This information is provided…

This information is provided on behalf of Brian Horner, General Manager/Secretary Treasurer, Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority.

Part 1: Proposed Municipal Levies Regulation
Background- Municipal Levy Framework
• Agree with flexibility to use a variety of funding sources without a matching formula. Concern with the wording in paragraph 5: ‘Participating municipalities also have an opportunity to provide direct input into the authority annual municipal levy and authority budget.’

New Legislative and Regulatory Framework
• Agree with interpretation of category 2 as programs and services CA delivers at request of municipalities.

Proposal – Municipal Levy
• Agree with removing the terminology of “matching and non-matching levy” and replacing with “general & special levy”, helps with consistency. The voting methods being proposed can also be supported.

Conservation Authority Budgeting
• Agree with using the conservation authority website and any other means the authority deems appropriate to provide information.
• Agree with minimum 30 days notice.
• Unsure why we need to provide a summary of how we consider self-generated revenue when there is a regulation for user fees and the fee policy needs to be on the website.
• We are not opposed to publicly posting the consolidated budget (draft and final), if this is the definition of “full budget”.

• Table 1 Municipal Levy Vote and Budget Vote: For many years, municipalities have requested proxy votes in special circumstances when their representative is unable to attend the meeting when the vote is held. Having a vote at the table or by proxy is a better way to assure the member’s vote is counted.

Apportionment Methods for Conservation Authority Program and Services Costs
• We support the inclusion of Corporate Administrative Costs being included as a Category 1 item with no MOU being required.

Part 2: Proposed Minister’s Regulation for Determining Amounts Owed By Specified Municipalities - no comments

Part 3: Proposal for Minister’s Published List of Classes of Programs and Services for Which a Conservation Authority May Charge a Fee
Background
• The list should be high level so as not to be restrictive or quickly outdated.

Proposal
• Agree with the ‘user’ pay principle as described.
• Agree with conservation authority reconsidering a fee if the fee is contrary to fee schedule. Would be better if the reconsideration applied if the fee was contrary to the fee policy.
• Agree with options for the authority (vary the amount, waive the fee or confirm original amount of the fee).

Table 2
• Agree.

Part 4: Complementary Proposals to Increase Transparency of Authority Operations
Proposal
• Agree with Governance section on the website.
• Need to ensure the wording is correct in this section to balance transparency and practicality.

Appendices: Agree with the inclusion of items in this section.