly Update (as appropriate) (ii) Annual Financial Report from the previous year (Interest Earned must be reported for the previous calendar year) (b) By April 15th of each year: (i) Project Information Report – Proposed Project Information for any new or revised Project (reminder – a Duty to Consult assessment must be completed by the Province for each Project forty-five (45) Business Days prior to the start of construction of that Project) (c) Within forty-five (45) Business Days of Project or construction completion or no later than January 15th of the year following completion of the Project (i) Project Information Report – Completed Project information Page 35 of 35 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM BY-LAW NO. 2016–086 A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM ALL ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM FOR THE REGULAR MEETING HELD OCTOBER 6, 2016 WHEREAS under Section 5 (1) of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001, Chapter 25, the powers of a municipal corporation are to be exercised by the Council of the municipality; AND WHEREAS under Section 5 (3) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the powers of Council are to be exercised by by-law; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham deems it advisable that the proceedings of the meeting be confirmed and adopted by by-law. THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF BAYHAM ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the actions of the Council of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham in respect of each recommendation and each motion and resolution passed and other action by the Council at the regular meeting held October 6, 2016 is hereby adopted and confirmed as if all proceedings were expressly embodied in this by-law. 2. THAT the Mayor and Clerk of the Corporation of the Municipality of Bayham are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the action of the Council including executing all documents and affixing the Corporate Seal. READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME and finally passed this 6th day of October, 2016. ____________________________ _____________________________ MAYOR CLERK