FLOOD CONTROL REMEDIATION AND FACT SHEETS FOR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATIONS IN MARKHAM

Transcription

1 FLOOD CONTROL REMEDIATION AND FACT SHEETS FOR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATIONS IN MARKHAM BACKGROUND On January 7, 2013, M.A.G.I.C., the umbrella organization of Markham residents associations, held a special meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to inform its members of the implications, for all City residents, of a proposal by the City that might require homeowners in Thornhill to pay for required improvements to the City s flood protection and storm water management infrastructure in their area. Attendees at this meeting represented every Ward in the City, although not every Residents Association (RA) was able to send a representative. Due to the importance of the issue, and the attendees desire to pursue it on behalf of their residents, those RA s in attendance requested follow up information. These fact sheets, and the attached photos, graphs and statistics, are provided pursuant to that request. We hope that all Markham RA s will have the opportunity to pass this information on to their members, and that this will lead to informed discussions about topics such as climate change, its affects on public health and safety in Markham, dangers of flooding in various areas of the City, what our municipal government should be doing to protect us from this danger, and how the costs of remediation of storm water management systems, in order to mitigate flood risk, City-wide, should be funded now and in the future. A LITTLE HISTORY Over the years there have been several incidents of rain storms causing flooding to roads, businesses, and homes in the Thornhill area (Wards 1 and 2). These storms and floods caused great inconvenience and hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to local businesses and residents. On August 19, 2005, a massive storm hit the GTA and dumped 133 mm. of rain in Thornhill in a short period of time. The results were catastrophic. Some residents in Wards 1 and 2 were forced to flee to the second story of their homes. Some motorists, trapped by flood waters, had to be rescued by the Markham Fire Department. Many homes suffered extensive flood damage. Their yards were over taken by the Don River. The Thornhill Community Center was flooded. In the other neighbourhoods people had raw sewage pouring into their basements. There were cars floating in underground garages in a local Thornhill townhouse development. [Appendix A: Flood photos]

2 -2- There was also extensive damage to homes and businesses in Wards 7 and 8. The City, recognizing the severity and extent of the damage, applied to the Province of Ontario for Disaster Relief Funds for Wards 1, 2, 7, and 8. For a variety of reasons, no relief funds were granted, so it was up to the home and business owners to pay for their own damages. Insurance claims were extremely high, and many claims were not paid. Some of these areas are now considered as high risk of flooding by the insurance industry which makes insurance coverage more expensive to purchase. Some homeowners have faced insurance policy exclusions for flood and sewer back-up. In North York, the Black Creek Culvert under Finch Avenue collapsed, leading to the costliest infrastructure repair ever required in the City of Toronto. It took six months to perform the required infrastructure remediation. In the span of three hours, 153 millimetres of rain fell, a 78-metre stretch of Finch Avenue W. cratered, the Black Creek culvert collapsed, and a 48-metre section of trunk sanitary sewer was lost, spewing raw, uncontrolled sewage into Highland Creek for three days. The basement flooding in private residences was unprecedented.@ The financial tally for the Finch Avenue Washout ranks as the most expensive natural disaster in the province's history. The private insurance payout nudges $600 million. As a point of comparison, insurance pay outs for the Peterborough flood of 2004 didn't quite reach a sixth of It was the transformative event that really triggered a new approach to urban flooding, D'Andrea says@ (the director of Toronto s water infrastructure management department.) Now the City is seen as a water-management leader in an era of climate change.@ [ quotes from the Toronto Star, Aug.19, 2012.] Question: What did this transformative event trigger in the City of Markham? Answer: Nothing. It was up to a group of dedicated citizens to carry out their own door to door survey of flood damage in the Thornhill area. Eventually these results were presented to the City of Markham and eventually, with continued citizen pressure for municipal action, the West Thornhill Storm Water Flood Control Committee was created. There were four citizens on the Committee, along with staff members from Markham, Richmond Hill, York Region, the Toronto Region Conservation Authority, and professional consultants hired by the City. This consultant was to conduct an Environmental Assessment (EA), which would be presented to the City and approved by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment. The EA was initiated in 2008, the results were presented to Council in 2009, and the process finally came to an end in 2010.

3 -3- What we learned through the Study was that Thornhill is vulnerable to surface flooding and requires improvements to the storm water management systems in order to mitigate risks and provide acceptable level of flood protection. The underground pipes are only part of a storm water management system. Other parts include storm water ponds and overland flow paths for rain water. In addition to having (smaller) under-capacity pipes, Thornhill has no storm water ponds or controlled overland flow routes. These features were included in the design stage of post-1978 neighbourhoods. We also know that Thornhill was built with infrastructure to protect it from a Atwo year storm@ (a storm that statistically may occur once every two years), while the newer parts of Markham, built after 1978, are protected from a storm of such severity that it could statistically occur once every 100 years. Currently, the Town standard for storm water management systems is the 100 year level of protection. [Appendix B: chart of different storm level classifications.] After hundreds of hours of research, and great advocacy effort on the part of the four residents on the Committee, along with support from their communities and Councilors, Markham Council finally agreed to provide repairs and improvements in the Thornhill neighbourhood that would bring their level of flood protection up to the same level as the newer (post 1978) areas of the City and meet the current Town storm water management standard (100 year). Now, the Mayor, and some members of Council, propose that the residents of Thornhill individually pay to upgrade the City s storm water infrastructure, in their neighbourhood, to the same level that protects all newer parts of the City. FINALLY, THE FACTS * Provincial law requires that every municipality in Ontario protect its citizens from the dangers to life, health, and property from flood events. * In Ontario, municipalities are responsible for municipal storm water management (planning, design, establishment, operation and maintenance). Storm water management includes dealing with urban surface runoff. (Source: Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Policy Review of Municipal Storm Water Management in Light of Climate Change, 2010). * Flood control is part of the infrastructure of every municipality, along with sanitary sewers, water mains, water treatment plants, roads, bridges, culverts, public lighting, parks, recreational trails, etc.

4 -4- *Flood control is a critical part of municipal responsibility, as floods endanger not only our homes, our personal property, our businesses, municipal assets of all sorts, but they can also endanger our health, our safety, and the safety of our drinking water. * Municipalities collect property taxes and various user fees (e.g. for water usage) from their residents to pay for the maintenance of, and upgrades to, the city s infrastructure. * Today, when new subdivisions or developments are built, their infrastructure is paid for by development service charges levied on the builder, and those costs are later passed on to the home or unit purchaser. In this way, each eventual owner pays for their new infrastructure. * Some areas of Markham were built without municipal services, such as sanitary sewers or city water. These homes were originally served by septic tanks and wells. When municipal services were eventually provided to these homes, the residents also paid for them, except in a different way. The City charged the home owners a Alocal improvement charge@ (LIC), which is permitted under the Municipal Act of Ontario. These LIC s are charged because the infrastructure is new and has to be paid for by the home owners, just as in the case of subdivisions and high rises mentioned above. * After the initial installation of infrastructure, it is the municipality s obligation, using property taxes and user fees, to maintain, repair, and improve that infrastructure as required. When the street in front of your house requires repaving, you do not get a bill. When the water main that provides your drinking water requires relining, you do not get a bill. When the sanitary sewer that serves your block requires improvement, you do not get charged. When a bridge in your neighbourhood requires repair, no one tacks a part of that cost onto your tax bill. * In the City of Markham local improvement charges have only been used to cover the cost of the initial provision of municipal infrastructure, in other words, NEW infrastructure where none existed before. * All residents of Thornhill paid for their infrastructure, including their storm sewers, in the 1960's and 1970's when their homes were built. They all paid for that infrastructure in the initial cost of their homes, or through special levies (like local improvement charges) when the sewers and city water was eventually installed. They are in no different position than residents anywhere in the City who have paid for their infrastructure when it was first installed. * And yet, the Mayor and some members on Council, propose to charge residents of Thornhill substantial local improvement charges ($5,000 to $6,000 per property) to repair and bring up to City standard the storm and flood control infrastructure in their area, infrastructure that was paid for years ago.

5 -5- * If this unprecedented action is taken, it will become the norm for how flood control improvements are paid for in every part of Markham. [Appendix C: map that shows other areas in Markham with below standard storm control infrastructure.) * There is no municipality in Ontario that is charging residents local improvement charges to repair and improve existing storm water infrastructure. * We have been unable to find a single example in Canada of a municipality charging its residents local improvement charges to repair and improve existing storm water infrastructure. * Enlightened municipalities across the country are looking to the future, to the reality of global warming and the increasing frequency and intensity of severe storms, and planning for a sustainable, financial way of protecting their citizens from floods. They are not putting the burden of climate change and aging infrastructure on the backs of individual citizens in individual neighbourhoods. * All data, from international, national and provincial agencies, show that the severity and frequency of major storm events is increasing. Any area of Markham, whether in the pre-1978 or post-1978 category, is either in danger of flooding or will require repairs and upgrading of its storm protection infrastructure at some point. [Appendix D: statistics on frequency of severe storm events in Ontario.] CONCLUSION We, the residents of the City of Markham, require that our municipal government: (1) takes the necessary steps to protect us all from future floods, (2) accepts that this is a municipal responsibility, (3) accepts that storm water infrastructure is the same as all other municipal infrastructure, and (4) accepts that storm and flood protection remediation for existing infrastructure in the entire City should be funded through an ongoing, sustainable, and progressive funding method. [Appendix E: examples of how other cities are funding storm and flood remediation.] Appendices: A: Flood Photos from Wards 1 and 2 B: Chart of Storm Severity Classifications C: Map of areas in Markham with two year level of storm protection D: Statistics on frequency of severe storms in Ontario E: How enlightened municipalities fund storm protection infrastructure

6 APPENDIX A: FLOOD PHOTOS FROM THORNHILL AUGUST 19, 2005, FLOODING OF DON RIVER INTO WARD 1 BACKYARD

7 RAW SEWAGE IN WARD ONE BASEMENT, AUG. 19, 2005

8 PHOTOS FROM UNCONTROLLED OVERLAND FLOW, JUNE 23, 2008, WARD ONE, THORNHILL

9

10 APPENDIX B: CHART OF STORM SEVERITY CLASSIFICATIONS Shows two year level of protection (Thornhill and all pre-1978 parts of Markham) in comparison to 100 year level of protection and rainfall event of 2005

11 APPENDIX C: MAP OF AREAS OF MARKHAM WITH TWO YEAR LEVEL OF STORM PROTECTION

12 APPENDIX D: STATISTICS ON FREQUENCY OF SEVERE STORMS IN ONTARIO FLOODING IN ONTARIO IS ESCALATING. CLIMATE CHANGE, TOGETHER WITH GROWING POPULATIONS, INCREASED PROPERTY VALUES, AND AGING INFRASTRUCTURE, HAVE DIMINISHED THE CAPACITY OF WATERSHEDS TO COPE WITH STORM RUNOFF, EXPOSING POPULATIONS TO INCREASED FLOOD RISK IT IS CLEAR THAT STORMS HAVE BECOME MORE FREQUENT AND POWERFUL. FROM 2000 TO 2005, ONTARIO EXPERIENCED TEN SEVERE STORMS THAT EXCEEDED INTENSITIES THAT ARE NORMALLY EXPECTED LESS THAN ONCE EVERY 100 YEARS. THESE STORMS CAUSED OVER $360 MILLION IN DAMAGES CLIMATE CHANGE ENSURES THAT THE TREND IN ESCALATING STORM INTENSITY WILL CONTINUE FOR DECADES. Toronto Conservation Authority, 2009, A Business Case for Investing in Enhanced Capacity for Flood Prevention and Control IN 2002, THE CITY OF PETERBOROUGH EXPERIENCED A 100 YEAR STORM, AND JUST TWO YEARS LATER, IN 2004, THE CITY EXPERIENCED A 290 YEAR STORM. IN THE TWO STORMS OVER 5,000 HOMES WERE FLOODED. COSTS TO RECTIFY INFRASTRUCTURE DEFICIENCIES ALONE COULD REACH $200 MILLION. IN 2001 AND 2002 THE CITY OF STRATFORD EXPERIENCED HEAVY RAIN EVENTS AND WIDESPREAD FLOODING. AS A RESULT, THE CITY HAS ADOPTED A 250 YEAR STORM PROTECTION STANDARD AND IS INVESTING $70 MILLION IN IMPROVING ITS STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE. SINCE 1996, THREE 100 YEAR STORMS HAVE HIT THE OTTAWA AREA AND THE VILLAGE OF CARP TO THE WEST OF THE CITY. IN THE TWENTY YEARS BETWEEN 1985 AND 2005, THE CITY OF TORONTO EXPERIENCED EIGHT EXTREME RAIN EVENTS, ALL CAUSED BY STORMS GREATER THAN THOSE STATISTICALLY EXPECTED ONCE EVERY 25 YEARS. All stats from Natural Resources Canada, 2007, From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate

13 APPENDIX E: HOW ENLIGHTENED MUNICIPALITIES ARE FUNDING STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE In Ontario, municipalities are responsible for municipal storm water management - planning, design, establishment, operation and maintenance. The Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) section 3150, (current federal legislation), requires Canadian municipalities to follow a strategic, auditable and transparent method of planning, managing and maintaining all municipally- owned tangible capital assets (such as storm water management infrastructure) for the benefit all stakeholders. Storm water management system components, such as storm sewer pipes, are defined by the PSAB as tangible capital assets, and this definition seems to be accepted in the City as Markham. In the most recent Financial Information Return (FIR) submitted to the Province of Ontario by the City of Markham, the City reported the urban storm sewer system as a component of the city-wide schedule of municipally- owned tangible capital assets. The method and financial funding source for municipal storm water management systems in Ontario, particularly in the Greater Toronto Area, is consistent. The primary manner in which Ontario municipalities fund capital projects of municipally-owned tangible capital assets, including storm water management infrastructure improvement, is through property taxes, water/wastewater user rates, development charges, cash inlieu and municipal reserves.. In funding storm water management infrastructure improvements and flood mitigation, municipalities first recognize that storm water systems are municipally owned tangible capital assets. Rehabilitation, storm water improvement, and mitigation measures are funded as capital improvement projects, not as Local Improvement Charges. The City of Markham s Tangible Capital Assets Policy, as per the 2011 Budget, reads as follows, All assets owned by the Town of Markham, which meet the definition of a tangible capital asset, will be capitalized and amortized over its useful life. This City, similar to other GTA municipalities, also has a policy of funding capital improvements through developer s contributions wherever possible. When such funds are not sufficient, or if projects do not meet the criteria for developer funds, the Town will utilize dedicated reserves to fund the capital projects. Ontario municipalities receive additional storm water management funding through the federal Gas Tax, grants such as the recent Build Canada Stimulus Program, and loans through Canada Housing and Mortgage Corp. (CHMC) Municipal Infrastructure Loan Program to name a few sources. Our research into storm water management funding practices concurs with that of

14 E/2 Staff we found no other municipality funding flood mitigation and storm water management projects by means of local improvement charges. It would appear that some members of Markham Council may not understand the difference between a capital improvement of a municipally- owned tangible capital asset and a local improvement charge, since some are proposing that the Thornhill flood mitigation and storm water management capital projects be funded primarily through local improvement charges. Similar storm water management projects currently underway in North York are being funded by the City of Toronto as Capital Improvements through Capital budgets and reserves not as a Local Improvement Charge. Additional Storm water Management Funding Methods: In addition to the funding methods mentioned above, municipalities across Ontario and the GTA are now exploring other methods of funding storm water management systems. In some cases current funding methods have been found to be inadequate, particularly because of the challenges of climate change, increased need for flood mitigation, and protection of core water infrastructure. This is why those cities see the need for a sustainable, dedicated source of funding for storm water management. As an example, major Ontario municipalities such as Toronto, Mississauga and Hamilton have already introduced or are investigating separate funding sources, such as a dedicated storm water user fee. Those municipalities adopting storm water user fees equate and justify the fee in terms of the provision of an essential municipal service, i.e. the conveyance of storm water runoff. This is similar to dedicated user rates that fund sanitary sewer services (conveyance of raw sewage). Since 2000, the Towns of Aurora, St. Thomas and the City of London, have all recognized the need for dedicated and sustainable storm water funding, and have implemented separate flat rate storm water fees. Other Ontario municipalities are following this example through the introduction of monthly, nominal storm water user fees, per residential household, (higher for commercial/industrial sites). Mississauga City Council, in December, 2012, approved, in principle, the introduction of a flat rate storm water management fee, in order to meet the city s growing storm water infrastructure deficit, and also to meet the challenges and risks associated with climate change. According to a December 2012 press release issued by the City; The storm water financing study clearly indicates [that] the challenge of dealing with storm water is a major concern," said Mayor Hazel McCallion. "Moving toward funding the program through user fees is an appropriate way to address the current pressures that the City is facing."

15 E/3 The cities of Kitchener and Waterloo have also introduced, like many municipalities in the U.S., a separate storm water utility based on user levels. The utility storm water rates are determined by the amount of impervious surface (non porous), so the larger the impervious surface, the greater the storm water user fee. These fees are dedicated to funding all components of storm water management, flood mitigation and environmental mitigation such as watercourse erosion and water pollution. Kitchener/Waterloo adopted the utility model following the two cities storm water studies and in consultation with the public. The citizens of both cities thought it was the fairest method of determining storm water management user fees. In the United States, one Texas community cautions, If you pave, you will pay. This is considered a method of not only funding storm water management, but also of encouraging storm water management best practices in all new and infill developments. The issues of city-wide storm water management, flood mitigation, and sustainable funding sources that are facing Council, and the citizens of Markham, are complex. There are no easy solutions. However, for the City to fail to recognize its responsibility to plan for the future, and, instead to take a politically expedient way out, will be to the detriment of all citizens of Markham, not just Thornhill, for many years to come.