MANDATORY PROGRAMS AND…

MANDATORY PROGRAMS AND SERVICES RELATED TO THE RISK OF NATURAL HAZARDS

According to the consultation document, this includes communications, public awareness and education regarding the risk of natural hazards present within the jurisdiction of the authority to public safety, and to consult on program components as required.

If this includes programs directed to children such as river safety for primary age students, it should be specified in the regulation.

MOUs

Page 24 suggests there could be either one MOU or separate MOUs with each municipality, but how could a CA establish a watershed wide program and its costs, when a CA does not know how many municipalities will participate? This becomes relevant and significant when considering programs such as tree planting which have lead times for ordering that may conflict with getting agreements in place.

This possibility has even more implications. For example:
At the end of the process of signing MOUs, staffing changes may be required based on the extend of the agreement (either hiring or firing). It may not be possible to hire the staff required to implement what has been agreed to. Then what? Or, in a situation where MOUs are not in place and staff have to be terminated? CAs do not have reserves for statutory or court determined severance.

In order to reduce these possibilities it is recommended that MOUs for non-mandatory services be for a fixed period of no less than 5 years. This would provide guidance and certainty that staffing will be in place and that contracts with staff can be put in place and budgeting for retention, recruitment and severance can be set.

There should be a standard form “contract” created for MOUs so that each municipality does not have to “run it by legal?” Not all municipalities have legal staff and few if any CAs do.

It was asked at the June 1 webinar if CAs can enter into MOUs with school boards for education services. The answer from Ministry staff was that it would be allowed. If so, it should be stated clearly in the regulation.

COMMUNITY ADVISORY BOARDS (CAB)

By requiring a municipality to appoint at least 70% of its representatives to a CA board (unless it request otherwise), the workload of elected officials is increased. With the requirement that one member of the CAB be from the Board, the regulation increases the potential for additional workload for an elected member. Many municipalities have elected officials who have other jobs. It seems counterproductive to increase that workload for a board that only provides advice.

Term limits and other details of the Terms of Reference appear to be coming in Regulation. Hopefully the intent is to be a specific as possible so that CA administrative and Board time is not tied up in details for a body that has no decision making power.

Given they are mandatory, the administrative costs of supporting the CAB can be levied. This should be made clear in regulation.

Although the positions are voluntary, will CAs be expected to pay mileage so that members can attend meetings in person? Will the regulation permit on line meetings at the call of the CA? If yes, will the Ministry permit the CA to levy to pay for any costs for a member that does not have the infrastructure or equipment to participate on line?

It will need to be clear to CAB members that advice may or may not be acted on by the Board which has the decision making authority.

A minimum of five members will likely not meet the goals of ensuring, where possible, members represent the geographic range of the authority’s jurisdiction and ensuring that a variety of members are sought, including youth and indigenous representatives.

It is suggested that this section of the proposed regulation be revised to either:
- that a CA may establish a CAB
- a CA shall establish a CAB if the majority of municipalities represented by the Board agree to establish one

Finally, the document says the minimum size is 5 members including 1 board representative but board representation cannot exceed 15%. I must point out that one out of five is 20%.

INVENTORY OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES due Dec 31, 2021

This is to be completed by Dec 31, 2021. The nature of the consultation with municipalities will not be known until the regulation is proclaimed. This makes for a very short window given some CAs have a significant number of municipalities to involve. Are requests for extensions contemplated?

It would also be helpful to have clarity in the regulation if consultation is at the upper tier or with all municipalities.

It will be helpful to know what the Ministry means by “consultation” and what, if any, mechanism will be established to deal with any disagreements. It is quite possible a minority of municipalities within a watershed will disagree with the CA on what is and is not mandatory. Then what?

NO MOU REQUIRED IF CA CAN FUND A NON MANDATORY WITHOUT LEVY

The consultation paper is clear that this is permitted. Some CAs have been very effective in raising funds through donations, foundations, grant writing and other methods for programs which will be non-mandatory. These funds should not be diverted to pay for mandatory programs for a variety of reasons, foremost, that funding will likely dry up as organizations that fund projects expect the money donated or granted to go for that specific purpose.

LAND MANAGEMENT

The consultation paper indicates a CA shall have a management plan for each property owned or controlled by the authority. Assuming the management plan is to be approved by the Province, will the Province give a CA authority to dispose of land deemed “surplus” in the management plan on its own time frame, without the extra step of having the province agree to the disposition as well as the plan?

Does tree planting come up the ambit of management and maintenance or flood control or is it deemed to be a non-mandatory program? Or does it depend on where the trees are planted? Clarity must be provided.