Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
AGENDA - General Committee - 20210706
Town of Aurora General Committee Meeting Revised Agenda Date:July 6, 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. Additional 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/c/Townofaurora/videos. Anyone wishing to provide comment on an agenda item is encouraged to visit www.aurora.ca/participation for guidelines on electronic delegation. 6.Consent Agenda 6.1.Memorandum from Councillor Gaertner; Re: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of May 28, 2021 1 That the memorandum regarding Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of May 28, 2021, be received for information. 1. 7.Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes 7.1.Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of June 7, 2021 5 That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of June 7, 2021, be received for information. 1. 7.2.Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2021 12 That the Finance Advisory Committee Meeting minutes of June 8, 2021, be received for information. 1. 7.3.Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of June 9, 2021 15 That the Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting minutes of June 9, 2021, be received for information. 1. 7.4.Anti-Black Racism and Anti-Racism Task Force Meeting Minutes of June 16, 2021 20 That the Anti-Black Racism and Anti-Racism Task Force meeting minutes of June 16, 2021, be received for information. 1. 7.5.Mayor's Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting Minutes of June 24, 2021 24 That the Mayor's Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting Minutes of June 24, 2021, be received for information. 1. *7.6.Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of June 23, 2021 27 That the Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting minutes of June 23, 2021, be received for information. 1. 8.Consideration of Items Requiring Discussion (Regular Agenda) 8.1.OPS21-010 - Residential Waste Bag Tag Program 30 That Report No. OPS21-010 be received; and1. That the implementation of a user-pay Bag Tag program for the disposal of additional residential waste be approved to commence on January 1, 2022; and 2. That the implementation of a Bag Tag program, for single family dwelling and secondary dwelling units, to allow three (3) bags without tags and up to three (3) additional bags with tags, maximum of a six (6) bag total, at a cost of $5 per tag be approved; and 3. That a By-law to amend By-law No. 5590-14, being the Waste Collection By-law, be enacted prior to January 1, 2022; and 4. That By-law No. 6293-20, being the Fees and Charges By-law, be amended to include the new bag tag fee to be enacted a future Council Meeting. 5. 8.2.PDS21-086 - 2051 Growth Forecast and Service Allocation Updates 39 That Report No. PDS21-086 be received; and1. That Council endorse the Town of Aurora’s 2051 growth forecast of 84,900 persons and 41,000 jobs assigned by York Region, for inclusion in the Region of York Official Plan; and 2. That a copy of Report No. PDS21-086 and Council resolution be forwarded to the York Regional Clerk. 3. 8.3.PDS21-057 - Traffic Calming Measures within the One-way Section of Centre Street – Supplementary Report 49 That Report No. PDS21-057 be received; and1. That Council approve the installation of speed cushions for the portion of Centre Street between Spruce Street and Wells Street. 2. 8.4.PDS21-081 - Henderson Drive Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Assessment 55 That Report No. PDS21-081 be received; and1. That the existing pedestrian crossover installed on the west approach of Henderson Drive at the intersection of Tamarac Trail/Lee Gate be retrofitted to further enhance safety for pedestrian and vulnerable road users; and 2. That the associated cost to retrofit the existing pedestrian crossover identified in Recommendation No. 2, be funded from Capital Project No. 34518 – Pedestrian Crossings as per the 2014 Development Charges Study. 3. 8.5.FIN21-033 - 2021 Interim Forecast Update - As of April 30, 2021 64 That Report No. FIN21-033 be received for information.1. 8.6.PDS21-084 - Heritage Permit Application, Farani, 74 Centre Street, File Number: HPA-2020-04 94 That Report No. PDS21-084 be received; and1. That Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 be approved to permit the construction of a double duplex building at 74 Centre 2. Street. 8.7.PDS21-087 - Heritage Permit Application, Bruno, 20 Spruce Street, Lot 118 PLAN 246, File Number: HPA-2021-04 111 That Report No. PDS21-087 be received; and1. That Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-04 be approved to permit the construction of a single storey garage addition on the south side of the existing dwelling at 20 Spruce Street. 2. 8.8.PDS21-088 - Heritage Permit Application, Smale, 63 Catherine Avenue, Lot 19 PLAN 116, File Number: HPA-2021-02 119 That Report No. PDS21-088 be received; and1. That Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-02 be approved to permit the partial demolition of the rear portion of the existing dwelling at 63 Catherine Avenue. 2. 8.9.PDS21-090 - Heritage Permit Application, HPA-2021-07, 28 Wellington Street West & 11 Machell Avenue, Town of Aurora 129 That Report No. PDS21-090 be received; and1. That a new capital project with total budget authority of $200,000 be approved for the replacement of the existing retaining wall and staircase that fronts 28 Wellington Street West and 11 Machell Avenue to be funded from the Roads Repair and Replacement reserve; and 2. That Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-07 be approved to rehabilitate the existing retaining wall that fronts Wellington Street West and 11 Machell Avenue using the existing natural stones, replace concrete staircase and handrails. 3. 9.Notices of Motion 9.1.Councillor Gaertner; Re: Increased Signage for the Arboretum 150 9.2.Councillor Gaertner; Re: Development Plan - Adjoining Major Transit Station Areas and Stable Neighbourhoods 151 *9.3.Councillor Kim; Re: Stop Signs and Crosswalk Installation - Machell Ave and Irwin Ave 152 10.Regional Report 11.New Business 12.Public Service Announcements 13.Closed Session There are no Closed Session items for this meeting. 14.Adjournment 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Memorandum Councillor’s Office Re: Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of May 28, 2021 To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Councillor Wendy Gaertner Date: July 6, 2021 Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority Board Meeting Highlights of May 28, 2021, be received for information. Page 1 of 152 Board Meeting Highlights May 28, 2021 Presentations: a) Stormwater Management, Inspection and Maintenance Program Coordinator, Stormwater Management, Steve Auger, provided an overview of the stormwater management, inspection and maintenance program, noting urban stormwater management is important in controlling water quality in the Lake Simcoe watershed. Urban drainage areas have typically relied on ponds for quantity and quality control to meet its objectives, and routine inspection and maintenance of stormwater ponds is essential but typically under resourced. He also noted the importance of routinely inspecting and maintaining Low Impact Development features; however, due to their diversity (i.e., bioretention to permeable pavement to exfiltration systems), the skills and responsibilities for inspection and maintenance are varied, which in turn can create resource gaps for municipalities that need to be addressed. Poor stormwater management inspection and maintenance practices expose municipalities to a range of issues such as increased liability, non-compliance of approvals, reduced asset life, and exacerbate the impact of urban stormwater on the local waterways, including additional phosphorus loads. Accordingly, and with funding support from the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation, and Parks, the Authority has been working to address these known barriers and resource gaps. Resources and tools developed as a result include an asset inventory database to support municipal inspection and maintenance programs, training for pond inspection and maintenance prioritization, and continued monitoring assessments to inform better design and maintenance practice. In 2020, a Low Impact Development Municipal Inspection and Maintenance Working group was established to support improvements with municipal programs. The working group includes operations managers from six municipalities (Aurora, Barrie, Bradford West Gwillimbury, Georgina, Innisfil, and Newmarket). Outcomes of these latest efforts include a budgeting tool and Standard Operating Principals for incorporating information within the municipal stormwater management database. For more information on this program, please contact Steve Auger at 905-895-1281, ext. 149 or s.auger@lsrca.on.ca. To view this presentation, please click this link: Stormwater Management, Inspection and Maintenance Program Update Page 2 of 152 Board Meeting Highlights May 28, 2021 Page 2 of 3 The Passive House Design Authority Board member and Town of Innisfil Councillor Alex Waters provided an overview of the Passive House design, elements of which include proper insulation, no air leakages, no thermal bridges, proper windows with triple pane windows, proper orientation and shading, and heat recovery ventilation. A passive house does not need a furnace or air conditioner and uses 90% less energy. Councillor Waters shared photos on the various construction phases of his passive home being built, as well as energy and cost savings. For more information on the passive house design concept, please contact Alex Waters at awaters1231@gmail.com Correspondence and Staff Reports: Correspondence The Board received two items of correspondence: a) a copy of a letter from Conservation Ontario dated April 22, 2021 to the Honourable Jeff Yurek, Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regarding Conservation Ontario’s Governance Accountability and Transparency Initiative; and b) a copy of a letter from the Honourable John Yakabuski, Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry dated May 20, 2021, regarding Subsection 20.0.1 of the Conservation Authorities Act and his intent to review conditions on the Authority’s Permit No. OP.2021.027 for the development known as Oro Station. Mabel Davis Administrative Centre Safety Renovations The Board received Staff Report No. 23-21-BOD regarding safety renovations at the Authority’s Mabel Davis Administrative Centre and approved a draw of approximately $70,000 from reserve to support implementation of these safety renovations. Mabel Davis Administrative Centre Lighting Retrofits The Board received Staff Report No. 24-21-BOD regarding lighting retrofits at the Authority’s Mabel Davis Administrative Centre and approved a potential draw from reserve of less than $3,000 to support implementation of these lighting retrofits. Offsetting Policies – Reconciliation to December 31, 2020 The Board received Staff Report No. 25-21-BOD regarding an update on the Authority’s Offsetting Cash in Lieu funds received, expended and Key Performance Indicators. 2021 Conservation Awards Program The Board received Staff Report No. 26-21-BOD regarding recommendations for a virtual 2021 Conservation Awards. Page 3 of 152 Board Meeting Highlights May 28, 2021 Page 3 of 3 Conservation Authorities Act - Phase 1 Consultation Guide The Board received Staff Report No. 27-21-BOD regarding Provincial Bill 229 Regulatory Proposal Consultation Guide and directed staff to circulate a copy of this staff report to watershed municipalities and to prepare a comments letter for the Board’s consideration at their June 25, 2021 meeting to be submitted on behalf of the Authority in response to the Environmental Registry of Ontario prior to the June 27, 2021 deadline. For more information or to see the full agenda package, visit LSRCA’s Board of Directors’ webpage. Page 4 of 152 1 Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Monday, June 7, 2021 7 p.m. Video Conference Committee Members: Jeff Lanthier (Chair) Neil Asselin John Green Councillor Sandra Humfryes Matthew Kinsella Bob McRoberts Members Absent: Hoda Soliman (Vice Chair) Other Attendees: Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Phillip Rose, Manager, Library Square Shawna White, Curator, Aurora Museum & Archives Carlson Tsang, Planner 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 Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The Committee consented to extend the hour past 9 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda Moved by John Green Seconded by Bob McRoberts Page 5 of 152 2 That the revised agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved. Carried 3. 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. 4. Receipt of the Minutes 4.1 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2021 Moved by Neil Asselin Seconded by Councillor Humfryes That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of April 5, 2021, be received for information. Carried 5. Delegations 5.1 Frank Pignataro, Member of Town Park Area Residents Ratepayers Association (TPARRA); Re: Item 6.4 - Memorandum from Planner; Re: Request to Remove 26, 32 and 34-38 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Frank Pignataro presented background on the T. Sisman Shoe Company and its former two original buildings at 34-38 Berczy Street, noting the rich historical heritage of the company and its buildings, having significance to both Aurora and Canada. He spoke to the preservation of Aurora's history and requested the Committee's support in preventing the removal of these two buildings from the Aurora Heritage Register until an independent heritage study to determine historical contributions has been completed. Moved by John Green Seconded by Bob McRoberts That the comments of the delegation be received and referred to Item 6.4. Carried 6. Matters for Consideration Page 6 of 152 3 The Committee consented to consider items in the following order: 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.2, 6.3, 6.1, and 7.1. 6.1 Memorandum from Planner; Re: Canadian Achievements Mural: Celebrating Diversity and Inclusion Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and potential locations for the Canadian Achievements Mural: Celebrating Diversity and Inclusion. The Committee expressed its preferences for the mural location, inquired about mural content, and suggested that Jacqueline Stuart, former curator of the Aurora Historical Society, would be a helpful resource. Staff provided clarification regarding public consultation and final design, including a local and national scope, and invited the Committee to provide further input to staff via email. Moved by Neil Asselin Seconded by Matthew Kinsella 1. That the memorandum regarding Canadian Achievements Mural: Celebrating Diversity and Inclusion be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the Canadian Achievements Mural: Celebrating Diversity and Inclusion be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.2 Memorandum from Planner; Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA- 2021-04, 20 Spruce Street Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and application proposing to construct a garage addition on the south side of the existing dwelling, noting that the owner has modified the side yard setback to 0.6 metres. The Committee commented on and inquired about several aspects including tree removal, compatibility, streetscape, and potential review of the Heritage Conservation District Plan in relation to the Official Plan Review, and staff provided clarification. Moved by Neil Asselin Seconded by Matthew Kinsella Page 7 of 152 4 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-04, 20 Spruce Street, be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding HPA- 2021-04 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.3 Memorandum from Planner; Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA- 2021-02, 63 Catherine Avenue John Smale, owner and applicant, presented an overview of the proposal to remove an existing rear addition and replace it with a new one-storey addition in the same location of the dwelling. Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and application. The Committee had no issues with the proposal. Moved by Neil Asselin Seconded by Matthew Kinsella 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-02, 63 Catherine Avenue, be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-02 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.4 Memorandum from Planner; Re: Request to Remove 26, 32 and 34-38 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Neil Phillips, Project Manager, ERA Architects Inc., presented background on the development application and an overview of the former T. Sisman Shoe Company factory and building complex, present conditions, and modifications made over the years. He recommended that the heritage of these buildings would be best honoured through a contemporary interpretation strategy, a combination of thorough documentation and commemoration of the site, and a financial contribution to the Heritage Reserve. Ryan Guetter, Executive Vice President, Weston Consulting, was also present to answer questions. Page 8 of 152 5 The Committee expressed concerns about the heritage evaluation process and several references in the staff report. The Committee provided historical background on the T. Sisman Shoe Company, noting that much of the historical value was missing from the report. The Committee inquired about the March 2020 heritage evaluation working group assessment of 34 Berczy Street and expressed disappoint- ment that the building had not yet been designated as it was deemed worthy of designation despite the previous modifications. Staff provided clarification on the delay and active planning application in progress. The Committee suggested that, rather than be demolished, the building at 34 Berczy Street be rehabilitated and integrated into the proposed new development, in addition to robust documentation and commemoration. The Committee inquired about the heritage assessment criteria and staff provided clarification on the new classification system yet to be finalized, noting that the O. Reg. 9/06 criteria would be applied in the meantime. Moved by Bob McRoberts Seconded by Matthew Kinsella 1. That the memorandum regarding Request to Remove 26, 32 and 34-38 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the removal of 26, 32 and 34-38 Berczy Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest be received and referred to Council and staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.5 Memorandum from Planner; Re: Request to Remove 103 Mosley Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest Mike Bennett, Planner, WND Associates Ltd., provided a brief overview of the proposed development on the property and expressed support for the staff report findings and recommendations. Neil Phillips, Project Manager, ERA Architects Inc., provided background on the auxiliary building to the main factory of the T. Sisman Shoe Company, noting its past heavy alterations, present poor condition and Page 9 of 152 6 diminished historical integrity, and expressed further support for the staff report recommendations and conditions. The Committee inquired about the evaluation process and staff provided clarification on the heritage consultant’s evaluation. The Committee expressed concern regarding the process and suggested that the current evaluation scoresheet be applied in the absence of a new system in place. The Committee stated they were not prepared to provide feedback without an evaluation by the Town. Moved by John Green Seconded by Matthew Kinsella 1. That the memorandum regarding Request to Remove 103 Mosley Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest be received; and 2. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding the removal of 103 Mosley Street from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.6 Round Table Discussion; Re: Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-07, 28 Wellington Street West Staff presented an overview of the application for urgent replacement of the retaining walls along the frontage of 28 Wellington Street West, which was recently designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The Committee inquired about various aspects and suggested that safety railings would be required and the existing limestone should be incorporated into the new retaining wall. Staff provided clarification regarding cost allocation, original construction and replacement materials, design standards and safety, and agreed to provide further information to the Committee prior to the final recommendation to Council. Moved by Neil Asselin Seconded by Bob McRoberts 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee comments regarding Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-07, 28 Wellington Street West be Page 10 of 152 7 received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 7. Informational Items 7.1 Memorandum from Planner; Re: Heritage Conditions – Shining Hill Subdivision (Phase 2) Staff provided an overview of the memorandum and background on the draft plan of subdivision heritage conditions and recommendation regarding two dwellings and barn at 370 and 488 St. John’s Sideroad. The Committee inquired about various aspects and staff provided clarification regarding designating properties not already listed on the Aurora Register, the subject properties and number of buildings, the demolition permit process and penalties, tree removal, and cultural heritage landscape qualifications. It was noted that a demolition permit was issued for one of the three buildings despite a June 2020 Council motion that they be evaluated by the Heritage Advisory Committee. Staff agreed to confirm and provide further information to the Committee. Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by John Green 1. That the memorandum regarding Heritage Conditions - Shining Hill Subdivision (Phase 2) be received for information. Carried 8. Adjournment Moved by Matthew Kinsella Seconded by Neil Asselin That the meeting be adjourned at 9:57 p.m. Carried Page 11 of 152 1 Town of Aurora Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 5:45 p.m. Video Conference Committee Members: Councillor Harold Kim (Chair) Mayor Tom Mrakas Councillor Michael Thompson Other Attendees: Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Rachel Wainwright-van Kessel, Director, Finance Jason Gaertner, Manager, Financial Management Laura Sheardown, Advisor, Financial Management Sandeep Dhillon, Advisor, Financial Management Ishita Soneji, 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. That Chair called the meeting to order at 5:46 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Mayor Mrakas Seconded by Councillor Thompson That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services, be approved. Carried Page 12 of 152 2 3. 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. 4. Receipt of the Minutes 4.1 Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of May 11, 2021 Moved by Councillor Thompson Seconded by Mayor Mrakas That the Finance Advisory Committee meeting minutes of May 11, 2021, be received for information. Carried 5. Delegation None. 6. Matters for Consideration 6.1 Memorandum from Financial Management Advisor; Re: Prudent Investor Update Staff provided an overview of the memorandum noting the intent to restart the process to invest under the Prudent Investor regime through joining the ONE Joint Investment Board (JIB). Staff noted that the associated investment policy will be brought forward for Committee's consideration at a future meeting in 2021. The Committee inquired about the Town's total investment portfolio value and available operating funds for investment, and staff provided clarification. The Committee further inquired about the overall status and performance of the ONE JIB and other municipalities currently with the JIB, and staff noted that performance data will be included in upcoming updates to the Committee and is also available on the ONE Investment website. The Committee sought clarification on the redemption conditions as discussed at previous Committee meetings and suggested that more Page 13 of 152 3 detailed information regarding the redemption operating terms and structure be included. Moved by Councillor Thompson Seconded by Mayor Mrakas 1. That the memorandum regarding Prudent Investor Update be received; and 2. That the Finance Advisory Committee comments regarding Prudent Investor be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 7. New Business None. 8. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Thompson Seconded by Mayor Mrakas That the meeting be adjourned at 5:58 p.m. Carried Page 14 of 152 1 Town of Aurora Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 p.m. Video Conference Committee Members: Matthew Abas (Vice Chair) John Lenchak Hailey Reiss Jo-anne Spitzer Councillor John Gallo Members Absent: Rachelle Stinson (Chair) Other Attendees: Mat Zawada, Accessibility Advisor Max Le Moine, Accessibility Co-op Student Ishita Soneji, 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 Vice Chair called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Jo-anne Spitzer Seconded by John Lenchak That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services, be approved. Carried Page 15 of 152 2 3. 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. 4. Receipt of the Minutes 4.1 Accessibility Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of May 12, 2021 Moved by John Lenchak Seconded by Jo-anne Spitzer That the Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting minutes of May 12, 2021, be received for information. Carried 5. Delegations None. 6. Matters for Consideration 6.1 Memorandum from Accessibility Advisor; Re: Site Plan Application OPA- 2020-01 (Submission #2), 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora Staff provided an overview of the site plan and comments submitted to the Planner on behalf of the Committee. It was mentioned that the application was considered at the June 8, 2021 Public Planning meeting where the decision to bring the application back to a future Public Planning meeting was made. The Committee had no further input. Moved by Hailey Reiss Seconded by John Lenchak 1. That the memorandum regarding Site plan application OPA-2020-01 (Submission #2), 26, 30, 32, 34-38 Berczy Street, Aurora be received; and 2. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding Site plan application OPA-2020-01 (Submission #2) be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried Page 16 of 152 3 6.2 Memorandum from Accessibility Advisor; Re: Site Plan Application SP(EX)- 2020-13 (Submission #1), 15360 Bayview Avenue Staff provided an overview of the site plan and comments submitted to the Planner on behalf of the Committee, noting the developer's responses to the previous submission. The Committee sought clarification on the recommended curb depressions around the accessible parking spots and crosswalk connections and staff provided clarification. The Committee had no further input. Moved by John Lenchak Seconded by Jo-anne Spitzer 1. That the memorandum regarding Site plan application SP(EX)-2021-13 (Submission #1), 15360 Bayview Ave be received; and 2. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding Site plan application SP(EX)-2021-13 (Submission #1) be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.3 Memorandum from Accessibility Advisor; Re: Site Plan Application SP-2021- 03 (Submission #2), 1623 Wellington Street Staff provided an overview of the site plan and comments submitted to the Planner on behalf of the Committee, noting the developer's response to the previous submission. The Committee had no further input. Moved by Jo-anne Spitzer Seconded by John Lenchak 1. That the memorandum regarding Site plan application SP-2021-03 (Submission #2), 1623 Wellington Street be received; and 2. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding Site plan application SP-2021-03 (Submission #2) be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried Page 17 of 152 4 6.4 Memorandum from Accessibility Advisor; Re: Site Plan Application SP-2021- 04 (Submission #2), 1623 Wellington Street East Staff provided an overview of the site plan and comments submitted to the Planner on behalf of the Committee. The Committee had no further input. Moved by John Lenchak Seconded by Jo-anne Spitzer 1. That the memorandum regarding Site plan application SP-2021-04 (Submission #2), 1623 Wellington Street East be received; and 2. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding Site plan application SP-2021-04 (Submission #2) be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 6.5 Round Table Discussion; Re: Town of Aurora Accessibility Plan 2018 to 2024 Staff provided an update on the Facility Accessibility Design Standards (FADS) document reviewing the draft HTML version and provided details on the proposed format, layout, and accessible features of the HTML version. The Committee and staff discussed about the searchability feature and various means of readily accessing information within the document. Staff provided an update on the revised draft Aurora Business Improvement Area (BIA) logo and the Committee provided feedback regarding the logo colours. Staff referred to Machell's Alley along Yonge Street and provided an update noting the proposed plan for the area. It was mentioned that the area will serve as a picnic area for the public with amenities provided such as picnic tables with accessible seating, appropriate lighting, signage, and will be in accordance with the public health guidelines. Staff referred to the Joint Operations Centre (JOC) facility review video and the Committee and staff discussed about the various accessibility features requiring revisions including exterior updates such as curb depressions, access aisle to barrier free parking spot, addition of tactile Page 18 of 152 5 plates, relocation of signage along paths of travel, and update to the accessible parking pavement colours. Staff noted that the interior of the JOC building is in compliance. Moved by John Lenchak Seconded by Councillor Gallo 1. That the Accessibility Advisory Committee comments regarding the Town of Aurora Accessibility Plan 2018 to 2024 be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 7. Informational Items None. 8. Adjournment Moved by Hailey Reiss Seconded by Jo-anne Spitzer That the meeting be adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Carried Page 19 of 152 1 Town of Aurora Anti-Black Racism and Anti-Racism Task Force Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 7:00 p.m. Video Conference Committee Members: Mark Lewis (Chair) Noor El-Dassouki (Vice Chair) Keenan Hull Mae Khamissa Phiona Durrant Councillor Harold Kim Other Attendees: Michael de Rond, Town Clerk _____________________________________________________________________ Appointment of Chair and Vice Chair Moved by Phiona Durrant Seconded by Councillor Kim That Mark Lewis be appointed Chair of the Task Force; and That Noor El-Dassouki be appointed as Vice Chair of the Task Force. Carried 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 Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Page 20 of 152 2 2. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Mae Khamissa Seconded by Phiona Durrant That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services, be approved. Carried 3. 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. 4. Receipt of the Minutes 4.1 Anti-Black Racism and Anti-Racism Task Force Meeting Minutes of April 21, 2021 Moved by Noor El-Dassouki Seconded by Mae Khamissa 1. That the Anti-Black Racism and Anti-Racism Task Force meeting minutes of April 21, 2021, be received for information. Carried 5. Delegations None. 6. Matters for Consideration 6.1 Memorandum from Sport & Community Development Specialist; Re: Cultural Diversity in Sport Erin Hamilton, Sport & Community Development Specialist, provided a brief presentation to the task force. There was discussion regarding different strategies to remove barriers to entering sports that have historically not been as diverse as others. Task Force members spoke to their own lived experience with cultural diversity in sport. Members emphasized the importance of engagement Page 21 of 152 3 with the broader community and creating a culture where everyone can feel safe while participating. Ms. Hamilton noted that this is a long-term plan, with meaningful change not being achieved overnight. She further noted she would welcome offline conversations with community members and that a more detailed plan will be brought back to the Task Force in the future. Moved by Councillor Kim Seconded by Noor El-Dassouki 1. That the memorandum regarding Cultural Diversity in Sport be received; and 2. That the Anti-Black Racism and Anti-Racism Task Force comments regarding Cultural Diversity in Sport be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 7. Informational Items 7.1 Round Table Discussion Re: Task Force Consultant The Task Force discussed whether a session with a professional facilitator could be brought in to help formulate an action plan for the Task Force. There was further discussion of the value of doing some internal work regarding the plan for the Task Force before proceeding with engaging a facilitator. Moved by Councillor Kim Seconded by Keenan Hull 1. That the Round Table Discussion regarding Task Force Consultant be received for information. Carried 7.2 Round Table Discussion Re: Terms of Reference The Task Force discussed whether there is a current need to amend the Terms of Reference. After discussion, there was agreement that the current Terms of Reference suited the Task Force well. Page 22 of 152 4 Members were encouraged to submit potential changes to the Town Clerk at anytime in the future. Moved by Councillor Kim Seconded by Noor El-Dassouki 1. That the Round Table Discussion regarding Terms of Reference be received for information. Carried 8. Adjournment Moved by Noor El-Dassouki Seconded by Councillor Kim That the meeting be adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Carried Page 23 of 152 1 Town of Aurora Mayor's Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Thursday, June 24, 2021 10 a.m. Video Conference Committee Members: Koula Koliviras (Chair) Rosalyn Gonsalves Barb Allan Members Absent: Wendy Browne Heidi Schellhorn Other Attendees: Jason Gaertner, Manager, Financial Management Michael de Rond, Town Clerk _____________________________________________________________________ Appointment of the Chair Moved by Rosalyn Gonsalves Seconded by Barb Allan That Koula Koliviras be appointed as Chair of the Mayor's Golf Classic Funds Committee. Carried 1. Procedural Notes This meeting was 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. The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:03 a.m. Page 24 of 152 2 2. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Rosalyn Gonsalves Seconded by Barb Allan That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved. Carried 3. 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. 4. Receipt of the Minutes 4.1 Mayor's Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting of May 27, 2021 Moved by Rosalyn Gonsalves Seconded by Barb Allan That the Mayor's Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting Minutes of May 27, 2021, be received for information. Carried 5. Delegations 5.1 Ron Weese, President, Sport Aurora Re: Item 6.1 - Application from Sport Aurora Inc. - All Kids Can Play Program Mr. Ron Weese, President, Sport Aurora, was present to provide further information and answer questions regarding Sport Aurora’s application for funding. Moved by Barb Allan Seconded by Rosalyn Gonsalves That the delegation be received and referred to Item 6.1. Carried Page 25 of 152 3 6. Matters for Consideration 6.1 Application from Sport Aurora Inc. - All Kids Can Play Program The Committee reviewed the application and was supportive of the program. There was discussion regarding the amount of funds available and ensuring enough is available should requests be received prior to the next Mayor’s Charity Golf Classic. Moved by Rosalyn Gonsalves Seconded by Barb Allan 1. That the application from Sport Aurora Inc. - All Kids Can Play Program be received; and 2. That the Committee grant funding to All Kids Can Play Program in the amount of $3,000. Carried 7. Informational Items None. 8. Adjournment Moved by Barb Allan Seconded by Rosalyn Gonsalves That the meeting be adjourned at 10:25 a.m. Carried Page 26 of 152 1 Town of Aurora Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Time: Location: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 7:00 p.m. Video Conference Committee Members: Councillor Rachel Gilliland (Chair) Councillor Wendy Gaertner (Vice Chair) Margaret Baker Barry Bridgeford Colin Brown Sam Cunningham Sandy Hudson Crystal Robertson Members Absent: Ashley Gatto Cassagrande Ryan Hamid Other Attendees: Natalie Kehle, Analyst, Energy and Climate Change Ishita Soneji, 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 Chair called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 2. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Margaret Baker Seconded by Sam Cunningham Page 27 of 152 2 That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services, be approved. Carried 3. 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. 4. Receipt of the Minutes 4.1 Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2021 Moved by Sandy Hudson Seconded by Margaret Baker That the Environmental Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of April 28, 2021, be received for information. Carried 5. Delegations None. 6. Matters for Consideration 6.1 Memorandum from Energy and Climate Change Analyst; Re: Incorporating a Climate Lens into Town Governance and Operations Natalie Kehle, Analyst, Energy and Climate Change, presented an overview of the purpose of incorporating a climate lens in the Town operations and governance highlighting the existing climate change and environmental initiatives and the anticipated changes through incorporating a climate lens. She further provided details on the three proposed approaches of incorporating the climate lens: including climate change objectives in procurement documents, including climate considerations in staff reports and budget business cases, and consideration of Total Cost of Ownership and Lifecycle Cost in the procurement process. The Committee discussed about the various aspects of the proposed approaches and was in agreement with the proposed plan. The Page 28 of 152 3 Committee inquired if there will be minimum requirements to meet climate change objectives for procured or Town initiated projects, and staff provided clarification. The Committee further inquired about the implementation process and how the proposed objectives would be incorporated in procurement, budget, and staff documents. Staff indicated that the proposed approach offers checking climate change objectives at various stages of the project as the applicable climate objectives would be dependent on the project. The Committee further inquired about the opportunity for public participation throughout the implementation process, and staff noted that public participation would be dependent on the scope of the project with various opportunities available throughout the project. The Committee and staff further discussed about balancing cost-effective climate solutions and achieving climate change objectives, and developing more insight on simple solutions. Moved by Margaret Baker Seconded by Barry Bridgeford 1. That the memorandum regarding Incorporating a Climate Lens into Town Operations and Governance be received; and 2. That the Environmental Advisory Committee comments regarding Incorporating a Climate Lens into Town Operations and Governance be received and referred to staff for consideration and further action as appropriate. Carried 7. Informational Items None. 8. Adjournment Moved by Colin Brown Seconded by Sam Cunningham That the meeting be adjourned at 8:17 p.m. Carried Page 29 of 152 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. OPS21 -010 Subject: Residential Waste Bag Tag Program Prepared by: Jim Tree, Manager of Public Works (Acting) Department: Operational Services Date: July 6, 2021 Recommendation 1. That Report No. OPS21-010 be received; and 2. That the implementation of a user-pay Bag Tag program for the disposal of additional residential waste be approved to commence on January 1, 2022; and 3. That the implementation of a Bag Tag program, for single family dwelling and secondary dwelling units, to allow three (3) bags without tags and up to three (3) additional bags with tags, maximum of a six (6) bag total, at a cost of $5 per tag be approved; and 4. That a By-law to amend By-law No. 5590-14, being the Waste Collection By-law, be enacted prior to January 1, 2022; and 5. That By-law No. 6293-20, being the Fees and Charges By-law, be amended to include the new bag tag fee to be enacted a future Council Meeting. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is responding to a Notice of Motion from the February 23, 2021 Council meeting, directing staff to report back to Council on the matter of a residential Waste Tag program. The report will discuss aspects of implementing a Waste Bag Tag program to permit placing more than the current allowable limit of three (3) bags at the curb for bi-weekly collection per residence as follows: Page 30 of 152 July 6, 2021 2 of 9 Report No. OPS21-010 Fewer complaints and positive feedback from residents suggest impacts of three (3) bag limit collection are acceptable and solid waste going to landfill has been reduced All N6 municipalities offer Bag Tag programs, except Aurora Aurora is the highest contributor of solid waste per capita of all N6 Municipalities Multi-residential issue presents additional challenges for waste collectors Several recommendations available in implementing a Bag Tag program Bag Tag program to commence on January 1, 2022 Background Staff report OPS20-005 Waste Collection Limits provided the background and history on our current Waste By-law and the trend observed was there were a number of residents placing more than the allowable three (3) garbage bags/containers at the curb for disposal. It was clear from the interaction with our residents that most were unaware of Aurora’s Waste By-law and its limits on the amount of waste that should be placed for collection. Staff provided an outline of a proposed public information and notice campaign aimed at encouraging our residents to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill through education and on the merits of increasing their knowledge of recycling. The public education program ran from October 1 to December 31, 2020 and consisted of the following components: Engagement through all communications - all social media and/website; Advertised in local newspaper/mobile and, electronic/digital signs; Visual audits with educational door knockers; “Recycle Coach” web platform. Further, staff engaged with residents during the notification campaign answering phone calls/e-mails. Staff received 48 information enquiries, 12 complaints concerning proposed enforcement of the Waste By-law and three (3) bag limit, and 12 calls indicating their need for additional waste disposal services. Analysis Fewer complaints and positive feedback from residents suggest impacts of three (3) bag limit collection are acceptable and solid waste going to landfill has been reduced Aurora’s waste collection contractor was instructed to discontinue collection of more than three (3) garbage containers/bags commencing January 1st, 2021, and as of March 1st, we received an additional 60 calls which included 12 complaints with the new limits Page 31 of 152 July 6, 2021 3 of 9 Report No. OPS21-010 and 12 requests for additional waste to be collected that had been left by the collection contractor. It became apparent that the effort put forth to educate and notify our residents had resulted in fewer complaints and a significant rate of 78% compliance was observed by our staff. This compliance rate was based on the results of a formal audit of 2,684 households prior to and again following the implementation of the three (3) bag limit during the month of January. Since the three (3) bag limit remains in effect and the number of calls and complaints have plateaued, this would indicate that the impacts associated with limiting the amount of waste per household are generally acceptable. Staff have also completed a comparison in the solid waste collected during the months of January, February, and March 2020 prior to the public education program and three (3) bag limit enforcement. The results are showing a net reduction of 393 metric tonnes being collected to date in 2021 compared to the same period in 2020 for a savings of $37,728. This is a positive trend that we will continue to monitor, and we remain confident that with further education and communication, reductions will continue to be realised. Solid Waste Collection Comparison Year Month Tonnes Collected 2020 January 652.25 2020 February 409.89 2020 March 506.59 2020 April 575.00 2020 May 632.32 2020 Total 2,776.05 2021 January 482.01 2021 February 401.41 2021 March 469.31 2021 April 506.79 2021 May 523.20 2021 Total 2,382.72 All N6 municipalities offer Bag Tag programs, except Aurora Staff have been in discussions with neighbouring N6 municipalities to assist in determining the process each municipality created to establish their Bag Tag program, the logistics required to purchase tags and the associated costs. The table below is a summary of information collected from the N6 Municipalities: Page 32 of 152 July 6, 2021 4 of 9 Report No. OPS21-010 Examples of N6 Bag Tag programs Municipality Cost Re-Sale Cost East Gwillimbury $7,598 with an order of 160,000 $2/bag - up to three (3) items with maximum of five (5) Georgina $8,000 with an order of one million $1/tag - up to four (4) items with maximum five (5) which includes large articles and white goods King $1,526 with an order of 25,000 $10 – 5 tags $23.50 – white goods $12.00 – bulk items Newmarket $6,533 with an order of 50, 000 and 10,000 (two (2) tier tag) Tags for bags - $15/pkg of five (5) Tags for bulk and white goods $16 each Whitchurch-Stouffville $1,526 with an order of 10,000 $2 - up to three (3) maximum of six (6) bags As is evident from this information, there is no “one size fits all approach” with the N6; however, it does provide some insight on the various programs and it appears that the fees are based on cost recovery of direct costs only. Staff suggest that this should also apply to Aurora’s Bag Tag program. Aurora is the highest contributor of Solid Waste per capita of all the N6 municipalities The Region of York provides an annual Waste Management report to Regional Council summarizing all N6 individual municipalities annual waste generation weights and waste diversion rates. In preparation for this report, staff attended a meeting with the Regional Waste management staff to review the Town of Aurora data that has been collected from 2015-2020. This data is based on actual measured waste weights and volumes removed from the Town of Aurora that is destined for landfill, and or incineration as determined by the Region of York. After reviewing this data, it is apparent the amount of solid waste being collected in Aurora exceeds all other N6 municipalities per capita (see below chart). Page 33 of 152 July 6, 2021 5 of 9 Report No. OPS21-010 The lack of enforcement and public education on the Town’s Waste Limit By-law was a major contributor to this situation. Multi-residential issue presents additional challenges for waste collectors A significant challenge to date in managing the waste collection limits per dwelling unit is the residential dwelling where there are multiple apartments within a single home. Further challenges arise when the non-registered apartment units enter the picture. To date staff have identified 319 registered legal apartments within residential homes in Aurora. We have been in contact with many of the property owners to advise them as well as their tenants on how to place their waste at the curb. Additionally, our waste collection contractor has been provided with the list of multi-residential addresses and the contractor has been cooperative in ensuring that waste being collected from these locations follows the limits. The contractor is doing their best to follow the list of these locations, it does increase their workload and creates further complications if unfamiliar operators are assigned to the routes. As such, staff developed a small identity plaque that could be discretely placed on the dwelling unit in a conspicuous location to allow any waste operator to easily identify these locations. Staff could also encourage property owners to install new addresses to identify secondary dwelling units. This would not assist in identifying Page 34 of 152 July 6, 2021 6 of 9 Report No. OPS21-010 non-registered apartments; however, staff will continue to work with these property owners to legalize these units. Several recommendations available in implementing a Bag Tag program Staff have complied two (2) recommendations to be considered in implementing a Bag Tag program as outlined in the table below; however, we have not arrived at the ultimate means by which these tags would be distributed and sold throughout the municipality. This situation is further complicated by the current Pandemic and the limited available municipal facilities where the public could obtain tags. Staff would prefer to have multiple means of distributing tags with the preferred and favoured method being via an online platform where residents could pay for and be issued coded tags at their convenience, staff are researching this capability for several other similar services and hope to have a solution for this process soon. Bag Tag Program Recommendations Recommendation Program Description COST 1 Implement Bag Tag program for single family dwelling and two (2) dwelling units that will allow three (3) bag limits with option of three (3) additional bags with tags, up to a maximum of six (6) bag total $5/tag 2 Secondary dwellings require Town supplied diamond placard to be affixed on the home for easy identification. Three (3) bags will be collected up to a maximum of six (6) bags for single homes displaying a placard. This placard must be visible from the road in order to be considered part of the Bag Tag program $0 Bag Tag program to commence on September 1, 2021 As previously indicated, there are several logistical challenges in implementing the Bag Tag program. In addition, staff will require a period of time to revise the applicable by- law in order to facilitate the program. As such and, depending on the direction of Council, staff recommend that the program come into effect on September 1, 2021. Staff will implement a variety of methods for pick-up and payment of tags prior to January 1, 2022. Page 35 of 152 July 6, 2021 7 of 9 Report No. OPS21-010 Advisory Committee Review None. Legal Considerations The current Waste Collection By-law restricts the number of bags to only three (3) bags. If Council approves the recommendations to this report, minor amendments to allow for the extra three bags with associated fees would be required to the Waste Collection By- law and the Fees and Charges By-law. Financial Implications It is anticipated that the above proposed Bag Tag program will be delivered at no incremental cost to the Town. Staff are recommending that a fee of $5 per tag be approved. This fee valuation considers the Town’s current solid waste collection cost of approximately 10 cents per kg and assumes an average waste container volume of 15kg: representing a cost of $1.50 per container. It also considers all estimated program administration costs such as labour, processing, and printing which are estimated to be approximately $3.50 per tag. This proposed fee will be revisited on an annual basis. If approved, the proposed bag tag fee will need to be formally inserted into the Town’s 2022 Rates & Fees bylaw at the first available opportunity. Furthermore, based upon the Town’s solid waste collection savings of approximately $7,500 per month that it has experienced to date in 2021, it is trending toward an annual savings as high as $90,000. Any operational savings arising from the Town’s enforcement of its 3-bag limit will be re-directed toward increased waste management contract costs and other operating budget pressures. Communications Considerations Based on the IAP2 (International Association of Public Participation) Spectrum and the Town of Aurora Community Engagement Framework, the Town of Aurora will utilize the following level of engagement: Inform. The Town will inform the community of the Bag Tag Program through the Town’s Notice Board, social media feeds, website, digital screens, electronic signs, door knockers, and updates on Recycle Coach app, the annual waste/recycling calendar. Page 36 of 152 July 6, 2021 8 of 9 Report No. OPS21-010 Link to Strategic Plan The above supports the Strategic Plan goal of supporting an exceptional quality of life for all through their accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objectives within this goal statement: Investing in sustainable infrastructure: Maintain and expand infrastructure to support forecasted population growth through technology, waste management, roads, emergency services and accessibility Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Return to status quo where the Town continues to regulate the number of bags of waste limited to three (3) bags collected bi-weekly but do not enforce this limit. As staff have experienced exceptionally fewer complaints, after more than 20 weeks into the three (3) bag limit implementation, we do not recommend that any alternatives are required or are necessary. Further, in the event that residents have a special request for additional waste removal due to either a move into or out of a property, we have and will continue to accommodate these requests. To date, we have received less than ten (10) such requests. 2. Do not require multi-residential units to place an identifying symbol on a secondary dwelling. Staff do not support this alternative as this will result in difficulty for the collections contractor in the ability to identify secondary dwelling units when collecting solid waste. This has already been identified as an issue by the collection’s contractor, particularly when an unfamiliar driver is assigned to Aurora collection routes. Missed collections will continue to occur without proper dwelling identification. Property owners could install additional addresses to identify secondary dwelling units, 3. Issue by mail, bag tags to every dwelling in the Town of Aurora with sufficient bag tags for the entire year. Bag tags would be identified by a change of colour year-over-year. This alternative would require homeowners to purchase additional bag tags once their annual allocation has been depleted. Page 37 of 152 July 6, 2021 9 of 9 Report No. OPS21-010 Conclusions Based on the information outlined within this report, it can be concluded the Town of Aurora currently has a generous solid waste collection limit by comparison to our N6 neighbours. Further, the best course of action at this time in reducing the amount of solid waste from entering the environment would be to continue to enforce the three (3) bag limit and provide a Bag Tag Program that addresses our residents needs to dispose of additional waste on occasion. In conclusion, staff recommend that Council approve the recommendations identified in Table 2. We also conclude that the most desirable way to improve solid waste limit compliance would be through on-going monitoring of the waste stream at the curbside and continuous public awareness and education on the merits of “Reducing, Reusing and Recycling” as many post consumer products as possible. Attachments Previous Reports OPS20-005 Waste Collection Limits, March 24, 2020 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on April 29, 2021 Approvals Approved by Allan Downey, Director, Operational Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 38 of 152 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS21 -086 Subject: 2051 Growth Forecast and Service Allocation Updates Prepared by: Edward Terry, Senior Policy Planner Department: Planning and Development Services Date: July 6, 2021 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS21-086 be received; 2. That Council endorse the Town of Aurora’s 2051 growth forecast of 84,900 persons and 41,000 jobs assigned by York Region, for inclusion in the Region of York Official Plan; and, 3. That a copy of Report No. PDS21-086 and Council Resolution be forwarded to the York Regional Clerk. Executive Summary This report presents for the consideration of Council the findings of a peer review of the 2051 growth forecasts and density targets proposed to be assigned to Aurora through the Region of York’s ongoing Municipal Comprehensive Review. The peer review was undertaken by the Town’s Official Plan study consultant. Places to Grow assigns population and employment forecasts to York Region, who is responsible for assigning growth to the area municipalities. Based on the Region’s population forecast for Aurora of 84,900 persons by 2051, the Town is forecasted to grow by approximately 20,600 people over the next 30 years. Page 39 of 152 July 6, 2021 2 of 6 Report No. PDS21-086 The Region’s 2051 growth forecasts for Aurora were peer reviewed by the Town’s Official Plan study consultant and were found to be reasonable and realistic targets. At the end of Q2 2021, servicing allocation balances are approximately 5,726 persons or 1,903 units worth, representing a five year supply. Background Places to Grow assigns population and employment forecasts to York Region, and who is responsible for assigning growth to the area municipalities. Since the introduction of Places to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe in 2006, planning for growth in the Toronto Region has been a coordinated top-down exercise. Population and employment forecasts are prepared at the Provincial level for the six upper and single-tier municipalities in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Region. These must be incorporated in Regional Official Plans, and upper tiers in turn distribute their Places to Grow forecasts to local area municipalities. York Region have been working on their Regional Municipal Comprehensive Review, to update their Regional Official Plan into conformity with the Growth Plan since 2015. The latest amendments to the Growth Plan expanded the planning horizon to 2051, before single and upper-tiers had an opportunity to bring their Official Plans into conformity with the previous version of the Plan having a 2041 planning horizon. The existing Regional Official Plan, and Aurora Official Plan, prepared in conformity with the 2016 Growth Plan, have horizon years of 2031. Table 1 of the Aurora Official Plan indicates a 2031 growth forecast of 70,200 persons and 34,200 jobs. At the Town of Aurora Council meeting of May 18, 2021, York Region presented their growth forecasts for Council’s consideration. Town Staff were given direction to work with the Official Plan Review consultants to provide a peer review of the Region’s population allocation. Analysis Based on the Region’s population forecast for Aurora of 84,900 persons by 2051, the Town is forecasted to grow by approximately 20,600 people over the next 30 years Page 40 of 152 July 6, 2021 3 of 6 Report No. PDS21-086 Based on the Region’s growth forecast for Aurora of 84,900 persons by 2051, Aurora is forecast to grow by approximately 20,600 people over the next 30 years, according to the Region, which equates to approximately 9,060 residential units and approximately 700 people per year on average. According to the Region, since 2001, Aurora has grown by approximately 1,100 people per year on average. Aurora’s draft intensification target 2016-2051 is 4,600 units, or 45%. This is slightly below the Regional target of 50% and is squarely middle of the pack in York Region - ahead of the more rural/greenfield municipalities of East Gwillimbury, Georgina, King, and Whitchurch-Stouffville, and less than more mature/urban municipalities of Markham, Newmarket, Richmond Hill, and Vaughan. Aurora’s 2051 designated greenfield density target is 55 residents and jobs per hectare. Similar to the intensification target, this is mid-pack in York Region, and slightly below the Regional average of 60 residents and jobs per hectare. Using Aurora’s 2C Secondary Plan as an example, York Region concluded that the Town wide density target of 55 residents and jobs per hectare is achievable over the term of the forecast period. The Region’s 2051 growth forecasts for Aurora were peer reviewed by the Town’s Official Plan study consultant and were found to be achievable and realistic targets The growth forecasts and density targets for the Region and the nine area municipalities were presented in a staff report to Regional Council on March 18, 2021. Regional Planning is now consulting with area municipalities on the growth forecasts, density targets and the land needs assessment which incorporates Growth Plan targets, policy objectives and market demand assumptions. At the May 18, 2021 General Committee meeting, Staff report PDS21-053 provided an overview of York Region’s growth forecasts and density targets to 2051 for the Town. To summarize, the Region is proposing the following growth forecast and targets for Aurora: 84,900 population forecast; 41,000 jobs; A 45% intensification rate within the Built-Up Area; and, A designated greenfield density target of 55 residents and jobs per hectare. The Town’s planning consultant for the Official Plan Review, SGL, peer reviewed York Region’s population allocation for the Town of Aurora in relation to the work they are Page 41 of 152 July 6, 2021 4 of 6 Report No. PDS21-086 currently conducting for the Town’s Official Plan Update Study (see Attachment 1 – SGL Opinion Letter). The peer review concludes that: the proposed intensification target within the Town’s Built-Up Area and the required residential units is appropriate given that growth will shift to the Built-Up Area given that Aurora’s Designated Greenfield Area is expected to be built out by 2051; the Region’s population targets are less than past growth trends in Aurora and reflect an analysis of market demand; and, the density target and unit potential on the designated greenfield area as outlined by the Region reflects the actual potential on those lands. It’s the opinion of SGL that the proposed 2051 population forecast of 84,900 residents for Aurora is appropriate. Further, SGL confirmed with Town Staff that the residential units required can be achieved based on the Town’s existing height permissions in the Promenade Secondary Plan. SGL’s review states “the Town of Aurora could reasonably accommodate the minimum intensification target of 45% as proposed by the Region.” At the end of Q2 for 2021, servicing allocation balances are approximately 5,726 persons or 1,903 units worth, representing a five year supply As a mid year update to Aurora’s Servicing allocation, York Region has granted no new allocation in 2019 through to 2021. Staff report PDS21-013, Aurora Servicing Allocation Update, presented 2020 year end servicing allocation balances and with recent 2021 allocation awarded, balances at the end of Q2 2021 are approximately 5,726 persons or 1,903 units worth, representing a five year supply. Additional capacity will be required prior to the estimated in-service date of 2028 for the Upper York Sewage Solutions of 2028. The next allocation revocation report will be presented to a future General Committee meeting. The Town of Aurora continues to work closely with the Region to ensure allocation and reporting are consistent and to provide essential foresight to future needs. Advisory Committee Review None Page 42 of 152 July 6, 2021 5 of 6 Report No. PDS21-086 Legal Considerations None. Financial Implications Conformity to the policies of the new Regional Official Plan, once adopted, will occur through the Town’s Official Plan review. Costs associated with the Official Plan review have already been approved as part of the Town’s Capital Budget, and consultants retained in accordance with the Town’s procurement process. 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 can be 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, this report with be posted to the Town’s website. Link to Strategic Plan Proposed changes to Regional Official Plan that incorporate the policies of the Provincial Growth Plan supports the Town’s Strategic Plan vision for an inclusive, growing, family-oriented community that integrates green spaces, environmental sustainability, economic vitality and communal gathering spaces. It also supports the Strategic Plan’s guiding principles to broaden outreach and leverage partnerships, while validating its goals and objectives to improve mobility and connectivity; invest in sustainable infrastructure; strengthen the fabric of the community; encouraging the stewardship and sustainability of Aurora’s natural resources; and enabling a diverse, creative and resilient economy. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council to provide direction. Page 43 of 152 July 6, 2021 6 of 6 Report No. PDS21-086 Conclusions In the context of an ambitious 2051 growth forecast for York Region, averaging 1.6% average annual growth per year, Aurora’s allotted share is more moderate at 1.1% annually. Aurora’s average annual forecast employment growth is slightly higher, and closer to the regional average, at 1.2% average annual (compared to 1.4% Regionally). The result is reasonable 2051 growth forecasts for Aurora of 84,900 persons and 41,000 jobs. Furthermore, SGL confirmed with staff that the residential units required can be achieved with the Town’s existing height permissions of the Promenade Secondary Plan. Based on the findings of the peer review, staff are recommending that Council endorse the 2051 growth forecasts and density targets for Aurora. Attachments Attachment 1 – SGL’s Opinion Letter dated June 11, 2021 Previous Reports PDS21-053, Region of York MCR Update – Aurora 2051 Growth Forecasts, May 18, 2021 PDS21-013, Aurora Servicing Allocation Update, February 16, 2021 PDS20-031, Regional MCR Update: Employment Land Conversions and Employment Land Mapping in Aurora, November 17, 2020 PDS19-069, Regional MCR Update: Aurora Employment Land Conversion Requests, December 3 2019 PDS19-042, Regional MCR Update: Intensification Areas & Employment Land Conversion Requests, May 21 2019 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on June 17, 2021 Approvals Approved by David Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE, Director, Planning & Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 44 of 152 1547 Bloor Street West Toronto, Ontario M6P 1A5 ( (416) 923-6630 * info@sglplanning.ca sglplanning.ca Planning & Design Inc. Date: June 11, 2021 Our file: OP.AU VIA EMAIL Edward Terry MCIP, RPP Official Plan Review Project Manager Town of Aurora 100 John West Way, Box 1000 Aurora, Ontario, L4G 6J1 Re: Review of York Region’s MCR Population Allocation for the Town of Aurora SGL Planning & Design Inc. has been asked by the Town of Aurora to conduct a review of York Region’s population allocation for the Town of Aurora in relation to work that SGL is currently conducting for the Town’s Official Plan Update Study. For reference, Town Staff Report PDS21-053 provides an overview of York Region’s growth forecasts and density targets to 2051 for the Town. To summarize, the Region is proposing the following forecasts and targets: • 2051 Population Forecast: 84,900 persons • 2051 Employment Forecast: 41,000 jobs • Intensification Rate: 45% • Designated Greenfield Area Density Target: 55 residents and jobs per hectare The Staff Report recommends that Council endorse the Region’s growth forecast for Aurora. Review of Population Forecast The current population of Aurora (2021) is estimated to be approximately 64,300 persons. Based on the Region’s growth forecast for Aurora of 84,900 persons by 2051, Aurora is forecast to grow by approximately 20,600 people over the next 30 years, according to the Region, which equates to approximately 9,060 residential units and approximately 700 people per year on average. According to the Region, since 2001, Aurora has grown by approximately 1,100 people per year on average. Page 45 of 152 page 2 1547 Bloor Street West • Toronto, Ontario M6P 1A5 ( (416) 923-6630 / * info@sglplanning.ca SGL recently completed the Growth Management Discussion Paper as part of the Official Plan Review, which looked at where residential growth could occur in the Town over the next 30 years within specific geographic areas, including residential designated lands in the Designated Greenfield Area, as well as within the Town’s Built-up Area. York Region is proposing an intensification target of 45% for Aurora, meaning that 45% of all new units within the Town will be located within the Built-up Area. According to the Region, this equates to approximately 4,080 residential units between 2021-2051, translating to an estimated 1,550 ground-related units (i.e. townhouses, semi-detached units, and infill single detached units) and 2,530 apartments, equating to a population of approximately 9,800 people. It is important to note that the overall intensification target for the Region is 50%, as the larger municipalities have higher intensification targets and the smaller municipalities have lower intensification targets. According to the Region, Aurora has been achieving an intensification rate of 29% in recent years. This lower intensification rate is due to growth being largely within the Town’s Designated Greenfield Area (DGA) (i.e., Aurora South, Aurora 2A and Aurora 2C). Between 2021-2051, it is anticipated that the remaining designated DGA lands within Aurora will be built out, and as such, a shift will occur over time in the balance of intensification and DGA growth to a higher proportion of intensification. The Growth Management Discussion Paper explored the remaining population capacity in the DGA and what could reasonably be expected through growth in the Built-up Area. Designated Greenfield Area (DGA): Based on the total estimated unit growth of 9,060 residential units between 2021-2051, according to the Region, and assuming that 45% of these units (4,080) will be located within the Built-up Area to achieve the minimum 45% intensification target, it can be deduced that approximately 4,980 new residential units between 2021-2051 will be located within the Town’s Designated Greenfield Area (DGA). The Growth Management Discussion Paper identified approximately 1,000 approved but unbuilt and proposed residential units within the DGA, with the potential to accommodate an additional approximately 2,700 units on vacant designated lands at a density of 55 persons and jobs per hectare, for a total of approximately 3,700 additional units in the DGA. In addition, there is potential for approximately 1,000 dwelling units near the area of Wellington Street East and Mavrinac Boulevard, on lands that are currently designated for the employment purposes that the Region is proposing to convert to residential lands. With this additional potential for residential development in the DGA, our analysis within the Growth Management Discussion Paper aligns with the Region’s analysis of residential growth potential in the DGA. Page 46 of 152 page 3 1547 Bloor Street West • Toronto, Ontario M6P 1A5 ( (416) 923-6630 / * info@sglplanning.ca Built-up Area: The Growth Management Discussion Paper included an analysis of what growth could reasonably be accommodated in the Built-up Area over the next 30 years. The Discussion Paper looked at growth potential in key geographic areas within the Built-up Area, including the Neighbourhoods, Aurora GO Station Major Transit Station Area (MTSA), the Aurora Promenade and along Local Corridors. For each of these, we conducted a high-level analysis of how much growth could potentially be accommodated, using conservative assumptions. The following is a brief summary of our analysis: • Neighbourhoods: Within the Town’s stable residential neighbourhoods, It is anticipated that any new development will generally reinforce the existing built form of detached dwellings in the form of replacement dwellings (where an existing, older home is renovated or rebuilt and replaced with another dwelling). However, there may also be opportunities for slightly more intense built forms such as townhouses limited to three storeys along peripheries of neighbourhoods where it can be demonstrated that combability with adjacent neighbourhoods will be maintained. As such, the Discussion Paper assumed a conservative estimate of 1,000 people (approximately 500 units). • Aurora GO Station MTSA: The area surrounding the GO Station is anticipated to see some of the densest growth in Town, with the ultimate (build-out) density within the MTSA required to be a minimum of 150 residents and jobs per hectare. The minimum density, however, does not need to be achieved within the planning horizon (2051), but municipalities must set the policy and regulatory framework to direct and encourage growth to the MTSA’s to achieve that density target. The Discussion Paper estimated that approximately 2,000 additional residents (approximately 950 units) would be located within the MTSA between 2021-2051 based on current development applications and development potential on other lands within the MTSA. Our analysis also identified the potential for an additional 150 residents (approximately 75 units) on sites where the Region has recommended approval of Employment Conversions. • The Aurora Promenade: The Aurora Promenade is an area in Town that is already planned to accommodate some of the highest densities, particularly along the Yonge Street corridor. Redevelopment has been occurring over recent years, particularly closer to the Downtown near Wellington Street. The Discussion Paper estimated that approximately 5,500 – 8,000 additional residents (approximately 2,500 – 3,900 units) could reasonably be located within the Promenade between 2021-2051. This range is based on existing development proposals as well as an estimate of potential development on some of the larger sites along the Promenade, assuming only that 50% of those large sites would redevelop in accordance with the Town’s existing applicable density policies. Page 47 of 152 page 4 1547 Bloor Street West • Toronto, Ontario M6P 1A5 ( (416) 923-6630 / * info@sglplanning.ca • Local Corridors: In addition to the Aurora Promenade and the MTSA, the Discussion Paper also identified opportunities for residential intensification along the Town’s Local Corridors, including Bayview, Leslie and Wellington (outside of the MTSA and Aurora Promenade). The Discussion Paper identified the potential for an additional 1,000 – 1,500 residents (approximately 350 to 725 units) along Local Corridors, assuming that a portion of some of the larger sites could be redeveloped to accommodate growth. Overall, based on the above analysis, we had estimated that the Town could accommodate a total estimated 4,375 to 6,150 units within the Built-up Area, which compares to 4,080 units forecast by the Region. As such, it is our opinion that the Town of Aurora could reasonably accommodate the minimum intensification target of 45% as proposed by the Region. Summary and Conclusions Comparatively, the Region of York has allocated fewer persons and jobs to York Region’s northern municipalities (including Aurora) than the southern municipalities. This lower allocation is in part due to demand for more housing closer to the southern parts of the GTA, as well as costs associated with the extension of services and servicing capacity from existing urban areas. Urban expansions have been recommended in East Gwillimbury, King Township, Markham, Vaughan and Whitchurch-Stouffville, to a total of 2,300 hectares of community lands, where a significant amount of new population growth is planned to be accommodated. In Aurora, there is no opportunity to bring additional lands into the urban boundary to increase the amount of DGA lands to offset development in the Built-up Area. Given that the DGA is anticipated to be built out in the planning horizon to 2051, growth must shift to the Built-up Area. The Region’s population targets are less than past growth trends in Aurora and reflect an analysis of market demand. In our opinion, based on our review of the York Region’s report and background information, the proposed intensification target within the Town’s Built-up Area and the required residential units is appropriate. In addition, it is our opinion that the density target and unit potential on the DGA lands as outlined by the Region reflects the actual potential on those lands. As such, it is our opinion the proposed 2051 population forecast of 84,900 residents for Aurora is appropriate. Sincerely, __________________________ ____________________________ Paul Lowes, MES, RPP, MCIP David Riley, BES, RPP, MCIP Principal Principal Page 48 of 152 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS 2 1 -057 Subject: Traffic Calming Measures within the One-way Section of Centre Street – Supplementary Report Prepared by: Michael Bat, Traffic/Transportation Analyst Department: Planning and Development Services Date: July 6, 2021 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS21-057 be received; and, 2. That Council approve the installation of speed cushions for the portion of Centre Street between Spruce Street and Wells Street. Executive Summary This report is intended to provide Council with an update of the conditionally approved traffic calming measure (continuous speed humps) for Centre Street between Spruce Street and Wells Street after consultation with Central York Fire Services. The report can be summarized as follows: The existing road conditions of Centre Street is generally consistent with the Town’s design standards for a local road; and, Central York Fire Services has reviewed the proposal and is not in supportive of the implementation of a continuous speed hump. Background On September 10, 2019, Council passed a motion for staff to report back on mitigation strategies for the traffic issues on Centre Street. Staff presented a follow up report to Council in February 2020 advising that the about 41% of area residents who responded to a February 2019 Town survey selected Option Page 49 of 152 July 6, 2021 2 of 5 Report No. PDS21-057 One “Do Nothing”, with over 80% of Centre Street residents preferring to maintain the existing one-way section on Centre Street. In addition, York Regional Police installed an armadillo tracker for a period of 18 days from February to March of 2019 and on average 13 vehicles per day were recorded traveling the wrong way. No major concerns were expressed by the York Regional Police regarding this violation at that time. Council approved a motion in February 2020 directing staff to investigate the following three options to support existing traffic calming measures on Centre Street: 1) On-street parking delineation; 2) Installation of ‘Object Marker’ sign; and, 3) Installation of ‘Not a Through Street’ sign. In a report to Council in June 2020, Council approved the installation of the ‘Not a Through Street’ sign. The sign was installed in August 2020. On April 27, 2021, Council passed the following motion: 1. That Report No. PDS21-045 be received; and 2. That the installation of speed humps for traffic calming purposes on Centre Street between Spruce Street and Wells Street be conditionally approved pending approval from Central York Fire Services; and 3. That the installation of speed humps be funded by Capital Project No. 34519 – Traffic Calming. The subject area is illustrated on Figure 1. Analysis The existing road conditions of Centre Street is generally consistent with the Town’s design standards for a local road Centre Street: is a two-lane local road with single lane per travel direction. It has an urban cross-section with curbs and sidewalks on the north side of the road. The existing pavement is measured 7.5 metres wide with a 14.0 metres ROW width. In accordance to the Town Zoning By-law No. 4574-04.T the posted speed limit is 40 km/h. Page 50 of 152 July 6, 2021 3 of 5 Report No. PDS21-057 Central York Fire Services has reviewed the proposal and is not in supportive of the implementation of a continuous speed hump Staff has contacted Central York Fire Services (CYFS) to comment on the proposed continuous speed hump installation on Centre Street between Spruce Street and Wells Street. The following comments were provided on May 13, 2021: The current Town of Aurora practice is to install “speed cushions” with the cut outs for the fire apparatus to be able to straddle them and not cause increased response times; and, The proposal of “speed hump” and increasing the vertical profile is not supportive from Central York Fire Services due to the detrimental affect on response times and likely cause apparatus damage as well as potentially cause injuries to those in the truck. Given the negative impact on the emergency vehicle response times, the installation of speed humps is not recommended on Centre Street between Spruce Street and Wells Street. Advisory Committee Review N/A Legal Considerations Central York Fire Services highlighted that the implementation of speed humps may cause a reduction in response times for emergency vehicles. Implementation of traffic calming measures that impact emergency response times could put vulnerable people at risk and may lead to claims against the Town where a delayed arrival caused further injury or death to a person. Traffic Calming measures should consider the needs of all stakeholders including other traffic calming measures which do not have an impact on emergency response times. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications associated with this report. Page 51 of 152 July 6, 2021 4 of 5 Report No. PDS21-057 However, should Council decide to proceed with the installation of traffic calming measures on Centre Street between Spruce Street and Wells Street, the project may be funded through Capital Project No. 34519 – Traffic Calming as per the 2019 DC Study. 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 can be 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. 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(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council provide direction. Conclusions As directed by Council at its meeting on April 27, 2021, this report is intended to provide supplementary information for the traffic calming measure implementation conditionally approved for Centre Street between Spruce Street and Wells Street. Staff consulted with Central York Fire Services and the proposed continuous speed hump for Centre Street is not supported due to the negative impact on emergency response times. Given the negative impact on emergency vehicle response times, the installation of a continuous speed hump is not recommended for the portion of Centre Street between Spruce Street and Wells Street. Page 52 of 152 July 6, 2021 5 of 5 Report No. PDS21-057 Attachments Figure 1: Subject Location Map Previous Reports General Committee Report No. PDS20-004, Centre Street Existing Traffic Calming Measures Review, February 4, 2020. General Committee Report No. PDS20-034, Assessment on Various Options to Support Existing Traffic Calming Measures on Centre Street, June 2, 2020. General Committee Report No. PDS21-045, Traffic Calming Measures within the One- way Section of Centre Street, April 6, 2021. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on June 17, 2021 Approvals Approved by David Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE, Director, Planning and Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 53 of 152 Centre Street Spruce StreetCatherine Avenue Wells Street NorthWells StreetVictoria StreetWELLINGTON STREET EASTYONGE STREETIrwin Avenue Fleury StreetCatherine AvenueSpruce StreetCentre Street Map created by the Town of Aurora Corporate Services Department, March 8th, 2021.Base data provided by York Region and Aurora - GIS. This is not a legal survey. ¯0 25 50 Metres SUBJECT LOCATION MAPTRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES WITHIN THE ONE-WAY SECTION OF CENTRE STREET – SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION PDS21-057 Figure #1 Subject Road - Centre Street fromSpruce Street to Wells Street North Subject Road Page 54 of 152 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS 2 1 -0 81 Subject: Henderson Drive Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Assessment Prepared by: Michael Bat, Traffic/Transportation Analyst Department: Planning and Development Services Date: July 6, 2021 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS21-081 be received; 2. That the existing pedestrian crossover installed on the west approach of Henderson Drive at the intersection of Tamarac Trail/Lee Gate be retrofitted to further enhance safety for pedestrian and vulnerable road users; and, 3. That the associated cost to retrofit the existing pedestrian crossover identified in Recommendation No. 2, be funded from Capital Project No. 34518 – Pedestrian Crossings as per the 2014 DC Study. Executive Summary The Town has received a number of complaints from area residents regarding the unsafe operation of the existing pedestrian crossover at the intersection of Tamarac Trail/Lee Gate. In response, this report reviews the existing Level 2 Type C pedestrian crossover installed on the west approach of Henderson Drive at the intersection of Tamarac Trail/Lee Gate. The report can be summarized as follows: The existing road conditions of Henderson Drive are generally consistent with the Town’s design standards for an arterial road. Staff are recommending that the existing pedestrian crossover be retrofitted to further enhance safety for pedestrian and vulnerable road users. Page 55 of 152 July 6, 2021 2 of 7 Report No. PDS21-081 A signal warrant analysis was completed for the intersection of Henderson Drive and Tamarac Trail/Lee Gate and it does not meet the minimum requirement for signalization. Background As approved by Council on July 24, 2018, a Level 2 Type C pedestrian crossover was installed on the west approach of Henderson Drive at the intersection of Tamarac Trail/Lee Gate on October 29, 2020. Since then, the Town has received several complaints from adjacent residents regarding the unsafe operation of the selected pedestrian crossing treatment. In response to the community’s concerns, Town staff completed a site assessment and evaluated the appropriateness of the existing pedestrian crossing treatment. The subject area is illustrated on Figure 1. Analysis The existing road conditions of Henderson Drive are generally consistent with the Town’s design standards for an arterial road Henderson Drive: is a two-lane arterial road with single lane per travel direction. It has an urban cross-section with curbs and sidewalks on both sides of the road. The existing pavement is measured 11.0 metres wide with a 26.0 metres ROW width. In accordance with the Town Parking and Traffic By-law No. 4574-04.T the posted speed limit is 50 km/h. Staff are recommending that the existing pedestrian crossover be retrofitted to further enhance safety for pedestrian and vulnerable road users As part of the ongoing objective to continuously improving pedestrian safety, Council at its meeting on July 24, 2018 approved the installation of a Level 2 Type C pedestrian crossover on the west approach of Henderson Drive at the intersection of Tamarac Trail/Lee Gate. The pedestrian crossover was installed on October 29, 2020 and since then the Town has received multiple feedback and concerns from the community. In response to the Page 56 of 152 July 6, 2021 3 of 7 Report No. PDS21-081 complaints, Town staff has completed site assessment and the following improvements are recommended (illustrated in Figure 2): Retrofit the existing pedestrian crossover by adding an over-head mounted pedestrian crossover sign; Install the actuated double-sided rectangle rapid flashing beacon for the over- head signs; and, Trim the existing vegetation to ensure signage visibility. The cost to implement theses improvements is estimated at $35,000. A signal warrant analysis was completed for the intersection of Henderson Drive and Tamarac Trail/Lee Gate and it does not meet the minimum requirement for signalization In accordance to Ontario Traffic Manual (OTM) Book 12: Traffic Signals, Intersection Pedestrian Signals (IPS) is defined as traffic control signal systems that are dedicated primarily to providing traffic gaps for pedestrian right-of-ways installed as pedestrian signals at intersections. The installation of IPS at an intersection should be based on fulfilment of Justification 6 (both pedestrian volume and delay). Details are provided in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1 – Pedestrian Volume Justification 6A 8 Hour Vehicular Volume (V8) Net 8 Hour Pedestrian Volume <200 200-275 276-475 476-1000 >1000 <1440 Not Justified Not Justified Not Justified Not Justified Not Justified 1440-2600 Not Justified Not Justified Not Justified See Equation 1 Justified 2601-7000 Not Justified (Subject Location) Not Justified See Equation 2 Justified Justified >7000 Not Justified See Equation 3 Justified Justified Justified Equation 1: Justified if net 8-hour pedestrian volume > (1650 – (0.45V8)) Equation 2: Justified if net 8-hour pedestrian volume > (0.00001 V82 – 0.146 v8 +800) Equation 3: Justified if net 8-hour pedestrian volume > (340 – (0.0094 v8)) Page 57 of 152 July 6, 2021 4 of 7 Report No. PDS21-081 Table 2 – Pedestrian Delay Justification 6B Net Total 8 Hour Volume of Total Pedestrians Net Total 8 Hour Volume of Delayed Pedestrians <200 200-275 276-475 <200 Not Justified (Subject Location) Not Justified Not Justified 200-300 Not Justified Not Justified Not Justified >300 Not Justified Not Justified See Equation 2 As shown in Table 1 and Table 2, the subject location does not meet the minimum requirements under OTM Book 12 Justification 6A (pedestrian volume) and Justification 6B (pedestrian delay). Therefore, the installation of an Intersection Pedestrian Signals at the intersection of Henderson Drive and Tamarac Trail/Lee Gate is not warranted. Should Council decide to proceed with the implementation of an IPS, the design and construction cost is estimated at $205,000. As described in OTM Book 12, unjustified traffic control signals can lead to excessive delay, increased use of fuel, increased air pollution, increased noise, motorist frustration, greater disobedience of the signals and the increased use of alternative routes in attempting to avoid these types of signals. Advisory Committee Review N/A Legal Considerations Failure to act on complaints that impact public safety could increase liability in the event of a claim. The Town should take steps to mitigate risks to public safety where financially feasible. Financial Implications Based upon its site assessment, staff are proposing two options for the further enhancement of safety at this pedestrian crossing. Of the two options, staff recommend that Council approve Option 1. The estimated financial implications of both Options are summarized in Table 3. Page 58 of 152 July 6, 2021 5 of 7 Report No. PDS21-081 Table 3 Henderson Drive Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Cost Estimation Options Estimated Cost Design Construction (including 25% contingencies Total Option 1 (Recommended) - $35,000 $35,000 Option 2 (Not Recommended) $25,000 $180,000 $205,000 Should Council approve Option 1, it is recommended that the additional proposed work be funded within the already approved capital project authority of $144,100 for Project No 34518 – Pedestrian Crossings as per 2014 DC Study. Staff have confirmed that sufficient spending authority is available within this project to accommodate this incremental expense. Should Council select Option 2, as this work has not been planned for under the Town’s current 2019 DC Study, insufficient DC’s would be available at this time to fund this proposed work; consequently, an interim funding source would need to be considered. Also of note, this option would result in an on-going incremental operating cost to the Town of $800 per year. Communications Considerations Communication to area residents will be provided by way of a targeted letter to explain the effected changes, as well as through social media. The Town will also provide additional general education on how to use pedestrian crossovers to increase awareness. 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(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council approve the installation of an Intersection Pedestrian Signals on the west approach of Henderson Drive at the intersection of Tamarac Trail/Lee Gate. Page 59 of 152 July 6, 2021 6 of 7 Report No. PDS21-081 2. That the funding request for the design and construction of an Intersection Pedestrian Signals on the west approach of Henderson Drive at the intersection of Tamarac Trail/Lee Gate, in the amount of $205,000, to be included in the 2022 capital budget. Conclusions Based on the information presented herein, staff are recommending that the following improvements for the existing pedestrian crossing treatment be installed on the west approach of Henderson Drive at the intersection of Tamarac Trail/Lee Gate: Retrofit the existing pedestrian crossover by adding the over-head mounted pedestrian crossover sign; Install the actuated double-sided rectangle rapid flashing beacon for the over- head signs; and, Trim the existing vegetation to ensure visibility of the signs. In addition, staff completed a signal warrant analysis following the methodologies listed in OTM Book 12 which did not meet the minimum installation threshold. Therefore, installation of Intersection Pedestrian Signals is not recommended. Attachments Figure 1: Subject Location Map Figure 2: Proposed Improvements Illustration Previous Reports General Committee Report No. PDS18-080, Pedestrian Crossover Review – Various Locations, July 17, 2108. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on June 17, 2021 Page 60 of 152 July 6, 2021 7 of 7 Report No. PDS21-081 Approvals Approved by David Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE, Director, Planning and Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 61 of 152 Albery Cr e s c e nt Albery Crescent Henderson Drive Lee GateRichardson DriveTamarac TrailMilgate Place Map created by the Town of Aurora Corporate Services Department June 16th, 2021. Base data provided by York Region and Aurora - GIS.Air Photos taken Spring 2020, © First Base Solutions Inc., 2020 Orthophotography. Map not drawn to scale. ¯ 0 10 20 MetresHwy 404Bathurst StYonge StYonge StLeslie StLeslie StHwy 404St John's Sdrd WellingtonSt EWellingtonSt W Henderson Vandorf Sdrd SUBJECTAREA )Dr BayviewBloomington Rd AveBayviewAveTOWN OF NEWMARKET CITY OF RICHMOND HILL TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLETOWNSHIP OF KINGPDS21-081 Figure #1 SUBJECT LOCATION PEDESTRIAN CROSSOVER ASSESSMENT INTERSECTION OF HENDERSON DRIVE, LEE GATE AND TAMARAC TRAIL Subject Location Page 62 of 152 Albery Cr e s c e nt Map created by the Town of Aurora Corporate Services Department June 16th, 2021. Base data provided by York Region and Aurora - GIS.Air Photos taken Spring 2020, © First Base Solutions Inc., 2020 Orthophotography. Map not drawn to scale. PDS21-081 Figure #2 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ILLUSTRATION PEDESTRIAN CROSSOVER ASSESSMENT INTERSECTION OF HENDERSON DRIVE, LEE GATE AND TAMARAC TRAIL Page 63 of 152 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. FIN2 1 -0 33 Subject: 2021 Interim Forecast Update – As of April 30, 2021 Prepared by: Tracy Evans, Financial Management Advisor Department: Finance Date: July 6, 2021 Recommendation 1. That Report No. FIN21-033 be received for information. Executive Summary This report presents to Council the information to effectively monitor the financial performance of the Town’s operating and capital budget as of April 30, 2021. COVID-19 continues to have a material financial impact on the Town’s operations. An overall tax levy surplus of $334,000 is anticipated by fiscal year end based upon the Town’s present COVID-19 assumptions A surplus of $173,700 is forecasted by fiscal year end for the Town’s water, wastewater and stormwater operations COVID-19 continues to have a significant financial impact on the Town’s operations The Town has and will continue to search for opportunities to mitigate its COVID- 19 financial impacts The timing of the province’s implementation of its framework for reopening our province will have an impact on the forecasted financial results for the Town’s facilities and community programs The forecasted capital spend of $60.3M for 2021 is $32.8M lower than the Town’s budgeted capital spend of $93.1M for the year Page 64 of 152 July 6, 2021 2 of 14 Report No. FIN21-033 These forecasted variances will continue to be subject to material change as the COVID-19 pandemic progresses over the remainder of the fiscal year. Future Council decisions may also have an impact. Any operational budget short-falls or surpluses remaining at year end will require an offsetting adjustment from/to the rate stabilization reserve as defined in the Town’s 2021 surplus control bylaw. Background To assist Council in fulfilling its roles and responsibilities with respect to Town finances and accountability, Finance has worked with all departments to review the corporation’s operations financial performance to date. Each Director has reviewed their department’s operating and capital budget versus its results to date and remaining outstanding plans in consideration of the Town’s present COVID-19 assumptions and forecasted an expected year end position. Finance staff have reviewed each submission and performed the necessary consolidation. The magnitude of the impact of COVID-19 on the Town of Aurora continue to be unclear, but the continued physical distancing measures and economic shut-down impacts have already been significant. On April 8th, the province instituted a province wide stay at home order that ended on June 2nd which saw the prohibition of most indoor activities and many outdoor activities. On May 20, 2021 the office of the premier issued a new 3 step roadmap to safely reopen the province. The first step opened on June 1lth when it is expected that 60 percent of Ontario adults have received one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. The province will remain at each step for at least a minimum of 21 days. Analysis An overall tax levy surplus of $334,000 is anticipated by fiscal year end based upon the Town’s present COVID-19 assumptions The Town’s tax levy funded operations are forecasted to finish the year with an anticipated surplus of $334,000, based upon its present COVID-19 assumptions. A detailed break-down of the Town’s current forecasted variance by division can be found in Attachment #1. This report has been simplified to show only the net budget amount, the forecasted ending position for each item, and the variance to budget. Overall, the Town’s approved budget for 2021 includes $73,577,240 in approved Page 65 of 152 July 6, 2021 3 of 14 Report No. FIN21-033 expenditures, funded by $21,429,440 in revenues consisting of user fees, charges, and investment income, and a total tax levy of $52,147,800. Table 1 presents a departmental summary of the forecasted variances. Table 1 2021 Operating Forecast to Year end $000s Budget Forecast Variance Surplus/(Deficit) Council 580.8 553.1 27.7 CAO 1,426.1 1,391.7 34.4 Corporate Services 9,467.2 9,653.0 (185.8) Finance 2,247.4 2,184.0 63.4 Fire 11,961.6 11,961.6 - Operational Services 11,028.9 10,966.1 62.8 Community Services 11,014.6 10,636.9 377.7 Planning & Development Services 826.7 722.6 104.1 Corporate Revenue & Expenses 3,594.4 3,740.7 (146.3) Tax Levy 52,147.8 52,143.8 (4.0) Total Operating 334.0 The Town has budgeted a “salary gapping savings” amount of $150,000 as part of its total operating budget. This provision is to recognize that while salaries in all departments are based on 100% usage, with no staff departures, in reality there is some staff turnover and periodic vacancies that arise naturally during the year. A share of this amount has been formally allocated to each department Director’s Office on a pro-rata basis. Also included in the 2021 budget was a further “salary gapping” amount of $127,000 to account for the July 1st start date of new positions. The COVID-19 pandemic’s specific impacts upon the Town’s forecasted variances are presented in more detail later in this report. A summary of the Town’s key forecasted variances by department follows. Page 66 of 152 July 6, 2021 4 of 14 Report No. FIN21-033 CAO and Council Council and the Office of the CAO are forecasting to conclude the fiscal year with a surplus of $62,100 on a net operating budget of $2,006,900. This surplus mostly relates to COVID-19 driven sponsorship grant, advertising, events and promotional materials savings as well as a favourable variance for conferences. Corporate Services Corporate Services is forecasting a deficit of $185,800 on a total net operating budget of $9,467,200. This deficit is mostly attributable to the Town’s COVID-19 driven higher software license and maintenance requirements which are expected to continue into the future. A forecasted shortfall in Bylaw service revenues partially offset by insurance premium savings is also contributing to the noted overall deficit. Finance Finance is forecasting a surplus of $63,400 on a net operating budget of $2,247,400. This surplus is the result of salary savings due to temporary vacancies. Fire Services As of March 31, 2021 CYFS is forecasting a year end operating surplus of $684,600 on a total approved operating budget of $28,864,300. This surplus is mostly attributable to salary & benefit and vehicle repairs & maintenance savings. Aurora’s share of CYFS’ total approved budget is $11,955,600. As per normal practice, should a CYFS surplus or deficit arise by fiscal year end, it will be offset by an equal contribution to/from the shared CYFS Reserve, thus leaving the Town’s forecasted Fire Services requirements as budgeted. Operational Services Operational Services, excluding water, wastewater & storm water services, is forecasting an overall surplus of $62,800 on a net operating budget of $11,028,900. Key contributors to this surplus are COVID-19 driven salary savings relating to Park Operations and Crossing Guard services. These favourable variances are partially offset by higher than anticipated salary costs in winter maintenance, which are partially offset by salary savings in Roads Network Operations. Parks also has reduced ball diamond/soccer field revenues as a result of COVID-19. As per the Town’s winter control reserve policy, if the overall Town operating budget is unable to accommodate the full reported winter management deficit, any required Page 67 of 152 July 6, 2021 5 of 14 Report No. FIN21-033 funding shortfall can be drawn from this reserve. As the Town’s present overall, forecasted position indicates that it will have sufficient funds available to offset the forecasted winter management shortfall of $356.7, a draw from the winter control reserve is not necessary at this time. However, should it become necessary the Town will access this reserve as required. Operational Services’ salaries and wages are split between tax levy and rate (water, wastewater & storm water services) funded programs. In any given year, the operational service staff support of tax levy or rate funded programs can vary, as such costs may shift between these programs based on the operational needs. Community Services Community Services is forecasting a $377,700 surplus on a net operating budget of $11,014,600. The key contributors to this surplus all relate to salary and contract savings, as well as savings in facility operation utility/heating costs. This surplus is further impacted by an increase in lease revenue that was not budgeted for. These surpluses are being offset by reduced community program, sponsorship/advertising, ice rental and special events revenues due to COVID-19. Aurora Town Square unspent savings are anticipated relating to the implementation of the Town’s financial strategy to phase in its projected incremental operating costs prior to it becoming fully operational in 2022. Any surplus funds relating to Aurora Town Square will be contributed to the Town’s tax rate stabilization reserve as per the 2020 surplus control bylaw. These funds can then be drawn upon as required in future years to manage any one-time implementation/start-up operating costs. Planning & Development Services Planning & Development Services is forecasting a surplus of $104,100 on a net operating budget of $826,700. This surplus is mostly attributable to higher than anticipated revenues and vacant position savings being partially attributable to COVID- 19. These salary savings have been partially offset by a reduction in other planned development revenues resulting from the pandemic. Not included in this variance is a projected Building Services’ surplus of $300,600 as it is a self-funded function as per provincial legislation. If it is unable to recognize sufficient revenues to offset its expenses in a given fiscal year, it will draw from its dedicated reserve in order to balance its operating budget. If it recognizes excess revenues, these revenues are used to replenish its reserve. The forecasted surplus results from vacant position salary savings, as well as a slight increase in revenue. Page 68 of 152 July 6, 2021 6 of 14 Report No. FIN21-033 Corporate Revenues & Expenses Corporate Revenues and Expenses is forecasting a deficit of $146,300 on a net operating budget of $3,594,400. The primary driver of this deficit relates to Town wide salary and benefit adjustments including a budgeted “salary gapping savings” amount of $150,000 as part of its total operating budget. This provision is to recognize that while salaries in all departments are based on 100% usage, with no staff departures, there is some staff turnover and periodic vacancies that arise naturally during the year. A share of this amount has now been formally allocated to each department Director’s Office on a pro-rata basis in recognition that these anticipated savings will take place within each department’s budget. Aurora Town Square unspent debt carrying costs are anticipated relating to the phase in of this project’s annual debt carrying costs over the next two years. The only debt related costs anticipated in 2021 will be interest costs arising from this project’s construction line of credit. As a result, the full allocated amount for the Town Square’s debt carrying costs will not be required in 2021; these unspent funds will be contributed to the Town’s Facility R&R reserve as planned. The Town has now received its planned additional $877,100 in Safe Restart grant funding in support of its COVID-19 pressures and it has been included as part of the Town’s corporate revenues. As per the recent report on this subject to Council, these funds are to be allocated to various applicable projects and pressures, with the remaining amount to be contributed to the tax rate stabilization reserve to be allocated in the 2022 budget for management of its COVID-19 pressures. Aurora Public Library Contribution The Aurora Public Library anticipates that it may conclude the 2021 fiscal year in a surplus position as a result of COVID-19. Total Tax Levy The Town is forecasting to collect a total of $52,143,700 in tax levy revenue in 2021 which is $4,000 less than budget. This amount relates to the BIA special tax levy being lower than budgeted and it is offset by an expenditure in Planning and Development Services. The Tax Levy Funded Net Operating Forecast Update can be found in Attachment 1. Page 69 of 152 July 6, 2021 7 of 14 Report No. FIN21-033 A surplus of $173,700 is forecasted by fiscal year end for the Town’s water, wastewater and stormwater operations The user rate funded operations service line budgets include primarily fixed operational costs, funded by the net proceeds from the sale of water, wastewater and storm water services. These fixed operational costs include staff and service maintenance costs related to maintaining the infrastructure systems, water quality testing, and the billing and customer service functions. These costs are not directly impacted by the volume of water flowing through the system. Table 2 presents a summary of the Town’s rate funded operations forecast to year end. More detail can be found in attachment #2. Table 2 2021 Rate Forecast to Year end $000s Forecast Surplus/(Deficit) Water Services 56.0 Wastewater Services 153.7 Storm Water Services (36.0) Total User Rate Surplus (Deficit) 173.7 The fixed costs relating to water and wastewater are funded from the net revenues earned by these services which are variable in nature due to the fact that they are based upon metered water consumption volumes. Storm water revenues are not subject to the same volatility as the water and wastewater service lines as it is billed as a flat fee. The Town’s user rate funded operations are currently projected to close the year with a surplus of $173,700. This variance is attributable to a deficit of $36,000 arising in storm water services partially offset by a COVID-19 driven $209,700 surplus from water / wastewater services. The noted Stormwater services deficit arises from a revenue shortfall due a calculation error. This forecasted variance will continue to be subject to change over the remainder of the fiscal year. The COVID-19 variances will be presented in more detail later in this report. Should any user rate funded service surpluses remain at fiscal year end, they will require Page 70 of 152 July 6, 2021 8 of 14 Report No. FIN21-033 an offsetting funding transfer to their respective reserve funds as set out in the town’s 2021 surplus control bylaw. COVID-19 continues to have a significant financial impact on the Town’s operations As one could expect, COVID-19 continues to have significant impact on the Town’s forecasted financial results. Table 3 offers a summary of the Town’s current forecasted COVID-19 financial impacts based upon present assumptions. Table 3 COVID-19 Revenue Losses & Mitigation Savings $000s Tax Levy Funded Operations: Lost senior, aquatics, camp & fitness membership revenues 1,218.3 Lost ice rental revenues 703.3 Lost sponsorship & advertising revenues 212.0 Lost bylaw enforcement revenues 48.8 Lost baseball diamond/soccer field rental revenues 117.0 Lost special event revenues 82.8 Revenue Losses 2,382.2 Community program part time and contract savings $1,226.1 Town facility closure net operating savings 866.6 Salary savings resulting from delayed recruitment of new staff 250.0 Business Support salary and other cost savings 156.5 Park operations part time, maintenance & operating supply savings 224.1 Special event contract savings 213.9 Crossing guard services salary & contract savings 56.0 Expenditure Savings 2,993.2 Net Tax Funded Savings 611.0 User Rate Funded Operations: Lost water/wastewater revenues due to rate decrease 48.9 Revenue Losses 48.9 Other mitigating administration and operational savings 219.1 Expenditure Savings 219.1 Net User Rate Funded Savings 170.2 Page 71 of 152 July 6, 2021 9 of 14 Report No. FIN21-033 The Town has and will continue to search for opportunities to mitigate its COVID-19 financial impacts To date the Town has already initiated several measures in an effort to mitigate its COVID-19 financial impacts such as the temporary release of over 280 part time and contract staff, the pulling of all ice pads and drained recreation facility pools where possible. To date, the Town’s COVID-19 savings are forecasted to exceed its pressures by a total of $781,200, with $611,000 of this amount arising from its tax funded operations and the remainder of $170,200 coming from user rate funded services. The timing of the province’s implementation of its framework for reopening our province will have a particular impact on the forecasted financial results for the Town’s facilities and community programs COVID-19 has had the most profound impact on the Town’s facility and community program functions. The financial performance of these functions will hinge on the timing of the province’s relaxation of the present pandemic measures. To date the Town has found sufficient mitigating savings to offset the significant COVID-19 driven deficits that it has been subject to. There is little opportunity for the mitigation of COVID-19 financial impacts within the Town’s user rate funded operations budget other than through direct wholesale cost and administrative cost savings as the majority of its costs are driven by clean drinking water legislation or a requirement to maintain the Town’s underground infrastructure at the Town’s desired levels of service. However, with this in mind, staff have examined its operations for possible financial mitigation opportunities. The following mitigation measures have been identified and are reflected in the above presented forecast: reduction of administrative expenses and a refocusing of available resources on operations and maintenance. There is the potential for further savings in contracts and supplies as a portion of the approved budget is earmarked for the response of emergency repairs required due to breaks and leaks. However, it would not be prudent to re-direct these funds elsewhere as they would need to be available should emergency repairs be required. The forecasted capital spend of $60.3M for 2021 is $32.8M lower than the Town’s budgeted capital spend of $93.1M for the year The forecast for capita focuses on the planned spending for 2021. As many projects span multiple years, any amount that is forecasted to not be spent this year can be rolled forward, if needed, to future years through the capital budget process. Page 72 of 152 July 6, 2021 10 of 14 Report No. FIN21-033 The Town’s projected capital spending for the year as of April 30th, 2021 is $32.8M lower than the budgeted capital spending of $93.1M for all previously approved capital projects. A detailed breakdown of the Town’s current forecasted capital spend by individual capital project can be found in Attachment 3. This report identifies the variance between budgeted capital spend vs. the forecasted spend for the Town’s active capital projects in 2021 and provides a brief explanation for postponing the planned spend to future years. This list does not include projects which are proposed to be closed in 2021 and a list of those projects will be provided to council during the fall 2022 budget report. Table 4 Planned 2021 Capital Spending $000s Budget Forecast Variance Growth & New 61,350.7 44,317.1 17,033.6 Repair & Replacement 29,867.4 14,454.0 15,413.4 Studies & Other 1,873.2 1,508.8 364.4 Total 93,091.3 60,279.9 32,811.4 The following is a summary of the Town’s key forecasted variances by department for active capital projects. CAO The office of the CAO is forecasting to defer $77,000 of previously approved capital spending from 2021 to 2022. This variance is a result of a delay in the implementation of capital project #12032 Resident Survey – 2019 and #12037 Town of Aurora Website. Fire Services Fire Services is projecting lower than expected spending for the Pumper for Fire Hall 4-5 of $231,000, a shared project between Town of Aurora and Newmarket. The Town of Newmarket has confirmed that only $180,000 is required from the Town of Aurora for the completion of the project. Page 73 of 152 July 6, 2021 11 of 14 Report No. FIN21-033 Operational Services Overall, Operational Services is projecting planned capital spending of $12.5M as of April 30th, 2021, which is $3.7M lower than the budgeted planned spending for the year of $16.3M. The planned capital spending of $3.7M is deferred to 2022 due to construction delays in various operational services capital projects as highlighted in Attachment 3. This includes $800,000 towards the Non-Programmed Park in 2C and $500,000 for the Board Walk Resurface on McKenzie Marsh. The AFLC – Skate Park Reconstruction is awaiting Council approval for an additional budget of $520,000 before construction can begin. Therefore, the planned forecasted spending of the previously approved budget is postponed to 2022 as project construction cannot be initiated until the full budget is approved for the project. Community Services Community Services is projecting planned capital spending of $22.5M as of April 30th, 2021, which is $15.5M lower than the original planned spending of $37.9M as shown in Attachment 3. The projected spending for the Aurora Town Square project in 2021 is reduced by $12.2M based on the recent yearly projections submitted by Chandos. The other major projects whose spending is deferred to 2022 or beyond are The New Recreation Facility – Aquatic Center, Workstation Refresh Carpet Paint and Security Audit & Implementation as the projects are expected to be completed in 2022. Planning & Development Services Planning and Development Services is projecting planned capital spending of $9.5M, which is $12.6M lower than the original planned spending of $22M in 2021. The primary reason for the variance is a delay in the completion of the damaged storm pipe on Henderson Drive capital project for $3.9M and Reconstruction of Popular Crescent for $2.1M. The completion of both projects was delayed as the Town is waiting for York Region to complete their portion of construction. The planned capital spending of approximately $750,000 is deferred to 2022 for various projects due to delay in completion because of the pandemic as shown in Attachment 3. An additional $2.1M which is being deferred to 2022 is related to the projects which are close to completion, however, the Town is not sure if the contingency budget will be fully utilized. Finance Finance is forecasting planned capital spending of $1.9M, which is $667K lower than the original planned spending of $2.6M in 2021. The key contributor to this variance is the Water Meter Replacement Program and the Advanced Metering Infrastructure Page 74 of 152 July 6, 2021 12 of 14 Report No. FIN21-033 project, which are delayed due to COVID-19. Additionally, the development of the Financial System project is taking longer than originally anticipated. Corporate Services Overall, Corporate Services are projecting planned capital spending of $2.5M, which is $70,000 lower than the original planned spending. The key contributor to this variance is a delay in the IT strategic plan implementation due to COVID-19. Advisory Committee Review Not applicable. Legal Considerations None. Financial Implications The final annual surplus or deficit in the general operating budget and water / wastewater budgets will be allocated by Council to / from various reserves at fiscal year end as per the Town’s surplus control bylaw. In an effort to minimize the impact to the Town’s reserves resulting from COVID -19, if required it may access its available Safe Restart funding in order to offset any net COVID short-falls experienced from either its tax rate or user rate funded operations. The capital projects will be funded throughout the year to match the progress spending in the project. The next budget process will consider the current year’s forecast along with an update to future requirements for approved projects as part of the 10-year capital plan. There are no other immediate financial implications arising from this report. Council fulfills its role, in part, by receiving and reviewing this financial status report on the operations of the municipality relative to the approved budget. 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: Page 75 of 152 July 6, 2021 13 of 14 Report No. FIN21-033 Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate and Empower. Examples of each can be 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, this report will be posted to the Town’s website. Link to Strategic Plan Outlining and understanding the Town’s present financial status at strategic intervals throughout the year contributes to achieving the Strategic Plan guiding principle of “Leadership in Corporate Management” and improves transparency and accountability to the community. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Not applicable. Conclusions Having completed four months of operations, the Town is presently forecasting to end the year with a favourable budget variance from its tax levy funded operations of $334,000. This forecast will continue to be heavily influenced by the Town’s COVID-19 pandemic assumptions which will continue to be subject to change over the remainder of the fiscal year as the Town strives to keep pace with this volatile situation. This forecast will also continue to be subject to other more normal influencing variables such as the ultimate level of town services that will be consumed by fiscal year end. Any remaining surplus or deficit at fiscal year end will be offset through a contribution or draw from the Town’s tax rate stabilization reserve as per the town’s 2021 surplus control bylaw. The Town is presently forecasting to spend $32.8M less than what was budgeted for all active capital projects in 2021. These capital cash outflows will be deferred and spent in 2022. The Water rate funded budget is presently forecasting a favourable budget variance of $173,700. Page 76 of 152 July 6, 2021 14 of 14 Report No. FIN21-033 Attachments Attachment #1 – Tax Levy Funded Net Operating Forecast Update Attachment #2 – Water Rate Funded Net Operating Forecast Update Attachment #3 – Capital Project Forecast Update Previous Reports N/A Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on June 17, 2021 Approvals Approved by Rachel Wainwright-van Kessel, Director, Finance Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 77 of 152 Attachment 1 Shown in $,000's Council Council Administration 568.8$ 541.1$ 27.7 4.9 % Council Programs/Grants 4.0 4.0 - - Advisory Committees 8.0 8.0 - - Council Office Total 580.8$ 553.1$ 27.7$ 4.8 % Chief Administrative Office CAO Administration 578.4$ 571.4$ 7.0 1.2 % Communications 847.7 820.3 27.4 3.2 % Chief Administrative Office Total 1,426.1$ 1,391.7$ 34.4$ 2.4 % Council and C.A.O. Combined 2,006.9$ 1,944.8$ 62.1$ 3.1 % Corporate Services Corporate Services Administration 455.7$ 480.2$ (24.5) (5.4 %) Legal Services 1,736.5 1,688.6 47.9 2.8 % Legislative & Administrative Services 778.2 766.8 11.4 1.5 % Human Resources 1,089.7 1,027.7 62.0 5.7 % Elections 92.5 92.5 - - Information Technology 3,128.5 3,374.1 (245.6) (7.9 %) Telecommunications 164.6 157.0 7.6 4.6 % By-law Services 726.4 757.0 (30.6) (4.2 %) Animal Control 306.1 311.6 (5.5) (1.8 %) Customer Service 946.3 946.8 (0.5) (0.1 %) Emergency Preparedness 42.7 50.7 (8.0) (18.7 %) Corporate Services Total 9,467.2$ 9,653.0$ (185.8)$ (2.0 %) Finance Director's Office 384.0$ 393.5$ (9.5)$ (2.5 %) Financial Reporting & Revenue 618.5 577.9 40.6 6.6 % Financial Management Services 699.5 684.1 15.4 2.2 % Procurement Services 545.4 528.5 16.9 3.1 % Financial Services Total 2,247.4$ 2,184.0$ 63.4$ 2.8 % Favourable / (Unfavourable) Town of Aurora Tax Levy Funded Net Operating Forecast Update as at April 30, 2021 NET ADJUSTED BUDGET FORECAST Variance Page 78 of 152 Attachment 1 Shown in $,000's Favourable / (Unfavourable) Town of Aurora Tax Levy Funded Net Operating Forecast Update as at April 30, 2021 NET ADJUSTED BUDGET FORECAST Variance Fire Services Central York Fire 11,961.6 11,961.6 - - Total Fire Services 11,961.6 11,961.6 - - Operational Services Operational Services Administration 302.0$ 336.9$ (34.9)$ (11.6 %) Fleet & Equipment 900.1 893.9 6.2 0.7 % Winter Management 1,730.1 2,086.8 (356.7) (20.6 %) Road Network Operations 2,707.3 2,355.3 352.0 13.0 % Parks/Open Spaces 2,819.7 2,715.4 104.3 3.7 % Waste Collection & Recycling 2,569.7 2,577.8 (8.1) (0.3 %) Operational Services Total 11,028.9$ 10,966.1$ 62.8$ 0.6 % Community Services Community Services Administration 1,309.9$ 1,330.9$ (21.0)$ (1.6 %) Business Support (146.7) 504.8 (651.5) (444.1 %) Recreational Programming/Community Dev.2,687.6 2,504.0 183.6 6.8 % Facilities 7,163.8 6,297.2 866.6 12.1 % Community Services Total 11,014.6$ 10,636.9$ 377.7$ 3.4 % Planning & Development Services Development Planning (420.6)$ (491.6)$ 71.0$ 16.9 % Long Range & Strategic Planning 733.4 705.4 28.0 3.8 % Engineering Service Operations 513.9 508.8 5.1 1.0 % Net Building Department Operations 629.4$ (300.6)$ 930.0 147.8 % Contribution from Building Reserve (629.4) 300.6 (930.0) (147.8 %) Total Building Services - - - - Planning & Development Services Total 826.7$ 722.6$ 104.1$ 12.6 % Corporate Revenues & Expenses Supplementary Taxes & Payments-in-Lieu (955.0)$ (955.0)$ -$ - Contribution of Excess SUPPs to reserves 325.0 325.0 - - Page 79 of 152 Attachment 1 Shown in $,000's Favourable / (Unfavourable) Town of Aurora Tax Levy Funded Net Operating Forecast Update as at April 30, 2021 NET ADJUSTED BUDGET FORECAST Variance Penalties on Unpaid Property Taxes (1,395.3) (1,395.3) - - Overhead Cost Re-allocation to Water & Buildi (2,179.9) (2,179.9) - - All Other Revenue (6,335.4) (7,218.3) 882.9 13.9 % Cash to Capital 5,960.8 5,960.8 - - All Other Expense 8,174.2 9,203.4 (1,029.2) (12.6 %) 3,594.4$ 3,740.7$ (146.3)$ (4.1 %) TOTAL TAX LEVY FUNDED OPERATIONS 52,147.8$ 51,809.7$ 338.1$ 0.6 % TOTAL TAX LEVY (52,147.8)$ (52,143.7)$ (4.1)$ (0.0 %) OPERATING (SURPLUS) DEFICIT - (334.0)$ 334.0$ 0.5 % Page 80 of 152 Attachment 2 Shown in $,000's Water Services Retail Revenues (11,110.8) (10,999.8) (111.1)$ (1.0 %) Penalties (175.0) (175.0) - - Other (100.1) (155.5) 55.4 55.4 % Total Revenues (11,385.9) (11,330.3) (55.6)$ (0.5 %) Wholesale water purchase 6,978.3 7,022.2 (43.9) (0.6 %) Operations and maintenance 878.1 813.6 64.5 7.3 % Administration and billing 1,044.7 953.6 91.1 8.7 % Corporate overhead allocation 784.9 784.9 (0.0) (0.0 %) Infrastructure sustainability reserve contributions 1,700.0 1,700.0 - - Total Expenditures 11,385.9 11,274.3 111.6$ 1.0 % Net Operating Water Services - (56.0) 56.0$ n/a Waste Water Services Retail Revenues (14,205.5) (14,267.8) 62.2$ 0.4 % Other (114.3) (86.5) (27.8) (24.4 %) Total Revenues (14,319.8) (14,354.2) 34.4$ 0.2 % Sewer discharge fees 10,638.3 10,582.4 55.9$ 0.5 % Operations and maintenance 1,257.1 1,193.6 63.5$ 5.1 % Administration and billing 261.4 261.4 -$ - Corporate overhead allocation 613.1 613.1 - - Infrastructure sustainability reserve contributions 1,550.0 1,550.0 - - Total Expenditures 14,319.8 14,200.5 119.4$ 0.8 % Net Operating Waste Water Services - (153.7) 153.7$ n/a Total Water and Waste Water Services - (209.7) 209.7$ n/a Storm Water Services Retail Revenues (2,518.8) (2,446.6) (72.2)$ (2.9 %) Other - - - n/a Total Revenues (2,518.8) (2,446.6) (72.2)$ (2.9 %) Operations and maintenance 1,015.0 978.7 36.2 3.6 % Administration and billing 105.4 105.4 - - Town of Aurora User Rate Net Operating Report as at April 30, 2021 NET ADJUSTED BUDGET FORECAST Variance Favourable / (Unfavourable) Page 81 of 152 Corporate overhead allocation 38.2 38.2 - - Infrastructure sustainability reserve contributions 1,360.2 1,360.2 - - Total Expenditures 2,518.8 2,482.5 36.2$ 1.4 % Net Operating Storm Water Services (0.0) 36.0 (36.0)$ (3,599,300.0 %) OPERATING (SURPLUS) DEFICIT (0.0) (173.7)$ 173.7$ 0.7 % Page 82 of 152 Chief Administrative Office 12026 Organization Structural Review 36,569$ 36,569$ -$ - 12032 Resident Survey - 2019 30,000 - 30,000 100.0 % Delayed to 2022 due to COVID-19. 12037 Town of Aurora Website 44,144 5,000 39,144 88.7 % Most enhancements to the Town website will be made in 2022. 12042 Municipal Levels of Service Review 100,000 100,000 - - Chief Administrative Office Total 210,713$ 141,569$ 69,144$ 32.8 % - - - Fire Services Property 21006 Fire HQ, Hall and Training Construction 10,764,954$ 10,764,954$ -$ - Total Property 10,764,954 10,764,954 - - Equipment 21106 Pumper for Fire Hall 4-5 410,000 179,064 230,936 56.3 % Expecting to be under budget as per Anita Gibson at Newmarket. 21107 Fire Hall 4-5 Turn Out Gear 75,600 75,600 - - 21109 Fire - Smaller Vehicles 26,900 26,900 - - 21114 Fire Master Plan - 2019 51,250 51,250 - - Total Equipment 563,750 332,814 230,936 41.0 % Fire Services Total 11,328,704$ 11,097,768$ 230,936$ 2.0 % - - - Operational Services Yard/Office 72285 JOC - Additional Work 745,019$ 303,104$ 441,915$ 59.3 % $300K commitment in 2021. Total Yard/Office 745,019 303,104 441,915 59.3 % Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2021 2021 Forecast Town of Aurora Budgeted Capital Spend Forecast Update as at April 30, 2021 Variance ($) Variance (%) 1 of 11 Page 83 of 152 Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2021 2021 Forecast Variance ($) Variance (%) Operations 31151 Streetlights 14,827 14,827 - - 34004 Safety Railing - Yonge St north of Orchard Heights 375,578 375,578 - - 34005 Traffic Protection Guide Rail - Kennedy St W. 100,000 100,000 - - 34007 Webster Drive Curb/Road Drainage Repair 65,000 65,000 - - 34008 Roads Operations Infrastructure Inspection, Repair and Maintenance Program180,576 180,576 - - 34616 Side Walk /Engineered Walkway Reconstruction 171,916 171,916 - - 42073 Stormwater Pond Maintenance Program - 2019 105,450 105,450 - - 43039 Backflow Prevention Program 4,458 4,458 - - 43057 Installation of Backflow Prevention Meters in Town Facilities 125,000 125,000 - - Total Operations 1,142,805 1,142,805 - - Parks 72281 AFLC - Skate Park Reconstruction 554,465 100,000 454,465 82.0 % Waiting for council to approve the conditional budget of $520,000. Therefore, only $100,000 will be used for design potentially. 73085 Arboretum Development 134,931 62,083 72,848 54.0 % Securing contractors proving difficult during COVID - to complete some of the planned works. 73107 Former Kwik Kopy Trail Connection 341,072 341,072 - - 73119 Street /Park Tree Planting Contract 118,292 50,000 68,292 57.7 % This capital is for development planting in 2C and will be completed in 2022 Fall. Cost of contract less than anticipated. 73134 Parks/ Trails Signage Strategy Study & Implementation 242,341 74,579 167,762 69.2 % Only Design phase will be completed in 2021. Construction to begin in 2022. 73147 Trail Construction as per Trail Master Plan 50,206 50,206 - - 73160 Emerald Ash Borer Management Program 435,290 255,471 179,819 41.3 % Contract pricing/decrease in tree removals/replanting. 73169 David Tomlinson Nature Reserve (Phase 1-5) 2,460,549 2,460,549 - - 73175 Walkway Lights - Graham Parkette 60,000 60,000 - - 73177 Regionally Approved Pedestrian Underpasses 242,394 242,394 - - 73192 Board Walk Resurface McKenzie Marsh 600,000 100,000 500,000 83.3 % 73214 Playground Replacement- Tamarac Park 32,271 32,271 - - 73215 Playground Replacement, Walkway Repaving- L Willson Park 180,000 180,000 - - 73232 Trail/Playground Re-design - Jack Wood Park 102,400 102,400 - - 73240 Walkway/Basketball Repaving- Tamarac Park 30,000 30,000 - - 2 of 11 Page 84 of 152 Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2021 2021 Forecast Variance ($) Variance (%) 73242 Reconstruction of Fleury Park Washroom Facility 425,048 425,048 - - 73247 Trail Construction (Pandolfo/Glen Ridge development area) 100,000 100,000 - - 73260 Environmental Monitoring of 2C Lands 98,058 24,884 73,174 74.6 % 10 year project until 2024. 73287 Hallmark Lands - Baseball Diamonds 3,647,755 3,002,352 645,403 17.7 % Late Fall construction and some invoices to be received in 2022. 73290 Tree Inventory 4,648 - 4,648 100.0 % 73292 Picnic Tables/Benches/Garbage Receptacles 1,605- - 1,605- (100.0 %) 73296 Trails - Joseph Hartman Trail Connection (DG Group) 299,877 299,877 - - 73299 Non - Programmed Park in 2C 1,488,357 688,357 800,000 53.8 % 73315 Sheppards Bush Parking Lot Resurface 250,000 250,000 - - 73323 Mattamy Phase 4/5 Trail 100,000 100,000 - - 73327 DeGraaf Cres Trail 75,000 75,000 - - 81016 Aurora Promenade Streetscape Design & Implementation Plan Capital Works471,832 171,832 300,000 63.6 % Further spending delayed until Engineering study is sent to and reviewed by Council. Total Parks 12,543,181 9,278,375 3,264,806 26.0 % Fleet Management 24023 Cameras for Parking Enforcement 60,000 60,000 - - 31176 Handheld Radios for Operations 1,014 - 1,014 100.0 % 34106 Patrol Truck 50,000 50,000 - - 34187 Roads -4 ton Truck 140,000 130,274 9,726 6.9 % 34188 Trackless Sidewalk Snow Blower Attachment 150,000 150,000 - - 34220 Roads - GMC/3500 (#17-20) 85,000 85,000 - - 34222 Roads - Chev/1500 (#3-20) 51,200 51,200 - - 34223 Roads - Chev/1500 (#5-20) 47,459 47,459 - - 34228 Facilities - Ice Resurfacer (#595-19) 90,000 99,369 9,369- (10.4 %) 34232 Fleet - Four Post Hoist (New) 25,000 25,000 - - 34409 By-Law - Smart Car Replacement (#400-19) 50,000 50,000 - - 34422 Additional Vehicle - By Law Services 60,000 60,000 - - 34425 Water - 3/4 Ton Cargo Van (#7-20) 47,575 47,575 - - 34430 Roads - 3/4 Ton Pick Up (#22-20) 47,459 47,459 - - 3 of 11 Page 85 of 152 Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2021 2021 Forecast Variance ($) Variance (%) 34432 Roads - 2 Ton (#24-21) 90,000 90,000 - - 34441 Roads - Street Sweeper (#40-21) 305,000 305,000 - - 34458 Roads - Solar Powered Sign (#140, 141, 142, 143-20) 100,000 105,734 5,734- (5.7 %) 34465 Facilities - 3/4 Ton Pick Up Truck (#503-20) 40,000 40,000 - - 34713 Street Light Pole Identification 25,124 25,124 - - 71112 Parks - Ford 350 Dump Truck (#226-19) 60,000 60,000 - - 71118 Parks - Tractor - JD/5225 (#241-20) 87,000 66,276 20,724 23.8 % 71121 Parks - 1 Ton Water Truck (#207-20) 69,200 69,200 - - 71122 Parks - 3/4 Tonne (#212-20) 51,200 51,200 - - 71134 Parks - 3/4 Ton Pick Up (#201-20) 50,907 50,907 - - 71136 Parks - 1 Ton Pick Up Crew Cab (#203-21) 62,800 62,800 - - 71144 Parks - Grass Crew Trailer (#214-20) 20,000 7,558 12,442 62.2 % 71154 Parks - Utility Trailer (#231-21) 15,000 15,000 - - 71158 Parks - Grass Crew Trailer (#244-21) 15,000 15,000 - - 71171 Box Blade Attachment (#276-20) 12,000 5,690 6,310 52.6 % Total Fleet Management 1,907,938 1,872,825 35,113 1.8 % Economic Development 12041 89 Mosley St 12,582 - 12,582 100.0 % Total Economic Development 12,582 - 12,582 100.0 % Operational Services Total 16,351,525$ 12,597,109$ 3,754,416$ 23.0 % - - - Community Services Fleet Management 71060 Facilities - 1/2 ton Truck (New) 45,000$ 45,000$ -$ - Total Fleet Management 45,000 45,000 - - Leisure Services 73324 Pet Cemetery Restoration 29,415 29,415 - - 73329 Building Condition Assessment & Energy Audits 175,000 175,000 - - 4 of 11 Page 86 of 152 Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2021 2021 Forecast Variance ($) Variance (%) Total Leisure Services 204,415 204,415 - - Programs 74007 AFLC Fitness Equipment Replacement 18,689 - 18,689 100.0 % 74015 Cultural Services Master Plan 44,134 20,000 24,134 54.7 % Remaining $24K to be spent in 2022. 74017 Aurora Sports Hall of Fame 1,926 1,926 - - 74019 Active Net Scan System 20,000 20,000 - - Total Programs 84,749 41,926 42,823 50.5 % Facilities 72113 New Recreation Facility-Aquatic center 1,310,794 50,000 1,260,794 96.2 % Consulting Services in 2021 only. Waiting for Council's decision. 72146 215 Industrial Parkway Exterior Works (Roof and Front Door System)138,334 20,000 118,334 85.5 % 72172 ACC- Sport Flooring 73,900 7,500 66,400 89.9 % 72201 Work Station Refresh Carpet Paint (2021 Budget Conditionally Approved)514,744 156,585 358,159 69.6 % 72204 Security Audit & Implementation 460,313 15,000 445,313 96.7 % 72206 Back Up Generation for Evacuation Centre 50,000 - 50,000 100.0 % 72213 ASC - LED Lighting 45,828 50,000 4,172- (9.1 %) 72226 AFLC HVAC Arena 120,016 20,000 100,016 83.3 % 72263 SARC - Cooling Evaporator Tower 90,000 25,000 65,000 72.2 % 72283 SARC - Replacement of Pylon Sign Message Board 47,761 4,518 43,243 90.5 % 72297 ACC - Ice Resurfacer Room Heater 16,379 20,500 4,121- (25.2 %) 72302 AFLC - Replacement of Arena Seating 51,200 51,200 - - 72305 SARC - West Roof Area - Window Sealant 10,200 10,200 - - 72323 SARC - Repair of concrete walkways 20,000 20,000 - - 72324 AFLC - Replace hollow metal doors & exterior exit doors 55,000 5,500 49,500 90.0 % 72328 AFLC - Replace built up roofing above Arena dressing rooms 90,100 9,010 81,090 90.0 % 72340 ACC - Reseal exterior windows 13,500 13,500 - - 72342 ACC - Replace thermoplastic membrane roofing - 16,500 16,500- 72346 ACC - Reseal concrete floors 28,700 - 28,700 100.0 % 72372 215 Industrial - Refurbishment of Generator 50,000 30,000 20,000 40.0 % 5 of 11 Page 87 of 152 Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2021 2021 Forecast Variance ($) Variance (%) 72381 CYFS 4-3 - Replace windows 28,800 2,880 25,920 90.0 % 72393 ASC - Replacement of roofing sections - 3,216 3,216- 72404 Town Hall - Replacement of exterior entrance doors 16,500 16,500 - - 72405 Town Hall - Replacement of roof sections and Skylight Sealant 243,716 25,000 218,716 89.7 % 72410 SARC - 7500sqft. Gymnasium MPR Admin. - 100,000 100,000- 72419 Town Hall - Repair of concrete/stone walkways 33,500 33,500 - - 72441 AFLC - Pool Boiler Replacement 150,000 15,000 135,000 90.0 % 72443 AFLC - Pylon Sign 57,456 10,104 47,352 82.4 % 72445 CYFS - Firehall 4-3 Pylon Sign 30,000 30,000 - - 72448 Town Hall - Interior Conversion to LED 87,572 95,000 7,428- (8.5 %) 72449 SARC - Interior LED Retrofit 21,961 30,000 8,039- (36.6 %) 72450 SARC - Low-E Ceiling - Arenas - 12,000 12,000- 72452 Energy and Demand Management Plan Implementation 100,000 30,000 70,000 70.0 % 72453 Unplanned - Emergency Repairs Contingency 146,557 32,958 113,599 77.5 % 72454 Victoria Hall - Accessible Ramp - Accessibility Plan Implementation 20,000 20,000 - - 72457 Lane Ropes for SARC & AFLC and new diving board at SARC 75,000 75,000 - - 72459 Facilities Study 90,000 90,000 - - 74021 SARC - Comprehensive Sound/Audio/Public Address System Upgrade 45,200 45,200 - - 81019 Library Square 33,267,317 20,998,962 12,268,355 36.9 % Project ongoing Total Facilities 37,600,348$ 22,190,333$ 15,410,015$ 41.0 % Community Services Total 37,934,512$ 22,481,674$ 15,452,838$ 40.7 % - - - 6 of 11 Page 88 of 152 Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2021 2021 Forecast Variance ($) Variance (%) Planning & Development Services Environment/ Waste 42809 Municipal Energy Plan 49,905$ 49,905$ -$ - 42810 Climate Change Adaptation Plan 100,000 50,000 50,000 50.0 % Original project implementation did not take into consideration delays due to current work environment. Total Environment/ Waste 149,905 99,905 50,000 33.4 % Water 43040 Water Hydraulic Model for the Town 17,512 17,512 - - 43048 St John's Sdrd - Leslie to 2C 246,297 100,000 146,297 59.4 % Waiting on information from the Region regarding additional invoices or project is complete. Total Water 263,809 117,512 146,297 55.5 % Storm Sewer 42059 Storm Sewer Reserve Fund and Rates Study 102,308 51,000 51,308 50.2 % Project progress has been delayed due to pandemic. 42064 Storm Sewer Outlet Cleanup 991,342 685,000 306,342 30.9 % Project progress has been delayed due to pandemic. 42066 Damaged Storm Pipe off Henderson Dr 3,896,064 8,985 3,887,079 99.8 % Project progress has been delayed as staff are waiting on the Region to complete their portion before ours can start. 42067 Storm Outfall Erosion at Mill Street 59,661 - 59,661 100.0 % Project progress has been delayed due to pandemic. 42072 Vandorf Sideroad Culvert and Ditch Repair 49,229 - 49,229 100.0 % Project progress has been delayed due to pandemic. 42075 Performance Monitoring of LID Controls 83,950 76,050 7,900 9.4 % 42079 Devlin Place Stream Rehabilitation 119,457 80,690 38,767 32.5 % Design to be completed in 2022. 42080 Jones Court Stream Rehabilitation 150,000 75,000 75,000 50.0 % Design to be completed in 2022. 42083 Willow Farm Lane Stream Rehabilitation 140,630 140,630 - - Total Storm Sewer 5,592,641 1,117,355 4,475,286 80.0 % Roads 31054 Road Resurfacing - Ind Pkwy S (Engelhard to Yonge), Vandorf (Ind Pwy S - Bayview)363,749 92,142 271,607 74.7 % Project nearing completion - unsure if contingency will be utilized. 31056 Bloomington Sdrd - Bathurst to Yonge - Sidewalk/ Bikeway/ Illumination 274,693 - 274,693 100.0 % Waiting on information from the Region regarding additional invoices or project is complete. 31101 Reconstruction - Vandorf Sdrd (Sections) 52,692 52,692 - - 31108 Reconstruction - Algonquin Crescent and Haida Drive (Sections) 554,776 50,000 504,776 91.0 % Project is nearing completion - unsure if contingency will be utilized. 31109 Reconstruction - Kennedy St W & Temperance St 162,126 - 162,126 100.0 % 31113 M & O - Murray Dr, Kennedy St W, Pinehurst Crt. Wiles Crt. 2,286,652 2,286,652 - - 7 of 11 Page 89 of 152 Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2021 2021 Forecast Variance ($) Variance (%) 31114 Reconstruction - Ransom Court and Ransom Street 667,341 - 667,341 100.0 % YTD project costs are not correct - contract was combined with 31109 and costs were charged to that project. Costs lower than anticipated. 31116 Road Resurfacing - Dunning Ave, Edward St, Golf Links Dr, Ind Pkwy S, McClellan Way, Orchard Hts. Blvd, Tamarac Trail, Yonge St S712,324 25,000 687,324 96.5 % 31118 Reconstruction- Browning Crt, Johnson Rd, Holman Cres, Baldwin Rd 494,453 250,000 244,453 49.4 % Project is nearing completion - unsure if contingency will be utilized. 31119 Reconstruction- Adair Dr, Bailey Cres, Davidson Rd., Harriman Rd.276,800 196,315 80,485 29.1 % Project is nearing completion - unsure if contingency will be utilized. 31124 Henderson Dr. - Wildlife Passage 166,190 166,597 407- (0.2 %) 31126 M & O - Harmon Ave, Orchard Hts Blvd., Whispering Pine Trail 438,428 75,000 363,428 82.9 % Project is nearing completion - unsure if contingency will be utilized. 31134 Road Resurfacing - Yonge St (Golf Links - Orchard Hts) 486,465 100,000 386,465 79.4 % Project is nearing completion - unsure if contingency will be utilized. 31140 Road Resurfacing - Archerhill Crt, Jarvis Ave, Gilbert Dr, Westview Dr, McClellan Way249,569 - 249,569 100.0 % Project is nearing completion - unsure if contingency will be utilized. 31175 Parking Lot Rehabilitation Study 120,409 120,409 - - 31177 Recon - Vandorf Sdrd - Monkman Crt - Carisbrooke Cir. 947,783 1,488,500 540,717- (57.1 %) Additional funding was added to the project to address higher than anticipated contract. 31178 Reconstruction of Poplar Crescent 3,853,779 - 3,853,779 100.0 % Legal issues to be addressed and the Region needs to complete work on Yonge Street before this project can begin. 31199 Road Resurfacing - Gurnett St., Kennedy St. E., Victoria St., 250,000 125,000 125,000 50.0 % 31217 Construction of Median at Yonge Street & Ridge Road 150,000 150,000 - - 31243 Long Term Remediation for the Pavement Heave Over Vandorf Culvert West of Bayview230,000 30,000 200,000 87.0 % Project construction has been delayed due to pandemic. 34006 Pave Snow Storage Facility - Lambert Willson Park 850,000 900,000 50,000- (5.9 %) Project requires additional funding in order to proceed - awaiting approval from Council. Total Roads 13,588,229 6,108,307 7,479,922 55.0 % Traffic 34518 Pedestrian Crossings as per 2019 DC Study 67,209 67,209 - - 34519 Traffic Calming as per 2019 DC Study 97,808 97,808 - - 34527 Yonge/Wellington Intersection Improvements 448,533 448,533 - - 34533 Traffic Calming Measures in School Zones 17,049 17,049 - - 34562 Active Transportation Master Plan 150,000 100,000 50,000 33.3 % Project delayed due to pandemic. Total Traffic 780,599 730,599 50,000 6.4 % Sidewalks 34610 S/W, Multi-use Trail and Illumination - Leslie St - Wellington St. to Don Hillock Dr182,836 182,836 - - 34620 S/W, Multi-use Trail and Illumination - Leslie St. - Wellington St. E to State Farm361,580 361,580 - - 34626 Sidewalk Construction on Kitimat 45,971 - 45,971 100.0 % Project nearing completion - unsure if contingency will be utilized. 8 of 11 Page 90 of 152 Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2021 2021 Forecast Variance ($) Variance (%) 34635 S/W, Multi-use Trail and Illumination - St. John Sdrd - Bayview to Leslie 73,599 73,599 - - 34637 S/W - Leslie St - 600 m north of Wellington to N Town Limit 321,467 321,467 - - Total Sidewalks 985,453 939,482 45,971 4.7 % Streetlights 34707 Lighting Upgrade - Wellington, Berczy to West of Mary 398,922 - 398,922 100.0 % Original project forecast was incorrect. Total Streetlights 398,922 - 398,922 100.0 % Studies 81001 Official Plan Review/Conformity to Places to Grow 97,585 186,007 88,422- (90.6 %) Original project forecast did not take into consideration funding not spent in previous years. 81032 Town Wide Green Development Guidelines 25,000 25,000 - - Total Studies 122,585 211,007 88,422- (72.1 %) Community Planning 81027 Municipal Hertiage Register Review and Update 54,612 45,156 9,456 17.3 % 81031 Development Review Process and Fee Structure Review 5,148 5,149 1- (0.0 %) Total Community Planning 59,760 50,305 9,455 15.8 % 240 Building 24014 Digital Plan Review and E-Permit Applications 91,897 91,897 - - Total 240 Building 91,897 91,897 - - Planning & Development Total 22,033,800$ 9,466,369$ 12,567,431$ 57.0 % Finance 14012 Financial System 374,000$ 160,000$ 214,000$ 57.2 % Project scope development taking longer than originally anticipated. 14077 Community Benefit Charge Study and DC update 50,000 50,000 - - 14080 Procurement Modernization 65,000 65,000 - - 14087 Town of Aurora-Second Generation Asset Management Plan 70,000 70,000 - - 43038 Water Meter Replacement Program 571,295 318,296 252,999 44.3 % 43055 Advanced Metering Infrastructure (Conditionally Approved 2021) 1,500,000 1,300,000 200,000 13.3 % Finance Total 2,630,295$ 1,963,296$ 666,999$ 25.4 % 9 of 11 Page 91 of 152 Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2021 2021 Forecast Variance ($) Variance (%) Corporate Services Legal Services 13020 Appraisal of Town Buildings - 2019 8,974$ 6,000$ 2,974$ 33.1 % 13026 Risk Management 30,000 16,000 14,000 46.7 % Total Legal Services 38,974 22,000 16,974 43.6 % Human Resources 13015 Employee Engagement Survey - 2020 32,033 16,587 15,446 48.2 % 13018 Human Resources Information/Payroll System 225,483 272,631 47,148- (20.9 %) 13021 Diversity and Inclusion Strategy Consultant 30,000 30,000 - - 13027 Job Hazard Assessments 30,000 30,000 - - Total Human Resources 317,516 349,218 31,702- (10.0 %) Strategic Initiatives 12016 Customer Experience Plan (CEP) 111,591 111,591 - - 13011 Emergency Response Plan Update and Continuation of Operations Plan 46,809 46,809 - - Total Strategic Initiatives 158,400 158,400 - - Bylaw 24015 Radios for By-Law Officers 35,264 10,000 25,264 71.6 % 24016 Animal Control Start Up 23,070 23,070 - - Total Bylaw 58,334 33,070 25,264 43.3 % IT Department 14047 Computer & Related Infrastructure Renewal (2021 Budget Conditionally Approved)641,055 1,037,530 396,475- (61.8 %) Higher replacement needs in 2021 than originally anticipated due to pandemic. 14058 Project Management Software 25,000 25,000 - - 14068 Wireless Upgrades and Enhancements 74,011 74,011 - - 14070 Boardroom Audio/Video Equipment 100,000 51,010 48,990 49.0 % 14072 Cityview Portal Implementation 92,100 85,000 7,100 7.7 % 14073 Information Technology Strategic Plan Implementation - Studies and Other 208,310 101,847 106,463 51.1 % Project implementation slower than originally planned due to pandemic. 14075 Business Process Automation and Data Integration 250,500 125,000 125,500 50.1 % Project implementation slower than originally planned due to pandemic. 14076 Digital Education Program 25,000 12,500 12,500 50.0 % 10 of 11 Page 92 of 152 Variance Explanation Planned/Budgeted Capital Spend for 2021 2021 Forecast Variance ($) Variance (%) 14082 Data Centre Upgrades - Cybersecurity 60,000 60,000 - - 14085 Migration to Cityview Workspace 100,000 - 100,000 100.0 % 14089 Business Intelligence 50,000 25,000 25,000 50.0 % 24013 Building Division Website Portal 100,000 80,000 20,000 20.0 % 81025 GIS Scanner 10,000 - 10,000 100.0 % Total IT Department 1,735,976 1,676,898 59,078 3.4 % Access Aurora 12002 Accessibility Plan Implementation 232,276 232,276 - - 12025 Customer Relationship Management (CRM) 47,986 47,986 - - 13023 Access Aurora Telephony Project 12,328 12,328 - - Total Access Aurora 292,590 292,590 - - Corporate Services Total 2,601,790$ 2,532,176$ 69,614$ 2.7 % - - - Total Capital Projects 93,091,339$ 60,279,961$ 32,811,378$ 35.2 % 11 of 11 Page 93 of 152 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS21 -0 84 Subject: Heritage Permit Application 74 Centre Street File Number: HPA-2020-04 - Farani Related File Number: N/A Prepared by: Carlson Tsang, Heritage Planner Department: Planning and Development Services Date: July 6, 2021 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS21-084 be received; and, 2. That Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 be approved to permit the construction of a double duplex building at 74 Centre Street. Executive Summary This report provides General Committee with the necessary information to consider a Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 to permit the construction of a double duplex building at 74 Centre Street: The proposed double duplex represents a homestead style building, which is considered compatible with the character of the host neighborhood. Staff are of the opinion that the design of the proposed building is generally consistent with the guidelines of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan. Page 94 of 152 July 6, 2021 2 of 6 Report No. PDS21-084 Background Location/Land Use The subject property is located on the north side of Centre Street between Spruce Street and Walton Drive, within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District (see Attachment 1). There is an existing 1½ storey Arts and Crafts bungalow on the property constructed circa 1873. The building has been subject to extensive renovations over the years including a front addition and the replacement of siding. The original elements of the style may have been either removed or covered due to alterations. There is a significant tree located at the front of the existing building that is considered significant for the historical streetscape. Application History On November 4, 2014, the owner at the time submitted Heritage Permit Application NEHCD-HPA-14-04 & NE-HCD-HPA-14-05 to permit the demolition of the existing building and construction of a two-storey detached dwelling with a detached garage on the property. The building was evaluated by the Heritage Working Group and deemed not worthy of preservation due to extensive alterations. No concerns were identified with the design of the new building. The application was approved by Council on February 10, 2015. However, the owner never constructed the building and eventually sold the property. The existing building continued to remain as is. On November 21, 2016, the subsequent owner submitted Heritage Permit Application NE-HCD-HPA-16-12 with a completely different design for a one-storey detached dwelling on the property. The application was approved by Council on December 13, 2016. However, the Town never received a building permit application for the proposed development nor a demolition permit for the existing building. The property has since changed ownership. Proposed Application The current owner submitted Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 to permit the construction of two-storey double duplex building with four parking spaces in the rear yard (see Attachment 2). The proposed building can be described as a square shaped building designed with a gable roof. The front façade features a covered porch supported by four brick columns. The siding will consist of horizontal vinyl. All the windows will be traditional in style with 9/9 grid pattern. The proposed building has a Page 95 of 152 July 6, 2021 3 of 6 Report No. PDS21-084 total of four glazed entrances, two at the front, and one on each side elevation. There will be four parking spaces located in the rear yard accessed by a new driveway located along the east side yard. The large mature tree in the front yard will remain. Heritage Designation In 2006, Town Council passed By-Law 4809-06.D to designate 74 Centre Street under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. Council also passed By-Law 4809-06.D to adopt the “Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan” as the document to guide the preservation, redevelopment of properties and streetscapes located within the boundaries of the District. Analysis The proposed double duplex represents a homestead style building, which s considered compatible with the character of the host neighborhood The proposed double duplex is a homestead style building, characterized by a steep gable roof, simple details, square-headed openings, sash windows and clapboard finishes. This type of architectural style is common on Centre Street and is considered compatible with the character of the host neighborhood. Staff are of the opinion that the design of the proposed building is generally consistent with the guidelines of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan The proposed building initially had a building height of 10.5 m (34.44 ft) measured to the ridge of the roof. Staff requested the applicant reduce the height of the building in order to lessen the visual impact on the neighborhood. The applicant reduced the height of the building by 1.5 m (4.92 ft) to 9 m (29.52 ft). Staff are satisfied that the vertical massing of the building is consistent with the established character of the heritage district. The western portion of the front elevation was initially designed as a cantilevered second floor that extends approximately 1.54 m (5 ft) beyond the main floor. Staff worked with the applicant to eliminate the cantilevered section of the building and replace it with a verandah feature that is more in keeping with the architectural character of the other homes on the street. Page 96 of 152 July 6, 2021 4 of 6 Report No. PDS21-084 Section 4.2 of the District Plan states that new dwelling should be limited to a maximum depth of 16.8 m (55.11 ft) to be consistent with the other existing homes in t he neighborhood. The proposed building initially had a depth of 20.1 m (65.94 ft), which exceeds the maximum allowance by 3.3 m (10.82 ft). Staff were concerned that the proposed dwelling would significantly deviate from the existing development pattern of the neighborhood and compromise the rear yard amenity space of the property. In response, the applicant reduced the total depth of the building to 16.8 m (55.11 ft) to comply with the maximum allowance standard. Staff are satisfied that the revised proposal reflects a built form that is in keeping with the design objectives of the Heritage District Plan (see Attachment 2). Section 9.2.3 of the District Plan encourages windows to comprise between 15% and 20% of a wall to achieve an appropriate balance of glazing on a building. The front façade of the proposed building initially had fourteen windows, which would negatively impact the attractiveness of the streetscape. Staff suggested the applicant consider relocating some of the windows to the side elevations. The applicant took staff’s advice and relocated six windows from the front façade to the east and west side elevations. The front elevation has been improved with a more balanced fenestration design. Advisory Committee Review On April 5, 2021, the application was presented to the Heritage Advisory Committee for review and comment. The Heritage Advisory Committee echoed staff’s initial concerns with the proposed development respecting building depth and the number of windows on the front façade. The Heritage Advisory Committee also suggested to the applicant that the front verandah, which initially was only present on the west half of the building, be extended across the entire façade to achieve a more complete front elevation. The applicant was also asked to consider appropriate measures to mitigate the impact of the parking spaces on the adjacent property to the north. The Heritage Advisory Committee requested the applicant to work with staff to address all the concerns before bringing the heritage application to Council for a decision. As noted in the analysis section of the report, the applicant reduced the overall depth of the building and the number of windows on the front elevation. The verandah has been extended across the entire front façade. The parking area has been adjusted to accommodate a landscape buffer with pyramidal cedars along the rear property line to help lessen the impact on the adjacent property to the north. Page 97 of 152 July 6, 2021 5 of 6 Report No. PDS21-084 Legal Considerations Under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, any developments or alterations that would potentially impact the heritage attributes of a designated property requires Council’s consent. This legislative requirement is implemented in the Town of Aurora through the process of a Heritage Permit Application, which is subject to Council’s approval. Council must make a decision on a heritage permit application within 90 days after the notice of receipt is served on the applicant, otherwise Council shall be deemed to have consented to the application. The 90 day deadline for this permit application is July 16, 2021. Council may extend the review period of a heritage application without any time limit under the Ontario Heritage Act provided it is agreed upon by the owner. Financial Implications There are no direct financial implications from this report as all applicable fees and charges owing to date have been collected. Communications Considerations The Town will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this application. 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 can be 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. Link to Strategic Plan The conservation of heritage resources supports the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting an Exceptional Quality of Life for All through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in objective Celebrating and Promoting our Culture. Page 98 of 152 July 6, 2021 6 of 6 Report No. PDS21-084 Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council provide direction. Conclusions The applicant has undertaken significant revisions to the design of the building in accordance with the comments of staff and the feedback received from the Heritage Advisory Committee. Staff are recommending to Council that the heritage permit for 74 Centre Street be approved. Attachments Figure 1 – Location Map Figure 2 – Proposed Drawings Previous Reports Heritage Permit Application HPA-2020-04 – 74 Centre Street, April 5, 2021 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on June 17, 2021 Approvals Approved by David Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE, Director, Planning and Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 99 of 152 I --, ,- I-- - r1 L/ r--I I I - � ,n,,-+--_J -a: L �I --fl.) I j J Catherine A\renueII I j j j I -� ' fl.) I --I I -�e I --fl.) 7 -� -..J 1_ l j d: J l I I j I I I --,Catherine Avenue I I I I I I - t---r-----1 � �,}::, � I I / Cedar Crescent I I l{ - I j --,___ _ _..... : /-\]it.[ ._1 __ ....l-__.___. ................ _.__..,__ _ ___._..__ _ __. j 1._ __ ___.__--'-_..__..L..-...J-...... _ __,__ .. �_;�;_�t_�;S--_J--......L-......L_..L.---L-L.__J I ,--T------.-----i ,,---"""'T"--r--y,----..--r-----....----. f -I fl.) -� .._ ___ ...__ __ ...._J __ __,_ __ _.____. _ _.___.__�_....._--1_.Jj Wellington Street East I I I ----I J LOCATION PLAN PDS21-084 7 4 CENTRE STREET FIGURE 1 I I -,---�---.--r-�--r------, GI I e -fl.) � [1tt\tt:l SUBJECT LANDS 0 Centre Street I ' - 25 50 75 100 Metres Map created by the Town of Aurora Planmng Departmant, January 13, 2015 . Base Data Provided by York Region . Page 100 of 152 Page 101 of 152 Page 102 of 152 Page 103 of 152 Page 104 of 152 Page 105 of 152 Page 106 of 152 Page 107 of 152 Page 108 of 152 Page 109 of 152 Page 110 of 152 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS21 -0 87 Subject: Heritage Permit Application Bruno 20 Spruce Street Lot 118 PLAN 246 File Number: HPA-2021-04 Prepared by: Carlson Tsang, Planner Department: Planning and Development Services Date: July 6, 2021 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS21-087 be received; and, 2. That Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-04 be approved to permit the construction of a single storey garage addition on the south side of the existing dwelling at 20 Spruce Street. Executive Summary This report provides the General Committee with the necessary information to consider Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-04. The permit is to allow the construction of a single storey 227 sq.ft. garage addition on the south side of the existing dwelling at 20 Spruce Street. Staff are satisfied that the proposed addition is in keeping with the design guidelines of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage District Plan and have no objection to the approval of the application. Background 20 Spruce Street is approximately 808.25 m2 (8700 ft2) in size and is located on the west side of Spruce Street, north of Wellington Street East and east of Yonge Street, within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. The property contains a Page 111 of 152 July 6, 2021 2 of 5 Report No. PDS21-087 two-storey buff brick house constructed circa 1854. The dwelling reflects Vernacular architectural style characterized by multiple steep gable roofs and asymmetrical façade. The front entrance is recessed from the main wall and covered by a porch with a shed roof. The front elevation features a shallow bay window on the ground floor and a circular transom on the second floor. Most of the windows are 4/4 or 12/12 paned windows with arched lintels. There is a single-storey side addition on south side of the building which constructed as early as the 1980’s. The rear yard contains a metal shed and an in-ground swimming pool. Parking is currently provided on the driveway on the south side of the building. Mature vegetation exists on the property including a large mature tree in the front yard. Heritage Designation In 2006, Town Council passed By-Law 4809-06.D to designate 20 Spruce Street under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. Town Council also passed By-Law 4809-06.D to adopt the “Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan” as the document to guide the preservation, redevelopment and alteration of the properties and streetscapes located within the boundaries of the District. Heritage Permit Application The owner submitted a heritage permit application to construct a 21.16 m2 (227.76 ft2) garage addition on the south side of the existing dwelling. The proposed garage addition is designed with a slope roof and board and batten siding. There will be a side door at the north-west corner of the addition that provides access into the rear yard. The propose development will be subject to a zoning review to confirm compliance with the zoning by-law prior to the issuance of a building permit. Analysis Staff are satisfied that the proposed addition is in keeping with the design guidelines of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage District Plan and have no objection to the approval of the application. Section 9.1.2.5 of the District Plan indicates that additions should be located to the rear or an inconspicuous side where they are not visible from the street. The proposed Page 112 of 152 July 6, 2021 3 of 5 Report No. PDS21-087 addition is modest in size, and hence is not anticipated to predominate over the main building. Further, the proposed addition is generously setback from the public right-of- way to ensure the protection of the main building’s physical presence and the historic streetscape character. The large mature tree at the southeast corner of the property will remain to help provide screening for the proposed addition on the street. Section 9.1.3 of the District Plan states that additions and alterations to an existing heritage building should be consistent with the style of the original buildings. Staff consider the overall design of the proposed addition to be compatible with the original architectural character of the main building. Section 4.2 of the District Plan permits new garages to have a maximum height of 4.6 m (15.91 ft). The proposed garage addition has a height of 3.7 m (12.13 ft) measured from the grade to the top of the roof, which is approximately 1 m (3.28 ft) lower than the maximum allowance. Section 4.2 b of the District Plan states that the traditional spacing of buildings should be protected to preserve the historical development pattern in the neighborhood. The proposed addition has a minimal south side yard setback of 0.3 m (0.98 ft). Staff asked the applicant to consider a detached garage in the rear yard which would increase the spatial separation from the adjacent property. The applicant explained that relocating the garage to the rear yard would negatively affect his enjoyment of the amenity space including the in-ground swimming pool. The existing building was constructed on an angle, which makes it difficult for the proposed addition to provide the typical separation from the south property line. Considering the proposed addition will be located at an inconspicuous corner of the building and the existing 5 m (16.4 ft) wide side yard driveway will remain, staff are of the opinion that the visual openness between the two properties will remain generally in keeping with the current setback rhythm on the street. Although staff maintain that a detached garage is a more preferable option, the proposed addition is deemed acceptable due to the unique circumstance of the subject property. Advisory Committee Review The Heritage Advisory Committee discussed the application at its meeting on June 7, 2021. The Committee asked about a recent tree removal on the property and whether it was presented to the HAC for review and comment. The Heritage Advisory Committee had no objection to the approval of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-04. Page 113 of 152 July 6, 2021 4 of 5 Report No. PDS21-087 Legal Considerations Under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, any developments or alterations that would potentially impact the heritage attributes of a designated property requires Council’s consent. This legislative requirement is implemented in the Town of Aurora through the process of a Heritage Permit Application, which is subject to Council’s approval. Council must make a decision on a heritage permit application within 90 days after the notice of receipt is served on the applicant, otherwise Council shall be deemed to have consented to the application. The 90 day deadline for this permit application is August 10, 2021. Council may extend the review period of a heritage application without any time limit under the Ontario Heritage Act provided it is agreed upon by the owner. Financial Implications There are no financial implications. Communications Considerations The Town will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this application. 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 can be 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. Link to Strategic Plan The conservation of heritage resources supports the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting an Exceptional Quality of Life for All through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in objective Celebrating and Promoting our Culture. Page 114 of 152 July 6, 2021 5 of 5 Report No. PDS21-087 Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council refuse the Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-04 with an explanation for the refusal. Conclusions Staff have no objection to the proposed addition as it will be subordinate to the original building and is also generally consistent with the development objectives of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. Staff recommend to Council that Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-04 for 20 Spruce Street be approved. Attachments Attachment 1- Location Map Attachment 2 – Drawings Previous Reports Heritage Memorandum- Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-202104 – 20 Spruce Street, June 7, 2021 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on June 17, 2021 Approvals Approved by David Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE, Director, Planning and Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 115 of 152 LOCATION MAP LOCATION: 20 Spruce Street AƩachment 1 SUBJECT LANDS Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning and Building Services Department, August 29 2019. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora. Air Photos taken Spring 2018, © First Base SoluƟons Inc., 2018 Orthophotography. 0 10 20 30 40 4 Metres Subject Property Page 116 of 152 2.85 PAVED DRIVEWAY 3.10 EXISTING 2-STOREY DWELLING WOODEN DECK 2.85 PAVED DRIVEWAY 3.10 EXISTING 2-STOREY DWELLING WOODEN DECK 3.47 6.100.31 3.23 1.511.07 914ROOF ABOVE PROPOSED GARAGE SCALE: 1:50 PROPOSED GARAGE CONCEPT PLAN - 20 SPRUCE ST. "UUBDINFOU Page 117 of 152 30833753SCALE: NTS PROPOSED CARPORT CONCEPT PLAN - 20 SPRUCE ST. FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION Page 118 of 152 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS21 -0 88 Subject: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-02 - Smale 63 Catherine Avenue Lot 19 PLAN 116 File Number: HPA-2021-02 Prepared by: Carlson Tsang, Planner Department: Planning and Development Services Date: July 6, 2021 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS21-088 be received; and, 2. That Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-02 be approved to permit the partial demolition of the rear portion of the existing dwelling at 63 Catherine Avenue. Executive Summary This report provides the General Committee with the necessary information to consider Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-02. The application proposes to remove an existing rear addition, and construct a new rear addition with a GFA of 176 sq.ft. to the dwelling at 63 Catherine Avenue which is located within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. Staff support the demolition of the existing rear addition as it does not contribute to the heritage value of the property. Staff are satisfied that the proposed rear addition generally meets the design guidelines of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan. Background 63 Catherine Avenue is approximately 600 m2 (6,458.35 ft2) in size and is located on the south side of Catherine Avenue, north of Wellington Street East and east of Yonge Page 119 of 152 July 6, 2021 2 of 5 Report No. PDS21-088 Street, within the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. The property contains a two-storey red-brick dwelling constructed circa 1915. The dwelling reflects an Edward Classic architectural style characterized by a hipped roof with two bricked chimneys, front shed dormer and side gabled dormer. The front elevation features a verandah with wooden lattice, and is supported by three classical columns on brick piers. The dwelling has a number of tall multi-paned sash windows on concrete sills. The rear elevation contains a second storey addition directly above the kitchen, and a single storey addition at a recessed corner of the building. Parking is provided in a detached double-car garage located in the rear yard. Mature vegetation exists on the property including a large canopy trees in the front yard. Heritage Designation In 2006, Town Council passed By-Law 4809-06.D to designate 63 Catherine Avenue under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as part of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District. Town Council also passed By-Law 4809-06.D to adopt the “Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan” as the document to guide the preservation, redevelopment and alteration of the properties and streetscapes located within the boundaries of the District. Heritage Permit Application The owner submitted a heritage permit application to remove the existing rear addition at the south east corner of the building, and construct a new 16.41 m2 (176.63 ft2) addition at the same location. The proposed addition is designed with a low-slope gable roof and will be clad in vinyl siding. There will be a 2.02 m (6.66 ft) projection into the east side yard with a sash window facing the street. No mature trees will be removed to facilitate the proposed addition to the existing dwelling. The propose development will be subject to a zoning review to confirm compliance with the zoning by-law prior to the issuance of a building permit. Analysis Staff support the demolition of the existing rear addition as it does not contribute to the heritage value of the property. Page 120 of 152 July 6, 2021 3 of 5 Report No. PDS21-088 Based on historical aerial photos, the existing addition proposed to be removed was constructed as early as the 1980’s. The existing addition does not exhibit any unique design features or demonstrate any architectural significance. Staff do not anticipate that the proposed demolition of the existing addition will adversely affect the heritage integrity of the building. Further, given that the addition has always been located entirely behind the main building since it was constructed, there will be minimal impact on the streetscape. Staff are satisfied that the proposed rear addition generally meets the design guidelines of the Northeast Old Aurora Heritage Conservation District Plan. Section 9.1.2.5 of the District Plan indicates that additions should be located to the rear or an inconspicuous side where they are not visible from the street. The proposed addition is located at the south-east corner of the main building, where only half of the structure will be exposed to public view. The addition will be appropriately setback by approximately 14.39 m (47.21 ft) from the street to reduce its visual impact from public view. Further, the existing mature trees in the front yard will provide screening to further reduce the proposed addition’s presence on the street. Section 9.3 provides that new addition should not have a greater height or scale than the original building. The proposed addition is approximately 4 m (13.12 ft) in height, which is about 2.43 m (8 ft) below the eaves of the existing house. The floor area of the proposed addition represents less than 20% of the footprint of the existing house. The proposed addition is considered subordinate to the existing house and will not detract from the property or reduce its heritage value. Section 9.1.3 of the District Plan states that additions and alterations to an existing heritage building should be consistent with the style of the original buildings. Staff consider the overall design of the proposed addition to be compatible with the original architectural character of the main building, as well as the other existing homes in the neighbourhood. The proposing vinyl siding, roof shingles, window and door are all consistent with the guidelines of the Heritage District Plan. Advisory Committee Review The Heritage Advisory Committee reviewed Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-02 on June 7, 2021 and expressed support for the applicant’s proposal to partially demolish the existing rear addition to accommodate a proposed new addition, commenting that the new addition would blend in with the host neighborhood. Page 121 of 152 July 6, 2021 4 of 5 Report No. PDS21-088 Legal Considerations Under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act, any developments or alterations that would potentially impact the heritage attributes of a designated property requires Council’s consent. This legislative requirement is implemented in the Town of Aurora through the process of a Heritage Permit Application, which is subject to Council’s approval. Council must make a decision on a heritage permit application within 90 days after the notice of receipt is served on the applicant, otherwise Council shall be deemed to have consented to the application. The 90 day deadline for this permit application is July 15, 2021. Council may extend the review period of a heritage application without any time limit under the Ontario Heritage Act provided it is agreed upon by the owner. Financial Implications There are no financial implications. Communications Considerations The Town will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this application. 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 can be 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. Link to Strategic Plan The conservation of heritage resources supports the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting an Exceptional Quality of Life for All through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in objective Celebrating and Promoting our Culture. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council refuse the Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-02 with an explanation for the refusal. Page 122 of 152 July 6, 2021 5 of 5 Report No. PDS21-088 Conclusions Staff have no objection to the applicant’s proposal to partially remove an existing rear addition, and construct a new rear addition to the dwelling at 63 Catherine Avenue. Staff recommend to Council that Heritage Permit Application HPA 2011-02 for 63 Catherine Avenue be approved. Attachments Attachment 1- Location Map Attachment 2 – Drawings Previous Reports Heritage Memorandum – Heritage Permit Application File: HPA-2021-02, June 7, 2021 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on June 17, 2021 Approvals Approved by David Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE, Director, Planning and Development Services Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 123 of 152 LOCATION MAP LOCATION: 63 Catherine Avenue AƩachment 1 SUBJECT LANDS Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning and Building Services Department, August 29 2019. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora. Air Photos taken Spring 2018, © First Base SoluƟons Inc., 2018 Orthophotography. 0 10 20 30 40 4 Metres Subject Property Page 124 of 152 "UUBDINFOUPage 125 of 152 Page 126 of 152 Page 127 of 152 Page 128 of 152 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS21 -090 Subject: Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-07 28 Wellington Street West & 11 Machell Avenue Town of Aurora Prepared by: Brashanthe Manoharan Department: Planning and Development Services Date: July 6, 2021 _ Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS21-090 be received; 2. That a new capital project with total budget authority of $200,000 be approved for the replacement of the existing retaining wall and staircase that fronts 28 Wellington Street West and 11 Machell Avenue to be funded from the Roads R&R reserve; and, 3. That Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-07 be approved to rehabilitate the existing retaining wall that fronts Wellington Street West and 11 Machell Avenue using the existing natural stones, replace concrete staircase and handrails. Executive Summary This report provides Council with the necessary information to consider the approval of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-07, which proposes to repair the existing retaining wall along the frontage of at a property municipally known as 28 Wellington Street and 11 Machell Avenue. 28 Wellington Street West was recently designated under the Ontario Heritage Act and 11 Machell Avenue is a listed heritage property. The retaining wall was identified as one of the attributes in the designation by-law for 28 Wellington and is primarily located within the municipal road right-of-way. The existing stone retaining wall along the frontage of 28 Wellington Street West and 11 Machell Avenue is deteriorating and presents safety concerns for pedestrians. Page 129 of 152 July 6, 2021 2 of 9 Report No. PDS21-090 Staff are satisfied that the proposed retaining wall replicates the character of the existing retaining wall and its heritage attributes and meets the requirements of the Town’s Heritage Property Standard By-Law. Staff and the Heritage Advisory Committee have reviewed the recommended options and are of the opinion that Option B meets the requirements of the Heritage Property Standard By-Law. Background Property Description 28 Wellington Street West is located at the northeast corner of Machell Avenue and Wellington Street West, approximately 130 m (426.5 ft) west of Yonge Street (see ‘Attachment 1’) and was recently designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 11 Machell Avenue is a listed heritage property. The two-storey residence at 28 Wellington Street West is known as “The Alfred Love House” constructed circa 1883. Vehicular access from Wellington Street is provided via a shared driveway with the property immediately to the east. History of the Property In 1797, the Crown granted 210 acres of land on Concession 1, Lot 81 in King Township (the lands located west of Yonge Street) to Thomas Philips. The lands were later sold to a local mill owner and farmer named Jacob Hollingshead. In 1853, the R.P. Irwin purchased the lands from the Hollingshead family and began to subdivide the lands into smaller lots, which created the subject property. In 1881, the property was purchased by Alfred Love who was a teacher in the local community. Love later became increasingly involved in the community and Town life. He served on Town Council for one year in 1893, and then as the Trustee for the local high school. He was also appointed a Justice of the Peace or Magistrate in 1896, in addition to duties as an assessor and collector for the Town’s taxes. In his final years, he served as secretary of the public school board until 1941. Loved died in 1943 at the age of 94. Upon the death of Love’s eldest daughter in 1951, the property was sold outside the family. A plaque was added to the front of the house around 1984 which named it “Alfred Love House”. Page 130 of 152 July 6, 2021 3 of 9 Report No. PDS21-090 The property was then owned by Margaret Proctor for a decade before selling it to Hazel Kennedy in 1961. Kennedy sold the property to Edward and Dorothy Kavanagh in 1978, who then sold it two years later to Adrienne Cameron in 1980. Architectural Features and Setting The Alfred Love House is one of the very few dwellings in Aurora of the Second Empire architectural style characterized by a square massing and a mansard roof with slightly sloped upper sections and lower steeply pitched sections on both the main house and rear wing. The main house is supported by a fieldstone foundation with a central masonry wall. The house is surrounded by generous lawns and is elevated from the public road with views overlooking Wellington Street. There are currently dense trees along the west property line that obscure the visibility of the house from Machell Avenue. The property is built with a stone retaining wall fronting Wellington Street and Machell Avenue. A concrete stair with metal handrail is located at the front to provide access to the property from the sidewalk. Heritage Designation 28 Wellington Street West is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. By- law 6307-21 identifies the following elements as attributes to be protected that are applicable to HPA-2021-07: The prominent height of the land with views to the site from Wellington Street and from the site to the east and west along Wellington Street; The location and setback of the house from Wellington Street; The stone retaining wall and pedestrian access from Wellington Street. Analysis The existing stone retaining wall along the frontage of 28 Wellington Street West and 11 Machell Avenue is deteriorating and presents safety concerns for pedestrians The Planning Division was advised by the Operations Department that the existing stone retaining wall along the frontage of 28 Wellington Street West must be replaced as it is deteriorating and presenting safety concerns for pedestrians. The proposed Page 131 of 152 July 6, 2021 4 of 9 Report No. PDS21-090 rehabilitation will be completed by the Town as the majority of the wall is located within the municipal right-of way. Replacing the existing retaining wall requires a Heritage Permit Application and approval as the subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Heritage Designation By-law 6307-21 identifies the retaining wall as an attribute that must be protected. Staff are satisfied that the proposed retaining wall replicates the character of the existing retaining wall and its heritage attributes and meets the requirements of the Town’s Heritage Property Standard By-Law The Operations Department has advised that the existing stone retaining wall must be repaired as it is deteriorating and presenting safety concerns for pedestrians. The proposed works will be completed by the Town as the majority of the wall is located within the municipal right-of way. Repairing the existing retaining wall requires a Heritage Permit Application and approval as the subject property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Heritage Designation By-law 6307-21 identifies the retaining wall as an attribute that must be protected. Since this is a repair and not a new retaining wall, a railing is not required under the Ontario Building Code but a building permit must be obtained prior to beginning the rehabilitation work. The Operation Division’s retained Associated Engineering (Ont.) Ltd. to provide the Town with two (2) options to consider for the reconstruction of the existing retaining wall: Option A: Install an Engineered Precast Stone A replacement wall using an approved Engineered Precast Stone. The cost of this option is approximately $159,225, which includes the removal, disposal, and installation of the retaining wall. A manufacturer, type, and color of Engineered Precast Stone would have to be chosen if Option A were to be approved. Option B: Remove & Rebuild the Retaining Wall using the existing Natural Stones Reconstruction of the existing retaining wall will include removing the entire wall by hand, excavating some materials, adding a Geogrid to provide strength, and rebuilding the wall by restacking the same Natural Stones with additional Page 132 of 152 July 6, 2021 5 of 9 Report No. PDS21-090 backfilling as required. Only existing stones would be used with approximately 10% of new or similar stones. The estimated cost of rebuilding this wall this way is $150,475. The reconstructed retaining wall will maintain the existing heritage integrity if Option B is approved. The aforementioned cost estimates were provided by Associated Engineering (Ont.) Ltd. (see ‘Attachment 3 and 5’). According to the Town’s Heritage Property Standard By-law 5489-13, where a Heritage Attribute of a Part IV or Part V Heritage property requires repair, but the Heritage Attribute cannot be repaired without replacement, the Heritage Attribute shall be replaced: (a) using the same types of material as the original; (b) where the same types of material as the original are no longer available, using alternative materials that replicate the design, colour, texture, grain, or other distinctive features and appearance of the original material; and (c) in such a manner as to replicate the design, colour, texture, grain, and other distinctive features and appearance of the Heritage Attribute.” Staff and the Heritage Advisory Committee have reviewed the recommended options and are of the opinion that Option B meets the requirements of the Heritage Property Standard By-Law Staff and the Heritage Advisory Committee have reviewed the recommended options and are of the opinion that Option B meets the requirements of the Heritage Property Standard By-law, as it will not only maintain the original character and integrity of the wall, but also minimize any waste produced from the construction. Therefore, staff are in support of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-07. Funding Source The Operations Department has determined that the approved budget for the reconstruction of the retaining wall is approximately $200,000. The funding source for this project is the Infrastructure Sustainability Reserves RDS/SDWLKS/ST LGTS R&R. Page 133 of 152 July 6, 2021 6 of 9 Report No. PDS21-090 Advisory Committee Review Due the urgent nature of the application, the application was circulated by way of email and was discussed at the Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting of June 7, 2021. The Committee inquired about various aspects and suggested that safety railing be required due to the height, and that the existing limestone be incorporated into the new retaining wall. Staff provided clarification regarding cost allocation, original construction and replacement materials, design standards, safety, etc. and agreed to provide further information to the Committee prior to staff’s final recommendation to Council. On June 18, 2021, Option A and Option B were circulated to the Heritage Advisory Committee where the majority of the members voted in favour of Option B, to reconstruct the retaining wall using the existing stones. The members preferred this option as waste would be minimized and could be reused as appropriate during the reconstruction. Legal Considerations Retaining walls that exceed 1 metre in height and are adjacent to public property are designated structures under the Ontario Building Code. Failure to maintain the wall could result in a violation under the Ontario Building Code. The retaining wall is adjacent to a public sidewalk in a high traffic area. Failure to repair the retaining wall could result in further deterioration of its structural integrity which could cause the stones to becomes dislodged, result in soil erosion that may cause damage to any structure supported by the soil and/or landslides, all of which presents a danger to pedestrians utilizing the sidewalk and possibly vehicular traffic which could result in serious injury and/or claims being made against the Town. Financial Implications Staff recommend that the Town proceed with Option B being the rehabilitation of the existing retaining wall fronting 28 Wellington Street West and 11 Machell Avenue using its existing natural stones, as well as replace its existing concrete staircase and handrails at a total estimated cost of $199,000. A detailed break-down of this estimate is presented under Table 1. Page 134 of 152 July 6, 2021 7 of 9 Report No. PDS21-090 Table 1 Recommended Option B Cost Estimate Breakdown Cost Construction 150,475 Contract Administration 22,541 Contingency (15%) 22,571 Total before HST 195,587 Unrecoverable HST (1.76%) 3,442 Total cost Estimate (Rounded) 199,000 Furthermore, it is recommended that a new capital project with total budget authority of $200,000 to be funded from the Roads R&R reserve be approved. As this requirement was not previously planned for under the Town’s existing ten-year capital plan it will need to be accommodated along with all other existing requirements within the Roads R&R reserve. Communications Considerations The Town will use ‘Inform’ as the level of engagement for this application. 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 can be 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. Link to Strategic Plan The conservation of heritage resources supports the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting an Exceptional Quality of Life for All through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in objective Celebrating and Promoting our Culture. Page 135 of 152 July 6, 2021 8 of 9 Report No. PDS21-090 Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council provide direction. Conclusions Staff recommend that the Town proceed with the rehabilitation of the existing retaining wall using its existing natural stones, staircase and railing fronting along Wellington Street West at a total estimated cost of $199,000 referred as Option B herein. Furthermore, staff recommend approval of Heritage Permit Application HPA-2021-07 relating to this proposed work. Staff are satisfied that the proposed retaining wall satisfies the requirements listed in the Town’s Heritage Property Standard By-Law 5489- 13. Attachments Attachment 1 – Location Map Attachment 2 – Retaining Wall Construction Drawing Attachment 3 – Precast Stone Cost Estimate Attachment 4 – 28 Wellington Street West Existing Retaining Wall Attachment 5 – Natural Stone Cost Estimate Attachment 6 – Request for Proposal for Provision of Engineering Consulting Services for Retaining Wall #6 Attachment 7 – Existing Retaining Wall Condition Previous Reports PDS20-060 – Heritage Designation for 28 Wellington Street West – October 20, 2020 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on June 17, 2021 Approvals Approved by David Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE, Director, Planning and Development Services Page 136 of 152 July 6, 2021 9 of 9 Report No. PDS21-090 Approved by Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer Page 137 of 152 Yonge StreetWellington Street WestMachell AvenueAle x Ga rdner Cir cl eTemperance StreetMillStreetAlex Ga rdne r Ci rcle Alex Gard n e rCircleLEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLAN 36 LOT 2 MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 28 Wellington Street West APPLICATION #: HPA-2021-07 03060 Metres Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning Department, June 22, 2021 Base data provided by York Region. This map is for addressing purposes only and should not be used for calculations or measurements. LOCATION MAP ¯St John's Sdrd Wellington St E Vandorf SdrdHenderson Drive ^Wellington St W UV404 UV404 Subject Lands Leslie StYonge StBathurst StBayview AveBloomington Rd Page 138 of 152 LOT 3LOT 2MACHELL AVENUEREGISTERED PLAN 36 STOREYBRICK HOUSE(MUN No. 28) STOREYBRICK HOUSE(MUN No. 11) STOREY BRICKMARKETPLACE(MUN No. 32)WELLINGTON STREET WEST(REGIONAL ROAD No. 15)ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEENLOTS 80 AND 81, CONCESSION 1REPLACE SECTION OF SIDEWALKWITH WIDE CRACKS (TYP.)8.2 m11.0 m47.7 m5.9 m28 WELLINGTON RD. WEST11 MACHELL AVE.REMOVE CEDARTREES ALONG WALLBH #1OGNATIVE SOILEXISTING RETAININGWALL TO BE REMOVEDEX. SIDEWALK(TYP.)VARIES (MAX. HEIGHT 1.4 m)121NON-WOVEN TERRAFIX 360ROR APPROVED EQUIVALENTRECONSTRUCT RETAININGWALL WITH NATURAL STONE(DRY STACK)GEOGRID WITH MINIMUM1 m LENGTH EVERYSECOND COURSE (TYP.)100 mm THICK LAYEROF TOPSOIL ANDPROPOSED SODOGNATIVE SOILSIDEWALK100 mm DIA. PERFORATED DRAINAGEPIPE SURROUNDED WITH A MIN. OF100 mm CLEARSTONE (19 DIA.) ON ALLSIDES WITH RODENT SCREENS(OUTLET TO FRONT OF WALL WITHSPACING OF MAX. 15 m)0.3BACKFILL WITHGRANULAR 'B'250 mm THICK LAYEROF GRANULAR 'A'C MACHELL AVELPLAN1-1:200RETAINING WALLLOCATIONSECTIONA-HOR. 1:40 VERT. 1:40PROPOSEDREMOVALSA-PHOTOB-1:100PHOTOB-LEGENDREMOVALS$WWDFKPHQWPage 139 of 152 Item Unit Est. Qty Unit Price 1 L.S. 1 $12,000.00 2 L.S. 1 $10,000.00 3 L.S. 1 $1,000.00 4 m^2 60 $20.00 5 Each 1 $1,400.00 6 L.S. 1 $3,000.00 7 m^2 90 $200.00 8 L.S. 1 $2,500.00 9 m^3 90 $115.00 10 t 135 $90.00 11 m^2 90 $750.00 12 L.S. 1 $4,800.00 12 L.S. 1 $1,500.00 12 m 100 $40.00 13 m^2 225 $10.00 14 m^2 85 $15.00 15 Each 3 $600.00 16 m^2 450 $10.00 Existing Wall Removal OPSS.MUNI 805 Traffic Control $1,400.00 Town of Aurora 11 Machell Avenue & 28 Wellingston Street West Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate Retaining Wall Replacement with Precast Concrete Blocks Mobilization & Demobilization $12,000.00 TOA M-404 Sediment Control (catch basin filters)$1,000.00 $159,225.00 $31,845.00 $191,070.00 Contingency @ 15% TOTAL Subtotal Supply and Place Sod Supply and Plant Trees OPSS 1860, OPSS 511 OPSD 219.110 Precast Block Retaining Wall $67,500.00 Geotextile $4,500.00 OPSS.MUNI 802, OPSS 804 Topsoil $2,250.00 Perforated Subdrain (w/clear stone and rodent grates)$4,000.00 $1,275.00 $1,800.00 OPSS 180, OPSS 314, OPSS 510, OPSS 902 General Excavation & Disposal $10,350.00 OPSS.MUNI 1010, OPSS 902, OPSS.MUNI 501, OPSS.MUNI 206 Supply, Place, Grade and Compact Backfill $12,150.00 Existing Staircase Removal (Wellington Street)$2,500.00 Clearing and Grubbing $1,200.00 OPSS 801 TOA TP-2 Tree Protection Barrier $3,000.00 $18,000.00 Large Tree Removal $10,000.00 Specification Standard Drawing Description Total Removal of Existing and Placement of New Staircase Railing $1,500.00 OPSS.MUNI 904, OPSS.MUNI 1010,New CIP Concrete Staircase at 28 Wellington Street $4,800.00 $WWDFKPHQW Page 140 of 152 "UUBDINFOUPage 141 of 152 Item Unit Est. Qty Unit Price 1 L.S. 1 $12,000.00 2 L.S. 1 $10,000.00 3 L.S. 1 $1,000.00 4 m^2 60 $20.00 5 Each 1 $1,400.00 6 L.S. 1 $3,000.00 7 L.S. 1 $2,500.00 8 m^2 90 $135.00 9 L.S. 1 $2,500.00 10 m^3 165 $115.00 11 t 270 $90.00 12 m^2 90 $410.00 13 m^2 10 $300.00 14 L.S. 1 $4,800.00 15 L.S. 1 $1,500.00 16 m 100 $40.00 17 m^2 225 $10.00 18 m^2 180 $15.00 19 Each 3 $600.00 20 m^2 450 $10.00 Supply Extra 10% Matching Stones $3,000.00 Removal of Existing and Placement of New Staircase Railing $1,500.00 OPSS.MUNI 805 TOA M-404 Sediment Control (catch basin filters)$1,000.00 Traffic Control (lane closures on Machell Avenue and Wellington Street as required)$10,000.00 Construction Survey and Layout Specification Standard Drawing Description Total $2,500.00 Clearing and Grubbing $1,200.00 OPSS 801 TOA TP-2 Tree Protection Barrier (estimated length of 20m)$3,000.00 $12,150.00 Geotextile $4,500.00 OPSS.MUNI 802, OPSS 804 Topsoil $2,250.00 Perforated Subdrain (w/clear stone and rodent grates)$4,000.00 Subtotal Supply and Place Sod $2,700.00 Supply and Plant Trees $1,800.00 OPSS 1860, OPSS 511 OPSD 219.110 $150,475.00 $22,571.25 $173,046.25 Contingency @ 15% TOTAL Town of Aurora Retaining Wall #6: 11 Machell Avenue & 28 Wellingston Street Preliminary Construction Cost Estimate Retaining Wall Rehabilitation with Natural Stones Mobilization & Demobilization OPSS.MUNI 904, OPSS.MUNI 1010, OPSS.MUNI 206 New CIP Concrete Staircase at 28 Wellington Street $4,800.00 Existing Staircase Removal (Wellington Street)$2,500.00 Existing Stone Removals OPSS 180, OPSS 314, OPSS 510, OPSS 902 General Excavation & Disposal $18,975.00 $12,000.00 Reconstructing Natural Stone Retaining Wall with Geogrid $36,900.00 OPSS.MUNI 1010, OPSS 902, OPSS.MUNI 501, OPSS.MUNI 206 Large Tree Removal $1,400.00 Supply, Place, Grade and Compact Backfill $24,300.00 $WWDFKPHQW Page 142 of 152 Town of AuroraRFT 2020-98-OPS-RConstruction Services - Retaining Wall #6 (11 Machell Avenue & 28 Wellington Street West)Request for Proposal for Provision of Engineering Consulting Services forSarvejit Nagi, P.Eng., PEProject ManagerCaline Makarian, P.Eng. / Farzad Nikfar, P.Eng. / Shaun Zhang, P.Eng.Assistant Project Manager & Lead InspectorFarzad Nikfar, P.Eng. / Shaun Zhang, P.Eng.Technical SupportCatherine Du, C.E.T.DraftspersonMarcus DeAgazio, E.I.T.Assistant Inspector & Junior EngineerAdministrative AssistanceSubmitted Hourly Rates181$ 130$ 130$ 92$ 112$ 87$ Hours Labour Expenses AE SubtotalsE5 E3 E3 T2 E3 S2Construction (5 weeks)20,239.00$ Project Management, Biweekly Meetings, Invoicing, Oversight, QA ( 4hr/week, 5 weeks)20222 3,794.00$ -$ Contract Administration(review submittals, permits, utilities, material RFI's, CO, payments)25 1 26 3,337.00$ Site Inspections and reporting (20 hrs/week, 5 weeks)100 100 11,200.00$ Project closure(completion cert, deficiencies, as-builts)484161,908.00$ Post Construction 2,302.00$ Review work over warranty period, site inspection2 6 1 9 1,121.00$ -$ Deficiency list and corrective repair123405.00$ As-builts markups for changes62 8 776.00$ -$ 27 0 25 14 114 4 184 22,541.00$ -$ 22,541.00$ Total"UUBDINFOUPage 143 of 152 Page 144 of 152 Page 145 of 152 Page 146 of 152 Page 147 of 152 "UUBDINFOUPage 148 of 152 Page 149 of 152 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Notice of Motion Councillor ’s Office _______________________________________________________________________________________ Re: Increased Signage for the Arboretum To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Councillor Wendy Gaertner Date: July 6, 2021 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Whereas the Aurora Arboretum is a highly used urban oasis; and Whereas families with small children on bicycles use the paths for outings; and Whereas seniors, some with mobility, hearing or other challenges stroll the paths; and Whereas those proficient on bicycles, with a desire for more intense exercise and speed, also use the trails; and Whereas this has and will continue to create unsafe situations as their approach from behind may not be heard and can catch people off guard; and Whereas creating a safe environment for all is critical to the enjoyment of the Arboretum; and Whereas fast moving bicycles were not envisioned as a use for the Arboretum; and Whereas those using speeds more in keeping with city streets, could be reasonably expected to warn pedestrians or others of their approach; 1. Now therefore Be It Hereby Resolved that Aurora install large print or graphic signs at all entrances of the Arboretum with the condition that, “Bicyclists must slow down and yield to slower moving traffic; and are required to call out a warning or use a bell when approaching other users from behind”. Page 150 of 152 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Notice of Motion Councillor ’s Office _______________________________________________________________________________________ Re: Development Plan – Adjoining Aurora Major Transit Station Areas and Stable Neighbourhoods To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Councillor Wendy Gaertner Date: July 6, 2021 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Whereas the planning guidelines for the area west and south/west of the GO Station are governed by the policies in the Aurora Promenade Plan; and Whereas these do not provide the specificity required to guide decisions on appropriate development of this area; and Whereas this became clear when the recently proposed Berczy planning application was not acceptable to Council; and Whereas valuable time was wasted by Staff, Council, and the Developer; 1. Now Therefore Be It Resolved that Council and Staff create a development plan for area intensification with appropriate transition to the adjacent Stable Neighbourhoods. Page 151 of 152 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 aurora.ca Town of Aurora Notice of Motion Councillor ’s Office _______________________________________________________________________________________ Re: Stop Signs and Crosswalk Installation – Machell Ave and Irwin Ave To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Councillor Harold Kim Date: July 6, 2021 _______________________________________________________________________________________ Whereas the residents of Machell Ave have been living with speeding cars for many years; and Whereas many drivers believe that they can bypass the Wellington St and Yonge St intersection by driving north on Machell Ave from Wellington St; and Whereas they believe that Machell Ave is a local straight-through or short cut route to Aurora Heights; and Whereas these vehicles speed through Machell Ave going north and compromising the safety of pedestrians and other cars driving through the three-way intersection; and Whereas there is just one existing stop sign going west on Irwin Ave which causes some confusion; and Whereas a visible pedestrian cross walk would assist in deterring vehicles going north from doing a rolling stop; 1. Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That staff consider installing stop signs going both north and south at the intersection of Machell and Irwin Avenues to create a three-way stop; and 2. Be It Further Resolved That a crosswalk be considered on the south side of that intersection; and 3. Be It Further Resolved That staff report back in September with a recommendation of these modifications. Page 152 of 152