Thank you for the…

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. Council for the Township of Perth South is in agreement with the current government’s philosophies to make Ontario open for business. We also fully appreciate the importance of the Province’s direction to municipalities to become more efficient and reduce long term costs.

We are encouraged that the government is proposing to introduce amendments that would require conservation authorities to focus and deliver on their core mandate, and to improve governance. In Perth South we feel that the local conservation authority is suffering from scope creep in their services which is now contributing to increased costs for the Township. We find this scope creep and increased costs to be in direct conflict with the province’s direction to municipalities to find efficiencies and reduce long term costs.

A major concern for Perth South Council is the existing funding formula that allocates the conservation authority’s maintenance and operation costs to municipalities based on the value of the land in the municipality. The value of farmland in some areas of Southwestern Ontario has increased significantly over the last several years. Specifically in Perth South, a primarily agricultural community, farmland has increased in value by over 80% in the 2012 reassessment completed by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). With the 2016 reassessment, Perth South experienced another 70% increase in farmland. These increases are significant and have outpaced the increases that have been experienced in other tax classes and in other municipalities. As a result, Perth South has been required to pay a greater share of the total costs of the conservation authority; however there has been no associated increase in conservation authority services required or received as the land has not changed or been developed, it simply increased in value. Perth South would like to see a change to the existing funding model.

To the specifically proposed changes we offer the following comments:

1. Clearly define the core mandatory programs and services provided by conservation authorities to be, natural hazard protection and management, conservation and management of conservation authority lands, drinking water source protection (as prescribed under the Clean Water Act), and protection of the Lake Simcoe watershed (as prescribed under the Lake Simcoe Protection Act)

• We agree that there is a need to clearly define the core mandatory programs and services provided by the conservation authorities to be, natural hazard protection and management, conservation and management of conservation authority lands and drinking water source protection.

2. Increase transparency in how conservation authorities levy municipalities for mandatory and non-mandatory programs and services. Update the Conservation Authorities Act an Act introduced in 1946, to conform with modern transparency standards by ensuring that municipalities and conservation authorities review levies for non-core programs after a certain period of time (e.g., 4 to 8 years)

• We agree that the government should increase transparency in how conservation authorities levy municipalities for mandatory and non-mandatory programs and services. However, it is vital that the mandatory and non-mandatory programs and services are clearly defined. The use of vague of broad sweeping definitions could result in the classification of non-mandatory programs as mandatory programs.

• We would encourage the province to go even further in the legislation and mandate that conservation authorities may only levy member municipalities for the core mandatory programs. We believe that the government should specifically prohibit conservation authorities from using the municipal levy to fund non-mandatory programs. Conservation authorities should be mandated to deliver non-mandatory programs on a self-funded basis using user fees.

• Perth South feels that when it is the large urban municipalities that hold the majority of the votes in a conservation authority, they prioritize programs with a more urban than rural benefit. These municipalities generally have a greater ability to absorb the conservation authority’s spending increases and place increased financial pressure on the smaller member municipalities who cannot afford to support the programs the majority have approved. Small municipalities must unfairly choose which programs and services they should no longer deliver in order to deliver the services forced upon them by the urban municipalities who hold the majority on the Board.

• Perth South also feels that the conservation authorities mandate and scope is continually increasing without any constraint. This is no doubt due in part to the fact that the scope of potential programs and services that may be delivered by a conservation authority are defined broadly in the Conservation Authorities Act. An example of this can be found at the Upper Thames Conservation Authority (UTRCA) who continually expand programs and rarely eliminate any and Perth South is of the opinion that these program expansions are beyond the conservation authority’s mandate. Perth South would like to see the government require that conservation authorities are required to collect and disclose information related to the efficiency and effectiveness of the conservation authority’s operations, programs and services. Conservation authorities need to review all programs and services annually using a cost-benefit approach to determine which are priorities and should be continued and which are no longer a priority or delivering desired results and can be eliminated.

• We have seen municipal levy funding used in the recreation campgrounds in the past. While we have been told that this no longer occurs, at times it appears, based on a review of budget and other financial reports, that capital contributions are still being made and a lack of transparency makes it difficult to understand the extent that this may be occurring. It is inappropriate that municipal levies be used in recreation campgrounds, not only because this is not a core mandated service, but because it puts the taxpaying campgrounds in our municipality at a financial disadvantage.

• Municipalities that are experiencing growth feel that existing service levels are not sufficient and that additional staff is required. However, not all municipalities in the conservation authority are experiencing growth and do not have a problem with existing service levels. The UTRCA has had a request from some, but not all, member municipalities to increase planning and regulations staff capacity. When this request is fulfilled it unfairly placed a financial burden on the municipalities that do not have growth. Perth South feels that the allocation of operating costs to address service levels in some, but not all member municipalities must be addressed to ensure that those who benefit from the service are those who pay for the associated cost.

3. Establish a transition period (e.g. 18 to 24 months) and process for conservation authorities and municipalities to enter into agreements for the delivery of non-mandatory programs and services and meet these transparency standards

• We agree that the government should require conservation authorities and municipalities to enter into agreements for the delivery on non-mandatory programs. We would encourage the government to have the legislation address the scenario when a municipality does not wish to agree to the non-mandatory services, or when a municipality refuses to pay its portion of the levy that is directed to non-mandatory programs. Too often when municipalities challenge their levy they are told by conservation authorities that they are legislated to pay and they have no other recourse. Municipalities need the ability to individually decide if they wish to fund non-mandatory programs.

• It is important that the mandatory and non-mandatory programs and services are clearly defined. The use of vague of broad sweeping definitions could result in the classification of non-mandatory programs as mandatory programs.

• We also feel that the requirement for the creation of agreements will not only provide greater clarity and transparency, but will allow municipalities to understand and monitor the service levels provided. Perth South has lands that are located in the watersheds of two conservation authorities. Between these two conservation authorities there are vast differences between the programs and services that are offered, and therefore the cost to the municipality. Having different levels of service provided to different residents based on the watershed area in which they live makes providing equality and consistency challenging within the municipal boundaries. Allowing Perth South to choose non-mandatory services would help to eliminate this inequity.

4. Enable the Minister to appoint an investigator to investigate or undertake an audit and report on a conservation authority

• We agree that the Minister should be able to appoint an investigator or investigate or undertake an audit and report on a conservation authority. We feel that this will increase transparency.

• A cost-benefit analysis to justify the mandatory programs and services provided would be ideal. Just because you can provide a program or service within an existing mandate doesn’t mean that you should.

5. Clarify that the duty of conservation authority board members is to act in the best interest of the conservation authority, similar to not-for profit organizations.

• Currently, in regards to authority of representative, subsection 2(3) of the Act states that “The representatives so appointed have authority to vote and generally act on behalf of their respective municipalities at the meeting.” We are concerned that the duty of the conservation authority board members will be clarified to state that they must act in the best interest of the conservation authority, similar to not-for-profit organizations.

• We feel that “acting in the best interest of the conservation authority” is without limit or definition and may be interpreted by board members to include broad definitions of environmental conservatism. We have seen broad interpretations that have led to scope creep into non-core activities. Further, it may be interpreted by Board Members as the approval of recommendations made by staff.

• Municipalities in watersheds have many different attributes including size, population, assessment base, etc. It is important that board members that make decisions which directly impact the municipality they represent are able to consider the impact that decisions made at the conservation authority will have on their municipality. For example, the Township of Perth South, a municipality of less than 4,000, has experienced significant losses of revenue in recent years following the $2 million dollar reduction in the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF). The Perth South Council has made many cost saving decisions, but the levy from the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (UTRCA) continues to increase at rates greater than inflation. A board member with no regard for the municipality they represent, which is comprised of those who fund the conservation authority capital and operating levies, will be making decisions without regard to whether or not it is affordable by the member municipality(ies). What is wanted vs. what is needed? How will spending be controlled?

• We recommend that any changes that require board members to act in the best interest of the conservation authority be limited and defined for clarity.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed changes. The Township of Perth South appreciates the government’s efforts to provide a clear understanding of the mandatory programs of conservation authorities, and to create clarity around conservation authority levies. .