1. The Town of Mono does not…

1. The Town of Mono does not support consolidation as proposed. The reasons for not supporting it are in accord with the ERO submissions made by Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA). The key points (for Mono) of these two submissions are summarized in paragraphs #3 below.

2. In addition to the points raised in paragraph #3, Mono has a particular reason for being concerned with the proposed consolidation: the Town will be excluded from any meaningful role in the governance of the new regional conservation authorities. Notwithstanding the Provincial Government’s claim that consolidation will reduce or eliminate duplication for municipalities, this is not true in the case of Mono. Mono currently deals with three conservation authorities (TRCA, NVCA, and CVC). Under the proposed amalgamation, Mono will have to deal with four very large regional conservation authorities (CA): the Western Lake Ontario Regional CA, the Central Lake Ontario CA, the Huron–Superior Regional CA, and the Lake Erie Regional CA. Mono will be so small within these organizations that it will not be given a seat at the governance table. The Town will continue to be taxed (pay a levy) to these organizations with no input as to the amount of this tax or the nature of the programs funded. A specific example of how it will be squeezed out of any meaningful role is given in paragraph #4 below.

3. Key Points in the CVC and NVCA submissions:
a. the administrative effort of transitioning to a regional conservation authority will be large and the cost will be born by the municipalities (property taxes).

b. the effort required to transfer land titles to the regional conservation authorities will be large and, again, the cost will be born by the municipalities (property taxes).

c. the new regional conservation authorities are large and contain diverse geographies, populations, development pressures, etc. Mono’s northern two-thirds will be joined to the “Huron–Superior Regional Conservation Authority” which will stretch from Mono in the south to Thunder Bay in the north and will incorporate 78 municipalities. Mono’s southern third will be joined to the “Western Lake Ontario Regional Conservation Authority” which will stretch approximately 170 kilometres from Mono in the north to Niagara in the south and will have 30 municipalities and close to three million residents. Neither of these enormous entities is workable.

4. Example of how the Town of Mono will lose any role in the governance of conservation authorities -- one example:

Mono currently has one (shared) seat on the Board of Credit Valley Conservation. (CVC) It shares this seat in the sense that the Board member represents three municipalities: Mono, East Garafraxa and Amaranth. These three have a combined weight (in 2026) of 0.1868% in a budget vote. This is so small that it is immaterial as to whether the Board member shows up to vote when the budget is presented. That said, this Board member has one vote out of 12 for non-budget issues. While the three-headwater municipality’s budget vote is practically invisible, the fact that their representative sits on the Board means that there is a dialogue about the budget. This gives the three municipalities a channel to understand what is in the budget and the forces influencing it. They have an opportunity to express opinions about the budget or about the services. And they can communicate this information back to their residents.

Under the proposed regional conservation authorities, these three municipalities will be too small to be considered for a seat on the governing bodies. In fact, it is highly likely that all eight Dufferin municipalities, including Orangeville, will be too small to be included in any governing board. The result will be that Dufferin will simply be taxed (pay a levy) to fund organizations over which it has no control.