Meeting - Authoritytrca.on.ca/dotAsset/89174.pdfGino Rosati Member Maja Prentice Member 477...

INDEX TO

AUTHORITY MEETING #7/10

Friday, September 17, 2010

MINUTESMinutes of Meeting #6/10, held on July 23, 2010 477

CONFLICT OF INTERESTCowbourne, Gay re: Off-shore Wind Facilities 477

DELEGATIONSLange, Sherri and Michael Spencley, founding members, Toronto Wind Action

re: Off-shore Wind Facilities 477Lombardi, Shivanthini, Electrical Engineer

re: Off-shore Wind Facilities 477Wright, Roy, President, Save the Toronto Bluffs

re: Off-shore Wind Facilities 477

PRESENTATIONSD'Andrea, Michael, Director, Water Infrastructure Management, Toronto Water, City of Toronto

re: Federation of Canadian Municipalities – Insurance Bureau of Canada’s Watershed Awards 477

Nemeth, John, Manager of Water Resources, Town of Richmond Hillre: Federation of Canadian Municipalities – Insurance Bureau of Canada’s Watershed Awards 477

CORRESPONDENCEFawcett, Brenda, Scarborough

re: Off-shore Wind Facilities 478Wright, Roy, President, Save the Toronto Bluffs

re: Off-shore Wind Facilities 478

OFF-SHORE WIND FACILITIESRenewable Energy Approval Requirements 488

BLACK CREEK STABILIZATION WORKS 497

51 DEER VALLEY DRIVE EROSION CONTROL PROJECT 498

WEST ETOBICOKE CREEK SOUTH OF BRITANNIA ROAD EAST PROJECT 502

GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006-2010Mimico Waterfront Linear Park

Floriri Village Investments Inc. 506

GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006-2010Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed

Thornhill Ravines Development Corporation 506

GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006-2010Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River Watershed

E. Manson Investments Limited and Zureit Holdings Limited 507

GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006-2010Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project 507

REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY-OWNED LAND

West Side of Weston Road, North of Highway 401 510

TOWN OF CALEDONRequest for Permanent Easement for Stormwater Management Facility 510

CITY OF TORONTOConveyance of Land for Beechgrove Drive, South of Lawrence Avenue East 512

CITY OF TORONTOConveyance of Land for Construction of Cul-de-sac, Kirkhams Road 513

HYDROLOGIC STUDY OF IMPACTS OF FLOOD FLOWS AND MITIGATION 514

PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES2011 Operating and 2011 - 2020 Municipal Capital Budgets 514

CANADA GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL GREATER TORONTO CHAPTERPartnership Agreement 522

VULNERABLE SECTOR SCREENINGPolicy Update 522

ORGAN DONOR LEAVEPolicy Approval 522

PETTICOAT CREEK CONSERVATION AREAWashroom Upgrade Project 522

HEARING REPORT 522

EAST DON TRAIL - ASPHALT PAVING 522

ENFORCEMENT OFFICERBevan, Suzanne 522

COATSWORTH CUT DREDGING PROJECTContract Extension RSD10-15 523

ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 524

MEETING ATTENDANCE 525

476

MEETING OF THE AUTHORITY #7/10September 17, 2010

The Authority Meeting #7/10, was held in the South Theatre, Black Creek Pioneer Village, on Friday, September 17, 2010. The Chair Gerri Lynn O'Connor, called the meeting to order at 9:50 a.m.

PRESENTPaul Ainslie MemberMaria Augimeri Vice ChairDavid Barrow MemberBryan Bertie MemberLaurie Bruce MemberGay Cowbourne MemberMike Del Grande MemberBill Fisch MemberPamela Gough MemberLois Griffin MemberJack Heath MemberColleen Jordan MemberGlenn Mason MemberGerri Lynn O'Connor ChairJohn Parker MemberAnthony Perruzza MemberJohn Sprovieri MemberRichard Whitehead Member

ABSENTEve Adams MemberGlenn De Baeremaeker MemberGrant Gibson MemberSuzan Hall MemberBonnie Littley MemberPeter Milczyn MemberRon Moeser MemberLinda Pabst MemberGino Rosati MemberMaja Prentice Member

477

RES.#A146/10 - MINUTES

Moved by: Bryan BertieSeconded by: Paul Ainslie

THAT the Minutes of Meeting #6/10, held on July 23, 2010, be approved. CARRIED

_________________________________________

CONFLICT OF INTERESTGay Cowbourne has declared a conflict of interest in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Off-shore Wind Facilities as her husband is on the Board of Directors of Toronto Hydro.

_________________________________________

DELEGATIONS

(a) A delegation by Sherri Lange and Michael Spencley, founding members, Toronto Wind Action, speaking in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Off-shore Wind Facilities.

(b) A delegation by Shivanthini Lombardi, Electrical Engineer, speaking in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Off-shore Wind Facilities.

(c) A delegation by Roy Wright, President, Save the Toronto Bluffs, speaking in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Off-shore Wind Facilities.

RES.#A147/10 - DELEGATIONS

Moved by: Bill FischSeconded by: Laurie Bruce

THAT above-noted delegations (a) - (c) be heard and received.CARRIED

_________________________________________

PRESENTATIONS

(a) A presentation by Michael D'Andrea, Director, Water Infrastructure Management, Toronto Water, City of Toronto, in regard to Federation of Canadian Municipalities – Insurance Bureau of Canada’s Watershed Awards.

(b) A presentation by John Nemeth, Manager of Water Resources, Town of Richmond Hill, in regard to Federation of Canadian Municipalities – Insurance Bureau of Canada’s Watershed Awards.

478

RES.#A148/10 - PRESENTATIONS

Moved by: David BarrowSeconded by: Gay Cowbourne

THAT above-noted presentations (a) and (b) be heard and received.CARRIED

_________________________________________

CORRESPONDENCE

(a) A letter dated September 13, 2010 from Brenda Fawcett of Scarborough, in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Off-shore Wind Facilities.

(b) A letter dated September 13, 2010 from Roy Wright, President, Save the Toronto Bluffs, in regard to item AUTH7.1 - Off-shore Wind Facilities.

RES.#A149/10 - CORRESPONDENCE


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

479

CORRESPONDENCE (A)

September 13, 2010 Brenda FawcettScarborough, Ontario

Catherine DeAbreuWaterfront Administrative ClerkWatershed Management DivisionToronto and Region Conservation Authoritye-mail: [email protected]

Dear Ms. DeAbreu,

Re: Board Report for Offshore Wind September 17, 2010 @ 9:30

Thank you for inviting me to speak at your meeting of September 17, 2010. Unfortunately I will be out of town and unable to attend. I request that my comments, summarized below be provided to the Chair and members of the Authority, prior to the meeting on September 17, 2010.

1) The “Background” section in the report gives a very complementary interpretation of the Green Energy Act. I think that many municipalities and their constituents would disagree that O. Reg. 359/09 is “based on transparency and clear and up-front provincial rules, while ensuring the environment and human health are protected”. Keeping in mind the mandate of the TRCA, perhaps you should take a more unbiased view of the potential impacts of this legislation and subsequent regulations on the environment.

2) The report states, “The concept of a five kilometer exclusion zone for the construction of wind turbines will assist with reducing impacts on ecological health, coastal physical processes and water quality.” All this statement is saying is that a 5 km setback for Industrial Wind Turbines (IWT’s) would have less impact than a 1 km setback. Has not the TRCA been doing any research on their own regarding set backs used in other jurisdictions?

3) The report states, “TRCA is encouraged that the Province of Ontario will supplement the off-shore wind policy with research currently underway by the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Tourism and Culture.” Does the TRCA know what studies are being undertaken by these Ministries? If so, how do you expect they will impact the TRCA review process? Has the TRCA looked at studies on IWT related kills of bats, birds and insects in other jurisdictions? Has the TRCA looked at reports on potential impacts of low frequency sound from IWT’s on aquatic life? Has the TRCA looked at studies that indicate that IWT arrays can divert the flight path of migratory birds (i.e.- into a zone of high rise buildings)?

480

4) The report states, “The Discussion Paper identifies that MNR will be the responsible legislated body developing a guidance document to address coastal engineering matters. Conservation authorities have been delegated the responsibility of reviewing and approving off-shore wind turbine projects where the proponent is not the Crown.” Does this mean that the TRCA would be responsible for approving projects proposed by the City of Toronto and/or its subsidiaries (i.e. – Toronto Hydro)? Is this not a conflict of interest as the City of Toronto funds, establishes policy and appoints Board Members to both organizations?

5) The report states, “Within the jurisdiction of TRCA, there are a number of areas that are globally important for birds and insects. Tommy Thompson Park is well known for its biological significance through its designation as an Important Bird Area of global significance and is one of the best examples of Great Lakes coastal habitat restoration.” Tommy Thompson Park (located largely on a man made feature) is singled out as an area worthy of protection. Is not the internationally renowned geological formation of the Scarborough Bluffs with it’s historical, cultural and biological (Carolinian forest) significance worthy of special mention?

6) Why has the TRCA been silent on this issue to date? I have written Mr. Denney on at least 3 occasions, since the fall of 2008, regarding IWT’s in Lake Ontario, and have yet to receive a response. Is the TRCA an independent organization mandated to protect our environment and formulate its own positions? For the sake of the remaining natural environment under the control of the TRCA, I hope this is the case.

Yours truly,

Brenda Fawcett

Cc B. DenneyFreemanK. StranksN. Gaffney

481

CORRESPONDENCE (B)

September 13, 2010 Roy WrightScarborough, Ontario

Catherine DeAbreuWaterfront Administrative ClerkWatershed Management DivisionToronto and Region Conservation Authoritye-mail: [email protected]

Dear Ms. DeAbreu,

Re: September 17, 2010 Offshore Presentation Meeting

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the offshore wind turbine issue. As a citizen conservationist, I appreciate TRCA’s input to the MOE and MNR environmental registry.

I would urge the TRCA to reword their position statement regarding support of the Ontario Government, “Green Energy Act”. “The TRCA supports renewable energy technologies as part of Ontario’s energy mix.” Add “when it makes environmental and economic sense”. Your endorsement of sustainable energy solutions reads not unlike the current Liberal government’s position where degradation of wildlife habitats, negative human health effects, economic viability and vistas are not mentioned or completely minimized. In your EBR submission, it appears that the TRCA has chosen to take on dual missions. Your mandate mission to manage, protect and conserve our environment must take priority over accommodation of experimental offshore industrial developments.

The Great Lakes comprise 20% of the world’s most precious resource, our drinking water. The “green” ideology to industrialize offshore with IWT’s will further compromise this resource that is presently stressed from the past and present commercial activities.

Please send MNR a strong informed conservationist message of your position that emphasises the precautionary principle over the irrational political agenda that:”doesn’t do much for our power supply or the environment”.

Some excerpts from the “Ottawa Citizen”;

What Ontario has actually done is commit a lot of your money to create wind energy that we don’t need.The McGuinty government is paying wind producers three times the going rate for electricity, but that’s not the sweetest part of the deal. On days when there is surplus power, wind farm companies will be paid not to produce electricity.Ontario’s wind strategy is not driven by facts, it’s driven by politics.

482

Wind is so unimportant that you could pull the plug on every wind farm in Ontario and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference. On a good day, wind produces about one per cent of Ontario’s power. Under the Liberal plan, Ontarians will be paying for wind power whether it’s generated or not.Ontario’s quest for clean, green power is taking place while neighbouring Quebec is overloaded with power, most of it produced by water.While wind doesn’t do much for our power supply or the environment, it does make a useful excuse for the politically sensitive increases in your power bills.The link is at: www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Those+political+winds+keep+blowing/3482281/story.html

Some excerpts from the Globe and Mail;

Controversial proposal for turbines in Lake Ontario off the shores of Scarborough.Energy Minister Brad Duguid says he doesn’t think it’s critical to our future energy needs.

The link is at:www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ontario/an-ill-wind-on-lake-erie/article1697544/

I am forwarding our MOE and MNR EBR submissions sent on behalf of our environmental group “Save the Toronto Bluffs” for your consideration.

I look forward to meeting you Friday morning.

Roy Wright, PresidentSave the Toronto Bluffs

c.c. Brian DennyNancy GaffneyKathy Stranks

483

Roy WrightToronto, ON

Mr. Barry Duffey, ManagerEnvironmental Programs DivisionProgram Planning and Implementation BranchMinistry of Environment

July 15, 2010

Dear Mr. Duffey,

Re: Environmental Registry #011-0089 The organization Save the Toronto Bluffs does not support the installation of industrial wind turbines in our Great Lakes. We can not continue to pollute 20% of the world’s fresh water when demand for water is going to outstrip availability in the very near future. If the powers that be deem it mandatory that IWT’s be placed in the Great Lakes, then the setback must exceed 10 km. 1. European countries with the greatest experience with offshore installations support

distances of much greater than 5 km: e.g. Denmark at 13 km; Germany at 30 km; Netherlands at 15 km. These countries also limit the size and number of installations where coastal communities exist.

Ontario's coastal communities deserve the same consideration. 2. The state of Michigan is proposing a 6 mi/9.7 km setbacks for land “at the edge of a

Great Lake (accounts for viewsheds, as well as historic and ceremonial use properties, and near-shore activities (e.g. recreational boating)”. (Report of the Michigan Great lakes Wind Council, September 1, 2009) The same report recommends a 13 mi/20 km setback from national park lakeshore.

Ontario should have at least a 10 km setback to preserve viewsheds, recreational

boating and park lakeshore.

3. Toronto's drinking water intakes are situated at a distance of 3 – 3.5 km from shore. The construction of giant wind turbines and the contaminant disturbance of the toxins in the lakebed so close to intakes are of grave concern to the public especially when some contaminants can not be removed by our current filtration methods.

The drinking water source for millions of Torontonians should be protected by

an offset of at least 10 km. to ensure some degree of safety to our drinking water.

484

4. Dr. Lu Lombardi's review of the scientific literature of the health disturbances caused by wind turbines proves that at least 5% of the population is adversely affected by the noise of land-based turbines. Because sound of all levels travels farther over water than over land and is amplified by that water, a setback of at least 10 – 20 km should be established to protect the health of the many thousands of people living along the shoreline.

Ontario must protect the health of its citizens. 5. Sites including significant stopover locations, offshore waterfowl foraging areas (such

as islands and the winter feeding areas for waterfowl which may be at or past 10 km from shore), migration and travel corridors such as those along and across Lake Ontario, flight routes into bat hibernacula, and habitat necessary to the conservation of rare species of wildlife must be protected by an offset of at least 10 km. The list of bat and bird species killed over a 6 month period by Wolfe Island turbines includes 134 bats of three different kinds, 28 tree swallows, 8 bobolinks, 7 purple martins, 6 turkey vultures, 5 mourning doves and 3 red-tailed hawks. Turbines placed in the lake would pose a threat to all migrating species.

There must be a significant exclusion zone of 10 km to help to preserve waterfowl, birds and bats.

6. Environmental assessments carried out by proponents of turbine installations are highly suspect.

We strongly urge that there be an independent review of any such environmental assessments.

7. The OPA-commissioned Helimax Report on sites favourable for wind turbines recommended

exclusion zones:● environmental areas of concern ● national parks ● conservation reserves ● Great Lakes coastal wet lands In addition, STTB recommends avoiding cultural, ANSI, archaeological, geological, parks, marinas, tourist and heritage sites.

Ontario should act on these recommendations from this highly-regarded

consultant for exclusion zones. 8. The Helimax Report recommends ratings of 35 – 40% capacity for economic efficiency and

cited over 60 locations in the Great Lakes where such capacity could be reached. (Most offshore installations around the world are placed in high-wind yield areas, achieving 30 – 60% capacity for most of the seasons.) Turbines should not be built in areas which do not support 35 – 40% capacity.

Ontario should exclude development in areas of low capacity.

485

To summarize, we recommend a setback distance of 10 km to protect people, wildlife, drinking water sources; independent review of proponent-prepared environmental assessments; and exclusion zones for protection and efficiency. Thank you for your consideration of this submission on behalf of communities from Toronto's Beach area to Ajax.

Roy Wright, PresidentBarry Matthews, Vice PresidentSave the Toronto Bluffs

486

September 9, 2010

Mr. John Friberg,Ministry of Natural Resources

Dear Mr. Friberg,

Re: EBR Registry #011-0907

'Save the Toronto Bluffs' makes the following recommendations and comments for your consideration.

I. Constraint and/or Exclusion Zones

Navigation Lanes: minimum 2 km. setbackCommercial Fishing Activity: minimum 5 km. setbackSensitive environmental and ecological areas: minimum 5 km. setbackAreas subject to important recreational activities; e.g. popular shorelines, parks and boating clubs: minimum 10 km. setbacksCultural heritage features; e.g. Niagara escarpment, Scarborough Bluffs and ANSI sites: minimum 10 km. setbacksInland lakes and water bodies; e.g. Lake Simcoe: 100% total exclusion from IWTs.Other Great Lake considerations for exclusions;

where winds are less than the minimal recommendations outlined in the OPA Halimax 1.report i.e. 35-40% capacitywhere lake bottom heavy metal toxins are prevalent and may be disturbed via 2.construction and deconstruction of towers and from vibrations transferred from blade rotations. For example, Lake Ontario has the most accumulated toxic industrial lakebed waste deposits in the Great Lakesdrinking water intakes – minimum 5 km. setback3.populated communities and high density urban communities: 10 km. setback; light 4.density lakeside communities; 5 km. setbackairports: 5 km. setbacks because of radar interference5.

II. Public Information Meeting Process

At present, community information meetings are a meaningless exercise. Developer presentations are misleading and biased, questions are not answered and no provisions are required for the PER reports to be accurate when provided by the developer.For example, MNR found the PER report from Toronto Hydro’s presentation at Sir Wilfrid Laurier C.I to be completely satisfactory. No mention was made of the sabotaged meeting where 5 bus loads of lobbyists took over the microphones for 2 hours denying the affected community to ask their questions.

487

Suggestion – The PER report to include a summary comment of the meeting provided by the elected Councillors present in the affected communities.

III. Agreements with Neighbouring Jurisdictions

Dialogue should be paramount when sharing the same common interests of protecting the environment, our drinking water, wildlife habitats and concerns of lakefront communities. Ontario, Ohio, New York and Michigan could combine their common and best practise information for equitable and mutually beneficial agreements.

IV. Michigan Study re: How, Where and When

MNR is advised to study the Michigan offshore report. It is an 86 page comprehensive review, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, prepared in a responsible fashion to mitigate many of the uncertain issues that offshore IWT will present.Link with: www.michiganglowcouncilorg/GLOW%20Report%209-1-09_FINAL.pdf

Yours truly,

Roy Wright, PresidentBarry Matthews, Vice PresidentSave the Toronto Bluffs

_________________________________________

488

SECTION I - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY ACTION

OFF-SHORE WIND FACILITIESRenewable Energy Approval Requirements. To provide comments to the Ministry of the Environment on the Off-shore Wind Discussion Paper and Proposed Approach and to the Ministry of Natural Resources on Off-shore Windpower: Consideration of Additional Areas to be Removed from Future Development.


WHEREAS the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has prepared a Discussion Paper and Proposed Approach for Off-shore Wind Facilities (MOE Environmental Registry (EBR) posting 011-0089);

AND WHEREAS the Ministry of Natural Resources has posted the consideration of additional areas to be removed from future development for Off-shore Wind Facilities (MNR EBR posting 011-0907);

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT the Authority endorse Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) staff comments provided to the Ministry of the Environment for EBR Posting #011- 0089 on August 24, 2010 (Attachment 1);

AND FURTHER THAT the Authority endorse TRCA staff comments on EBR Posting #011 - 0907 and provide them to the Ministry of Natural Resources through the EBR.

RECORDED VOTEPaul Ainslie NayMaria Augimeri NayDavid Barrow YeaBryan Bertie NayLaurie Bruce YeaMike Del Grande NayBill Fisch YeaPamela Gough NayLois Griffin NayJack Heath YeaColleen Jordan NayGlenn Mason NayGerri Lynn O'Connor NayJohn Parker NayAnthony Perruzza YeaJohn Sprovieri Yea

489

NEW MOTION #1RES.#A150/10

Moved by: Mike Del GrandeSeconded by: Pamela Gough

THAT the Authority, not withstanding that TRCA staff commented on MNR EBR postings 011-0089 and 011-0907, has met on September 17, 2010 and upon its review are not in a position to comment and support any movement forward on placement of windmills in Lake Ontario;

AND FURTHER THAT the Authority is not prepared to support the direction of windmill placement until full studies are available that deal with vibration on fish habitation, sediment analysis, cement leaching and any other studies that deal with environmental impact of such an undertaking.

RECORDED VOTEPaul Ainslie NayMaria Augimeri YeaDavid Barrow YeaBryan Bertie YeaLaurie Bruce YeaMike Del Grande YeaBill Fisch YeaPamela Gough YeaLois Griffin YeaJack Heath YeaColleen Jordan YeaGlenn Mason YeaGerri Lynn O'Connor YeaJohn Parker YeaAnthony Perruzza YeaJohn Sprovieri Yea

NEW MOTION #2RES.#A151/10

Moved by: Paul AinslieSeconded by: Mike Del Grande

THAT the Authority requests a moratorium on wind turbines in Lake Ontario;

AND FURTHER THAT the Province of Ontario be so advised.

RECORDED VOTEPaul Ainslie YeaMaria Augimeri YeaDavid Barrow Nay

490

RECORDED VOTE Cont'dBryan Bertie YeaLaurie Bruce NayMike Del Grande YeaBill Fisch YeaPamela Gough YeaLois Griffin YeaJack Heath NayColleen Jordan YeaGlenn Mason YeaGerri Lynn O'Connor YeaJohn Parker YeaAnthony Perruzza NayJohn Sprovieri Nay

THE MAIN MOTION WAS NOT CARRIED

NEW MOTION #1 WAS CARRIED

NEW MOTION #2 WAS CARRIED

BACKGROUNDThe Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 was passed in the Legislature on May 14, 2009. The Act places priority on expanding Ontario’s use of clean and renewable sources of energy including wind, water, solar, biomass and biogas power. Developing these renewable resources is a cornerstone of Ontario’s future prosperity and the government’s plan to combat climate change and phase out coal. As a key pillar in supporting the development of Ontario’s green economy, the Ontario government introduced O. Reg. 359/09 (Renewable Energy Approvals under Part V.0.1) made under the Environmental Protection Act, on September 24, 2009. This regulation offers an approach to regulating renewable energy generation facilities that is based on transparency and clear up-front provincial rules, while ensuring that the environment and human health are protected.

On June 25, 2010, the Ministry of the Environment posted a policy proposal on the Environmental Registry that outlined a proposed approach for Renewable Energy Approval requirements for off-shore wind facilities (Environmental Registry No. 011-0089). To facilitate input, MOE posted an Off-shore Wind Discussion Paper that outlined considerations for regulatory amendments to the Renewable Energy Approval (O. Reg. 359/09) to provide up-front provincial rules for off-shore windpower facilities, including a proposal for a five kilometre shoreline exclusion zone for off-shore turbines, measured from the water’s edge of the Great Lakes, other inland lakes (eg. Lake St. Clair), and the major islands. This MOE posting also identified that the Ministry of Natural Resources was undertaking a phased review of Ontario’s current process for making Crown land available for renewable energy projects. This review would include consideration of where, when and how the government makes Crown land available for off-shore wind projects, and may result in additional areas being constrained from off-shore wind development. Comments on EBR No. 011-0089 were due on September 7, 2010. TRCA staff provided comments to the Ministry of the Environment on August 24, 2010, subject to future endorsement by the Authority.

491

On August 18, 2010, the Ministry of Natural Resources posted a policy proposal entitled Off-shore Windpower: Consideration of Additional Areas to be Removed from Future Development on the Environmental Registry. EBR No. 011-0907 invites comments on potential off-shore areas and criteria that should be taken into consideration which may constrain future development as part of the Crown land application process. Comments on this posting are due October 4, 2010. Areas that may be constrained from future development could include:

navigational lanes; areas of core commercial fishing activity; sensitive environmental and ecological areas and features; areas subject to important recreational activities; cultural heritage features; areas of natural gas activity; areas of inland lakes not subject to the proposed five kilometre exclusion zone; other inland waterbodies (eg. Lake Simcoe, Lake Nipissing, Lake Nipigon, Lake of the Woods, etc); and other Great Lakes specific considerations.

This EBR posting also invites comment on where, when and how the government should make off-shore areas of Crown land available for off-shore wind development.

As the identification of areas constrained from development, and the application of the Ministry of the Environment’s proposed shoreline exclusion zone, may be applied to existing Crown land off-shore applications, the Ministry of Natural Resources will defer the processing of any existing applications and will not be accepting any new applications until a decision about these proposals has been made.

RATIONALEEBR No. 011-0089:The Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 places priority on expanding Ontario’s use of clean and renewable sources of energy including wind, water, solar, biomass and biogas power in an effort to combat climate change. TRCA’s Strategic Plan, Moving Toward The Living City, identifies that recognizing and integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation will be a critical component in achieving the objectives and goals of a healthy, sustainable urban region. TRCA supports renewable energy technologies as part of Ontario’s energy mix. Our strength and experience in adaptive watershed management to protect, maintain and restore the health of our watersheds is based on science and research. Accordingly, TRCA is encouraged that the Province of Ontario will supplement the off-shore wind policy with research currently underway by the Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of Tourism and Culture. The completion of guidance documents will provide a clear explanation of minimum requirements for each proponent. TRCA staff would like to participate in the dialogue associated with the preparation of these guidelines along with Conservation Ontario and the provincial ministries.

492

The concept of a five kilometre exclusion zone for the construction of wind turbines will assist with reducing impacts on ecological health, coastal physical processes and water quality. The Ministry should be commended for proposing a minimum exclusion zone of this nature in combination with the requirement to undertake various studies to assess impacts and determine appropriate mitigation techniques. The five kilometre exclusion zone appears to be sufficient to ensure littoral transport and coastal processes, habitat function and recreation opportunities are not negatively impacted within TRCA jurisdiction. However, it is important in our opinion to allow science to further define the appropriate exclusion zone for each proposed installation due to the limited knowledge of off-shore wind turbines in fresh water areas and possible major negative impacts. Each of the Great Lakes and inland lakes in the system hosts a unique set of challenges and constraints. For example, the depth of Lake Ontario at 5 km, within TRCA jurisdiction, can be over 60 metres which may minimize potential impacts to littoral drift or disruption to fish habitat but may still be positioned in a flyway. These and other constraints will need a comprehensive review to provide a clear assessment of all resource management issues.

The Discussion Paper identifies that MNR will be the responsible legislated body developing a guidance document to address coastal engineering matters. Conservation authorities have been delegated the responsibility of reviewing and approving off-shore wind turbine projects where the proponent is not the Crown. TRCA suggests that the guidelines be developed collaboratively between Conservation Ontario and the Ministry of Natural Resources, as conservation authorities will be responsible for reviewing and approving through the issuance of permits (upon satisfying regulatory tests) as defined by the Conservation Authorities Act.

The current Regulation 359/09 being a Provincial Regulation has no ability to address federal legislative processes. For example, until such time as a project is considered to be complete enough for a final submission there is no lawful trigger in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act process that would provide input under Section 35 of the Federal Fisheries Act for off-shore alternative energy proposals unless being reviewed by a conservation authority with an agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada to review projects under the Federal Fisheries Act. TRCA would request clarification regarding how the federal agencies may be further involved in each of the off-shore wind proposals at a very early stage to ensure all impacts can be addressed and mitigated appropriately by all legislative responsibilities.

The Federal Government has the jurisdiction over migratory birds as defined by the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Other birds and bats are under the jurisdiction of the Province (MNR). Within the jurisdiction of TRCA, there are a number of areas that are globally important for birds and insects. Tommy Thompson Park is well known for its biological significance through its designation as an Important Bird Area of global significance and is one of the best examples of Great Lakes coastal habitat restoration. As such, it is critical that the impacts of wind turbines on birds, bats and insects be better understood and must be subject to additional research so that impacts can be minimized to these highly sensitive migratory flyways. We recommend that further discussion be sought with Parks Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service and MNR regarding the 5 km exclusion zone for certain important bird areas and highly sensitive migratory flyways. As MNR begins the second phase of their Crown Land Renewable Energy Policy review, TRCA recommends that strong consideration be given to developing constraint mapping where off-shore wind turbines are not permitted in areas that are globally important migratory bird areas.

493

EBR No. 011-0907:The list of areas that may be constrained from future development as part of the Crown land application process noted in this EBR posting would appear to be comprehensive and in keeping with the considerations outlined in the Off-shore Wind Discussion Paper. Accordingly, staff recommend that a copy of TRCA's comments on EBR No. 011-0089 be forwarded to the Ministry of Natural Resources in response to this posting.

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONETRCA staff will continue to monitor and provide input on the development of the policies and requirements for Off-shore Wind Facilities through the EBR process and report back to the Authority as required. Additionally, TRCA staff will continue to seek opportunities to work collaboratively through Conservation Ontario with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment on these initiatives.

Report prepared by: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Nancy Gaffney, extension 5313Date: September 8, 2010Attachments: 1

494

Attachment 1

495

496

_________________________________________

497

RES.#A152/10 - BLACK CREEK STABILIZATION WORKSApproval to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto for the construction of replacement stabilization works along a section of Black Creek in support of the future York Community Recreation Centre.

Moved by: Bill FischSeconded by: John Parker

THAT approval be granted to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto for the construction of stream stabilization works along a section of Black Creek immediately downstream of Eglinton Avenue;

THAT the agreement be subject to availability of funding from the City of Toronto;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) officials be directed to take any action necessary to implement the agreement including obtaining any required approvals and the signing and execution of documents.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDThe City of Toronto is proposing to construct the York Community Recreation Centre on a presently vacant parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Eglinton Avenue West and Black Creek Drive. The subject property is known as Keelesdale Park . At the site, Black Creek flows through the property from a northeasterly to southwesterly direction. While the creek has existing erosion protection works such as gabion baskets, concrete slabs and rip rap stone along its banks, and these existing structures are fragmented and in various stages of disrepair. Furthermore, the unprotected sections of the lower slope are generally oversteepened suggesting that erosion processes are active in this area.

A slope stability analysis completed by Terraprobe Limited on behalf of the City of Toronto in December 2008 determined that the west slope in the vicinity of the proposed York Community Recreation Centre building and parking lot is not stable in its current condition and that slope stabilization measures are required to ensure that the proposed development is not at risk in the long term. The City of Toronto subsequently prepared detailed design plans from Terraprobe’s recommendations, and a permit to construct the approved bank stabilization works is on Executive Committee Agenda #7/10 for consideration on September 10, 2010. The works consist primarily of an armourstone retaining wall and planted riverstone revetment along the west bank, complemented by minor in-stream works (e.g. riffles) and a comprehensive restoration plan of native trees and shrubs along the upper slope and tableland.

RATIONALE Recognizing Restoration Services’ experience in erosion control and site restoration, the City of Toronto requested staff’s assistance in the implementation of the Black Creek stabilization works while City staff focus on the approval of the proposed York Community Recreation Centre.

498

Scope of WorkThe scope of work to be undertaken for this project by TRCA consists of the following tasks:

Prepare a detailed cost estimate and Memorandum of Understanding for the construction of 1.the approved works.Prepare, issue, award and manage all contracts for equipment, materials and services 2.related to the construction of the approved works.Implement the works as per the approved design, including final site restoration.3.Monitor the site as agreed in the Memorandum of Understanding and report findings to the 4.City of Toronto.

FINANCIAL DETAILS The work is estimated at $493,450 plus HST. The cost of the project is 100% recoverable from the City of Toronto under account 184-01.

Report prepared by: Moranne McDonnell, 416-392-9725 Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Moranne McDonnell, 416-392-9725 Emails: [email protected]: August 27, 2010

_________________________________________

RES.#A153/10 - 51 DEER VALLEY DRIVE EROSION CONTROL PROJECTInitiation of the Class Environmental Assessment process for the 51 Deer Valley Drive Erosion Control Project, Village of Bolton.

Moved by: Jack HeathSeconded by: David Barrow

THAT staff be directed to commence a Class Environmental Assessment for the 51 Deer Valley Drive Erosion Control Project, Village of Bolton.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDThe area of concern is a section of the Humber River located adjacent to the east of the Deer Valley Drive right-of-way and immediately north of the residential property, 51 Deer Valley Drive. The study area is approximately 90 m downstream from the Glasgow Road Bridge, along a bend of the Humber River, approximately 75 m in length. A location map of the study area is shown in Attachment 1.

In the spring of 2009, the site was identified to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) by the Town of Caledon, and by the residents of 51 Deer Valley Drive. The residents reported the loss of several trees, as well as ongoing crest recession towards the road on the coincident slope adjacent to No. 51 Deer Valley Drive.

499

TRCA retained a professional engineering consulting firm, Terraprobe Limited, to complete a geotechnical investigation to determine the potential risk for future slopes failures and any potential impacts to the Deer Valley Drive right-of-way and the residential property (51 Deer Valley Drive). Terraprobe identified that the instability of the slope was a result of the active toe erosion caused by the water flow along the unprotected bank. Terraprobe recommended that bank protection measures be implemented to address possible future localized instability of the slope. Terraprobe confirmed there is potential for future slope failures if no protection works were completed at this site. Terraprobe recommended that the preferred solution is to extend the existing armourstone wall downstream to protect the slope from further toe erosion, thus protecting the property currently at risk.

RATIONALEThe Deer Valley Slope area has been identified as a priority area for remedial works, based on the information gathered from the results of the slope stability analysis and erosion risk assessment conducted earlier this year.

TRCA’s goal through this project is to:

“Minimize the hazards to life and property that result from erosion of river banks, valley walls and shoreline and to protect and enhance the natural attributes of the valley and lakefront settings”

Several of the key objectives outlined in TRCA’s Erosion Control and Lake Ontario Shoreline Program are:(1) to implement a program of erosion control works on a priority basis to protect public

and private lands where public safety and property are endangered by erosion;(2) to implement a program of erosion control works on public and private lands to protect

the natural valleys and shoreline features and associated aquatic and terrestrial habitats adversely affected by the erosion;

(3) to design remedial works, on a design block basis, as part of an ecosystem approach for the entire watercourse or shoreline which will limit erosion, enable public access adjacent to the water’s edge wherever feasible, be conducive to maintenance, and enhance aquatic and terrestrial resources;

(4) to acquire those properties where the erosion hazard is severe and where the cost of remedial works is excessive in comparison to the value of the property;

(5) to secure title to the lands where erosion control measures are to be constructed and where the lands are valuable additions to the green space systems;

(6) to protect and enhance the natural valley and shoreline features and associated terrestrial and aquatic habitats; and

(7) to comply with the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act and any other environmental protection legislation.

This project presents an opportunity to meet TRCA’s objective of providing long-term protection of private property. Therefore, staff request that the Class Environmental Assessment process be initiated to determine a preferred remedial measure of erosion control.

500

DETAILS OF WORK TO BE DONEThe planning and design phases of this project will be carried out under the Conservation Ontario Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Project (2002). The Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) approach is considered a suitable means for the planning of remedial flood and erosion control projects because it provides a consistent, streamlined process that ensures compliance with Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) requirements.

The Class EA process requires the development of a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) which includes from members of the general public including affected landowners, public interest groups, and any other parties interested in the planning and design phases of the project lifecycle. Interested individuals are provided with opportunities to offer recommendations on the development of the remedial solutions, and to place objections to design proposals where appropriate.

The Class EA process for this project will identify and evaluate a range of alternatives (including the recommendation provided by Terraprobe) to determine a preferred solution that will best resolve the observed risk to life and property due to erosion. The Class EA will include the geotechnical investigation conducted by Terraprobe Limited and may require additional studies pertaining to the geotechnical, fluvial geomorphological, ecological and archaeological conditions within the area to assist staff in the development of the final detailed design of the preferred alternative.

FINANCIAL DETAILSA budget of $40,000.00 has been allocated to undertake the Class EA. Funding is available in the Peel Climate Change Mitigation Capital Budget under account code 128-95.

Report prepared by: Aaron D’Souza, 416-393-6336Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230Emails: [email protected]: August 18, 2010Attachments: 1

501

Attachment 1

502

RES.#A154/10 - WEST ETOBICOKE CREEK SOUTH OF BRITANNIA ROAD EAST PROJECTInitiation of the Class Environmental Assessment Process for the West Etobicoke Creek South of Britannia Road East Project, City of Mississauga.


THAT staff be directed to commence a Class Environmental Assessment for the West Etobicoke Creek South of Britannia Road East Project, City of Mississauga.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDThe area of concern is a section of West Etobicoke Creek located near the southwest boundary of the Lester B. Pearson International Airport lands in Red Oak Plain Park, south of the Britannia Road East bridge (Attachment 1). The study area extends approximately 260 m downstream from the Britannia Road bridge and includes two issues of concern: an erosion scar approximately 140 m in length immediately downstream of the bridge on the right bank; and a series of what appear to be shallow failures along the coincident slope downstream from the scar (Attachment 2).

At the top of slope is a large truck storage facility which is under private ownership. The truck storage lot extends to the edge of the slope crest, immediately above the areas of instability. Due to the close proximity of the storage facility, a risk assessment of the immediate slope was undertaken to determine whether remedial works are required to provide long-term protection of the property. A slope stability and geomorphic assessment was undertaken to:

assess the causes and extent of erosion in the area;assess the level of risk to infrastructure due to erosion;provide recommendations to resolve any identified risks due to erosion; andexpedite the design of any stabilization works that may be required at the affected slopes.

Jacques Whitford Stantec Limited was subsequently retained to undertake this study in late fall 2008.

The findings of the assessment concluded that:Erosion at area of instability does not currently threaten property or infrastructure but left unchecked will eventually erode into the steeper slopes currently undergoing erosion downstream at instability area #2. (Attachment 2).Erosion at the second area of instability currently poses a threat to public safety and private property along the adjacent table lands. Vegetated rip rap should be considered to control bank erosion at the first area of instability.For the second area of instability, a vegetated rip rap combined with trench slope breakers, slope vegetation and tableland drainage was recommended to stabilize the slopes.

503

Based on the conclusions of the report, staff is seeking direction to initiate a Class Environmental Assessment (EA) to mitigate the risk due to erosion. The alternatives to be developed and considered through the Class EA will be informed by the results of the Jacques Whitford Stantec report and any additional geotechnical, geomorphological, and ecological studies deemed necessary to select the preferred alternative. The resulting preferred alternative will form the basis of a final design for any remedial works at the project site.

RATIONALEThe planning and design phases of this project will be carried out under the Conservation Authority Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Project (2002). The Class EA approach is considered a suitable means for the planning of remedial flood and erosion control projects because it provides a consistent, streamlined process that ensures compliance with Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) requirements.

The Class EA process requires the development of a Community Liaison Committee (CLC) which includes members of the general public such as affected landowners, public interest groups, and any other parties interested in the planning and design phases of the project lifecycle. Interested individuals are provided with opportunities to offer recommendations on the development of the remedial solutions, and objections to design proposals where appropriate. Meetings with other regulatory agencies will also be held as deemed appropriate.

FINANCIAL DETAILSA budget of $40,000.00 has been allocated to undertake this Class EA. Funding is provided by the Region of Peel and is available in account 129-02.

Report prepared by: Aaron D’Souza, 416-393-6336Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Ken Dion, extension 5230Emails: [email protected]: August 24, 2010Attachments: 2

504

Attachment 1

SubjectArea

SubjectArea

505

Attachment 2

_________________________________________

506

RES.#A155/10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006-2010Mimico Waterfront Linear ParkFloriri Village Investments Inc., CFN 32440. Entering into an agreement with Floriri Village Investments Inc. in accordance with Section 30 of the Expropriations Act.

Moved by: Lois GriffinSeconded by: Pamela Gough

THAT confidential item AUTH7.5 - Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006-2010 be approved;

AND FURTHER THAT staff report back when the item is completed and can be made public.

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A156/10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006-2010Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River WatershedThornhill Ravines Development Corporation, CFN 44334. Purchase of property located east of Dufferin Street, south of Major Mackenzie Drive, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006-2010", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River watershed.(Executive Res.#B100/10)

Moved by: Jack HeathSeconded by: Bill Fisch

THAT 1.25 hectares (3.10 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 19, Concession 2 and designated as Block 33 on a draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Schaeffer & Dzaldov Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Job No. 03-589-00A, dated June 22, 2010, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, located east of Dufferin Street, south of Major Mackenzie Drive, be purchased from Thornhill Ravines Development Corporation;

THAT the purchase price be $2.00;

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;

THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid;

507

AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including execution and signing of all necessary documentation.

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A157/10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006-2010Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River WatershedE. Manson Investments Limited and Zureit Holdings Limited, CFN 44558. Purchase of property located east of Dufferin Street, north of Major Mackenzie Drive, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, under the "Greenlands Acquisition Project for 2006-2010", Flood Plain and Conservation Component, Don River watershed.(Executive Res.#B101/10)


THAT 0.90 hectares (2.22 acres), more or less, of vacant land being Part of Lot 22, Concession 2 and designated as Block 36 on a draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Schaeffer Dzaldov Bennett Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors, under their Job No. 03-814-00E, dated May 31, 2010, City of Vaughan, Regional Municipality of York, located east of Dufferin Street, north of Major Mackenzie Drive, be purchased from E. Manson Investments Limited and Zureit Holdings Limited;

THAT the purchase price be $2.00;

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;

THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transaction at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs, and disbursements are to be paid;

AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to finalize the transaction including execution and signing of all necessary documentation.

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A158/10 - GREENLANDS ACQUISITION PROJECT FOR 2006-2010Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project, CFN 42334. Partial takings from 10 property owners on the Lake Ontario shoreline, City of Toronto, in the Scarborough Community Council Area, to facilitate the construction of Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project.(Executive Res.#B102/10)

508

Moved by: Gay CowbourneSeconded by: Pamela Gough

THAT Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) acquire the following partial takings to facilitate the construction of the Meadowcliffe Drive Erosion Control Project:

Parcel 'A'THAT a parcel of land containing 0.251 hectares (0.620 acres) being Part of Lots 169 and 170 on Registered Plan M-440, designated as Part 2 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace Ertl Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T-0022-RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 50 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from Hakeem Olajuwon;

Parcel 'B'THAT a parcel of land containing 0.154 hectares (0.379 acres) being Part of Lots 168 and 169 on Registered Plan M-440, designated as Parts 4 and 6 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace Ertl Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T-0022-RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 48 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from Joanne and Robert Brown;

Parcel 'C'THAT two parcels of land containing 0.418 hectares (1.033 acres) being Part of Lots 165, 167 and 168 on Registered Plan M-440, designated as Parts 8, 10 and 14 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace Ertl Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T-0022-RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 32 and 42 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from William Wai-Leung Chan;

Parcel 'D'THAT a parcel of land containing 0.172 hectares (0.426 acres) being Part of Lot 166 on Registered Plan M-440, designated as Part 12 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace Ertl Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T-0022-RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 38 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from David Keane and Melba Cuddy-Keane;

Parcel 'E'THAT a parcel of land containing 0.174 hectares (0.431 acres) being Part of Lot 164 on Registered Plan M-440, designated as Part 16 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace Ertl Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T-0022-RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 30 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from Trevor Harris;

Parcel 'F'THAT a parcel of land containing 0.178 hectares (0.440 acres) being Part of Lot 163 on Registered Plan M-440, designated as Part 18 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace Ertl Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T-0022-RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 22 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from Gisela, Rudolph and Margot Braune;

509

Parcel 'G'THAT a parcel of land containing 0.135 hectares (0.334 acres) being Part of Lot 162 on Registered Plan M-440, designated as Part 20 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace Ertl Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T-0022-RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 20 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from Daphne and William Webster;

Parcel 'H'THAT a parcel of land containing 0.155 hectares (0.383 acres) being Part of Lot 161 on Registered Plan M-440, designated as Part 22 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace Ertl Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T-0022-RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 16 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from Janet Fitzpatrick and Alister Sinclair;

Parcel 'I'THAT a parcel of land containing 0.143 hectares (0.353 acres) being Part of Lot 160 on Registered Plan M-440, designated as Part 24 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace Ertl Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T-0022-RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 10 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from Susan Scinocca;

Parcel 'J'THAT a parcel of land containing 0.219 hectares (0.541 acres) being Part of Lot 159 on Registered Plan M-440, designated as Part 26 on a plan of survey prepared by Vinklers Wallace Ertl Limited dated July 15, 2010 and referenced as DWG T-0022-RP, City of Toronto (formerly City of Scarborough) and municipally known as 2 Meadowcliffe Drive be purchased from Ronald and Ruby Gunraj;

THAT the purchase price for each of the parcels be $2.00 plus vendor's reasonable legal costs and the owners entering into an erosion control agreement;

THAT TRCA receive conveyance of the land free from encumbrance, subject to existing service easements;

THAT the firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP, Barristers & Solicitors, be instructed to complete the transactions at the earliest possible date. All reasonable expenses incurred incidental to the closing for land transfer tax, legal costs and disbursements are to be paid;

AND FURTHER THAT the appropriate TRCA officials be authorized and directed to execute all necessary documentation required.

CARRIED _________________________________________

510

RES.#A159/10 - REQUEST FOR DISPOSAL OF TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY-OWNED LANDWest side of Weston Road, north of Highway No. 401, City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), CFN 43289. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority is in receipt of a request for a land exchange of a parcel of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority land located on the west side of Weston Road, north of Highway No. 401, City of Toronto (Etobicoke York Community Council Area), Humber River watershed.(Executive Res.#B103/10)

Moved by: Jack HeathSeconded by: Glenn Mason

THAT item EX8.4 - Request for Disposal of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority-owned Land, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #7/10, held on September 10, 2010, be referred to Executive Committee Meeting #8/10, scheduled to be held on October 1, 2010.

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A160/10 - TOWN OF CALEDONRequest for a permanent easement for a stormwater management facility and purchase of property located north of Mayfield Road and east of Highway 10, Town of Caledon and City of Brampton, Region of Peel, CFN 35747. Receipt of a request from the Town of Caledon and Fernbrook Homes (Etobicoke Creek) Limited to provide a permanent easement for a stormwater management facility and purchase of property located north of Mayfield Road and east of Highway 10, Town of Caledon and City of Brampton, Etobicoke Creek watershed.(Executive Res.#B104/10)


WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the Town of Caledon for a stormwater management facility which will assist Fernbrook Homes (Etobicoke Creek) Limited with their development in this vicinity;

WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interests of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with the Town of Caledon and Fernbrook Homes (Etobicoke Creek) Limited in this instance;

511

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a permanent easement containing 0.5688 hectares (1.4056 acres), more or less, be granted to the Town of Caledon for a stormwater management facility to facilitate the development of adjacent lands owned by Fernbrook Homes (Etobicoke Creek) Limited, said land being part of Lot 18, Concession 1 E.H.S., designated as Part 1 on Plan 43R-33386, Town of Caledon and City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, subject to the following terms and conditions:

(a) The easement price is $295,176 which is to be paid by Fernbrook Homes (Etobicoke Creek) Limited to TRCA, plus all legal and survey costs incurred to complete the transaction;

(b) In addition, Fernbrook Homes (Etobicoke Creek) Limited will provide the following:

(i) purchase of a parcel of land by TRCA for nominal consideration of $2.00 containing 0.3665 hectares (0.9055 acres), said land being part of Lot 18, Concession 1 E.H.S., designated as Part 2 on Plan 43R-33386, City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel, subject to a permanent easement for the stormwater management facility;

(ii) contribution towards the Etobicoke Creek Regeneration Project in an amount satisfactory to TRCA staff be made to mitigate for the adverse impacts of the stormwater management facility on the natural system;

(c) All disturbed areas are to be restored to the satisfaction of TRCA as soon as possible after completion of construction;

(d) Sediment control measures in a manner satisfactory to TRCA are to be practiced during construction;

(e) Fernbrook Homes (Etobicoke Creek) Limited shall monitor the effectiveness of the facility for a two year period following construction and rectify to the satisfaction of both Town of Caledon and TRCA staff any performance issues;

(f) The Town of Caledon is to be responsible for all repairs and/or maintenance of the stormwater management facility which may be required in perpetuity and for indemnifying TRCA from any and all claims arising from the construction;

(g) An archaeological investigation is to be conducted before any site disturbance with any mitigative measures required being carried out all at the expense of Fernbrook Homes (Etobicoke Creek) Limited to the satisfaction of TRCA;

(h) Any additional considerations as deemed appropriate by TRCA staff or its solicitor.

THAT said easement be subject to an Order in Council being issued in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27 as amended;

512

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to implement the easement agreement, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents.

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A161/10 - CITY OF TORONTOConveyance of Land for Beechgrove Drive, south of Lawrence Avenue East, City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area), Highland Creek Watershed, CFN 44487. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto for conveyance of land for Beechgrove Drive, south of Lawrence Avenue East, in the City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area).(Executive Res.#B105/10)


WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to convey certain lands for Beechgrove Drive, south of Lawrence Avenue East, in the City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area);

AND WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with the City of Toronto in this instance;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a parcel of TRCA-owned land containing 0.045 hectares (0.111 acres), more or less, required for Beechgrove Drive, said land being Part of Block A, Registered Plan M-1080, City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area) designated as Parts 1, 2 and 3 on Plan 66R-24996, be conveyed to the City of Toronto;

THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00, plus all legal, survey and other costs to be paid by the City of Toronto;

THAT the City of Toronto is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from this sale;

THAT said conveyance be subject to approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended;

AND FURTHER THAT the authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents.

CARRIED _________________________________________

513

RES.#A162/10 - CITY OF TORONTOConveyance of Land for the Construction of a Cul-de-sac as Part of the Partial Closure of Kirkhams Road, City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area), Rouge River Watershed, CFN 44025. Receipt of a request from the City of Toronto for conveyance of land for the construction of a cul-de-sac as part of the partial closure of Kirkhams Road, in the City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area).(Executive Res.#B106/10)


WHEREAS Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of a request from the City of Toronto to convey certain lands for the construction of a cul-de-sac as part of the partial closure of Kirkhams Road, in the City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area);

AND WHEREAS it is in the opinion of TRCA that it is in the best interest of TRCA in furthering its objectives, as set out in Section 20 of the Conservation Authorities Act, to cooperate with the City of Toronto in this instance;

THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT a parcel of TRCA-owned land containing 0.12 hectares (0.29 acres), more or less, required for the construction of a cul-de-sac as part of the partial closure of Kirkhams Road, said land being Part of Lot 5, Concession 3, City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area), designated as Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 on a draft Plan of Survey prepared by the City of Toronto Technical Services - Survey and Mapping, entitled: KIRKHAMS ROAD, under their Job No. 2008-0660, dated September 21, 2009, be conveyed to the City of Toronto;

THAT consideration be the nominal sum of $2.00, plus all legal, survey and other costs to be paid by the City of Toronto;

THAT an archaeological investigation be completed, with any mitigative measures being carried out to the satisfaction of TRCA staff, at the expense of the City of Toronto;

THAT the conveyance of land be subject to a landscaping plan, subject to the approval of TRCA staff;

THAT the City of Toronto is to fully indemnify TRCA from any and all claims from injuries, damages or costs of any nature resulting in any way, either directly or indirectly, from this sale or the carrying out of construction;

THAT said conveyance be subject to approval of the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with Section 21(2) of the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27, as amended;

514

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take whatever action may be required to give effect thereto, including the obtaining of necessary approvals and the signing and execution of any documents.

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A163/10 - HYDROLOGIC STUDY OF IMPACTS OF FLOOD FLOWS AND MITIGATIONFuture Development in the Humber River Watershed. Award of contract for hydrologic study of the Humber River watershed to assess impacts of future development on flood flows and to develop appropriate stormwater quantity control criteria to prevent increases to flood flows.(Executive Res.#B107/10)


THAT the contract to undertake a hydrologic study of the Humber River watershed, to assess the impacts of future development on flood flows, and to develop appropriate stormwater control criteria to prevent increases to flood flow and flood risk, be awarded to AMEC Earth & Environmental at a cost not to exceed $179,870.00, plus a contingency allowance in the amount of $20,130.00, plus HST, it being the lowest bid meeting Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) specifications;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized TRCA officials be directed to take such actions as is necessary to implement the contract including the signing and execution of documents.

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A164/10 - PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES2011 Operating and 2011 - 2020 Municipal Capital Budgets.Recommends approval of the preliminary estimates for the participating municipality 2011 - 2020 capital budgets and a guideline of 2% for the participating municipality general levy for the 2011 operating budget.

Moved by: David BarrowSeconded by: Jack Heath

THAT the preliminary estimates for Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) 2011-2020 participating municipality capital budgets, as outlined in attachment 1, be approved for submission to the respective municipalities;

THAT the preliminary estimates for the 2011 operating budget include an increase of 2% over 2010 for the municipal general levy;

THAT the preliminary estimates for the 2011 operating budget include an additional amount for the Rouge Park of $108,000;

515

AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to submit the foregoing 2011 budget requests to the City of Toronto and the regional municipalities of Peel, York and Durham in accordance with their respective submission schedules.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDTRCA has begun the process of submitting preliminary estimates to its municipal funding partners. The process begins in June and submissions are required by staff of the various participating municipalities commencing in July each year. Staff has met with staff of the regions of Peel and York and the City of Toronto to present TRCA budget requirements. Meetings with Durham staff are expected shortly. Meetings with the participating municipalities to finalize the budget will occur over the next four months. Meetings with Peel, York and Durham include representatives of the other conservation authorities which have jurisdiction in those regions. Each jurisdiction has its own unique process to be followed for the budget submissions which ultimately must be approved by the respective municipal councils. Because 2010 is an election year, approvals will likely be delayed into the first quarter of 2011.

RATIONALEOperating BudgetStaff is in process of completing the preliminary estimates for the 2011 operating budget. As always, staff will recommend a balanced budget in which expenditures are equal to the revenues including revenue from operations, grants and municipal levy. Municipal levy accounts for about one third of the annual operating budget, totalling $11.556 million in 2010. Staff is recommending that the guideline for 2011 be a 2% increase over 2010. This will amount to about $231,000. Each participating municipality shares in the cost of the 2% increase in proportions based on modified current value assessment (CVA).

Pressures on the operating budget include an increase in OMERS contributions of 1% with an estimated cost of $300,000, health benefit costs of about 5%, property insurance costs, rising energy costs as well as annualization of salary changes in 2010. In 2011, in accordance with provincial requests for salary constraint and recognizing the many financial pressures faced by TRCA's municipal partners, staff is proposing no cost of living (COLA) adjustment for salaries and wages.

In addition, TRCA is in receipt of a request from the Chair of the Rouge Park Alliance for an increase in the base funding for the Rouge Park. The base funding for the Rouge Park is in the form a special levy by TRCA to each of its participating municipalities. This has been in place since the creation of the Rouge Park Alliance and is part of a Memorandum of Understanding signed with the province. In 2010 the base levy for the Rouge Park was $132,000 apportioned to the participating municipalities on the basis of modified Current Value Assessment. The Rouge Park is asking for an additional $108,000 in 2011. This would amount to an additional funding request to each of TRCA's participating municipalities: Toronto, $71,000; York, $21,250; Peel, $12,400; Durham, $3,200; Mono/Adjala, $150. Staff will include this request in the TRCA operating budget submissions to each participating municipality.

516

Capital BudgetsStaff has completed the municipal portion of the 2011-2020 capital program. Participating municipalities require that TRCA provide 10 year capital budget projections and each municipality has their own unique requirements and format for this information. Obviously, most attention is paid to the 2011 and 2012 capital programs. Attached are summary tables for each of the following: City of Toronto, regions of Peel, York and Durham. Staff prepares for the City and Regions, budget binders which include detailed information on each capital project and program. These binders are in the process of being finalized and will be available to Members who require them.

City of TorontoThe capital submission is based on core funding for longstanding programs which meet the existing City of Toronto targets. The City funds TRCA capital programs from both debt and water reserve funding, in roughly 50/50 proportions. The City annual debt guideline for TRCA is $3 million and has remained unchanged for more than 15 years. The portion of the capital from water reserves has increased marginally, about 2 to 3% annually.

Funding from the City remains inadequate to meet critical state of good repair and infrastructure requirements of TRCA's work within the City. Erosion sites, shoreline protection and repairs to waterfront parks require additional commitment from the City. Accordingly, staff has prepared a prioritized list of critical infrastructure needs which are additional to the core funding request. This list is extensive and reflects the fact the capital funding from the City has been inadequate for many years. Staff will work with the City of Toronto representatives appointed to TRCA to review the capital budget needs and determine opportunities to address critical shortfalls in funding.

Regional Municipality of YorkThe capital submission is based on core funding for longstanding programs. York Region guidelines provide for some increase in key programs and require TRCA to submit "business cases" to demonstrate needs beyond the guidelines.

In 2010, the Region of York agreed to significant funding increases for TRCA in the areas of conservation land care and hydrological mapping as well as a one time contribution to the office accommodation project. In the 2011 submission, staff has included a list of priority projects reflecting needs that extend beyond current funding. The Region has made a significant investment in conservation programs but there is still much to be done. Staff hope to work with Region staff to determine which of the priority needs could be met in 2011 and beyond.

Regional Municipality of PeelThe capital submission is based on core funding for longstanding programs. Peel Region guidelines provide for some increase in key programs and require TRCA to submit a rationale to demonstrate needs beyond the guidelines. Staff has prepared this material and will be submitting it to Region staff shortly. The 2011 capital program is based on estimates for 2011 prepared as part of the 2010 submission and adjusted downward to reflect agreed upon program reductions as part of the 2010 process. The overall increase in capital in Peel Region is about 7.4%

517

Regional Municipality of DurhamCapital funding for Durham Region totals $825,000. Included is $125,000 as Durham's share of a pooled capital program for groundwater management in which TRCA holds funds from participating municipalities spent at the discretion of a steering committee of regional works and conservation authority staff. TRCA's capital funding from Durham is $700,000 which has remained the same since about 2004.

The 2011-2020 Durham submission is very preliminary at this stage. It includes significant increases to meet the backlog of needs in Durham. Staff of the five conservation authorities will meet to determine the submission of a joint capital program for all five conservation authorities. Depending on the outcome of those discussions, TRCA's submission will change.

CONCLUSIONStaff is prepared to describe in detail any of the capital projects and programs included in the submissions at the meeting of the Board or at the Authority on September 17th. These submissions are "preliminary" and will be discussed at length with the respective staff of the participating municipalities prior to the final submissions which will be presented to the respective municipal councils. Approval of the preliminary estimates by the Authority enables staff to go forward with our discussions knowing that the Chair and members are in support of the proposed projects and programs subject to the ability of the respective municipal jurisdictions having the necessary funding available.

Report prepared by: Jim Dillane, extension 6292Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Jim Dillane, extension 6292Emails: [email protected]: September 1, 2010Attachments: 1

Reg

ion

of Y

ork

Cap

ital B

udge

t Req

uest

For

ecas

t 201

1-20

20

Toro

nto

and

Reg

ion

Con

serv

atio

n A

utho

rity

TA

BLE

3

2-Se

p-10

Proj

ect N

ame

2010

Fin

al (w

ith

som

e of

ext

ra $

ap

prov

ed)

2011

Su

bmis

sion

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CO

RE

ITEM

S (N

OT

NEE

DIN

G A

BU

SIN

ESS

CA

SE):

Wat

ersh

ed/S

ubw

ater

shed

Pla

nnin

g:Im

plem

enta

tion

phas

e23

3,00

0$

25

3,00

0$

260,

000

$

24

5,00

0$

215,

000

$

240,

000

$

21

4,00

0$

216,

000

$

26

0,00

0$

260,

000

$

26

0,00

0$

Flo

odw

orks

& F

orec

ast/W

arni

ng S

yste

m P

rogr

ams

305,

000

$

345,

000

$

51

9,00

0$

442,

000

$

54

2,00

0$

61

2,00

0$

614,

000

$

61

4,00

0$

619,

000

$

61

9,00

0$

619,

000

$

Reg

iona

l Gro

undw

ater

Mod

ellin

g (M

anag

emen

t) P

rogr

ams

125,

000

$

125,

000

$

13

0,00

0$

140,

000

$

14

0,00

0$

15

0,00

0$

150,

000

$

15

0,00

0$

150,

000

$

15

0,00

0$

150,

000

$

Reg

iona

l Wat

ersh

ed M

onito

ring

Pro

gram

315,

000

$

330,

000

$

33

0,00

0$

340,

000

$

34

0,00

0$

40

5,00

0$

405,

000

$

42

0,00

0$

426,

000

$

42

6,00

0$

426,

000

$

Reg

iona

l Flo

od (N

atur

al) H

azar

d M

appi

ng P

rogr

am19

5,00

0$

23

0,00

0$

253,

000

$

24

2,00

0$

251,

000

$

260,

000

$

23

7,00

0$

246,

000

$

25

8,00

0$

267,

000

$

26

7,00

0$

Reg

iona

l Nat

ural

Her

itage

Mod

ellin

g (M

appi

ng) P

rogr

am12

7,00

0$

13

0,00

0$

135,

000

$

14

0,00

0$

155,

000

$

155,

000

$

16

7,00

0$

167,

000

$

17

5,00

0$

175,

000

$

17

5,00

0$

Ste

war

dshi

p in

clud

ing

Reg

ener

atio

n71

5,00

0$

83

6,00

0$

867,

000

$

88

4,00

0$

901,

000

$

926,

000

$

94

1,00

0$

968,

000

$

98

0,00

0$

1,00

9,00

0$

1,

026,

000

$

Sub

-tota

l Cor

e Yo

rk C

apita

l2,

015,

000

$

2,

249,

000

$

2,49

4,00

0$

2,

433,

000

$

2,54

4,00

0$

2,74

8,00

0$

2,

728,

000

$

2,78

1,00

0$

2,

868,

000

$

2,90

6,00

0$

2,

923,

000

$

"Bey

ond

Cor

e" e

xtra

nee

ds:

REQ

UIR

E A

BU

SIN

ESS

CA

SE fo

r 201

1 R

EQU

EST,

PO

ST 2

011

ITEM

S TB

D

Wat

ersh

ed P

lan:

top

up R

esea

ch/A

dapt

atio

n,H

eadw

ater

s D

rain

age/

Hyd

rolo

gy

Wat

ersh

ed P

lan:

Cum

ulat

ive

build

up

of S

usta

inab

le N

eigh

bour

hood

s co

re b

ase

(sep

arat

e fro

m e

nhan

cem

ent b

elow

)19

5,00

0$

195,

000

$

22

0,00

0$

22

0,00

0$

245,

000

$

24

5,00

0$

270,

000

$

27

0,00

0$

270,

000

$

Wat

ersh

ed P

lan:

Cum

ulat

ive

build

up

Follo

wup

Pla

ns b

ase

(sep

arat

e fro

m e

nhan

cem

ent b

elow

)14

5,00

0$

120,

000

$

12

0,00

0$

17

0,00

0$

220,

000

$

22

0,00

0$

220,

000

$

22

0,00

0$

220,

000

$

Floo

dwor

ks/w

arni

ng: O

.P. H

ydro

logy

pro

gram

Floo

dwor

ks/w

arni

ng: A

dd n

ew F

lood

wor

ks P

rogr

am12

0,00

0$

175,

000

$

20

0,00

0$

250,

000

$

155,

000

$

15

5,00

0$

161,

000

$

16

1,00

0$

161,

000

$

16

1,00

0$

Floo

dwor

ks/W

arni

ng:C

umul

ativ

e bu

ild u

p of

bas

e fo

r War

ning

, Ero

sion

, Lar

ge/s

mal

l dam

s

Floo

dmap

:Cum

ulat

ive

build

up

Bas

e fo

r Gro

wth

/ P

olic

y ite

ms

Ste

war

dshi

p: R

ouge

Reg

ener

atio

n in

crea

se

Ste

war

dshi

p: N

ew it

em R

ouge

Com

mun

ity e

vent

s

Ste

war

dshi

p:C

umul

ativ

e C

TP /

Sus

t. C

omm

uniti

es /

LCC

Cam

pus

build

up

of b

ase

34,0

00$

94

,000

$

10

4,00

0$

31

,000

$

32

,000

$

37

,000

$

38

,000

$

38

,000

$

38

,000

$

Ste

war

dshi

p: C

umul

ativ

e M

isc.

top-

ups

Reg

en

Ste

war

dshi

p:C

umul

ativ

e to

p-up

s S

tew

/Ed,

Sus

t.Com

m/S

ust.

tech

19,0

00$

86

,000

$

13

5,00

0$

12

8,00

0$

201,

000

$

15

1,00

0$

166,

000

$

26

0,00

0$

260,

000

$

Oth

er Y

ork

item

s ge

tting

201

0 bu

t not

sur

e if

they

are

"co

re":

REQ

UIR

E A

BU

SIN

ESS

CA

SE

Offi

ce A

ccom

mod

atio

n P

roje

ct19

6,00

0$

80

,000

$

27

5,50

7$

275,

507

$

27

5,50

7$

27

5,50

7$

275,

507

$

27

5,50

7$

275,

507

$

27

5,50

7$

275,

507

$

Liv

ing

City

Cen

tre P

roje

ct (f

inis

hed)

250,

000

$

-$

Con

serv

atio

n La

nd C

are

Pro

ject

(ong

oing

)41

8,00

0$

81

3,00

0$

1,21

4,00

0$

1,

239,

000

$

1,26

4,00

0$

1,29

0,00

0$

1,

315,

000

$

1,34

2,00

0$

1,

372,

000

$

1,39

9,00

0$

1,

400,

000

$

Sub

-tota

l Cor

e &

Oth

er Y

ork

Cap

ital

2,87

9,00

0$

3,26

2,00

0$

4,

551,

507

$

4,64

2,50

7$

4,

912,

507

$

5,

017,

507

$

5,17

1,50

7$

5,

212,

507

$

5,37

0,50

7$

5,

529,

507

$

5,54

7,50

7$

NEE

DS

BEY

ON

D A

BO

VE B

ASE

FU

ND

ING

(In

orde

r of p

riorit

y):

Kor

trigh

t Cam

pus

Dev

elop

men

t Pro

ject

(End

s 20

20)

-$

25

0,00

0$

250,

000

$

25

0,00

0$

250,

000

$

250,

000

$

25

0,00

0$

250,

000

$

25

0,00

0$

250,

000

$

25

0,00

0$

Spc

s: C

limat

e C

onso

rtium

Res

earc

h/A

ctio

n/In

tegr

atio

n-

$

300,

000

$

40

0,00

0$

400,

000

$

-

$

Enh

ance

d: W

ater

cour

se In

vent

ory

& A

sses

smen

t Pro

ject

(end

s 20

13)

100,

000

$

10

3,00

0$

107,

000

$

-

$

-$

-$

-$

-$

-$

-$

Enh

ance

d R

ouge

Wat

ersh

ed M

onito

ringR

egio

nal M

onito

ring

Pro

gram

: F-

$

112,

000

$

13

2,00

0$

85,0

00$

90,0

00$

45,0

00$

47,0

00$

50,0

00$

50,0

00$

50,0

00$

50,0

00$

Enh

ance

d W

ater

shed

Ero

sion

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

aint

enan

ce P

rogr

am (o

n-

$

500,

000

$

50

0,00

0$

545,

000

$

56

0,00

0$

57

5,00

0$

590,

000

$

60

5,00

0$

615,

000

$

61

5,00

0$

615,

000

$

Enh

ance

men

t :S

usta

inab

le N

eigh

bour

hood

Ret

rofit

Act

ion

Pla

n P

rogr

am-

$

250,

000

$

27

5,00

0$

275,

000

$

30

0,00

0$

30

0,00

0$

325,

000

$

32

5,00

0$

375,

000

$

37

5,00

0$

375,

000

$

Sub

-tota

l of P

ropo

sed

need

s be

yond

bas

e-

$

1,51

2,00

0$

1,

660,

000

$

1,66

2,00

0$

1,

200,

000

$

1,

170,

000

$

1,21

2,00

0$

1,

230,

000

$

1,29

0,00

0$

1,

290,

000

$

1,29

0,00

0$

T

OTA

L O

F D

IREC

T C

API

TAL

REQ

UES

TS2,

879,

000

$

4,

774,

000

$

6,21

1,50

7$

6,

304,

507

$

6,11

2,50

7$

6,18

7,50

7$

6,

383,

507

$

6,44

2,50

7$

6,

660,

507

$

6,81

9,50

7$

6,

837,

507

$

Oth

er it

ems:

Inf

rast

ruct

ure

(incl

udes

201

0 C

limat

e C

onso

rtium

)40

5,50

7$

27

5,50

7$

275,

507

$

27

5,50

7$

275,

507

$

275,

507

$

27

5,50

7$

275,

507

$

27

5,50

7$

275,

507

$

27

5,50

7$

Reg

iona

l Ope

n S

pace

Sys

tem

23,6

15$

25,0

00$

27

,000

$

29,0

00$

31,0

00$

33,0

00$

35,0

00$

37,0

00$

39,0

00$

39,0

00$

39,0

00$

Sub

-tota

l of O

ther

item

s fu

nded

as

part

of O

pera

ting

requ

est

429,

122

$

300,

507

$

302,

507

$

30

4,50

7$

306,

507

$

308,

507

$

31

0,50

7$

312,

507

$

31

4,50

7$

314,

507

$

31

4,50

7$

TOTA

L IN

CLU

DIN

G O

THER

CA

PITA

L3,

308,

122

$

5,

074,

507

$

6,51

4,01

4$

6,

609,

014

$

6,41

9,01

4$

6,49

6,01

4$

6,

694,

014

$

6,75

5,01

4$

6,

975,

014

$

7,13

4,01

4$

7,

152,

014

$

Attachment 1

518

Reg

ion

of D

urha

m 2

011-

202

0 C

apita

l Bud

get S

umm

ary

Toro

nto

and

Reg

ion

Con

serv

atio

n A

utho

rity

9/2/

2010

Proj

ect N

ame

2010

Fin

al

2011

nee

d id

entif

ied

last

ye

ar20

11

subm

issi

on20

1220

1320

1420

1520

1620

1720

1820

1920

20

Wat

ersh

ed/S

ubw

ater

shed

Pla

nnin

g$7

0,00

0$2

52,0

00$7

0,00

0$3

11,0

00$3

12,0

00$3

03,0

00$3

34,0

00$3

52,0

00$3

57,0

00$3

62,0

00$1

87,0

00$1

87,0

00 F

lood

Wor

ks, F

orec

ast/W

arni

ng$9

7,00

0$2

76,0

00$1

22,0

00$2

94,0

00$2

84,0

00$2

85,0

00$2

91,0

00$2

91,0

00$2

94,0

00$2

95,0

00$2

96,0

00$2

97,0

00 G

roun

dwat

er M

anag

emen

t$1

25,0

00$1

30,0

00$1

25,0

00$1

30,0

00$1

40,0

00$1

40,0

00$1

40,0

00$1

40,0

00$1

40,0

00$1

40,0

00$1

40,0

00$1

40,0

00 W

ater

shed

Mon

itorin

g$6

5,00

0$7

0,00

0$6

5,00

0$8

0,00

0$8

5,00

0$9

0,00

0$9

5,00

0$1

05,0

00$1

10,0

00$1

15,0

00$1

20,0

00$1

20,0

00 N

atur

al H

azar

d M

appi

ng$2

0,00

0$3

1,00

0$2

0,00

0$3

3,00

0$4

0,00

0$4

0,00

0$4

0,00

0$4

0,00

0$4

0,00

0$4

0,00

0$4

0,00

0$4

0,00

0 N

atur

al H

erita

ge M

appi

ng$5

0,00

0$6

0,00

0$5

0,00

0$6

0,00

0$6

5,00

0$6

5,00

0$7

0,00

0$7

0,00

0$7

0,00

0$7

0,00

0$7

0,00

0$7

0,00

0 R

egen

erat

ion

(Ste

war

dshi

p)$1

19,0

00$1

45,0

00$1

12,0

00$1

50,0

00$1

65,0

00$1

71,0

00$1

78,0

00$1

84,0

00$1

91,0

00$1

97,0

00$2

04,0

00$2

10,0

00 E

duca

tion/

Ste

war

dshi

p/S

ust.

Com

m &

Tec

h$4

5,00

0$1

37,0

00$4

5,00

0$1

27,0

00$1

67,0

00$1

42,0

00$1

52,0

00$1

60,0

00$1

42,5

00$1

70,0

00$1

75,0

00$1

75,0

00 W

ater

front

Dev

elop

men

t$9

4,00

0$1

08,0

00$9

4,00

0$1

23,0

00$1

33,0

00$1

08,0

00$9

5,00

0$9

7,00

0$9

9,00

0$1

01,0

00$1

03,0

00$1

05,0

00 C

onse

rvat

ion

Land

Car

e$1

40,0

00$2

92,0

00$1

24,0

00$3

59,0

00$4

23,0

00$5

28,0

00$6

39,0

00$7

49,0

00$8

65,0

00$9

65,0

00$9

66,0

00$9

66,0

00 S

peci

al In

frast

uctu

re$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

$0$0

Sub

-tota

l bef

ore

prop

osed

enh

ance

men

ts$8

25,0

00$1

,501

,000

$827

,000

$1,6

67,0

00$1

,814

,000

$1,8

72,0

00$2

,034

,000

$2,1

88,0

00$2

,308

,500

$2,4

55,0

00$2

,301

,000

$2,3

10,0

00

GR

AN

D T

OTA

L$8

25,0

00$1

,501

,000

$827

,000

$1,6

67,0

00$1

,814

,000

$1,8

72,0

00$2

,034

,000

$2,1

88,0

00$2

,308

,500

$2,4

55,0

00$2

,301

,000

$2,3

10,0

00

519

2-Se

p-20

10

Proj

ect N

ame

2010

2011

Su

bmis

sion

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Wat

ersh

ed/S

ubw

ater

shed

Pla

nnin

g$2

75,0

00$2

84,0

00$3

19,0

00$3

52,0

00$3

89,0

00$4

27,0

00$4

18,0

00$3

99,0

00$4

08,0

00$4

15,0

00$4

15,0

00G

roun

dwat

er M

anag

emen

t Stra

tegy

$125

,000

$125

,00 0

$130

,000

$140

,000

$140

,000

$150

,000

$150

,000

$150

,000

$150

,000

$150

,000

$150

,000

Terr

estri

al N

atur

al H

erita

ge$1

90,0

00$1

83,0

00$1

44,0

00$1

44,0

00$1

55,0

00$1

55,0

00$1

67,0

00$1

67,0

00$1

67,0

00$1

67,0

00$1

67,0

00N

atur

al H

erita

ge R

egen

erat

ion

Pro

ject

s$6

23,0

00$6

37,0

0 0$6

13,0

00$6

42,0

00$6

70,0

00$7

00,0

00$7

31,0

00$7

60,0

00$7

91,0

00$8

12,0

00$8

44,0

00S

usta

inab

le C

omm

uniti

es$8

14,0

00$8

79,0

00$8

41,0

00$8

02,0

00$8

45,0

00$9

67,0

00$1

,004

,000

$959

,000

$980

,000

$1,0

76,0

00$1

,081

,000

Reg

iona

l Wat

ersh

ed M

onito

ring

and

Rep

ortin

g$3

55,0

00$3

70,0

00$3

87,0

00$4

05,0

00$4

27,0

00$4

50,0

00$4

76,0

00$5

02,0

00$4

80,0

00$4

80,0

00$4

80,0

00Fl

ood

Con

trol W

orks

$520

,000

$473

,000

$464

,000

$482

,000

$512

,000

$533

,000

$549

,000

$565

,000

$584

,000

$594

,000

$594

,000

Env

ironm

enta

l Ass

essm

ent R

evie

w$2

80,0

00$2

90,0

0 0$3

00,0

00$3

10,0

00$3

20,0

00$3

30,0

00$3

40,0

00$3

50,0

00$3

60,0

00$3

70,0

00$3

70,0

00W

orks

Sub

-Tot

al$3

,182

,00 0

$3,2

41,0

00$3

,198

,000

$3,2

77,0

00$3

,458

,000

$3,7

12,0

00$3

,835

,000

$3,8

52,0

00$3

,920

,000

$4,0

64,0

00$4

,101

,000

M

ajor

Fac

ilitie

s R

etro

fit$8

0,00

0$9

2,00

0$1

03,0

00$1

15,0

00$1

15,0

00$1

15,0

00$1

15,0

00$1

15,0

00$1

15,0

00$1

15,0

00$1

15,0

00K

ortri

ght C

ampu

s D

evel

opm

ent

$175

,000

$175

,00 0

$175

,000

$175

,000

$175

,000

$175

,000

$175

,000

$175

,000

$175

,000

$175

,000

$175

,000

Pub

lic U

se In

frast

ruct

ure

$41,

000

$46,

000

$48,

000

$52,

000

$55,

000

$57,

000

$60,

000

$63,

000

$66,

000

$66,

000

$66,

000

Offi

ce A

ccom

odat

ion

Pro

ject

$0$4

5,80

2$1

60,8

02$1

60,8

02$1

60,8

02$1

60,8

02$1

60,8

02$1

60,8

02$1

60,8

02$1

60,8

02$1

60,8

02W

ashr

oom

Upg

rade

s$1

00,0

00$1

05,0

0 0$1

10,0

00$1

10,0

00$1

16,0

00$1

21,0

00$1

27,0

00$1

34,0

00$1

41,0

00$1

41,0

00$1

41,0

00C

ampg

roun

d an

d C

onse

rvat

ion

Are

a Im

prov

emen

ts$3

25,0

00$3

50,0

0 0$4

00,0

00$4

00,0

00$4

00,0

00$4

00,0

00$4

00,0

00$4

00,0

00$4

00,0

00$4

00,0

00$4

00,0

00H

eart

Lake

Pla

n Im

plem

enta

tion

$697

,000

$695

,000

$704

,000

$770

,000

$500

,000

$170

,000

$170

,000

$170

,000

$170

,000

$170

,000

$170

,000

Con

serv

atio

n La

nd P

lann

ing

$972

,000

$1,1

49,0

00$1

,148

,000

$1,1

70,0

00$1

,169

,000

$1,1

67,0

00$1

,166

,000

$1,1

65,0

00$1

,334

,000

$1,3

57,0

00$1

,357

,000

Con

serv

atio

n La

nd C

are

/Ope

n S

pace

$15,

000

$15,

000

$16,

000

$17,

000

$18,

000

$20,

000

$21,

000

$22,

000

$23,

000

$23,

000

$23,

000

Info

rmat

ion

Tech

nolo

gy$4

6,00

0$5

7,00

0$6

0,00

0$6

3,00

0$6

6,00

0$6

9,00

0$7

2,00

0$7

5,00

0$7

7,00

0$7

7,00

0$7

7,00

0

Con

serv

atio

n C

apita

l Sub

-Tot

al$2

,451

,000

$2,7

29,8

02$2

,924

,802

$3,0

32,8

02$2

,774

,802

$2,4

54,8

02$2

,466

,802

$2,4

79,8

02$2

,661

,802

$2,6

84,8

02$2

,684

,802

TOTA

L C

API

TAL

$5,6

33,0

00$5

,970

,802

$6,1

22,8

02$6

,309

,802

$6,2

32,8

02$6

,166

,802

$6,3

01,8

02$6

,331

,802

$6,5

81,8

02$6

,748

,802

$6,7

85,8

02

O

ther

Pro

ject

s:

Pee

l Clim

ate

Cha

nge

Miti

gatio

n$5

,325

,000

$5,8

00,0

00$7

,309

,000

$6,5

51,0

00$6

,464

,000

$6,6

61,0

00$7

,102

,000

$6,9

72,0

00$7

,030

,000

$6,9

59,0

00$6

,873

,000

GR

AN

D T

OTA

L$1

0,95

8,00

0$1

1,77

0,80

2$1

3,43

1,80

2$1

2,86

0,80

2$1

2,69

6,80

2$1

2,82

7,80

2$1

3,40

3,80

2$1

3,30

3,80

2$1

3,61

1,80

2$1

3,70

7,80

2$1

3,65

8,80

2

520

Sum

mar

y by

Cat

egor

yT:

\Bud

get\x

CA

PIT

AL

FUN

DIN

G A

SK

S (a

lso

Ope

ratin

g su

bmis

sion

s)\2

011

PR

ELI

MIN

AR

Y\D

evel

op S

ubm

issi

ons\

[Tor

onto

201

1+ C

AP

ITA

L B

UD

GE

T.xl

s]10

Yea

r Sub

mis

sion

Sum

mar

y

City

of T

oron

to G

rand

Tot

als

Cat

egor

y20

10 A

ppro

ved

2011

Su

bmis

sion

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2011

Wat

er20

11 D

ebt

% C

hang

e 20

10-2

011

Wat

erfro

nt a

nd V

alle

y E

rosi

on C

ontro

l1,

480,

000

1,50

0,00

01,

500,

000

1,53

0,00

01,

600,

000

1,60

0,00

01,

600,

000

1,60

0,00

01,

600,

000

1,60

0,00

01,

600,

000

750,

000

750,

000

563.

9%W

ater

front

Dev

elop

men

t1,

454,

000

1,52

3,00

01,

552,

000

1,60

8,00

01,

573,

000

1,42

3,00

01,

423,

000

1,42

3,00

01,

423,

000

1,42

3,00

01,

423,

000

545,

000

978,

000

135.

6%To

ront

o R

AP

2,01

1,00

02,

263,

000

2,31

8,00

02,

321,

000

2,38

0,00

02,

626,

000

2,72

7,00

02,

830,

000

2,93

5,00

03,

043,

000

3,06

0,00

02,

263,

000

010

.3%

The

Livi

ng C

ity C

entre

/KC

C C

ampu

s D

evel

opm

ent P

rogr

am20

7,00

00

00

00

00

00

00

08.

7%

Bla

ck C

reek

Pio

neer

Vill

age

Ret

rofit

Pro

gram

350,

000

350,

000

350,

000

350,

000

350,

000

350,

000

350,

000

350,

000

350,

000

350,

000

350,

000

035

0,00

00.

0%M

ajor

Fac

ilitie

s R

etro

fit P

rogr

am (o

ngoi

ng)

462,

000

460,

000

460,

000

460,

000

460,

000

460,

000

460,

000

460,

000

460,

000

460,

000

460,

000

046

0,00

00.

0%In

form

atio

n Te

chno

logy

Rep

lace

men

t Pro

gram

(ong

oing

)26

4,00

026

4,00

026

4,00

026

4,00

026

4,00

026

4,00

026

4,00

026

4,00

026

4,00

026

4,00

026

4,00

00

264,

000

0.0%

Pub

lic U

se In

frast

ruct

ure

Ret

rofit

Pro

gram

(ong

oing

)19

8,00

019

8,00

019

8,00

019

8,00

019

8,00

019

8,00

019

8,00

019

8,00

019

8,00

019

8,00

019

8,00

00

198,

000

0.0%

00

0.0%

-Infr

astr

uctu

re to

tal

1,

274,

000

1,27

2,00

01,

272,

000

1,27

2,00

01,

272,

000

1,27

2,00

01,

272,

000

1,27

2,00

01,

272,

000

1,27

2,00

01,

272,

000

01,

272,

000

81.6

%

Gre

ensp

ace

Land

Acq

uisi

tion

Pro

gram

(ong

oing

)80

,000

87,0

0093

,000

99,0

0010

0,00

010

0,00

010

0,00

010

0,00

010

0,00

010

0,00

010

0,00

087

,000

019

.2%

GR

AN

D T

OTA

L6,

506,

000

6,64

5,00

06,

735,

000

6,83

0,00

06,

925,

000

7,02

1,00

07,

122,

000

7,22

5,00

07,

330,

000

7,43

8,00

07,

455,

000

3,64

5,00

03,

000,

000

6.0%

Wat

er F

unde

d Po

rtio

n3,

554,

500

3,64

5,00

03,

735,

000

3,83

0,00

03,

925,

000

4,02

1,00

04,

122,

000

4,22

5,00

04,

330,

000

4,43

8,00

04,

455,

000

0D

ebt

2,95

1,50

03,

000,

000

3,00

0,00

03,

000,

000

3,00

0,00

03,

000,

000

3,00

0,00

03,

000,

000

3,00

0,00

03,

000,

000

3,00

0,00

00

00

00

00

00

00

CR

ITIC

AL

NEE

DS

BEY

ON

D B

ASE

: (Pr

iorit

ized

)Po

tent

ial E

nhan

cem

ent:

Trou

tbro

ok /

Den

niso

n R

oad

Wes

t50

0,00

065

0,00

075

,000

00

00

00

025

0,00

025

0,00

0

Pote

ntia

l Enh

ance

men

t: M

ore

Wat

erfr

ont M

AJO

R M

AIN

TEN

AN

CE

(& fu

ture

s si

tes)

1,00

0,00

01,

500,

000

1,60

0,00

01,

700,

000

1,90

0,00

02,

000,

000

2,00

0,00

02,

000,

000

2,00

0,00

02,

000,

000

01,

000,

000

Pote

ntia

l Enh

ance

men

t: Sc

arbo

roug

h W

ater

fron

t Acc

ess

Plan

500,

000

3,50

0,00

03,

500,

000

4,00

0,00

04,

000,

000

4,50

0,00

04,

500,

000

5,00

0,00

05,

000,

000

5,00

0,00

00

500,

000

Pote

ntia

l Enh

ance

men

ts: M

ore

Floo

dwor

ks i.

e. H

ogg'

s H

ollo

w10

0,00

020

0,00

085

,000

85,0

000

00

00

010

0,00

00

Rou

ge P

ark

Pede

stria

n B

ridge

/Tra

il a

t Ste

eles

& R

eeso

r Roa

d30

0,00

030

0,00

0C

ritic

al N

eed:

Tor

onto

Isla

nds

- Gib

ralta

r Poi

nt7,

600,

000

7,60

0,00

03,

800,

000

3,80

0,00

0su

b-to

tal

010

,000

,000

13,4

50,0

005,

260,

000

5,78

5,00

05,

900,

000

6,50

0,00

06,

500,

000

7,00

0,00

07,

000,

000

7,00

0,00

04,

150,

000

5,85

0,00

00

0

Crit

ical

Nee

ds P

revi

ousl

y In

dent

ified

& R

eque

sted

:O

ffice

Acc

omod

atio

n P

roje

ct0

921,

665

921,

665

921,

665

921,

665

921,

665

921,

665

921,

665

921,

665

921,

665

921,

665

092

1,66

50.

0%K

CC

Cam

pus

Dev

elop

men

t Pro

gram

225,

000

225,

000

225,

000

225,

000

225,

000

225,

000

225,

000

225,

000

225,

000

225,

000

112,

500

112,

500

GR

AN

D T

OTA

L IN

CLU

DIN

G E

XTR

A N

EED

S6,

506,

000

17,7

91,6

6521

,331

,665

13,2

36,6

6513

,856

,665

14,0

67,6

6514

,768

,665

14,8

71,6

6515

,476

,665

15,5

84,6

6515

,601

,665

7,90

7,50

09,

884,

165

00

Wat

er F

unde

d Po

rtio

n In

clud

ing

extr

a ne

eds

3,55

4,50

07,

907,

500

8,17

2,50

04,

065,

000

4,12

2,50

04,

133,

500

3,78

4,50

04,

337,

500

4,44

2,50

04,

550,

500

4,56

7,50

0D

ebt i

nclu

ding

ext

ra n

eeds

2,95

1,50

09,

884,

165

13,1

59,1

659,

171,

665

9,73

4,16

59,

934,

165

10,9

84,1

6510

,534

,165

11,0

34,1

6511

,034

,165

11,0

34,1

6576

,303

,325

00

00

00

00

00

521

522

SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION

RES.#A165/10 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION

Moved by: Gay CowbourneSeconded by: David Barrow

THAT Section II items EX8.1 - EX8.4, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #6/10, held on August 6, 2010, be received.

CARRIEDSection II Items EX8.1 - EX8.4, InclusiveCANADA GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL GREATER TORONTO CHAPTER(Executive Res.#B84/10)VULNERABLE SECTOR SCREENING(Executive Res.#B85/10)ORGAN DONOR LEAVE(Executive Res.#B86/10)PETTICOAT CREEK CONSERVATION AREA(Executive Res.#B87/10)

_________________________________________

RES.#A166/10 - HEARING REPORT

Moved by: Lois GriffinSeconded by: David Barrow

THAT the Hearing Report contained in Executive Committee Minutes #7/10, held on September 10, 2010, be received.

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A167/10 - SECTION II - ITEMS FOR AUTHORITY INFORMATION


THAT Section II items EX9.1 & EX9.2, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #7/10, held on September 10, 2010, be received.

CARRIEDSection II Items EX9.1 & EX9.2EAST DON TRAIL - ASPHALT PAVING(Executive Res.#B108/10)APPOINTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER(Executive Res.#B109/10) _________________________________________

523

SECTION IV - ITEMS FOR THE INFORMATION OF THE BOARD

RES.#A168/10 - COATSWORTH CUT DREDGING PROJECTContract Extension RSD10-15. Extension of Contract RSD10-15 for additional maintenance dredging within Coatsworth Cut at Ashbridge's Bay Park in the City of Toronto.

Moved by: Paul AinslieSeconded by: Maria Augimeri

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the staff report dated August 19, 2010, on the Coatsworth Cut Dredging Project contract extension be received.

CARRIEDBACKGROUNDMaintenance dredging is routinely carried out within Coatsworth Cut to maintain sufficient depths within the channel for the boating community, and was last completed in 2008 with approximately 4,250 cubic metres of sediment removed from the channel. As maintenance dredging is typically required every one to years, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) completed a hydrographic (water-based) survey of Coatsworth Cut in May 2010, in anticipation that dredging would be required. The results of the survey estimated that approximately 4,000 cubic metres of sediment would need to be removed to provide the minimum depth below chart datum required for safe navigation, providing the volume on which to base the Request for Quotations to retain a dredging contractor.

At Executive Committee Meeting #5/10, held on June 4, 2010, Resolution #B56/10, was approved as follows:

THAT Contract RSD10-15 be awarded to The Ontario Construction Company Limited for the channel maintenance dredging of Coatsworth Cut for the total cost not to exceed $167,990.00 plus HST, which includes a contingency amount of $5,000.00 to be expended as authorized by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), it being the lowest bid meeting TRCA specifications;

AND FURTHER THAT authorized officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including obtaining necessary approvals and the signing and execution of documents.

The Ontario Construction Company mobilized and began dredging operations in early July 2010. On July 28, 2010 a hydrographic survey was performed to confirm that the required volume was removed by the contractor. Upon analysis of the survey it was discovered that approximately 1,500 cubic metres of additional sediment had deposited in the limits of the work area since the May 2010 survey was completed. It was determined by staff that the location and quantity of material would impede safe navigation through the channel and therefore needed to be removed.

524

RATIONALEIn the interest of eliminating the hazard posed to the boaters by the additional sediment, TRCA's Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) authorized that further dredging of the obstructed area be carried out while the mobilized contractor was on site, resulting in a savings of both time and cost of mobilization and demobilization of resources to eliminate the hazard. Following the issue of a Change Order outlining the revised scope of work and contract value, the contractor proceeded with the removal of the additional 1,500 cubic metres of sediment, completing the dredging on August 13, 2010.

FINANCIAL DETAILSThe extra work fell under the same terms and conditions as prescribed in Contract RSD10-15 but with a new price structure negotiated in good faith between TRCA staff and The Ontario Construction Company. The Ontario Construction Company Limited agreed to reduce their dredging rate from $31.85 to $30.20 per cubic metre removed; Contract RSD10-15 has a revised contract value of $218,290 plus HST.

Funding for the project is provided by the City of Toronto Waterfront Development 2010 budget, in account 211-16.

Report prepared by: James Dickie, 416-392-9702Emails: [email protected] Information contact: Moranne McDonnell, 416-392-9725 Emails: [email protected]: August 19, 2010

_________________________________________

ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06

RES.#A169/10 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06

Moved by: Gay CowbourneSeconded by: David Barrow

THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX10.1 - EX10.127, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #6/10, held on August 6, 2010, be received.

CARRIED _________________________________________

RES.#A170/10 - ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06


525

THAT Ontario Regulation 166/06 items EX11.1 - EX11.126, inclusive, contained in Executive Committee Minutes #7/10, held on September 10, 2010, be received.

CARRIED _________________________________________

NEW BUSINESSRES.#A171/10 - MEETING ATTENDANCE

Moved by: Jack HeathSeconded by: Gay Cowbourne

THAT staff report back in the spring 2011 on options regarding tracking arrival and departure times of members at Authority and committee meetings.

CARRIED _________________________________________

TERMINATION

ON MOTION, the meeting terminated at 12:49 p.m., on Friday, September 17, 2010.

Gerri Lynn O'ConnorChair

/ks

Brian DenneySecretary-Treasurer

Date post:	22-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Meeting - Authoritytrca.on.ca/dotAsset/89174.pdfGino Rosati Member Maja Prentice Member 477...

Documents