The URL can be used to link to this page

AGENDA - General Committee - 20040504TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL 00 AGENDA NO, 0&14 TUESDAY, MAY 4 2004 7:00 PJN. COUNCIL TOWN NALL ITTEE ♦g, PUBLIC RELEASE 30/04/04 TOWN OFAURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA NO. 04-14 Tuesday, May 4, 2004 Councillor Buck in the Chair. I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST II APPROVAL OF AGENDA RECOMMENDED: THAT the content of the Agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services Department be approved as presented. Ill DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION IV ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION V DELEGATIONS Mr. Paul Cooke (pg. �) Re: Increase of Truck Traffic due to the "Truck Driving Schools" VI CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION Vll OTHER BUSINESS, COUNCILLORS General Committee Meeting No. 04-14 Page 2 of 3 Tuesday, May 4, 2004 M IN CAMERA Personnel Matter RECOMMENDED: THAT this Committee proceed In Camera to address a personnel matter. - Material to be presented at the meeting. IX ADJOURNMENT General Committee Meeting No. 04-14 Page 3 of 3 Tuesday, May 4, 2004 AGENDA ITEMS 1. ADM04-011 - 10-Year Master Plan Review Summary — Hemson (pg. 2) and Associates, and Recreation Centre Restaurant Facilities RECOMMENDED: THAT the Committee receive the attached Culture and Recreation Master Plan Review dated April 16th, 2004 prepared by Hemson and Associates, setting out projected 10 year reserve and reserve fund balances and the tax rate impacts associated with the implementation of the Recreation Master Plan capital initiatives through the period ending in 2013; and THAT, with respect to the Recreation Centre project, the Committee determine whether it wishes staff to pursue any of the identified opportunities to further reduce the tax base supported debt component of the project currently estimated to be $6,380,700; and THAT a determination be made by the Committee respecting the inclusion of additional restaurant facilities in the design of the Recreation Centre. 2. PL04-052 - Planning Applications Status List (pg. 31) RECOMMENDED: THAT the Planning Applications Status List be received as information. 3. Memorandum from the Director of Corporate Services (pg. 67) Re: Council Membership for the Finance Advisory Committee RECOMMENDED: THAT the Committee determine which Council members are to be appointed to the Finance Advisory Committee. GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 Panizza, Bob From: Paul or Paula Cooke Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 3:22 PM To: Panizza, Bob Subject: Delegation Status Hi Bob I am requesting delegation status for May the 4th, in regards to the truck traffic which has increased in the neighbourhood due to the "Truck Driving Schools". Just let me know the rules for presentation so I don't carry on too long. Thanks for your help. Paul Cooke 4/26/04 GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 AGENDA ITEM # d TOWN OF AURORA General Committee Report No. ADM04-011 SUBJECT: 10-Year Master Plan Review Summary— Hemson and Associates, and Recreation Centre Restaurant Facilities FROM: L. Allison Chief Administrative Officer DATE: May 4`h, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the Committee receive the attached Culture and Recreation Master Plan Review dated April 16'h, 2004 prepared by Hemson and Associates setting out projected 10 year reserve and reserve fund balances and the tax rate impacts associated with the implementation of the Recreation Master Plan capital initiatives through the period ending in 2013; THAT, with respect to the Recreation Centre project, the Committee determine whetherit wishes staff to pursue any of the identified opportunities to furtherreduce the tax base supported debt component of the project currently estimated to be $6,380,700; and THAT a determination be made by the Committee respecting the inclusion of additional restaurant facilities in the design of the Recreation Centre. BACKGROUND On April 13th 2004 Council received a staff report (ADM04-009) in which the fiscal impacts associated with the recreation centre project were set out, a further copy of the report is attached hereto for information. The cost implications summary provided with the staff report set out on one page both the cost/funding scenario and issues facing Council going forward. On April 27'h 2004 Council approved the 2004 Capital budget a component of which included the recreation centre and proposed sources of funding consistent with the information provided Council on April 13`h. At that time Council requested, by resolution, a further report setting out options for discussion that would serve to reduce the tax based debt component of the cost of the facility. A copy of the approved Capital Budget Sheet is attached. As a supplement to the fiscal impact work associated with the recreation centre, Hemson also undertook to update the 10 year capital plan to include all the projects contemplated by the Culture and Recreation Master Plan during that timeframe. This analysis included modeling on Town resEENe funds based on the Plan and included GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 May 4, 2004 - 2 - Report No. ADM04-011 anticipated revenues and expenditures during this timeframe based on the assumptions as reported in the April 13t'document. The work now completed by Hemson further supports the conclusions already contained in the previous staff report. To recap briefly, the capital budget as adopted on the 27th of April anticipates a $24.4 million dollar project with funding from 3 sources: - half ($12.7 million) borrowed using a 10 year debenture to be recouped from future development. In order to proceed on this basis Council needs to be clear that the Development Charge needs to increase by $1723, and we need to maintain our historical average of400 residential building permits per yearto sustain the funding required to pay the debt charges and maintain our other capital programs. The Director of Planning advises that this would bring forward to around 2009 the need for development to take place on the 2C lands. Use of $5.4 million in cash available in reserves. A tax supported debenture over a 20 yearterm of $6.4 million. The borrowing costs for this portion of the debt increase the tax rate by 3.75% as annual principle and interest charges would amount to $599,000. - When the projected operating deficit for the facility ($494,500) is added to the finance cost, the total annual tax rate impact is 6.75% or $54.00 per year. As staff reported on April 13`h, provided Council accepts the implications associated with the stipulated tax rate changes, the development charge increases and understands the variables associated with changes in the economy, provincial legislation and the need for the Region to continue to provide timely infrastructure, the conclusions are that the remainder of the Master Plan work as currently proposed over the coming 10 year period can be accomplished and the Towns reserves are maintained in positive balances atthe end of the timeframe. It is important to point out by way of context, that the former Director of Finance advised that the cumulative (10 year) impact of the Master Plan Projects cost to the community last year when the Burnett land was purchased for an $18 million dollar facility was in excess of 15% or ultimately well over $100 per household. The DC related work undertaken and the funding approach derived by Hemson that proposes to shift half the capital cost to growth has been successful in dealing with the increased budget and at the same time cutting the ultimate per household cost by at least half of what it was predicted to be about 12 months ago. Further, the 2003 model had the Parks Master Plan Reserve in a significant deficit at the end of the review period that has been eliminated through the work recently undertaken. In summary, the updates to the fiscal model undertaken by Hemson demonstrate that in ten years we will be in a betterfinancial po-,54ign from a reserve (cash) perspective than GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 May 4, 2004 - 3 - Report No. ADM04-011 was predicted when the initial work was undertaken, although we will only be half way through the timeframe for the tax supported debenture debt at that point. Those factors should give Council some comfort that we have a significantly improved outlook over that which existed at the time there was political support for the expenditures of the funds for the land acquisition and the decisions last fall to advance the planned construction of the recreational facility to 2004. COMMENTS When the staff report was considered on April 13", and during the budget review meeting on April 17th there was commentary about a lack of options or alternatives for Council. Fiscal work that had taken place up to that point (April 16`") was centered around assessing our cash position and accurately determining the share of the facility to be borne by growth, thereby clearly identifying the shortfall and associated implications to be funded by the tax -base. The model that was completed is purposely designed to be fiscally conservative and it achieves the foregoing based on one set of parameters and the information available to staff today. As a next stage in the financial evaluation, there are a number of additional steps that Council could take to further reduce the "remaining tax base debt portion" of $6.4 million as identified in the capital budget. A number are set out below with a brief comment on each: • Fundraising In the absence of a firm decision from Council as to quantum and/or a methodology for fundraising, a budget allocation for this purpose has not been finalized and included in the capital budget detail approved by Council. Any proceeds, although they will have to be carried until recovered, will directly offset debt requirements. • Restructuring of debenture parameters The debt structure contained in the model is a conventional fixed annual rate instrument. There are a variety of other approaches that could be utilized. As part of the future staff report dealing with seeking financing approval staff intended to elaborate on those options. Many alternative approaches would have the effect of accelerating the repayment, thereby reducing the overall cost but potentially increasing the annual costs. • Sale of surplus lands (ie Jack Woods Farmhouse) In previous years Council has considered the disposition of other municipally held property as a funding source for new capital facilities. For example, the sale of Jack Woods Farmhouse was actively considered at the time of the financing of both the Library and as part of the Town Hall construction in the early 1990's. That opportunity remains today. —4— GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 May 4, 2004 -4- Report No. ADM04-011 • Acceleration of development of Leslie Street lands Increased reliance could be placed on the proceeds to be derived from the sale of a portion of our landholdings on Leslie Street. Presently the financial model includes revenues from this land to help offset future capital needs. Additional investments with respect to the servicing of the site still needs to occur (external 2004, internal 2005) and the lands are most effectively developed in concert with those of the adjoining developer to the north. Thus there are constraints to accelerating this timing, although staff could investigate this option (or the option of an outright disposal of the site in its current, undeveloped form) in more detail if so directed. • Application of additional tax levy contributions to the capital cost The inclusion of the approved additional 2% tax levy contribution ($325,000) in 2004 to enhance the Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve could be redirected to offset the capital costs for the facility. The resulting creation of tax room in 2005 will also serve to mitigate the incorporation of the operating and finance costs as the facility opens. • Further investigate partnerships Staff could be asked to revisit the commercial partnership opportunities the site would generate with any lease revenues applied to the debenture costs, thereby reducing tax based impact to fund the commitments. The project manager has, through the attached correspondence commented on the request of Council for further consideration of a more substantive restaurant component in the facility. Naming rights Council has not yet discarded the opportunity to sell the naming rights for the building. This potential revenue would most appropriately be used to offset capital (not operating) costs of the building. .. Allocation of prior years surpluses to capital cost of the project There has not been a use committed for the 2003 operating fund surplus. Although the amount is not finally determined, it could easily be directly applied to the capital cost of the facility and directly reduce the amount to be financed. Presuming there will be a 2004 surplus, the same allocation could also be made by Council in early 2005 and prior to the final determination of the debenture amount. • Sale of 2C or Leslie Street frontage portion of Burnett lands for development Interest from third parties in the purchase of the 2 acre portion of the Burnett lands having Leslie Street frontage has been previously been expressed. In the absence of firm Council decisions respecting the land and the continued tenancy GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 4, 2004 - 5 - Report No. ADM04.011 arrangement of the existing inhabitant of the dwelling, the sale of the parcel has not been previously pursued. An opportunity exists to market the site and apply proceeds towards the project. Similarly when the lands abutting our site to the north (2C) develop, an opportunity to develop some or all of our (2C) residual lands will occur. Those proceeds could also mitigate facility costs, although they will have to be carried for the time period between now and 2C proceeding. • Additional existing reserve fund allocations towards the project Hemson's work has concluded, for example, that use of the existing balances in the municipal capital reserve fund while utilized in the 2003 model are not allocated now. Using a portion of the existing 2003 closing year-end balance would likely not have a negative impact on the balance of the municipal capital program. Staff could do a detailed review on this particular reserve and recommend an amount to be apportioned from it. Each of the foregoing would, to varying degrees, directly offset the capital costs to be debt financed and borne by the taxpayer. For every $1 million the $6.4 million dollar debt amount is reduced, the annual per household cost is reduced by approximately $5.00 per year for each of the anticipated 20-year debenture term. If the project proceeds to tender this fall we would have at least until that time to receive direction on the inclusion of some or all of the options above. There may well be others that are also worthy of exploration that are not identified above. The tax based debenture funds themselves would not actually be required until early2005, so we have upwards of a yearto determine the actual amount to be financed and put the legal mechanisms in place to do so. Based on the comments for each of the alternatives, it should be evident to Councillors that, from staffs perspective, some may be more viable than others, but it should also be clear that there are a number that could quite reasonably have a positive impact on the work taken to date. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS As noted previously, there are three components associated with the financing of the recreation centre, a development charges debt component of $12.7 million requiring an increase in the overall Development Charge and sustained development consistent with historical averages in order to support the payment obligations; the use of $5.4 million in existing cash reserves and the tax based debt component of $6.4 million elaborated upon above. In addition to the cost to service the debt amount ($599,000 per year), the facility when fully operational is budgeted to lose almost $500,000 per year in operating costs. These two amounts will together result in an overall tax rate increase of the 6.75% (or $54.00 per household) that staff have been referring to. As stated above, the overall per household cost decreases by about $5.00 for every $1 million the initial amount of the debt component is able to be reduced. There are not any measures that would have an impact on the estimated net operating loss at this time other than further userfee adjustments that can be considered by Council in the future.6_ GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 May 4, 2004 - 6 - Report No. ADM04-011 OPTIONS The project continues to be discretionary in terms of timing and overall scope although delivery is consistent with the revised service level standards and the priority placed on this initiative by the Leisure Services Advisory Committee and Council last term. Staff have endeavoured to maintain a schedule such that the previously expressed intention by Council to commence construction in 2004 and provide ice facilities in the fall of 2005 is maintained. The attached correspondence from the project manager summarizes the impacts associated with either the delay of the overall project by a year and those associated with taking a phased approach. In response to the question related to the inclusion of additional restaurant space, the project manager has also provided the attached correspondence for consideration. CONCLUSIONS It is acknowledged Council has a significant decision to make with respect to this project. Moving forward will create a reliance on growth being maintained at ten year historical rates. In otherwords, while Council would now become dependant upon a certain amount of growth, that commitment would not force accelerated growth to take place, it merely means Council, the staff and the Region would have to collectively maintain the future status quo, including ensuring that 2C development occurs in a timeframe that is 5/6 Years hence. Council would also be committing to a formal tax -payer supported debt financing scheme for the first time in many years. The former "pay as you go" or "borrow from ourselves" approach will not work in this circumstance. There are a great many community advantages associated with delivery of this key facility sooner ratherthan later as well as future benefits associated with providing higher service level standards over the coming 2004 — 2009 development charge timeframe. There are also cost implications associated with phasing and/or project delay referred to in the comments of Mr. Stanhope. Council has invested significant funds in the property itself and has committed to the provision of increased recreational service level standards through approvals to the revisions to the Recreational Master Plan last year. Those benefits need to be weighed in the context of a maximum $54/yearannual household contribution to the capital and operating costs of the facility, the likelihood of a future downturn in the economy, the inherent risks of future growth dependence at historical levels and the need to ensure the balance of the Town's capital works programs can be achieved. The work of Hemson has demonstrated that the fiscal component of the project is feasible with the previously expressed qualifications. Council can proceed with the project with the implications identified or ask that staff pursue in earnest some of the identified options to mitigate the tax based debt portion, with the understanding that staff will, as always, continue to endeavor to reduce the taxpayer impacts going forward without jeopardizing the remainder of the municipalities future financial position. —7— GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 May 4, 2004 - 7 - Report No, ADM04-011 ATTACHMENTS 1. Report ADM04-009 - New Recreation Centre Fiscal Impact Analysis 2. Correspondence from MHPM Project Managers Inc., Re: New Recreation Complex, Project Completion Options 3. Culture and Recreation Master Plan Fiscal Review — Hemson and Associates DRAFT dated 4/16/2004 4. Correspondence from MHPM Project Managers Inc. Re: Restaurant Facilities 5. Historical Residential Building Permit Summary by year PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting, Wednesday, April 29`h, 2004. GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 ATTACHMENT-1 TOWN OF AURORA COUNCIL REPORT SUBJECT: New Recreation Centre Fiscal Impact Analysis FROM: L. Allison Chief Administrative Officer DATE: April 13"', 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS No. ADM04-009 THAT Council receive the attached Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Hemson and Associates setting out the impact of the new recreation facility on both tax rates and reserve and reserve fund balances. BACKGROUND Approval to proceed with the Design Phase for the proposed new Recreational Centre was given by Council on February 24, 2004. As part of the series of recommendations that were adopted Council clearly indicated that consent to proceed with design was not final project approval and such approval was to take place as part of the adoption of the 2004 Capital Budget. The staff report (LSO4-008) also referred to the ongoing work of Hemson and Associates who are in the midst of updating the Town's Development Charges By-law. Their preliminary analysis of the apportionment of costs for the proposed facility was included in the Report and in general terms indicated the approximate $24.3 million cost of the Centre would be split as follows: Prior Growth: $7,700,000 Growth Funding Recoverable during next DC Period: 10,800,000 Pre Constructed Facilities Benefiting Post 2013 Growth: 5,800,000 Staff also indicated Hemson would assist staff in updating the impact of the cost of facility on the remainder of the Town's capital initiatives and the five year reserve and reserve fund balances to be considered as part of the capital budget discussions. That work was undertaken and Council, as part of the package of material considered on March 4t' had the benefit of that input. At the March 4t' Special General Committee meeting a number of changes to the capital plan were endorsed, including reallocation of additional existing funds (youth centre) to the recreation centre project, and the deferral of a couple of larger projects anticipated a number of years hence. These changes have the effect of mitigating future year impacts on the construction of the proposed recreation facility. GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 April 13, 2004 - 2 - Report No. ADM04-009 The February Leisure Services Report indicated staff would like the opportunity to further consult with Hemson to examine options emanating from their preliminary analysis and report to Council as part of the finalization of the Capital budget process on any other capital works implications or cash flow issues arising from the ongoing DC review process that may impact on the 10 year capital plan and a projection of reserve and reserve funds over this extended period. Since the February report and the early March consideration of the draft Capital Budget Hemson has made significant progress on our Development Charges review. Work related to establishing service levels over the past 10 year period is virtually complete and preliminary calculations as to the various components of the charge are underway. We are on track to bring the new by-law forward as part of a public meeting in May. This work has also had the effect of modifying the results of the fiscal impact work undertaken by staff in the summer of 2003 as part of the initial analysis related the recreation centre project. This report is intended to provide Council with the updated fiscal impact information in as similar a manner as possible to the previous work, taking the new information with respect to the cost of the facility, revised operating costs, revised growth apportionment calculations, changes to the 10 year capital plan endorsed by Council, new draft development charge quantum's and refined population growth forecasts over the coming ten year period into consideration. COMMENTS In brief terms, the approval of the Culture and Recreation Master Plan by Council on September 23, 2003, resulted in the approval of a list of priority facilities and a Ten Year Capital Forecast for the accelerated delivery of these facilities to meet enhanced service level standards set out within the Culture and Recreation Master Plan. As part of the initial design approval consideration for the recreation centre in February staff advised Council that fiscal modeling initially undertaken by staff based on an $18.5 million gross cost indicated that although our funding was stretched, there were sufficient resources available to proceed with the project provided that Council ultimately approved a debenture for a portion of the construction cost and recognized that there were to be future internal recoveries based on the sale of other assets (i.e. a portion of the Leslie Street lands 2005 — 2008). As the implications of a larger financial commitment to respond to a further enhanced facility size and program combined with increased overall construction costs were identified, staff reported in February that: "In reviewing and assessing the information herein it is critical for Members of Council to understand that approving changes in the Capital Plan as part of future annual budgeting exercises through adding projects or advancing timeframes from those currently shown could have significant impacts on both the analysis undertaken the methodology upon which the financing for —10— GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 April 13, 2004 - 3 - Report No. ADM04-004 this facility is premised. In other words, the flexibility of future Council's to implement changes to the timeframes set out in the Capital Plan may be severely constrained." Staff further advised that: "Debt financing necessaryto ensure adequate cash flow to fund construction of the facility in 2004/2005 would total $19,300,000. A twenty year fixed repayment rate debenture would have principle and interest payments totaling $1,679,000 split such that the existing tax base would be responsible for $739,000 and future growth repaying $939,000 annually. From the perspective of the existing taxpayer, funding the $8,500,000 portion of the construction cost would mean a one time tax rate increase of 4.6% if the debenture were a twenty year term with a fixed (consistent) repayment schedule overthat timeframe. A number of otherfinancing scenarios are possible and can be evaluated as part of the finalization of the capital budget process. However, Council should be aware that shifting more than half of the principle and interest cost of the facility to future growth over the timeframe envisaged above will have a substantial negative effect on the Town's current Development Charge Rate. Based on the preliminary work undertaken by Hemson, the recreational component of the Town's overall charge will likely increase substantially from its current $3200/unit to an amount approaching $6000 per unit. That increase is absent any other increases to the other components of the DC By- law for the other eligible service areas. The attached summary of DC rates in the GTA as maintained by the Greater Toronto Homebuilders Association has Aurora's current rate (when combined with those of the Go Transit/ Region and School) as the highest in the GTA. An increase of the magnitude this single change will make will certainly place our rates well above those of our comparators. This factor needs to be considered as our new by-law will likely be the subject of considerable scrutiny and challenge if it were to proceed in this fashion absent other similar increases occurring across the GTA in 2004. Also, as a critical component of the analysis we require a sustainable steady period of growth to our projected 2013 population of 59,000 in order to recover sufficient DC funds to support the other town wide capital initiatives and to pay the principle and interest charges annually for the portion of the debt for the facility included in the calculations. A prolonged recession during the forecast period, a time when growth is stalled as a result of either Council's initiatives to stop growth, future servicing constraints or a successful challenge to our By-law at the OMB by the development community resulting in a mandatory roll back of the approved quantum could all result in the need for the tax based funding to be substantially increased to cover payment shortfalls with very little prior warning." The work undertaken by the consultant ttalslrefined the apportionment of the costs between GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 April 13, 2004 - 4 - Report No. ADM04-004 the three components set out above and has remodeled the fiscal impact including the updates to the variables referred to above. The cautions previously communicated remain, although the work as detailed in the Financial Implications section below has confirmed that the development to occur during the next 10 year period can bear more of the cost of the facility than originally anticipated, thereby slightly reducing the impact to the tax base for that portion of the debt for the facility. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Revised Capital Implications: As noted above, the Capital requirements for the construction of the facility currently envisaged will total $24,430,000.Completion of the service level analysis work underway in February will have the effect of modifying the apportionment of costs such that future growth pays slightly more that previously contemplated, thereby easing somewhat impacts to the existing taxpayer: Prior Growth: In terms of the Prior Growth component, the total to be borne by the tax base was estimated to be $7,700,000, the new amount is $7,515,0000 and available funding from existing reserves totaling $5,380,000 has now been identified (including existing DC's, youth centre reallocation, previous funding sources and reserves), leaving a shortfall of $2,135,000 to be debt financed and combined with the post 2013 growth component below. (This calculation excludes any potential grants/fundraising revenues.) Current DC Period Growth (2004 — 2013): Based on the completion of the service level analysis as part of the new DC Calculations and growth forecastsfor the upcoming DC period. Hemson has now indicated $12,669,000 (this component was previously $10,800,000) of the total cost can be recovered (i.e. recouped during the next 10 year statutory timeframe) from "current" growth. However there are not enough development charge based funds currently collected to sustain an expenditure of this magnitude so early (year 1) in the review period, thus borrowing will be a requirement here as part of the equation. In this circumstance the interest costs for the debenture can legally be attributed to growth, thus the impact to the taxpayer for this portion of the debt is eliminated. Post 2013 Growth: The remaining component is that fraction of the facility that has been deemed to benefit growth occurring after 2013, Where a municipality chooses to "front end" such facilities, such as in this circumstance, it is also permissible to borrow funds and have the interest ultimately accrue at the expense of future growth. Thus this portion of the cost of the facility can also be constructed now and over time costs gradually shifted from the taxpayerto the development community as subsequent up�ates to the Town's Development Charge take place. In this circumstance the remainina additienalAA.24r; 700 (previously $5,800,000) GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 April 13, 2004 ' - 5 - Report No. ADM04-004 would be debentured and initially funded by the tax rate and in 2009 when the next DC review occurs part of the cost can be then property attributed and funded by growth. The final transfer of responsibility for funding would take place in ten years at the review occurring in 2014. In the interim the finance costs would be accrued with the prior growth component and funded by the tax rate. The revised calculations represent a total tax based debt service cost of $599,000 annually (for a 20 year term debenture) is equivalent to a one-time tax rate increase of $3.75%. There is a much more substantial development supported debt service commitment of $1,723,000 annually (based on a 10 year debenture term). In order to meet these principal and interest payments the Town would have to issue approximately 400 building permits annually (based on a $4500 recreational DC component) to not impact funding for other DC projects. This funding level is consistent with 10 year historical average permit issuance in Aurora, however staff caution Council that the debt payment would be mandatory and other DC capital works may be impacted as the Town would need to issue approximately a minimum of 185 single family building permits annuallyjust to service the debt. It will be important to ensure for the coming 10 year period that there is a steady stream of development consistent with historical averages in order to be successful in meeting the entire corporate DC funded capital needs. Operating Implications: In February staff advised Council that the net annual cost to operate the facility was $698,000 excluding debt service costs (the equivalent of a 4.3% tax increase). Those costs have been updated based on the additions to the program of the learning tank and 2 additional swimming lanes as approved by Council and the indication that a 10% userfee increase will be implemented commencing in the fall of 2004 in all facilities. The total annual net operating cost is now estimated to be $494,500. This results in a net additional annual operating cost to the tax base of approximately 3%. Combined, the overall annual increase to the tax rate for the new facility is now estimated to be 6.75% or $ 54 per year for an average house assessed at $250,000. Results — Fiscal Impact Analysis: The work Hemson has completed has indicated that based on the debt and sustainable development assumptions above, the capital program Council has currently contemplated and existing reserve fund balances that the facility is affordable and reserves, although depleted, will be in positive positions at the end of that period. OPTIONS The data provided herein is for Council's information as they contemplate final approval of the 2004 Capital Budget in general and the final approval for funding of the proposed recreational facility in particular. The tirrilik and scope of that project continue to be GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 April 13, 2004 - 6 - Report No. ADM04-004 discretionary although on one side there are service level implications associated with downscaling and rising cost implications with delay opposed by significant financial commitments now and in the future associated with proceeding with the project as currently envisaged. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal "A" speaks to maintaining a well -managed and fiscally responsible municipality. The work undertaken by Hemson provides Council with as complete a future financial picture as is able to be produced with the information available to staff at this time. CONCLUSIONS Staff have received approval to proceed with the design for a new recreation centre anticipated to be constructed commencing in 2004. Final approval to proceed with the project is contingent upon approval of the 2004 Capital Budget. As a precursor to the Budget consideration staff have sought the assistance of Hemson Associates to reflect as clearly as we are able the fiscal impacts associated with proceeding with this major undertaking. The work of the consultant has indicated that approximately half the cost can be successfully recouped from development expected to occur in the coming 10 year period provided that the necessary approvals and infrastructure are in place to facilitate that development. Based on the "financial snapshot' at this point in time the analysis has also said the remainder of the capital works set out in the proposed master plan can be achieved during this timeframe without incurring additional debt . Reserve funds would, however, be further depleted measurably. In considering the information provided it is imperative that Council clearly recognize that there are a substantial number of variables in the analysis that are dependent upon factors beyond the scope of both this Council and staff to control including: • the national/provincial economy • future changes in provincial legislation • decisions related to capital spending of future Councils • the ability of the Region of York to deliver essential servicing infrastructure • the overall GTA housing market Accordingly while staff have strived to provide the most complete and comprehensive analysis in order that Council can have confidence with their decisions in this regard, there are no guarantees that the fiscal outcome and other conclusions derived by the consultant will be precisely as has been set out herein. ATTACHMENTS 1. Fiscal Impact Analysis Review - Hemson and Associates 2. Report LS04-008 dated February 24, 904. 3. Revised Recreational Facility Capital Et'4�^�� ck--"-------- •:ng latest apportionment GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 13, 2004 of costs PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW - 7 - Report No. ADM04-004 Management Team Meeting, Wednesday, April 7th, 2004. —15— GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 New Recreation Centre Cost Implications Summary: Capital Costs: Total Estimated Budget: $ 24,4302000 a) Less DC Growth Portion $12,669,300 Issues: - Recreation DC Component increases to $4925 from $3219 - Sustainable 400 single family permits/year for 10 years needed to fund debt and complete other DC projects - Minimum of 185 single family permits/year for 10 years needed just to pay annual debt amount of $1,723,135 b) Less Cash (Reserves) Portion $5,380,000 Issues: - No additional capital works advancements possible - Reserve fund depletion over the 10 year term c) Remaining Tax Base Debt Portion $6,380,700 Issues: - one time 3.75% tax rate increase based on 20 year term Operating Costs: Total Annual Estimated Operating Cost: $ 494,500 Issues: one time tax rate increase of 3% anticipated after 10% user fee fully implemented in 2005 TOTAL TAX BASE IMPACT $54/year -16- GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 v a J t C p h N U � w a `w � n 7 2 O o � a = V N O in �o N O 9 w o e � o O 0 O � m v a a c K in a N O Z O a U b N O o a o d w V R n U C O A V Q e o O 90 R a � `u O a c a m � O N > O Y N (n a c R a N W of V a O O O N ym - w w O E v m o o m c � u1pi w w °i 0 a U w w w U c H a E n n o v m N N (A <N V O y yy m aO - 2 u u a m W m U U U ❑ LL U F K a V q LL' V N O O O C N 9 N 9 K Q O a u Q 1 c O m Y O ~ O O s C A Ql c am a m -40 e -17- GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 .§ § ;}¥ � \� i } { - !;I k : ..- ( , / • ) ) }] - : - -- \\� , / / I" GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 TOWN OF AURORA 2004 CAPITAL BUDGET ANALYSIS BY PROJECT Department Priority: # LSAC Priority: # DEPARTMENT: Leisure Services Department ACCOUNT NO. PROJECT: New Recreation Complex PURPOSE: To construct a new Multi -Use Recreation Facility (approximately 100,000 square foot facility) to accommodate twin pad ice surfaces, indoor pool, general purpose rooms, associated parking and access routes. INCREASE (DECREASE Construction of the facility will achieve desired service level standards approved by Leisure Services Advisory Committee as part of the Culture and Recreation Master Plan update. EFFECT ON FUTURE OPERATION BUDGETS INCREASE (DECREASE) 2003 2004 2005 2006 PROGRAMS - (Operating Expenses Net Cost) E 0 E 0 § 42,50D E 552,000 SALARIES - (Operations) § D $ 0 § 91,300 E 274,000 OTHER COSTS -(Operations) § 0 S 0 E 255,200 $ 878,500 REVENUES E 0 $ 0 $(389,000) E(1,210,D00) TOTAL E a $ 0 S 0 5 494,500 2003 2004 2006 TOTAL COSTS PROJECT COST -LAND $2,300,000 E 0 S 0 E 2,3oo,000 PROJECT COST - CONSTRUCTION E1,180,000 E2a,800,OOD E150,000 E22,130,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST §3,480,000 $20,800,000 5150,000 E24,430,000 FINANCING MUNICIPAL RESERVE I E 280,000 E 0 E 280,000 UNXPENDED YOUTH CENTRE E 0 $ 5001000 E 5001000 DCA RESERVE FUND I E1,100,000 § 3,350,000 §150,000 5 4,600,000 DEB. DEBT- DC'S 2003 20013 E 0 $12,669,300 § 0 $12,669,300 DEB. DEBT -FUTURE DC'S -TAX RATE $ 0 § 4,245,700 E 0 S 4,245,700 DEB. DEBT- NON DC'S-TAX RATE $ 0 E 2,135,000 S 0 E 2,135,000 FUND RAISING E 0 E 0 $ 0 E 0 TEMPORARY INTERNAL FINANCING $2.100,000 E(2,100,000) $ 0 E 0 TOTAL PROJECT FINANCING $3,480,000 $20,000,000 §150,000 E24,430,000 EXPLANATIONS/HIGHLIGHTS: -19- GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 -20- GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 ATTACHMENT-2 April 19, 2004 Mr. Larry Allison, CAO The Corporation of the Town of Aurora 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 Dear Sir, Re: New Recreation Complex Project Completion Options Further to your request, I am providing below an overview of cost impact issues that need to be taken into consideration regarding the potential delay or phasing of program areas as it relates to the completion of the planned new Recreation Complex on the Burnett lands in Aurora. My comments focus on two approaches, delay of construction by 12 months and the potential for phasing the construction. Although I will focus primarily on the potential cost impact, it is important to note that your Leisure Services department will be challenged to meet user expectations and functionality should facilities not be ready as originally planned in 2005. Delay Project Completion for 12 months Assuming the design is completed and ready for tender, the issues discussed assume that only award of contract and start of construction will be delayed for 12 months As noted in the February 24, 2004 presentation to Council, construction costs are currently experiencing inflationary pressure and it is anticipated by the industry that this trend will continue. Our Cost Consultant (AW Hooker) has advised MHPM that if a delay of 12 months was to be considered, the overall construction cost impact would be an increase of 3%. With our proposed construction budget of $19,000,000 this would equate to a $570,000 cost increase. Also for consideration is the cost impact to contracted Consultants In the event the project is delayed beyond the planned schedule, the Town of Aurora would be required to pay for suspension expenses as noted in the RAIC 6 Contract for Architectural Services. —21— GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 -2- The amount is scalable depending on the phase of the project at which time it is delayed, however we estimate it to be approximately $50,000. Continue Project — Phase Construction and Completion Continuing with the project as currently planned allows for one contractor and a scope of work that includes the necessary services and operations to make the facility functional to the public and users. The phasing of one or more components of the work would increase the potential for a second or more General Contractors and the potential for overlap of office and site overheads. MHPM has experienced that the phasing of a large component of a project usually adds additional costs to the remaining components due to the implementation of infrastructure to accept the later phase. For example, making the necessary construction access and life safety provisions to the current facility as new phases are built and added on. In discussions with our Cost Consultant and contractors in the industry we can accurately advise that the overall construction costs would increase between 10% - 15% depending on the extent of the phasing and complexity of the construction. Given that the construction budget of $19,000,000 is our current estimate for the full project, this would indicate a potential $1,900,000 - $2,850,000 cost increase should components be phased. As with the earlier comments regarding delay or suspension of the project, Consultant fees would be impacted with a phasing model and increased costs should be anticipated dependent upon timing and extent of program phasing. Conclusions We understand the financial implications of the proposed Recreation Complex project and that the Town of Aurora is required to investigate alternative delivery models. It is our recommendation that the most financially prudent model for moving forward with this planned new facility, is to complete it under a single construction contract and in the most time effective manner as currently planned. Yours truly, Gary D Stanhope Senior Project Manager 81186-3171 —22— GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 200 a CHMENT -3 § �| § �§ ------------------- n : � \ ! ! ■- ; �2 ,! � G ! § \ � � . IJ ig §! �� .j - •�- \} )§ )))§)\ ]) -22- GENERR^4L eOM TTEE MAY 4 mo §\ / \ � ) °■ �� ! \ k ) | k r / .; - k ® g■ / § e■ k . + ) d ( • •!! ••! •;■;■■ •• • ! ! ! E !•• ! t n !.!■, !§; ! §!••■B §, • ,§§ | E ) ; ) �| eE!|§ 7 §|!!) ) (§ / )/ §§ § §\§;�§l,!�!|2),� ! |{:!•|�:�\||{)| � � u ! !| !, !|�!!! �. ; �;# ! ; ■ ; ; , ! -24- GENERA .COMMITTEE �a MAY 4 2004 g s s IS - b Ol �rj mj n H *q Y g N C 6 e ^ n �nnaN Ng k o o q � �mogo Flij R 8 a 8N�8 LF 1-0 g g g s g sso= �.000 w ^ Oc �� a mmsgg grogs IFpfl �n $ l+ N N eo e nu�i�YOYII y Rg a e 1'' t k: c � . pa qfl- IE m � m a LL 0 C O O G � c 4� O LL re aLL m LLa.g f' u Y m —25— GENER# COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 M F m ry h Im- 9 ggg Qs g� g 1. ig v�if@ (9i h N m m 000 mr° ida 1°Y h Pr°N nN` O i� iN" i�N2 TP w Ia mm m rqq !y44 iryy !!fi�gg Ai A mt°3N� � P :e NMI 888 Oii 88 f Gs SEE a 3 w pp 00 eN� 0 000 O it N Y 988 � og ,� ^aql NCR FY N NCNVz m o u I � IQ mIrR !Y u w a gg =4 33 y a°9 6 *w ti [ � Kg2 9 Tiiyv yv a 3@ LLmK . ma ,mph❑ W U J aYp a' a u w is ci I I 111 11111 ,n —26— GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 ATTACHMENT-4 April 29, 2004 Mr. Allan Downey, Director of Leisure Services The Corporation of the Town of Aurora 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 Dear Sir, Re: New Recreation Complex Commercial Space / Restaurant Option Further to the presentation made by NORR Architects at the General Committee meeting, on Tuesday April 20, we respectfully request further direction as it relates to the request by Council to explore options for the planned food service at the Recreation Complex. In order to meet the expectation of Council to consider increased level of food & beverage service, we request you consider the following questions and provide direction so the Consultant's future presentation of design progress can offer suitable options with accurate cost estimates in order to get a final decision on what direction is best suited for this new recreational facility. Services to be offered: Some discussion was held regarding a varied menu of food and beverages. The mechanical and electrical requirements for open grille cooking and or frying are significant and have an impact on space and cost. Should this be considered a function of the option to be investigated'? If so, are there specific expectations of the type and variety of food to be offered? Size of Food Service: Our current snack bar / concession configuration as presented on April 20 is planned with approximately 500 square feet including storage. In order to provide for a full service restaurant with a varied menu it is expected that this area will need to increase by at least 100%. It should be noted that at approximately $300 a square foot for food service space, we estimate this will add a further $150,000 to the capital cost of the project. -27- GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 -2- Further to the sizing of the food service, is it intended to have the facility serve only to customers inside the complex or is a direct access from the outside desired so the restaurant can function independently? Level of beverage service: Significant security and operational issues will need to be considered if it is expected that the food service facility also have a liquor license and serve alcohol. Should this be considered a function of the option to be considered? Comparison of other facilities: The Project Architect has noted that full restaurant service along with the serving of alcohol has been provided for in two other Recreational Facilities they have recently worked on in Guelph and Oshawa. The Oshawa facility has been a successful integration and continues to operate while the Guelph food service was not successful and has since been closed within the complex. Although exact operational revenues and expenses for these examples are not known, how the facilities are used is a factor for comparison purposes. The Oshawa complex is a quad pad and its primary users are local industrial, old-timers and pick up hockey leagues. Community recreational programs are secondary to the facilities usage. The intent of the full service food service here was to generate revenue and this user environment makes it feasible. The factors as to why one succeeds and others don't is a result of how the facility is to be used by the community and the anticipated sales such a service would generate. Obviously the larger the Recreation Complex (number of ice pads, various programs) the greater opportunity for a full service restaurant to prosper. The above noted Guelph twin pad & pool facility is municipally operated for its community with primary usage generated by programmed activities. This is comparable to how Aurora currently uses its recreational facilities and should offer a convincing parallel into the success or failure of enhanced food service at the planned new Recreational Complex. The possibility for higher food service levels is intriguing but should be subject to a business study to determine the size of market, variety of menu, facility size and capacity requirements. Our Architects experience is that marginal operations usually fail and that a consistently larger than our planned user population is required to make such a facility viable. Conclusions With consideration given to the sensitivity of costs for this project and the strong intent to expand for future community use for various recreational activities, the most appropriate course of action for food service offering at this time could be to continue as planned with a snack bar / concession only. When the community recreational needs require further building expansion of the programs and services, the full service restaurant could be planned into that growth and be given the maximum chance of succeeding with the associated larger number of users and visitors regularly attending events and programs. EWE GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 -3- Yours truly, Gary D Stanhope Senior Project Manager 81186-3174 —29— GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 ATTACHMENT-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O 0000 T N 1-1 Ex11l1r4 zooz loot 000z 6661 866I L66I 9661 5661 b66T £66I Z66I 1661 0661 6861 8861 L861 9861 S86I -30- GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 AGENDA ITEM # o, TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. PL04-052 SUBJECT: Planning Applications Status List FROM: Susan Seibert, Director of Planning DATE: May 4, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the Planning Applications Status List be received as information. BACKGROUND Attached is a list updating the status of applications being processed by the Planning Department. The list supersedes the April 6, 2004 Planning Applications Status List and is intended for information purposes. The text in bold and italics represents changes in status since the last distribution of the Planning Applications Status List. Since the last list was prepared, a Public Information Meeting was held to receive input on the Whitwell application (D09-10-03 & D14-28-03) for lands on the north side of Wellington Street, immediately west of Highway # 404. The applications on this site are for a large format, regional serving retail centre. Because of the significance of this site, a team comprising of a planner, market analyst, economist, transportation engineers and urban designers have been retained to peer review the proposal and to provide advice to staff and Council. At the Public Information Meeting Council determined to have at least two Public Meetings under the Planning Act to consider a greater amount of public input and to consider the preliminary findings of the peer review. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act 2001 (ORMCA) came into force November 17, 2001 for a period of six months. A note has been added to the applications on the status list where they are clearly within the boundary of the Oak Ridges Moraine. A Staff report was considered at the February 17, 2004, General Committee on the status of all applications in the Oak Ridges Moraine that provided a position relative to the transition provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act. This report has been provided to all affected applicants. Several applications have been filed within the Yonge Street South (OPA #34) area and are under review. Staff are not proposing to schedule Public Meetings on these files —31— GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 May 4, 2004 Report No. PL04-052- until agency comments, particularly dealing with aspects of OPA #48, have been reviewed. As noted in the attached list, staff are reviewing an addition to the Canadian Tire Store of approximately 30,000 feet, and several of the applications along Bayview Avenue are progressing with approvals anticipated shortly. We anticipate bringing the urban design guidelines for the Business Park at Highway 404 and Wellington Street before Council during the month of May. It is noted that the attached Status List is regularly used by many companies seeking information about the Town of Aurora. The Status List is now on the Town's website. OPTIONS Not applicable. CONCLUSIONS Not applicable. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Not applicable. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN The Strategic Plan has goals of open and accessible government. Information documents such as this are intended to further that goal. ATTACHMENTS Planning Applications Status List — May 4, 2004 PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Not applicable. Prepared by: Joyce Wilson, Planning Technician Extension 4349 S san ei 6f Director of Planning -32- GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 F WU N o cap w w k 0 Y w > o O O 'y U O ti b q bn � >p � 4 e0q to U C op•aA C p. aGiU m V � vob� "to ° p 0 1:1 d� Fd' t U F '5 a ti 0 a N y o rn g h Uq � �" N � �❑ � F" ti Ri O y 0 aN N tt H N N d) J7 cy Go O s O 4y 'D O N iC y F c0 ,N y O C 0 ro o P, o N ° G�dd o n O N Yes f�] A �x CN 0� o V o r rnEn �x N Nrn Y o "�' o •a a. ^� z 0 U0 U � o � , 0 ro° ED ti V �vi a4�omoo F fax tom, o b a wCl Q g o bA 0 � co 00 >F�°" A w ��aw��Q1 Qo GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 N v Fz cono c� w a 'w ct o � , ; b cq oO Fi O U w rn 0 N 2 ro U N .+ cC O s. N .-. ti a) , P A a � a N N1 b � o . Y b m b CD O N ti U b ��'C >.�xNo �Q a. aUio� 0O IA N aUi CD �Nw0 p 0cn .'—'.�\0 0 Up O N M cd M U p p - N � O O 0Uf4U0wo R+ A rn d' b O '� �' oo N E U C) cq a n G W N G a 0o kA A 08 � rn � 000 �o o 0 o 0 w y 'd cd �o ;:3 vUi w N p 0 O w 0 o C 10 - d , > q 0 v p ro .� U ro Pr o �, °; o o o '" xx8 o xxE�. 'o Yo z �o 0 Q 0 � O 0 A `•I ,�. � p a co QQ "no �� UO n oo0 � bQp 0H b cOn �N 04rq a � 'N cq� boi 4 (Ddoo,Ca N —34— GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 m 0 N v� W U Op yU G h U O 'o 'b ,� O U o O N ;O o o`n, b y D o C7, O oa° o Q a 0 2 o O O 0 cd Ub o`c ao°rn� h /� V] VJ 171 � •V ��y h-�1 �F� �J �+ cn V]U _�f bey •� O ° FI 00 ��' CC ai go 'u o � C4 0 cC O O U c3 �, .o O ,y ° c3 ti cad ;b 0 d V N 14 b `3 F i 4"' N A U cO �N 4a CD 2 O al �r U 'rJ V7 bO rl •�3 O � o O1 !.� � i7 � °1 P�. �a 0 0 P" O ¢� .� a�i A rn a rn o n O O u° frr a, ?� H 0 H � U a o p] o � y Z m � C F ,b Ch o z u qu U p 00 N�C0� a,� 0 O � 00 aab pOC? 0 n o � V �woo aa LaM MCI-11 GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 IV 1"1 N O a cd a+ W w m o o en v . �� cd a y .ZI o a y cd N .� w N a m Gy 1 M N q pp cyd p 8�ga 5nO Ba w .o 81 °p F b 04 3y y b 04 to d°. d �p'3v�Q�1��ao v o o 00 c N v g N � N U oo •cd CS N a] O O -X N .� O q cq O� b q� •� �� N ,U V � 'D r. N� W •°p q�+' p tO Ra O.c"i, •yp Hr' N �i W w "ad, " N R 5 C4i cCV o o It o ti A GU 0 N cn b ;cl Y � z o b •� o cu o 0 N M c l O bA : N N F+ P aai o �W4 o•=W o 3A z �aU rx7�3 oU.° o rn O AOSSoo C °Ua�Q ° a 5 ° W v,ra�a�A� V V� v P..,vn (,5N, scisfl GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 in O N 7 ►� F U H � b �d � ti Q)m W W U ou � 'a ; ,� � b vq�i � � q m cC Vc 'C � y cd V O 0 w q M o C r � v rall o ° 3 o ° .� a^ �p U �0�y `� O r'" '� q on N O 'C1 'O N m N G 1-y W y ��yy O F N O F� .O N CC U °�a f ol UU i � Cod o pOE 0 40. a""i Y ri �° ' " `° h o �N `� `�' v `� o °°'" p G cn o ,o,cl QU a ooab❑❑a O N ti o 0 u o P. [� cd cn cd a (1i U U a W �i 0 W A 00 q N O q O m OO N U o6 obb Q a A 6- o o rn 0 ate' N 0 i cdiPO m in 00 kn O i a°'i o h a, q q m 'n .o ti � �; �' •� q a 00 00 d d O a0 y¢ vm�o v 0 o u o cq W) O m kn r 00 �o a W- m O p. w� Nbb oN b d pp U (U v U o^ q r ti o g o c, O .w..a �N>CD o O O a id cpydO f O Y cd N O O <O 0 O s� >� x u a q oo W mA O OP�N� ;3 � 41 O0.~�m W O�Oti�in ti ..� 'y l0 t—�E�a�Av N c7A cd A Aa � P.a �v qO —31— GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 0 a 0. U b o 0 ccd 71 C U ' 'n t m Py H N p O cC OU a O N cyd N Go °" U tt qy 0 N ti O b N❑O N N U N > Fcd o tl bA cUa V1 N a +., °C. � tl �_ D N V� y FL c7 " Rc '� ' Oy k U "y" tU s'y m .- y 00 CD V y �o a . cn TO O P, � to o o o cr roN — N abi o ' U >�oC .�c pP N o Qov° pq� �0 �O o rn .—I A rn rn N rn O a o O � � V1 �� M 0 y Dcq UI 'a^i .� lu a^,>" G� '>� 5 1-I 'O co U •d N p F-I cn U z m o a 0cn Urn �� p rn O y N ,� N�� • N F FG r a oo cn c ou a0+1O0 U 1-� IN a HC' U--I O cd OUp r-1 0 1 O Y O O� °a''1-4 ° �O c0 waad..�aA�1�¢w�a�AA r F°+C7.�A 00 rn o GE r Al a N Y � Y CI• Nam, •N 00 t:lcq OI 1�-I cQid Yp +"� O •� Y 0 0 o o 00 of NO q y o ° a • � a rn C4 .0 4t ,.q o-0 ;� by .N Y •n b o 5 N O 0 o +' > T} �y r(ayQi q �n11 dj O Y O 1-I 'd b9 YO �. tty .•.I soy �N U bA C1 CI a..4 •C ��yy'M -0 0 GZ1. a) O. cq Oo L7 0 0 bA U U] o IJ.I � d w a� bw o Bo a� o o° o o o o, a s d p ~ • I Y ,(P, •� a vi a ai v o Q, .r o � o Co o K �,N 0 a ,—I 1 W cC P. = 00 0\ AO d ,n vYi oc A �¢ a oo.o 0470U N a ro N Pao° ? PG ova N N 00 C� N o °� o P, a rn �O cn ro 0 Y a k�I 0 0 o a G Y od b Pa w ' 0 c) O o 0 adQ Y N H w V) p o a U N �o ~ 't N c r -'d 5 N >� o m 0 N "o 000 Ol O h 0 FQ b Hey ir0 ti '� o 'o 00 .UU" .0 ti 'd u W0� Y�aQ� �v]�c�V yob 0 N N ti A o I� A� �o �30lP.ov NC'CP�v�yQa --� N GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 77 O O N 0 °� A 00 N .� G •0 �+ 0� U O O ai .O >N a+ O O f3 a P" >00 O U 00 O N O p G �O N 'q p O N O pON N N 0 A W .�p o a.g- as 0 v v o qtl o ad 0� obn N xi N O O N a O W U .p 0 L7 .P. 46 a� 'c'� 0 a> C O pp >0 A.,i ccdd •V °O N ti "oU y0. [�.� o qA�•O ° �bc ° 0 �e�n o Z o �°° b � 5 6aO bUa ai U ,� ^cy 5a w 0 O ti p O >,4 N ON aCq � r p O el) p 'p y 'O N> U 'C a>i cV p t ~ O O Pi a w Ooo N o �op .0 .� N AO y ,� 01 O N f7 N U ppRS 'd F-� .a N O ycnao W P, sb I O 'o U U OP:PAN O.p °c4 N y0 a P4 o �� °O °�' � A OAP O �lw° Na 0 o O py o^� 0 rn �a'U 0 � W y o "•, [O] N Sri 8 b 4. O V O �,, a� aoo> �� •° b� °q.` b `�' 0 0 o P. '> `�d. p ;� O r� M k cO n R: w Pa.+ ro A 60 M O O 48 bq O\ O N C' .. 434 �y O o U 9L, �A r,/+�Py �Y ° P.� �Ch11 �d 'U dam' bOU x ti N O O o ono N N OOA O Ewa o 0'a'Py�7�O� �-�.� N O��N•� W a Fri in1�Oti 00 O ON Vt+ .-+v1 1 ti7 ��v�N0 0 M d' � —29 lJ ENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 N w xw prl06 Oo�q N 4-;U ti ON _�Ur b Vr 0 N U MO cC U 0 0 C H ~T O� N—b yJ7 W to j .CS Y u/ Cn N OD .rl O .ti a a a'C 'd.' 'rl cd v°' N 1� ° to v N pia U 2 ui ri ; Cd C .O O U U ti 'ri 'rl �°tea a ° C° U G 0 CA w 'C o •° o N r, •� a o d d 'a a Z � P, W ° cn o. ° N O 00 �cq C a �oacn o 0 bb bo 71 oY°noa4 aai o U 0u °�"+ U ti o W. (u O o a b °�' O �4 a ,- o a o °a3 roo U C,jU� 4 � m (yi co O O Q a N o O Y a 1 FGwo�00 a o a A o° C5CD a O�aAA� E N Ln r, -41- GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 0 L M U > U Rj > �^ ... U CD >1 bo 0 _• A 'C I N ON U°~ Oi b N c~d b y V] pp o�-,t b"U 0 U o Nq w y a'pq y M N O 3 0 Y�1a aqi N 0 o>� E� v aqi U ° m aqi V q awOi a.-: > >,N N G a ^ a ts n � ��a�Cq �:s o b ro o m Npp 'Uo m con W O m "Cl Uou .5 0 cd 'C a4 o cu M U O U N O N O ti N ,� tl ' M N p" bA /-� 0 H .: a°i U WUU b 'A N q� O•O 0 01 °'� •p +N .b N "dpp xi °a o CD o El Cq °'� a q o cti o �' a a, CoaOCgU fl (� o f ° O aON O O N O O O O oa �a 0 0 0 N C] O cn N N a p r O p ° O r+ q q q �F w _ O '" O � ° a a a ° 0 UJ UCj Cd Y >8 uo cd y 0 0 .nJ N� p N N �O 10 ° O U 4 N W .--� Ja 00 CIDQpp 4 9 A� FQ F"+ Q � .7 cd N Q W) ywa1 y 47 ° GTN N V) a cd�P. Y+ 9 q OONv� �d� Ua.0 WZQA oo, QQ� QO o, GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 r b U M r b N M W bA (rj v q O �p •O 'O obi Li" �" O U •S7 U .� pNj ti b p '" �' •'N" N � r to A N is , ., f7 O O O Qi .0 -� y;3 "d i~ N q c"d •� k U N cd lZ ;Z3 '' O .� •p 'O O N q te' tri b O o .��j-.(D N � p U 4J N ��S p N 2 s qN c2 O N •`n. N N "' F+ m O u. C O 4, .pbD P. O ON aOi F7 pC,4 00 ..+ o O �. Pr O W ON N • O y hq O" p0 o O .p oYi ;� •tis Pq 't1 -tea^ ON jA O o rnP� rn O A N .-a bo rl P7 " °° o*41 0 Vl '7 b O a OAwa. a u o 3• chi a a � M c 48 W O N a o ON °dU3 U o o >> ��+Ukn N a 0 b �"Nti N N O O A � A U p 'b o'j� A > O y OQ�N�O rn n° N O O 0 c h o N N ZINC n 1.I1P Al ^^R.KA1T r A9AV n nnnA N r. y Um o aim �W 0 AaW O qq O O N , w �' m 0�� A vi pU "� - -0 O O N bA h 0U�"w c�C -cl ti s.O "' ON O d, P1 pc) N go OU p Ez C•ON y q N O U 0 ,oz .". �C 0 1 .U+ to N vi q N �`-' O ° 4 O U by O bb .r. db�-0 o � 0 �, o,ti ca ' •� NOa a N° ° a o" •� o v a al "b ° Y w ` o O rn a° aqi p a a•2 n b aia U a w° a 4 F.. d o ° o P o•°�� O a o d bn o n a`i a" Cq ea 0�" N�� po w � 0 0q° G o A p o U°� o a o � � .o o p '3 Y (u 0. U O p^ a ,N ,q b abi 0 U 50 °a°J as o Q o° U P. 0 3 U °' a U O A °; U .� p O O cn - o N O O O cq V Vl w a � � o moo'., � � • � � O au Zo m ��Wq NP. rA o N b N O +-� q O C .N 1 u'o C0 G N O r� a oUQ o xP.U�� Cq Wpp O aN q +pm O cCaO� I �� UC7 4)Omp 0 00o a'ti m � O fir' CD 0 cd ° t+ ^,i O vl �+ �w°w�av�AACN id c2 0 C:, N N MILE m ENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 � •C y M b U C b U C N .O O O O b b cy�d O 06 cc,=dd ai �y ..Ui 'd •U ,d d OU N O +-' p O 'cam a+ N O .� b o a°i,o 0 0 p 0 0 ON Ofy a O W t7 0 U OOP U y 'Q N a N Oi (5 U •C � O U N O .q won o ti 0 aCi 'm p K y E a5 O C q � 0. p�� p N C) O 7 G ON ,tJ rq 'O N N Fi o -00 O o w ) U=- O o U O t! N "o•" U iC U p p .� p hq .b .0 .0 o 'O N w0 N N 4.)^b (U '� 1 o w f~ O co4. . o. o > v) •Q. N a)c'7d o 0 ti 00 q q bfJ O.0 •� yc� Od c�i1 U U pq ++ G cd cd oMo a� U 'd U Y O N y �y ° .� a� ,ram.• a �Q h �t 0 8"t � �� °q o n byp o i o� .� o N W a �Q P"O 0 0.) +� Ac� N p tN-. 'b cad G-cj w•� Ob a o rn aUi N C � o P-i U w cC U H O 5 P-i f.^ O d) 4 °. i Q� 'iJ C, 0 I s � ri O w, }. ,Ly O O sr O ,A 0 0 O N p bC ❑ � ,❑� id G cd U U O 0� O .+ O in ti N 0 Y a G o y o ° O 0 o c U v N U a 0 O y v Gno 1� a roo c"d 0 b'Oy N 'O U w V1 O +U' pQ O q oLl'd' a O P4 o c"O O U �•� Evi N C-qO O�� O� ��O N .� 4 g O kn xx°oom G �OO 4�� ° lDO � 'y °aCa M l� '�: ra cn O O N oo p M �d �18,N. Qoo N N N •f J GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 Tj Y u W Q bAob • N di � 3� G a � n a, 0a o ropp to cd O r. .,4 cd' .�, N ° G ro .d r,0 ° 'p N p .b n O rl R ° cd U ,�-a' N 'b Ci O ' V '� ctl ti m ..r Ln 05o oo o di C) l� W a+ ccd by ❑ F '� N •bo 4,� Cn d r O ro r' bA Y bAl 0'U bon a C� 0 a 0 a b a °a o ° O $P. O � n g Opv� r m o �+ O O N N oo a ON v� G vcq 0 o U °� o a'> ego 0a A i w O a b°n U O Uri m r 00 ,-. ti N o . cr�' V N o O U OO U Pa '' N 'td7 � qm �7 a��i h f.. O N a/ . rl �.0 ;� d o o4 'o�Q ro�wLU x h � NU C a � idIt O � Q "QQ Op 0 aQ+P4 W)i 4 ry" OHO z �M VjQ" �J boa ti0 r O° cc a d oQ U��vWi N >�' QQoo Aa P.g �-iP- n N N N YO GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 � ° N f.�aW wa� wW 0 Cd N ka C.10 � w •� O +.+ O P..ti �,� O ID Op" N b q F4 p N cd °d cu p o u 'd U N > ca u �.. q N U p N> ,d '� > 4 ro N ti R p � 7 O � N O sMx 0 r.. '~ U `C� N o� O` •S m ^� O OU c'� I/�y' •+ U Vy p ,.y rC.I °t 0i•DC oo tl obi o°d°� e° '$U°d a° a u Ix a- w ° G U COO 'b U ctl O 6T� W N �j cq � D p Fq N It 0 W p pO, b0 >� '� A *� ti CIS ix49 aNN �N" a W°Odwzv��loo q Q�aN In o m m GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 I N M U' N O ti 0 U > OO S 'oN NOY U •p F. U �U0t3 N V Y o b ° a � Es aj P. A o cz �pH(Up 4 O d w c �o ¢� a 'a� Mm N� y N tj .a O 4! b •.pi Q' ,0 y O O 'p w° •� y• a o y CD 7a ° � o �CDo w '' U a r ON by rFJi bA �i C N ''zjo�� U N tj w cd UF pppcyp b bA N 7 by �' om i o o '� q N o 00 G4 p a U � a w° P a p pp o ro r ni p/. a p b '.� N p p �"' y y ~U 'O •� O O r� o bA 'd F-i b0 '-� 'cc'' bA 'U O O 'b 'd N aU+ U N cc a.� N N o a� °u a U o o a a n ar14 Pm- s a 3 o o a , a aH 2, O O N N O O 0 0 0 0 O p yr 0 p d ~ O a i U 8 . y0 �0 0to .� n"+ tNi MGb a' O cE�J Ocd N = Nccf a FL W O C� co a oo u 0 o C4 a b U a d d N Q 48 a N d -o 4 p cC U d 0 o o Q i �� Q u� � � Pav�iv tiW o >Gz �23o ) ,� 0. F Qo�o NA� U o o°voo�o a �ba0 a° 914 oo w � o pQo U G �0� �t A ° 15o4in �0. pq ON cNn cm+i m —46— ENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 W N O m .'�:j r u U a+ U O N v ch '� N ° >a O O �o O O i" a° Uo o o Uo o c ^�•O,. > Pam d r up ti C�sp g .gip .� O w •y bo o6 .2 o bA a b O bq w • Cy, ro m ro o id p,� • 'C3 �'�" Fa O O N b m m b kr0 In O rO oNbo Or a aaa o cq m Um0 UOm Um0 CO u rE 0 `O m U O 9 co -;a b U O+cq Off' ^ O U ON U° U X. UO O N N UON .0 cd Fi LnUN O " $ �w��-+-+ W w� Paws OCD d O o CD o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N CD CD N N cn CD m 0 rm CD m to U Nin OO •q 'O N ti N .ti N rr .- N C? N i o C N 4 U N N Ga U U iju 3 � O ybN O j1NO v Q(�Id U ° v >q � o �zq� U ° aaw�Z��w�awCq ° o a Ln�wo� k m m izwz GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 v d w w ,� i, 00 40, O O ❑Y „O O N aJ cct O Y • v p O P�.i 7O' N y0 N Z ff' cdv O G ccdd "r4 .1 O b ti O 4 i U ro4J y 't1 m 'C N +� N A U > o N a O w NO 2hA .O w '�'' 00�aN" p F C �,, s' O +bpi-,L1 •�,'a O N F O N ate+ M N a o c' o 1 to b�.blii O q 0"0 b0 ti �rl Up • 4 O b y •� H L) ' N O b a 3U O �' aNw ��' `3 is u y 1 p m N �U N a O N i ti 0 ti O N N N N 0 O O O N TJ yyci Gj N N p «i y p c0 + p 't yC. N O O 'b O O a p N 'tl 'b Y G O p a y d ". P+ cNd ON r"'+' F" N N N Ni N ate+ •." q U o y O ��c bA 0 HOa �O �O .N-� O� > O c~dN� NCq N .W� - 8P CD �rA Cq 0(y� �d da � pytil IA O �¢6 444:) A�� CR 0� vCA ¢ m m M ENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 22/ j\» m = 4 j \ .» § §/a /CD )/) e �)\ & ~ $\bZ j ± gz \§/ $ % !f/ § \ g / g . § \ \ \ @ \ 0 ){ \$g §/\ S`®+ ;,e3§ ® g)®=& ))))) A &B e2 cn cn 'D jea ®/ $0 ƒ§\] \®/®3 ®f)4�)\@ / // \/ &Q«��&/9©9/j / /�a @$ &®c /eƒ\7 / /j = m 9 7 Tr- GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 ON o M y m m ro c U d pp 'C1 n O p iC ,,4 � �o Op7 bA Gcn O O N� U CL� ca V1 U O ti o IX0 O �i .� •� 0 Fi 'a��1 5 U m U w O .3 C W Pa a 0 a '_' b � ° wo a o bA a «i a, q U W U° U U a a o �U U p ; acv_z .d a U by O p ti bA o o " 'N " bit a� ° N bq'b 7 F" � N i7 U N L7 L7 V q U n N N r-, CD O O O 0 0 O N O w. "� tea°' 4,4 00 o�s� 1 u o ° 0 b" b O� P °� C°w° o 0p4 ply [V°�U v ° O °N�4 a�i b v oo � bn 0 ro by °� 7�1 � a rl '.G 0.oW aiCq WU 0NU 05 O O Ur1O' ON xi ° tiW Cf UapO,--, xi ° cM O t2 VN+ M 0G4-, "', >U L. •--i M O O >U i� pN U N iC �cq ) .m-, kr) - 0 e�`-� �qo sU�00 m r�a�rnAA p a.drnA GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 0 0 UUw �w b O a d 4° o o a' a U Z P y �5 p b,o O u0i > v o 0 0 U Vi ''y 0 pa cC Q! .O N b � C � m G N o .w w �• to F . J itAiy •� ' o o�L P. rn Q' a0.0 •°zy ° 7-3 O c? lq N N O 0 0 0 6noAo p rn o ONTO 0 0 0 0 0 Q N YQQ o C r O p C t P ,0 p 0 A N O �' '� p O 'ro ,p a oei on v o �'> Q$ o q y a`i of w p °r m n a4 a sti ° p h o qw cd v� ro m cCv a�i 2 o u pCl) m j U) N O N cHd 0 NO YU y p GFN R O�y ��. �'U� a V�1NH.O �bN 3 p N v Q o r cct O N wO : �dp u 'N pV ' > 4J 4. 'O �. A N� UR,� •,-S '.7 �Cl)0 N'00O � 4. 00 O O qq ��, O h o Q GO r- GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 N 0 0 N w: m N 0 m U U W w w W U U W � p N P� y�.bh0 �•3 b-0 O b "O Fp�p a •� FOi ,� q ,O 'C C C d o w0 ca O N O N o o 0 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N to p ti q c0 a+ q' O a0 O 'p O q q 0 N U "A N 'J7 N rb�9 . p 7 ° �' Pw '� ° a .v N i •o b m b b N U N b U •�(., N � Ga •� a o C% 5 0� o � ° N�y ❑❑ w� Pi O ° �i od V] 4 cC U ,D ti U cC A w CL cd U ca, CL .� cC a ° cqn Ln 0000 pig', i O ° N 000 'A b ti L1' N U W d' G a O N O o W n V� 4ti p V CD a 2 gu q A v�aw00�C A LCCin I a d O to -54- GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 m N Aar Q0 a 0 W O U bN baD o O bA U 2 ,[ � ' 0 ti .a a+ 0 ' a a❑+ � 0 "d U a,a �a ao 00 as 0 o 'p ' w P. p O 0 w P. 0 O 0 p 4 v° o b b �? o d a a O U b bA •O O -y j '0 bA O �N.20� ��. lu O 8 N� F� 0 2CC� N .� a �bA 'u by cn ., P' � p 'U wto c3 `n U . ao 0 .0 .a a 0' 'or, a, U 0 a a U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD N ON N oto bi o y P. q N 0, bA b' 0 0 0 ° ° ° 5 B fal -o P4 P, -al o m 9 d c�i ° ti a o a 0 a o a > �p ° 4)> "p h p o V) o I� > U o " ° -0oC7�o m uC7�o o m N xUo� ° ♦+ F7 N m �,a N m fx N 00 "Cio�nym n m 0 v 4 r wOR A u 7 a rn A a s A ti N m -55- GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 N 0 0 N i-ti y C1 ? bD O ;Ito y [Q N bb p o U n,o cd 0 m O ,O •� N �.0 p•�.0 a a N 9 Qx' a U g q a ° 0. N O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti Y � � •Cy U c3 � � cC � O � O O ..�. � .`3 � N 0 ° lu x ao ° 9 x o i ° 0�3 a o ti m O u CIO a p A aoi a o N o U ul ��'t wNQ N x„ "s c�rno Oa� C.m�rj �cpo .. U " s�o" aj CD 48 cn (7�q � wrnm O p ap aZvi��Q qq -bb- N ENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 N �O wW wW W N > b OU O Ot C rUn N N O N "u7 C ob �w au Q a U N b9 � o v b o A U o N ' N C 0 ;b p 'cj O ti O y 00 U N F C > bD O N °. a a o N m N .� , ti M U «i tt20 tl v bn� as rl d° C ° b° et m ° °❑❑ N 3 cd A rx.� O N H vw m O O N N O O N U cq a' o 0 w 4) i" � ° " .� iy J U 4) U y b" .--� O a� Cl)� . O � 0 aU�7-'O y osxUU AUK �¢Mo O U cn O q M V� �; b O a U ri N bA t o N +y O O U ri N m 0 CZ �l d Q N om om N -'Ad' �O °t` sw-, O oN� Q' O x bq N N qqU C �m� cn 00 CDm yU ow�3dP�3buw�00 v� GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 0 0 N G 'gy m c (D �ty by y y i7 a ti ay o i O MMMO fy i4 y y coo N a to U 0 .d O O q bA � y by p 'd w a o 79 cn •5 ^ N p '9 ^ N p 0 N N N 5" tri Q ti o O b y C p0 .ty ai O p v� by O cd U p u •V Q Fr O 'y o r-1 G] Q N bO cd °' � •`�i N � N O Old cq 0O a ° as a o O " rrrUyyy 00 p cUi N .�-" 00 Q a�-' d+U+O�e v�aUiNVri1 � Q❑cd ,rO,�HQ� 00 '� FHhC Oa CD It W U�� UW N O P/" OCr M py..�ti00 > rn a+ MN+^:3 mQ G O O N O CO O U a �aQ wUo a.04QQ axd3o� P—PxQ O r N _5ts_ N ENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 ~ � Y 0 gp p 0 a P4 R m o U o C o o a I b.2 ti o 0p, 0 to U •� W U[ O N 48 . w d r rn c� �5;g U UN n P. UO O UA.a9 M O O ai O m O b w w tn � as b to b U P. C. A 8 U O '� '3 pq .�7 '+ � Pr N c� N O P4 ti � N M Y Im N N N Q U 4 a N P4 V M M U >, ° 2 q UtoNgj�ooAarnw pAU�pN p.bti Y v1 '� in p � �PPrn tlf' E+cc -4 -5a- GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 w w w uu U U W W W on U o n .23 U bq °A o oN as O n AA P. o O O O > cn p o R P. ram. H � � CD CD � o ° eo 0 o y N N U of N Op N W 'O ba c❑d G O N U d r. G. of 4 a. so �--� N Oi U O .G m > N vl CU N❑❑ ON VOO Q oA o m vc� � cn oa CAy q 00 N b O� m 4 O y NmO �O �pP M .,P. Fleao O N m OO .a." W •--i F ..y ..y N V in GO � N O > y V1 U` � O l� 00 ia!lgrm VA 1ENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 M N a O cd N M U U k U U o< W o W W ti w O ti ,y U O I� OU O y ^ �, O V 0� 0� V y y .-" Obi <d 4", U U to �•C y a ��+ H o �G�r ti N -q C� ��I U > .(Z ti a•a yo a O 1 '^..� cu a a 00 w .o uy Z O_ N ts fdd 'G i.y"1W�31 O v� d O in U � o F" vOi V D 6pC tl• o Cd 0 ?, Pw O a 5k A cV .5 NCD oa to it bA .00 s. .00P. s. AO C`1 M 0 y N O O uouu-u v qN O A A ct rr! v' m O U .0 bA <d p a W y q Cd Y ti a a a a P4 (u. ai v .o a 00 O P. U cv Y U O a .� A U U . p b otJh O° a o" cn M y° � U M oo O � pA .0 , A rM OU 3c . Cq t N o0 O�'�"' N>� v $� cow >v o� vai�Ha\ WQooa ccOvA 9�oo�A rn o HR!AM GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 � a// oam $ S `4 ]f3 )ƒ3 \/ a/ f (U ) // ]% 2 / . _ )/ Ga e of 3k a a - \~ m CD ® /�\ ƒ �\ 4 §* {§7 § ƒ) 406 u \i 7 / / \� /� /CD cq »cd 4 § , \\// ° ) __�% §\\\ P"o k�f§* o = u \ ; « / cn a e 5 e e / \ } )a m )q t ƒ~ � \ \ e%§ 2 °\rn m( % f)\ \f )\\�} 00 \\\\u\�\ �U�� / §)\/§ (n N jxaW)0 R R / -Dz- GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 N O M c� N �W w•�W w v 30 b W •� a o ' can.0 P, o g CD CD cq Y cn bb b 'y 0 O N �, d- v1 �O N ti � a °o N n O x�Sa O (U � ° Q 00 � ti�� ug�o a�Q �n >N oo 'C o O G N Q 4 b . cn Q a � 00 O o�a"n`ro F4 0�x �N 00 N ci v i CO CDON 3 N Q a O � w 0 ti ro d d �p �O I� H N O N N oq ud � b a ° 0 0 �ozc7N N y 4 0 V � 1 O V 1 Y a a 04 o C> E-� � o0i P..� GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 R \j4 § ) � � § § f ) j \ \ k 4 ) § « \ ) ) / ) ) \ \ j _ § \a � k )%\� °� \ )¥ ) 7 )ej\ )-RS Q on �\t)�§ 4k�kj§ o2z�zz2= \:��t« \tt(�,M, \ ® \ \ ) k \ } \ E C ) § ) 2 ) & ' A \2 j )�))k�u m ! 4§ §�un §%�\ j§,—u 'R -!\ \ƒSj00 § [/\§"o Qcn )\k�z 0(ƒiA \\/@§ ®aA)i�t§A� §£§t) oumxra,zo 0 3a*>w4�%�Q r $ a _L3m- I I I 1 I i • 5 • 1 G• • � I 1. I, 1 I - . f. i. � E- •i _I per, I.. 1 „ Z c 1? N a v m O IN W 0 6 O O J A. - h0 �1 gg x G a m �'�O l0 U •N N V o u ti^�V /O U N Od N -o C O z U cA D_ O m 0' 2 U O co LU S LU o�o do J � GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 AGENDA ITEM # 3 I N T E R OFFICE MEMO To: Members of Council From: Bob Panizza, Director of Corporate Services Subject: Finance Advisory Committee Date: April 30, 2004 At the meeting of April 27, 2004 the Terms of Reference of the Finance Advisory Committee was adopted by Council. Within the terms, the membership of the committee indicates that 5 Members of Council shall be appointed. In order to fulfill the mandate it is necessary for Council to determine which members are to be appointed to the committee so that staff can proceed to convene the first meeting of the committee. 4obPaza Director of Corporate Services -67- GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 Imm GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 TOWN OF AURORA FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PURPOSE The primary function of the Finance Advisory Committee is to assist Council and the corporation in fulfilling its fiscal responsibilities by reviewing the long range corporate financial planning process; capital planning initiatives and fiscal impact analysis. In addition the Committee will review the annual financial statements, municipal performance measures submissions to the province, the annual audit process, the systems of internal controls and to monitor the internal corporate control processes, internal audit process and long-range financial risk management. The Committee mandate shall include proactive advance input into the annual budgeting processes with a view to enhancing reporting and analysis mechanisms. 2. MEMBERSHIP The Committee shall be composed of five (5) Councillors; As part of its mandate the Committee shall also cultivate a consultative advisory group comprised of community members who have financial qualifications and experience within the public/private sector (i.e. Chief Financial Officer or Vice President (Finance) from which it will periodically obtain input with respect to specific projects or initiatives. This group might be comprised of representatives of the Aurora Business Ambassadors, the Chamber of Commerce Executive or similar financial leaders from within the community. 3. TERM The Committee shall hold office for a term of three years concurrent with the term of Council. GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 Finance Advisory Committee Terms of Reference 4. REMUNERATION None 5. DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS Page 2 In conducting its primary function, being long range financial oversight responsibilities the Committee shall: review current long range corporate financial planning, making suggested policy/process changes to Council that would enhance the long term financial health of the corporation. • suggest enhancements to the annual capital and operating budget process that would enhance: 1. the higher level policy decision making role of Council in this regard 2. the present reporting/analysis tools to assist Council's decision making process 3. the timing and extent of public participation in the process make recommendations with respect to increase effectiveness and efficiencies of the business practices of the organization including the coordination of a core services review to codify all existing municipal service levels in cohesive manner, suggesting alternate methods that would increase efficiency where appropriate review the annual performance measures submission to the Province, noting the relative position of Aurora with comparator municipalities in the designated categories. In conducting its other functions the Committee shall: • liaise with the auditor as required through the annual audit process • review the annual external auditors management letter with senior management staff and to follow up with senior management staff on the disposition of the previous year's auditor's management letter recommendations. • review the reports from the proposed internal audit function • make recommendations with respect to long range risk management issues —70— GENERAL COMMITTEE MAY 4 2004 Finance Advisory Committee Page 3 Terms of Reference 6. MEETING TIMES AND LOCATIONS The Committee shall meet at least four times annually, and as many times as the Committee deems necessary. 7. STAFF SUPPORT Technical support shall be provided by the C.A.O., the Director of Finance, the external Auditor and the internal Auditor. The Corporate Services Dept. shall provide administrative support services to the Committee. -71- ADDITIONAL ITEMS TABLED FOR GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, May 4, 2004 ➢ Withdrawal of Request for Delegation Mr. Paul Cooke Re: Increase of Truck Traffic due to the "Truck Driving Schools"