The URL can be used to link to this page

AGENDA - General Committee - 20210202Town of Aurora General Committee Meeting Revised Agenda Date:Tuesday, February 2, 2021 Time:7 p.m. Location:Video Conference Pages 1.Procedural Notes This meeting will be held electronically as per Section 19. i) of the Town's Procedure By-law No. 6228-19, as amended, due to the COVID-19 situation. Mayor Mrakas in the Chair. Added items are marked with an asterisk (*). 2.Approval of the Agenda 3.Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof 4.Community Presentations 5.Delegations Note: At this time, the Municipal Offices are closed. This meeting will be live streamed at https://www.youtube.com/user/Townofaurora2012/videos. Anyone wishing to provide comment on an agenda item is encouraged to visit www.aurora.ca/participation for guidelines on electronic delegation. 5.1.Anthony, Corrina and Maxson Choe, Residents; Re: Encroachment Notice for 2 Gowan Lane 1 Re: Item 8.2 - OPS21-004 - Encroachments onto Municipal Lands at 50 Pineneedle Drive and 2 Gowan Lane, Aurora 5.2.Jeff MacKeigan, ChainLink Disc Golf, and Todd Billo, Resident; Re: Disc Golf Community Course 2 6.Consent Agenda 7.Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes *7.1.Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of January 19, 2021 31 8.Consideration of Items Requiring Discussion (Regular Agenda) 8.1.CMS21-003 - Community Services Pricing Policy and Ability to Pay - Project Update and Presentation 35 (Presentation to be provided by Anand Desai, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants, and Claire Tucker Reid, Tucker-Reid & Associates) That Report No. CMS21-003 be received; and1. That staff be directed to proceed with the completion of the policies related to Community Services program and service pricing and Access to Recreation. 2. 8.2.OPS21-004 - Encroachments onto Municipal Lands at 50 Pineneedle Drive and 2 Gowan Lane, Aurora 99 That Report No. OPS21-004 be received; and1. That the encroachment be removed at 50 Pineneedle Drive, Aurora, in accordance with By-law No. 6288-20 Being a By-law to regulate occupancy, fouling, construction and encroachments on highways; and 2. That the encroachment be removed at 2 Gowan Lane, Aurora, in accordance with By-law No. 6288-20 Being a By-law to regulate occupancy, fouling, construction and encroachments on highways. 3. 8.3.CMS21-004 - Public Art Policy and Public Art Master Plan 112 That Report No. CMS21-004 be received; and1. That staff be directed to develop a Public Art Policy and Public Art Master Plan following the process laid out in this report. 2. 8.4.PDS21-002 - Town-Initiated Housekeeping Amendment to Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 6000-17 119 That Report No. PDS21-002 be received; and1. That staff be directed to proceed with a public planning meeting to present a Zoning By-Law amendment to the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-Law No. 6000-17 for general housekeeping purposes, as described herein. 2. 8.5.PDS21-006 - Request for Traffic Calming Measures at Kennedy Street 129 West Between Temperance Street and George Street That Report No. PDS21-006 be received; and1. That traffic calming in the form of speed cushions be installed on the section of Kennedy Street West between Temperance Street and George Street. 2. 9.Notices of Motion 9.1.Councillor Humfryes; Re: Dangerous One-Way Street - Centre Street 135 *9.2.Mayor Mrakas and Councillor Kim; Re: Garbage Bag Tag Policy 136 *9.3.Councillor Gilliland; Re: Backyard Chicken Coops 137 *9.4.Mayor Mrakas; Re: Promenade Secondary Plan Review 138 10.New Business 11.Public Service Announcements 12.Closed Session There are no Closed Session items for this meeting. 13.Adjournment 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Delegation Request Legislative Services This Delegation Request form and any written submissions or background information for consideration by either Council or Committees of Council must be submitted to Legislative Services. Council or Committee Meeting Date: Subject: Name of Spokesperson and Name of Group or Person(s) being Represented (if applicable): Brief Summary of Issue or Purpose of Delegation: Have you been in contact with a Town staff or Council member regarding your matter of interest?Yes տտ No տտ If yes, with whom? Date: տ I acknowledge that the Procedure By-law permits five (5) minutes for Delegations. I wish to submit my delegation by (select one): տ Video/audio* տ Phone*܈ In Writing տ In Person** *Must attend electronic meeting.Please click here for more information. **Subject to meeting format and submission of Screening Registration Form February 2, 2021 Encroachment Notice for 2 Gowan Lane Anthony, Corrina and Maxson Choe We received a notification of encroachment relating to our hedge at 2 Gowan Lane from the Town of Aurora based on a new by-law introduced in October 2020. The purpose of our delegation is to discuss with Council and agree to retaining the hedge unaltered through an acceptable long-term solution that meets the needs of the Town, our family and my fellow neighbours at Gowan Lane. We request 10 minutes. Thank you Mayor Tom Mrakas December 21, 2020 ✔✔✔ ✔ ✔ Page 1 of 138 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Delegation Request Legislative Services This Delegation Request form and any written submissions or background information for consideration by either Council or Committees of Council must be submitted to Legislative Services. Council or Committee Meeting Date: Subject: Name of Spokesperson: Name of Group or Person(s) being Represented (if applicable): Brief Summary of Issue or Purpose of Delegation: Have you been in contact with a Town staff or Council member regarding your matter of interest? Yes տտ No տտ If yes, with whom? Date: տ I acknowledge that the Procedure By-law permits five (5) minutes for Delegations. February 2, 2021 Disc Golf Community Course Jeff MacKeigan & Todd Billo ChainLink Disc Golf's Jeff MacKeigan and Aurora resident Todd Billo According to the PDGA (Professional Disc Golf Association) disc golf has seen double digit growth since 2011. As a low cost, high accessibility sport with limited barriers to entry which is COVID free the sport has exploded in 2020. We would like to discuss how disc golf can contribute to Aurora's community and provide it's citizens with a COVID safe activity for 2021 and beyond. ✔ Mayor Tom Mrakas December 4, 2020 ✔ Page 2 of 138 Disc Golf in Canada Presented by: ChainLink Disc Golf Confidential Page 3 of 138 Canadian disc golf growth year over year Benchmarked to Courses and PDGA members 2020 YTD +400% based on manufacturer data Disc Golf Courses have been growing double … and Canadian membership in the PDGA has digits since 2015 … seen YOY growth for a decade! Source: www.pdga.com Confidential Page 4 of 138 st new courses are opening, Ontario remains the driver. From coast to coa however ettt nneeww ccoouurrsseess aarree ooppeenniinngg, hhow coasscoass Onttariio remaiins tthhe ddriiver. 2015+ shows more Canadian courses Tipp g p Canadian marke pping point for Canadian marketet Confidential Source: www.cbc.ca (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) Page 5 of 138 Wait, what’s frisbee / disc golf? Club Disc / Frisbee Bag of Clubs Bag of Discs Hole Basket Hitting on the Fairway Throwing on the Fairway Putting Putting Confidential https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFvHgfvGhIs Page 6 of 138 ConfidentialBenefits of disc golf • Disc golf is one of the few COVID-19 activities currently available • Fun and accessible outdoor activity showcasing hidden gem parks • Helps decrease stress & obesity • ParticipACTION 150 Play List • Low cost of entry vs. traditional golf • Increased usage of local park • Disc golfers work to keep parks clean • Supports revitalization of existing park & trails • Safe, affordable family fun for everyone of all ages and skill levels • Relatively no maintenance required for land • Less time to play a round ~1.5 hours per 18 holes • Freedom to play for various levels of fitness translates to participation for all! • 365 days a year! Disc golf is available in all seasons including Winter and at night! Confidential Page 7 of 138 Disc golf is one of the few COVID-19 activities currently available. Ontario Disc Sports Association in collaboration with the province of Ontario has provided COVID – 19 Etiquette to maximize safety of this individual contributor game. The City of Toronto has opened all their disc golf courses as of May 25 2020 COVID – 19 Confidential Page 8 of 138 Who is ChainLink Disc Golf? Cara Hovius Jeff MacKeigan • Co-Founder of Tilt Bridge Consulting • Co-Founder of Tilt Bridge Consulting • Co-Founder of ChainLink Disc Golf • Co-Founder of ChainLink Disc Golf • Professor at Centennial College • 10+ years of scientific / regulatory / nutrition experience • +20 years of sales / marketing / management experience • B.Sc., Biology and Psychology Majors • B.A. Radio & Television Arts • MBTI® Certified Practitioner Step I & II • MBTI® Certified Practitioner Step I & II • PDGA #123037 • PDGA #86191 • Certified PDGA Tournament Official • 23 career PDGA tournaments • Installation team of Beaches Disc Golf Course • Founder of the Beaches Disc Golf Course • Co-Founder of the Marilyn Bell Park Disc Golf Course • Co-Founder of the Marilyn Bell Park Disc Golf Course • Volunteer of the Ashbridge's Bay Nature Conservancy Confidential Page 9 of 138 ChainLink has authorized partnerships with all the major disc golf manufacturers focusing on: -Courses -Events -Community Confidential Page 10 of 138 Recent media articles showcasing our work https://udisc.com/blog/post/goodbye-corporate-http://flyboycanada.com/jeff-cara/ https://www.beachmetro.com/2019/11/13/beach es-disc-golf-course-in-ashbridges-bay-park-approaches-first-anniversary/ canada-hello-disc-golf Confidential Page 11 of 138 esooCa888RRCCRRRDDory n 6 60f89RCRD isc Golf in Toronto Toronto’s 3 4 5 disc golf courses are growing in popularity while many more private courses are being added throughout the province. This is a trend which has been growing since 1980 when Toronto built their first course! Established: 1980 Established: 2011 The st of ChainLi k & DThe storyy of ChainLink & Established: 1980 6 ChainLink has doubled the number of City of Toronto courses in 2 years! Confidential d6Source: https://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=96f523e69b4a6410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=34e9dada600f0410VgnVCM10000071d dddddddddddddddddddddddddddd6d6d6d6d6d6d6d6d6d6d6d6d6dddddddddddddddd666666666666666660f0f0f0f0f0f0000f0f0f0f0f0f0000000000000f0f0f000000000000000000000000000000000000000f000fffffffffffff8888888888889898989898989898988888888888888888888888888888888888899RRRRCRRRRRRRRRRCRRRRRRRRRCRRRRRRRRCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCRRRRRRRRRRRRRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRDRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD ddddddddddd6d6d666666000000000000000f00fff88898888888888 RCRCRCRCRRRRRCRCRCCCCCCRRDRDRRRRRRRRRRRRRDRDDDDDDDDDDDD ddddddddd6dddddddddd6666666666660000000000000000000000fffffffff888888888888888888888888888889RRRCRCRCRCRCRCRCRCRCRCRCRCRRRRRRRRRCRCCCCCCCCCCCCCRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDPage 12 of 138 Beaches Disc Golf Course - Installed by Jeff MacKeigan & volunteers -Confidential Page 13 of 138 Beaches Disc Golf Course - Installed by Jeff MacKeigan & volunteers -1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 - Disc Catcher Basket (9 red flags) – Installed Nov 17 2018 Confidential - Tee pads (9 silver boxes) – TBD Page 14 of 138 Beaches Disc Golf Course - Community Feedback -… ‘Disc golf is played similarly to traditional golf. Instead of using a ball and club, disc golfers throw a frisbee or a disc from a tee pad towards a basket, trying to get there in the fewest throws possible,” explained Jeffrey MacKeigan, Beaches Disc Golf Course organizer. In 2015, MacKeigan started looking into building an entry level course in his community. With the approval and support of the City of Toronto’s Parks, Forestry and Recreation, and nine designs later, they were ready to build. On Nov. 17 2018, MacKeigan and his team of volunteers installed Toronto’s fourth disc golf course in Ashbridge's Bay Park.’ … Source: https://www.beachmetro.com/2019/11/13/beaches-disc-golf-course-in-ashbridges-bay-park-approaches-first-anniversary/ Confidential Page 15 of 138 Marilyn Bell Park Disc Golf Course - Designed and Installed by ChainLink Disc Golf 2019 -Confidential Page 16 of 138 - Marilyn Bell Park Disc Golf Course - Designed and Installed by ChainLink Disc Golf 2019 -- Disc Catcher Basket (9 red flags) – Nov 17 2019 - Tee pads & Sign via Fence Post (9 silver flags) – Nov 17 2019 Confidential 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 1 -Baskets (Holes) -Tee pads Direction to throw Drone Footage Available 1 Page 17 of 138 Marilyn Bell Park Disc Golf Course - Community Feedback -Confidential Page 18 of 138 Marilyn Bell Park Disc Golf Course (9 baskets) - Designed by ChainLink Disc Golf 2019 -- Legend Explained -ChainLink designed & installed course at Marilyn Bell Park in Toronto w Carina Canales age 4 throwing on hole 6! Welcome sign Confidential Basket / Hole Tee pads Tee signs 1 Page 19 of 138 Marilyn Bell Park Disc Golf Course installation by ChainLink Disc Golf - City of Toronto Feedback -Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with ChainLink Disc Golf? How would you rate the quality of the product? Do you believe that the Marilyn Bell Park Disc Golf Course will drive more people to the park? Do you want to see more disc golf courses in the City of Toronto? Overall results show favourable experience from City of Toronto for ChainLink Disc Golf Source: www.surveymonkey.com polling City of Toronto team sample size 2 respondents Confidential Page 20 of 138 Scarlett Woods Disc Golf Course - Designed and Installed by ChainLink Disc Golf 2020 -Confidential Page 21 of 138 1 8 6 5 7 9 3 4 2 Confidential Scarlett Woods Disc Golf Course Hole Feet Par 1 723 ft 5 2 346 ft 3 3 355 ft 3 4 290 ft 3 5 481 ft 4 6 363 ft 3 7 919 ft 5 8 381 ft 3 9 361 ft 3 Page 22 of 138 Driveway Entrance Walkway Entrance Confidential Page 23 of 138 ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v S6Y4OplH8q0& https://www.blogto.com/sp Scarlett Woods Disc Golf Course Temporary course added for “Welcome TO Winter” designed & installed by ChainLink Disc Golf Source: h= orts_play/2020/12/disc-golf-course-toronto/?fbclid=IwAR3n2jfnoqSIGqWZqXpOksvcVetEo-a2AORT8Kn3k6KGWM7zAeHivkVqY98 Confidential “… newest disc golf course at Scarlett Woods Golf Course will be opening Nov 28th …” https://www.youtbtube.c /om/ twat h?ch? Sv=S6Y46Y4OlOplH8H8q00 & htthttps:////www.blblo tgto.com/spo p// g / p Page 24 of 138 ChainLink Disc Golf course usage ChainLink Disc Golf Courses Beaches Disc Golf Course Marilyn Bell Park Disc Golf Course Scarlett Woods Disc Golf Course Installed Nov 17 2018 Nov 17 2019 Nov 28 2020 2018 rounds 72 rounds n/a n/a 2019 rounds 581 rounds 173 rounds n/a 2020 rounds 3,040 rounds 3,965 rounds 1,633 rounds All rounds sourced from UDisc data, doesn’t take into consideration casual player rounds. Estimate 1 = ~10 casual rounds Source: UDisc Confidential Page 25 of 138 World leader in disc golf courses expands to Canada DiscGolfPark invests in the Canadian market with a national team of 6 designers Confidential Source: https://www.discgolfpark.com/ & https://www.discmania.net/blogs/discover/discgolfpark-by-discmania-expands-to-canada Page 26 of 138 Benefits of a disc golf course Disc golf benefits the community by: • Providing a free venue for outdoor activity for all citizens • Generating tourism revenue from tournaments (i.e. South River Black Fly Fling or TORONTO OPEN) • Showcasing underutilized parks • Encouraging a sense of community pride through disc golf social clubs run by locals • Showcasing political leadership within the community • Driving sales to local sports shops Tournaments Political leadership Community Confidential Page 27 of 138 ChainLink course designs take into consideration: • Park staff maintenance requirements (i.e. distance from trees) • Pedestrian, cyclist, & other park user safety • Locates (ChainLink will manage prior to installation) • Parking / Transit / Bike share connections • Dog walkers have adequate space • Showcasing natural beauty of park • Local community support • Focus on disc golf community (i.e. long-term success NOT transactional installation) • Minimal impact to the park: o No trees are cut down. Grass does not need to maintained. o Baskets require no maintenance o Installation of basket require a 45 – 60 cm bore hole only ChainLink Disc Golf is an experienced disc golf course installer with insurance, WSIB clearance, and has past experience ensuring safe installations via course design elements, walk- throughs & park locates. Confidential Page 28 of 138 Thank you … Jeff MacKeigan jeff@tiltbridge.ca 416.809.7569 Cara Hovius cara@tiltbridge.ca 647.456.6182 Confidential Page 29 of 138 Confidentiality agreement This presentation is the property of ChainLink Disc Golf and contains confidential information intended solely for the recipient or the entity to whom it is addressed. It shall not be duplicated or distributed without the prior written consent of ChainLink Disc Golf or its representatives. Confidential Page 30 of 138 1 Town of Aurora Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 5:45 p.m. Video Conference Committee Members: Councillor Harold Kim (Chair) Mayor Tom Mrakas Councillor Michael Thompson Other Attendees: Councillor Wendy Gaertner Councillor John Gallo Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Rachel Wainwright-van Kessel, Director of Finance Jason Gaertner, Manager, Financial Management Tracy Evans, Advisor, Financial Management Lianne Jalali, Project Management Office Linda Bottos, Council/Committee Coordinator _____________________________________________________________________ 1. Procedural Notes This meeting was held electronically as per Section 19. i) of the Town's Procedure By-law No. 6228-19, as amended, due to the COVID-19 situation. The Council/Committee Coordinator called the meeting to order at 5:51 p.m. Councillor Kim assumed the chair at 5:53 p.m. 2. Appointment of Committee Chair Moved by Councillor Thompson Seconded by Mayor Mrakas That Councillor Harold Kim be appointed as Chair for year 2021 of the Finance Advisory Committee (2018-2022 term). Carried Page 31 of 138 2 3. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Councillor Thompson Seconded by Mayor Mrakas That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved. Carried 4. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50. 5. Receipt of the Minutes 5.1 Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of December 8, 2020 Moved by Councillor Thompson Seconded by Mayor Mrakas That the Finance Advisory Committee meeting minutes of December 8, 2020, be received for information. Carried 6. Delegations None. 7. Matters for Consideration 7.1 Memorandum from Manager, Financial Management; Re: Council Administration and Office of the CAO Budget Materials The Committee reviewed the budget materials and inquired about several line items and variances. Staff provided clarification on items including subscriptions/publications, cost recovery, consulting, the external sponsorship program, mobile plan charges, full-time salaries (Office of the CAO budget), and memberships and internal grants (Council Administration budget). The Committee requested that a summary page, providing context within the Corporation and similar to that supplied in the Town's budget review binder, be included with the departmental budget materials for future departmental line-by-line analysis by the Committee. Page 32 of 138 3 Moved by Mayor Mrakas Seconded by Councillor Thompson 1. That the memorandum regarding Council Administration and Office of the CAO Budget Materials be received; and 2. That the comments and suggestions of the review of the detailed financial information for Council Administration and the Office of the CAO Budget Materials be received and referred to staff for consideration and action as appropriate. Carried 7.2 Memorandum from Project Management Office; Re: Town’s Major Capital Projects Update Staff provided a brief overview of the major capital projects update. The Committee inquired about the determination of project start dates and suggested that more context be supplied around any reference to project delays. Staff provided clarification and agreed to deliver greater consistency and context in future updates. Moved by Councillor Thompson Seconded by Mayor Mrakas 1. That the memorandum regarding Town’s Major Capital Projects Update be received for information. Carried 7.3 Memorandum from Manager, Financial Management; Re: 2021 Draft Work Plan for the Finance Advisory Committee Staff provided a brief overview of the draft 2021 Work Plan for the Finance Advisory Committee noting key areas for review. The Committee inquired about the possibility of including regular updates on the IT Strategic Plan as part of the Town's Major Capital Projects Update, and staff agreed to include the additional information in future. The Committee inquired about the planned Fiscal Strategy for the Town, and staff provided comment regarding the four fiscal strategy pillars of capital planning, reserve management, debt management, and revenue management. The Committee further inquired about the status of the One Investment Program, and staff provided a response noting that the Program is Page 33 of 138 4 currently on hold and will be further considered as one of the strategic actions under the Town's new fiscal strategy revenue management pillar. Moved by Mayor Mrakas Seconded by Councillor Thompson 1. That the memorandum regarding 2021 Draft Work Plan for the Finance Advisory Committee be received; and 2. That the 2021 Draft Work Plan for the Finance Advisory Committee be approved. Carried 7.4 Memorandum from Manager, Financial Management; Re: Corporate Revenues and Expenses Budget Materials Moved by Mayor Mrakas Seconded by Councillor Thompson 1. That the memorandum regarding Corporate Revenues and Expenses Budget Materials be received; and 2. That the detailed financial information for the Corporate Revenues and Expenses be received and deferred for discussion and detailed review at the next meeting of the Finance Advisory Committee. Carried 8. New Business None. 9. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Thompson Seconded by Mayor Mrakas That the meeting be adjourned at 6:34 p.m. Carried Page 34 of 138 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. CMS 21-0 03 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Community Services Pricing Policy and Ability to Pay Project Update and Presentation Prepared by: Lisa Warth, Manager, Recreation Department: Community Services Date: February 2, 2021 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Recommendation 1. That Report No. CMS21-003 be received; and 2. That staff be directed to proceed with the completion of the policies related to Community Services program and service pricing and Access to Recreation. Executive Summary This report outlines the results of the Community Services User Fee and Pricing Policy and Recreation Access Policy project, including general concepts and rationale, community consultation and a worksheet detailing the true costs of programs and services that will assist staff in pricing programs and services.  The Reference committee and other community consultations revealed that, in general, these participants were in support of the concepts outlined in the draft policies  The draft Community Services User Fee and Pricing Policy demonstrates transparency in local government by setting fees for services based on the cost to provide them and considers reasonable and achievable levels of cost recovery  The draft Recreation Access Policy aims to engage as many residents as possible in recreation, by ensuring that cost is not a barrier  An in-depth analysis of the direct and indirect costs of delivering programs and services will assist staff in pricing programs and services Page 35 of 138 February 2, 2021 2 of 9 Report No. CMS21-003  Implementing the policies will take place over the next one to three years to ensure that any pricing adjustments and budget impacts as a result of the policies are phased in where required Background The last pricing policy update was done in 2009 and had become outdated and difficult for staff to utilize and the last ability to pay policy review was done in 2006. An update is needed to ensure the Town is responding to the changing community, and to assist with effectively allocating funds for community services and to assist staff in achieving appropriate cost recovery targets. This project was awarded to Planning Consultants, Monteith Brown and Tucker-Reid & Associates. These Firms have a broad knowledge and experience in developing pricing policies and ability to pay policies. Participation in recreation can strengthen physical, emotional, spiritual and mental wellbeing and create community pride. It is important to have policies to support and facilitate healthy communities. Analysis The Reference committee and other community consultations revealed that in general, these participants were in support of the concepts outlined in both draft policies A reference committee was developed early in the project to act as a sounding board and vet draft concepts and policies. These members were recruited from the membership of existing Advisory Committees of Council and other agencies. Due to the COVID 19 situation, the reference committee met twice virtually, however, provided good feedback to the project committee. A focus group to discuss the concepts of affordable recreation was held with residents, stakeholders and agency partners on September 17, 2020. The purpose of the focus group was to assess the opportunities and challenges clients have had in accessing recreation and respective subsidies and to learn ways to improve the process. Key topics from the focus group included:  Inclusivity – it is important that individuals and families experiencing low incomes have the same choices, access and benefits to recreation as the general population Page 36 of 138 February 2, 2021 3 of 9 Report No. CMS21-003  Ease of understanding and application – policies and procedures need to be written in a way that are easy to understand and interpret. Eligibility should be clear; application forms should be simple to complete and assistance from staff should be easy to access when required.  Eligibility – A means test is required to determine whether an individual or household would qualify for supports through the access policy.  Promoting the policy and continuing to work with funding partners – It will be important to promote the policy and procedure to those who may need to access it, as well as working with the Town’s existing funders (Jumpstart, the Region etc.) A survey was conducted on Engage Aurora to test the principles of both draft policies. Although the response was minimal, key themes emerged such as, policies should result in fair user fees for all, greater access is needed for low income individuals and families and that recreation services that serve the greatest number of residents should be subsidized the most through the tax base. The Community Services User Fee and Pricing draft Policy demonstrates transparency in local government by setting fees for services based on the cost to provide them and considers reasonable and achievable levels of cost recovery This draft policy aims to encourage as many residents as possible to participate in programs and services by establishing a methodology that is transparent, defensible, fair and sustainable when setting fees. User fees are typically based on the benefits that the program or service brings to the overall community, families and individuals. These benefits can include considerations such as reduced health care costs by living an active lifestyle, the learning of life skills (ex. swimming), and reduced court, legal and safety costs by offering youth programs as examples. The development of fees also considers the market of other not for profit, private and municipal providers. Direct and indirect costs must also be considered when pricing a program or service. This is what allows the Town to provide responsive programs and services in a sustainable, fiscally responsible manner. Participants must contribute to the sustainability of a program or service by contributing to the cost of providing the program or service. Direct costs include incremental wages, mandatory employment related costs, equipment and supplies and a cost to maintain the facility. Indirect costs include the support required to provide the program or service including supervision, registration, Page 37 of 138 February 2, 2021 4 of 9 Report No. CMS21-003 promotion, communication, asset management and other departmental administrative costs. It is also important that there is a balance between no fee/low fee and fee-based programs and services, so residents have a range of choices for their recreation/leisure pursuits. The draft policy recommends that programs and services be categorized into four subsidy levels ranging from 0-100% cost recovery, with programs and services defined as either No fee/low fee, Introductory, Value added, and premium and commercial. Programs and Service Categories Definition of Service Categories Examples within Current Programs and Services Targeted Level of Cost Recovery (minimum) No Fee/Low Fee No Fee / Low Fee Programs and Services set out to include the widest range of residents participating in recreation. Participation is universal and all residents are welcomed to enjoy these opportunities. User Fees are generally minimal or not applied. Public skating, public swimming, shinny hockey, special events, use of skate parks, wading pools, public tennis courts, sports courts, drop-in use of gymnasiums, Youth and Older Adult club memberships, etc. 0 to 25% Introductory Introductory Programs and Services include an introduction to a recreational opportunity, a learning or developmental continuum in either of active, creative, STEM or general interest programs and services. These opportunities are generally geared toward children, youth, older adults/seniors, and persons with disabilities. Learn-to-swim programs, active living and fitness courses, aquatic fitness classes, camps, March and Holiday Break programs, etc. 25 to 50% Value Added Value Added Programs and Services offer a continuum of learning and more advanced instruction. Aquatic leadership training, fitness memberships, fitness classes, etc. 50% to 75% Page 38 of 138 February 2, 2021 5 of 9 Report No. CMS21-003 Programs and Service Categories Definition of Service Categories Examples within Current Programs and Services Targeted Level of Cost Recovery (minimum) Premium and Commercial Premium and Commercial Programs and Services are specialized or are advanced in nature, requiring specialized instruction and/or access to specialized facilities or equipment. Generally, these programs serve a smaller number of participants with specific higher-level skills. These are sometimes offered by the commercial or private sector on a for-profit basis. Semi-private or private swim lessons, specialized camps and break programs, exclusive use of facilities, exclusive use of facilities with higher level amenities, use of facilities or amenities for commercial purposes. 75 to 100%+ This policy will allow staff to deliver programs and services that will not impede participation and will allow the Town to sustain programs and services by achieving targeted levels of cost recovery. The Recreation Access Policy aims to engage as many residents as possible in recreation, by ensuring that cost is not a barrier This draft policy aims to ensure that as many residents as possible can participate and obtain the benefits of recreation by providing support to those experiencing low incomes. And in the bigger picture, promotes inclusivity and social justice. The policy is meant to apply only to programs and services that are directly delivered by the Town. It is important that all Aurora residents can access some form of recreation service or program regardless of their income and ability to pay. For the purposes of this policy, it is recommended that the Low Income Measure-after tax is the means test used to define low income. It is important to set and measure penetration targets for low income individuals, that ideally will mirror the general population. This policy recommends that an annual prescribed amount should be made available to each individual. Spending varies based on different age groups, but the average Aurora resident spends $200 annually on municipal recreation programs and services. The recommended target is 10% of the almost 5000 (2016 Census Canada) individuals experiencing low income in Aurora. This Page 39 of 138 February 2, 2021 6 of 9 Report No. CMS21-003 means that the Town should target to engage 500 individuals annually with this new policy. A dedicated budget will be required to implement this policy. If 500 individuals access this policy and utilize a subsidy amount of $200 annually, a budget of $100,000 is required. It is important to note that this policy encourages and assumes, the continued partnering with other agencies in providing support to low income individuals. Staff will continue to work with other agencies and institutions that provide funding for individuals experiencing low incomes. However, even with the support of these partners, there is still a gap for residents experiencing low income and their ability to access recreation programs and services and additional support is required. Staff will complete the procedure and intake process and pending budget approval, will implement the program beginning in 2022. The current subsidy program is very informal, and only provides for a discount on programs and services. There is no means test and no sustainable funding source for the program. Because of this, the program is not well advertised and only 45 families accessed the program in 2019. The current program does little in achieving the benefits of a good fee assistance program such as encouraging participation, reducing costs for health care and social services and promoting inclusivity. An in depth analysis of the direct and indirect costs of delivering programs and services will assist staff in pricing programs and services An in depth financial analysis was completed using 2019 financial data. This exercise determined the direct and indirect cost of running community services programs and services. Costs such wages and benefits, equipment, facility operating costs, asset management, contributions to equipment and capital reserves, full time staff support, administration, promotion, and communications have all been considered and costed out. A worksheet has been developed that incorporates the principles in the policy, and the direct and indirect costs noted above. This process will allow staff to have a better understanding of the true costs of running programs and services and then apply a level of subsidy to a particular program or service as outlined in the draft policy. This worksheet will assist staff in pricing new programs moving forward ensuring they are in line with the policy. Page 40 of 138 February 2, 2021 7 of 9 Report No. CMS21-003 Implementing the policies will take place over the next one to three years to ensure that any pricing adjustments and budget impacts as a result of the policies are phased in where required The draft policy suggests minimum, targeted levels of recovery that range by 25%. This is because there are sometimes additional factors that need to be considered when pricing a program such as demand, benchmarking what other municipalities or the private sector may be charging and what the market for a particular program or service will bear. Existing programs will be put through the pricing worksheet and adjustments may need to be made where it is found that programs are under priced. Increases may be applied incrementally (i.e. over a number of years), where it is found that programs are under priced by more than 20%. Consultation and an implementation plan on applying specific fee increases is work staff will do in 2021. Further analysis will be done on existing programs and services that are found to be overpriced based on the worksheet and policy. If a program or service has been successful yet is deemed overpriced, other factors will need to be considered such benchmarking and comparing to other municipalities before a fee is changed. Staff may also recommend that these programs and services be exempt from annual increases on the Fees and Charges bylaw. The budget impact resulting from pricing adjustments for under priced and overpriced programs and services is expected to be minimal (under $10,000 annually), based on the preliminary work done in this area and the flexibility provided by the range of 25% minimum targeted cost recovery. With respect to the Ability to Pay policy, staff will be requesting an annual operating budget increase of $100,000 to support the policy. This amount will likely increase annually as targets and access with low income residents are achieved. Advisory Committee Review This project was presented to the Community Advisory Committee on November 19, 2020 and to the Finance Advisory Committee on November 26, 2020. Both committees agreed with the key concepts and understood the importance of these policies. Some members of the Finance Advisory Committee had questions about the budget impacts as a result of the implementation of these policies. Page 41 of 138 February 2, 2021 8 of 9 Report No. CMS21-003 Legal Considerations In accordance with Part II – Fees and Charges of the Municipal Act, 2001, Council may exempt, in whole or in part, any class of persons from all or part of a fee or charge on the basis of inability to pay. Any resulting policies may be approved by the CAO in accordance with the delegation bylaw. Financial Implications Upon Council approval of the proposed Community Services user fee pricing and recreation access policies, staff will undertake a detailed review of all existing recreation program and service fees to ensure their compliance with these new policies. This review will identify any overall financial impacts to the Town as a result of these policies. However, a preliminary analysis of these financial impacts to the Town suggests they will be minimal (less than $10,000 per annum) relating to the proposed community services program & service fee pricing policy and approximately $100,000 per annum relating to the recreation access policy. Any necessary budget adjustments will be presented to Council for its review and approval as part of the Town’s 2022 operating budget reaffirmation in the Fall of 2021. Communications Considerations Communication of the pricing and policy choices will occur over time, and in various formats including website updates, social media, direct communication with clients of recreation services, and other mechanisms as appropriate. Link to Strategic Plan The approval of these policies supports the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting an exceptional quality of life for all in its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objectives of this goal statement: Objective 4: Encouraging an active and healthy lifestyle Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council may provide further direction Page 42 of 138 February 2, 2021 9 of 9 Report No. CMS21-003 Conclusions The approval of these policies and the implementation of related procedures will provide a framework to ensure the Town of Aurora can continue to meet the needs of a growing and changing community in the pursuit of leisure and recreation while engaging as many individuals as possible. This project will ensure that programs and services are priced in a manner that is fair and sustainable. Attachments 1. Pricing Policy and Financial Assistance Policy – Background Summary Report Previous Reports General Committee Report No. CMS19-014 – 2019 Capital Project – User Fee Pricing Policy and Ability to Pay Review Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on January 14, 2021 Approvals Approved by Robin McDougall, Director, Community Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 43 of 138 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT January 18, 2021 Attachment 1 Page 44 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page i Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 2.0 The Town’s Role in Delivering Recreation Services ......................................................................... 3 3.0 Legislative Context .........................................................................................................................................4 4.0 Rationale for Pricing & Fee Assistance Policies ................................................................................. 7 5.0 Rationale for Fee Assistance Policies.................................................................................................... 11 6.0 Review of Local Policies and Practices ................................................................................................. 17 7.0 Review of Demographic & Socio-Economic Trends ..................................................................... 20 8.0 Input from Community Consultations ............................................................................................... 22 9.0 Rates & Fees Benchmarking .................................................................................................................... 26 10.0 Regional Financial Assistance Programs ......................................................................................... 36 11.0 Next Steps ........................................................................................................................................................ 38 Appendix A: Terms of Reference for the Project Reference Group Page 45 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 1 1.0 Introduction Project Purpose & Context The Town of Aurora provides recreation facilities and programs to enable residents to be physically active and connected with others. The Community Services Department, by way of its Recreation Division, oversees the delivery of recreation services that reflect the needs of Aurora residents and do so in a fiscally- responsible manner. In 2009, the Town of Aurora prepared a ‘Pricing Policy for Recreation Services’ that involved a comprehensive review of the municipal fee structure for recreation services. The Town of Aurora has decided to refresh the Pricing Policy and concurrently update its framework for subsidy/financial assistance for low-income participants of recreation programs. The Town has retained Monteith Brown Planning Consultants Ltd. and Tucker-Reid & Associates to undertake the current scope of work. Specifically, the Terms of Reference for this project indicates the following goals: x Review the existing rates and fees structure for recreation programs and services and provide an updated framework to rationalize rates, subsidy/cost recovery levels and future trends based on projected demographics. x Review financial assistance frameworks (program subsidy) based on a person’s ability to pay and provide an updated framework to identify a sustainable funding source, a means test to determine who qualifies, and to ensure that there is affordable access, fairness, transparency, and an ease of implementation and administration. The outcome of this work will be an updated Pricing Policy for Recreation and a Financial Assistance Policy (collectively referred to herein as the “Policies”). It bears noting that these policies will set the stage for future work on the part of the Town, including the implementation of a financial assistance program to assist low- income residents as part of subsequent implementation after the Policies have been approved by Council. Purpose of this Background Summary Report This Background Summary Report contains information considered to be relevant and required to formulate meaningful user fee and financial access policies for the Town of Aurora. This Report provides an ‘environmental scan’ documenting the legislative context, demographics and applicable trends, and input from consultations carried out to date for the Policy work. This Report is NOT intended to make recommendations or establish fees, as this work will be carried out in subsequent project phases. Page 46 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 2 Project Scope The scope of the Pricing Policy is relegated to services offered through the Town of Aurora Community Services Department, and will generally guide rates and fees for: x Recreation facility rentals including arenas, auditoriums, sports fields, outdoor tennis courts, gymnasiums, and meeting/program rooms; x Aquatics programs including selected learn-to-swim programs and public swimming x Recreation programs for different age categories (children, youth, adults and seniors) and families; x Registered and drop-in programs including basketball, public skating, day camps, dance, introductory arts/cultural programs, and general interest activities; x Fitness memberships and selected group fitness programs; and x Rates applied to non-residents, non-profit and commercial organizations. Excluded from the scope of work are arts and culture programs, festivals and special events, park-based facilities (e.g. picnic pavilions), and other services not offered by the Community Services Department. Study Process The development of the Policy and Program are characterized by the following steps, undertaken between project initiation in January 2020 and its completion in February 2021: 1. Meetings with the Town of Aurora Project Team 2. Meetings with the Reference Group (May and October 2020) 3. Review of the existing policy and demographic context 4. Community survey (October to November 2020) 5. Access to Affordable Recreation Focus Group (September 2020) 6. Review of direct and indirect costs for facilities and programs 7. Draft and final frameworks for pricing and financial assistance policies 8. Presentation to Town Council (February 2021) Page 47 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 3 2.0 The Town’s Role in Delivering Recreation Services The Town of Aurora’s vision, as stated through its corporate Strategic Plan, is to be “An innovative and sustainable community where neighbours and businesses thrive.”1 As part of achieving this vision, the Town delivers recreation facilities, programs and services to the community. Recreation has direct benefits in improving the quality of life for residents, contributes to the economic health of the community, and is a means through which people are connected to one another. The Community Services Department’s actions are also guided by the Town of Aurora Parks & Recreation Master Plan, and the Sport Plan. The Department strives to provide/enable services that are needed to engage residents in healthy lifestyles, and strives to do so in a manner that is cost-effective and complementary to services available through community providers. The Pricing Policy and Ability-to-Pay Program support the “Invest in sustainable infrastructure” and “Encouraging an active and healthy lifestyle” objectives articulated under the Town of Aurora Strategic Plan’s Community Pillar. The Department partially offsets the financial costs of providing recreation services through a number of revenue streams, most notably user fees, taxation and – to a lesser extent – sponsorships, grants and partnerships. The Department also accepts that there are non-financial and intangible benefits that offset fiscal expenditures by way of increased physical and social health among residents (which may reduce health-care spending for instance), contributions to community vibrancy and cohesion, environmental sustainability, etc. Therefore, the degree to which quantifiable costs are “recovered” is dictated by Town’s prevailing philosophy surrounding the “value” of the service that it provides to individuals and the community as a whole. The Community Services Department also recognizes that certain populations face barriers to accessing its recreation facilities and services, and thus strives to be inclusive in support of its mandate to involve as many residents in recreation as possible. One element of inclusion that can be managed through pricing relates to financial assistance for low-income participants. As discussed in Section 10.0, the Department currently provides an in-house subsidy that offsets program registration fees using contributions from an annual fundraising effort; it bears noting, however, that this subsidy is not administered or funded in the same way as formalized Financial Assistance Policies found in a number of other communities. 1 Town of Aurora 2011-2031 Strategic Plan. p.1. Page 48 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 4 3.0 Legislative Context Ontario Municipal Act Specific to Fees and Charges, Part XII the Ontario Municipal Act, 2001 grants a municipality the broad authority to impose a fee or charge for any activity or service that it provides, as well as for the use of property under its control. The costs included in a fee or charge may include costs incurred by the municipality or local board related to administration, enforcement, and the establishment, acquisition and replacement of capital assets. Furthermore, the municipality may impose a charge or fee “for capital costs related to services or activities...on persons not receiving an immediate benefit from the services or activities but who will receive a benefit at some later point in time.” These provisions in the Municipal Act mean that rates and fees are permitted by, and set at the discretion of the municipality whereby fees can be below, at the same level, or exceed the direct operating costs of providing an activity or service. Part XII does not define a methodology in which to calculate a user fee, however, Sections 393 and 394 of the Municipal Act identify certain restrictions that are to be considered. Further, Part XII does not require a public process to pass a fee or charge by-law, however, it is considered a best practice to develop recreation rates in consultation with the public and stakeholders of the recreation system to validate core principles that will assist in the setting of fees. The specific provisions of the Municipal Act are documented in the pages that follow. Ontario Regulation 584/06 Ontario Regulation 584/06 is issued under the authority of the Municipal Act to specifically govern the imposition of fees and charges. More specifically, the Regulation establishes a number of limitations through which a charge or fee can be imposed. One notable provision for recreation is under Section 2(1) of the Regulation which prohibits a municipality from imposing “fees or charges to obtain revenue to pay capital costs, if as a result of development charges by-laws or front-ending agreements under the Development Charges Act.” Page 49 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 5 Municipal Act, 2001 - Part XII Fees and Charges By-laws re: fees and charges 391 (1) Without limiting sections 9, 10 and 11, those sections authorize a municipality to impose fees or charges on persons, (a) for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it; (b) for costs payable by it for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of any other municipality or any local board; and (c) for the use of its property including property under its control. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 163 (1). Local board (1.1) A local board may impose fees or charges on persons, (a) for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of it; (b) for costs payable by it for services or activities provided or done by or on behalf of any municipality or other local board; and (c) for the use of its property including property under its control. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 163 (1). Deferred benefit (2) A fee or charge imposed for capital costs related to services or activities may be imposed on persons not receiving an immediate benefit from the services or activities but who will receive a benefit at some later point in time. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 163 (2). Costs related to administration, etc. (3) The costs included in a fee or charge may include costs incurred by the municipality or local board related to administration, enforcement and the establishment, acquisition and replacement of capital assets. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 163 (3). Fees for mandatory services, etc. (4) A fee or charge may be imposed whether or not it is mandatory for the municipality or local board imposing the fee or charge to provide or do the service or activity, pay the costs or allow the use of its property. 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 163 (3). Page 50 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 6 Restriction, poll tax 393 No fee or charge by-law shall impose a poll tax or similar fee or charge, including a fee or charge which is imposed on an individual by reason only of his or her presence or residence in the municipality or part of it. 2001, c. 25, s. 393; 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 165. Restriction, fees and charges 394 (1) No fee or charge by-law shall impose a fee or charge that is based on, is in respect of or is computed by reference to, (a) the income of a person, however it is earned or received, except that a municipality or local board may exempt, in whole or in part, any class of persons from all or part of a fee or charge on the basis of inability to pay; (b) the use, purchase or consumption by a person of property other than property belonging to or under the control of the municipality or local board that passes the by-law; (c) the use, consumption or purchase by a person of a service other than a service provided or performed by or on behalf of or paid for by the municipality or local board that passes the by-law; (d) the benefit received by a person from a service other than a service provided or performed by or on behalf of or paid for by the municipality or local board that passes the by-law; or (e) the generation, exploitation, extraction, harvesting, processing, renewal or transportation of natural resources. 2001, c. 25, s. 394 (1); 2006, c. 32, Sched. A, s. 166. Ontario Regulation 584/06 Capital costs 2. (1) A municipality and a local board do not have power under the Act to impose fees or charges to obtain revenue to pay capital costs, if as a result of development charges by-laws or front-ending agreements under the Development Charges Act, 1997 or a predecessor of that Act that was passed or entered into before the imposition of the fees or charges, payments have been, will be or could be made to the municipality or local board to pay those costs. Page 51 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 7 4.0 Rationale for Pricing & Fee Assistance Policies Benefits of Participating in Recreation As noted in Section 2.0, the Town prices its recreation services in a way that reflects the benefits that are provided to residents, both in financially quantifiable terms but also to acknowledge non-financial or intrinsic benefits that are accrued. The Canadian Parks & Recreation Association, the Canadian Sport For Life (CS4L) movement, along with various other planning bodies and sport representatives, have documented a host of physical health, psychological, economic and environmental benefits that are derived from the recreation and sport system including (but not limited to): x Strengthening social, motor, creativity and intellectual capabilities x Combating chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, cancer and respiratory illnesses x Reducing stress, depression and contributes to emotional/psychological well being x Providing safe, developmental opportunities for children and youth who are unsupervised before and after school x Building self-esteem, social skills, positive self-image and stimulating participation in community life x Producing leaders who support their communities in many ways x Strengthening community engagement x Nurturing growth, acquisition of life skills for those with a disability x Reducing self-destructive behaviours and negative social activities, particularly among youth x Building understanding between diverse cultures x Reducing social isolation, loneliness and alienation x Reducing the costs of healthcare, social services, social interventions and foster care Involvement in various forms of recreation and sport contribute to many of the above-noted benefits and to the overall health of Aurora’s communities and individuals. The Town of Aurora supports participation in recreation and sport, in part through the provision and/or subsidization of services, as the municipality recognizes its role in promoting healthy lifestyles and facilitating positive choices. Page 52 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 8 Consistency & Transparency in Setting Fees A Pricing Policy for recreation allows the Town to implement a clear, consistent, open, and transparent process for establishing user fees for the facilities and programs it delivers. A Pricing Policy can support the cost-effective delivery of services and encourages accessibility, participation and equity. A Policy provides guidelines for annual Council approved fees while allowing recreation/sport organizations to understand, anticipate and plan for fees in future years. Specifically, a Pricing Policy can assist Town staff in: x establishing a transparent, defensible, and replicable methodology for setting rental rates for municipal arenas (ice, floor) and outdoor sports fields (soccer, football, baseball, other field sports); x evaluating the existing fee structure and identifying potential areas of concern and opportunity; x reporting on the true costs of delivering services and identifying cost recovery targets for arena and outdoor sports field rentals; x engaging local stakeholders in understanding the basis for this study, the cost of service delivery, strategies for setting and applying rates, and proposed rate changes; and x making recommendations on the phasing in of fee changes and improvement of pricing structures and related policies. Asset Management & Fiscally Sustainable Delivery of Services Although full cost recovery of facility operations is not the core objective for the Town of Aurora and most municipalities, there is a fine balance in subsidization given that recreation facilities are multi-million dollar assets that place a degree of pressure on the local tax base. The imposition of user fees and rental charges helps to offset capital and operational expenditures, and are considered to be an important tool to ensure that facilities and programs are provided to a desirable level of quality, and most importantly in longevity. User fees typically cover a percentage of the direct costs to offer a program or time used at a recreation facility. Page 53 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 9 Best Practices in the Development of a Pricing Policy Transparency in municipal governance is a requirement and must be demonstrated in all Council, staff and volunteer actions. The development of a Pricing Policy follows an industry standard of openness and the equitable provision of programs and services. The preferred process to develop Pricing Policies utilizing industry standard best practices is as follows. 1) Understand the True Cost to Provide Recreation Programs and Services Services have traditionally been priced solely considering on what the market will bear. In recreation, service practitioners have tried to keep pricing as low as possible to encourage greater participation levels. While this approach is worthy, it does not tell the full story and does not divulge the costs involved with offering a program or service. For more fulsome approaches in developing defensible pricing, a municipality must know what its true costs are to provide the service. The costing process is arduous as not all budgets are based on the cost to provide varying services. Further unit costs come into consideration and must include: x direct costs such as expenditures on staff, mandatory employment-related costs and equipment/program supplies; x indirect costs including supervision and facility expenses; as well as x overhead costs such as registration, communications, and other corporate costs associated with delivering the program and service. There are a number of assumptions that need to be applied and considered equitably between a municipality’s operating divisions and staff units. Developing a formula that can be replicated in subsequent pricing cycles is paramount, as well as ensuring that similar formulas are utilized throughout the corporation to provide the consistency and transparency that is required. Most importantly, defining the true cost to provide services encourages municipalities to explore the most efficient ways to provide the service. Efficiencies must be considered in developing the most cost- effective way to provide a program or service. Page 54 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 10 2) Engage the Public in Discussing Guiding Principles Engaging the public in discussions about costing and pricing various services helps to establish a pricing structure that is meaningful and reflects the community’s unique demographic and socio- economic characteristics. Concepts and principles that are typically explored with the public include: a) Pricing based on general ability to pay by age cohort; b) The type of service provided, whether it be a general interest or specialized; c) The benefits that the service provides to the whole population or to individuals; d) Comparing the prices of services and programs to surrounding jurisdictions and other local service providers; and e) The impact of pricing in terms of participation levels. The engagement of a Reference Group that is representative of the community it serves provides a lens and an ability to interpret the results of community surveys and focus groups. This input serves to develop a fair-minded policy, serves to defend a certain approach, and helps to develop a policy that is meaningful within a community. A Reference Group has been formed for this project and will be engaged at strategic points in the policy development process. Page 55 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 11 5.0 Rationale for Fee Assistance Policies Making the Case for Affordability in Recreation Access to Affordable Recreation Provides a Range of Choices for All Residents It is the aim of most recreation departments to engage as many citizens as possible in program offerings and use of facilities. Doing so requires an understanding that the resident base is highly diverse in terms of age, gender, cultural background, economic status, and level of ability to name only a few. The Ontario Human Rights Code requires that many such factors are protected grounds through which services cannot be denied to individuals. By subsidizing recreation to encourage greater participation, all or a portion of these costs can be offset through the benefits provided to the community (as discussed in Section 4.0). In the context of individuals and households receiving social assistance, the “payback” or “recovery” of costs associated with recreational subsidies can be attained through savings that would otherwise be spent on social services and health services. The paragraphs that follow speak to the importance of providing financial assistance policies and programs, as well as the role of recreation pricing in advancing social justice. In doing so, municipalities can help provide affordable participation options for all residents, thereby making the choice to lead healthier lives an easier decision. Financial Assistance / Affordable Access to Recreation Policies and Programs The cost to participate in organized forms of recreation and sport has generally increased over time and is placing greater financial pressures on persons wishing to participate. Depending on the socio-economic make-up of a community, broad trends indicate that a greater number of households are seeking financial assistance to cover some of the fees associated with recreation. Fortunately, programs are in place to help those in need to access sports activities, providing financial alternatives to rental or program rates already subsidized by a municipality. Financial assistance can come from provincial sources, municipal programs and grants, corporate foundations and/or the sport organizations themselves. Lower-income households are amongst the most susceptible to miss out on the benefits that recreation and sport can bring, thus many municipalities have financial assistance policies and programs in place for qualifying individuals and households. As discussed in Section 6.0, the Recreation Division’s in-house subsidy program offers financial assistance to some individuals who are currently facing financial challenges and want to take part in Town-run recreation activities. Page 56 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 12 There is a wide range of financial assistance approaches across the municipal sector. For example, a number of municipalities have comprehensive Financial Assistance Policies guided by Council-approved policies and annual funding amounts, while others have built their fee assistance policies in a manner that allows users to access affiliated minor sports programs. Certain municipalities have partnered with third parties (e.g., YMCA, local service clubs and businesses, upper-tier municipalities, etc.) to provide funding for those without the financial means to participate or specifically targeted to children and youth. Other municipalities have focused upon increasing free and/or universal programming by geographically targeting lower incomes areas within a community. As will be discussed in subsequent pages, municipalities also work with corporate sector and local community providers to access financial assistance programs such as Canadian Tire Jumpstart, sponsorships, and encouraging internal access/inclusion policies. It also bears noting that there are sometimes gaps in financial assistance programs for adults as most programs tend to focus upon families, children/youth, or seniors. Pricing to Combat Social Injustice Building upon the previous paragraphs, John Crompton’s article recently published in the National Parks and Recreation Association’s Parks & Recreation Magazine speaks to the role of pricing in relation to social justice. The article recognizes two concepts of fairness, being 1) “The Benefit Principle” that states fees should be reflective of the benefits received from a service; and 2) “The Ability to Pay Principle” that states pricing should reflect income-related differences so that no residents are excluded because of an inability to pay. The model argues that not only does exclusion of individuals on the basis of income inhibit fairness, it also forgoes revenues on services and could in fact require a greater degree of tax support since many municipal recreation services have fixed operational costs. To reflect the Ability to Pay Principle yet ensure a degree of operational sustainability provided through the Benefit Principle, recreation departments could specifically target fee assistance to low-income residents, unemployed residents, children, and/or large households to ensure fairness. In addition, the use of pricing premiums to reflect value-added benefits or intentions of individuals to operate for-profit enterprises through the use of municipal infrastructure could redistribute resources in a manner that maximizes a municipality’s objectives for social justice.2 2 Crompton, John. January 2020. Pricing Strategies that Combat Social Injustice: Using Price Premiums and Discounts for Optimizing Economic Equity. Parks & Recreation Magazine. pp. 36-39. National Recreation & Park Association. Page 57 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 13 Best Practices in Developing an Affordable Access to Recreation Policy Municipalities must comply with the Ontario Human Rights Act which states that no one can be denied services due to their background or existing circumstances. This commitment to ensure that all residents can participate in recreation is embraced in a variety of ways. There are some impressive efforts in play that can inform the development of an Affordable Access to Recreation Policy. The following is a sampling of additional Best Practices for consideration by the Town of Aurora. Work as a Collective - Engage Low-income Support Organizations and Recipients in Policy Development The Region of Durham, regional municipalities, and for-profit and not-for-profit organizations banded together around their commitment to engage residents with low-income backgrounds in recreation pursuits. The representatives clearly understand the benefits to the individual and community and wanted to seek ways as a collective to increase participation in recreation pursuits by these residents. In Durham, the collective consisted of representatives from Libraries, Social Services, Public Health, Churches, as well as low-income residents themselves. The collective set up a session with Dr. Gina Browne from McMaster University to hear about her leading research and various studies culminating in a paper entitled “When the Bough Breaks”. A facilitated session followed the presentation to best understand what they could do as a collective of interested organizations. The results have been impressive in that the group commissioned a consultant to prepare a multi-year strategy “Advancing Affordable Access to Recreation in Durham (AARD)”. Working together resulted in receiving a one-time grant of $550,000 from the Poverty Reduction Fund to replicate Dr. Browne’s work in Durham Region. Committing to Affordable Access to Recreation (A Charter) A lack of knowledge about the number of low-income residents and the benefits gained through their participation in recreational pursuits is one of the barriers to receiving commitments and dedicated funding from institutions. In their quest to gain commitment, the AARD working group developed a Charter and asked each lead politician, board chair, and president of the participating organizations and institutions to sign their organization’s commitment. A Charter speaks to the issue and benefits and to a longer-term commitment. The AARD Charter was signed at a press conference and gave the issue of access to recreation visibility and importance. Inventory and Promote all Free and Low-Cost Opportunities Findings from community engagement carried out in the development of financial assistance policies consistently show that low-income residents and respective service providers do not know what is available to them, nor are they always aware about the importance of being active. One of the first steps that communities should take is to inventory the number and types of free and low-cost recreational opportunities, and subsequently promote these opportunities. The benefits of participation are well documented and require promotion to encourage residents to be more active. Page 58 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 14 Consider the Cost of Transportation and Equipment The cost of equipment and the cost of transportation is one the deterrents to participating in recreation, thus a proactive financial assistance/affordable recreation policy will take these barriers into account. A number of municipalities offer free transportation to youth in the summer months so that they can get to participate in recreational opportunities. One of the more proactive approaches is offered in Sault Ste. Marie where children, youth and an accompanying adult receive free transit access if they are going to a recreation or sport facility. Other municipalities are working with their transit providers to include major recreation facilities and sport fields along transit routes and near stops. Work with Community Sports and Community Groups Volunteer organizations providing sport and recreation opportunities often utilize municipal spaces and sport fields at a subsidized rate. Most of these organizations have internal policies and practices that provide some access to low-income residents. Working with community sport and recreation clubs may result in greater participation and better end results. Some municipalities are considering including a requirement in their Affiliation/Allocation Policies or are developing ways to match the interests of low-income families with a group or a provider. Provide Universal Programs that are Free to All (Sponsorships and Partnerships) Some low-income residents may hesitate to apply for subsidies or ask for financial assistance out of embarrassment for oneself or family members. Providing universal access through no cost experiences for residents can eliminate that reticence and provides an equal playing field for all participants. These opportunities are often in the form of summertime playground programs in parks or after-school programs during the school year; the City of Mississauga is an example that proactively seeks sponsors for both these opportunity types, and attendance has been growing since inception of these programs. Many other communities provide enhanced funding and additional recreation/sport opportunities in low-income areas of their municipality. This eliminates the cost of transportation and allows the design of programs and services to meet the needs of the residents. Working with like-minded partners has proven to be a successful approach to engage residents in meaningful experiences while sharing resources. Dedicated Municipal Funding as an Investment There are many partners that can share in funding oriented to offset costs for low-income participants. Canadian Tire Jumpstart has been an exemplary corporate partner for the last 20 years while many local service clubs sponsor camps and sport opportunities. In order to maximize participation and reap value of these endeavours, it is important that a municipality dedicate adequate funding to offset the direct costs of participation by low-income residents. Such a commitment can leverage other funders and increase access. Page 59 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 15 Set and Measure Penetration Targets One of the queries that municipalities have pertains to what level of funding is considered to be fair, as well as how success of funding programs can be measured. One of the starting points would be to understand the participation rate of the general population within a municipality as well as the low- income population. Often these figures demonstrate significant gaps in participation by low-income residents. In the case of Durham’s AARD project, approximately 15% of the general population regularly participated in registered programs and services but participation by low-income residents was less than 2%. The goal and measured target became 15% participation by low-income residents - this goal was reached with concerted effort in three years since the inception of the new policy. Providing Recreation Leadership Opportunities at No Cost in Low-income Areas Recreation departments are facing challenges with training and retaining part-time staff members, particularly in the aquatics discipline. The requirement for training and qualifications is costly and recent increases to the provincial minimum wage allows staff to find part-time employment requiring fewer effort and qualifications. This has been an ongoing issue for recreation departments across Ontario. One of the remedies for this situation has been to provide free leadership training in low- income neighbourhoods. The cost barrier is remedied and potential staff members have gained new competencies including leadership skills that are transferrable to other careers. Seamless Means Testing through Social Services, Children’s Aid and Similar Agencies Municipal staff frequently indicate that full means testing requires specialized training and added resources to identify persons that qualify for subsidies. Partnerships with Social Services/Ontario Works, Public Health, Children’s Aid Societies, and other similar organizations that work with low- income clients can provide means testing and promote access to affordable recreation. The benefits of recreation are promoted to families, with seamless access to programs and services providing strong benefits to both the participant and the municipality. How Much is Adequate Funding Per Low-Income Resident and Family? The question of adequate funding is thoughtfully considered during the development of a financial assistance/affordable recreation policy. Municipal organizations are limited in funding and would not want to be in a position to deny access to recreation when the benefits are so significant. One of the starting points in creating a realistic budget amount is to look at the types of programs that a typical family would participate in a year, and to determine the value of those programs and services. For the purposes of illustration, consider a scenario where an average family was to spend $250.00 for one child to participate in swimming lessons, a general interest program and a camp. Using this as a baseline, an allotment per child from a low-income household could be calculated. As discussed in Section 7.0, there are approximately 1,400 children and youth living below the Low Income Measure after-tax (LIM-AT) in Aurora, of whom 400 are under the age of 6. Assuming that the Town wished to target a 15% take-up/participation rate among children/youth living below the LIM-AT, the budgeted calculation would hypothetically be 15% of 1,400 children/youth (210 persons) at $250.00 per child per year or $52,500. Page 60 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 16 The same calculation could be applied to specific age groups based on available data. Of the $52,500 identified in the above noted scenario, $15,000 could be dedicated for children under the age of 6 (15% of 400 children at $250). The same methodology could be applied to adults or seniors, or applying an average rate could be used to arrive at a subsidy amount per resident living with a low income. This is only one example of how projecting a fair subsidy amount might be completed and may be considered as a starting point, since all efforts to increase participation among low income families may surpass the participation rate of the overall population in recreation programs (which would be an indicator of success). The participation rates should be monitored annually and budgets and contributions from other sponsors/partnerships adjusted accordingly. Page 61 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 17 6.0 Review of Local Policies and Practices Pricing Policy for Recreation Services The Community Services Department’s Pricing Policy for Recreation Services was prepared in 2009 and has been loosely used as a guide for Town Staff to assist in rate-setting, more so using its philosophical basis rather than cost calculation parameters. This process to update the Pricing Policy was undertaken with a stated intent of defining how the Town can calculate its direct and indirect costs of delivery, along with ensuring consistency with current best practices and principles as it relates to fee setting. The 2009 Policy articulates a number of definitions, guiding principles, and categorizes recreation services according to four levels of cost recovery. Town staff looked at the definitions developed in 2009 and advised the Consulting Team whether these remain appropriate, and whether any adjustments were required. These definitions from the 2009 Policy were as follows: Capital Cost means the cost to replace the Town’s recreation/leisure service facilities over the next 50 years. Cost Recovery means the amount/proportion of total operating costs (direct and indirect) paid for by the user of a program, facility or service rather than by the municipality through its tax base. Direct Facility Operating Cost means the costs of facility union and part-time wage costs/benefits, light, heat, water, and maintenance, operating supplies and any costs to provide the space for the activity to take place. Direct Program Operating Cost means the costs of part-time wages/benefits or contract fees, materials, supplies and rental costs associated with the provision of a program. Indirect Facility Operating Cost means the costs of full-time staff salary/benefits and overhead costs for directors, managers, operations supervisors, booking clerks, and carpenters associated with the provision of space for recreational activities to take place. Indirect Program Operating Cost means full-time staff salary/benefits and overhead costs for director, manager, complex administration and department administration associated with the provision of a program. Low-income Household means the threshold, as determined by Statistics Canada, at which a household devotes a larger share of income to the necessities of food, shelter and clothing than the average family. Public Good Characteristics means a good or service that is available for everyone to consume and provides community-wide benefits (e.g. education, transit, recreation). While there is a cost associated with the provision of public goods, the cost is shared by all members of the community. One person’s participation/consumption does not preclude another person from participating or consuming that same good. Page 62 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 18 Target Group means a subset of the Town of Aurora’s population intended to be the main beneficiaries of a recreational service or a subset of the population with specific physical, social and/or financial needs (e.g. children, youth, seniors, low-income households, special needs groups, new or emerging groups). Total Operating Costs means the total direct and indirect program and facility costs. User Fee means a fee paid directly by a user to gain access to a program, facility or service (e.g. admission or membership fees, program registration fees, facility or equipment rental/permit fees, special service charges, etc.). The 2009 Pricing Policy’s four cost recovery categories consist of the following: Level 0 No cost recovery through user fees Level 1 A minimum of 30% cost recovery Level 2 A minimum of 55% cost recovery Level 3 A minimum of 75% cost recovery Source: Pricing Policy for Recreation Services, 2009. p.5. Page 63 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 19 Community Services Department In-House Subsidy Parameters The Community Services Department presently does not have a comprehensive fee assistance policy or program in place. Through the Community Services Department, however, the Town provides an in-house subsidy for eligible participants in seasonal programs offered through the Recreation Division. The funding formula is to share costs with the eligible participant where the Town bears 56% of the program cost and the remainder (44%) is borne by the participant. Funding for the in-house subsidy program is understood to be primarily derived from inconsistent and non- sustainable funding sources, limited to $2,000 per year.3 The Town’s parameters do not presently establish or require verification of criteria to determine eligibility of individuals to access the subsidy. As shown in the table below, the total amount distributed has been in excess of the $2,000 cap funded by a temporary surplus in an expense account but the important take-away is that the number of families relying on this assistance is growing and more than double the Town’s annual allocation target, indicating a need. Table 1: In-House Subsidy Distributions, 2017-2020 (YTD) Fiscal Year Number of Families Supported Total Funds Distributed 2017 32 $3,913 2018 44 $5,664 2019 45 $4,853 2020 (YTD) 6 $1,320 Note: Total funds represent the Town of Aurora’s share of program fees (56%) Source: Town of Aurora, April 2020 This nominal in-house subsidy is not a Council-approved item in the Town’s budget and is thus used by Town staff as a guideline. As a result, it is not heavily advertised/promoted nor is it understood to have an expansive reach due to the lack of formal guidelines (e.g. per family caps), and the variable/limited amount of funding set aside. Supplementing the Town’s subsidy program are community-led assistance initiatives including Canadian Tire Jumpstart, Sport Aurora’s “All Kids Can Play” fund, membership assistance offered through the Aurora Seniors Centre, and other informal programs offered by certain recreation and sport providers. The Region of York also offers subsidies to certain individuals that are eligible to be used towards for recreation (as discussed in Section 10 of this Report). The Town of Aurora is not responsible for administering these programs, but helps to spread awareness when possible. 3 Town of Aurora. Department of Parks and Recreation. In-House Subsidy Parameters. Updated October 2014. Page 64 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 20 7.0 Review of Demographic & Socio-Economic Trends A summary of pertinent demographic and socio-economic trends is presented in the pages that follow. The Town’s demographics are part of the considerations required in setting fees, particularly in relation to establishing objectives relating to cost-recovery and affordability. Historical Population Trends x The Town’s population grew from approximately 40,000 to over 55,400 persons between the 2001 and 2016 Census periods, representing an average annualized growth rate of 2.5%. By comparison, York Region grew by an average of 3.5% per year over the same period meaning that Aurora’s population has grown at a lower rate than the Regional average. x Aurora’s Census median age was recorded at 41.5 years in 2016, an increase of over 5.5 years compared to 2001. The population of older adults (55+) has grown by over 145% over this time, amounting to an average annual growth rate of nearly 10%. By comparison, the population of children and teens under the age of 20 has grown by less than 0.5% per year while the numbers of people between the ages of 20 and 54 grew by slightly more than 1.5% per year. Future Population Growth Forecasts x The most recent population estimate for the Town of Aurora is 61,320 persons. The population is forecasted to reach 74,900 residents by 2031, representing an average annualized growth rate of 1.8%, which is slightly less than past Census recorded growth levels articulated above.4 x The number of children/youth (0-19) and adults between the ages of 20 and 54 are each projected to grow by an average of 1% per year by 2031. Strong growth continues to be forecast for the 55+ population at 3.5% per year.5 4 Town of Aurora. 2019. Development Charges Background Study. 5 Adapted from Environics Analytics data. 2019 population estimate is based on applying 23% (for children and youth), 47% (for adults) and 30% (for older adults and seniors) to the total projected population; 2031 population estimate is based on applying 22% (for children and youth), 44% (for adults) and 34% (for older adults and seniors) to the total projected population. 145% Percentage increase in the number of Aurora residents ages 55+ between 2001 and 2016 (an average growth rate of 10% per year). Page 65 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 21 Socio-Economic Trends x The number of Aurora residents born outside of Canada has more than doubled with a 130% increase (adding 9,300 persons) between the 2001 and 2016 Census periods. Whereas immigrants to Canada accounted for 18% of the population in 2001, newcomers now comprise 30% of all Aurora residents. x Visible minority rates have increased from 13% in 2001 to 27% in 2016. x The Town’s Census median household income of $106,700 in 2015 is 11.5% higher than the York Region median and 44% above the provincial median. x Aurora was home to 4,875 residents living below Statistics Canada’s Low-Income Measure after tax (LIM-AT), amounting to 9% of the overall population. The 2016 Census recorded approximately 1,400 Aurora children under the age of 18 as living in LIM-AT households, amounting to slightly more than 1 out of every 10 children (11%); of these children, 400 were under the age of 6. x For the purposes of comparing low income between 2005 and 2015, data is presented for the Low- Income Cut-Off after-tax (LICO-AT), in addition to LIM-AT information noted above, since LIM-AT was not recorded prior to the 2016 Census. There was a slightly greater percentage of Aurora residents living below the LICO-AT in 2015 compared to 2005. The 2016 Census recorded 7.1% of Aurora residents living below the LICO (3,870 persons) compared to 6.1% recorded through the 2016 Census. Proportionally speaking, fewer Aurora residents lived below the LICO-AT in 2015 compared to York Region (9.2%) and the province (9.8%) in 2015. x There is also a growing number of Aurora’s children and youth living in LICO-AT households. In 2015, there were more than 1,000 children and youth living below the LICO, amounting to over 8% of all persons under the age of 18; by comparison 7% of all children and youth lived below the LICO-AT in 2005. Of the 1,000 children and youth living below LICO-AT, nearly 300 are below the age of 6. Page 66 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 22 8.0 Input from Community Consultations Reference Group Meetings In February 2020, the Town of Aurora recruited prospective members to form a Reference Group to provide feedback for the Policies and act as a sounding board to test whether outcomes of the work are reflective of community needs. Reference Group members were selected from a pool of existing Town of Aurora Advisory Committee and agency partner representatives involved in the delivery of civic services. A Terms of Reference articulated the roles and responsibilities of those involved in this capacity (see Appendix A). The Reference Group attended two project meetings as well as one Town Council meeting, with their term concluding at the end of the project. The first Reference Group meeting was held on May 25, 2020 to introduce the project and discuss key objectives/principles that would influence the two policies; with the COVID-19 pandemic ongoing at time of writing, convening an in-person meeting was not possible. The Reference Group was re-engaged on October 22, 2020 after their review the draft policies prior finalization and presentation to Town Council. The Reference Group was supportive of both policies with a portion of the discussion also spent upon how user fee policies fit with other inclusivity-oriented initiatives of the Town (i.e. beyond financial access) to promote access and inclusion. Affordable Recreation Focus Group A focus group with residents, stakeholders and agency partners that provide funding and assistance to low- income residents was held on September 17, 2020 to discuss fee assistance / ability to pay for recreation services. Representatives from Jumpstart, the Region of York, the Aurora Seniors Centre, and recipients of recreation fee assistance participated in the discussion. The purpose of the focus group was to assess the opportunities and challenges that clients have in accessing recreation and the respective subsidies, and to garner suggestions as to how the current system might be improved. A summary of the key points emerging from the conversation is as follows. Participants agree that the intent of undertaking such a policy stems from the principle that as many Aurora residents as possible should be able to attain the various benefits of recreation related to health, social and development potential of individuals. To truly be inclusive, the focus group shared the view that the rate of participation in recreation among persons experiencing low income should ideally reflect the rate of participation among the general population. There was a sentiment that people with less choice (due to any factors prohibiting their ability to participate) are the most vulnerable to being left behind, and thus a policy would ideally have a way to track and measure its effectiveness in reaching such populations. Conversations also focused upon the need for policies to be developed and manner that is easy to understand and simple to navigate for the average person. Groups such as seniors and newcomers to Canada were identified as groups that benefit from plain language, ease of use, and the ability to access help from the Town if needed. Page 67 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 23 A substantial part of the conversation was spent discussing who might qualify for fee assistance in recreation. Agency partners indicated that they base their means testing using factors such as an individual or household’s status under the Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) or other income thresholds, whether the potential recipient has qualified for other social supports such as Ontario Works or disability programs, or persons receiving rent subsidies. Some limitations of this approach that were noted included that individual circumstances are highly variable and certain persons experiencing low income may not qualify for programs based upon a rigid application of eligibility criteria, while other potential recipients may be embarrassed to reach out for help or discuss their personal situations. One example that was provided highlighted the challenges that individuals that have recently experienced low income (due to job loss, disability, etc.) may not qualify for programs if their previous year’s earnings were considered. Jumpstart noted that while they work with local partners and consider eligibility criteria, they have an ‘exceptional circumstance’ provision that allows them to evaluate applications with a greater degree of flexibility provided certain information is provided such as (but not relegated to) a letter of recommendation. Recipients of fee assistance from the Town of Aurora were extremely appreciative of the respect and help provided by Department Staff. Recipients mentioned that Staff made them feel welcome, safe and had a genuine concern for their well-being. They also appreciated the trust that Staff had since there are presently no eligibility requirements or proof required, allowing recipients to maintain a sense of dignity. They did recognize that there is the potential for the odd applicant to be dishonest and receive funding at the expense of an individual that truly needs fee assistance; however, the point was raised that the Town is in a good position to know its residents by being able to have discussions with them; this interpersonal relationship allows Town staff to use discretion and flag potential areas of concern. Other topics of conversation included the need to promote the policy so that residents are aware of it (and make use of it if necessary), continuing to encourage Department Staff to build relationships with all residents, and having service/funding providers continue to collaborate with each other. Measuring the effectiveness of fee assistance programs was also emphasized in terms of helping funders determine the extent a program’s success but also to ensure that recipients are using the programs after the fee assistance has been granted; performance measurement is seen as a way to separate extenuating circumstances from patterns, thereby allowing decision-makers chart an appropriate course moving forward.. Page 68 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 24 Community Survey A community survey was used to test the core principles of the Draft User Fee & Pricing Policy and the Draft Recreation Access Policy. Held over a three week period between October 27 and November 13, the survey was conducted using the Town’s new online engagement platform (Engage Aurora) and resulted in 58 responses. Notable findings from the survey are as follows: x Roughly half of people (51%) want the Policies to result in fair user fees for all while 38% would like to see it result in affordable opportunities for families. Other desired outcomes included affordable opportunities for children (29%) and greater access for low-income residents (24%). x Two out of three respondents agreed with the statement that “Recreation services that serve the greatest number of Aurora residents should be subsidized the most through the tax base and other funding sources.” x Nearly 90% of the survey respondents agreed with the statement that user fees should be developed in a fair, defensible, and equitable fashion (the majority of whom strongly agreed). Another 86% agree that participants should contribute to the sustainability of recreation by paying a portion of the cost to provide a program or service. x 84% of the sample agrees that there should be a balance between no fee, low fee and fee-based programs and services so that Aurora residents have a range of choice. 79% of the sample agreed that user fees should not be a barrier to participation to all recreation programs offered by the Town. x Setting aside a portion of user fees to fund the repair of facilities was agreed to by 79% of survey respondents and another 71% agree with the user fees including a contribution that helps offset the cost of replacing facility or program equipment. This suggests that supporters see a value in using fees to maintain quality facilities and long-term operational sustainability. x 63% of the sample agree that user fees in Aurora should be comparable to those charged by other providers and other municipalities. Page 69 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 25 x 80% of respondents agree with applying discounts for a family registering three or more members of their immediate family in a session. 82% also agreed that the Town should minimize subsidies applied to commercial and for-profit users. x 84% of the sample agrees with the Town working with partners to help increase participation in recreation among persons experiencing low incomes. 73% agreed with the Town dedicating funds to help increase participation rates among people experiencing low incomes while another 54% believe that these persons should have a high level of tax subsidy to lower user fees. x Other groups receiving the strongest support for high levels of tax subsidy included persons with disabilities (61% support), volunteer/non-profit organizations (41%), and older adults/seniors (36%). Population groups that respondents would like to see receive the lower tax subsidies, thereby higher user fees, including commercial/for-profit users (89% support), non-residents (89%) and adults between 19 and 54 years of age (48%). x 91% and 84% of the sample, respectively, have participated in a Town program or used a Town facility in the past two years. Nearly half of all responses were received from residents living north-east quadrant of Aurora (using the Wellington Street and Young Street intersection as the centre of the Town), 20% reside in the north-west, 14% lived in the south-west, and another 14% lived in the south-east. Only two surveys (3%) were received from non-residents. Page 70 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 26 9.0 Rates & Fees Benchmarking A comparison of facility rental and program registration rates was undertaken to understand how Aurora’s fees compare with the following area municipalities: x Bradford West Gwillimbury; x East Gwillimbury; x Georgina; x Newmarket; x Richmond Hill; and x Whitchurch-Stouffville. Benchmarking data is one of several inputs that will be used in the fee setting analysis, and must be considered as part of a locally-derived framework (i.e. a rate set for another municipality does not mean that the same rate must be applied in Aurora). It is important to exercise caution when directly comparing individual rates between each municipality. While every effort is made to be consistent through the benchmarking, municipalities employ different criteria to their pricing that reflect the unique nuances of their facilities and programs. For example, facilities are designed and maintained to different standards, programs may be offered in different lengths or formats, certain services may be delivered using agreements or partnerships with others, and there may be other factors that affect costs and ultimately the fee charged to recover them. As a result, rental rates may vary substantially from municipality to municipality. Where possible, certain assumptions were made to identify common comparators such as: an hourly rate for a basic meeting room; daily rate for a community hall; or an hourly rate for a sports field booking. Recreation Facility Rental Rates Residents A comparison of facility rental rates is summarized in Table 3. The Town’s rates are below the benchmark average for prime time and dry pad arena rentals, as well as for natural and artificial turf soccer fields, ball diamonds, and meeting rooms. Aurora’s rates are currently higher for minor ice rentals, gymnasiums, and community hall rentals, and on par with the benchmark average for non-prime time ice. Non-Resident Fees With the exception of Bradford West Gwillimbury, the other comparative municipalities charge non-resident fees for the use of their facilities, although it is not consistently applied across all facility types. For example, Richmond Hill has established non-resident rates for indoor facility rentals such as arenas, gymnasiums, pools and multi-purpose rooms, but not for outdoor sports fields. By contrast, a non-resident fee is applied to sports field rentals in Georgina, but not for indoor facilities. As the Town of Aurora does not impose non- resident rates, direct comparisons cannot be made. Broadly speaking, non-resident rates were found to be between 10% and 50% higher compared to residents. Page 71 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 27 Recreation Program Fees Residents Table 4 contains a summary of recreation program fees for comparative municipalities. Recognizing that each community provides numerous recreation programs, a scan of selected programs that are commonly provided was undertaken. Program areas that were included in this review were: aquatic lessons and leadership, registered ballet, basketball and leadership programs; day camps; public swimming and skating, pilates classes, and older adult fitness. An average was taken in situations where there was a variation in fees for the same program. Program fees that are reflected in this comparison are based on per class or session. The Town of Aurora’s recreation program fees are generally lower than the comparators in most areas, particularly for aquatics, children’s basketball, youth leadership, adult public swimming and skating, and fitness. The Town’s recreation program fees are higher for pre-school ballet, day camps, child and senior public swimming, and child and family skating. Non-Residents With the exception of the Town of Aurora and East Gwillimbury, benchmarked municipalities apply a separate non-resident fee for program registration. In each of these communities, non-resident program registration is delayed by one week to ensure that local residents are prioritized. The municipalities generally utilize the same approach in applying non-resident fees. A fixed amount is applied over and above the fee paid by residents across all program areas. Bradford West Gwillimbury applies a 15% non-resident surcharge, while Richmond Hill, Georgina and Newmarket charge an additional $10, $19 and $30, respectively. Whitchurch-Stouffville charges an additional $25 for non-resident registration in programs that cost $50 or more for local residents. Table 2: Non-Resident Surcharge Comparison Bradford West Gwillimbury East Gwillimbury Georgina Whitchurch- Stouffville Newmarket Richmond Hill Aurora Non-Resident Surcharge 15% - $19* $25** $30 $10 - * Georgina non-resident rate applies to aquatics programs only ** Whitchurch-Stouffville non-resident rate applied to programs that are $50 or more for residents Page 72 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 28 Table 3: Facility Rental Rate Comparison (price per hour, rounded to the nearest dollar) Bradford West Gwillimbury East Gwillimbury Georgina Newmarket Richmond Hill Whitchurch-Stouffville Aurora Benchmark Average Above / Below Average Arenas Prime $220 $177 $243 $200 $287 $250 $213 $227 Below Non-Prime $145 $127 $147 $130 $120 $160 $138 $138 On Par Affiliate / Minor $175 n/a $153 $170 $205 $205 $200 $185 Above Dry Pad $90 $76 $119 $76 $102 $81 $61 $86 Below Prime Non-Res. / Commercial n/a $295 n/a $218 $311 $438 n/a $316 n/a Soccer Field Artificial Turf n/a n/a $27 $28 $29 n/a $9 $23 Below Natural – Lit $55 $42 $49 $37 $11 $51 n/a $41 n/a Natural – Unlit $35 $14 $28 $31 $10 $39 $9 $24 Below Non-Res. Adult n/a $48 $129 $42 n/a $129 n/a $66 n/a Ball Diamond Lit $55 $42 $76 $37 $10 $51 n/a $45 n/a Unlit $35 $14 $55 $31 $7 $39 $11 $27 Below Non-Res. Adult n/a $48 $129 $42 n/a $129 n/a n/a Gymnasium Full $105 $66 $52 $121 $65 $60 $82 $79 Above Half $62 $32 n/a n/a $35 n/a n/a $43 n/a Non-Resident n/a n/a n/a $155 $98 n/a n/a $127 n/a Page 73 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 29 Bradford West Gwillimbury East Gwillimbury Georgina Newmarket Richmond Hill Whitchurch-Stouffville Aurora Benchmark Average Above / Below Average Multi-Purpose Room Meeting Room $185 $131 $15 $60 $23 $41 $32 $88 Below Non-Resident n/a n/a $46 $100 $34 n/a n/a $60 n/a Hall $200 $283 $436 $200 n/a $369 $361 $308 Above Non-Resident n/a n/a n/a $400 $350 n/a n/a $375 n/a Indoor Pool Full Pool $187 n/a $86 $109 $114 $135 n/a $126 n/a Non-Resident n/a n/a n/a $153 $171 $171 n/a $165 n/a Note: pricing for natural turf soccer fields and ball diamonds is shown in 2 hour rental blocks Page 74 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 30 Table 4: Recreation Program Fee Comparison (price per class) Bradford West Gwillimbury East Gwillimbury Georgina Newmarket Richmond Hill Whitchurch-Stouffville Aurora Benchmark Average Above / Below Average Aquatics Swimmer 1 $9.45 $10.63 $9.17 $12.54 $10.12 $8.90 $9.20 $10.00 Below Bronze Star $116.73 n/a $90.00 $115.00 $98.62 $105.00 $55.00 $96.73 Below Registered Programs / Learn to Pre-School Ballet $11.17 $7.50 $7.50 $9.92 $10.26 $10.00 $12.30 $9.81 Above Children’s Basketball $13.90 $14.00 $7.50 $8.00 $9.42 $10.00 $9.60 $10.35 Below Youth Leadership $84.00 $57.00 $50.00 $180.00 $157.50 $100.00 $40.00 $95.50 Below Day Camps Full Week March Break Camps $156.00 $185.00 $160.00 $225.00 $202.84 $180.00 $235.00 $191.98 Above Single PA Day Camp $42.00 n/a n/a $45.00 $35.28 $50.00 $45.00 $43.46 Above Public Swimming Adult $5.00 Not Applicable $3.41 $2.65 $4.20 $5.31 $3.55 $4.02 Below Child $3.75 $2.84 $2.65 $2.85 $1.77 $3.55 $2.90 Above Senior $4.25 $2.84 $2.65 $2.94 $3.54 $3.55 $3.30 Above Family $10.00 $9.96 n/a $11.55 $9.73 n/a $10.31 - Public Skating Adult $4.50 $3.00 $2.00 $2.65 $4.20 $4.43 $3.05 $3.40 Below Child $3.50 $2.00 $1.00 $2.65 $2.84 $2.88 $3.05 $2.56 Above Senior $3.75 n/a Free $2.65 $2.94 $2.88 $3.05 $3.05 On Par Family $9.75 n/a $6.42 $11.55 $9.75 $31.35 $13.76 Above Note: refer to paragraph text for description of non-resident fees applied to programs Page 75 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 31 Personal Support for Recreation Programs Each benchmark municipality strives to ensure that its recreation programs are inclusive of all participants, regardless of ability. To support this, all comparative municipalities permit participants to have a personal support worker to assist the individual in programs at no additional cost (Table 5). Bradford West Gwillimbury, Newmarket and Richmond Hill permit a personal support worker to assist an individual at no charge if one or more of the following criteria are met: x A support person is required in school; x A physical, medical, developmental, and/or learning disability exists that affects the safety of the participant or others; x Extra support is needed at home for basic care; x Participant is currently associated with a support agency or program; x A participant has a safety plan with their educational institution; and x There are behaviours to be managed. The Town of Aurora provides support staff for one-on-one personal support, free of charge to Aurora residents for an unlimited number of hours/programs. For instance, if a family requires one-on-one support for a child attending a summer camp, they can have that at no charge for all nine weeks of summer camps (provided they apply before a certain deadline). Non-residents are subject to a fee that offsets the wage of the staff person. Practices slightly vary among benchmarked municipalities where one-on-one personal support where services are typically available on a first come, first serve basis. In Bradford West Gwillimbury, East Gwillimbury and Whitchurch-Stouffville, summer camp staff are recruited specifically to provide personal assistance at no charge; personal support staff for summer camps is only available once per season per individual, unless staff is available to ensure that other participants have an opportunity for support if required. Page 76 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 32 In Georgina, Newmarket and Richmond Hill, program participants are able to access a municipal personal support staff at an additional cost. The approach to providing support staff varies in each community. x Georgina: Participants may request the assistance of a personal support worker for summer camps or recreational programs. The Town will recruit dedicated camp staff to provide one-on-one personal support. Up to two weeks of personal support are provided at no charge, after which the fee for personal support varies depending upon the level of care (ranges between $15 and $20 per hour). For year-round recreation programs, the Town leverages its existing staff to provide one-on-one support as necessary, as experience has found that there is insufficient demand to justify dedicated staffing to provide support. For summer camps and recreation programs, staff providing one-on-one support are trained by the Town or by another organization. x Newmarket: Persons requiring assistance may be paired with one of the Town’s “Inclusion Facilitators” at a cost of $17.40 per hour. Participants who require this service are eligible to receive 50% off the program registration fee. x Richmond Hill: The Town of Richmond Hill may provide a personal support worker to assist with programs at an additional cost (subject to availability). At time of writing, messages have been left with the Town to clarify program details including the cost and whether municipal or third-party workers assist as caregivers. Table 5: Personal Support Worker Comparison B.W.G. East Gwillimbury Georgina Newmarket Richmond Hill Whitchurch- Stouffville Aurora Personal Support Worker Permitted Yes Arranged by Participant Provide Support Worker Yes Applicable Fees No charge Arranged by Municipality Provide Support Worker Upon Request Summer camp only* Yes Yes** Yes Summer camp only* Yes Applicable Fees No charge $15 to $20 per hour $17.40 per hour No Charge *Limited space is available for 1:1 personal support staff for summer camps. **Participants who require the Town of Newmarket to provide personal support staff at an additional cost receive 50% off the program fee. Page 77 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 33 Fitness Memberships and Passes Bradford West Gwillimbury, Whitchurch-Stouffville, Newmarket, Richmond Hill and Aurora all operate full-service equipment-based fitness centres. These municipalities offer memberships and passes to access these facilities and fitness spaces. East Gwillimbury and Georgina do not operate full-service fitness centres and thus were not included in the benchmarking, though these municipalities offer group fitness programs in other facilities (e.g., program rooms and studios) and have group fitness passes available for purchase. Fitness packages and rate structures are established to reflect market conditions and the type of service being offered. Membership rate structures in each benchmarked municipality reflected three common elements: x age of the end user; x duration of the membership; and x services that are included in the package. The comparison revealed similarities in memberships based on age and duration. All benchmarks had rates specific to youth or students, and adults (18+), while all but Newmarket have a seniors’ rate. Further, all municipalities provide choice of monthly and annual memberships, while a few also had 3- and 6-month memberships as well. The greatest variation among benchmarked membership structures pertained to the types of services that are included. Access to fitness equipment and fitness classes were commonly included, however, certain municipalities also include access to their indoor pools and aquafit programs as part of the membership. The number of membership types also vary. For example, the Town of Aurora offers five individual memberships types (e.g., equipment, group classes, aquafit, squash, and swimming), although some can be combined into a reduced rate. Additional services such as locker rentals can also be applied to the membership. By contrast, Bradford West Gwillimbury and Newmarket offer the most simplified rate structures with one membership type (regardless of age or duration), which provides the end user with access to all fitness spaces. In terms of price-points, the Town of Arora’s annual adult membership was below the benchmark average and on par for older adults. Table 6 summarizes the type of fitness memberships offered in comparative municipalities. Page 78 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 34 Table 6: Fitness Membership Rate Structure Comparison Bradford West Gwillimbury Whitchurch-Stouffville Newmarket Richmond Hill Aurora Benchmark Average Typical Annual Membership Adult $465.00 $440.00 $390.00 $484.70 $436.80 $443.30 Older Adult $371.00 $330.00 n/a $339.29 $349.25 $347.39 Duration Daily Drop-in Yes Yes n/a Yes Yes Monthly Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Month n/a n/a n/a Yes Yes 6 Month Yes n/a n/a Yes Yes Annual Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Age Group Youth / Student Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Adult Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Senior Yes Yes n/a Yes Yes Family Yes n/a Yes n/a Yes Table continues on next page.... Page 79 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 35 Bradford West Gwillimbury Whitchurch-Stouffville Newmarket Richmond Hill Aurora Services Included Fitness Centre Walking Track Fitness Classes Aquafit Classes Drop-in Gym Public Swim Fitness Centre Walking Track Locker Room Fitness Centre Walking Track Fitness Classes Aquafit Classes Public Swim Public Skate Locker Room Steam Room Fitness Centre Walking Track Fitness Classes Aquafit Classes Public Swim Individual plans can be purchased or combined at a reduced rate Individual Plans or Add-ons at additional cost Adult locker room and steam room Fitness Classes Aquafit Classes Public Swim Not applicable Fitness Classes Equipment Fitness Classes Aquafit Classes Squash Public Swim Locker Rentals Membership Transferability between locations Applicable to 1 community centre Applicable to 1 location for pool and fitness centre Group fitness at multiple Town facilities Applicable to 1 fitness centre All other services available at multiple Town facilities Applicable to 3 fitness centres Applicable to 1 community centre Page 80 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 36 10.0 Regional Financial Assistance Programs A comparison of financial assistance programs was undertaken to provide insight into how area municipalities included in the benchmarking exercise (Section 9.0) are minimizing financial barriers to participating in recreation programs. With the exception of Georgina – who refer their low-income participants to non-profit organizations such as Georgina Cares and Canadian Tire Jumpstart - all benchmarks have a municipal financial assistance program in place. Table 8 summarizes each of the regional financial assistance programs. A commonality identified among the area municipalities that provide financial assistance for recreation opportunities is how applicants are assessed for eligibility. If applicants have a family income below the Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) threshold, they automatically qualify for assistance. Each municipality requires that applicants be a resident in a family household that has a total family income that is less than the LICO established by Statistics Canada. LICO thresholds vary based on the number of persons within a family household, as well as on population size. The 2018 LICO thresholds for communities with populations in the same range as the Town Aurora are summarized in Table 7. The amount of financial assistance applicants are eligible for varies by community. Newmarket and East Gwillimbury provide eligible applicants with a discount of up to 50% off one recreation program per year, with the actual amount of discount indexed to the applicant’s total household income. In Bradford West Gwillimbury, residents below the LICO are eligible for 50% off a fitness membership only, while children and youth are referred to other non-profit organizations for financial assistance such as Youth Reach or Canadian Tire Jumpstart for other recreation programs. Eligible applicants in Whitchurch-Stouffville and Richmond Hill each receive a voucher that provides a discount of up to $100 per program. The discount is available once per year in Whitchurch-Stouffville and twice per year in Richmond Hill. In addition to municipal financial assistance programs and those offered by non-profit organizations, residents may also apply for grants through recreation subsidy programs available through Simcoe County and York Region; the latter specifically offers subsidies for recreation programs, day camps and youth leadership camps offered by the lower-tier municipal recreation departments for children from families with low income the ability to take part in programs. York Region’s subsidy programs consist of: x The Positive Leisure Activities for Youth (PLAY) for ages 4 to 18 and single parents; x Summer Camp Funding for ages 4 to 13; x Youth Leadership Camp Funding for ages 12 to 17; and x Early Intervention Services subsidies for families with children having special needs. Table 7: Low Income Cut-Off Before Tax (30,000 to 99,999 population), 2018 Family Size LICO (before tax) 1 Person $22,186 2 Person $27,619 3 Person $33,953 4 Person $41,225 5 Person $46,757 6 Person $52,734 7 Persons or more $58,712 Source: Statistics Canada Page 81 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 37 Table 8: Regional Financial Assistance Programs Program Name Eligibility Criteria Level of Assistance Bradford West Gwillimbury Fee Assistance Program Resident in a family household with a total income below the LICO 50% off fitness memberships East Gwillimbury Fair, Accessible, and Inclusive Recreation (FAIR) Up to 50% off recreation programs (one per year) Georgina No municipal program; residents are referred to Georgina Cares or Canadian Tire Jumpstart Whitchurch- Stouffville Join IN! Recreation Subsidy Fund Resident in a family household with a total income below the LICO Up to $100 per program per year Newmarket Creating Accessible Recreation for Everyone (CARE) Fee Assistance Program Up to 50% off recreation programs (one per year) Richmond Hill Community Services Fee Assistance Program Up to $100 per program, twice a year Aurora Recreation Division in-house subsidy to share participation costs Page 82 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 38 11.0 Next Steps This Background Summary Report was prepared to inform the Town of Aurora’s Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy. Information contained herein was used to establish the policy basis for user fees and financial assistance, and ultimately assisted in the preparation of Draft and Final reports. Page 83 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 39 Appendix A: Reference Group Terms of Reference January 29, 2020 Town of Aurora Recreation Pricing Policy & Ability to Pay Program REFERENCE GROUP - Terms of Reference version 1.0 1. Project Overview / Background The Town of Aurora is undertaking a review of policies used to guide the pricing of recreation programs and facility rentals offered through the Community Services Department. Also included in this work is a review of the Town’s financial assistance practices for persons from low-income households that wish to participate in its recreation programs. The project will result in a new Pricing Policy and Ability-to-Pay Policy for the consideration of Town Council with the objective of providing frameworks for the Town to be fair-minded, equitable, fiscally responsible, inclusive and respectful of the privacy/dignity of Aurora residents. The Town has retained Monteith Brown Planning Consultants Ltd. and Tucker-Reid & Associates to assist with the policy reviews. The community is being engaged by way of a Reference Group, a community survey, and focus groups with partners. Other tasks to be carried out include benchmarking costs and pricing in other municipalities, researching trends and best practices, analyzing Aurora-specific demographics and recreation data, and drafting the policies. 2. Reference Group Statement of Purpose 2.1 The Pricing and Ability-to-Pay Policies Reference Group (the “Reference Group”) will be asked to provide feedback regarding the results of the community engagement process, benchmarking and other research, as well as the draft Policies. In doing so, the Reference Group will assist the Town in ensuring the outcomes of the work reflect the needs of the community. 3. Composition 3.1 The Reference Group will be selected from members that come from existing Town of Aurora Advisory Committees and agency partners involved in the delivery of civic services. 3.2 Members will be selected based on their interest or background in the recreation and sport delivery system in Aurora, and/or a background in working with or serving residents with low-incomes. An individual should be able to demonstrate their civic mindedness (i.e. past president of local stakeholder organization, former volunteer board member of a stakeholder organization, or representative of a stakeholder agency or organization). 3.3 The target size for the Reference Group is 10 to 15 persons. Page 84 of 138 BACKGROUND SUMMARY REPORT | January 2021 Town of Aurora Pricing Policy & Financial Assistance Policy Page 40 4. Accountability 4.1 The Reference Group is accountable to Town of Aurora Council through the leadership of the Recreation Division. The Town’s Project Lead is Lisa Warth, Manager of Recreation Services (lwarth@aurora.ca or 905- 727-3123 ext. 4765). 4.2 The Reference Group is acting in an advisory capacity to the Project Team and is not responsible for the decisions made by the Project Team or Town Council. By participating in the Reference Group, members are not expected to waive their rights to participate in the democratic process and may continue to participate through other channels. 5. Term 5.1 The term of the Reference Group is anticipated to be from February 2020 to July 2020, coinciding with the anticipated timeframe for the project. The total time commitment will be approximately 10 to 15 hours of time, largely associated with attendance at meetings and review of draft project deliverables. 6. Meeting Frequency 6.1 The Reference Group will be asked to attend two (2) project meetings over the term of the project as well as one (1) Town Council meeting anticipated in June/July 2020. Through these meetings, the Reference Group will act as a sounding board to anticipate strengths, issues, opportunities and challenges associated with the Pricing Policy and Ability-to-Pay Policy for recreation services. 7. Conflict of Interest 7.1 In the event that a Reference Group member becomes aware of an actual or perceived conflict of interest, he/she must declare the conflict immediately to the Town’s Project Lead. 7.2 A Reference Group member with an actual or perceived conflict shall not use their influence to affect the outcome of the Reference Group’s advisory ability regarding the individual or organization that is the subject of the conflict. 8. Sunset Clause 8.1 The work of the Reference Group will be complete once Town of Aurora Council has considered the draft policies. Page 85 of 138 Recreation User Fee & Pricing PolicyRecreation Access PolicyPresentation to Town CouncilFebruary 2, 2021Page 86 of 138 Purpose of the PoliciesThe Community Services Department strives to provide services that engage residents in healthy lifestyles, and in a manner that is cost-effectiveTo refresh the Town of Aurora Pricing Policy for Recreation Services (2009) as well as prepare a separate Recreation Access Policy for residents facing disproportionate financial barriersThe Policies provide the framework for the Town to establish rates for recreation services and programs delivered by the Community Services DepartmentThe process involved reviewing:•existing rates and fees structurefor recreation services to provide an updated framework for the Town to rationalize rates and subsidy/cost recovery levels•financial assistance frameworks based on an ability to pay to assist the Town in identifying sustainable funding sources, determine who qualifies, and to ensure affordable access, fairness, and transparencyNote that the User Fee & Pricing Policy does not set individual fees but rather will be used by Town staff to develop rates that are specified through the Rates and Fees By-lawPage 87 of 138 Planning Process2020TasksQ1 Project InitiationDemographics & TrendsQ2 BenchmarkingBackground Summary ReportQ3 Policy DevelopmentTesting Draft Policies with the PublicQ4 Presentations to Advisory CommitteesPolicy FinalizationOpportunities for Community Input•Reference Group formed with local residents to inform and test the Policies•Focus Group with Regional Staff, charitable organizations, community groups and local advocates for residents experiencing low-income•Community Survey to test core principles of the Draft PoliciesPage 88 of 138 Themes from ConsultationsAgreement that rates and fees should consider the Town’s cost to provide themAn expectation that fees should be fairand support that subsidized rates/lowest levels of cost recovery should be highest for programs that benefit the most number of Aurora residentsSupport to include residents experiencing low incomes to the greatest extent possiblePolicies and their accompanying programs should be easy to understand and simple to navigatefor the average residentAppreciation for how the Town’s sensitivity and willingness to listento residents that would like to participate but are facing financial barriersWorking with like-minded partners is of importance to share resources and maximize the number of residents that are participating in recreationPage 89 of 138 Pricing Policy RationaleResearching and setting recreation fees must be a thoughtful and defensible processThe User Fee & Pricing Policy will help the Town of Aurora:•establish a transparent, defensible, and replicable methodology for setting rental rates•evaluate the existing fee structure and identify potential areas of concern and opportunity•report the true costs of delivering services and identify levels of cost recovery•help local stakeholders understand the basis for setting and applying rates•support the “Invest in sustainable infrastructure” objective under its Strategic Plan’s Community PillarIt is noted that Aurora’s fees are generally on par or lower compared to area municipalities (with some exceptions)Page 90 of 138 Participants contribute to the sustainability of recreation by sharing in the cost to provide a program or serviceServices subsidized to a greater extent are those that contribute to the public good and are accessible to all residents, whereas services that benefit an individual or a small group of residents at a more advanced level will recover a larger share of their costsUser Fees are not a barrier to participation in all recreation programs and services offered by the TownThere is a balance between no fee/low fee and fee-based programs so that residents have a range of choiceFees are developed fairly, defensibly, and equitablyFees recoup a prescribed amount of the Direct Cost to provide a recreation program or serviceThe local market is considered so that fees are comparable to providers of similar services within and surrounding AuroraNotable Elements of the User Fee & Pricing PolicyPage 91 of 138 Recreation Program/Service Categories and Cost Recovery RatesDefinition of Service CategoriesExamples within Current Programs and ServicesTargeted Cost Recovery (min.)No Fee / Low Fee •Include the widest range of residents participating in recreation•Participation is universal and all residents are welcomed to enjoy these opportunities•User Fees are generally minimal or not appliedPublic skating, public swimming, shinny, special events, use of skate parks, wading pools, public tennis courts, sports courts, drop-in use of gymnasiums, Youth and Older Adult club memberships, etc.0 to 25%Introductory •Include an introduction to a recreational opportunity, a learning or developmental continuum•Generally geared toward children, youth, older adults/seniors, and persons with disabilitiesLearn-to-swim programs, active living and fitness courses, aquatic fitness classes, camps, March and Holiday Break programs, etc.25% to 50%Value Added•Offer a continuum of learning and more advanced instructionAquatic leadership training, fitness memberships, fitness classes, etc.50% to 75%Premium and Commercial •Specialized or are advanced in nature, requiring specialized instruction and/or access to specialized facilities or equipment •Generally, these programs serve a smaller number of participants with specific higher-level skills•Sometimes offered by the private sector on a for-profit basisSemi-private or private swim lessons, specialized camps and break programs, exclusive use of facilities, exclusive use of facilities with higher level amenities, use of facilities or amenities for commercial purposes75% to 100%+Page 92 of 138 In setting fees for Council consideration, Town staff will:•Identify the costs to provide recreation programs and services every three years •Arrive at fair-minded fees that consider impacts on participation and achieve cost recovery targets •Compare revised rates to surrounding communities and service providers•Arrive at an appropriate cost recovery level for Direct and Indirect Costs and a contribution to the Equipment Reserve•Phase in significant increases to fees (over 20%), resulting from the new costing formula, over multiple years•Develop a summary Recreation Rate and Fee Schedule for Council’s consideration•Communicate resultsto CouncilImplementing the User Fee & Pricing PolicyPage 93 of 138 Recreation Access Policy Rationale A fair-minded structure ensures that fees do not become a barrier to participation among marginalized residentsThe Department has an informal subsidy program in place where program fees are shared between the Town and a resident experiencing low income – there is no regular funding allocated nor are there criteria that specify who is eligible45 low-income families received the Department’s in-house subsidy in 2019, which amounts to less than 3% of the 5,000 Aurora residents living below the Low Income Measure, After-Tax as identified in the 2016 CensusA formalized Fee Assistance Policy can:•help as many Aurora residents as possible to obtain the benefits of recreation (the Department’s mandate)•encourage participation among residents experiencing low income•promote principles of inclusion and social justice•reduce costs spent on health and social services•attain higher levels of facility/program use and improve financial performance•support the “Encouraging an active and healthy lifestyle” objective of the Town of Aurora Strategic Plan’s Community PillarPage 94 of 138 Treat residents equitably so that all may benefit from a choice of active, creative, and general interest programs and servicesTo be implemented in conjunction with the Recreation User Fee & Pricing Policy, the Town’s Inclusion Services programs, and other municipal policies and practices pertaining to pricing, equity, accessibility and inclusionDirects Town Staff to determine a subsidy amount per low income resident, by age group, based upon the typical recreation activities that an average resident participates in each yearEncourages coordination with regional and local partners and other funding agencies to share resourcesSeeks to dedicate funds within the Department’s annual operating budget to subsidize active pursuits for residents experiencing low incomeNotable Elements of the Recreation Access PolicyPage 95 of 138 In implementing the Policy, Town staff will: •Prepare an implementation program to accompany the Recreation Access Policy that includes eligibility criteria and testing financial means, application intake procedures, and a proposed annual funding amount•Review the use of the Policy in the development of annual operating budgets•Propose a budget figure that will cover the costs of a percentage of residents experiencing low income (this figure would also consider other funders, sponsorships, partnerships)•Promote the Recreation Access Policy and refine promotional materials produced for social service agencies•Train staff in any onboarding processes and assistance with registration as needed•Report to Council and the publicannually regarding program participation and successesImplementing the Recreation Access PolicyPage 96 of 138 Next Steps Seek Council support for the PoliciesTown staff to determine true costs of delivering individual programs and services to inform future ratesTown staff to develop eligibility criteria, identify funding options, etc. to develop a fee assistance program in support of the Recreation Access Policy which would be presented back to Council for consideration in the futurePage 97 of 138 Thank You!Page 98 of 138 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. OPS21 -0 04 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Encroachments onto Municipal Lands at 50 Pineneedle Drive and 2 Gowan Lane, Aurora Prepared by: Allan D. Downey, Director of Operations Department: Operational Services Date: February 2, 2021 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Recommendation 1. That Report No. OPS21-004 be received; and 2. That the encroachment be removed at 50 Pineneedle Drive, Aurora in accordance with By-law 6288-20 Being a By-law to regulate occupancy, fouling, construction and encroachments on highways; and 3. That the encroachment be removed at 2 Gowan Lane, Aurora in accordance with By- law 6288-20 Being a By-law to regulate occupancy, fouling, construction and encroachments on highways. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to advise Council on the matter of two encroachments onto municipal lands and the latest developments that have occurred as a result of the Towns pursuit to mitigate these encroachments in accordance with By-law 6288-20 Being a By-law to regulate occupancy, fouling, construction and encroachments on highways. This report will address the following:  No formal Appeals process in By-law Number 6288-20 Being a By-law to regulate occupancy, fouling, construction and encroachments on highways  Several options that can be explored in both mitigating the risks associated with these Encroachments and allowing the encroachments to remain Page 99 of 138 February 2, 2021 2 of 7 Report No. OPS21-004 Background Staff brought forward Report OPS20-009 on July 7, 2020. This report was in response to a previous report whereby staff had been directed by Council at its May 26, 2015 meeting, to develop a Town Policy for the purposes of managing encroachments onto the municipal road right-of-ways. Council adopted the staff recommendations contained in Report OPS20-009 to bring forward a revised municipal by-law to govern encroachment and the revised By-law was enacted on October 27, 2020. The previous report included information concerning a long-standing encroachment of a cedar hedge conflicting with the municipal sidewalk along the flank of 50 Pineneedle Drive. This matter had been an outstanding issue when it was first brought forward to Council for resolution. In addition, the report also spoke to the recent changes to the Municipal Act concerning the Provincial Minimum Maintenance Standards (MMS) and the associated impacts of encroachments into the Road Right-of-Ways. Staff have contacted the Owner of 50 Pineneedle. Following the July 7, 2020 Council meeting, staff forwarded a written notice to the current property owner of 50 Pineneedle Drive to advise the owner of the hedge encroachment. In the notice, staff requested that the encroachment be removed from the Town’s road allowance as a remedy to the sidewalk conflict. The property owner advised staff that they were out of the country at the time and requested an opportunity to review the situation upon their return. Staff agreed to hold off any action on the hedge until such time as the owner arrived back in the country. At this time the hedge encroachment remains in its current state and the property owner just recently returned to the country. We have now received a formal response to the notice provided in July 2020. The owner is strongly opposed to removing the hedge and staff have advised the owner that no action will be taken by the Town in mitigating the encroachment until such time as the owner has had an opportunity to present their position on this matter to Council. An additional encroachment location has been identified. In addition to the aforementioned matter, staff also identified an almost identical situation along the flank of 2 Gowan Lane, where a mature cedar hedge is also encroaching upon the sidewalk (photos attached). This hedge is also hindering the Town’s sidewalk maintenance operation such that the sidewalk maintenance equipment cannot safely proceed along this section of sidewalk. Page 100 of 138 February 2, 2021 3 of 7 Report No. OPS21-004 Staff forwarded a written notice to the owner of this property advising of the encroachment situation and an instruction to remove the hedge. This notice was hand delivered to the property owner on December 17, 2020. Upon receiving the notice, the property owner immediately contacted the Operational Services Department, distraught at the prospect of having to remove this hedge. Staff advised the property owner that no action will be taken by the Town until the matter has been considered by Council. Analysis No formal Appeals process in By-law Number 6288-20 Being a By-law to regulate occupancy, fouling, construction and encroachments on highways. By Law #6288-20 does not contain a formal appeals process and as such the Director of Operations has the delegated authority in the By-law to administer all aspects of this By-law. In stating this staff cannot and will not deter any resident, who feels the need to escalate their concern with a decision of the Director to Council. Staff does not support the merits of the owners’ positions on the matters based on the intent of the By-law and the legal implications associated with a given encroachment or infraction. Allowing these encroachments to remain unchecked by entering into encroachment agreements with these property owners, without taking any risk mitigating action, in staff’s opinion, would not be in the best interest of the Corporation. Several options that can be explored in both mitigating the risks associated with these Encroachments and allowing the encroachments to remain. The notice and directive to remove these hedges was not well received by either owner, thus their appeal to Council for consideration of their concerns and any options that might be available in preserving these hedges. If Council so chooses, there are several options that could be explored that will both eliminate the risk that these hedges pose to the sidewalk and at the same time preserve these hedges for a significant period of time. These options are detailed as follows: Page 101 of 138 February 2, 2021 4 of 7 Report No. OPS21-004 OPTION IMPACT /BENEFIT TO PROPERTY OWNER IMPACT/ BENEFIT TO TOWN 1 Recommended Action: To require compliance with the encroachment By-law and MMS as per staff memorandum to these property owners. This will involve complete removal of the encroaching hedges and result in an immediate impact on the privacy and aesthetics of these properties. Complete removal of the hedge encroachment from the Town property at no cost to the municipality. Resume unhindered maintenance and complete compliance with the encroachment By-law and MMS. 2 Relocate sidewalk in conflict area to comply with MMS at 100% property owners expense and enter into an Encroachment Agreement with property owner Property owner continues to occupy Town’s road allowance under agreement, hedges remain. Property owner’s privacy and aesthetics unchanged. Significant cost to property owner to remove and replace municipal sidewalk and enter into an encroachment agreement with the Town. Reduction of Boulevard width and an abrupt transition at both ends of the relocated sidewalk, potential for winter sidewalk plow turf damage may increase. No significant financial impact to the Town property owner pays all associated costs. 3 Relocate sidewalk in conflict area to comply with MMS 50% cost share between Town and property owners. Proposed by resident, not recommended by staff. Property owner continues to occupy Town’s road allowance under agreement, hedges remain property owner’s privacy and aesthetics unchanged. Significant cost to property owner to remove and replace municipal sidewalk and enter into an encroachment agreement with the Town. Reduction of Boulevard width and an abrupt transition at both ends of the relocated sidewalk, potential for winter sidewalk plow turf damage may increase. 50 %of the sidewalk relocation maybe considered by the public to be an unnecessary expense of financial resources. Page 102 of 138 February 2, 2021 5 of 7 Report No. OPS21-004 OPTION IMPACT /BENEFIT TO PROPERTY OWNER IMPACT/ BENEFIT TO TOWN 4 Town takes no action status quo remains. Property owners continue to occupy Town’s road allowance indefinitely, hedges remain, property owner’s privacy and aesthetics unchanged. By-law and MMS contravention remains, Town continues to assume potential risk and liability with encroachment, difficulty with safe passage of municipal maintenance, equipment. Advisory Committee Review None. Legal Considerations The Municipal Act, 2001 obligates the Town to maintain the entire highway, which includes the boulevard. The boundary of the Town’s right-of-way, and in effect the extent of responsibility, stretches past the sidewalk. The exact boundary of the boulevard varies from street to street. Although the standards with respect to the maintenance of the boulevard may not be as stringent as with respect to vehicular roadway and the pedestrian sidewalk, in case of an injury or damage suffered on any portion of the highway, the Town would become involved in such a claim as the property owner and may be liable if it can be shown that there was negligence on the part of the Town. With the addition of the legal obligations on the Town to inspect and remedy encroachments that may pose a hazard under the MMS, the Town is required to take action in certain situations. Any claims the Town becomes involved in will have an affect on the Town’s insurance costs, which are already rising due to they hardening insurance market. There are a number of potential ways in which encroachments could pose a hazard for pedestrians and a liability risk for the Town due to overgrown vegetation or various objects placed on the boulevard. When the Town is inspecting the sidewalk and boulevard, as required by legislation, and discovers or ought to have discovered an encroachment, the Town is required by legislation to remedy the encroachment. If the Town fails to do so, the Town would likely be held liable for any injuries or damage that may occur as a result. Page 103 of 138 February 2, 2021 6 of 7 Report No. OPS21-004 Financial Implications Depending on Council direction, and in the event that Council selects one of the options as outlined, costs are currently estimated as follows: Staff Recommendation No cost to the Town-removal of hedge. Option 1 Additional costs to the Town for hand sidewalk snow removal and sweeping for both sidewalks are estimated to be in the range of $2,000 to $3,000 annually for each sidewalk. Option 2 Costs estimates for the removal, relocation and restoration of the former sidewalk locations are in the range of $12,000 to $15,000 for each sidewalk. These costs would be paid 100% by the property owners. Option 3 Should Council decide to cost share 50% of the sidewalk relocation costs, it would be in the range of $6,000 to $7,500 for each sidewalk all additional costs associate with the encroachment agreements would be 100% at the owners expense. Communications Considerations The Town will communicate directly with the affected property owners based on Council’s decision on the matter. Link to Strategic Plan This supports the Strategic Plan Goal by supporting an exceptional quality of life for all through the objective of improving, transportation, mobility and connectivity by removing encroachments to provide safe highways for the public. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council may consider selection one of the options outlined above or any combination thereof. Conclusions Staff are recommending removal as outlined. Page 104 of 138 February 2, 2021 7 of 7 Report No. OPS21-004 Attachments Attachment #1 – Photos of Encroachment at 50 Pineneedle Drive Attachment #2 - Photos of encroachment at 2 Gowan Lane Previous Reports OPS20-004 Removal of an Encroachment on Town Lands at 50 Pineneedle Drive , March 24, 2020 LLS15-036 Request for an Encroachment Agreement (50 Pineneedle Drive), May 19, 2015 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on January 14, 2021 Approvals Approved by Allan D. Downey, Director of Operations Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 105 of 138 Attachment 1Page 106 of 138 Page 107 of 138 Page 108 of 138 Page 109 of 138 Attachment 2 Page 110 of 138 Page 111 of 138 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. CMS21 -004 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Public Art Policy and Public Art Master Plan Prepared by: Phil Rose-Donahoe, Manager of Library Square Department: Community Services Date: February 2, 2021 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Recommendation 1. That Report No. CMS21-004 be received; and 2. That staff be directed to develop a Public Art Policy and Public Art Master Plan following the process laid out in this report. Executive Summary A Public Art Policy (Policy) and Public Art Master Plan (Plan) provide municipalities with the framework needed to develop and maintain public art within a municipal context in support of community and economic development, civic engagement, and local creative expression. The aim is to provide municipalities with consistent standards for funding, selecting, acquiring, managing and conserving public art for community benefit. The Town has contributed funds to a Public Art Reserve Fund as part of three recent capital projects, however, it has yet to develop a Policy and Plan to guide how these contributions are to be allocated.  Although there are many different ways to define Public Art, municipalities generally adopt similar definitions of the term  The development of a Public Art Policy and Plan aligns with the Strategic Plan and a number of other key municipal plans and studies  The development of a Public Art Policy and Plan should follow a transparent process that is built on broad community and stakeholder engagement and informed by industry best practice Page 112 of 138 February 2, 2021 2 of 7 Report No. CMS21-004  Upon the approval of a Public Art Policy and Plan, the Town will be in a position to initiate the public art acquisition process Background Following the adoption of the Official Plan in 2010, and its inclusion of public art contributions, staff brought forward the necessary by-law amendments to create a Public Art Reserve Fund. The first contributions to the fund were made in June 2018, at which time Council approved the following recommendations related to public art funding:  Report PDS18-069 in respect to the Armoury approved a contribution of $46,100  Report OPS18-011 in respect to Fire Hall 4-5 and Headquarters approved a contribution of $36,100  Report PDS18-076 in respect to Library Square approved a contribution of $256,000 While these contributions are an important first step in advancing public art initiatives within Aurora, a Public Art Policy and Plan must be developed to direct how these funds will be used to integrate public art into public spaces. Analysis Although there are many different ways to define Public Art, municipalities generally adopt similar definitions of the term The following two definitions of Public Art are consistent with how most municipalities define the term. In a municipal context, Public Art can be defined as:  “a work in any medium that has been produced by an artist, installed in a publicly- accessible space.” (Public Art Strategy, City of Toronto, 2019)  “an original work in any medium that meets all the following criteria: the work is created by one or more Professional Artists; the work is relevant to its site and context; the work has been planned and executed with the specific intention of being sited or staged in a public space; and the work has been acquired following the [municipality’s] established processes.” (Public Art Master Plan, City of Markham, 2019) Public Art can be further classified as temporary or permanent, stand-alone or integrated. Given the diversity of public art, an important first step when developing a Page 113 of 138 February 2, 2021 3 of 7 Report No. CMS21-004 Public Art Policy and Plan is to adopt a definition of the term that best aligns with the types of art the municipality wishes to be responsible for. The development of a Public Art Policy and Plan aligns with the Strategic Plan and a number of other key municipal plans and studies The development of a Public Art Policy and Plan supports the objective of celebrating and promoting culture within the Strategic Plan (pg. 13), and supports other key plans and studies, such as:  Cultural Master Plan Strategic Direction 2, Action 1.3 – “Develop and implement a professional Public Art Policy and Program as recommended in the Aurora Promenade Concept Plan, the Town Strategic Plan and the Official Plan.”  Official Plan Section 4.4 – “Public art is an important component of the public realm and contributes to an overall sense of place and community. Public art may be used to reflect Aurora’s cultural heritage and foster an understanding of Aurora’s cultural identity to residents and visitors.”  The Aurora Promenade Concept Plan Urban Design Strategy Section 3.1.4 – “The Aurora Promenade Urban Design Strategy identifies visually strategic locations for public art installations including the terminus of view corridors, at entryways, on prominent corners, or in squares, parks and plazas.”  Aurora Promenade Community Improvement Plan Section 5.7.1. which states that under Section 37 of the Planning Act, Council can grant density or height bonuses to properties in the Promenade in exchange for contributions to community improvement such as public art. The development of a Public Art Policy and Plan should follow a transparent process that is built on broad community and stakeholder engagement and informed by industry best practice In recent years, a number of municipalities across the Greater Toronto Area and beyond have developed Public Art Policies and Plans that provide templates for Aurora as it creates its own. Although each public art policy and plan is unique in its own respect, the process municipalities follow when shaping their policies and plans is nearly universal. The following is a summary of the various stages usually undertaken when creating a municipal Public Art Policy and Plan: 1. Internal planning and background analysis:  Review existing Town policies, plans and studies that will inform the development of the Public Art Policy and Plan 2. Public Art Working Group: Page 114 of 138 February 2, 2021 4 of 7 Report No. CMS21-004  Assemble a temporary working group that consists of Town staff, cultural partner representatives, and the general public to assist with the development of the Policy and Plan 3. Internal engagement:  Meet with relevant Town staff from various divisions that have a stake in Public Art (e.g., Culture, Recreation, Parks, Planning, Roads, Accessibility, Economic Development, Procurement and Finance) to ensure there is interdivisional collaboration throughout the development of the Policy and Plan  Consult with Mayor and Council 4. External engagement:  Host workshops with the arts community, cultural partners, and the general public to assist in developing a vision and guiding principles, define preferred public art types, selection criteria and favored locations  Online engagement through the Town’s website and Engage Aurora (e.g., online surveys) 5. Policy and Plan development:  Prepare drafts for review 6. Council approval  Present the final draft to Council for approval 7. Implementation  Ongoing community engagement and education, maintenance and conservation  Annually reporting regarding acquisitions and implementation status Staff recommend that the Town follow a similar course of action in developing a Public Art Policy and Plan and that the process begin as soon as possible in order to align with corresponding initiatives such as Library Square and the Cultural Master Plan refresh. Upon the approval of a Public Art Policy and Plan, the Town will be in a position to initiate the public art acquisition process Although the exact timing has yet to be finalized, staff will aim to complete the Public Art Policy and Plan by the third quarter of 2021. Since much of the background analysis is complete, staff will begin by assembling a Public Art Working Group to assist in developing the Policy and Plan, followed by internal engagement with staff and Council, and then external engagement. Upon the completion of the engagement stages, staff will develop a draft policy and plan for review before it is presented to Council for approval. Page 115 of 138 February 2, 2021 5 of 7 Report No. CMS21-004 Following approval, the Town will be in the position to procure public art following the process established in the Policy and Plan. Open competitions are the most common method municipalities use to acquire public art, which involves a call to artists to submit a proposal that is adjudicated by a selection committee. The following process map outlines the steps municipalities most commonly undertake when acquiring public art. Figure 1: Public Art Acquisition Process This process is in accordance with industry best practice and is designed to ensure that the acquisition of public art is done transparently while being based on engagement with the artistic community and the general public. Advisory Committee Review Not applicable at this time. Project Planning (identitfy stakeholders & selection committee members, develop guidelines) Adjudication of Artist Proposals & Selection Contract Development (legal/risk consulted) Detailed Design and Final Approvals Fabrication & Installation Formal Acquisition (final inspection, acceptance of completion) Project Unveiling Project Completion (final holdbacks, warranty) Ongoing Maintenance & Conservation Page 116 of 138 February 2, 2021 6 of 7 Report No. CMS21-004 Legal Considerations The Town’s Property Insurance provides coverage for Fine Arts in the amount of $500,000 which includes all Town-Owned art. If the value of the Town’s art collection exceeds the insured value, the Town’s limits of coverage would need to be increased. Financial Implications In accordance with the Town of Aurora’s Official Plan, all new major facilities constructions are to include a 1% contribution to the Town’s Public Art Reserve, with this funding to be provided for within the project’s budget. To date, contributions totalling $82,200 have been made to the Public Art reserve with its current balance as of the end of 2020 sitting at $87,000 including all accumulated investment income to date. This balance excludes the $256,000 budgeted contribution from the Library Square project. To date, the Town has not used any of this reserve’s funds nor has it earmarked any of its funds for any future requirements. An important component of the Public Art Policy and Public Art Master Plan will be a financial strategy that will outline how public art projects may be funded from this reserve. Communications Considerations In accordance with the Town’s engagement policy, the Town will use both “inform” and “engage” as the levels of public participation for the development of the public art policy. A comprehensive communication and engagement plan will be developed that includes different media to target appropriate stakeholders as well as the general public. Link to Strategic Plan A Public Art Policy and Master Plan supports the following Strategic Plan goal of celebrating and promoting our culture in its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objectives within these goal statements:  Expand opportunities and partnerships that contribute to the celebration of culture in the community Page 117 of 138 February 2, 2021 7 of 7 Report No. CMS21-004  Actively promote and support a plan to revitalize the downtown that includes culture Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council may provide further direction. Conclusions While the municipality has made significant financial contributions to the Public Art Reserve Fund, staff recommend that before public art funding is allocated to any project, the Town develop a Public Art Policy and Plan to serve as a framework for selecting, acquiring, managing and conserving public art for community benefit. Attachments None Previous Reports Report PDS18-069, Renovation of the Aurora Armoury - 89 Mosley Street, June 5, 2018 Report OPS18-011, Central First Services Headquarters 4-5, June 5, 2018 Report PDS18-076, Library Square, June 19, 2018 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on January 14, 2021 Approvals Approved by Robin McDougall, Director, Community Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 118 of 138 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS21 -0 02 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Town Initiated Housekeeping Amendment to Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 6000-17 Prepared by: Edward Terry, RPP, MCIP, Senior Policy Planner Department: Planning and Development Services Date: February 2, 2021 ______________________________________________________________________ Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS21-002 be received; and 2. That staff be directed to proceed with a public planning meeting to present a Zoning By-Law amendment to the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-Law 6000-17 for general housekeeping purposes, as described herein. Executive Summary This report seeks Council’s direction to proceed with a Public Planning Meeting to present a Town initiated zoning By-law amendment for general housekeeping purposes. In addition to the implementation of a landscape strip, staff have identified a number of minor amendments to the Town’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law (see Figure 1):  A landscape strip for all Zones is proposed for the purposes of tree planting and supporting soil volume.  Increasing the maximum driveway width in Employment zones to safely accommodate truck turning movements where there are two driveways planned for access.  The Comprehensive Zoning By-law requires an approach for rounding up or down of numbers to provide consistent interpretations.  Enabling staff to correct minor technical errors without having to undertake a Zoning By-law Amendment. Page 119 of 138 February 2, 2021 2 of 5 Report No. PDS21-002 Background Section 34 of the Planning Act grants municipalities the power to pass a Zoning By-Law as well as subsequent amendments to the document. Finding issues within a comprehensive Zoning By-Law is not unusual or uncommon. The intent of regular housekeeping amendments is to make technical updates to the document to address minor issues or discrepancies, and ensure that the policies of the Official Plan and the Province are effectively implemented. In September 2020, Planning & Development Services Staff received direction to present a Town initiated amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law to implement the requirement for a landscape strip for all zones as required for the purposes of tree planting and supporting soil volume. Staff have added additional housekeeping items for consideration to address minor technical matters in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law. Analysis Since the implementation of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law 6000-17, staff have strived to ensure the document is monitored so that it remains relevant, implementing the intent and any corrections are completed in a timely manner. This report deals with the following amendments: Introducing a required landscape strip for all Zones for the purposes of tree planting and supporting soil volume Staff conducted a municipal scan of seven GTA municipalities regarding landscape strip standards (see Figure 2). Based on that review, a 3 metre landscaping strip was the most common standard and staff are proposing the following revisions to the Town’s Zoning By-law:  A minimum 3 metre wide continuous landscaping strip on the side lot line of any lot that has a frontage of 15 metres or more. For lots with a frontage of less than 15 metres, a minimum 1.5 metre wide continuous landscaping strip is proposed on the side lot line.  Where the rear lot line of any lot in a non-residential zone abuts a lot in a Residential Zone, a minimum 3 metre wide continuous landscaping strip is proposed along the abutting lot line of the lot. Page 120 of 138 February 2, 2021 3 of 5 Report No. PDS21-002 Increasing the maximum driveway width in Employment zones to safely accommodate truck turning movements where there are two driveways planned for access In reviewing a number of site plans for new buildings in the Addison Hall employment area, the applicants were required to apply for a minor variance to increase the maximum driveway width to safely accommodate truck turning movements where there are two driveways planned for access. To avoid delays in processing applications and to facilitate the safe movement of larger vehicles, staff are proposing that driveways exclusively serving a loading space or serving a building in an Employment Zone may have one or more one-way lanes. Each lane is to have a minimum width of 3.5 meters and a maximum width of 6.5 meters. The minimum and maximum width of the driveway will be measured at the street line. The Zoning By-law needs a methodology for rounding up or down of numbers to provide consistent interpretations The amendment proposes the following methodology for rounding:  For a provision shown as a whole number (for example 220), the rounding digit is the first whole number left of the decimal place.  For a provision shown to the first decimal place (for example 3.0), the rounding digit is the first digit right of the decimal place.  For a provision shown to the second decimal place (for example 3.50), the rounding digit is the second digit right of the decimal place. Enabling staff to correct minor technical errors without having to undertake a Zoning By- law Amendment Provided that the purpose, effect, intent, meaning and substance of this By-law are no way affected, the following minor technical revisions to this By-law are proposed to be permitted without a zoning amendment:  Changes to the numbering, cross-referencing, format and arrangement of the text, tables, schedules and maps;  Additions to and revisions of technical information on maps and schedules including, but not limited to: infrastructure and topographic information, notes, legends, shading and title blocks; Page 121 of 138 February 2, 2021 4 of 5 Report No. PDS21-002  Alterations of punctuation or language; and,  Correction of grammatical, dimensional, boundary, mathematical or typographic errors. Advisory Committee Review Not applicable. Legal Considerations Even though the amendments detailed in this report are being initiated by the Town, the Planning Act requires Council to hold at least one public meeting for the purpose of giving the public an opportunity to make representations in respect of the proposed amendments. Any person or public body who makes oral submissions at the public meeting may appeal any amendment to the zoning by-law, once it is adopted by Council. Financial Implications There are no financial implications. Communications Considerations The Town will use “inform” as the level of engagement for this meeting. The meeting will be publicized through the Town’s website as well as through social media and the local newspapers, in accordance with past practice. The Town will also reach out to those who have registered on Engage Aurora to participate in the Official Plan review process to ensure that those interested stakeholders are provided with the information regarding the meeting and have the opportunity to participate. Link to Strategic Plan While the Zoning By-law amendment process supports all of the Goals and Objectives of the Town’s Strategic Plan in some fashion, the most relevant goals are: supporting an exceptional quality of life for all and enabling a diverse, creative and resilient economy. The relevant supporting objectives include: Strengthening the fabric of our community and promoting economic opportunities that facilitate the growth of Aurora as a desirable place to do business. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council provide direction. Page 122 of 138 February 2, 2021 5 of 5 Report No. PDS21-002 Conclusions Staff are proposing a Town initiated housekeeping amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning By-Law to implement landscape strips in all zones and to also address a number of minor revisions. With Council’s direction, staff are proposing to hold a Public Planning Meeting to amend Town Zoning By-Law 6000-17 on March 9, 2021. The proposed housekeeping amendment will help ensure that the Zoning By-law remains relevant and implements the intent of Town’s Official Plan. Attachments Figure 1 – Proposed Housekeeping Amendments to the Zoning By-law Figure 2 – Municipal Policy Scan of Landscape Strips Previous Reports General Committee Operations Report No. OPS20-013, Review of Urban Forest Study & Associated Forestry Policies, dated, September 8, 2020. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on January 14, 2021 Approvals Approved by David Waters, Director, Planning and Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 123 of 138 Proposed Housekeeping Amendments to the Zoning By-law Explanation Section Existing By-law Proposed Revision Staff CommentsIntroduce a required landscape strip width for all Zones. 4.8 4.8 Landscaping Strip Any Lot on lands zoned Commercial, Employment, Institutional or Multiple Residential (more than four dwelling units per Lot) that is adjacent to any Residential Zone shall require a Landscaping Strip in accordance with the following provisions: Location: The Landscaping Strip be located adjacent to the entire length of any property line which abuts a Residential Zone, which is either: a) 3 metres in width containing an earthBerm having a maximumslope of 3:1 where upon there is a 1.5metre wide planting strip consisting ofsuitable trees and shrubs;-or -b) A Landscaping Strip 1.5 metres in widthcontaining an opaque fence with aminimum height of 1.5 metres.c) Access ramps or Driveways shall bepermitted to cross such LandscapingStrips.4.8 Landscaping Strip A minimum 3.0 metre wide continuous landscaping strip is required on the side lot line of any lot that has a frontage of 15 metres or more. A minimum 1.5 metre wide continuous landscaping strip is required on the side lot line of any lot that has a frontage of less than 15 metres. Where the rear lot line of any lot in a non-residential zone abuts a lot in a Residential Zone, a minimum 3.0 metre wide continuous landscaping strip shall be provided along the abutting lot line of the lot Access ramps or Driveways shall be permitted to cross such landscaping strips. It might help to have the 3m requirement based on a min property size. Leaving all of it to site plan means we may get the landscaping or we may not – in instances where we really want it, it should be a by-law requirement. Another option for smaller lots would be to require a 1.5m landscape strip along shared lot lines (interior side and rear yard) so that cumulatively a 3m landscape strip is provided. I think the intent is have the 3.0 meter landscaping buffer against all properties regardless of its zoning designation. The maximum driveway width in the Zoning By-law is not large enough for Employment uses. 5.5.4 5.5.4 Ingress and Egress: The following requirements will apply to all Parking Areas and lots except those serving 4 or less dwelling units. a)Ingress and egress, to and fromrequired Parking Spaces and areasshall be provided by means ofunobstructed Driveways or passageways at a minimum of four (4) metresand a maximum of nine (9) metres inwidth;5.5.4 Ingress and Egress The following requirements will apply to all Parking Areas and lots except those serving 4 or less dwelling units. a)Driveways serving buildings shallnot exceed two (2) in number perlot;b)Ingress and egress, to and fromrequired Parking Spaces and areasThe proposed wordings are acceptable. I agree that radius should be included as part of engineering specification and not ZBL. Trucks including fire need the radii so there it is not possible to have a larger width. For industrial the by law should be written so that the width is not described at the road but at the sidewalk or p/l, that way the engineering standard will work. EMS Figure 1Page 124 of 138 b) The maximum width of any joint ingress and egress Driveway measured along the Street Line shall be nine (9) metres; c) The minimum interior angle of intersection between a Driveway and a Street Line shall be sixty (60) degrees; d) Driveways shall not exceed two (2) in number and shall be a width of seven decimal five (7.5) metres at both Street Line and edge of pavement; shall be provided by means of unobstructed Driveways; c) Driveways may cross a required yard or a required Landscaping/Landscape Strip; d) Driveways exclusively serving a loading space or serving a building in an Employment Zone may have one or more one-way lanes. Each lane shall have a minimum of 3.5 meters and a maximum width of 6.5 meters; e) Driveways for all other uses may have one or more one-way lanes. Each lane shall have a minimum width of 3.5 meters and a maximum width of 4.5 meters; f) The interior angle of intersection between a Driveway and a Street Line shall not be less than sixty (60) degrees; g) The minimum and maximum width of the Driveway shall be measured along the Street line. always looks at the radii to insure their large trucks can turn in. Two way lanes should be allowed. Item g) should always be street line no matter the driveway angle. Typically zoning standards only apply at the property line or within property lines and not to the portion that extends to municipal land. I do see having the regulation for a driveway width the same at the street line as the curb line for residential low density residential properties. It would increase the amount of on street parking for the neighbourhood. But for Industrial properties it won’t work. The Zoning By-law needs a methodology for rounding up or down of numbers to provide consistent interpretations New General Provision N/A 1.12 ROUNDING Unless otherwise stated, the following shall apply in determining the rounding digit: For a provision shown as a whole number (e.g. 220), the rounding digit is the first whole number left of the decimal place. For a provision shown to the first decimal place (e.g. 3.0), the rounding digit is the first digit right of the decimal place. For a provision shown to the second decimal place (e.g. 3.50), the rounding digit is the second digit right of the decimal place. For a provision that is Page 125 of 138 calculated by multiplying or dividing by a percent or a ratio or by averaging two or more numbers, or for a provision where no explicit numerical value is provided, the provision shall be rounded to the first decimal place and the rounding digit is the first digit right of the decimal place. Allowing staff to correct technical errors without having to undergo a full Zoning By-law amendment New General Provision N/A 1.13 TECHNICAL REVISIONS Provided that the purpose, effect, intent, meaning and substance of this By-law are no way affected, the following technical revisions to this By-law are permitted without a zoning amendment: a) Changes to the numbering, cross-referencing, format and arrangement of the text, tables, schedules and maps; b) Additions to and revisions of technical information on maps and schedules including, but not limited to: infrastructure and topographic information, notes, legends, shading and title blocks; c) Alterations of punctuation or language; and d) Correction of grammatical, dimensional, boundary, mathematical or typographic errors. Page 126 of 138 Landscape Strips – Municipal Policy Scan Municipality Policy Direction regarding Landscape Strips Ajax Landscaped buffers shall be required in the Commercial, Mixed Use and Employment Zones. Ranges from 3m to 4.5 adjacent to Residential or Open Space. Where a landscaped buffer is required on a lot, such portion of the lot shall not be used for any other purpose. Adjacent to Highway No. 401 – 15m Adjacent to Arterial Roads – 9m Adjacent to Collector Roads – 6m Adjacent to Local Roads – 3m Within all Downtown Central Area Zones, landscaped buffers shall be required. Ranging from 3 – 6m. Newmarket A landscaped buffer area shall be required for parking lots designed to accommodate 5 or more parking spaces, within any Downtown, Urban Centre, Employment, Commercial, Institutional, Open Space or Residential Four (R4) or Residential Five (R5) Zone. 3m In all Employment Zones, landscape buffers shall be provided adjacent to street lines except for land used to accommodate vehicular access to and permitted parking on the lot. Front Yard – 12m, Exterior Side and Rear Yard – 3m. Where the rear lot line or interior side lot line of a commercial, industrial, or institutional use abuts a residential use, a landscaped buffer shall be required. The minimum required width of a landscaped buffer shall be 6 metres for an industrial use and 3 metres for an institutional or commercial use. Vaughan Where an Institutional Use or Commercial Use abuts the boundary of lands zoned Open Space or Residential, a strip of land not less than 2.4 metres in width, contained wholly on the lot on which the Institutional Use is located and abutting the boundary of the Open Space or Residential Zone, shall be used for no other purpose than landscaping. Such landscaped area shall not be included in the computing of the minimum landscaping requirements as set out above. In addition, a strip of land not less than 6.0 metres in width shall be provided along a lot line which abuts a street line, and shall be used for no other purpose than landscaping. This shall not prevent the provision of access driveways across the said strip. Where an Employment Area Zone abuts the boundary of lands zoned Open Space or Residential, a strip of land not less than 7.5 metres in width and inside the Employment Area Zone and abutting its boundary, shall be used for Figure 2 Page 127 of 138 no purpose other than landscaping. Such landscaped area shall not be used in computing the minimum landscaping requirements as set out in Subsection 6.1.6 c) of this By-law. Barrie Where any lot in a non-residential zone abuts a lot in a Residential Zone, a continuous landscaped buffer area of a minimum width of 3m shall be provided along the abutting lot line of the lot, and a continuous tight board fence with a minimum height of 2m is to be constructed along the lot line, with the exception of the Education Institutional Zone (I-E). Where any lot in an Industrial Zone abuts a lot in a Commercial, Institutional, Open Space or Environmental Protection Zone, a continuous landscaped buffer area of a minimum width of 3m shall be provided along the abutting lot line of the lot. Where any lot abuts Highway 400 a continuous landscaped buffer area of a minimum width of 9m shall be provided along the lot line. Bradford West Gwillimbury A 3.0 metre-wide planting strip abutting the full length of the applicable lot line(s) shall be required: - Where a lot in an Institutional, Commercial, Employment or Open Space Recreational (OSR) Zone abuts an interior side or rear lot line of a lot in any Residential Zone (some exceptions) - Where a lot zoned Residential Three (R3) abuts a lot in a Residential One (R1), Residential Two (R2) or Rural Settlement Area Residential (R4) Zone; - Along a street line where parking areas are located adjacent to a street; and, - Abutting all public streets having a width of 10.0 metres or greater in all zones (some exceptions) A 7.5 metre-wide planting strip abutting the full length of the applicable lot line shall be required Where a community centre, long term care facility, nursing home, private school, public school or retirement home abuts an interior side or rear lot line of a lot in any Residential Zone. East Gwillimbury A minimum 3.0 metre wide planting strip abutting the full length of a lot line is required on a lot in any Mixed Use, Institutional, Commercial or Employment Zone that abuts an interior side or rear lot line of a lot in any Residential Zone. Markham 3.0 metres, if the interior side or rear lot line of neighbourhood commercial zones abuts a Residential or Open Space Zone. 6.0 metres, for the front and exterior side lot lines of Major commercial zones and 3.0 metres for interior and rear lot lines 6.0 metres, for the front and exterior side lot lines of Employment zones and 3.0 metres for interior and rear lot lines Minimum width of landscaping adjacent to the interior and rear lot lines for Automotive Zones. Page 128 of 138 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS 2 1 -0 06 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Request for Traffic Calming Measures at Kennedy Street West Between Temperance Street and George Street Prepared by: Michael Bat, Traffic/Transportation Analyst Department: Planning and Development Services Date: February 2, 2021 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS21-006 be received; and 2. That traffic calming in the form of speed cushions be installed on the section of Kennedy Street West between Temperance Street and George Street. Executive Summary This report presents to Council the results of the traffic calming warrant analysis for Kennedy Street West between Temperance Street and George Street.  The existing road conditions of Kennedy Street West is generally consistent with the Town’s design standards for a collector road.  The subject section of Kennedy Street West satisfies the requirements under all three of the warrants of the Town’s Traffic Calming Policy. Background In response to a resident petition requesting traffic calming measures, Town staff undertook warrant analysis following the procedures and methodologies set out in the Town’s Traffic Calming Policy for Kennedy Street West between Temperance Street and George Street. The subject location is illustrated in Attachment 1. Page 129 of 138 February 2, 2021 2 of 5 Report No. PDS21-006 Analysis The existing road conditions of Kennedy Street West is generally consistent with the Town’s design standards for a collector road Kennedy Street West: is a two-lane minor collector road with single lane per travel direction. It has an urban cross-section with curbs on both sides of the road and sidewalks generally on the north side of the road. The existing pavement is measured 8.0 metres wide and in accordance to the Town Zoning By-law No. 4574-04.T the posted speed limit is 40 km/h. The subject section of Kennedy Street West satisfied the requirements under all of the warrants of the Town’s Traffic Calming Policy As prescribed in the Town’s Traffic Calming Policy, a total of three warrants must be satisfied in order for traffic calming measures to be considered, they are described below: Warrant No. 1: A Petition: will ensure that residents in the immediate area support of traffic calming measures. Warrant No. 2: Safety Requirements: will ensure traffic calming measures are installed in order to create an increase in traffic safety. Warrant No. 3: Technical Requirements: will ensure that traffic calming measures are implemented on streets that have a proven need for such measures. Following the Town’s Traffic Calming Policy, the warrant analysis results are summarized in Table 1. Page 130 of 138 February 2, 2021 3 of 5 Report No. PDS21-006 Table 1: Kennedy Street West between Temperance Street and George Street Warrant Criteria Requirement Site Parameters Yes / No Warrant No. 1 (Petition) Petition Minimum 70% 70% Yes Warrant 1 Met? Yes Warrant No. 2 (Safety Requirements) Emergency Response Consultation No Comments Yes Transit Services Consultation No Comments Yes Sidewalks Minimum 1 side 1 Side Yes Road Grade Maximum 5% < 2% Yes Warrant 2 Met? Yes Warrant No. 3 (Technical Requirements) Minimum Speed 85th Percentile Minimum 15 km/h Over Posted Speed Limit 16 km/h Over Posted Speed Limit Yes Minimum Volumes Between 1,500 and 8,000 Vehicles Per Day 2,140 Vehicles Per Day Yes Minimum Block Length Minimum 120 m Approx. 300 m Yes Special Circumstances - None - Warrant 3 Met? Yes All Warrants 1 - 3 Met? Yes As shown in Table 1, the subject location of Kennedy Street West satisfies the minimum requirements of all three warrants including the safety and technical requirements. A virtual open house was held on Tuesday, October 13, 2020 from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. to present the draft design of the proposed traffic calming, which consists of two sets of speed cushions. A total of five residents from four households attended the meeting and were generally supportive of introducing traffic calming measures. An email was received from a resident on October 7, 2020 opposing traffic calming because of concerns related to the operation of disability vehicles. Advisory Committee Review Not Applicable. Legal Considerations Not Applicable. Page 131 of 138 February 2, 2021 4 of 5 Report No. PDS21-006 Financial Implications The associated cost to install speed cushions on Kennedy Street West between Temperance Street and George Street will be funded from Capital Project No. 34519 – Traffic Calming as per the 2019 DC Study which has total of $122,600 in approved budget authority. Of this amount $97,800 remains unspent. Communications Considerations The Town of Aurora will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this project. There are five different levels of community engagement to consider, with each level providing the community more involvement in the decision-making process. These levels are: Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. Examples of each are found in the Community Engagement Policy. These options are based on the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Spectrum and assist in establishing guidelines for clearly communicating with our public and managing community engagement. In order to inform the public, this report will be posted to the Town’s website. In addition, area residents were notified by mail on January 11, 2021 that this staff report is to be presented to the General Committee meeting of February 2, 2021. Link to Strategic Plan This report supports the Strategic Plan goal of Support an Exceptional Quality of Life for All by examining traffic patterns and identify potential solutions to improve movement and safety at key intersections in the community. Alternative to the Recommendation 1. That Council not approve the traffic calming measures for the section of Kennedy Road between Temperance Street and George Street. Conclusions In response to an inquiry received from a resident for traffic calming, Town staff undertook warrant analysis following the procedures and methodologies outlined in the Town’s Traffic Calming Policy on Kennedy Street West between Temperance Street and George Street. Page 132 of 138 February 2, 2021 5 of 5 Report No. PDS21-006 Based upon the information enclosed in this report, the subject location satisfied the minimum requirements outlined in the Town’s Traffic Calming Policy and therefore traffic calming measures in the form of speed cushions are recommended for installation. Attachments Attachment 1: Subject Location Previous Reports None. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on January 14, 2021 Approvals Approved by David Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE, Director, Planning and Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 133 of 138 Tyler Street Kennedy Street ETemperance StreetYONGE STREETKennedy Street West George StreetDodie Street Ransom StreetMachell AveGeorge StreetKennedy Street West Temperance StreetGurnett StreetTyler StreetGeorge StreetTemperance StreetHillview Road Mill StreetHawthorne Lane Reuben StreetHarriman RoadCentre Str Church Street Mosley Street Alex Gardner Circle YONGE STREETWELLINGTON STREET WEST Map created by the Town of Aurora Corporate Services Department, January 6th, 2021. Base data provided by York Region and Aurora - GIS. This is not a legal survey. ¯0 50 100 Metres SUBJECT LOCATION MAP REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CALMING MEASUES ON KENNEDY STREET WEST PDS21-006 Attachment #1 Subject Road - Kennedy Street West from George Street to Temperance Street Subject Road Page 134 of 138 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Notice of Motion Councillor’s Office _______________________________________________________________________________________ Re: Dangerous One-Way Street – Centre Street To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Councillor Sandra Humfryes Date: February 2, 2021 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Whereas the Town has created one-way streets in the northeast area of Aurora; and Whereas the one-way streets and traffic calming measures within those streets have created a safer neighbourhood; and Whereas Centre Street was created as a one-way street from Spruce Street to the north section of Wells Street; and Whereas this small stretch of street has created an unsafe condition where vehicles drive the wrong way on a one-way street; and Whereas this situation needs to be addressed before a serious accident occurs; 1. Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That staff be directed to review this issue and determine the best traffic calming measures and traffic deterrent to prevent vehicles driving the wrong way on a one-way street and report back to Council before the end of March 2021. Page 135 of 138 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Notice of Motion _______________________________________________________________________________________ Re: Garbage Bag Tag Policy To: Members of Council From: Mayor Tom Mrakas and Councillor Harold Kim Date: February 2, 2021 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Whereas the Town has begun to enforce the three-bag limit for garbage; and Whereas residents from time to time may need to exceed three bags of garbage; and Whereas a bag tag is available in many municipalities that have garbage bag limits; 1. Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That staff be directed to report back to Council with a garbage bag tag policy to be implemented as soon as possible. Page 136 of 138 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Notice of Motion Councillor’s Office _______________________________________________________________________________________ Re: Backyard Chicken Coops To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Councillor Rachel Gilliland Date: February 2, 2021 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Whereas residents have approached the Town of Aurora requesting a pilot project to allow a backyard chicken coop for the purpose of laying eggs; and Whereas residents feel that this opportunity may benefit their health and well-being; and Whereas other municipalities, including Newmarket, have either explored a pilot project, are in stages of amending by-laws, or have amended by-laws to allow it; 1. Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That staff report back to Council by the end of April 2021 on the feasibility of a pilot program to allow backyard chicken coops for the purposes of egg production, and on the implications of such a pilot program. Page 137 of 138 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Notice of Motion Mayor’s Office _______________________________________________________________________________________ Re: Promenade Secondary Plan Review To: Members of Council From: Mayor Tom Mrakas Date: February 2, 2021 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Whereas the Promenade Secondary Plan guides and manages growth for the Yonge and Wellington corridors, which was approved in 2010 and is now more than ten years old; and Whereas the success for Downtown revitalization is dependent on a clear vision for the area and one that is developed in cooperation with the Town’s Official Plan review; and Whereas currently the Town has commenced a review of its Official Plan; and Whereas an update of the Promenade Secondary Plan would implement a new forward- thinking vision for the Yonge and Wellington corridors that would protect our heritage while appropriately and effectively revitalizing the Downtown core; and Whereas an update would help further stimulate economic development, and enhance our Downtown area as a focal point for retail, service, and special events, by building upon the Library Square redevelopment; 1. Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That Council authorize staff to initiate a review of the “Promenade Secondary Plan” in combination with the Official Plan update and to utilize the approved Official Plan capital project for funding. Page 138 of 138