RE: ERO Number 013-5018 …

RE: ERO Number 013-5018 “Modernizing conservation authority operations - Conservation Authorities Act”

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Council of the Town of St. Marys.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed changes to the Conservation Authorities Act. Council for the Town of St. Marys 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.

It is our view that the Province needs to view the changes to the Conservation Authorities Act as a key step in helping municipalities reduce their long term costs. We strongly encourage the government to ensure that there are changes to the Act that allow small rural towns like St. Marys to reduce costs and become more efficient.

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 St. Marys we feel that the local conservation authority is suffering from scope creep in their services which is now contributing to increased costs for the Town. And when a conservation authority focuses more and more on matters outside its core mandate, there will likely be impacts on the core duties that support economic development (e.g. processing permit applications). 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.

For context, the local conservation authority (Upper Thames River Conservation Authority) is in the midst of implementing a new strategic plan. The key implementation strategy for their plan is secure government grants by leveraging increased levies to the member municipalities. In the past we have pointed out to the conservation authority that these levy increases are not appropriate, especially if they will contribute to the expansion of non-mandatory services. We have also pointed out that the implementation plan is fraught with risk should government funding be eliminated. Unfortunately, the Town’s concerns have not been acted upon. We have now learned that some government grants have been eliminated, and the member municipalities are now facing the prospect of further levy increases to support non-mandatory services. As a member municipality with a small population, we have a limited ability to create change.

To the specifically proposed changes we offer the following comments:

• We agree with government’s approach to 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, and drinking water source protection.

• We agree that the government should increase transparency in how conservation authorities levy municipalities for mandatory and non-mandatory programs and services. However, we would encourage the Province to go 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.

• We agree that the government should require conservation authorities and municipalities to enter into agreements for the delivery of 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.

• We are cautiously optimistic the government’s proposal to 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. We are concerned that “acting in the best interest of the authority” could be construed by the board to include broad definitions of environmental conservatism. This broad interpretation could once again lead to scope creep by conservation authorities into non-mandatory services. We would encourage the government to provide within the legislation precise clarity to board members on what is intended by “acting in the best interest of the authority”.

We would also caution the government that not always is the best interest of the authority the same as the best interest of the member municipalities, which could conflict with the government’s goal to be open for business. The government needs to consider where their open for business mandate may conflict with the idea of best interests for conservation authorities, and ensure that the legislation balances the needs to protect the environment while being flexible and supporting growth of business and municipalities.

We wish to once again extend out thanks for the opportunity to provide comment. The Town of St. Marys sincerely 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.