Report to: General Committee Date: April 12, 2010

SUBJECT: Governance, Organization and Finance Review of the Rouge Park Alliance

PREPARED BY: Learie Miller, Senior Environmental Planner, Extension 6922

RECOMMENDATION:

1) That the staff report entitled Governance, Organization and Finance Review of the Rouge Park Alliance dated April 13, 2010 be received;

2) And that Council support in principle the recommendations of the Governance, Organization and Finance Review for the future management of the Rouge Park as a National Park, subject to satisfactory agreement upon a new Founding Deal conditions as set out in this report;

3) And that staff continue to monitor and participate in future discussions regarding a new Founding Deal or any alternative interim and long term Rouge Park arrangements and that staff report back to Committee/Council on progress of the Founding Deal negotiations

4) And that applicable Rouge Park Implementation Task Force (RPITF) recommendations be integral to all discussion of a new Founding Deal;

5) And that this staff report be forwarded to the Rouge Park Alliance;

6) And further that Staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Rouge Park Alliance retained a team of consultants in 2009 to undertake a Governance, Organization and Finance Review of the Rouge Park (GOFR). This governance review initiative was consistent with one of the recommendations from the Town’s Rouge Park Implementation Task Force (RPITF) which was endorsed by Council in October 2009.

The core objective of the governance review was to identify, develop and evaluate potential governance models which could be implemented for Rouge Park. The final GOFR report has been circulated to Rouge Park Alliance members with the expectation that it will be reviewed and comments provided within 60 days of receipt of the report. The report was received by the Town on February 3, 2010.

The final GOFR report concluded that the existing governance model has several key limitations, and that in going forward the Rouge Park Alliance (RPA) should adopt a number of strategies including seeking the support of members of the Alliance, as well as the Provincial and Federal government for the establishment of a Rouge National Park.

The recommendation to establish a National Park is supported in principle by Town staff for a number of reasons. (a) It would create a formal park system based upon ecological principles. (b) It would represent a single funder of the Park (Parks Canada), which is critical when it has been estimated by the consultants that the Park (taking into account planned and potential improvements) will require approximately $4.0 million annually for operating costs and in excess of $40 million over a 10 year period for capital costs.

(c) It would require no funding commitment from the Town and (d) there would be one operator of the park having a single administrative framework and the requisite enabling legislation will be put in place to govern the Park’s operation and management.

The success of the Rouge National Park recommendation is dependent upon the outcome of future discussions with Parks Canada and the finalization of a “Founding Deal”. The Founding Deal should set out how the Park can be managed within the adjacent urban landscape, and would also address what are considered core deliverables (i.e. funding, boundaries and land commitments, vision, role of the Park and governance and transitional arrangements). It will also take into consideration the needs of the partners to the Founding Deal.

A number of the Town’s RPITF revised recommendations are particularly relevant to future discussions on a Founding Deal, as the RPITF identified a number of fundamental elements of the Park which should be addressed including funding, park boundaries, future infrastructure, sustainability of agriculture, and the need for more public uses in the Park.

The GOFR consultants have recommended, in the event there is no progress by December 30, 2010 on a new Founding Deal, that the Rouge Park Alliance initiate a request to the Government of Ontario that it be reconstituted as a not-for-profit arms-length agency with updated board and governance structures, and natural person powers, in order to address the governance weaknesses inherent in the existing Alliance model.

The governance review report also recommends that the RPA prepare a public and stakeholder communications and branding strategy. However, it has not addressed any future public consultative/information process with respect to the proposed recommendations. This will clearly have to be the subject of further discussions with the Alliance possibly as an element of the governance and transitional arrangements.

The Rouge Park Alliance has been responsible for initiating the review and the circulation of the final report, but has not taken a position on the recommendations. Rather, it has been indicated that the RPA position is expected to emerge from, or in response to the individual and collective positions taken by the members of the Alliance, and discussions with the Provincial and Federal Ministers, their staff and key stakeholders.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of the report is to provide Council with an overview of the Governance, Organization and Finance Review (GOFR) of the Rouge Park Alliance, which was prepared by a team of consultants. In addition, the report provides staff comments with respect to the implications for Markham of the proposed recommendations, and commentary on the status of the RPITF recommendations relative to this initiative.

BACKGROUND:

In October 2009, Council endorsed a set of revised recommendations from the Town’s Rouge Park Implementation Task Force (RPITF) as direction for further discussion and negotiation with the Rouge Park Alliance. One of the recommendations was that the Town supports the Governance Review process and requests an opportunity to make an early input into the review.

In September, 2009, the Rouge Park Alliance retained Strategy Corp Inc. and Hemson Consulting to undertake a Governance, Organization and Finance Review (GOFR) of the Rouge Park Alliance. A Steering Committee consisting of the Chairman and a cross section of the members of the Alliance was established to oversee the project. The Town of Markham was represented on the steering committee by the Town’s Chief Administrative Officer. The consultants worked directly with this Steering Committee in developing research, models, approaches and recommendations that were presented to the full membership of the Alliance.

The purpose and objectives of the study as set out in the Terms of Reference consisted of five key deliverables:

1. Identify, develop and evaluate feasible governance models that could be implemented for Rouge Park.

2. Develop a Funding strategy for the park.

3. Develop a management and organization structure to plan, operate and manage the park.

4. Reconcile the addition of new lands and changing use/leisure patterns with the vision/goal and objectives of the Rouge Park.

5. Develop and implement an effective strategy for engaging the broader membership of the Alliance (and their sponsoring/host organizations) in the discussions of the first four deliverables listed above.

Between late August, 2009, and the end of January 2010 there were 3 Steering Committee Workshops, 2 working sessions with the Finance Working Group and one workshop of the RPA members. In addition, there were individual meetings between the consultant and representatives (Alliance and Steering Committee) of the constituent member organizations and several conference calls.

A draft of the consultants report was presented to the RPA on February 5, 2010. The Executive Summary is attached as Appendix A to this report. Copies of the Complete GOFR report will be distributed electronically to the Mayor and Members of Council in advance of the meeting date.

OPTIONS/ DISCUSSION:

Current Rouge Park Alliance Structure

The consultant’s findings suggested that despite being in existence for more than a decade, and having some degree of success over the years, especially in terms of expanding the area of the Park, there are inherent weaknesses in the Alliance as a governing body (see Figure 1 attached showing extent of Rouge Park). For example, the consultants cited the fact that the Alliance is unincorporated and does not have legal “natural person powers”, therefore it is unable to own land or contract in its own name. Secondly, with the exception of the Chair, appointees to the Rouge Park Alliance sit in a representational capacity, whereby they represent the organization that appointed them. In consequence, the consultants have indicated that the Alliance is at best an Advisory Board and not considered a true decision-making board of directors.

Further, the report noted, there is still no universal shared definition of the Rouge Park even among Alliance Members, and Rouge Park is without many of the fundamental features or benchmarks of a successful park, such as:

a functional governance model

a consolidated, well defined land base,
a comprehensive master plan,
a funded implementation strategy, and
an articulated park brand (what it is, what it does, and who it is attracting).

As a consequence, a number of options were examined in the GOFR which could address the weaknesses identified and which would enable development and operation of Rouge Park to follow a more sustainable path.

Future Park Governance Model

A number of Canadian and international governance models for parks and related type entities were evaluated during the review. The models considered for Rouge Park were as follows:

National Park;
Provincial Park;
Crown Corporation or Authority;
Provincial Authority;
Conservancy or Trust;
Municipal Park; and
Existing Alliance

The consultants further evaluated the models in the context of control of lands, adequate funding and authority and expertise. It was deduced that not all models would provide equal strength of protection of the Park lands. Based on the evaluation criteria including adequate funding and the requisite authority and expertise, the consultants concluded that both National Park (Parks Canada) and Provincial Park (Ontario Parks) models have the ability to deliver the highest degree of control over land and the highest level of environmental protection, as contemplated by the Rouge Vision.

Regardless of the model chosen, it is anticipated by the consultants that some legislative or regulatory “hybridization” would likely be in order to meet the unique governance needs of the Rouge Park. It is conceivable therefore that the “hybridization” suggested by the consultants could result in the creation of a Federal Urban Park similar to the park on the Canadian Forces base on the Downsview lands in Toronto.

In recommending the Rouge National Park as the future model, the consultants took into consideration a number of factors including the fact that Parks Canada may be interested in opportunities to better connect its mandate and programs to the Greater Toronto Area. It would provide an opportunity for the consolidation of policies and regulations that would replace the existing complex network of competing and overlapping land use regulations, plans and policies that are currently applicable to Rouge lands. Conversely, it was the consultant’s understanding that Ontario Parks is concerned that the Rouge Park would be very difficult to operate in a cost-effective manner given its large size and linear (valley corridor) character which would make it difficult to effectively control access for revenue generation purposes.

Boundary of the Park

For the Rouge Park to become a National Park however, it would have to meet the criteria of the National Parks Act. Under the National Park Act the Minister is responsible for the administration, management and control of parks including the administration of public lands in parks. This would therefore require the land to be entirely in federal ownership, or that the government of the province in which those lands are situated has agreed to their use for that purpose. Logistically this would make ease of connecting the Park to the Oak Ridge Moraine a simpler undertaking, since the Federal Government already own lands to the northern boundary of Markham. The RPITF also recommended the expansion of the Rouge Park to include Federal lands (see Figure 1). Importantly, it would also necessitate the transfer of not only provincial lands in the Park but also lands owned by the Town of Markham and the TRCA to Parks Canada (see Figure 2 Map showing landownership in Rouge Park).

Founding Deal

The Consultants indicate that the Founding Deal would have to be agreed on by the members of the Alliance, and must clearly establish how the Park can co-exist and be managed within the adjacent urban landscape, while providing a framework by which to manage the diversity of uses within the Park area. This is particularly important because the lands within the Rouge Park in Markham are far from being homogenous and are rather complex when the multiplicity of land uses and the geographic extent of the Park are considered. For example, the Park has businesses, farms, trails, vegetation restoration areas, major transportation, water and wastewater infrastructure and rural residences, some of which are Town owned and for which the Town has committed to selling to existing tenants while providing long term leases for the lands on which these houses are located.

The Founding Deal is intended to address the following issues, among others:

Funding;
Boundaries and land commitment;
Vision;
Role of the Park (internal and external); and
Governance and transitional arrangements.

Funding

The Governance review consultants reported that the original funding arrangement for the Rouge Park was based on a “one-third” each funding partnership between municipalities, the Province and the Federal Government. This obligation was never effectively fulfilled over the years and was considered unstable by the consultants. The consultants have estimated that the Park will require approximately $4.0 million per year for operational costs, and over the next 10 years approximately $40m for capital program funding. After some review (including whether funding should be on-going or as a one time endowment) of various funding strategies the consultants have recommended a sole funder model, if feasible. Because the detailed management plans are still evolving and there has been some additional capital resources identified through the South East Collector Trunk Sewer Enhancement Project, the budget will need to be reviewed in further detail through the Founding Deal process.

Boundaries and land commitments

It is recommended in the GOFR report that for Rouge Park to achieve its vision of providing a connecting link between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine, additional lands will have to be added to the existing Rouge Park boundary to connect northerly to the Oak Ridges Moraine. Therefore it is anticipated that the Founding Deal should address the existing Park boundaries, potential future parklands and final decisions on the management of the agricultural lands within or adjacent to the Park. The Town owns valleylands in Rouge Park (see Figure 2) and these lands will form part of the Founding Deal negotiations. The Federal Government lands in North east Markham (Pickering Airport lands) will be key to the discussion.

Vision

The consultants have suggested that there will need to be consensus and agreement between the Founding partners (i.e. Province of Ontario, Federal Government, TRCA, Town of Markham, Toronto Zoo, Waterfront Regeneration Trust, City of Toronto, Region of York, Town of Richmond Hill, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, Durham Region, City of Pickering and Save the Rouge Valley System Inc) that the original Alliance vision for a natural heritage park would form the basis for developing any future Park Master and Operational Plans.

Role of the Park

As observed by the consultants, this component of the Founding Deal is intended to ensure the co-existence of the Park within the surrounding urban landscape and accommodate the diversity of activities within its boundaries. For example, ensuring the park and planned growth and infrastructure requirements of the respective municipalities co-exist in a sustainable manner, sustaining a viable agricultural industry, and continued recognition that the Park also contains residents and businesses.

Governance and Transitional Arrangements

It is anticipated by the consultants that the Funding model will drive the governance model. There is recognition that the recommended National Park model with Federal Government funding comes with statutorily defined governance structures, which would inherently reduce the extent of local municipal influence on Park policy matters. The consultants have identified a transitional period during which the following actions should be taken:

Appointment of an interim Park Manager reporting to the new funder;
Conversion of the Alliance to a true decision-making board of Directors;
Creation of an interim transition entity with natural person powers and decision making authority, able to implement the transition to the new governing structure;
Transfer assets held by other entities (for Rouge Park purposes) to new transition entity.

RPITF Revised Recommendations and Founding Deal

Of relevance to the discussion on the future of the Rouge Park must be the Town’s RPITF revised recommendations which were endorsed by Council in October 2009 for the purpose of negotiation with the RPA. The recommendations were broadly grouped into 5 themes:

Designating and naming;
Public Uses and Activities;
Infrastructure;
Governance;
Town Environmental Programs

Discussions about a possible National Park will be undertaken by the RPA with the Provincial and Federal governments. However, the Town will also want to influence discussions with the Rouge Park Alliance and the senior levels of government pertaining to the RPITF revised recommendations. Regardless of the outcome of the National Park discussions, the Town will continue to work with the Alliance to bring the revised recommendations in the RPITF report to a satisfactory conclusion.

Rouge Park Staff presented a report to the RPA on September 15, 2009 setting out their response to the Town’s RPITF initial recommendations (Appendix B attached). Barring a few exceptions, the Alliance staff response was generally positive. The Rouge Park staff has been provided with copies of the revised recommendations and in general there were no major disagreements between the revised recommendations and the Rouge Park staff original response. Importantly, discussions have been initiated between Town staff and staff of the Alliance regarding comprehensive trails planning, large group picnic sites, signage, agriculture, and natural heritage restoration. Town staff is satisfied the Alliance are actively identifying and addressing issues identified by the Town’s RPITF, and that any outstanding issues will be resolved to the Town’s satisfaction as a precursor to finalizing any Founding Deal. Appendix C set out the revised recommendations, the Alliance staff response and the current status of discussions.

Agriculture

Significant portions of Rouge Park are currently in agricultural use, and are planned for long term agriculture. In addition, Federal Government lands in north east Markham which are being considered for Rouge Park purposes, are currently farmed. Based on the response to the Town’s Agricultural Assessment Study which was endorsed by Council in November 2009, there is strong support for ongoing agriculture in Markham. Further, recommendations from the RPITF specifically sought to protect recently farmed agricultural lands from natural heritage restoration and sought the development of long term agricultural protection policies for the Rouge Park, which would be finalized through the Rouge Park Alliance’s “Markham East Lands Study”.

One of the unique challenges of a National Park designation would be to accommodate existing agriculture within a Park setting. The consultants have stated that the preferred mechanism for protecting agricultural lands and preserving them for agricultural use needs to be determined, albeit without indicating when and by whom. Although agriculture does not fit a traditional model for National Parks, this could be a tremendous opportunity for the Federal Government. Irrespective of the final model pursued, the sustainability of agriculture will be a condition of the Town’s support for a National Park, as it is anticipated that agriculture will be an ongoing and integral activity, on Rouge Park lands and other rural lands within the Town of Markham.

Public Consultation

It has been recommended in the GOFR report that The Rouge Park Alliance prepare a public and stakeholder communications and branding strategy, to capitalize on the current political interest in the environment and the window of opportunity afforded by the international focus on the GTA that will arise from the up-coming Pan-Am Games (2015) and G20 (2010) meetings. The communication strategy proposed is primarily for public marketing purposes rather than an attempt to inform and enlighten the Rouge Park partner stakeholders about the findings from the Governance Review.

The GOFR report is silent on future public presentation/information sessions on the proposed recommendations. Given the overall public interest in Rouge Park, the Rouge Park Alliance should seriously consider having a coordinated public consultation process on the proposed Governance options and targeted sessions one for partner organizations including municipal governments.

Other Important Considerations

While the long term National Park model is supported in principle by Town staff, the GOFR study lacks sufficient detail on the proposed interim arrangements. This is particularly important since the interim model could form the basis of an alternate long term model if negotiations with Parks Canada are unsuccessful. The GOFR recommends the transfer of land assets, including Town of Markham owned lands, to the interim transition entity. However, the Town needs to be completely satisfied that the transfer of its lands to an interim transition entity is consistent with Town interests for the Rouge Park, and reflects the level of participation in Rouge Park that the Town believes is appropriate. The Founding Deal negotiation will explore the appropriate timing and conditions for any transfer of Town assets.

As part of the transitional arrangements it has been suggested that the Park will need a Technical Liaison Committee. The consultants have recommended a Technical Advisory Committee be included in the governance structure, with representation drawn from senior municipal staff and Park management staff. Town staff concurs with this recommendation and note that greater staff level consultation was also recommended by the RPITF.

The consultants have recommended, in the event there is no progress by December 30, 2010 on a new Founding Deal, that the Rouge Park Alliance initiate a request to the Government of Ontario that the Alliance be reconstituted as a not-for-profit arms-length agency with updated board and governance structures, and natural person powers, in order to address the governance weaknesses inherent in the existing Alliance model. Town staff are in agreement with this recommendation. Should negotiations with the Federal Government for a National Park fail, business as usual is not the best option and new arrangements should be sought. While a not-for-profit option has merit, staff recommend that the Provincial and TRCA options (which were analyzed in the report), also be explored.

Any alternative governance arrangement (different from the recommended National Park model) could potentially require a financial commitment from the Town over and above what we currently contribute to Rouge Park. Other options have potential future budgetary implications for the Town and would require further consideration by Council.

Conclusion

The GOFR report has recommended a National Park designation for Rouge Park, which would provide a single holder of lands within the Park, a single administrative framework and importantly, a single (senior government) funder. Staff support this recommendation in principle, and we look forward to ongoing negotiations over Rouge Park funding and implementation.

Future discussions with Parks Canada about the National Park model will need to highlight the Park’s current unique set of circumstances including having private homes, businesses and substantial agriculture, in addition to its ecological attributes and adjacency to urban uses.

The idea of a National Park in a near urban setting, within Canada’s largest metropolitan area, represents a unique opportunity that warrants serious consideration by the Federal government. Other elements of sustainability, such as supporting agriculture within the Park, would be consistent with current Federal, Provincial and municipal policies regarding greater food security and local food production.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND TEMPLATE: (external link)

There is no municipal funding request at this time. Should the National Park option be successfully pursued, it could conceivably, significantly reduce or eliminate completely any Town financial support to the Rouge Park in the future.

HUMAN RESOURCES CONSIDERATIONS

Not Applicable

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES:

The recommendations support a number of the Town’s strategic priorities including environment, growth management, transportation/transit, municipal services and Parks and Recreation.

BUSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:

The governance review final report was circulated internally to Operations, Finance, and Legal, and their comments, where provided, have been incorporated.

RECOMMENDED BY:

________________________________ ________________________________

Valerie Shuttleworth M.C.I.P., R.P.P Jim Baird M.C.I.P., R.P.P

Director of Planning and Urban Design Commissioner of Development Services

_________________________________

John Livey

Chief Administrative Officer

ATTACHMENTS:

Figure 1: Map of the Rouge Park and surrounding lands

Figure 2: Map showing landownership in Rouge Park in Markham

Appendix A: Executive Summary Governance, Organization and Finance Review of the

Rouge Park Alliance

Appendix B: RPA staff response to RPITF recommendations (September 15, 2009)

Appendix C: Table showing Rouge Park Staff response to RPITF revised

recommendations

Q:\Development\Planning\MISC\MI460 RPA\Reports\Rouge Park Alliance - Governance, Organization and Finance Review Report.doc