The URL can be used to link to this page

AGENDA - General Committee - 20041116TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL 00 AGENDA NO, 04-23 ITTEE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2004 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AURORA TOWN HALL PUBLIC RELEASE 12/11/04 TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA NO. 04-23 Tuesday, November 16, 2004 Councillor Buck in the Chair I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST H APPROVAL OF AGENDA RECOMMENDED: THAT the content of the Agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services Department be approved as presented. 111 DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION IV ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION V DELEGATIONS (a) Ms Alice Luckock, Representative of the Alzheimer (pg. D1) Society of York Region Re: Delivery of Service and Education for Alzheimer Disease and Related Disorders VI CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION VIl OTHER BUSINESS, COUNCILLORS General Committee Meeting No. 04-23 Page 2 of 7 Tuesday, November 16, 2004 M IN CAMERA Property, Personnel and Legal Matters RECOMMENDED: THAT this Committee proceed In Camera to address property, personnel and legal matters. IX ADJOURNMENT General Committee Meeting No. 04-23 Page 3 of 7 Tuesday, November 16, 2004 AGENDA ITEMS 1. Notice of Motion from Councillor Ron Wallace (pg. 1) Re: A Potential Solution to the Street Addressing Issue 2. 3. RECOMMENDED: THAT the following Notice of Motion be endorsed: WHEREAS there has been much discussion and debate over a proposed new address for the Aurora Town Hall; and WHEREAS there has been no intention on anyone's part to rename the street John West Way; and WHEREAS a majority of Council supported a resolution to re -address the Aurora Town Hall as 1 Municipal Drive; and WHEREAS the mailing address of the Toronto City Hall is 100 Queen Street West; and WHEREAS the Toronto City Hall sits on a plot of land known as Nathan Phillips Square; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT an addendum be added to the already approved resolution, that the Aurora Town Hall and the future Aurora Seniors' Centre be situated on a plot of land, size to be determined, to be officially named John West Square. PL04-123 - Planning Applications Status List RECOMMENDED: (pg• 3) THAT the Planning Applications Status List be received as information. TR04-022 - Cancellation, Reduction or Refund of Property Taxes (pg. 34) Under Sections 357 and 358 of the Municipal Act RECOMMENDED: THAT the Property Taxes in the amount of $375,101.17 (Section 357 in the amount of $368,535.22 and Section 358 in the amount of $6,564.95) be adjusted; the Town of Aurora's portion is $113,021.68; and General Committee Meeting No. 04-23 Tuesday, November 16, 2004 Page 4 of 7 9 5. THAT the associated penalty/interest be cancelled in proportion to the tax adjustment; and THAT the Director of Finance/Treasurer be directed to adjust the Collector's Roll. BA04-013 - Bill 124 —An Act to Improve Public Safety and to Increase Efficiency in Building Code Enforcement RECOMMENDED: (pg. 39) THAT Council receive report BA04-013 with respect to Bill 124 for information; and THAT Council authorize staff to engage the services of an outside consultant to assist in defining applicable fees; and THAT Council endorse the allocation of up to $10,000 towards the 2005 budget as a funding source. BA04-014 - Revised Sign By-law RECOMMENDED: (pg. 49) THAT Council approve the recommendations set out in this report; and THAT Council direct staff to advertise in the local papers, as required under the Municipal Act, and bring forward an amending by-law for three readings at the December 14, 2004 Council meeting. BA04-015 - Variance to Sign By-law Loblaws — 15900 Bayview Avenue RECOMMENDED: (pg. 95) THAT Council approve the following site specific request for a variance to the sign by-law as it impacts Loblaws, so as to permit wall signs at each exterior building face at the perimeter of the tenanted area. General Committee Meeting No. 04-23 Tuesday, November 16, 2004 Page 5 of 7 7. c•� Flt CS04-038 - Justification of Business Licensing Fees RECOMMENDED: (pg. 104) THAT Council adopt the amended Schedule of Business Licensing Fees as shown in Appendix #1 attached; and THAT the Business Licensing By-law 4258-01.P be amended to reflect these changes. CS04-039 - Request for Street Names Additions to the Bank (pg. 112) of Approved Street Names RECOMMENDED: THAT the following historical names be added to the Bank of Approved Street Names, for the future naming of streets within the Town of Aurora: Starkweather Fathers Nutchel Fisk Crane PW04-044 - Overall Condition of Town Roads RECOMMENDED: (pg. 117) THAT Council receive for information, report PW04-044 regarding the condition of Town roads; and THAT Council authorize the reallocation of unexpended 2004 capital road reconstruction funds as described within report PW04-044. 10. PW04-045 - Construction on Various Roads in Aurora - (pg. 122) Update Report RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive for information, report PW2004-45 regarding the ongoing construction projects on various roads in the Town of Aurora. General Committee Meeting No. 04-23 Page 6 of 7 Tuesday, November 16, 2004 11. PW04-046 - York Region Transit — Draft Annual Service Plan 2005 (pg. 125) and Draft Quick Start Service Plan/Service Integration Plan RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive, for information, report PW2004-46 regarding York Region Transit's Draft Annual Service Plan 2005 and Draft Quick Start Service Plan/Integration Plan; and THAT Council of the Town of Aurora request York Region Transit to critically review service to the Aurora GO Station with the intention of providing more frequent, convenient service for users. 12. LS04-058 - Aurora Seniors Association — Naming Rights (pg. 131) RECOMMENDED: THAT the General Committee provide direction with regards to naming rights for the new Seniors Centre. 13. ADM04-022 - Municipal Act, 2001 Review RECOMMENDED: (pg. 134) THAT Council endorse HMO's Principles For Achieving a Mature Relationship, contained in its Submission to the Province dated October 2004 and entitled "Achieving a Mature Relationship — 2004 Municipal Act Review' and that this endorsement be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and THAT Council endorse AMO's Submission to the Province dated October 2004 and entitled "Achieving a Mature Relationship — 2004 Municipal Act Review' and that this endorsement be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and THAT Council endorse AMCTO's Response to the Province dated October 2004 and entitled "An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001" and that this endorsement be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. General Committee Meeting No. 04-23 Tuesday, November 16, 2004 Page 7 of 7 14. Memo from the CAO Re: Hydro One Draft Environmental Study Report - Supply to York Region Class EA Transmission Line Study RECOMMENDED: (pg. 203) THAT Council provide direction with respect to a formal response to the Hydro One Draft Environmental Study Report — Supply to York Region Class EA Transmission Line Study issued by Hydro One under date of October 21, 2004. GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Delegation (a) 3. Alzheimer Society Y O R K R E G 1 O N "COT 2,a20G4 tcC Yi IJ§ <4 October 22, 2004 Town Clerk's Office Town of Aurora Mr. Panizza 100 John Way West P.O. Box 1000 Aurora, ON L4G 6J1 Dear Mr. Panizza, This is a request for Alice Luckock a representative of the Alzheimer Society of York Region for deputation status at the Council Meeting scheduled for November 16, 2004 at 7:00 pm. The Alzheimer Society of York Region would like to update Council on our delivery of service and education for Alzheimer Disease and related disorders in the Town of Aurora area. Please contact me at 905-895-1337 to verify attendance. Yours truly Susan Hart, O.T. (C) C.A.M. Director /bg e ALZHEIMER SOCIETY OF YORK REGION ADMINISTRATION OFFICE/RESOURCE CENTRE/DAY CENTRE NORTH 800 DAVIS DRIVE, UNIT 6, NEWMARKET, ON BY 2R5 TEL: (905) 895-1337 FAX: (905) 895-1736 CHARITABLE REGISTRATION # 10670 5429 RR0001 WEB SITE: www.alzheimer-york.com E-MAIL: daycentre0a1zheimer-york.com DAY CENTRE SOUTH 18 HARLECH COURT, UNIT 2, THORNHILL, ON BT 6L5 TEL: (905) 731-6611 FAX: (905) 731-7663 D . 1 GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 NOTICE OF MOTION FROM COUNCILLOR RON WALLACE (FROM NOVEMBER 9, 2004 COUNCIL MEETING) WHEREAS there has been much discussion and debate over a proposed new address for the Aurora Town Hall; and WHEREAS there has been no intention on anyone's part to rename the street John West Way; and WHEREAS a majority of Council supported a resolution to re -address the Aurora Town Hall as 1 Municipal Drive; and WHEREAS the mailing address of the Toronto City Hall is 100 Queen Street West; and WHEREAS the Toronto City Hall sits on a plot of land known as Nathan Phillips Square; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT an addendum be added to the already approved resolution, that the Aurora Town Hall and the future Aurora Seniors' Centre be situated on a plot of land, size to be determined, to be officially named John West Square. —1— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 (o`N�f,, �T °d TOWN OF AURORA EXTRACT FROM COUNCIL MEETING NO. 04-34 A PlacaW mflail To G 11 Home. HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2004 X OTHER BUSINESS, COUNCILLORS Councillor Wallace gave Notice of Motion regarding a potential solution to the street addressing issue. -2- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT SUBJECT: Planning Applications Status List FROM: Susan Seibert, Director of Planning DATE: November 16, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS No. PL04-123 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 October 19, 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. COMMENTS Since the last list was prepared, a Public Information Meeting was held on October 27, 2004, concerning LeBovic Enterprises Inc. (file: D09-09-03 & D14-27-03). While the meeting was not attended by a large number of residents, those who did attend raised a series of issues. One attendee represented the local ratepayers group. Additional copies of the staff report were provided for distribution to the ratepayers group and members of public. A note has been added to the applications on the status list where they are clearly within the boundary of the Oak Ridges Moraine. Applications are evaluated against the Town's Oak Ridges Moraine Conformity Agreement OPA #48 and the implementing By- law. It is noted that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has now approved Official Plan Amendment #48. Staff will be reporting the details to Council as soon as possible. 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 until agency comments, particularly dealing with aspects of OPA #48, have been reviewed. Most of these applications will be affected by constraints to the Regional sewage and water systems. —3— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 September 7,,2004 Report No. PL04-101- It is also noted that the OPA and ZBA application for Amourin/Cordone (D09-03-97 & D14-16-97) is not scheduled for the November 24, Public Planning Meeting as the applicant has not submitted sufficient technical information (e.g. Traffic site design). Staff are currently finalizing the State Farm Site Plan Agreement. It is expected that the agreement will be completed in November to coincide with State Farm's construction schedule for their head office. Council approved a By-law to lift the holding provision on the lands as required. 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 — November 16th, 2004 PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Not applicable. Prepared by. Andrew Harper, Planning Technician Extension 4349 C S an Seibert irector of JPlanning —4— GEJ L COMMITTEE — NOVE BER 16, 2004 o y yo?�yM do uMRT ol N N ' O • .- M d' N N M coo _ N Z N U W 0 U � a N 3 as S aids � L IV^ v/ M M a a a M O N N C O J O • N 7 il= • iJo O L Y�I rn M • III- r •. N M .•�. O co O Z bMa� e O m ~ N M °r° a Z c M • r O n ° w E N E z v • °o 0 ;SOB O Ac v Io N W C �? O r r+ O1 � � O — N � Z m = � 6 r ;aaJ;S �Sln � r • " n r .6uiNJo diysunnol 4�a8 � w � z u L - o Cc O N C v o O Fj (0 p n O J a o q o oia 4;; sby. n m ?. Ci a E zi N a .c N Y 3 � l ��iii ❑ X � o w O m O >. O <n aZi py � J n. •¢ � � I � � a c � � a O 3 > > • r GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 7 E-� wU F+ m �J P. H z ; p cd rn o o cn o o o cu o •� � a''" H o '� ° •d � 4 aUi O qq •y U O O 'tlCtl ,U+ N v ?••� �t O to N U cd O a ° r3 u -a 04 0>' 4 K Q p q tt p as oo P - Ucd F cd u b or, ai wU a 6�U'Gno� b O N 'b O ti N 'C! 4 ° c m Q o , °U un 7 m 7 00 l0 C) O i i a)N O N U] V] 01 01 a, x O N t~ U iL U ti N G Cu o° a a a 0 © o U ro 6 n o C38 W A A o 0 x.d a+ �� Hv°vQo;� H a O O 0N0 00 C/) >� °4 P,Wcn o1 GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 N ii 00 N Ln U O O y 0''oUCD a a m a) � rn ° o kn ° U •� 6 W 0'S N A. 00 O E � 5 O U pp O 'a P, N .�Q O U ,b 40 O . H °. �; °J, N " U W rA 41 0 N bo O bOp A 'm F[, a�i •°p cd s� (Y1 O J U bp'U N pp V }' � '30�9u•g-d,�U"b�3rn¢4 � o bO 45 ,� a4) rn 0bl) U a o U o o W�U o f ca ° Sao GOo.��C� C7 P. 'do 00 A'' b O¢� P; P.N HU; .tea oN r: Q °° 0 oo o P. O O o N OP O vn z 00 p z M� F.4 o P703�1 U_ qQ ° �+ �'dtea; °U �3Ln ��C\ U v,m �" o 5n�oc = F7�� o a - coo ti Y oo��Ua�o� o, U o o aH ^o ° wU o Wm Q Y m GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 M rF"np. �aW O�W on Y N 3 Ono 3� o o ° O �N d C pp O; CD Y 'd S o a°i 'o N U 0 �0�± rn r'O Cc,'� rl •y ° 4 P. 1Ui 4+ o cq 73 P pm N 'd cC /. OU N U U.1 O N 9 �y � p o a `c�C aNim "' N O P R' N 'c+ p Q" 6 ul 00 4 o, °''Do!^ N cc q Y 11 °o n g °: °3 0 o N o 0 o " o •,� " Ga a'r�n ti N O o w ,,tqy O byp p b j ti 0 P. ti U O c¢tl E•-� cd N V] lyi W A 00 N CD .d M o cq N M d , d o " o � 11 on o w A oo 0 �O N N V) �+ U 2 O v cUd .�' P. vUi s�U. cri co r,o M V1 W � l0 $ U p Y1 'd U a 'd °), t °° o 0 o o a"i �° N 7 N p a [ o C 00 V V° 00 , 4? C 7 M �O V1 N cC O U 0 _O O M V1 W �O •--�--� L�-+ M P A H �' O N U N L4 'U TJ Y I -a ..+ ry ,b . i N ,--i �I � cd b ° � V C.,rQ �a o l H O pp 0 N M N �" p'' N�� N N O ti 4- ��+ •� '� N Py O a W Mq o o�N� C7a o6 GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 r"i �P y y M F7 M p y M '� 'p �t � S� d• � 'p cj' C~z V] o CIO W O a WCIO W U= N O M 4 ci rr ¢i C> cd N V p.i m `n N bn M b cad • n W 'cy �r O DO A P• M U .od� E- cd�+ P, cd P cw w Y l\ a q Q 9b V� b ' �. �' �+ " O � � �y ti N O I-- . cd U•U yN O ro p b rw O o ' O 90 � - co p ono o p o N ti p > c? � a W �N N o �Nwo f-4� o p, rnN rn �O A nor' p\ O rn rn � rn o p N N� M ti Y N. � � � � •� ci � '� � �Oy bA ro 3 N N V1 p y O OU E+ p [ ra o oo rn bA PM ,--� � a x orn� cd pU oC) Cr' O�ac) 00 O . � C) knQ 1v .wQoo F1160Q 00 u nnnnea 1 TTrr in a •,.__r HAERAIII&I W w N 'G .ti ti •� 'd N C o o 4.) PLI a> �' c$ bA O b o a�i p" c ° q�y 0 A ° '' on U °y' v °c LIU U �� L4 ° .j CD Q GL0 �L d O �o �l >N v U 4� Q � > vNiIt r �N N a CT) 00 CD co a1 ti in -11- 0 GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 O bq M O N •p .,pi i 21, �' s-1 oo U N > N+3 cd OO U U 'o� p'�O N a) N� P" p U p O U p ° N O Poppn O 'b �' TJ �j ' °� viO Q¢ a) ai by O O G0 p p o PI ti ��' � p. OQ,b � w poOo o bibA > a ��•� �b�oO �Goa o Go o Fy '3 O P. O �. UZ , O Cd q n Y O V] >1 o b�A ,7-i O � O U N S� N U ti Oi U 0 UUi U QP O•yam s� CP f. 'U i bACN•� N p b .2 'd NO � b °> N OO p U b •Gp bu 0 5 U �.j ... �+ o O Q p 0 >? W Obi a O M to N O SC Fi O 'Li w bA aO�Cd� �.�U�'��'b p . "ANC O li 'a .�' N+ O, +fib C) W N 0. °�N .pw CD�� Y y Nap Y 4 N a o N 9CD 0 C:) a) U N Y W O U Y ppa �++ >, i� by G7 a*�j • O N q ti p 0 0 0 G4 > Yr" O ..pi b N OU W 88 M M O M b � � 0o0 It G U V1�d' id\o 088 v bn r� ,� � CJ OO Q O a � � N q p oorn� ° a� coop cd4U� u"��o o�p1 1 00 �a� h.ON Q =Nw`,n° p(� W Yv o�^ o O�� ^ C7,00 a' p o° �o �aa °�QQ� �QQo w�,QQ°� O N GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 z M wW aW bo w N O �, ..r y v N q v U U U N �h C s�o o >°. va a ° aCd ' N N °75th rUi Z bA O y p C Uj O .4 • U N V] CA -q SU7 N U rn � •� '� N O •�+ •,� N N o o y N ° oo 0U Yo � o s. La O N b �t"� ocn b v O o 3 3 FCC O° cn 1z 12 o u 06 p N O U a Cl N Q O �jN •� 9 N W b [C F7 �U yUi OJ� P° o o cn "t y K a3 roCd 0 W 4 U U �7 O 00 °° �Q o��rr! a�3 o� o A y M O O N isy y r3 O1 7 i O 3 H O z .M-.� p N O � ,A H��rnP.vNiq �1 Oi N_ ��a W �' Afav M � GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 tZ Cl �v �;nvM• maw �C/)ps bD m bD 5:7'� p P p D' cad PP�r o .� o to 0 >, `o °°'' 3 you ` �d .� - a) 5 3 o abi dp ° °' � p'� Ox. N F1 cad ' O U O cd •C,' F7 O C U N N A, b o •5 y •� R� Pam-, '°� N N q 0 a'-'i w ¢ C7 0 2 O d p °? O ^y b17 U p�7 M •SA N p O ^' ^ ov� In 4) 7�,> 0 M M O i O 0 0 N r- N N .� 00 c� O b° M p N ° •° go � o°• P� ° b v 114 al O o d 0 d i0 W¢ o �N A O p U x F°- 6 W� N p ij� Q x N,�-i �O ° 6b Wpp �i �d•O�N�� A Y0m c? O M Q O O O Ln O �j a � ti 'yN�N_d•� OO�A ��P Carn V]Ci¢P Ca CaGa�c, ,I GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 haw c7aW H,, v o �U > b oo�p.�� b4 ° b tj n ° b o fV N � ��' N N by yZ: 'Op ' o Ncon bA p;.° l- p N •U W id ;� •.� UU�" a� N U on Fad U a�i y° e o O CD U 1 00 U O o y N U O r -5 'y CD 4 O ''m w U b0 :2 N 'pd s, d N '° c'd - O ,'� p O O N bA U 'D N W •�+ N ti ;8 � . Sr O ° rS' •"i .rs ti .O Tpi cd C"+ ++ 'b cS L+ .y •� v,W�`' •p F Ti "l7 O O c'd 60 ('j .N Ti �d N J7 Vi U V]'OI f'. N ORS°�o.o�� c�y o p• a'' o S". U a cV U -cc y�3vO °J bb °Cq bb U ° 0 •.pQ"❑p U N ti p N o d u ° Q r U q CD U� U U U cd' O �bp � Q cC ,"1 O C� O td '� � 'd '3 •��+ 'U�+ � • � .'� p vi ¢� �i .� +`�+ �c�r'd N /-� by � �' a1 'C � yp� •� 2 O N bUp U 5 P.. J,4 U ..U. cd''L7 p '� p P. a .� P.• 'C ' p O .�' W Q O O O N V Cl �6 N O C�8 D O V1 O O ON N N CD '❑C W ,N � ❑ C, � Ri O Nav1 rn .-..d N 'b O V] � � M O 'O � N O O V A 00? VM N p N O ^� y q�°o ti r t cF O� �j �-1 U a � U N O Q n � �A U °� O .�i a+ N O c1 ° 'b O O �°.� .� O U O i O U vi M i a�iw �o� n �� U °p��o 3 �o p o �a a oo°�N� o� C, �� c >1 o �Cq � oo rn GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16. 2004 0 H U b 0 p coo cd N O� •� o off U 1 U R7 f-, 'CS N vi iL O OCc)p c? „ffO P" OG GL 0� N PUr p N ��qWa b o p'n V1 =,U " c a v oO A o O ° �M �°' • o 0 b o v°' o No abi p u 3 r cd p o UUI N O cC O z U U N y U cd p 'O P+ N O O M 'd 0 4 'o0� 3 .--i P. rn O �7j� o 0 N O cn cad O- W U � 'N-" —2 u,o N O id '� ao ' rUii I .a uyp N 00 sUi •cd .'�i U S3� cd N ^'Oy 0 ° ❑ p ,b i-i M O vi. m O 5 'd �U+ n, •, a 'COI s. Cd r! ld O a P4 W Y as bA O° .0 U O U 'wU' y '� W 'Ai U P" �'.' ^p, • O o ° ,!t2L-d"� o {si cull ai o u, b P. • o R' O � N �� c f0 �° � � o P o 0 °,' � � �� o 00 kA O p O O N CD N O .O N ate-• O U 0,0 N 00 p� O "okn O l0 ^� �� y G4 � Ca O Pd uu � v) O A "O+ p +O oo O 0c! 0 O bo r 4)i•N-" q�d• N L� r- O �j x 0 � Q, O1 00 O 00 o�Ua�o� 4 O q ap IDc a .--� rn o �aaa o�1 Pad Glop N N N N MJ GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 C7a W C7a W bA o0 O O U O U O > + o W o �'o 3.0 � o ti on J 0 3 0 q 0 o 0 c a o � It 4o 'a °J 3 o.av� � a�•3� i CD,� a� ooP N O Q O OO O co N O 0 O N N U .ix Cd O v 0 It O bo 55� �U Q o�UAd�' co J M o oc N O ti d O 12 V] O N LyO�" + N � W V1 PQ w P 4` o x o 'O C) cC o00 NWH o0 0 O �o UC b i kn �, ,�, U ❑ � Y °b.��kn o � CD Uda��QQ �w�wwzv Flo Q M N d' N w GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 N v O b U OO �'Q � N Fi' OO'ti Li N O� Oi 00 N P. "cCa N Ln �" ii ti iC O o" U 45 cj c`d � cc,,D a• V p Pam. •'N +O N A U �yW O. a b U O o .9 'b •y av'i � YOi '6 b1J � m O cp O U ,.O ti.F; CO MU'd b0 S P, PR 4 Pi I71 �Pr ONNN U 0 d N P. ° N a d a 0 O O O UNON U O O o V1 V2UN b rn o N O CD ON 0 0°° d w° ti Wp . b0 -o (P 3 Py a~ O O U nO •y Pdriib N 7 v)d' N O N V o v o ' Gj O ❑U❑ U ''� Q f�.' U ✓ p U b0 U G� O N Q N o'3 O U ,� cd cC N .-i N M • N �d d' O O �O U a 0N_p O a p U z Q �0 0 N Q i y ' kn WO�¢Qrn aaWz�r�wCD o,aW��worn N N N GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 M y m N C7aW w�W w 0 d P N cc ti v ti b o 0 a •� -a y s0. may:°..O P,, ON•� � d a o a to �z 4 �o ' 0 � U 15, �� a �^ N M O d ' Ln � N O o N CD N CD N ° .O •(� O N 4J. 71 F4 j a a ,d to bp o moo a�i q�L�N N0� up ° a o,n �x Q - "oo J4 � � �a�o�n4 v� w �QCD �°��E�allooCa N rn N GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 v Ali a v 3 o , N N O N P•� U G O o y A uO o ti w 00 � • •° N p •V a UO N �a U .0 a bq 0 pp jaw • ��., t 0 o o po O O 91 N N o S N N 78 o �O W p L 'td G 0O a rn o Jo O cad Pi tl N 0 x Ca 'C 00 CD a 99+ cn O L'~/+ > N O l-•� N O� O O O1 ' iNi 40+ C ,rj O o o b n o �n �n cd M N 3 00 f�. rn O c� 00 J N (]y �'.�J' 00 C, 01 Q x x x M M �i 01 Q &v GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 1.6, 2004 �aJ O N GJ H� wu Q q ww 0 M o y o a 0 � N a {-I M CD N O O U� on G ti D o a R+ o N +.� •c3 �., ��, � QO 6 U S O .O 40, v mm � U o to to o 0 a •.� o o n'o q a ¢ N o a N c .l P. o h P, ri � O O O p 0 O O O <71 O N N N O°�'CtiN to o o o TS 'd U O C40 M bn 73 O0 00 O W N xi O M N 4. w U O i O U MN WOU U O i O N O O O ti o �N OCD .N aw��l�l1 rn(� �aco wo��loo M M cj• M V1 M GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16,'2004 d 4 O N cd wwW �UW maw N 'n r3 O N vNi t�yQ M A p � "d O '00to `n p 0 U ,n U cc^22 O U P,UO p tb a, a b y o v bD cq CA Ed py • U O' O o.�� oo° o A� '-old U �U �U �N sa o �FGU� N a N N O N O V' 0 0 0 0 to r 7 CD O N N b [b!G W N b❑❑U O . O q ° U N 7:1 U G, t%] cd" F4 R� OU 'Ud O M cd U � U y G �Cq p � CZlb N ^O M �O O O a-' a U� Q 0 0 ~' �p W i • �+ p O 1� C:>Q 'CO Cq a'c 'w""a,-,.��rnGl O Vi ti tnaw00�oo,C�Q M r m 00 m FAA GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 r 1:61 �D 0 N C7 a k C7 N °p o C j . Vi g +i 0 �; Cn t2 a °o° � a N ®.~O � + w d V •y � .N N o i4 � C� ill byp czg a 'bo 42- P. `a CD b m a o H ' 'ci a°Ji a 0 42 lo�,. v N ..O O 0 0 0 O 0 P. N O .H N bA b�'y11 id O `� O �1 yr" .ti H V .� O •� � (d •'ti O ��U lc� W PN 5 O n N �O O �n O i V O ON CD N N 0� 0� 0-0 th a O O N •l V o�n 3 e o o o o J ON y q o' QOi 'o F4 s�, Wo ° of coy c� F4 Ri 101clq o o r� o DO o O o Qb mW.� NcdO, O � y O W� '��y-J C7Qo �'� moo; o aj �Uyy000 r'� N M N O O Ua�•��0�,�1 a"a��1v aZ��o�,�1 o, M O V - j GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 00 a N A M O W N O N M �O ti N U N ~ ° O p Q O �� M N Fes' CD N Ir U O ,a N .� N p 0 M O 45 —a) O Q d v u q cn �O U 0 °� Z cn z1 N o a• U T o 5• v s ;y d '9 " z N 0U ev a en > bq v o u u 43 .2 o b p to U •� tl s o .� .0 R o m o v Z2 zt N id U 5 O N O vD O Co O O , OCD O O N N N O N go N � to a+ c' d N 'O a A O�23 a a C cy w ° rA ,�; 'y OM •gin 00 N 5U F M U CIO U rN U �; U•N'" x N 7 N O W N Q ° tNi x N Ln ° .-� pp �"' .-a O 'C U d '' N i-1 F3 Cq oCD aWCD O �r�Q 0cr, rq 0 l a A w°P WrnQ E�� ia�u5�10 � T Fzt rta GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 rn a w � wW .aW Q cn U ID 0" o q C3 aoi o 4. 3 o ott U ° U O U? Q 7 ra3r�i� J O UNQ �'C V] O O d 1 O 10 tom. U N ti O NU.. O N PI tl �O 0 ¢� p NyNV a+p US v p rn Q W •"' N 'C .-i N O +� W .p •C p O p O at 4. Ca U rY O °J w° 011 a v m N N vi 0o O N N O N ON OO � ti N ti W O w oo W U C •� 0 c N N �"O d y pC o U pad • ti 3 y 'mod qx 4 R+ o is U Do O V Q P V f P O ti 0 U b N 'Ui �U f�1 rA N O p J •U N N .� r' .ti O P. •`n. U .�. V] N '.A W O �' O x �bA N N Q V] N O P" ti oa 00C.) (o w w onoo(71 c4bx� a� O O syy v�i ��' x O O O N WNrn v GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004. I A ° p�]I cpct y78 OU ISto � cad sm, � �. � Co OU a N s5-� U P-� �p O � to oq� •° . b -d Pth Z' PU .i U ti U N P R U m o I^ N O o cq N ti 4) O y ° b cd ,N M,Zi N 0 5 ci p ° �23 a300° INa> W p" N o 88 00 cV i O V CV N 0in b O .ti cd °»aa N �`O400 a3A A F+ �Uoo oP.� O a�Uoo� 'd p,�o2j U m cbd 00 �b �o aAi °� off^ oAU a °o oo °�o ° aa)o ° o o0 wUR�rnaaAA ON 0 GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 N /2 V In O Cq O O ,P H �w www Q H > y 3 o h N OU U U L" � ' ¢i w M U A g .� ) N N ' bO U U U Q "... U a) O �. O o 0 o O gd Q ^ 0 U 2 °'UN ti N O .O U fi' N +3 O N U UU+ O H rn ° bO bOO� 5 , ` > P�-i n d H O O ° �+ by Cd N oC U w° t3 -a 3 iw P4 v v ; o u d7pL 2s a CO) V a 0 o o P4 o o C O cd P4 N O UC c v Mo m 0 0 N N N n NJ CD p O N d U �i ti Q H tlbn W bO a O O bu'5 b bq bO O bO Uy N .5 Phi U v1 .,r". N Vl N 'd 'd O Gyi vOi U O OU .O rq N M f.'a N C ) a U� O N bO N N +-+ fti." M > 4 o N P� O 'C 0 bO H .. a N �o Oa N (z+ OOa �n 0 a N U OiWO LA U GD ti bbCD CD o c,% lP, N(� V N In m V GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 N �v �m UUW UUW UUW big U r: O No a CD"" .0 CO d• t-i CD O A "R . A bCd 3 N p U y' V U O -0 bA cd a o U •w ° b4 b o N bb 5 'O bn bon . o > .r c3 bb ¢ a 41 y U O O O O-+ O .� .� V ' N W N -a Cq p 0 .fl O P-i O .O O .° O p O P- yv N �O-' N o �N �N ° �N y P� cnN A � 0 �A � V A A 0 0 ' bn p o U °�' •� o � U Of o i O ° y U O U cd UJ by 'd +U+ UU to •r�i� bA by p U N cPd O U C � 7 M U U °q N 60 O b Fi � v +- o W°�° 10) Cq ° vim F�°-Ia3 aa� r00rqV� �� o of 8a813 x O 00 Vn W M W V p 0 .N M 00 O O CJ M W O N O O N U I M M 4- O O r, C7 4 U 3 - W �r�aoa1�A v ��rnwNAJn E ooa�A M N GENERAL COMMITTEE.— NOVEMB.ER 16, 2004 N O M O N 0 <r M <r M .a d• wwW wwW �W C7 U 'Fb FCl b� •N t vim., ° 0tea, V' N � AylN d "Cl N O 'a C o of a ti Its d a >w a b °D m v u b ° d w N ro 3 o bO a c � s o s ° ono b•�ow v O 4 cn N of O Cl ° O U O d N to �� oCd ° •d C) u o a o ° Cc) ' a� ao '" O d° 'd � p O p 0-d 0 0 '"cd v n° o n �oza� � j N N p Nq4 w � Ra 'CS cn q a Q N Nti Q *v nU .-i �c7 3� boo Ca�CD oo p o �`n`to q o W r o y o�1 � Qi o o N ° o F-I a0io0i W N kr) 00 in a -lu- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 UUW �W C5 �w o N O Py s0i 'q � `� d +s Ey N 0 p O p� [� N W O 0 9 N b y''0 •� m ,� � m ai U p p p o i N ^C N ,P, p V b d Fi bA y _ �{ ado bD P� C pi P y O H �dc 'r O 0 sy o bA p uU o en 0wc1� �y O p '•mod p� 7jp •ai P, °J b V1 Ov any ca" U PO J�d p 40 O 'l p\ rNi� N sy U O 8 'd N rn N o q U i O O O N C4� P; N _P4 000 vOi pO _ 0 O CD GCOii N ip'+ �i r� p y O ,ti Uc�a �a a ozvafa�l U��a�aaG�Ca o r. GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 •ti y ,� � N � y N � U U W U U W U U W w ° o .2 k-n ° ow > ryw� p of M v � D\ 'O o �D N A ��• � o a �,•��Jc C' ti vi O ,b 'O O C�1 O Oo N cc3 cId" O O O O N CD ON N N N 1�ti+ ° N rq Oto U1 may, O ' c� cnId OCd ' cn P. �Fi cbd f=i CL PLO C4 , V] Q� G� oU P. zN � �w Cl°� o C, ili n3 1-�I it V)W r-V ° tj cn ° r! O r" ti r �q c� '. 'b V] A�� O C) c � O� � O pp O y N N F4 C, Q> O C= O CD CD00 cd i !y � �. H NOOi001 Q .M-� P� GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 b N 2 UUW t�c�W �xw N N bOq � ;bp N O p y w� z O o w .� U y � •� � Ca U �. o c ti d o y O bA N y Y p" VJ � "� d• 0 0 � o � N ti ti � N 0 0 � 3a�b Pi bb N V U)�� cnQ¢ p °U N a o 0 0 U G O U F] ��!! N 0 Y � � dam' x p U C a 7 �-' 00 ti U i O "'i •"' O A 0 p •--� � ��o ti Q O �0 �fAW�v a h�a�a Q GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEM R R l& 2004 )){ )\} ®2\ . \// j ug \ . \)d � ) o ./ \)\ ) E/2 « �j § °] /\a � q \ )(\ # @ !2 Cd ('( 88 \(#ƒ ,,gym to )\\\()3 &)&]\>§) (\k\\ƒ]/ %§) -M2 0 ]\ \ ��kƒ} ) }\\\� m �&u.� ®©©55 § \777� a { \(]f} / \CD GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 AGENDA ITEM # a TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. TR04-022 SUBJECT: Cancellation, Reduction or Refund of property taxes under Sections 357 and 358 of the Municipal Act FROM: Jim Carey, Director of Finance/Treasurer DATE: November 16, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the Property Taxes in the amount of $375,101.17 (Section 357 in the amount of $368,535.22 and Section 358 in the amount of $6,564.95) be adjusted; the Town of Aurora's portion is $113,021.68; THAT the associated penalty/interest be cancelled in proportion to the tax adjustment; THAT the Director of Finance/Treasurer be directed to adjust the Collector's Roll. BACKGROUND Applications have been received to adjust taxes under Sections 357 and 358 of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001 c. 25 as amended for the taxation years 2001 to 2004 as specified on the attached Schedule A. Sections 357 and 358 of the Municipal Act allow for the cancellation, reduction, or refund of property taxes. Section 357 permits property tax adjustments for the following reasons: a) as a result of a change event, as defined in clause (a) of the definition of "change event" in subsection 34(2.2) of the Assessment Act, during the taxation year, the property or portion of the property is eligible to be reclassified in a different class of real property, as defined in regulations made under that Act, and that class has a lower tax ratio for the taxation year than the class the property or portion of the property is in before the change event, and if no supplementary assessment is made in respect of the change event under subsection 34(2) of the AssessmentAct,- b) the land has become vacant land or excess land during the year or during the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll for the preceding year; c) the land has become exempt from taxation during the year or during the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll for the preceding year; -34- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 NOVEMBER 16, 2004 - 2 - Report No. TR04-022 d) during the year or during the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll, a building on the land, i. was razed by fire, demolition or otherwise or ii. was damaged by fire, demolition or otherwise so as to render it substantially unusable for the purposes for which it was used immediately prior to the damage; e) the applicant is unable to pay taxes because of sickness or extreme poverty; f) a mobile unit on the land was removed from the local municipality during the year or during the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll for the preceding year; g) a person was overcharged due to a gross or manifest error that is clerical or factual in nature, including the transposition of figures, a typographical error or similar error but not an error in judgement in assessing the property; or h) repairs or renovations to the land prevented the normal use of the lands for a period of at least three months during the year. Section 358 of the Municipal Act permits upon application to the treasurer of a local municipality, the cancellation, reduction or refund all or part of the taxes levied on land in one or both years of the two years preceding the year in which the application is made for any overcharge caused by a gross or manifest error in the preparation of the assessment roll that is clerical or factual in nature, including the transposition of figures, a typographical error or similar errors, but not a error in judgement in assessing the property. COMMENTS The 262 applications for adjustments of property taxes filed under Sections 357 and 358 have been reviewed and approved by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and Town of Aurora's Financial Services Department as required by the Municipal Act. The schedule identifies the amount of the property tax adjustment, the year of taxation, and the reason for the adjustment. The value is inclusive of the Town of Aurora, Region of York and Boards of Education portions of the property taxes. OPTIONS NIA FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: The amount of property taxes adjusted for each of the Region of York and Boards of Education will be reflected on the 2003 payment submissions to these bodies. The Town of Aurora's portion of the levy over the four-year period 2001 to 2004 is $113,021.68. —35— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 NOVEMBER 16, 2004 - 3 - Report No. TR04-022 The 2004 budget for tax write-offs is $125,000. To date, (including the adjustments contained in this report) we have processed Assessment Review Board (ARB) Decisions, Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) Reconsideration's, Bill 79 and Bill 140 Capping and Clawback Adjustments, Municipal Act Sections 357 and 358 Adjustments totalling $665,912.35. The Town of Aurora's share is $151,274.97 (See Schedule B attached hereto). The Town of Aurora maintains an Allowance for Tax Write Off s and Adjustments (GL Code 0-0200-1515-0000). The funds available in this allowance to offset unbudgeted Tax Write Off's and Adjustments is $119,000.00 Assessment Review Board (ARB) decisions and Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) Reconsiderations will continue to be processed as they are received to year-end. We have a number of assessment appeals outstanding with the Assessment Review Board for the taxation years 1998 through 2004 for properties in both the capped and non -capped tax classes. The majority of these complaints are still at the Pre -Hearing stage with the Assessment Review Board (ARB); therefore, we are unable to estimate the financial impact of these outstanding assessment appeals should they be successful. CONCLUSIONS That Council approve the adjustment of property taxes under Sections 357 and 358 of the Municipal Act totalling $375,101.17. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN TWO SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Attachments Schedule A — Tax Adjustments under Sections 357 and 358 of the Municipal Act Schedule B - Summary of all 2004 Property Tax Adjustments to date Pre -Submission Review Management Team Meeting - Wednesday, November 10, 2004 Prepared by: Paul Dillman, Ext. 4112 r � Ji C rey Di or of Fina /Treasurer -36- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 m m W m m h O O O O o o 0 m O m N m m N m m h h m m m M g q !l'm M q Cq cj 'Q aD M N O Uf IO O fy N a N t�I N w w at N m N N w N N W N- O f�O ID r N N N M O M O C'1 w M V w M M lM M M M w wwww w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w O ' mm—m OO88c o 0mo 8s{ m'd' I� m m NN NN m0 mIR OO . qo qu Oq t+lN u. M m mm mm x�LU( �.mm-m� -------n- o Im0N m Q 7 `` a m Il rw wa}wwww wwwwwwwwwywwewp ww w ww aaww O W l(lM Cm'lo w wwwww wow V'IN�, V N lm., W - co a Z Id+�' 10 W O a maII o N N cV N hl N N cO6l Nm O O Nm NNNo NNNNNN NNNt+hiI� O�I,o e0- Nm W Nm (w�wlw��www [w��aw ww}}[w��w��sw�wywNwww ww w (www www Imo O IR Z N N O m t c m m m f 0 (D m m 0 m m q m o h 11hV M f 0 N m h O �NNN mmmmmmmNt�p�NC d;m It o N'� �'� N M M Z 0. U W w wwww w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w Q W W o O O O U W N w K K 1 F r I- 7 WOm W Q a ra S U g a 6 F r r r F- r r F r r r r r r LL r W a LL rJW aaaa aaaaaaa aaa p a0 00 7 a �� w m a O w w w w w www www www ZZzz 0w 0 wwww www wwww www w� w� LL O 0 O 0 Z w W W w W W W w W W W W W W w m 0 W yrj W W N LL 2222 .�� rw aaaa aQQaQaa aaa a a z= w C U O D U U U U U U U U 0 o O ? O— O W r J W w w w w w w w w w w w w w w K w w w w g r 0 w Z mmm m ymy }}m m y my } m} m m Z m m} m m z 0 m 0 m 0 7OLU S F�F� F� of N � . CI z U � J W W W W � W W W W W W W J www" W oo W W oo w W aam Oaaaa N LLm n.aLLaa0m aa0 U ry m 20000 000000020002 Q 0a Oa _ w w E m ww �m��rx mww�m�w a d' xM �m oaaaa aaan.a aaoaa.am w a� ,Q a2 rit o Z y S�,${o Nh psrxr m 0M z SS O rO OOpOO OOOOOOOOSOO p SSSSS0SSSSSNSSOSS O 0No o g q o 0 M 000gooqqqo0a}oSoW SSx>sQWr Sdm gqod0SO og q O OON 0 0 W mw 0 O mmmwm"oOmN+y OO O O mOmmWNNNlmmOo—W Z m0 NO J dd Oo 0 m0n w m 0rnY ymO}Nl r 0 NN-�yNO dddd 0 ddoddo o d d d 0 Z W .rnB 0000 000QOOOOOowv0 O ,Q0o� m O O 000gc?m gom QZw wO M CRVwwwVVVwwV U OOOMOoryKOLLNMO zrn m o m mzm z06 O oo U 0 y U0 0 0 t ppU r W r W r 4 U mm LU U 00 m LL, W N W h LU m Vl d' m M twit W Z r 1-7 S o O U U z a a 0o r a a O ,y NM V'm m h mm0.-NO a W a O O a O N a a a o 00 00 0 ,80 -0 0 a 00opS a 000 00220 oo8 w m 00 a 02 U U 0 0 S 00 0 J U Oq S S o Oo O S Sq Oq O4 N J J U p O J (,) S O J a �{. Z q a z N N a a ooppp1oo�' po�o�d�o.00OO �' F" 0 oor = SSr m 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 0 S O O �J N O o ONO LL O 5 N N OF 8 N O -37- TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE — N"LMSEPRTAl&I ITE(�GpND ADJUSTMENTS November 8, 2004 SCHEDULE B DESCRIPTION YEAR TOWN REGION EDUCATION TOTAL MUNICIPAL ACT, SECTION 357 (PREV. 442) 2002 $ - $ - $ - $ _ Cancellation, reduction, refund of taxes 2003 $ 2,106.68 $ 3,050.06 $ 677.63 $ 5,834.37 2004 $ 108,320.71 $ 158,058.78 $ 96,322.22 $ 362,701.85 $ 110,427.39 $ 161,108.64 $ 96,999.99 $ 368,536.22 MUNICIPAL ACT, SECTION 358 (PREV. 443) 2001 $ 1.246.66 $ 1,946.09 $ 14.92 $ 3,207.67 Overchanges 2002 $ 1,347.63 $ 1.994.73 $ 14.92 $ 3,357.28 2003 $ $ $ $ $ 2,594.29 $ 3,940.82 $ 29.84 $ 6,564.95 MUNICIPAL ACT, SECTION 359 Increase in taxes 2003 $ $ - $ - $ - 2004 $ $ $ $ MUNICIPAL ACT, SECTION 361 Rebates for Charities 2003 $ - $ - $ - $ - 2004 $ 9,340.32 $ 12,283.78 $ 7,485.84 $ 29,109.94 $ 9,340.32 $ 12,283.78 $ 7,485.84 $ 29,109.94 MUNICIPAL ACT, SECTION 362 2002 $ - $ - $ - _ $ - Vacancy Rebates 2003 $ 10,557.73 $ 16.285.41 $ 46,496.16 $ 72,339.30 2004 $ $ $ $ $ 10,557.73 $ 15,285.41 $ 46,496.16 $ 72,339.30 ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD 1998 $ - $ - $ - $ - 1999 $ - $ - $ - $ - 2000 $ $ $ $ 2001 $ - $ - $ - $ - 2002 $ 82.82 $ 122.58 $ 82.06 $ 287.46 2003 $ (9,346.63) $ (13,532.06) $ (8,624.57) $ (31.503.26) 2004 $ 2,598.99 $ 3,792.34 $ 2,311.10 $ 8,702.43 Estimated re: Properties @ Pre -Hearings for 2003 & Prior Pending $ (53,455.00) $ $ $ (53.455.00) $ 60,119.82) $ (9,617.14) $ (6,231.41) $ (75,968.37) BILL 14. NEW CONSTRUCTION 2000 $ - $ - $ - 2001 $ - $ - $ - $ 2002 $ - $ - $ _ $ _ 2003 $ $ $ BILL 79 . POST BILLING ADJUSTMENT TO CAPPED CLASSES 1998 $ - $ - $ - $ - 1999 $ - $ - $ - $ _ 2000 $ $ $ $ BILL 140 - NEW CONSTRUCTION/NEW TO CLASS 2001 $ - $ - $ - $ - 2002 $ - $ - $ - $ - 2003 $ $ $ BILL 140 - POST BILLING ADJUSTMENT TO CAPPED CLASSES 2001 $ - $ - $ - $ - 2002 $ - $ - $ - $ _ 2003 $ (2,030.81) $ (544.07) $ $ (2,574.88) 2004 $ $ - $ - $ $ (2,030.81) $ 644.07) $ $ (2,574.88) MPAC- MINUTES OF SETTLEMENT (RECONSIDERATIONS) 1998 $ - $ - $ - $ _ 1999 $ - $ - $ - $ _ 2000 $ - $ - $ - $ _ 2001 $ - $ - $ - $ 2002 $ - $ - $ - $ 2003 $ 1,105.49 $ 1,600.54 $ 1,020.10 $ 3.726.13 2004 $ 79.156.01 $ 115,502.09 $ 67,863.48 $ 262,521.58 - $ 80,261.50 $ 117,102.63 $ 68,883.58 $ 266,247.71 SEV-SEVERANCE 2002 $ 37.27 $ 55.16 $ 180.18 $ 272,61 2003 $ 39.94 $ 57.82 $ 175.88 $ 273.64 2004 $ 167.16 $ 243.83 $ 700.19 $ 1.111.23 $ 244.37 $ 356.86 $ 1,056.25 $ 1,657.48 TOTALS $ 151,274.97 $ 299,917.13 $ 214,720.25 $ 665,912.35 GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 AGENDA ITEM# 4 6 TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. BA04-013 SUBJECT: Bill 124 -An Act to Improve Public Safety and to Increase Efficiency in Building Code Enforcement FROM: Leo J. Grellette, Director.of Building Administration DATE: November 16, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT Council receive report BA04-013 with respect to Bill 124 for information; THAT Council authorize staff to engage the services of an outside consultant to assist in defining applicable fees; and That Council endorse the allocation of up to $10,000 towards the 2005 budget as a funding source. BACKGROUND On June 19, 2002 the Government of the Province of Ontario passed Bill 124 "An Act to improve public safety and to increase efficiency in building code enforcement'. The short title of the Act will be 'Building Code Statute Law Amendment Act, 2002". Royal assent was granted on June 27, 2002. The implementing regulations were filed on June 25, 2003 and the government gazetted them on August 9, 2003. The legislation amends both the Building Code Act and the Planning Act. Staff as a representative of both the Town of Aurora and as President of the Ontario Building Officials Association attended a number of meetings aimed at soliciting changes to the Act and ensuring representation with respect to the proposed implementing regulations. However despite the consultation process there remain a number of concerns with the legislation. COMMENTS Staff have directed their comments to specific aspects of the legislation and have attempted to outline some of the potential impacts to the municipality. —39— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 2 - Report No. BA04-013 Registered Code Agencies Amendments to the Act provide Council the authority to appoint outside agencies to administer various aspects of the Building Code. RCA's (Registered Code Agencies) can be appointed by a principal authority, such as a municipality, conservation authority and or health unit to perform both plans examination and inspection services. Under the current legislative RCA's can be appointed under Section 4.1 and 4.2 of the proposed legislation. Where appointed under Section 4.1 a RCA will be under the employ of the municipality and will through an agreement perform their duties as set out in both the Building Code and the conditions of the agreement. This process is advantageous and could provide municipalities the resources to meet legislative time lines during peak work loads where required. As -the RCA will be required to enter into an agreement the municipality may have the right to establish conditions to protect against undo liabilities. Council should be aware that even with an agreement they are still liable for errors by the RCA in the carrying out of their duties. Section 4.2, which provides for the appointment of self directed RCA's meaning that once appointed a RCA would work directly for a builder with little if any responsibility to the Municipality, remains in the legislation. However the ministry has recognized the negative potential forthis type of service delivery alternative and has amended the regulations so as to prohibit the use of RCA's under the 4.2 model. Furthermore, in most municipalities the fire services provide plans review and inspections related to fire requirements in the Building Code. Under Bill 124 there will be a significant impact as fire services personnel are required to meet the same standards as building officials respecting fire safety. In considering the operational structure of the Building Department of the Town of Aurora it is unlikely that any major, continuous use of RCA's will materialize. Service levels in peak periods such as currently being experienced would require the assistance of RCAs in order to meet permit delivery timelines within the legislation. However under the present structure there is a spirit of co-operation with designers and developers in ensuring that municipal requirements are met through the permit delivery process. Liabilities Under the current legislation there is no sunset time frame as to liability by either the builder or municipality. The province has initiated changes to the Limitations Act to restrict municipal liability to 15-years. This is seen as a step in the right direction and is far better than infinite liability. RCA's on the other hand, need only carry liability insurance for a period of 7-years with municipalities assuming the liability from RCA's where defects become evident after the expiry of the 7-year term of liability. -40- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 3 - Report No. BA04-013 Permit Time Lines The legislation introduces timelines for the determination of whether or not a permit must be issued. The department must identify the reasons for not issuing a permit within these timelines or be prepared to issue the permit at the end of the timeline. Permit delivery assessment provides that the following working day timelines must be adhered to: Single detached units 10 days Small Buildings and block housing 15 days Large Buildings 20 days Complex Buildings 30 days While these timelines may appear problematic the governing factor is that the application be complete. The Province is continuing to refine what constitutes applicable law with the intent to provide some clarification as to what constitutes a complete application wherein the clock would start. Applicants for permits will be advised that the threshold for permit issuance will be clearly identified as the point in time when all internal and external approvals have been granted. In addition to having all approvals in hand the applicant will be require to provide proof of qualification indicating that he meets provincial requirements applicable to the design that has been submitted. In the event that a complete application has, been submitted and through the review process information is lacking the building department must identify everything that is lacking and inform the applicant. This effectively stops the clock and that permit application is then placed back to the start of the process but without the benefit of timeline delivery. Current delivery timelines within the department vary between three and six weeks for permit issuance for a new housing application. While staffing may be a future issue it is felt that the impact may not surface until late 2005. Staff will be evaluating service delivery levels over the next several months and will report to council in mid June, 2005. In addition to the timelines the province has introduced a common application form that must be used for the review and issuance of permits. While the province envisioned value in having an application form that would provide uniformity across the province municipalities have concerns with the application as it may not address all local requirements. As the application form is not to be altered it may be necessary to create supplemental forms thereby further complicating the permit application process. As this form is significantly different we will need to expend resources to incorporate the form and relevant fields into the town's property information and financial systems. Staff will be coordinating this with CityView and internal departments. —41— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16 2004 - 4 - Report No. BA04-013 Certification/Registration Trainin The proposed legislation requires that all practitioners within the building regulatory and design environments meet specific qualifications in order to continue to perform in their current capacities. This will require all persons to pass standardized tests for a broad range of code applications. In addition to successful completion of testing there is a requirement to file the information with the province. The province is currently working with a three facetted approval process. One provides practitioners the opportunity to pass challenge exams while another suggests taking refresher courses prior to the challenge exams. In an effort to recognize some of the existing training that building officials have received from the Ontario Building Officials Association the province developed a third advanced standing model towards certification. This model will assist some of the smaller rural centres that deal mainly with residential house construction while easing some of the burden on larger municipalities with a large diverse workforce. In recognizing the magnitude of this undertaking and the reluctance by many long time practitioners to challenge exams the province has extended the advanced standing model until the end of 2005 although the requirement date to be qualified remains unchanged. Town of Aurora staff have been and will continue to work towards meeting the qualification requirements established by the province and will have staff resources qualified in various areas by July 1, 2005. Funds have been provided in the current budget and will be proposed for the upcoming budget. The greater impact is on the design community which has so far to date fought with the government over these requirements while neglecting to take an active role in ensuring that they will be able to meet the legislative requirements. This will potentially result in previously accepted designs being returned to applicants because the designer does not have a qualification number from the province. There is also the impact to residents utilizing designs by others such as home depot which do not qualify under the new program. There are some exemptions such as small additions, alterations and repairs to some buildings that do not contain accessory units above each other. Planning Reform and Applicable Law The legislation introduces changes to Section 41 of the Planning Act that enables property owners and municipalities to apply to the Ontario Municipal Board to resolve a dispute about whether a matter is subject to site plan control. These amendments are seen as a means to more clearly define the restricted ability of municipalities to make choices with respect to architectural control, urban design standards, choice of materials for construction and interior floor layouts. The process of planning reform is deemed to be a significant impact, as current planning practises, which provide for the formation of unique communities through the use of urban design guidelines, may now be open to challenge. —42— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 5 - Report No. BA04-013 Council should be aware that staff will be required to issue a permit where site plans meet the provisions of the zoning bylaw and the requirements of the revised planning act even though this may be seen as detrimental to the overall desire to create unique neighbourhoods through architectural controls. The new legislation also sets out in excess of forty various acts and pieces of legislation that may have an impact on the building permit process. Applicable law has never been clearly defined in the past and now imparts an expanded knowledge base necessary for the carrying out of duties by building department staff. However this list is currently under review with the hope that it will be pared down as the impact on staff resources and staffing levels in ensuring that all applicable law is adhered to will be monumental. This may well necessitate additional training requirements. More significant and of greater to concern to both Council and the municipality is the absence of Section 51 of the planning act dealing with subdivision approvals. This clearly establishes the fact that conditions within a subdivision agreement form no basis in law for the refusal of a building permit. Staff will be required over the next several months to work closely with the Planning department to revise all subdivision and site plan agreement precedents to ensure that they are compliant with the new legislation. Code of Conduct The legislation under section 7.1-(1) requires that municipalities establish and enforce a code of conduct for the chief building official and inspectors. The purposes for the code of conduct are: To promote appropriate standards of behaviour and enforcement actions • To prevent practices which may constitute an abuse of power, including unethical or illegal practices and • To promote appropriate standards of honesty and integrity There are additional requirements to have mechanisms in place to enforce the code of conduct as well as disciplinary procedures. The Town currently has a code of conduct that regulates the standards of behaviour and staff will work to ensure that it adequately addresses the legislative requirements rather than adopt an independent code for the building department. Fees and Services In an effort to address accountability the province has added several new provisions to the Building Code Act. As of July 1, 2005 municipalities are required to ensure that their permit fees do not exceed the anticipated reasonable costs of administering and enforcing the building Code Act. —43— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 6 - Report No. BA04-013 While some municipalities have absorbed generous revenues into general revenues the Town of Aurora has generally attempted with the exception of 2003 to maintain a reasonable balance between costs and revenues. The current process for fees which is based on a cost per square metre with a lesser cost to larger projects provides an averaging of costs against smaller projects such as decks etc. While it is not the intent of the province to expect municipalities to micro manage their fees there is the expectation that there be a fair and reasonable cost applied to the business of permitting and inspections. From this perspective there is the necessity to review the core services within the department to establish what costs are recoverable as a fee and what costs will be related to recovery from the tax base. In order to evaluate appropriate costs and cost centres we need to begin by identifying all departments and processes that are integral to the permit process. For example direct services would be attributed to the building department through plans review, grading for single family houses, zoning review, inspections and the administration and enforcement of the Building Code Act. Some of the indirect costs may be legal, fire, finance, engineering, planning and leisure services. Costs associated with human resources, council, corporate services and the CAO's office as well as accommodations could well be fixed baseline costs. Staff will request all departments to provide a fairly detailed analysis of the services provided in order to ensure that rationalization of the costs and services are defensible. Relative to cost evaluation there are services such as sign permits, pool permits, zoning enquiries of a general nature, compliance letters, by-law enforcement and services provided to various other departments that can not be included as a fee for service cost against permit revenues and will need to be recoverable in another manner. Staff will work closely with the treasurer and other departments to determine the extent of actual costs that make up the total cost of providing services related to permits and inspections. Some of the unrelated costs and services may be better delivered through other departments particularly the enforcement of by-laws other than the building by-law. One area of concern may be the impact to permit fees for larger commercial and industrial buildings which are now charged at a lesser rate per square metre than residential development. Under the new requirements it may be necessary to increase these fees to account for the costs associated with the delivery of inspection services that until now were often taken at face value as complying through the review reports prepared by the architects and engineers associated with these projects. Staff would recommend that Council consider the use of an outside consultant in reconciling the fees for service in order to ensure transparency in the process. However staff may be able with the assistance of the treasurer and detailed analyses from tither departments to define some reasonable costs. The legislation further sets out provisions for annual reporting and the process for changing fee provisions including the requirement to provide public notice and hold public meetings. In addition there are provisions for the establishment of a building reserve fund which could be utilized for the maintaining of a core department during down times in the industry as well as any other purpose related to the enforcement of the Act. —44— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 7 - Report No. BA04-013 Other Legislative requirements There is a requirement that the CBO establish operational policies and procedures forthe enforcement of the Act. While this is ongoing there is now the need to review and document processes within the department. This will be completed for July 1, 2005 There are also other pieces of legislation that are expanding the role of the building official. Recent brownfields legislation makes it incumbent upon the CBO to ensure that he has received a record of site condition prior to issuance of permit in brownfield areas. In addition recent grow-ops legislation makes it mandatory for building officials to enter grow houses if requested by the police or other enforcement agencies. And just when we thought we were caught up the province is poised to introduce a revised Building code the incorporates an objective based format. This will include the existing requirements and intent statements which will provide for an array of alternative solutions for code compliance. This will start the next round of training and increase the required level of knowledge for code practitioners. This is anticipated for sometime in 2006. Staff will be reporting back to Council in June , 2005 with a status further report. OPTIONS Council could direct staff to work with internal departments to determine fair costs for the delivery of permitting services. CONCLUSIONS That council receive the overview on the current status of Bill 124 and that they endorse engaging an outside consultant to review service delivery costs. In addition staff would request that $10,000 be allocated to the 2005 budget so that staff may initiate the permit fee review early in the new year. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The legislation states that fees must be for the delivery of service and that they must be reasonable. This translates into revenue losses to general reserves where revenues exceed the costs of service delivery. In order to determine the exact cost staff have contacted a consultant active in providing this service and feel that $10,000 should be sufficient to complete the analyses. Staff would suggest that these funds be provided in the 2005 budget but that the work proceed prior to the finalization of the budget process as there may not be sufficient time to complete the works prior to the legislated date of July1, 2005. There is a continuing need to provide furthertraining and assessments for staff regardless of the funds expended on current training. Three years budget projections through 2005 identified funding needs of $10,000 over and above non legislative training requirements. These will be refined through the budget process. —45— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 8 - Report No. BA04-013 In addition although not a part of Bill 124, Objective Based Codes to be implemented within a similar time line will result in comprehensive training and additional costs. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal A — Maintaining a well -managed and fiscally responsible municipality. ATTACHMENTS Draft guidelines for calculating costs to determine building permit fees as prepared forthe City of London PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting November 10, 2004 Prepared by. Leo Grellette, ext. 4748 Leo J. of Building Administration -46- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 DRAFT Guidelines for Calculating Costs to Determine Building Permit Fees Pursuant to the Building Code Act and Regulation 305/03 The following costs shall be included in deterniining the annual total cost of enforcing the Building Code Act and regulations (Building Code) in the City of London. The reference to staff throughout refers to the staff described in number 1 below. 1. Salaries and employee benefits for building code officials and clerical personnel assigned to enforcing the Building Code Act and regulations including the receiving, processing, (including checking for applicable law compliance) issuing and filing of all applications, permits and related documents and specifications. This would also include the apportioned salaries and benefits of those individuals who are periodically involved in the enforcement of the BCA and regulations (not their primary job function) such as Fire Prevention Inspectors and Property Standards Inspectors. 2. Cost of vehicles used by the staff. Payments for this purpose may be in the form of mileage reimbursement paid to employees for use of their own motor vehicles, including authorized travel to conferences and out of town meetings. 3. Direct costs in support of the staff, such as computers (including software and licences) equipment, supplies, furniture, office equipment maintenance, standardized forms, printing, and safety equipment that are supplied directly to the staff for their sole use. 4. Professional expenses of staff that are directly related to the enforcement of the regulations, including publications, membership dues if a requirement of their job description, license fees, training, and authorized travel to conferences, meetings and seminars. 5. Fees for services performed under contract by Registered Code Agencies. 6. Fees for legal and other consulting services required in connection with enforcement, application and plan review or litigation. 7. Subject to the limitations set forth below, indirect, overhead, and other expenses of the municipality in support of the staff, including; a) administration, including human resources, payroll and benefits personnel, and general training services provided to the staff in common with all other municipal offices; b) Services shared jointly with other municipal offices, such as telephone, reproduction, Draft guidelines for calculating costs to —47_ determine building permit fees as prepared for the City of London GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 centralized computer services; c) Insurance fees except for group insurance premiums included under employee fringe benefits; d) General building maintenance expenses; e) Finance, including booldceeping, purchasing, and auditing; f) Office space expenses, including rent or interest and debt service on municipal capital facilities but does not include any municipal costs which are recoverable through other legislation, e.g. For development applications under the Planning Act. Indirect and overhead expenses charged to the staff compared to the total costs shall not exceed the ratio of the municipal indirect and overhead expenses to the entire municipal budget. WHE GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 LAGEN:D:A ITEM # S 6 TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. BA04-014 SUBJECT: Revised Sign By -Law FROM: Leo J. Grellette, Director of Building Administration DATE: November 16, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT Council approve the recommendations set out in this report and, THAT Council direct staff to advertise in the local papers as required under the Municipal Act and bring forward an amending by-law for three readings at the December 14, 2004 Council meeting. BACKGROUND The current Town of Aurora by-law was passed in 1992 and since that time there have been a number of variances to the by-law. While the updating of the bylaw is unlikely to eliminate the need for future variances the growing requests from developers and businesses in the commercial areas, particularly shopping centres, has resulted in a staff review of that portion of the by-law that addresses commercial signage as well as some definitions and some house keeping items. Staff have not, at this time, undertaken a full scale evaluation of the current by-law. COMMENTS Sian Area Staff have reviewed by-laws for Georgina, Whitchurch-Stouffville, Oakville, Mississauga, Ajax, Richmond Hill and Markham as they relate to shopping centres. One of the major areas for change is in the provision for wall signs. The Town of Aurora by-law continues to deal with wall signs by permitting a specific number per unit. With the growing number of commercial enterprises offering a number of services such as photo -finishing, medical clinics, drug dispensaries and clothing advertising necessitates the granting of a variance by council. The current trend set out in the above noted centres appears to be to permit a maximum sign area ranging from 0.6 square metres per linear metre of wall to a percentage of the wall area. This not only addresses multiple signs but provides for signage on more than one wall where exposure permits. —49— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 2 - Report No. BA04-014 While a straight percentage of wall area would appear to be reasonable in providing signage opportunities that are current with the market staff have a preference for the Town of Markham model the restricts wall signage to 0.75 square metres per lineal metre of wall area. As a comparison staff reviewed the request from Loblaws utilizing both 20% of the wall area and .75 square metres per metre as measures for total sign area and found that the per linear metre while representing only 72% of the area provided on a percentage basis was more than adequate to provide for the signage proposed by Loblaws. In addition staff reviewed earlier variances for Home Depot, East side Marios, Marks Work Warehouse, Zellers and Sobey's and found that the clarification in the by-law to eliminate numbers and deal with maximum area would provide staff to deal with the businesses without having to seek a variance. Staff believe that this change will assist in dealing with future applications from commercial properties at Highway404 as well as future requests with the existing commercial areas. Staff would also that the revision to a total sign area for wall signs will also assist some of the other retail uses such as service centres. Miscellaneous With the growing number of fast food outlets and drive thru services staff are proposing to introduce new definitions into the current by-law to address menu boards. In addition staff have incorporated a menu board section into the by-law so as to regulate the size. Staff have also expanded on definitions to include a definition for the Region. In addition staff have introduced exceptions for signage on bus shelters and streetfurniture where the Region or the Town are party to the advertising. This will assist future advertising partnerships. Staff have removed duplication of portable signage by striking them from the appropriate sections as section 9.7 of the by-law deals exclusively with portable signs. Staff have also cleaned up the general provisions for wall signs so as to be consistent and incorporated bench and shelter, blood donor, campaign headquarters and public information signage into the area not requiring a permit. The proposed changes are consistent with recently revised by-laws particularly the Town of Markham's which was revised as recently as May, 2003. Staff have not revised the industrial signage to the same extent as there needs to be some internal discussion regarding the Town owned lands and a potential impact. In addition there may be some future input from the heritage committee regarding signage standards in the heritage core. Staff will bring forward appropriate amendments at a future date. In order that Council can readily review the proposed changes staff have incorporated the changes which are highlighted in bold text and strikethrough into the body of the existing by-law which is attached as a draft. —50— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 3 - Report No. BA04-014 OPTIONS Council could retain the existing by-law and deal with variances as they are submitted. This would continue to create additional review and report writing. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A CONCLUSIONS Staff have reviewed the by-laws from various municipalities and have revised the current Town of Aurora sign by-lawto reflect current sign standards within the industry as set out in the various by-laws. Should Council determine there is merit in revising our sign by-law staff would recommend that a revised by-law be placed before council on December 14, 2004 for their consideration. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal B — to support a healthy business environment that attracts new business and is responsive to the needs of our present business community. ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 — letter of request from Loblaws including drawings. Figure 2 - Draft sign By-law with both proposed and existing PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team — November 10, 2004 Prepared by: Leo Grellette, ext. 4748 Leo Grellotte Director Building Administration —51— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 International Neon Thursday, October 07,.2004, Mr. Leo Grellette, Director of Building Town of Aurora, Building Department 100, John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727-3123 lrellette@town. aurora: on. ca RE: Variance application — The real Canadian SUPERSTORE (Aurora) signage Dear Mr. Grellette, The present is our application for minor variance for the signage of "The real Canadian SUPERSTORE" and its associated brands to be located at 15900, Bayview Avenue in Aurora, Ontario. Under regular permit, we are applying for the channel letters over the main entrance on the north side of the building and the channel letters on the east elevation. Please note, however, that even with all the signs we are asking, the aggregate surface area is well beneath the normally allowed 20% of the fagade. The other signs represent the associated brands of Loblaw Properties Ltd but act as separate businesses and thus require their own branding exposure. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at anytime. We greatly appreciate your attention in this matter. Vadim Otsep, Project Manager International Neon �r Tel: (800) 906 — 6366 Fax: (514) 938 — 2056 Email: service(aneon.ca Figure 1 — letter of request from Loblaws including drawings. 1301, De Montmorency Mont W1, QC '/.'>Wnnflr I'd vm I—IVndnm,. nppllenUm,—1Tu,nia fnnnillvo XI11MITnnr III, —)1- H3K 2G3 GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -role L-s —53— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 m m N n KC .9/LL 91 1 I ___....._._..-..i -iW6).9-.6Z H H -54- GENERAL COMMITTEE .9;LBLNOVEMBER 16, h j J p m O O m u • o (W9 • f7 N �- • iiy o_ � na N_W N • bW p ui p WW 0w NN t NN t� N .49 K (wSL'L) „6-.9 -55- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 , I'. J / C u) RIO, .Wl 99 .414 r. q a 6 I+ �I -56- ft am *Mftft.— m !] //I , _==_z awe wz ji e / ��— � ! , / -. / j r GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 ow -a GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 FPZ- TH�C RP ON ❑F HET N OF URORA 11'-W NUM ER 0 -92 BEING A BY-LAW to prohibit or regulate the erection of signs or other advertising devices, and the posting of notices on buildings or vacant lots within the Town of Aurora. WHEREAS the Provisions of Section 210 of the Municipal Act R.S.O. 1980 Chapter 302, as amended, permit Council to pass By-laws to prohibit or regulate the erection of signs or advertising devices; to specify a time period during which signs or advertising devices may stand or be displayed; to require the production of the plans of all signs or other advertising devices to be erected, displayed, altered or repaired and for the charging of fees for the Inspection and approval of such plans and for the Issuing of a permit thereof and; to authorize the pulling down or removal at the expense of the owner any sign or advertising device erected or displayed in contravention of the By-law. AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient, pursuant to said provisions, to enact a By- law to prohibit or regulate the erection of signs and other advertising devices within the Town of Aurora. NOW THEREFORE THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: Figure 2 — Draft sign by-law with both proposed and existing -59- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -2- TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE _ PAGE 1 TITLE 3 2 DEFINITIONS 4 3 ADMINISTRATION 8 4 PROHIBITED SIGNS 13 5 MATERIALS AND STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS 15 6 GENERAL PROVISIONS 16 7 SIGNS PERMITTED IN ALL ZONES 19 8 SIGNS PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES 21 9 SIGNS PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL ZONES 22 10 SIGNS PERMITTED IN SHOPPING CENTRES 26 11 SIGNS PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES 28 12 SIGNS PERMITTED IN INSTITUTIONAL ZONES 30 13 SIGNS PERMITTED IN RURAL, OPEN SPACE 32 OR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ZONES 14 SIGNS PERMITTED IN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE 33 STATIONS OR GAS BARS (INCLUDING A CAR WASH) 15 MENU BOARD SIGNS 34 16 EXCEPTIONS TO THE BY-LAW 35. - SCHEDULE "A" PERMIT FEES 36 -60- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -3- SECTION 1 - TITLE 1.1 SHORT TITLE: This By-law shall be known and cited as the "Sign By-law". 1.2 INTENT AND SCOPE: This By-law shall apply to the whole of the Town. The Intent of this By-law is to regulate signs in the Town especially in relation to community appearance and safety. Signage shall be designed so as to be compatible with the function, scale, and style of the building. -61- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -4- SECTION 2 - DEFINITIONS In this By-law, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms when used shall have the meanings assigned to them as follows: 2.1 "Alter, Altered or Alteration" means any change to the sign structure or the sign face with the exception of: (a) a change in the message displayed by a sign, (b) the re -arrangement of numerals, letters or copy applied directly to the face of a sign specifically designed and intended to be periodically rearranged. (c) repair and maintenance, including replacement by Identical components, as required by this By-law. 2.2 AWNING: Means a roof -like cover extending over or before a door, wall or window, acting as a shelter, which is attached to a building or structure and composed of non -rigid materials except for the supporting framework. 2.3 CANOPY: Means a part of any structure composed of rigid materials which projects horizontally from the exterior face of a building wall and which may afford protection or shelter from the weather. 2.4 CANOPY, FREE STANDING: Means a structure, unenclosed on all sides, which may afford protection or shelter from the weather and does not include a tent. 2.5 DEVELOPMENT AREA: Means an area designated for development and which is appropriately zoned for the use being advertised, or for which a valid application to permit such development is under consideration by the Municipality. 2.6 DIRECTOR: Means the Director of Building Administration of the Town or his authorized designate. 2.7 ERECTED: Means to erect, locate, park, build, construct, install, mount, assemble, paint, attach, post, display, or alter. 2.6 HEIGHT: Means the distance from the level of the sidewalk or where no sidewalk exists, the travelled portion of the street abutting the property or from the level of the ground immediately below the sign to the highest point thereof, whichever is the least restrictive. 2.9 LOT: Means a parcel of land, whether or not occupied by a building or structure which fronts a street or highway. 2.10 LOT, CORNER: Means a lot situated at the intersection of and abutting two (2) or more streets or two (2) parts of the same street provided that the angle of intersection of such streets or parts thereof is not more than one hundred and thirty-five (135) degrees. 2.11 LOT, FRONTAGE: Means the cumulative length of all boundaries separating the lot from any street or highway. -62- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -5- 2.12 LOT, THROUGH: Means a lot bounded on two (2) opposite sides by streets, 2.13 MENU BOARD: Means a sign erected as part of a drive-thru facility and used to display and order products and services available at the drive-thru business. 2.14 ONTARIO BUILDING CODE: Means The Ontario Building Code Act R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 51', as amended, and all regulations passed thereunder. 2.15 OWNER: Means a Person, or his/her authorized agent, who owns or is in control of the premises, building, sign or other structure or a portion thereof Including a mortgagee in possession. 2.16 PERSON: Means an individual, association, firm, partnership, corporation, trust, incorporated company, corporation created under 'The Condominium Act", organization, trustee or agent, and the heirs, executors or other legal representatives of a person to whom the context can apply according to law. 2.17 PREMISES, BUSINESS: Means any premises on which commercial or industrial activities are carried on or permitted under the zoning by-laws. In a multiple tenantloccupancy building, each business area shall be considered a separate premises. *2.18 PRE -MENU BOARD: _ Means a sign erected as part of a drive-thru facility and only used to display products and services available at the drive-thru business. *2.19 REGION: Means the Regional Municipality of York as described in the Regional Municipality of York Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. RA8, as amended 2.20 SHOPPING CENTRE: Means a group of commercial uses, which has been designed, developed and managed as -a unit by a single owner or tenant, or a group of owners or tenants, with off-street parking provided on the property, as distinguished from a business area comprised of unrelated individual uses. 2.21 SIGN: Means any advertising device and any structure, device, or any part thereof, or any device attached thereto, or painted or represented thereon, which is used to identify, advertise, or attract attention to any object, project, place, activity, person, institution, organization, firm, group, commodity, profession, enterprise, industry or business, or which displays or includes any letter, word, model, number, insignia, device or representation used as an announcement, direction or advertisement, located on the outside of or inside a building or structure and which is intended to be seen from off the premises or from a parking lot. 2.22 SIGN AREA: Means: a) the area of the display surface including the boarder or the frame. b) all of the area of the display surface lying within the extremities of the sign, if the sign does not have a border or frame. c) where used in connection with a sign having two display surfaces and thickness not greater than necessary to accommodate the sign structure and with the thickness not used as a display surface, means the area of one display surface. -63- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -6- 2.23 SIGN, AWNING: Means a sign erected on an awning. 2.24 SIGN, CANOPY: Means a sign erected on a canopy. - 2.25 SIGN, BILLBOARD: Means a standardized advertising sign, symbol or structure erected and maintained by a person, firm, corporation, business, service, commercial or industrial enterprise engaged in the sale or rental of space thereon to a clientele upon which space there is displayed advertising copy describing one or more products or services which are not necessarily made, produced, assembled, sold or stored from the lot or premises upon which the advertisement is displayed. 2.26 SIGN, DEVELOPMENT: Means a sign erected upon any lands, buildings or structures within a development area which displays a message or information regarding a development In progress or a proposed development. 2.27 SIGN, DIRECTIONAL: Means a sign for the public safety or convenience regulating on premises traffic, parking or other functional subdivision of premises, such as lavatory facilities, telephone, signs denoting other sections of a building, such as office, workshop, etc., bearing no commercial advertising. Including a sign indicating direction and/or distance to an institutional use on another property, but not limited to churches, legions, animal shelters. A Directional Sign may take the form of a ground sign, wall sign, canopy sign, free- standing canopy sign, or awning sign. 2.28 SIGN, FACE: Means the opaque, transparent or translucent surfaceofa sign, upon, against or through which the message of the sign is exhibited, and is the area defined by a geometric shape within a perimeter bounded by the Inside of the sign frame or sign structure. 2.29 SIGN, FREE STANDING CANOPY: Means a sign erected on a Free Standing Canopy. 2.30 SIGN, GROUND: Means a sign commonly known as a Pylon Sign, supported by one or more uprights, poles, braces, or located on a structural base placed in or upon the ground, but does not include a billboard, inflatable sign or portable sign. '2.31 SIGN, INFLATABLE: Means a sign or advertising device that is inflated. Inflatable signs shall not be considered roof signs. . 2.32 SIGN, NUMBER OF: Means that for the purpose of determining number of signs, a sign shall be considered to be a single display surface or display device containing elements organized, related, and composed to form a unit. Where components or signs are displayed in a random manner without organized relationship or where there is reasonable doubt about the relationship of said components, each component shall be considered to be a single sign. 2.33 SIGN, PORTABLE: - Means any sign that is not attached or affixed to any land, building or premises with some degree of permanence and shall be deemed to Include signs commonly known as sandwich board signs and vehicle signs, except that Portable Signs shall not include ground signs and excludes signs attached to vehicles where such signs indicate information pertaining solely to the owner, lessor, franchise or operator of that vehicle or provide other information as required by law and excludes vehicles which may from time to time be owned and operated by and on behalf of the Town of Aurora. -64- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -7- 2.34 SIGN, PROJECTING: Means a sign other than a wall sign which is affixed to a building, wall or structure and which projects approximately perpendicular from same. 2.35 SIGN, READOGRAPH: Means a permanent sign on which copy is changed manually with letters or pictorial panels. 2.36 SIGN, REAL ESTATE: Means a sign advertising the sale, rental or lease of a lot, building or business. 2.37 SIGN, ROOF: Means a sign erected, constructed or maintained entirely on or above the Roof of a building but does not include an inflatable sign. 2.38 SIGN, SANDWICH BOARD: Means a sign constructed in the shape of an A or triangle and intended to be relocated daily by one person. 2.39 SIGN, STRUCTURE: Means the support, uprights, bracing and framework of the sign. 2.40 SIGN, TRAILER: Means a sign erected on a trailer or vehicle that Is not self,propelled or whose principal use is not the transportation of people, goods or other materials. 2.41 SIGN, UNSAFE: Means a sign or sign structure which is structurally unsafe, or which constitutes a fire, traffic, or pedestrian hazard, or which impedes a means of egress from any building, premises or property, or otherwise constitutes a risk to the safety of persons or. property in, or adjacent to, a premises. 2.42 SIGN, WALL: Means a sign which Is parallel to and projects not more than 500 mm from the face of the building and a structure. 2.43 STREET: Means a public highway as defined by "The Municipal Act" and "The Highway Traffic Act" but shall exclude a lane or any private right-of-way or unopened road allowance, or any street which is shown on a Registered Plan of Subdivision which has been deemed not to be a registered plan of subdivision under Section 29 of "The Planning Act", or which has not been assumed by the Town. 2.44 TOWN: Means the Corporation of the Town of Aurora. 2.45 UNDEFINED TERM: For definition of terms requiring clarification such as apartment, non- conforming, etc., the definitions outlined in Zoning By-law 2213-78, as amended, shall be utilized where applicable. 2.46 ZONE: Means a designated area of land use shown on Schedule "A" of Comprehensive Zoning By-law Number 2213-78, as amended. -65- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 m SECTION 3 - ADMINISTRATION 3.1 RESPONSIBILITY: Neither the granting of a permit nor the review of the plans and specifications nor inspections made by the Town shall in any way relieve the owner or any other person from full responsibility for carrying out the work or having the work carried out in complete accordance with the requirements of this By-law or any other By-law or Law applicable to the sign. , 3.2 RESPONSIBILITY RE: APPLICATION FOR PERMIT: No person shall make application for a sign permit who is not the owner of the _property on which the work is to be performed, except for a tenant or occupant who shall provide written permission from the owner at the time of application. Nor shall any person submit false or misleading information or documents or make omissions that may mislead in connection with any application for a sign permit, detail of construction or revision thereto. 3.3 RESPONSIBILITY RE: PERMITS: No person shall work or authorize work to proceed on any sign for which a permit is required and which has not been obtained. Where a sign is found to be in contravention of this By-law the Town, its servants or agents, may issue a Notice of Violation as per Section 3.19 of this By-law or may Impose a penalty under Section 3.20 of this By-law. 3.4 RESPONSIBILITY RE: NOTICES AND ORDERS: No person shall contravene the provision(s) of a Notice of Violation, issued because of a contravention of the By-law or other Law or remove any aforesaid notice or order that is posted on any premises without the approval of the Town. 3.5 RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNER RE: TIME FOR EXAMINATION: The owner of the lot or premises shall be responsible for ensuring that the application for permit is made in sufficient time to allow a thorough examination of the submitted documents and to permit any necessary amendments or the approval of all governing Authorities prior to the date intended for the commencement of work. 3.6 CONFORMITY TO BY-LAW AND APPROVED PLAN: It shall be the. responsibility of the owner of the lot or premises, to comply with this By-law and the approved plans and specifications and to be satisfied that each set of plans and specifications approved by the Town is identical In every respect. Failure to do so shall not relieve the owner of the responsibility for complying with every requirement of the By-law should any discrepancies become apparent. 3.7 PERMITS, WHEN REQUIRED: Permits are required to erect any sign with a sign area which exceeds one square.metre, except that permits are not required to change the message displayed. 3.8 APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS: To obtain a permit the applicant must first file an application in a prescribed form furnished for that purpose by the Town. 3.8.1 Every application shall: (a) Identify and describe In detail the sign to be covered by the permit for which the application is made. (b) Describe the land on which the proposed sign is, or is to be erected, by street address or by other equivalent description that will readily Identify and specifically locate the sign. GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -9- (c) Be accompanied unless otherwise permitted by the Town, by plans and specifications of sufficient detail and quality as is necessary to ascertain whether or not the sign will be In compliance with this By-law and the Ontario Building Code. Plans and specifications are to be submitted in duplicate, unless otherwise stated. (d) State the full names, addresses and telephone numbers of the owner and any Lessee of the premises and the owner of the sign, the applicant, the designer, and, if known, the contractor and, If the owner or contractor is a corporate body, the address of the head office of the company and the names, addresses and telephone numbers of such officers of the company as may be required. (a) Be accompanied by payment of the required fee pursuant to Schedule C appended hereto. - (f) Applications for inflatable and trailer signs shall be made by the Sign Company only. - An application for permit for any sign will be deemed to have been abandoned six (6) months after the date of filing, unless such permit has been issued. In case of abandonment, all plans and specifications shall be returned to the applicant, to the address shown on the application. 3.8.2 In keeping with the intent and scope of the By-law, signs which are proposed to be erected on a building or property that is currently on the Town of Aurora's list of Heritage properties, as amended from time to time and for which permits are required, shall require review by LACAC (Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee) which is the Committee that advises Council on Heritage matters prior to the issuance of the permit. 3.9 REVISIONS TO APPLICATION OR APPROVED DOCUMENTS: Revisions may be made without charge to the applicant for approved documents provided they do not require in the opinion of the Director additional work by the Town. 3.10 ISSUANCE OF PERMIT: A sign permit will be issued as follows: (a) Where the application has been properly executed. (b) The required fees have been paid, and (c) The sign for which the application has been made complies in all respects with this By-law and all other By-laws, Acts or Regulations enforceable in the Town. 3.11 EXPIRATION OF PERMIT: Every permit issued by the Town shall expire six (6) months from the date of issuance unless the sign applied for has been erected in conformity with the application and this By-law within that time. The permit shall become null and void upon the removal of the sign other than the temporary removal as agreed to by the Director in writing for the purpose of repair or upon passage of any By-law, the provisions of which would make the approved sign unlawful. 3.12 RENEWAL OF PERMIT: Where, before the expiry date of a permit, an application is made to extend the permit for a further six (6) months, the Town may renew the permit upon payment of the prescribed application fee then In effect at that time where the sign continues to conform to all By-laws and/or governmental regulations existing at that time. -67- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -10- 3.13 REVOCATION OF PERMIT: A permit may be revoked by the Town under the following circumstances: (a) Where the sign does not conform to this By-law and amendments thereto. (b) Where the sign does not conform to any regulation, law or requirement of any governmental authority having jurisdiction over the area where the sign is situated. (c) Where the permit has been Issued as the result of false or misleading statements, or undertakings in the applications. (d) Where the permit has been issued in error by the Town. (a) Where the sign erected does not conform with the application, plans or specifications submitted under Section 3.9. 3.14 ASSIGNING OF -A PERMIT: It is a condition of the Issuance of any permit that said permit shall not be assigned without the approval of the Town and the payment of the prescribed In Schedule C fee. 3.15 FEES: Fees payable under this By-law are as set out in Schedule "A". 3.16 UNSAFE SIGNS: Where in the opinion of the Director of the Town a sign is unsafe, a letter shall be sent by Registered Mall to the last known address of the owner of the premises, lands or sign, outlining the ways in which the sign is unsafe and directing that the said sign be removed from the property, and the time limits for doing so. Such procedure shall be deemed to be the equivalent of personal notice. Upon delivery of said notice by the Town, the owner shall at once proceed to make the sign safe in accordance with the said notice or remove same. If this work is not done within the stipulated time, the Town may then orderthat the work be carried out by the Town, or an independent contractor, at the expense of the said owner. The cost of this work may be recovered from the owner in a like manner as municipal taxes. 3.17 UNLAWFUL SIGNS: (a) Where a sign is erected in contravention of this By-law, such sign may be taken down and removed by the Municipality at the owner's expense. The Director may send by Registered Mail to the last known address of the owner of the sign, or the owner of the land or premises where the sign is situated, a notice requiring the removal of said sign or that it be made to comply with this Bylaw within a stipulated time. Upon receipt of said notice from the Town, the owner shall at once proceed to remove the sign or make it comply with this By-law. If the sign Is not removed or made to comply with this By-law within the stipulated time, the Town may order the sign to be removed by its employees or an Independent contractor at the expense of the owner. The cost of this work may be recovered from the owner in a like manner as municipal taxes. (b) No such sign shall be altered or relocated for any reason whatsoever, unless the same shall either conform or be made to conform in all respects with the applicable provisions of this By-law. .: GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -11- (c) Any sign or other advertising device erected, displayed, altered or repaired after the date of passing of this By-law which is erected, displayed, altered or repaired in contravention with the provisions of this By-law will be required to be brought into conformity with the By-law by the owner. (d) If any such sign is not brought into conformity with the By-law, the Town may remove such sign at the expense of the owner of the Inds, premises or sign. Such expense may be recovered by the Town from the owner in a like manner as municipal taxes. ` 3.18 NOTICES: NOTICE OF VIOLATION: Whenever a contravention of this By-law is apparent, a Notice of Violation may be Issued by the Town to the person who is responsible for the work or to the owner of the lands, premises or sign; said notice shall outline the nature of the contravention and the section of the By-law so contravened, and shall further direct that the contravention be abated within a specified time. In the event that no responsible person can be found to receive the notice, then the notice shall be posted at the site of contravention and a copy shall be sent by Registered Mail to the last known address of the owner or Lessee of the lands, premises or sign, and such procedure shall be deemed to be equivalent of personal notice. 3.19 PENALTY: Any person who contravenes any provisions of this By-law (or any of its clauses) is guilty of an offence and shall, upon conviction, pay a fine not exceeding the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offence committed pursuant to the Municipal Act and the Provincial Offenses Act. In addition, where a security deposit has been posted for a sign permit, in accordance with Schedule "A", said security shall be forfeited upon expiration of the time frame for which a permit was Issued notwithstanding Section 3.11 herein and said sign shall be considered to be unlawful as per Section 3.17 herein. 3.20 LIABILITY: The provisions of this By-law shall not be construed as relieving or limited the responsibility or liability of any person who erects or displays, or causes or permits or allows to be erected or displayed, any sign, for personal Injury including, injury resulting in death, or property damage resulting from such sign of from the acts or omissions of such person, or his agents, servants, employees, contractors or sub -contractors, in the construction, erection, maintenance, display, alteration, repair or removal of any sign erected In accordance with a permit which is issued hereunder. Likewise, the provisions of this By-law shall not be construed as imposing on the Town, its officers, employees, servants and agents, any responsibility or liability whatsoever by reason of the approval of or issuance of a permit for any sign of removal of any sign. 3.21 INDEMNIFICATION: The applicant for a permit for a sign, and the owner and occupant of the lands and premises on which any sign is erected, shall be jointly and severally responsible to indemnify the Town, its officers, employees, servants and agents, from all loss, damages, costs, expenses, claims, demands, actions, suits or other proceedings of every nature and kind arising from and in consequence of the construction, erection, maintenance, display, alteration, repair or removal of such sign. 3.22 VALIDITY: In the event any part or provision of this By-law is held to be illegal or void, this shall not have the effect of making illegal or void any of the other parts or provisions thereof, which may or shall be determined to be legal. GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -12- 3.23 PRECEDING SIGN BY-LAWS: By-law Number 3013-88 and 3306-91 be and are hereby repealed. Where there is a conflict of the provisions between this By-law and any other By-law of the Town regulating- signage, the provisions of the By-law deemed by the Director to be the most restrictive shall prevail. -70- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 13- SECTION 4. PROHIBITED SIGNS 4.1 No person shall erect on any premises any of the following types of signs, except as may be otherwise noted herein: (a) Signs which incorporate in any manner any flashing or moving illumination which varies in intensity or which varies in colour, and signs which have any visible moving parts, or visible mechanical movement of any description: (i) with the exception of signs which indicate time or temperature provided that such sign is not prohibited by any other provision of this By-law. (b) Signs which by reason of size, location, content, colouring, or manner of illumination obstruct the visions of drivers, either when leaving a roadway or when entering a roadway from another roadway or driveway, or obstruct or detract from the visibility or effectiveness of any traffic sign or control device on public streets and roads. (c) Signs which make use of the words "STOP", "LOOK", "ONE WAY", "DANGER", "YIELD" or any similar words, phrases, symbols, lights or characters in such a manner as to interfere with, mislead, or confuse traffic. (d) Signs located so as to obstruct or Impede any required fire escape, fire exit, door, window, scuttle, skylight, flue or air intake or exhaust or so as to prevent or impede free access of fire fighters to any part of the building. (a) Any sign which advertises a business no longer conducted, or a product no longer sold within the premises or building upon which the sign is located. Such obsolete signs shall be removed within 30 days of closing of the business. (f) Signs painted on, attached to, or supported by a utility pole, tree, stone, or other natural object. (g) Roof signs. (h) Signs erected, maintained or displayed on Municipal property except public election lists and public election signs, and those signs for which the owner has entered Into an encroachment agreement with the Town. (i) Projecting signs, except located wholly on private property or for which the owner has entered into an encroachment agreement with the Town. (j) Portable signs excluding those signs commonly referred to as sandwich board signs. (k) Signs painted on the exterior walls of any building. (1) Sign(s) which advertise(s) a business which is carrying on business not permitted under the Zoning By-law or amendments thereto, on or in the premises, or building or structure upon which the sign is erected. (m) A ground sign within a 7.5 m radius of a traffic light. (n) Signs which obstruct a required parking space or utilize such parking space for purposes of locating a sign. (o) Any other sign which does not comply with the provisions of this By-law. (p) No person shall be permitted to erect a sign upon a fence. -71- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -14- (q) Any sign other than a development sign posted in a Holding Zone. (r) Billboard signs except for those signs displayed by service groups and organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, Optimists, Lions Club, etc., which are recognized as being such by The Town of Aurora. (s) A sign or mural painted on the exterior wall of a building, excluding a mural which has been approved by Council or a Standing Committge of Council. -72- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 15- SECTION 5. MATERIALS AND STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS 5.1 MATERIALS: (a) All materials incorporated into a sign shall comply with all requirements of Section 3,14 of the Ontario Building Code. (b) Every sign shall comply with all governing requirements of the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission or the Aurora Hydro, whichever has jurisdiction In the area where the sign is to be erected. 5.2 STRUCTURAL: Signs and their structural members shall be designed to have structural capacity to resist safely and effectively all effects of loads and influence from the environment that may be expected and shall in any case satisfy the requirements of the Ontario Building Code. 5.3 MAINTENANCE: The owner of the lands or premises upon which any sign or advertising device Is located shall maintain or cause such sign or advertising device to be maintained in a proper state of repair so that such sign or advertising device does not become unsafe, unsightly, dangerous or a nuisance. All signs shall be completely operative at all times. Maintenance or repairs using materials identical to the materials of the component being maintained or repaired does not constitute an alteration so as to require a permit. -73- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 16- SECTION 6 - GENERAL PROVISIONS The following provisions shall apply in all zones and to all use categories: 6.1 LIMIT ON NUMBER OF SIGNS PER PREMISES: Except as may otherwise be provided in this By-law no more than the following number of signs may be erected on any premises at one time: (a) One (1) ground sign only on any lot, except as permitted by Schedule "A" of this By-law, and (b) One (1) only of any of the following per business premises: (1) wall sign, awning sign, canopy sign, or projecting sign, and (c) Except that where a premises is located on a corner or through lot or has entrances on two (2) or more public highways, or where a premises has both a front and a rear public entrance, or a rear public entrance on a through lot, one (1) additional sign as per Section 6.1(b). Sections 5.3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14 herein are subject to this Section. 6.2 ILLUMINATION:. Signs shall not be illuminated In such a way that either the sign or the method of illumination create a hazard or a nuisance. Illuminated signs shall be designed and erected so that light from such signs are deflected away from any adjacent residential premise(s). 6.3 SIGN CONTENT: No person shall erect a sign, the content of which would contravene any Zoning By-law or other By-law, Act, or Regulation enforceable In the Municipality, or which would identify, advertise, or provide Information in relation to a use of the lot, property or premises which is unlawful or not permitted. 6.4 WALL SIGN: The following regulations shall apply to wall signs: (a) A wall sign shall not extend above the top extremity of the wall upon which It is placed. (b) No wall sign, or any part thereof, shall project more than 500 mm from the wall upon which It is mounted. (c) No wall sign shall extend laterally beyond the extremities of the wall to which It is attached. (d) Wall signs shall only be located at the level having direct access to a public way except that where a premise occupies all levels in a multi- storey building the wall sign may be located above the level having direct access to a public way. (a) No portion of a wall sign that projects more than 50 mm from the wall upon which it is mounted shall be located less than 2.4 m above the grade below such sign. (f) A wall sign which projects less than 50 mm from the wall upon which it is attached may be permitted to be located less than 2.4 m above grade where It can be shown by the owner that the height of the wall will not permit same, -74- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -17- (g) Wall signs permitted on any wall of a commercial, industrial or institutional building shall have a maximum sign area of .75m'Ilineal metre of wall of the wall face, except that any wall facing, and within twenty (20) metres of a Residential Zone shall have no wall signs other than a single Directory Wall Sign with a maximum sign area of 0.5 m2. (h) A wall sign may be composed of 2 or more Sections, provided the maximum wall coverage of the wall to which the sign is erected does not exceed 20% thereof. (1) The total area of any single wall per premises shall not exceed 35 m'. 6.5 GROUND, IN GROUND, AND FREE-STANDING SIGNS: The following regulations shall apply to all ground signs: (a) Ground signs are permitted between the property line and the building setback lines defined in the applicable zoning by-law. (b) The minimum distance between ground signs on any lot shall be not less than 15.0 m. (c) No ground sign shall exceed 7.5 metres in height from the finished grade level at the base of the supporting structure of said sign except for signage for a shopping centre as per Section 9.1 (b) herein. (d) The number and maximum area of all ground signs. shall comply with the provisions outlined herein. (a) No ground sign shall be permitted in a C-1 Local Commercial Zone or C-2, Central Commercial Zone. (f) No ground sign shall exceed 3.6 metres in any dimension of sign face except for signage for a shopping centre as per Section 9.1 (b). (g) No ground sign shall be located at a distance from the common lot boundary with an adjacent lot less than 1.5 m or a distance equal to the height of the sign whichever Is greater. (h) In all non-residential zones, ground signs shall be erected a minimum of 9.0 m from the boundaries of any adjacent Residential Zone. (1) A ground sign including any part of Its structure shall not be located closer than 1.0 m to any driveway, unless located on a traffic island separating the lanes of a two-way driveway. (j) READOGRAPH SIGNS: (a) Readograph signs shall be designed as an integral part of a ground sign. (b) The readograph portion of a ground sign shall be located a minimum of 2.4 m above grade or in a secure enclosure. 6.6 AWNING SIGNS: (a) An awning sign shall be designed as an integral part of the awning. (b) No awning sign shall extend beyond the limits of the awning. 6.7 CANOPY SIGNS: (a) A canopy sign shall be designed as an integral part of the attached or free standing canopy fascia. (b) - No canopy sign shall extend beyond the limits of the canopy fascia. -75- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -18- 6.8 PROJECTING SIGNS: (a) No portion of a projecting sign shall be less than 2.4 m above the finished grade or floor level immediately below such sign. (b) No projecting sign shall exceed 1.6 mz In sign area per sign face. (c) No projecting sign shall be illuminated internally. (d) No projecting sign shall have more than two sign faces. -76- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -19- SECTION 7 - SIGNS PERMITTED IN ALL ZONES 7.1 EXISTING SIGNS: Any sign except prohibited signs as described in Section 4, erected, constructed or placed before the day this By-law shall come into force and in use on such day may remain and continue to be used and maintained notwithstanding that it does not conform with the applicable provisions of this By-law, provided that, (a) No such sign shall be altered or relocated whatsoever, unless the same shall conform or be made to conform in all respect with the applicable provisions of this by-law. (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing shall prevent the maintenance of a non -conforming sign. Except as otherwise noted herein the following signs shall be permitted for all land use zones in the Town and shall not be counted when calculating the number of signs permitted for any premises. However, such signs shall comply with the provisions specified herein. 7.2 SIGNS REQUIRING A PERMIT: (a) A sign having an area of not more than 4.6 mz incidental to building construction within the area designated for such purposes provided there Is an active permit, to construct, on file with the Director. Such sign shall not be erected more than thirty (30) days prior to the commencement of said construction and shall be removed as soon as said construction is completed or said construction is discontinued for a period exceeding sixty (60) days. (b) Ground signs or banners not exceeding 4.6 m2 in sign area relating to the opening of a new business, provided the business complies with all Town By-laws. Such sign not to exceed 4.6 m2 to be erected no more than fourteen (14) days prior to the opening for business, and to be removed within sixty (60) days thereafter. - (c) Development Signs: Development signs are permitted in all development areas subject to the following regulations. A development sign: (i) shall be a wall sign or ground sign, (ii) shall only be permitted if it faces a public highway or road; and All development signs shall comply with the provisions herein with respect to wall signs or ground signs, as the case may be. Development signs shall only be permitted for a maximum period of 3 years, An application for a development sign shall be accompanied by refundable security as per Schedule "C', in addition to the normal permit fee, which security shall be refunded when such signs have been removed to the satisfaction of the Town. Development signs which are not removed within 14 days of the 3 year expiry date or notification thereof and for which no written extension of time shall have the security posted for same cashed by the Town. Such security may be used for the costsassociated with the administration and removal of the sign. 7.3 SIGNS FOR WHICH A PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED: (a) A sign containing the name, address and profession of a resident or occupant and may incorporate the hours of work, operation or availability. However, the sign shall not be more than 0.2 m2 in sign area and shall not include any commercial advertising. -77- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -20- (b) No trespassing signs or other such signs regulating the use of property, of no more than 0.2 mZ in sign area. (c) Real Estate signs not exceeding 1.0 mz in sign area in a Residential Zone and 2.0 m2 in other zones, provided that in other zones a sign not exceeding 3.0 m2 shall be permitted on a lot having over 30.4 m frontage, which advertises the sale, rental, or lease of the Iqt, or premises, on which said signs are located. Such real estate signs shall be removed within thirty (30) days after the premises or lot advertised has been sold, rented or leased. Maximum one such sign per lot. (d) Direction Sign not to exceed 0.5 m2 in area, in a Residential Zone, and 1 mz in area in other zones. (a) Signs erected by a governmental body, or under the direction of such a body, and bearing no commercial advertising, such as traffic signs, rail road crossing signs, safety signs, signs identifying public schools or public buildings, Public Information signage and signs of a similar nature. (f) Memorial signs or tablets and signs denoting the date of erection of buildings attached to the wall of a building or structure, maximum size 0.5 MI. (g) Flags bearing the crest or insignia of any corporation, government, agency or religious, charitable or fraternal organization. (h) Public election lists, public election signs and candidate signs including signs erected at a campaign headquarters. Such signs shall be no larger than 2 mz in area and shall be removed within forty- eight (48) hours after the election for which such signs have been erected subject to The Elections Act or Municipal Elections Act or any other relevant legislation. (1) Temporary signs no larger than 2 mz in area advertising auctions and special events of charitable or public service groups which signs shall be removed within 48 hours thereafter. Q) Signs erected at the request of the municipality including planning, development, and information signs as well as Zoning and Official Plan Amendment signs, which signs shall be removed within seven days after one of the following events has taken place: (1) the application is turned down by Council or is withdrawn; (ii) the Official Plan Amendment is approved or turned down by the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Ontario Municipal Board; or (III) Zoning By-law comes into force or Is approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. (k) Sandwich Board Sign: One per premises, where permitted in the By-law, may be maintained during normal working hours, to be removed each night after business closes: (1) Maximum dimension 1 metre, (11) Maximum area 1 metre square per side. (1) Signs for a blood donor clinic of the Canadian Blood Services. (m) Public transit shelter advertising or any advertising on street furniture and fixtures approved by the Town or Region. 12" GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -21- SECTION 8 - SIGNS PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES 8.1 The following signs are permitted in a Residential Zone: (a) Those signs permitted in Section 7.3 (a) to Q) of this By-law. (b) One identification wall sign not exceeding 9.0 m2 in sign area for an apartment building. (c) One identification and vacancy information ground sign not exceeding 2.4 m2 in sign area nor 4.0 m In height for an apartment building. (d) Buildings within a Residential Zone which have been converted or may be converted into businesses or offices excluding home occupation, may have a ground sign with a maximum area of 9.0 m2 and a maximum height of 4.0 m or a projecting sign with a maximum area of 5.0 m2 identifying the building, business and occupants thereof. 8.2 Sign(s) Permitted in an R5 or R5 Exception Zone (4371-02.13) (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this by-law, readograph signs shall not be permitted. (b) No sign erected shall obstruct or interfere with any architectural Detailing on the building. (c) Ground signs for single tenant buildings shall not exceed 1.5m' in area per single sign face or 3.0m2 for all faces combined. Such ground signs, notwithstanding Section 6.4, shall not exceed 2.Om in height. (d) Ground signs for multi -tenant buildings shall not exceed 2.Om2 in area per single sign face or 4.0m2 for all faces combined. Such ground signs, notwithstanding Section 6.4, shall not exceed 2.5 m in height. (a) The area of wall signs shall not exceed 0.25m2 of sign area per linear horizontal metre of building wall upon which such sign is located. No sign shall exceed 1.25m2 in sign area. (f) The area of canopy signs shall not exceed 0.25m' of sign area per Linear horizontal metre of canopy fascia upon which such h sign is located. No sign shall exceed 1.Om2 in sign area. (g) Notwithstanding Section 6.8, no projecting sign shall exceed 0.75m2 in area per sign face. (h) No more than a maximum of two signs shall be permitted. (1) Internally illuminated signs shall not be permitted in Special Sign Districts. -79- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -22- SECTION 9 - SIGNS PERMITTED IN COMMERCIAL ZONES 9.1 The following signs shall be permitted in a Commercial Zone. Table B - Signs Permitted in Commercial Zones Sign Type Requirement Maximum Area Maximum Illumination Per Face Height Wall 0,75m' per 1.0m of NIA Internal or linear building external fagade, maximum 35.0 m2 for an Individual sign Awning NIA 10% of the area of NIA External the awning Canopy N/A 0.25 m2 per 1.0m of N/A Internal or linear length external Projecting N/A 1.0 an NIA External * Ground Lot frontage 75 m 10 m2 7.5 m Internal or or less external * Ground Lot frontage greater 10 m 7.5 m Internal or than 7.5 m less external than 300 max. 2 signs 1. A wall sign on an office building three or more storeys in height, shall be located only on any of the following: the first storey, the top storey and parapet, the mechanical penthouse. 2. Where a wall sign Is located on the wall of a mechanical penthouse of an office One additional ground sign may be permitted where the commercial property abuts a corner lot. 9.2 No person shall erect or display a sign in a commercial zone except inconformity with the regulations of Table B. No ground sign shall be permitted on an inside lot or a corner lot which has a street frontage of less than 12.2 in (40.0 ft). Readograph signs forming an integral part of a ground sign shall be permitted except that all the provisions under Section 8.3 shall apply. . - :-: - ._ ......_.._.... _ .. _.----------- lllllllllllllllllt�iu - -- -- — — frontage to a maxifflum of nn ...2 (215.28 _„ ft ) but ..,....."reundSlgn she" mhave any" GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 (4236-OO.P) 23 - 9.7 Portable Sign(s): Portable signs shall Include mobile and Inflatable signs; (a) No Person shall locate or permit the location of a portable sign on any lot except in accordance with the provisions of this By-law; (b) No person shall locate or permit the location of a portable sign on any lot m without first obtaining therefore a permit, pursuant to this By-law, from the Director and supplying such information as is required pursuant to the By-law and paying such fee as is set forth in Schedule "A" to this By-law which fee shall represent the cost of a permit for a period of two weeks; GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -24- (c) No person shall locate or permit the location of a portable sign on any lot except on a lot on which commercial or industrial activities are carried on; (d) No person shall locate or permit the location of a portable sign on any lot if a permit Issued therefore pursuant to this By-law is revoked; (a) No person shall locate or permit the location of a portable sign on any lot which is not owned or leased by that person without first obtaining a current and valid licence to carry on the business of leasing mobile signs, pursuant to By-law 3447-93 (as amended) or successor legislation thereto. Where the owner of a lot can show that they are the owner of a portable sign, the requirement to be licensed will be waived; (f) No person shall locate or permit the location of more than one portable sign on any lot at any point in time; (g) No person shall locate or permit the location of any portable signs on any single lot for more than four occasions in a single calendar year and each occasion shall represent a two -week period; (h) No person shall locate or permit the location of a portable sign on any lot for a cumulative period of time In excess of eight weeks, which time may occur consecutively, and a portable sign hall be deemed to be located o a lot on the first day It Is delivered to that lot; (1) No portable sign shall be illuminated or employ any flashing or sequential light, or an mechanical or electronic device to provide or simulate motion; 0) A portable sign shall be erected on a property so as not to interfere with pedestrian and/or vehicular traffic, (k) A portable sign shall have a maximum heightmeasured from grade not greater than 2.7 metres. (1) Sign area devoted to portable signage shall not be included in the maximum sign entitlement for the property. (m) No portable sign shall be located closer than 1.0 metres to a street line or within a day -lighting triangle referred to in By-law 2213-78, as amended. (n) No person shall locate or permit the location of a portable sign on any lot without first having provided security in a form satisfactory to the Director and in the amount as set forth in Schedule "A" to this By-law. Such security shall be for the purpose of ensuring the applicant's compliance with the terms of this By-law and the application for permit. If the applicant breaches any of the provisions of this By-law, such security shall constitute the Town's minimum liquidated damages to rectify the breach; (o) No person shall locate or permit the location of any portable sign except entirely on the lot specified in a permit issued pursuant to this by-law; (p) No person shall locate or permit the location of any portable sign on a parking space that Is required pursuant to Town of Aurora Zoning By- law 2213-78 (as amended) or site plan or other agreement with the Town. (q) Portable signs for the purpose of promoting non-profit, charitable and community events shall be permitted on a first come first served basis provided: a-= GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -25- I. There Is no commercial advertising included in the message. II. The signs are located for a period not to exceed 14 days prior to the event. III. A plan outlining the proposed location and nature of the message is provided and reviewed by the Director of Building Administration. IV. The maximum number of signs is restricted to four per event. V. Where required approval from other affected agencies Is obtained. VI. No more than one event may be advertised at any one time. 2. That the provisions of this By-law shall come into force upon final passage thereof. 3. That By-law # 4105-99.P is hereby repealed. GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -26- SECTION 10 - SIGNS PERMITTED IN SHOPPING CENTRES 10.1 SHOPPING CENTRE SIGNS In addition to other provisions of this By-law, the following regulations shall apply to SHOPPING CENTRES other than those in a Local Commercial C1 Zone and a Central Commercial C2 Zone. «:aa Gammereial Gentres, other than those WeRWIPA withinthis section wh16hhy-demnitionmay be dn.. ed to be 8 Gp .. r_ tF&s sha I be o nage net n{ nde. SeetJo n 1 Y"Sig s Permitted permitted ..�y...��.. .n.. .. "Signs � .. ... _ fro..,.., ._.M, herein. ILM GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 _Z7- Additional Regulations for a Shopping Centre on a Lot of 1.0 he to 4.0 he in Area Sign Type Number Maximum Area Maximum Illumination per Face Height Ground 1 for each 100 m of 10.0 m' 9.0 m Internal or frontage to a maximum external of 2 Wall, Canopy All wall signs shall be 0.75 m' per 1.0m of N/A Internal or erected In accordance building fagade, external with the sign uniformity maximum 35.0 m' plan approved by the for an. individual Town sign Additional Regulations for a Shopping Centre on a Lot Over 4.0 he in Area Sign Type Number Maximum Area Maximum Illumination per Face Height Ground 1 for each 100 m of 18.0 m, 9.0 m Internal or frontage to maximum of external 2 Minimum 45 m separation between the ound si ns Wall, Canopy All wall signs shall be 0.75 m' per 1.0m of NIA Internal or erected in accordance building fagade, external with the sign uniformity maximum 35.0 m' plan approved by the for an Individual Town si n One additional ground sign shall be permitted where the shopping centre is located on a corner. No sign shall exceed 4.9 m In width. Coordination of signage among individual and groups of merchants within shopping centres in respect to at least two of the following aspects: type, location, style, colour, size and height shall be encouraged. Portable signs in accordance with Section 9.7 herein. Imm GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -26- SECTION 11 - SIGNS PERMITTED IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES 11.1 The following signs shall be permitted in an Industrial Zone. 11.2 Wall, canopy and awning signs Indicating the use and/or occupancy of the lot and/or building shall be permitted subject to the following (a) No portion of a wall, canopy or awning sign shall be located less than 2.4 m above the grade below the sign. (b) No wall, canopy or awning sign shall extend laterally in any direction beyond the extremities of the wall to which it is attached. (c) No wall sign shall have a sign face exceeding 20% of the total area of the exposed wall to which it is attached or a total sign area of 19 m2 whichever is less. (d) No wall sign or part thereof shall project more than 0.5 m from the wall upon which it is mounted. (a) A wall sign which projects less than 0.05 m from the wall upon which it is mounted may be permitted to be located less than 2.4 m above grade where it can be shown by the owner that the height of the wall will not permit same. (f) Canopy and awning signs shall be designed as an integral part of the canopy or awning upon which the sign appears. (g) No more than one wall or canopy or awning sign shall be permitted per building, except in a multiple unit building one wall or canopy or awning sign shall be permitted at each business premise. (h) Buildings on a corner lot or through street shall be permitted additional slgnage in accordance with Section 6.1(c). 11.3 Ground signs indicating the use and/or occupancy of the lot and or building shall be permitted subject to the following. (a) Ground signs shall be located between the street line and the minimum setback lines defined for the applicable zone In By-law 2213-78 as amended, except that no ground sign or part thereof shall be located closer than 1.0 m to any driveway or street. (b) The minimum distance between ground signs on any lot shall not be less than 15.0 m. (c) No ground sign shall exceed 7.5 metres in height from the finished grade level at the base of the supporting structure of said sign to the highest point of the supporting structure. (d) No ground sign shall be located at a distance from the common lot boundary with an adjacent lot less than 1.5 m or a distance equal to the height of the sign whichever is greater. (a) No ground sign shall be permitted on an inside lot or a corner lot which has a street frontage of less than 12.2 m (40.0 ft). (f) One ground sign on an inside lot which has a street frontage of at least 12.2 m (40.0 ft) and up to 76.2 m (250.0 ft) provided that such ground sign shall have a maximum sign area of 0.09 m2 (1.0 ft2) for every 0.3 m (1.0 ft) of street frontage. WM GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -2g- (g) Two ground signs on an inside lot which has a street frontage of more than 76.2 m and up to 305.0 m provided that such ground signs shall have a maximum cumulative sign area of 0.09 m2 for every 0.3 m of street frontage but no one ground sign shall have a sign area greater than 10.0 m' (107.64 sq.ft.). (h) One ground sign in accordance with sections (g) and (h) may be erected on each street frontage of a corner or through lot, provided however, that each such street frontage has a minimum length of 12.2 m (40.0 ft). * (1) Where by virtue of this section one ground sign is permitted on each street frontage of a corner or through lot, then In the alternative, one ground sign containing a maximum sign area equal to the sign area which is otherwise permitted under this section to a maximum sign area of 20.0 m' (215.28 sq.ft.) shall be permitted on one street frontage of the corner or through lot provided that no sign is erected or displayed on the other street frontage of the corner or through lot. (j) Setbacks for Residential Zones shall be 9.0 m in accordance With Section 6.5(h). 11.4 Projecting sign(s) permitted subject to the following provisions (a) - One per premises, (b) Non -illuminated, (c) Minimum of 2.4 m above the grade immediately below said sign, and (d) Maximum sign area of 0.5 mz, (a) The projecting sign is placed as an alternative to the permitted wall or canopy or awning sign, except in the C1 and C2 Zones, which shall permit one projecting sign in addition to the wall, canopy or awning sign. ff-Va GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -30- SECTION 12 - SIGNS PERMITTED IN INSTITUTIONAL ZONES 12.1 The following signs shall be permitted in an Institutional Zone. 12.2 One wall sign indicating the name of the institution and/or occupancy of the lot and/or building shall be permitted subject to the following (a) No portion of a wall sign shall be located less than 2.4 m above the grade below the sign. (b) No wall sign shall extend laterally in any direction beyond the extremities of the wall to which it is attached. (c) No wall sign shall have a sign face exceeding 20% of the total area of the exposed wall to which It is attached. (d) No wall sign or part thereof shall project more than 0.5 m from the wall upon which it is mounted. (a) A wall sign which projects less than .05 m from the wall upon which it is mounted may be permitted to be located less than 2.4 m above grade where it can be shown by the owner that the height of the wall will not permit same. (f) No more than one wall or canopy or awning sign shall be permitted per building, except in a multiple unit building one wall or canopy or awning sign shall be permitted at each business premise. 12.3 One ground sign with a maximum sign area not to exceed 4.0 mz Indicating the name of institution, dates and times of events, etc., or which could be classed as an outdoor bulletin board. (a) Ground signs shall be located between the street line and the minimum setback lines defined for the applicable zone in By-law 2213-78 as amended, except that no ground sign or part thereof shall be located closer than 1.0 m to any driveway or street. (b) The minimum distance between ground signs on any lot shall not be less than 15.0 m. (c) No ground sign shall exceed 4.0 metres in height from the finished grade level at the base of the supporting structure of said sign to the highest point of the supporting structure. (d) No ground sign shall be located at a distance from the common lot boundary with an adjacent lot less than 1.5 m or a distance equal to the height of the sign whichever is greater. (a) Setbacks from Residential Zones shall be 9.0 m in accordance with Section 6.5(h). 12.4 Projecting signs) permitted subject to the following provisions: (a) One per premises, (b) Non -illuminated, (c) Minimum of 2.4 m clearance to above the grade Immediately below said sign, and (d) Maximum sign area of 0.5 m2, (a) The projecting sign is placed as an alternative to the permitted wall or canopy or awning sign. GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -31- (f) The projecting sign is placed as an alternative to the permitted wall or canopy or awning sign, except in the C1 and C2 Zones which shall permit one projecting sign in addition to the wall, canopy or awning sign. GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -32- SECTION 13 • SIGNS PERMITTED IN RURAL, OPEN SPACE OR 13.1 No person shall erect a sign in a Rural, Open Space and Environmental Protection Zone, save and except the following: (a) One Ground Sign with area of sign not to exceed 2.2 mZ indicating the Residential, Commercial, or Institutional use of the building or lot. (b) Maximum of Two Ground Signs with each sign area not to exceed 1.0 mz advertising the sale of edible farm produce produced on the premises, (Rural Zone only). (c) Ground signs indicating public trail systems, educational areas, natural areas of environmental interest, types of flora and fauna, natural habitat areas and outlining educational information with respect to the environment wherein the sign is placed. (d) Where the municipality has permitted a designated use which is non- conforming than the signage permitted under such use shall be permitted. (e) Signage which may be placed by or at the request of the Town or Region shall not be restricted In size. GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -33- SECTION 14 - SIGNS PERMITTED IN AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS OR GAS BARS (INCLUDING A CAR WASH) 14.1 No person shall erect a sign in an automobile service station or gas bar lot, save and except the following: (a) Wall S)gn(s) with area not to exceed 20% (twenty percent) of the area of the wall to which the sign is attached. One such sign is permitted on each wall except if a wall abuts a Residential Zone. (b) One Ground Sign with a maximum sign area of 10.0 m2 (107.64 sq.ft.) indicating the use and/or occupancy of the lot or building may be permitted. Where the property Is a corner lot a second ground sign with a maximum sign area of 10.0 m2 (107.64 sq.ft.) shall be permitted. (c) One Ground Sign for posting of copy or price of gas, or accessories; such as are associated with a service station, public garage or gas bar. Area of above signs not to exceed 2.4 mz for each sign, except where a service station, public garage or gas bar is located on a corner lot. Such signs shall be permitted provided only one sign is adjacent to each street. (d) Signs customarily displayed on gasoline pumps which are an integral part of the pump or pump island design. (a) Free -Standing Canopy Sign -.one sign permitted on each fascia of canopy, maximum area to be 50% of the canopy fascia. However, if one side of the canopy fascia faces a Residential Zone, then no sign is permitted on that fascia. Canopy fascia may be illuminated. (f) Signs which display occasional corporate promotions provided such signs have a maximum area of 1.0 m on any 1 face and by their nature and makeup are temporary such as signs printed on posterboard, cardboard, etc. -91- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -34- *Section 15 — Menu Boards *15.1 One menu board shall be permitted in association with a drive-thru facility in a commercial zone, provided the menu board is a maximum height of 2.5 m and a maximum sign area of 4 m2. *15.2 One pre -menu board shall be permitted in association with a drive-thru facility In a commercial zone, provided the pre -menu board is a maximum height of 2.5 m and a maximum sign area of 2 m'. -92- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 35 - SECTION 16 - EXCEPTIONS TO THE BY-LAW 16.1 Notwithstanding any other provision of this By-law, the Town may permit or grant an exception to Section 8, Residential Zones, and Section 9, Commercial Zones, which would permit one temporary sign per lot, no larger than 2 m2 in area, advertising issues of civic concern for a period of up to 30 days. 16.2 Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law, only the following Sections of this By-law apply to traffic signs erected, or to be erected, by any Municipal, Regional, Provincial Department, Ministry, Agency, or Authority: Sections 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.7, 3.17, 3.18, 3.19, 3.20, 3.21, 3,22, 3.23, 3.24, 4.1, 4.1(b), 4.1(c), 5, 5.3, READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS _ DAY OF ,2004 READ A THIRD AND FINAL TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS DAY OF 2004. MAYOR DEPUTY CLERK -93- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -36- SCHEDULE"A" PERMIT FEES: The scale of fees to be paid to the Town of Aurora for sign permits shall be as follows: (a) $5.00 per square metre of sign face area. (b) Basic Minimum Fee: $75.00 or the amount as calculated In, (a), whichever is greater. (c) Renewal of a sign permit: $30.00 (d) Refunds: Permit fees are for the cost of the application, Including review for compliance to the By-law, processing and issuance and are non- refundable. (f) Security Deposit for Portable Signs: $200.00 to be posted by the Sign Company. Where any one company can show that there are 3 or more of their trailer signs lawfully placed at locations in town the maximum security deposit shall be $500.00 which deposit shall be used for costs incurred in the notifying, removing, storing, etc., of trailer signs for which permits have expired. (g) Letter of Credit for Development Signs: $500.00 (h) Application for Variance: $150.00 — non re -fundable. z GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 AGENDA1TE=#� 6 TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. BA04-015 SUBJECT: Variance to Sign By -Law Loblaws 15900 Bayview Avenue FROM: Leo J. Grellette, Director of Building Administration DATE: November 16, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT council approve the following site specific request for a variance to the sign by-law as it impacts Loblaws so as to permit wall signs at each exterior building face at the perimeter of the tenanted area. BACKGROUND Staff have received a request from International Neon on behalf of Loblaws Property Limited to permit wall signage to identify not only the Superstore but their affiliated users. The proposed signage exceeds the maximum signage permitted under the current by-law. COMMENTS Staff have reviewed the request against the proposed by-law that is before Council tonight and find that the signage as proposed will be well within the signage that might be permitted were council to endorse the proposal before them. The proposed signage would comply with the requirements in neighbouring communities. Staff are proposing similar changes to the current by-law but until they are approved Loblaws requires a variance to the existing by-law so as to erect their proposed signage. Staff have spoken with representatives of Loblaws and they have been very cooperative to date. There is some signage on the building and Loblaws is anxious to complete the signage to provide exposure for the other affiliated businesses. Staff have no concerns with the request and would support the proposed signage. —95— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16. 2004 - 2 - Report No. BA04-01 OPTIONS Council could deny the request until the proposed by-law revisions are in place. This would only serve to penalize the affiliated businesses and restrict their exposure. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS N/A CONCLUSIONS Staff would recommend that council approve the variance request as it is well within the requirements of the new proposed by-lawwhich will be consistent with other communities. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal B — to support a healthy business environment that attracts new business and is responsive to the needs of our present business community. ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 —Application for Variance Figure 2 — Letter of request from International Neon Figure 3 - Drawings of proposed Signage PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW N/A Prepared by. Leo Grellette Director, ext. 4748 Leo Grelle e Director Building Administration GENERAL COMMITTEE— NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Town of Aurora Application For Variance Sign By-law #3400-92 Application must be accompanied by: 1) site plan showing location of all signs both existing and proposed, 2) plans showing the proposed sign configuration and size with full dimensions, (width, height in total, height to underside etc.) and, 3) a cheque in the amount of $150.00 to be non-refundable, 4) if the sign variance is approved, the applicant is obligated to make an application for a sign permit, please refer to the enclosed permit fee schedule. N.B. Prior to applying for the variance, the applicant should discuss all concerns thoroughly with the Director of Building Administration. Date of Application: .. � --n95K .... �l . dad7l/ ............................... I.....1....................... Address of Subject Property:. 4�w...Avy!!gl ... L`AJG(C............................................. ................................................................................................................................. Lot: ................................... plan: ..................................... Conc4:.................................... Address::.3,C7.'�'�°�.,,.%�.�5??:L,E.. PaLYA...!!f:................................................................... Postal Code:.: M..0"( .... Telephone No:. ��°✓..-. ��'�� Owner's Agent (if any):.//,z?'d!?` ... N Address:....�E./ip/�✓!�?F.Q e!/....A1�on!1eEr?i...��............/...................................... Postal Code:. P!�3d(.. S,C�3.................................. Telephone No:.1.. .'4a: .,��266 ............... Nature and extent of relief applied for (state specifically the permission being requested): oy,.V�..�lrxN.'5....................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................................. Why is it not possible to comply with the provisions of the sign by-law?: .. /N/S.. NCiP.'.$t'Z%QE'�„ /!GPI�✓t!)g3... N/(.I'!'././a/...<..(.FGt.... %."v`.�..-.. /M�xRA-�Gk-'� rPkrr .r??!Y..P Y. ..e�� r��®✓. 3.:?..Yi ..�R ei��Z.. � !^2r? r..Alec... rMea.i4D tlkE 7✓SIaL2 A iJ�KD ��dfL t?&SaaPc�s Current use of the subject property?: .............. ....................................... ............. I........ Signature of Owner/Owne�age C Q � 9Y �E1cJ7 Date —97— Figure 1 —Application for Variance GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 International Neon Thursday, October 07, 2004 Mr. Leo Grellette, Director of Building Town of Aurora, Building Department 100, John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 (905) 727.3123 lerellette@town. aurora.on. ca RE: Variance application — The real Canadian SUPERSTORE (Aurora) signage Dear Mr. Grellette, The present is our application for minor variance for the signage of "The real Canadian SUPERSTORE" and its associated brands to be located at 15900, Bayview Avenue in Aurora, Ontario. Under regular permit, we are applying for the channel letters over the main entrance on the north side of the building and the channel letters on the east elevation. Please note, however, that even with all the signs we are asking, the aggregate surface area is well beneath the normally allowed 20% of the fagade. The other signs represent the associated brands of Loblaw Properties Ltd but act as separate businesses and thus require their own branding exposure. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at anytime. We greatly appreciate your attention in this matter. Vadim Otsep, Project Manager International Neon �r Tel: (800) 906 — 6366 Fax: (514) 938 — 2056 Email: service@neon.ca 1301, De Montmorency Mont, Figure 2 — Letter of request from International Neon —98— Y.114nv�IL� nIld 1m1.... AIM— mpffi.,... —Tha vn.l l:nnnvllon 91IV6119'1'ORf:lAumeel.ilm 2004 GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, �n W W m D 0m m mb 9 0 A 0 m A� y y a c m O V-1 3W —99— Figure 3 - Drawings of proposed Signage GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, r r _ y mu � It I y � i i m +- I y gg r y qm Z 2004 5'-W (1.75m) a_ —100— 84" r GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 F L i T 6'-T (1.63m) GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 29-6"(9m) ti 9' 115" 86 Ire" e' p / P m s F W m m J o � a LJ^ s G F� " e$112" A N -102- GENERAL COMMIT' E — NOVEMBER i i a a I�lII? i IY Ib I� Mill ®cU �➢3iA� 2004 EARL F6 so 'T DRIVE % 65#—W `ul s 2 Ey�;so O pg, 999�EVN� n� dai ,�i 65M-2874 0 h GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 - AGENDA ITEM # TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. CSO4-038 SUBJECT: Justification of Business Licensing Fees FROM: Bob Panizza, Director of Corporate Services DATE: November 16, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT Council adopt the amended Schedule of Business Licensing Fees as shown in Appendix #1 attached; and THAT the Business Licensing By-law 4258-01Y be amended to reflect these changes. BACKGROUND On January 1, 2003, the new Municipal Act 2001 was adopted by the Province of Ontario, and provided a new legislative framework for business licensing in Ontario. The new Act made a number of substantial legislative changes including: ❑ Licensing of businesses can only be done for three reasons; health and safety, nuisance control, and public safety ❑ The municipality must be able to justify the passing of a by-law for one of the three above reasons and the justification must be included in the by-law o The Act limited the amount charged for licensing fees to the costs directly related to the administration and enforcement of the by-law and also required all municipalities to post and have available for viewing the detailed calculation of the fee for each license class The amount of the licensing fee that can be charged by a municipality cannot exceed the proportionate costs of the administration and enforcement of the by-law. The fees charged must also reflect the costs associated within the license classes. (Cab Owner vs. Cab Driver) The costs that can be included in the calculation include but are not limited to: -104- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 2 - Report No. CS04-038 ❑ Preparation of the by-law ❑ Inspection costs ❑ Enforcement costs ❑ Prosecution and court costs ❑ Administration costs The Act also requires municipalities to maintain a list of: ❑ The classes of businesses that are subject to licensing ❑ The license fee to be charged ❑ The administration and enforcement cost for each class of license ❑ The formula used to calculate the license fees According to the regulations accompanying the Act, these changes to the municipal business licensing process are required to be in place for all municipalities effective January 1, 2005. COMMENTS The legislation that was passed requiring the license fee justification is open to a great deal of interpretation. When the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing were questioned on how to proceed and what could be included in the justification process, representatives form the Ministry were non -committal preferring to leave that decision to the various municipalities. As a result, staff have worked with a number of municipalities in the Region and the G.T.A. to develop a model that would ensure there is consistency in the approach. As part of this process, staff tracked the time spent on the various licensing functions and the time spent on each license class. This included the establishment of fixed/overhead costs such as the space in the Town Hall, computer equipment, vehicles and clothing etc. Also included was the staff costs and time utilized in the issuance, renewal and enforcement of each licence class. Through the discussions at the various meetings the working group developed a formula that established a methodology in determining the fees that would charged to each type of license issued by the Town. With the justification process now established, it will be necessary to examine the formula on a regular basis to address fluctuations in the overhead and staff costs from year to year. Consequently an annual review will be undertaken by staff prior to budget deliberations in order to address any changes that may be contemplated in the licensing fees. It should be noted that although a justified fee may have increased substantially, a municipality does not have to charge the full fee. The only restriction is that they cannot charge more for a license than what can be justified. —105— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 3 - Report No. GSO4-038 The following Table illustrates the current license fees and the newly justified fees. Lfeense -atpgory " Np vof Current License »' Proposed= ^ Uanamee Licenses Fee Lipen`Se F, e + / Adult Entertainment Parlour $2,500.00 $1,790.00 -$710.00 Renewal None $2,250.00 $1,540.00 -$710.00 Adult Entertainer $150.00 $100.00 -$50.00 Renewal None $75.00 $90.00 +$15.00 Amusements Owner $350.00 $270.00 -$80.00 Renewal 1 $325.00 $115.00 -$210.00 Auctioneer $150.00 $135.00 -$15.00 Renewal 3 $75.00 $70.00 -$5.00 Billiards Owner $425.00 $365.00 -$60.00 Renewal 1 $325.00 $270.00 -$55.00 Body Rub Parlour Owner $3,400.00 $1790.00 -$1,610.00 Renewal None $3,000.00 $1540.00 -$1,460.00 Body Rub Parlour Operator $500.00 $845.00 +$345.00 Renewal None $250.00 $820.00 +$570.00 Body Rub Attendant $150.00 $105.00 -$45.00 Renewal None $75.00 $90.00 +$15.00 Driving School w/ vehicle $100.00 $95.00 -$5.00 Renewal 26 $100.00 $85.00 -$15.00 Driving School w/o vehicle $50.00 $90.00 +$40.00 Renewal None $50,00 $75.00 +$25.00 Hawker/Peddler $100.00 $75.00 -$25.00 Renewal 1 $100.00 $70.00 -$30.00 Horse Riding Establishment $250.00 $250.00 $0 Renewal None $100.00 $200.00 +$100.00 Limousine Owner $500.00 $165.00 -$335.00 Renewal 1 $250.00 $85.00 -$165.00 Limousine Driver $35.00 $80.00 +$45.00 Renewal 2 $35.00 $70.00 +$35.00 Mobile Sign Installer $250.00 $265.00 +$15.00 Renewal 4 $250.00 $250.00 $0 Pawnbroker $100.00 $200.00 +$100.00 Renewal 2 $100.00 $125.00 +$25.00 Refreshment Vehicle Owner $265.00 $230.00 -$35.00 Renewal 17 $265.00 $220.00 -$45.00 Refreshment Vehicle Asst. $35.00 $75.00 +$40.00 Renewal 17 $35.00 $50.00 +$15.00 Taxicab Owner $1,000.00 $480.00 -$516.00 Renewal 28 $350.00 $415.00 +$65.00 Taxicab Broker $300.00 $210.00 -$66.00 Renewal 2 $150.00 $75.00 -$75.00 Taxicab Driver $50.00 $75.00 +$25.00 Renewal 53 $35.00 $50.00 +$15.00 -106- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 4 - Report No. CS04-038 The Town's licensing by-law identifies 21 business license classes that requires a license to operate in the Town. The license class also distinguishes between a new license and a renewal license, thus creating 42 categories. These classes in turn generate 158 licenses that are issued on an annual basis. All 21 business license classes have now been justified as identified in the previous table. The justification process has revealed the following: 0 24 license fees have decreased of which 12 were down less than 20% ❑ 10 of these 12 licenses that decreased more than 20% are not currently issued ❑ 16 license fees have increased ❑ 2 have remained the same The fees that have decreased dramatically are associated with the Adult Entertainment and Body Rub Parlours licenses. However there are none of these businesses in Town. In the past, it was a common practice for municipalities to charge inflated license fees for these businesses to deter them from opening. As result the fees have dropped, but since there are no licenses issued, there is no effect on the Town's licensing revenue. Overall the effect on the business licensing revenue is not significant. Based on the newly justified fees, the revenue from business licensing would increase by approximately 10%. OPTIONS The justification process is a legislative mandate from the province and must be performed by all municipalities before January 1, 2005. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Based on the completion of the license fee justification process, revenue from the existing licenses will increase by approximately 10%. CONCLUSIONS The justification of all business licenses is now a reality that all municipalities must comply with by January 1, 2005. From that point forward, municipalities can only charge license fees that can be justified for each particular license class. This includes the administration and enforcement of the licenses and the license fee cannot exceed these costs. —107— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 5 - Report No. CSO4-038 LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal A Speaks to maintaining a well managed and fiscally responsible municipality. ATTACHMENTS Appendix #1-Business License Fee Schedule PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team — November 10, 2004 Prepared by; Chris Alexander, By-law Services Co-ordinator AL Bob Panizza Director Corporate Services GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 SCHEDULE "A" TO BY-LAW 4258-01.P Relating to Annual Fees for Licenses Column 1 License Adult Entertainment Parlour Owner Initial Renewal Entertainer Initial Renewal Late Fee I.D. Card Place of Amusements Owner Initial Renewal Auctioneers Initial Renewal Billiard Hall Initial Renewal Bodv Rub Parlour Owner Initial Renewal Operator Initial Renewal Provider Initial Renewal Late Fee I.D. Card Column 2 Fee $1,790.00 $1,540.00 $ 100.00 $ 90.00 $ 25.00 $ 5.00 $ 270.00 $ 115.00 $ 135.00 $ 70.00 $ 365.00 $ 270.00 $1,790.00 $1,540.00 $ 845.00 $ 820.00 $ 105.00 $ 90.00 $ 25.00 $ 5.00 Column 3 Expiry Date January 315t January 31st January 31st January 31st January 31st —109— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 License Fee Expiry Date Driving School Instructors Instructor w/vehicle Initial $ 95.00 September 30th Renewal $ 85.00 Replacement Plate $ 30.00 Change of Vehicle $ 50.00 Instructor w/o veh. Initial $ 90.00 Renewal $ 75.00 Hawkers and Peddlers Initial $ 75.00 January 31st Renewal $ 70.00 Horse Riding Establishments Initial $ 250.00 June 30th Renewal $ 200.00 Limousines Owner Initial $ 165.00 March 315t Renewal $ 85.00 Driver Initial $ 80.00 Renewal $ 70.00 Change of Vehicle $ 50.00 Replacement Plate $ 30.00 I.D Card $ 5.00 Mobile Sign Installers Initial $ 265.00 December 315t Renewal $ 250.00 Pawnbrokers and Second Hand Vendors Initial $ 200.00 June 15th Renewal $ 125.00 —110— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 License Fee Expiry Date Refreshment Vehicles Owner -Motorized Initial $ 230.00 April30tn Renewal $ 220.00 Owner -No Motor Initial $ 230.00 Renewal $ 220.00 Vendor Initial $ 75.00 Renewal $ 50.00 Change of Vehicle $ 50.00 Replacement Plate $ 30.00 I.D. Card $ 5.00 Taxicabs Owner Initial $ 480.00 March 315t Renewal $ 415.00 Late $ 500.00 Broker Initial $ 210.00 Renewal $ 75.00 Late $ 150.00 Driver Initial $ 75.00 Renewal $ 50.00 Late $ 75.00 New Car Fee $ 50.00 Priority List Fee $ 25.00 Replacement Plate $ 30.00 I.D. Card and Tariff Card $ 5.00 Taxi Test Re -write $ 30.00 —111— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 AGENDA ITEM # 8 ta-TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT SUBJECT: Request for Street Names Additions to the Bank of Approved Street Names FROM: Bob Panizza, Director of Corporate Services DATE: November 9, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS No. CSO4-039 THAT the following historical names be added to the Bank of Approved Street Names, for the future naming of streets within the Town of Aurora Starkweather Fathers Nutchel Fisk Crane BACKGROUND In accordance with the Town of Aurora's Street naming Policy, the Corporate Services Department maintains a bank of approved street names. Through resent research staff have discovered a map, included with this report as Appendix #1, which identifies. early landowners within the Town of Aurora. Staff suggests that several of these names should be added to the Town's Bank of Approved Street Names due to their historical nature. COMMENTS The addition of these names to the Town's Bank of Approved Street Names is in accordance with the Street Naming Criteria of the Street Naming Policy, which states that "emphasis is placed upon names of historical persons families and others within the municipality who have made outstanding, significant and or exemplary contributions to the Town of Aurora." -112- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 9, 2004 - 2 - Report No. CSO4-039 Although additional names are identified on the map, the Region of York has only provided clearance for the aforementioned list of names as duplicate names already exist within other municipalities in York Region, ( Appendix #2) OPTIONS Council has the option to refuse the allocation and assignment of the names to the Town's Bank of Approved Street Names. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil CONCLUSIONS In keeping with Council's resolution respecting the naming of public roads, and the adoption of its respective street naming policy, staff recommend that the names be considered and added to the name bank, for future use. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal D, speaks to Conserving Our Natural and Cultural Heritage ATTACHMENTS Appendix #1 - Map of Early Land Owners Appendix #2 - Correspondence from the Region of York PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team — November 10, 2004 Prepared by: Vanessa Partridge ext. 4226 &(In2ki Bob Pa izza Director of Corporate Services —113— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 kfzmmi�� Philip Cody 1802 y Thomas Phillips 1197 --y—WdR,ngbDn Sit Willem Tyler 1808 Millaw Kennedy 1805 Alexander Gardner Henderson Dr Henry Sonnel 1813 Jacob Crone 1803.h John Fulton M Abraham Tucker :r �r i Haines 180 Abner Ebenezer Britton Charles Fathem ick Smith 1797" Graham Smith 1002 Thomas Nutchel 1802 George Sld?Wsan 11847 rir DU Joseph a oA.: David Hoober 1803 ATTACHMENT-1 —114 file:HQ:\Heritage\HeritageWebsite\HistoryOfAurora\graphies\TheFirstLandowners.eif inn 9YJnn4 GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 20„04,,.w„w.i "ff ATTACHMENT-2 &gio sPlanning and Development Services Department f (.. October 21, 2004 Vanessa Partridge Office Clerk Town of Aurora P.O. Box 1000 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 61l Dear Vanessa: Re. Fax of October 20, 2004 Proposed street names Town of Aurora Street Name Bank The Regional Municipality of York has no objection to the use of the following proposed street names. STARKWEATHER FATHERS NUTCHEL FISH CRANE The Regional Municipality of York, 17250 Yonge Street, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6Z1 Tel: 905-830-4444, 1-877-464-YORK, Pax: 905-895-3482 Page 1 of 2 Internet: www.re ' york.on.ca ] —113— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 s Planning and Development Services Department i .. The Regional Municipality of York has objection to the use of the following proposed street names, Pearson — Pearson Street - Newmarket existing Phillips — Phillips Lane - Vaughan existing Gardner — Gardner Place - Vaughan existing Minthorn — Minthorn Court -Markham existing Hoober — Hooper Road - Markham existing Hughes — Hughes Street - Richmond Hill existing Ward — Ward Avenue - East Gwillimbury existing Haines — Haines Road - Newmarket existing Smith — Smith Boulevard - Georgina existing Simpson — Simpson Road - Newmarket existing Cody — Cody Crescent - Newmarket existing Harman — Harman Avenue - Aurora existing Fulton — Fulton Way - Richmond Hill existing Willson — Willson Street - Markham existing Miles — Miles Court - Richmond Hill existing Graham — Graham Crescent - Markham existing Lloyd — Lloyd Avenue - Newmarket existing Yours truly, Larry Harrison GIS Technician Planning and Development Services Department The Regional Municipality of York, 17250 Yonge Street, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6Z1 Tel: 905-830-4444, 1-877-464-YORK, Fax. 905-895-3482 Page 2 of 2 Internet: www.region.york.on.ra 2 —11 6— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 6ii;; TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. PW04-044 SUBJECT: Overall Condition of Town Roads FROM: W. H. Jackson, Director of Public Works DATE: November 16, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT Council receive forinformation Report No. PW04-044 regarding the condition of Town roads; and THAT Council authorize the reallocation of unexpended 2004 capital road reconstruction funds as described within Report No. PW04-044. BACKGROUND At its meeting of April 27, 2004 Council considered Report PW04-019 "Proposed Ten Year Capital Road Reconstruction Program (2005 — 2014)" and resolved, in part: 'THAT staffbe requested to report furtheron the matterof long term funding and overall pavement condition of the Town's roads prior to initiation of the 2005 budget process" COMMENTS Pavement condition in the Town of Aurora is analyzed based on a system recognized across North America using a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) number for each street. The following sections describe the PCI system and the financial implications related to maintaining our road system at an acceptable level. 1. Pavement Condition Index Pavements, like all infrastructure assets, begin to deteriorate from the moment of construction throughout their design life. The methodology the Town has selected to rate the condition of its pavement is called the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). This is a visual evaluation method that was developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The PCI is a 0 to 100-scale measurement of pavement condition based on the theory that pavement deterioration dynamics manifest themselves in the surface of the pavement. This is a low -tech, non-proprietary objective technique that is widely accepted for evaluating pavement condition. Nineteen distress factors including, among others, alligator —117— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 2 - Report No. PW04-044 cracking, bleeding, edge cracking, potholes, rutting, block cracking, patching and utility cut patching are identified, rated for severity and measured for quantity. Points are then deducted from 100 (new, perfect pavement) depending on the severity and density measured for the various distress factors. The PCI methodology is a fast and accurate way to effectively evaluate pavement conditions for the purpose of planning for capital improvements and maintenance. Experience with the PCI across North America has resulted in a generally accepted grouping of projects into five categories as listed below in Table No. 1: Table No. 1: PCI Value versus Condition Category PCI VALUE CONDITION CATEGORY 0 — 40 Poor to Failed 41 — 55 Fair 56 — 70 Good 71 — 85 Very Good 86 —100 Excellent In late 2002, it was reported that the overall PCI for the Town of Aurora was 72. In early 2004, it was reported that the overall PCI for the Town had fallen to 71. As can be seen from the above table, the average condition rating of our road system is nowjust above the "Good" category and as described below, there is a direct relationship between funding allocation and overall pavement condition. Although using only a single average number to describe the overall condition of a road network is simplistic, it is still an excellent method of obtaining a quick and relatively easily understood snap shot of the pavement condition within Aurora. Staff are of the opinion the residents of Aurora would not likely agree to a situation where the aim is to maintain our road system at a "Fair" or lesser condition. On the other hand, to strive to maintain our system at an "Excellent' rating would be prohibitively costly. Accordingly, it is believed the "Good" to "Very Good" categories are the condition rating we should be aspiring to. As noted above, we are presently at a PCI of 71 having dropped from 72 in the last two years. Staff are of the opinion a rating in the range of 70 — 72 would be appropriate. Of course, we will always endeavour to improve on this by whatever means are available to US. 2. Financial Considerations The Capital Road Reconstruction budget for the Town overthe last fouryears is as shown below: —118— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 3 - Report No. PW04-044 2001 - $1.14M 2002 - $1.16M 2003 - $1.27M 2004 - $1.30M The 10-Year Capital Road Reconstruction Plan set out in April 2004 (Report PW04-019) included a total spending of $18.8M over 10 years, $17.4M of which was for actual road reconstruction projects. As part of Report PW04-019, staff discussed various changes that had taken place since the fall of 2002. Significant changes had occurred in terms of construction cost increases, inflation, and a number of new "extra" projects. These "extra" projects, though not related to reconstruction of Town roads, are funded from the same total capital budget that Council authorizes each year, and include items such as sidewalks and bikeways on Regional roads and traffic calming. Many of these new projects were identified through the process of updating the Town's Development Charge By-law earlier in 2004, and in total they added up to an increase of $1.4M of extra projects over the 2005-2014 period. At the same time, it was pointed out that the cost to maintain the Town's road network at the current overall PC] level of 71 had risen to $22.6M. This represented a forecast shortfall of $5.2M in spending on road reconstruction over the 10 year period, with the result that the overall network condition rating will decrease to 65 by 2015 if the current funding levels are maintained. 3. Tvpical Road Preventative Maintenance Proaram Reconstruction is typically the final stage of a 40 to 50 year process that strives to economically lengthen the life of a road and also provide the best riding quality forthat road during its life. A proactive maintenance regime would include scheduled programs such as crack filling and overlays during the life of a road in an effort to maximize road life. At present, the Town's road maintenance program consists of reconstructing the road followed with minor maintenance activities such as pot hole filling until the road is ready for reconstruction again. Although in the long run this will actually cost the municipality more, funds are not available to undertake the full proactive maintenance activities. It is noted that the system the Town uses to determine the 10-year road reconstruction program is a computer model which compares the condition of each road segment (using the aforementioned PCI values) and determines the most efficient "fix", alternative. In consideration of the condition of our road system (i.e. a significant number of road sections in the "Poor to Failed" and lower "Fair" zones), the model has yet to recommend anything but complete reconstruction. Again, given the number of roads that are in "Poor to Failed" condition, staff anticipate that it will be many years before anything but total reconstruction is recommended by the model. —119— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16.2004 4 - Report No. PW04-044 It is imperative, however, that proactive maintenance programs be established so that we can achieve the maximum economic life of our road network. 4. 2004 Capital Program The 2004 road reconstruction program included the reconstruction of Stoddart Drive, Banff Drive, Bigwin Drive, St. Andrew's Court, the eastern section of Henderson Drive, and the western section of Ridge Road. In total, the budget for the roads -related portions of these projects was $2,097,000 (this figure is higher than the $1.30M Capital Budget quoted in Section 2 because it includes carryover funding for Henderson Drive). At this time we anticipate spending approximately $1,887,000 to complete them for an overall anticipated surplus in the order of $210,000. In an effort to help reverse the downward trend in the Town's road condition rating it is suggested that this surplus, which has already been allocated for road reconstruction purposes, be reallocated at this time for preventative maintenance activities. Although the sum could be considered relatively minor in nature given the 10 year funding needs described above, it is a situation where every bit helps. Reallocation of these funds will allow staff to initiate a preventative maintenance program including an update of pavement condition rating for our streets thereby ensuring we are continuously using the most up-to-date information when developing our 10-years reconstruction plans. OPTIONS Council may wish to expend additional funds on the capital road reconstruction budget to ensure that the PCI for the Town remains within the "Very Good" level. Council may wish to direct staff to prepare future 10-Year Capital Road Reconstruction Plans at whatever PCI level Council feels appropriate. Council may not wish to reallocate the 2004 surplus road reconstruction capital funding as described within this report. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS It is proposed to reallocate any 2004 unexpended road reconstruction funds to initiate a preventative maintenance program and to update the pavement condition ratings. It is anticipated that over time the funding required for total reconstruction will be reduced as the funding for preventative maintenance increases with the objective of a more effective and efficient use of funds for maintaining our road system, and as the backlog of streets requiring total reconstruction is reduced. -120- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 5 - Report No. PW04-044 CONCLUSIONS Obviously there is a direct relationship between the funding applied to road maintenance/reconstruction and the overall condition of the Town's road network. A proposal has been forwarded that would use unexpended road reconstruction funds to initiate a proactive maintenance program with the ultimate objective of providing more preventative maintenance and less total reconstruction as the condition of the Town's road network improves. Staff has also provided some commentary on the road pavement condition rating range we feel is appropriate for the Town at this time. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal "C" speaks to continuing the well -planned moderate growth of the Town. The Strategic Plan includes the action to "address matters affecting public safety, property and the environment and will formulate specific measures to deal with them". ATTACHMENTS None. PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team — November 10, 2004 Prepared by. D. Atkins, Manager of Engineering Services, Ext. 4382 W. H. J orb Director of Public Works —121— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 AGENDA ITEM # _ o -TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. PW04-045 SUBJECT: Construction on Various Roads in Aurora - Update Report FROM: W. H. Jackson, Director of Public Works DATE: November 16, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT Council receive for information Report PW2004-45 regarding the ongoing construction projects on various roads in the Town of Aurora. BACKGROUND At its September 8, 2004 meeting, Council considered Report PW04-043 entitled "Construction on Various Roads in Aurora". This report is a follow-up of the status of the various major road related construction projects in the Town. COMMENTS 1.0 Town Proiects Work on the Stoddart Drive and Banff Drive/Bigwin Drive/St. Andrew's Court projects have been virtually completed for the year, with the exception of completing some grading and sodding works on St. Andrew's Court. Top asphalt will be placed on Banff/Bigwin/St. Andrew's in 2005, and any deficiencies will need to be fixed prior to these projects being completed. With regard to Henderson Drive, the last sections of curb have been installed and base asphalt will be placed on the south side of Henderson Drive prior to the end of construction activities this year. The sidewalk on the north side of Henderson Drive has been completed and watermain construction will be completed this year. Remaining works on Henderson Drive to be constructed in 2005 include: Top asphalt on entire project; Completion of the roadworks on Yonge Street; Construction of the south side sidewalk in front of the plaza. Although efforts will be made to complete the reconstruction of the sidewalk on the south side of Henderson Drive between Thompkins Crescent and the westerly plaza entrance, it is not certain if the weather will allow the sidewalk work to be completed this fall. -122- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 2 - Report No. PW04-045 2.0 Region Proiects The major Region construction projects in Aurora this year are the two sections of the Wellington Street/Bathurst Street/Orchard Heights Boulevard watermain project, the reconstruction of Bayview Avenue from Wellington Street to St. John's Sideroad and the reconstruction of St. John's Sideroad from Yonge Street to Bayview Avenue. 2.1 Watermain Construction, West Section This project involves the construction of watermains on Wellington Street West from Murray Drive to Bathurst Street, north on Bathurst Street to Orchard Heights Boulevard, and east on Orchard Heights Boulevard to the Orchard Heights Reservoir and Tank. This project should be completed by the end of 2004. 2.2 Watermain Construction, East Section This project involves the construction of watermains on Wellington Street East and West from Berczy Street to Murray Drive. The work from a point just east of Yonge Street to Murray Drive should be completed by the end of December 2004. The Region plans to complete the section between the end point near Yonge Street to Berczy Street in 2005. 2.3 Bavview Avenue If the weather allows, this project will be completed before the end of 2004. At worst, the only work that might remain in 2005 will be some of the landscaping work. 2.4 St. John's Sideroad The contractor currently estimates that 2-lanes on St. John's Sideroad between Old Yonge Street and Industrial Parkway North will be open by late December 2004. Construction on this project will re -start in the spring 2005, and the project is scheduled to be completed by spring 2006. 3.0 Traffic Issues Town staff have been in contact with the Region on an ongoing basis since the start of the Wellington watermain projects and the St. John's reconstruction project to attempt to minimize the traffic impacts of the projects. Signal timings at various intersections along Wellington Street, including John West Way, Industrial Parkway and Yonge Street intersections have all been modified because of the change in traffic patterns caused by the various projects. At this time, all of the intersections seem to be functioning adequately with the exception of the Wellington Street/industrial Parkway and the Industrial Parkway North/Centre Street intersections, which have been very congested over the past few —123— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 3 - Report No. PW04-045 weeks. Region staff is monitoring these intersections to see if further changes in the signal timings are warranted and Town staff are looking into temporary measures that might help northbound drivers on Industrial Parkway North make the left turn onto Centre Street, which is the problematical movement at this point. None. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Staff time is allocated to monitoring and co-ordinating activities as necessary. CONCLUSIONS 2004 has seen the construction of a number of large projects in the Town, both by the Region and the Town. Although most work will be completed this year, work on some projects will extend into 2005, and in the case of the reconstruction of St. John's Sideroad, into 2006. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal "C" speaks to continuing the well -planned moderate growth of the Town. The Strategic Plan includes the action to "address matters affecting public safety, property and the environment and will formulate specific measures to deal with them". ATTACHMENTS None. PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting, November 10, 2004 Prepared by. D. Atkins, Manager of Engineering Services, Ext. 4382 W. H. Ja k Director of Public Works —124— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 AGENDA ITEM -TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. PW04-046 SUBJECT: York Region Transit —Draft Annual Service Plan 2005 and Draft Quick Start Service Plan/Service Integration Plan FROM: W. H. Jackson, Director of Public Works DATE: November 16, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT Council receive for information Report PW2004-46 regarding York Region Transit's Draft Annual Service Plan 2005 and Draft Quick Start Service Plan/Integration Plan; and THAT Council of the Town of Aurora request York Region Transit to critically review service to the Aurora GO Station with the intention of providing more frequent, convenient service for users, 3�Ly;1r]tZ�i�1►. On October21, 2004, York Region Council considered two reports relating to York Region Transit (YRT) service plans and referred them both to the local municipalities for comments. The Plans were the "YRT Draft Annual Service Plan 2005" and the "YRT Quick Start Service Plan." Copies of both documents are available in the Public Works Department for viewing. YRT produces an Annual Service Plan each year which serves as the basis for changes in transit routes and schedules for the following year. This year, with the anticipated start-up of the Quick Start program next fall, YRT has also produced a "Quick Start Service Plan & Quick Start/YRT Service Integration Plan." ,TSIif,041►1111t�? 1. Draft YRT Annual Service Plan 2005 A number of YRT bus routes operate, or pass through, Aurora. A short description of these routes is given below and a copy of the "Newmarket & Aurora Proposed Services 2005" map from the YRT Draft Annual Service Plan document is provided. 1) Route 31 — Aurora North. This is a local route operating between western Aurora and southern Newmarket. The alignment of this route, and the frequency of service on it, are both proposed to be adjusted in September, 2005. —125— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 -2- Report No. PW04-046 2) Route 32 — Aurora South. This is a local route operating between Seneca King Campus and Aurora Centre Plaza. The alignment of this route, and the frequency of service on it, are both proposed to be adjusted in September, 2005. In 2006 YRT plans to extend this route east to serve the Whitwell/State Farm subdivision. 3) Route 34 — Industrial Parkway. This is a local north -south route operating between Yonge/Allaura and Bayview/St. John's via Industrial Parkway North and South. This new route was introduced in September 2004. 4) Route 54 — Bayview North. This is a core north -south route along Bayview Avenue servicing Southlake Regional Hospital, Newmarket Main Street, and Aurora. This new route was introduced in September 2004. 5) Route 58 — Leslie North. This is a core north -south route operating between Stonehaven Road in Newmarket and the Sharon community. In 2006 YRT plans to extend this route south to serve the Whitwell/State Farm Subdivision. 6) Route 220 — Aurora North GO Shuttle. This is a peak -hour shuttle route linking northern Aurora to the Aurora GO Station. Current service levels are to be maintained on this route until Route 31 is re -structured in September, 2005 at which time Route 220 will be discontinued. 7) Route 221 — Aurora South GO Shuttle. This is a peak -hour shuttle route linking southern Aurora to the Aurora GO Station. Current service levels are to be maintained on this route until Route 32 is re -structured in September, 2005 at which time Route 221 will be discontinued. 8) Route 222 — Newmarket Aurora Seneca Shuttle. This is a peak -hour shuttle route linking Newmarket and Aurora to Seneca King Campus. Service is to be discontinued in September, 2005 and replaced with new Quick Start York North service and new Route 22 — King City/Oak Ridges local. 9) Routes 425 and 426 — Proposed Aurora School Shuttles. These new school shuttle routes are intended to serve the two public high schools in Aurora and the routes cover northeast and southwest Aurora. 2. Draft Quick Start Service Plan and Quick Start Service Integration Plan The York Region Transit Project's (YRTP) Quick Start Bus Rapid Transit service is scheduled to begin operation is the fall of 2005. This service represents the initial phase of the Region's overall Rapid Transit Plan. The new Yonge-Richmond Hill -Newmarket route runs along Yonge Street between the Finch Subway Station and the Newmarket GO Terminal at Eagle Street and Highway 9. There are five stops planned on the route in Aurora, at Bloomington Sideroad, Henderson —126— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 3 - Report No. PW04-046 Drive/Allaura Boulevard, Dunning Avenue/Golf Links Drive, Wellington Street, and Orchard Heights Boulevard/Batson Drive. The service passing through Aurora is planned to operate on a 10-minute frequency during peak periods and 15 minutes during off-peak periods during the week, and at 15-minute intervals on the weekends. Once the Quick Start service commences in September 2005, many local and core YRT routes are to be reconfigured to provide connections to the new Quick Start routes. 3. Commentary Town staff does not have the background information, or the expertise, to comment extensively on the routes and schedules planned by the Region forthe YRT or Quick Start services. One issue that staff can comment on, however, is the need for better service to the Aurora GO Station. GO Transit has expanded the parking lot at the Aurora GO Station in stages over the past several years, with the most recent expansion including the construction of boulevard parking along Berczy Street and a further expansion of the parking lot on the Station property. This work represented the final possible expansion of the parking lot for the Station as there is no more land available to be developed for parking. The parking available for GO train users at the Aurora GO Station is clearly inadequate for the demand as many drivers have taken to parking their vehicles in illegal locations in the parking lot or on various Town streets close to the Station. Staff has heard, anecdotally, that many residents of Newmarket currently use the Aurora GO Station because of a lack of parking at the Newmarket GO Station at The Tannery on Davis Drive. This situation may be helped to some degree by the new GO Station on Green Lane, but even if some of the Newmarket residents divert to the new Station it is anticipated that there will still be more demand for parking spaces than can be met at the Aurora Station. As of September 2005, Routes 31 and 32 will be restructured to provide, among other goals, direct service to the GO station and the two GO Shuttles, Routes 220 and 221 will be discontinued. The frequency of service on Routes 31 and 32 will be increased to 30 minutes in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours to provide the same frequency of service as the current Go Shuttles. However, this level of service will still likely not be convenient enough to encourage significantly more residents to use the bus instead of driving to the Aurora GO Station. In the interest of encouraging more people to leave their automobile home, staff believes the transit connections to the GO Station should be strengthened. Accordingly, it is suggested York Region Transit should be requested to critically review this service with a —127— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 4 - Report No. PW04-046 view to providing a more convenient (and hence enticing) service to and from the GO Station. OPTIONS Council may decide to provide other comments to the Region on the draft YRT Annual Service Plan 2005, the Quick Start Service Plan and Quick Start Service Integration Plan. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None. CONCLUSIONS To make it more convenient for residents to use YRT bus services to travel to and from the Aurora GO Station and to reduce the parking problems being created at the Aurora GO Station, York Region Transit should be requested to critically review their GO Station service with a goal of more convenient service for users. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal "C" speaks to continuing the well -planned moderate growth of the Town. The Strategic Plan includes the action to "address matters affecting public safety, property and the environment and will formulate specific measures to deal with them". ATTACHMENTS Appendix "A" - Letter of October 21, 2004 from Region of York Appendix "B" - Map entitled "Newmarket & Aurora Proposed Services 2005" PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting, November 10, 2004 Prepared by. D. Atkins, Manager of Engineering Services, Ext. 4382 . ! W, W. H. Jacks r Director of Public Works -128- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER:16,-720,04 -- October 21, 2004 Ofifice of the Regional Clerk Corporate Servica Department Mr. Bob Panizza 0,C.i L 2 2004 Director, Corporate Services/Municipal Clerk Town of Aurora P.O. Box 1000 100 John West Way C C ;'p;r, ^,I- 'iV;"'S L�a(�t. Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 Dear Mr. Panizza: Re: York Region Transit Draft Annual Service Plan 2005 and York Rapid Transit Plan — York Region Transit Quick Start Service Plan Status Report The Council of the Regional Municipality of York, at its meeting held on Thursday, October 21, 2004, adopted the recommendations of the Transit Committee with respect to the report entitled "York Region Transit Draft Annual Service Plan 2005." Council also adopted the recommendations of the Rapid Transit Public/Private Partnership Steering Committee with respect to the report entitled "York Rapid Transit Plan — York Region Transit Quick Start Service Plan Status Report." These reports and service plans are sent to you now for your review with a request that your comments be forwarded to the Region by November 30, 2004. Final reports on the two service plans will be presented to Council for adoption once comments have been received from the local municipalities and other agencies. A copy of Clause 1, Report No. 8 of the Transit Committee and a copy of Clause 3, Report No. 8 of the Rapid Transit Public/Private Partnership Steering Committee and the respective service plans are enclosed. Please forward your comments directly to: Irene McNeil, Manager, Service Planning, York Region Transit, 50 High Tech Road, Richmond Hill, ON 1,411 4N7 or by e-mail to: Irene.McNei1C vork.ca. Ms. McNeil may be contacted at 905-762-1282 ext. 5628, if you have any questions with respect to this matter. Sincerely, Zl�enis Kelly Regional Clerk K.Price Attachments Copy to: Paul May, Director, Infrastructure Planning, YRTP Irene McNeil, Manager, Service Planning YRT 314965 1109 Ou l-4/04 CORP. SERVICES DEPT. COPIES CIRCULATED TO: C.A.O. Dir. Of Building Admin. Fire Chief Dir. Of Leisure Services Dir. Of Planning Dir. of Public Works 'Treasurer The Regional Municipality of York, 17250 Yonge Street, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6Z1 Tel: 905-830-4444 Ext. 1320, 1-877-464-9675, Fax: 905-895-3031 Internet: u"..2�6=york.on.ca YIRT YORK MOON TEMSff Newmarket & Aurora r e, d S e rVic P, Proposed Aurora Sch I p LS - k MAunn Aur r U. mac, t e Aroma Sh opir-SW. H- U'. Lint Proposed Newman 'i 0 Shuttle, Davis Dr. ilewmarkatri DJviS Do. v 1 2 Whin D4 r htulnwk, VA" i 71h SWeroad APPENDIX "Bi" 0dok I r= St.i �f Or P. EambbAL Rd Aug. JOWS SIdwoad orchard HWoft *,d, Aff o U-16P wl nM PLM SL T,� 4e P Mai I KdnT1WYSL ri M1 CIS!, Ek. 159 Sid" U en w 'S as, ML o L Off -Peak& satmays P4*k 0 Q Grew LjL GwIU! .71 VA Newmadw Terildni Newntariiei JL- 4k IL oat at—Ing" jW!- 9 QuWLvdHe5ldemad Am* LL L Transit Legend /// ylff bobs -C,� PAPId Twift Ruk MftamltGas Stop a" TM" softy nt so buto 5-jr9ft"to- SerWcOoe NU sewce fto Wd UW NOW 11W) Uinhed serWC2 (D*W tine) Map Symbols sumb P1vPftW Stub Pmbrd ftidpalomcm Hasph2is Park i Ride tat GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 AGENDA ITEM# TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. LSO4-058 SUBJECT: Aurora Seniors Association — Naming Rights FROM: Allan D. Downey, Director of Leisure Services DATE: November 16, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the General Committee provide direction with regards to naming rights for the new Seniors Centre. BACKGROUND Staff received the attached request from Florence Murray, Director of Fundraising for the Aurora Seniors Association on October 14, 2004 regarding naming rights for the new Seniors Centre. COMMENTS Council at their meeting No. 04-24 held July 13, 2004 approved the following recommendation. THAT Council endorse the establishment ofa Fundraising Committee forthe New Seniors' Centre as described in Report No. LSO4-034. AMENDMENT: Upon the question of the adoption of the resolution, it was: Moved by Councillor Hogg Seconded by Councillor West THAT $250,000 in raised funding be a requirement of the new facility budget. CARRIED AMENDMENT: Upon the question of the adoption of the resolution, it was: Moved by Councillor West Seconded by Councillor Morris THAT the Seniors'Advisory Council be encouraged to take the necessary steps to fulfil the objective of providing a capital contribution to the facility in an amount of $250,000 (including potential Trillium Capital Funding). CARRIED AMENDMENT: Upon the question of the adoption of the resolution, it was: Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Councillor Hogg THAT the $250, 000 requirement be extended over a five (5) year period, provided that the Trillium Capital Funding Grant is obtained for this project. CARRIED ,,/2 —131— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16 2004 - 2 - Report No. LSO4-058 Moved by Councillor Gaertner Seconded by Councillor Morris THAT the Fundraising Committee report to Council, on a semi-annual basis, regarding the progress of the campaign. CARRIED The main motion was CARRIED AS AMENDED The Aurora Seniors Association foresees an opportunity to raise funds by allowing them the rights to the naming of certain rooms within the new Seniors Centre or the facility itself. This is a similar fundraising effort as that of the naming of meeting rooms within the Public Library and the new Recreation Complex. Council by approving their request will help to assistthe seniors in obtaining and fulfilling their objective and goal as approved by Council at their meeting of July 13t to raise funds as a Capital contribution in the amount of $250,000. The Seniors Association will make a presentation to Council for approval of all names prior to confirming with the donator. OPTIONS Council could approve the Seniors Association's request allowing the seniors an opportunity to obtain a portion of funding as requested by Council or Council could decline their request and the seniors would seek funding elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal "A" speaks to maintaining a well -managed and fiscally responsible municipality. ATTACHMENTS Copy of letterfrom Florence Murray, Director of Financing, Aurora Seniors Association dated October 14, 2004. PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting, Wednesday, November 10, 2004. Prepared by: Allan Downey, Director of Leisure Services, Extension 4752 ALLAN D. DOWNE Director of Lei re Services —1 32— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 AURORA SENIORS ASSOCIATION 52 Victoria Street, Aurora, ON L4G 1R2 Tel. (905) 727-2816 Mr. Allan Downey Director of Leisure Services Town of Aurora 100 John West Way Box1000 Aurora, On L4G 6J1 Dear Mr. Downey, Re: Naming Rights New Seniors Building ATTACHMENT-1 October 14, 2004 We, the Board of Directors for the Aurora Seniors Association, would like to make our wishes known regarding the name of our new building and the naming of certain rooms therein. There is the possibility of financial benefit to us in the naming of certain rooms or facilities and we would like the freedom to do this so we can add the proceeds to our building fund. Whenever it is appropriate, we are asking that you advise Town Council of our request and we need confirmation that they have been informed. If there are any questions or suggestions on this matter, I would be pleased to hear from you. Yours Sincerely, Florence Murray Director of Fundraising Aurora Seniors Association 905-727-4554 E-mail: aursenassoc@hotmail.com Visit our Website at: www.aci.on.co/seniors —133— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 -TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT SUBJECT: Municipal Act, 2001 Review FROM: Legal Services DATE: November 16, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS AGENDA ITEM # D No. ADM04-022 THAT Council endorse AMO's Principles ForAchieving a Mature Relationship contained in its Submission to the Province dated October 2004 and entitled "Achieving a Mature Relationship — 2004 Municipal Act Review" and that this endorsement be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; And that Council endorse AMO's Submission to the Province dated October 2004-and entitled "Achieving a Mature Relationship — 2004 Municipal Act Review" and that this endorsement be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; And that Council endorse AMCTO's Response to the Province dated October 2004 and entitled "An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001" and that this endorsement be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; . BACKGROUND The Municipal Act, 2001 (hereinafter "the Act") came into force on January 1,2003. This legislation embodied the first comprehensive review and revision of the original Municipal Act which was passed in 1849 and was commonly known as the Baldwin Act. There were a number of stated goals and intentions articulated by the Province to be achieved with the new Act including, amongst others: a) greater recognition for municipalities as a responsible and accountable order of government with increased opportunities to administer and organize their affairs; b) more flexibility and authority for municipalities in providing services to and meeting the needs of their constituents; c) Provincial consultation with municipalities in matters which would impact and affect them; d) the provision of legislative mechanisms which would streamline the operation and delivery of services while at the same time ensuring efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in municipal —134— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 2 - Report No. ADM04-022 governance. The prior Act was a very detailed and prescriptive piece of legislation that spoke to the limited ability of municipalities having those powers only which were articulated in its provisions. As a result, with the changing times, the old Actwas required to be amended as municipalities were faced with the challenges of meeting new and constantly changing demands and the abilities needed to operate in a far different environment than that from which it had had its genesis. While the Act provides that a review of it is to occur before the end of 2007 at the behest of the Minister, the present Minister of Municipal Affairs, The Honourable John Gerretsen, announced that a review of the Act was being initiated with the intention that it "identify the legislative amendments that can provide local governments with more tools and greater flexibility to creatively serve their residents". Indeed the Premier himself has stated that strong communities make for a strong Province. In any event, this review came somewhat as a surprise to the municipal sector especially since municipalities are still grappling with the implementation of the Act and the stated deadlines for achieving particular goals as set by the Province in the Act. Moreover, the Act is still in its infancy and has not yet had the opportunity to be tested in the courts. There has been speculation that perhaps there was a tacit recognition by the Province that the Act had fallen short of its stated goals. As well, there have recently been a number of overtures by both the Provincial and Federal governments to open a cross -governmental dialogue with municipalities regarding issues which are addressed at these levels of government butwhich impact municipalities directly. This is recognized in the recently amended Memorandum of Understanding between the Province and the Association of Municipalities which was heralded as being a 'landmark co-operation agreement' in that it embodies a "protocol' which commits the Province to consult with AMO when federal -provincial negotiations directly affect municipalities. Such is viewed by both AMO and the Province as being an important first step toward the goal of ultimately achieving a tri-party agreement which would see that the municipal order of government is at the federal -provincial table when municipal matters are discussed. Certainly the present Federal government has taken steps which acknowledge the importance of municipal levels of government within the fabric of Canadian societywith the establishment of a Ministry which recognizes such. An example of a new initiative on this front is the municipal sharing of revenues garnered from the fuel tax, an initiative which has been strongly fought for by municipalities over a number of years. Furthermore, the Province has indicated that it no longer wishes to "micro -manage" municipal governments as it sees them as a level of government duly elected as are they and the Federal level. While argument has been made that in order to achieve this recognition the Constitution Act must be amended to provide municipal government with such status, nevertheless municipalities have, for quite some time been pushing back on being treated and viewed as 'creatures of the Province". —135— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 3 - Report No. ADM04-022 COMMENTS Municipalities are arguably the level of government that is the closest and most directly accountable to its electorate of any level of government. As a result there needs to be a profound and deep change in how municipalities have been traditionally viewed by the Province. The municipal sector has been long concerned that it has not been recognized nor respected for its public nature of governance nor for the responsibilities and accountabilities that flow therefrom. Subsequent to this call for a review of the Act, municipal organizations representing the various sectors of the municipal world have collectively and collaboratively joined forces and laboured over the last few months to compile a list of recommendations and the supporting rationale for them in response to the Province's request for input. Included in these organizations are the Association of Municipalities of Ontario ("AMO"), the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers ("AMCTO"), the Municipal Law Departments Association of Ontario, the Municipal Finance Officers Association, the Ontario Good Roads Association, the Ontario Municipal Administrators Association and the Regional Chief Administrative Officers' Association. As a result of this extensive and collaborative effort, recommendations of these groups have been embodied in AMO's submission recently provided to the Province. The cornerstone of the AMO submission is contained in the articulation of nine (9) fundamental principles which are stated as being essential "for achieving a mature relationship" with the Province. These are as follows: 1) Municipalities are responsible and accountable governments. 2) New legislation shall enhance existing municipal powers. 3) The Province shall stop micromanaging municipal governments. 4) Where there is a compelling provincial interest the province shall when regulating municipal government define at the outset that interest. 5) Provincial legislation shall be drafted with the expectation of responsible municipal government behaviour and not as a remedial tool. 6) Accountability means mutual respect between municipal government, the province and other public agencies. 7) Resources for municipal governments shall be sustainable and commensurate with the level of responsibility. 8) The Municipal Act shall include principles that will protect the Municipal Act and municipal powers from all provincial legislation. 9) The province shall commit to increasing the understanding and awareness of municipal government within all ministries. Municipalities have been requested to declare support for and endorse these nine (9) principles in any submission which they make to the Province. —136— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 4 - Report No. ADM04-022 Furthermore, a series of eighteen (18) recommendations have been proposed with respect to specific significant amendments which are requested be made to the Act. These recommendations are attached hereto as Attachment "1". Also appended hereto as Attachment "2" is the full AMO submission which articulates the reasoning for the recommendations and the application of the previously -mentioned nine (9) principles based upon which any changes to the Act should be made. Despite the Province's stated prior goal of simplifying and streamlining municipal governance as well as providing flexibility and less prescriptive measures under which municipalities must act, in fact there are onerous procedural constraints and hurdles contained in the Act which impact on timely decision -making and create more administrative requirements previously not existing. An example of this are the no less than approximately seventy (70) applicable notice requirements of the Act. If municipalities are a responsible level of government why are these highly prescriptive and numerous notice periods contained in the Act? A further example is represented in the specified form of a municipality's tax bill. The Act was touted as providing mechanisms which would provide municipalities with greater ability to exercise its powers resulting in the enhancement of powers as well as some new powers. An example of this was to be the ability of a municipality to create corporations. However, the combined effect of both the section of the, Act allowing incorporation and the Regulation passed pursuant to it, render the ability to incorporate effectively meaningless. Moreover, while the Act was to provide broad and more flexible powers to a municipality, the Province has retained considerable power to regulate thereunder and has done just that on quite a number of fronts thereby resulting in the situation of "what the Act giveth, the Regulations taketh away". Once again the result is detailed, prescriptive and restrictive requirements by which a municipality must aide. The Regulations pertaining to Licensing and Fees and Charges are further examples of this. AMCTO has also prepared and made a submission to the Province regarding proposed amendments to the Act. This submission is appended hereto as Attachment "Y. While quite a number of those submissions are also reflected in the AMO submission, there are some technical amendments which this Association has proposed be made to the Act. Both the AMO and the AMCTO submissions identify and reflect issues with which this municipality requests amendments to the Act either for clarification, enhancement of powers, or removal of restrictive requirements, be they procedural or operational. As well, both submissions address issues with which this municipality has been recently involved, including what constitutes a "meeting" of Council, what a Code of Conduct ought to include and other Council -specific issues as opposed to administration issues. OPTIONS 1) As the opportunity for municipalities to provide input to the Province in its review of the —137— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 5 - Report No. ADM04-022 Act exists, it is both beneficial and opportune for the municipality advise the Province of its input on the review. In this regard, AMO has requested that the municipal sector support and endorse the nine (9) principles as set out in Appendix "A", at a minimum, and that it endorse the AMO submission. Further, as the issues and recommendations contained in the AMCTO submission are also essentially reflective of both AMO and this municipality's issues, an endorsement of the AMCTO submission bythis municipality would be beneficial. 2) The municipality could choose to take no position and make no submission with respect to the Act's review and further, not demonstrate support or endorsement for either the AMO Submission and/or the AMCTO Response to the Province. CONCLUSIONS An opportunity has presented itself as a result of the Provincially -initiated review of the Act to provide input and requests for amendments to the Act which would achieve greater efficiencies and effectiveness in delivery of municipal services and municipal operation generally, enhancement of municipal powers and authority, removal 'of restrictive and prescriptive legislative provisions, as well as clarification of a municipal administrative and Council authority. The AMO nine (9) principles for Achieving a Mature Relationship represent the underpinning for legislative change to the Act. It is recommended that such principles be supported and endorsed. Furthermore, the AMO Submission dated October 2004 entitled "Achieving a Mature Relationship —2004 Municipal Act Review" and the AMCTO Response dated October 2004 entitled "An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001", both contain Recommendations which are reflective of the issues and proposed amendments identified by the municipality and it is recommended that both submissions be supported and endorsed. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications resulting from with this Report. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN This Report supports and promotes Goal A - Maintaining A Well Managed and Fiscally Responsible Municipality; Goal B — Supporting A Healthy Business Environment That Attracts New Business And Is Responsive To The Needs Of Our Present Business Community; and Goal E — Promoting Accessible Municipal Government. ATTACHMENTS A: AMO Summary of Recommendations B: AMO Submission to the Province dated October 2004 entitled "Achieving a Mature —138— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 November 16, 2004 - 6 - Report No. ADM04-022 Relationship - 2004 Municipal Act Review" C: AMCTO Response to the Province dated October 2004 entitled "An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Scott Somerville - Interim Chief Administrative Officer Prepared by: Shelley E. Pohjola, Town Solicitor Scott Somerville Interim Chief Administrative Officer � liYltis Shelley frlPohjolaU Town Solicitor -139- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 ATTACHMENT-1 Summary of Recommendations 1, That the Principles forAchieving a Mature Relationship be adopted by the Province and used as the basis for revisions to the Act; 2, That the Municipal Act and Regulations be amended by deleting all requirements for "notice"and replaced with a general provision allowing municipal councils to determine by by-law under what circumstances notice is required and the form, manner and timing of the notice, 3. That the limitations on incorporating be repealed and replaced with a broad power permitting municipalities to incorporate corporations under either the Business Corporations Act or under PartTIl of the Corporations Act for any municipal purpose, 4. That the restriction on the receiving and holding of shares of corporation be removed. 5. That any public agency, be it provincial or municipal shall be required to provide the necessary financial information in a timely way so that a municipality may adopt its budget prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, 6. That three new spheres ofiurisdiction, health, environment and emergency services be considered and that the Principles be applied to all legislation affecting the spheres ofiurisdiction. 7. That Sphere.of7urisdiction 1 o be amended to read "Economic Development and Tourism"and that it apply to all municipalities. S. That Natural Person Powers be enhanced • to include the use of those powers for matters related to effective management and administration of the municipality and local boards, and • by the reduction or elimination of the restrictions and limitations currently in the Act. 9. That municipal councils be given the authority to establish by by- law Minimum Maintenance Standards for municipal roads, -140- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Summary of Recommendations... 10, That all provincial legislation affecting municipal government shah define the provincial interest in the legislation. 11. That a municipal council be granted the discretion to determine when and for what purpose council or a committee may hold a closed meeting, 12. That Bi/i 99, Transparency in Public Matters Act, not be dealt with in the normal manner but be included as part of the Minister's review of the Municipal Act, 2001. 13. That the conflict between section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection ofPrivacyAct be resolved by legislative amendment. 14. That the phrase "chief executive officer"in section 225 be defined. 15. That the Municipal Act, 2001 be amended to permit municipalities to appoint an independent Integrity Commissioner with appropriate powers; 16. That the Municipal Act, 2001 be amended to permit municipalities to establish a lobby registry with appropriate powers, 17. That municipal councils be authorized to enact codes of conduct with adequate enforcement tools 18. That the principle ofjoint and several liability be abandoned and that section 1 of the Negligence Act be repealed. -141- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 ATTACHMENT-2 Achieving a Mature Relationship 2004 Municipa/Act Review October 2004 Association of 393 University Avenue, Suite 1701 Toronto, ON M5G 1 E6 Canada Municipalities tel: 416-971-9856 fax: 416-971-6191 of Ontario Email: amoCcDamo.on.ca Website: www.amo.on.ca -142- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 AMO wishes to acknowledge the involvement and contribution of the following organizations in the preparation of the Principles and recommendations for the AMO Board's consideration. • Ontario Municipal Administrators Association • Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario • Municipal Finance Officers Association • Municipal Law Departments Association of Ontario • Regional CAOs' Group • Ontario Good Roads Association -143- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 OA Achieving a Mature Relationship Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 3 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 5 PRINCIPLES FOR ACHIEVING A MATURE RELATIONSHIP 7 APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES 10 Stop Micro -Managing 10 a) Notice 12 b) Corporations 12 c) Restriction on Receiving Shares 13 d) Municipal Budgets 14 e) Spheres of Jurisdiction 15 f) Natural Person Powers 16 g) Minimum Maintenance Standards 17 EVOLUTION OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 19 a) Provincial Interest 21 b) Accountability 21 c) Open Meetings 23 d) Bill 99 25 e) Closed Meetings and MFIPPA 25 f) Head of Council 26 g) Integrity Commissioner 27 h) Lobby Registry 27 i) Codes of Conduct 27 j) Joint and Several Liability 28 CONCLUSION 29 APPENDIX A: CASE LAW 30 APPENDIX B: POTENTIAL NEW REVENUE TOOLS 35 -144- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 c "Municipalities are... responsible and accountable governments..." Section 2, MunictpalAct2001 INTRODUCTION Subsection 3 (2) of the MunicipalAct, 2001 provides that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing shall initiate a review of the Act before the end of 2007, The Honourable John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, announced on June 22, 2004 a review of the Act to make it more relevant to municipal government in Ontario. "Our review is intended to identify the legislative amendments that can provide local governments with more tools and greater flexibility to creatively serve their restdents, " The municipal sector is encouraged by this initiative of the Minister and welcomes the opportunity to fully participate in the review. The municipal sector agrees with the Minister that the MunicipalAct, 2001 needs to be amended to ensure strong communities, large and small, across Ontario and give all residents a quality of life that is second to none. Municipal councils collectively make hundreds of thousands of decisions each year. Members of municipal councils are elected by their communities to govern their respective municipalities and to make decisions that are in the best interests of the municipal organization and of the community at large. Simply put, every municipality in Ontario is an order of government. The recommendations in this Report portray a bold vision of municipal government in Ontario — a vision of empowerment and accountability. The relationship between municipal government and the province has evolved. It is now time for municipal councils to be able to govern their affairs as an order of government with the authority that communities need and expect, with the authority to make strong communities. As the Premier has remarked on several occasions, strong communities make for a strong province. —145— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 0 As Minister Gerretsen indicated in his speech to the Board of Trade on June 22, 2004, 'It is my view, and the vision of the McGuinty government, that we no longer want to micro -manage municipal governments. They are a level of government, duly elected just like the provincial and federal levels. " The municipal sector welcomes the Minister's comments. The municipal sector is ready to evolve the relationship between itself and the province into one of mutual respect between two orders of government. It is time for both the province and the municipal sector to work together to achieve a mature relationship. The MunicipalActis the cornerstone of that relationship. The changes proposed in this Report will move Ontario toward a mature relationship, one in which municipal governments will not be micro -managed by the province; one in which municipal governments will be entrusted. It must also be recognized that municipal governments have taken on additional responsibilities over the years, responsibilities that are directed by separate legislation or program and asset transfers. Yet the sources of revenue have not been concomitant, let alone predictable or sustainable. That is why the Province is strongly encouraged to work with the municipal sector to look at fiscal tools to help municipal governments meet their responsibilities in order to build strong, safe communities. This work should be part of a parallel process and should also inform changes to the MunicipalAct that is anticipated by 2005. Appendix B sets out some initial ideas that were recently conveyed to the Province. This submission has been prepared by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario in conjunction with the Ontario Municipal Administrators Association, the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, the Municipal Finance Officers Association, the Municipal Law Departments Association of Ontario, the Regional CAOs' Group and the Ontario Good Roads Association. Each association is preparing its own submission on the Municipal Act review and will be submitting them separately. The one common theme in all of the submissions is the adoption of the Principles. Executive Summary. The following is a summary of the recommendations in this Report. The recommendations are founded on a set of Principles, which will also be used to evaluate the Province's proposed legislation. —146— GENERAL COMMITTEE'- NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Summary of Recommendations 1. That the Principles for Achieving a Mature Relationship be adopted by the Province and used as the basis for revisions to the Act. 2. That the Municipal Act and Regulations be amended by deleting all requirements for "notice"and replaced with a general provision allowing municipal councils to determine by by-law under what circumstances notice is required and the form, manner and timing of the notice. 3. That the limitations on incorporating be repealed and replaced with a broad power permitting municipalities to incorporate corporations under either the Business Corporations Act or under Part III of the Corporations Act for any municipal purpose. 4. That the restriction on the receiving and holding of shares of corporation be removed 5. That any public agency, be it provincial or municipal shall be required to provide the necessary financial information in a timely way so that a municipality may adopt its budget prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. 6. That three new spheres ofjurisdiction, health, environment and emergency services be considered and that the Principles be applied to all legislation affecting the spheres ofjurisdiction. 7. That Sphere ofJurisdiction 10 be amended to read "Economic Development and Tourism"and that it apply to all municipalities, 8. That Natural Person Powers be enhanced • to include the use of those powers for matters related to effective management and administration of the municipality and local boards, and ■ by the reduction or elimination of the restrictions and limitations currently in the Act. 9. That municipal councils be given the authority to establish by by- law Minimum Maintenance Standards for municipal roads. -147- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Summary of Recommendations... 10, That all provincial legislation affecting municipal government shall define the provincial interest in the legislation, 11. That a municipal council be granted the discretion to determine when and for what purpose councilor a committee may hold a closed meeting, 12, That Bill 99, Transparency in Public Matters Act, not be dealt with in the normal manner but be included as part of the Minister's review of the Municipal Act, 2001, 13. That the conflict between section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Municipal Freedom of information and Protection of Privacy Act be resolved by legislative amendment, 14. That the phrase "chief executive ofceein section 225 be defined. 15, That the Municipal Act, 2001 be amended to permit municipalities to appoint an independent integrity Commissioner with appropriate powers 16. That the Municipal Act, 2001 be amended to permit municipalities to establish a lobby registry with appropriate powers, 17, That municipal councils be authorized to enact codes of conduct with adequate enforcement tools, 18. That the principle of joint and several liability be abandoned and that section 1 of the Negligence Act be repealed, GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 7 PRINCIPLES FOR ACHIEVINGA MATURE RELATIONSHIP The roles and responsibilities of municipal government have evolved over time with municipal governments providing more and more services to its communities, some on behalf of the Province. Municipal governments are duly elected governments with the expectation of its electorate to build safe and strong communities. Municipalities are governments, they are not service agencies. The municipal sector welcomes the signal of both the Premier and Minister John Gerretsen. The Municipa/Act, 2001 review is being done with a view to giving municipalities throughout Ontario the power to make decisions that they are most qualified to make to reduce provincial micro -management of municipal government . This is a shared goal that begins with the Municipal Act but must proceed to other provincial statutes and regulations. We believe this will not only bring clarity to roles and responsibilities, and in the process better serving those using the service and the cost of service delivery, but it will also have similar benefits to the province. In order to achieve a mature relationship there must be a respect and we submit that it flows from the recognition that municipal government is fundamentally a responsible order of government whose councils are elected to govern within their respective communities. —149— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 H The courts have recognized this trend toward giving municipalities the ability to govern with broad, general powers. In the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in The United Taxi Drivers'Fellowship of Southern Alberta v. Calgary, the Court recognized that: "The evolution of the modern municipality has produced a shift in the proper approach to the interpretation of statutes empowering municipalities. The "benevolent" and "strict" construction dichotomy has been set aside, and a broad and purposive approach to the interpretation of municipal powers has been embraced... This shift in legislative drafting reflects the true nature of modern municipalities, which require greater flexibility in fulfilling their statutory purposes ... and is consistent with the Court's approach to statutory interpretation generally." In moving toward a mature relationship between the province and Ontario's municipalities, it is important to recognize that the statute law is behind where municipalities in Ontario actually are today. Any amendment of the Municipal Act, 2001 and other related acts, must be undertaken on the basis of certain key principles against which the changes can be measured. The principles are submitted as the measure upon which this Report's recommendations have been developed and upon which we will measure the Province's resulting legislation. —150— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 0 PRINCIPLES FOR ACHIEVING A MATURE RELATIONSHIP 1. Municipalities are responsible and accountable governments. 2. New legislation shall enhance existing municipal powers. 3. The province shall stop micro -managing municipal governments. 4. Where there is a compelling provincial interest the province shall when regulating municipal government define at the outset that interest. S. Provincial legislation shall be drafted with the expectation of responsible municipal government behaviour and not as a remedial tool. 6. Accountability means mutual respect between municipal government, the province and other public agencies. 7. Resources for municipal governments shall be sustainable and commensurate with the level of responsibility. 8. The MunicipaiActshall include principles that will protect the Municipa/Actand municipal powers from all provincial legislation. 9. The province shall commit to increasing the understanding and awareness of municipal government within all ministries. -151- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 10 The above principles ensure that all legislation empowers the evolution of municipal government. The application of the Principles will result in considerably different legislation affecting municipalities, including the Municipal Act than is seen in the Municipal Act, 2001. These Principles should also be used in the second phase of the Ministry's MunicipalAct review process anticipated this fall that will build upon submissions and lead to the drafting of legislation. -- Recommendation -- That the Principles forAchieving a Mature Relationship be adopted by the Province and used as the basis for revisions to the Act; APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES What follows is a series of recommended changes that will be required to be made by the province to make the rest of the Act consistent with the current section 2, the Purpose Section. It is critical that no new legislation diminish existing municipal powers. The following recommendations flow from the Principles. Stop Micro -Managing The province must remove itself from micro -managing municipalities, that is, not be legislating detailed business practices for municipalities. This Principle is fundamental to any real evolution in the relationship between the province and municipal government in Ontario, It requires that the province relate to municipalities as an order of government. Further, it requires a trust between the province and municipal governments. Municipalities are not timely and responsive when they are micro -managed by provincial legislation and regulation or their related processes. There is a benefit to municipal government to have the flexibility to respond quickly. The elimination of prescriptive legislation is also a benefit to the province in that legislative and cabinet time will be freed up. The need for specific legislative solutions to unanticipated situations will be reduced and the result will be fewer government and private members bills. —152— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 11 The Municipa/Act, 2001 will look much different than is does currently. It will be shorter, with fewer restrictions and limitations and fewer prescriptive sections. Eliminating legislative provisions that micro -manage municipal governments would see the requirements for public meetings, for lists, for the form of the tax bill and specific provisions for the appointment of deputy clerks and treasurers all disappear from the legislation. The requirement of giving notice to everyone who has made a written request under section 14 of 0. Reg. 244/02 will also disappear. Indeed, O, Reg 244/02, Fees and Charges, in its entirety is an example of micromanagement. These are just a few examples of the detailed business practices contained in the legislation. There are a number of changes to the current legislation required. —153— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 12 a) Notice The Municipal Act, 2001 introduced a new concept with respect to notice. Under previous legislation, notice requirements were prescribed by the province for municipalities. Section 251 of the Act gave the power to individual councils to give notice in a form, manner and at the times the council considers adequate. The Act then sets out over seventy situations in which a municipality must give notice. Municipal councils are in the best position to decide when notice is required. Generally, municipalities have exceeded provincial requirements by giving notice to their communities in circumstances not comtemplated by the notice provisions of the Municipal Act. Principally, this should be determined locally by the council in conversation with its community. Detailed notice provisions should be removed from regulation. Thus, O. Reg 244/02, Fees and Charges, should be repealled. -- Recommendation -- That the Municipa/Act and Regulations be amended by deleting all requirements for "notice -and replaced with a general provision allowing municipal councils to determine by by-law under what circumstances notice is required and the form, manner and timing of the notice. b) Corporations Section 203 of the Act provides for the making of regulations for the creation of corporations by municipalities. Ontario Regulation 168/03 provides that municipalities may incorporate one or more corporations under the Business Corporations Actor under Part III of the Corporations Act for purposes set out in the regulation. The combined effect of section 203 and O. Reg 168/03 is that most if not all municipalities will be unable, given the confines of the regulation, to incorporate any corporations. This power to incorporate is perhaps the best example of provincial micro - management of municipal government in the Act, The creation of corporations is a natural person power, however, the limitations imposed on the natural person powers of a municipality in relation to corporations is so restrictive as to make the power meaningless. —154— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 13 If, as section 9 states, natural person powers as a general power under the Act are to be "interpreted broadly so as to confer broad authority on municipalities, to enable them to govern their affairs as they consider appropriate and to enhance their ability to respond to municipal issues" then the limitations imposed in section 17 and elsewhere in the Act should be reviewed and replaced with limitations that reflect only the provincial interest. The often heard criticism is that these corporations will have an unfair advantage over the private sector. For example, a municipality could choose to incorpoarte a company for undertaking its road construction programme. This is not in any way competing with the private sector in that the municipality could chose to undertake the entire programme in house, just as it can today. The municipality would consider its options in the course of its business analysis. Why would municipal councils want to incorporate? One reason is to provide an alternate service delivery structure which may offer benefits to taxpayers that may not be achieved otherwise. There may be advantages to incorporating as part of a risk management strategy. Municipal liability may be reduced in some circumstances with the corporation, rather than the municipality, assuming the risks of the operation. -- Recommendation -- That the limitations on incorporating be repealed and replaced with a broad power permitting municipalities to incorporate corporations under either the Business Corporations Act or under PartTld of the Corporations Act for any municipal purpose, c) Restriction on Receiving Shares Municipalities have found themselves in situations where they have been offered shares in a corporation but have been unable to accept the shares even for the purpose of immediately selling them. This has occurred in bankruptcy proceedings where the court has recommended that the municipality take shares as part of the court order. The limitation in section 17 imposes an undue hardship on municipalities and should be repealed. This restriction is not in the best interest of the municipality nor the business community. There is no current authority for a municipality to receive shares as a result of judicial proceedings. —155— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 14 There are situations in which a municipality could acquire shares as part of a bequest but is not currently permitted to do so. The issue is the ability of a municipality to receive, hold and sell shares in a corporation as a settlement of a debt or as a result of a bequest. This has no relation to taking shares as part of a municpal investment policy. -- Recommendation -- That the restriction on the receiving and holding of shares of corporation be removed. d) Municipal Budgets Just as a prudent business plans and adopts a budget before the beginning of its fiscal year and just as individuals and families budget in advance, so should municipalities be able to do so with a sense of security. If municipalities are expected to be accountable to their ratepayers, to the business community and to the province, then councils must be able to approve budgets in advance of the fiscal year having all of the relevant information from the province and other agencies. Municipal councils across Ontario are responsible for approving budgets in excess of twenty billion dollars annually. This is a significant number when compared to the total provincial budget of approximately eighty billion dollars. It has been difficult to set the municipal budget because the levies from outside agencies, boards and municipalities are often not received and provincial grants not determined until well into the fiscal year. Budget approval well into the current year is simply not good business practice. While the situation has improved in recent years in the case of grants, there is still considerable room for improvement. Also, municipalities that are responsible for levying on behalf of other agencies require the final details at the earliest possible date. For municipal councils to be accountable, they require access to the financial information that goes with the level of responsibility. Any public agency, be it provincial or municipal must be required to file the necessary financial information in a timely way so that the municipality may complete and adopt the budget prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. Because the fiscal year is also the calendar year, this means that all —156— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 15 information should be available to the municipality no later than November first of the proceeding year. -- Recommendation -- That any public agency, be it provincial or municipal shall be required to provide the necessary financial information in a timely way so that a municipality may adopt it's budget prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, e) Spheres of Jurisdiction The Minister has suggested that the municipal sector consider the question of expanding the number of spheres of jurisdiction in section 11. The suggestions included health and the environment. While these two areas of responsibilty are highly regulated by the province, the municipal sector supports in principle the expansion of the spheres of jurisdiction to include both health and the environment . Another area that could be considered as a sphere is that of emergency services. However before doing so, questions such as the following must be answered before new spheres of jurisdiction are added: • What is the municipal authority? • How does it vary from the provincial interest? ■ Who pays the budget? • What standards or limitations, if any, would be required? • Who sets the standards in a pay for say framework? • What is the provincial interest in regulating in the area? These questions go directly to the Principles that the municipal sector believes should apply to all legislation affecting municipal government. The issues of financial capacity and the ability of the municipal sector to achieve results in these areas must be resolved before expanding the spheres of jurisdiction. -- Recommendation -- That three new spheres of jurisdiction, health, environment and emergency services be considered and that the Principles be applied to all legislation affecting the spheres ofjurisdicc'tron. There is one sphere that should be amended. Sphere 10 refers to "Economic Development Services". It is recommended that for clarity this be amended to —157— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 [C "Economic Development and Tourism". It is further reommended that the entire sphere be available to both upper and lower tier municipalities. -- Recommendation -- That Sphere of.7urisdiction 10 be amended to read "Economic Development and Tourism"and that it apply to all municipalities f) Natural Person Powers The second of the general powers given to municipal governments in the Municipa/Act, 2001 is found in section 8. Natural person powers are intended to provide municipalities with the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for exercising its authority under any statute. These powers are to be exercised by by-law of the municipal council. As Part II is presently structured, section 8 does not create any substantive powers for municipalities. These powers are to be used once authority to act is found elsewhere in the Municipa/Act, 2001 or other statute or regulation. The general powers are to be interpreted broadly and confer broad authority on municipalities to enable them to govern their affairs and to enhance their ability to respond to municipal issues. Although section 9 enunciates this objective, the effect of these goals is reduced by the imposition of restrictions and limitations in section 17, amongst others. If the province is committed to reducing its micro -management of municipalities, then the restrictions and limitations imposed must be reduced or eliminated. An example of this is the treatment in the legislation of the municipal power to incorporate that is discussed above. A reduction in micro -management will result in a number of sections of the current act being eliminated. Natural person powers being one of the general powers should be expanded to those matters related to effective management and administration. Natural person powers should be granted to local boards, commissions, including library boards and municipal service boards. —158— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 17 -- Recommendation -- That Natural Person Powers be enhanced to include the use of those powers for matters related to effective management and administration of the municipality and local boards, and by the reduction or elimination of the restrictions and limitations currently in the Act. g) Minimum Maintenance Standards The Municipal Actwas amended in the mid 1990s to provide a new defence to municipalities that met the minimum maintenance standard that would be set out in a provincial regulation. That regulation (0. Reg. 239/02, amended to 0. Reg. 288/02) came into effect in late 2002. To date no cases have been decided that interpret the regulation. Section 44 of the Municipal Act, 2001 carried forward the provisions in the previous act. The development and enactment of this regulation was a collaborative effort between the provincial and municipal representatives that took a number of years to develop to deal with all of Ontario. As is the case with the Act itself, the regulation is to be reviewed every five years, Out of season issues, seasonal roads, sidewalks, winter and night patrols are just some of the issues that have been identified as requiring attention. Again, this regulation is an example of micro -management by the province. Local municipalities are best able to determine the appropriate minimum standards taking into account the weather, and use of the roads within that particular part of the province. A municipal council would set a minimum maintenance standard by by-law which if met, the municipality would be afforded the defence available under section 44. In essence, the concept, rather than be province -wide, would be developed and applied by the municipal government. —159— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 m Municipalities would be able to set a minimum standard by by-law that would be the ongoing minimum standard. If the municipality can demonstrate that it has met the minimum standard then it would be afforded the benefit of the defence in paragraph (c) of subsection 44 (3). However, in any given year, as part of the budget process, the council could improve upon the level of service by increasing spending for one or more aspects of roads maintenance while still meeting the requirements of its minimum maintenance by-law. -- Recommendation -- That municipal councils establish by by-law Minimum Maintenance Standards for municipal roads. —160— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 EVOLUTION OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT Achieving a mature relationship between the province and the municipal government requires a Municipa/Act that allows for a continuing evolution of municipal government. The five year review required by the current contemplates this evolution. Collectively, municipalities make hundreds of thousands of decisions annually. Virtually all of these decisions are made by councils acting responsibly for the benefit of their communities. What is important is how a municipality that has erred corrects the situation to ensure it does not repeat the mistake. Municipal government has demonstrated its ability to act responsibly, not perfectly but responsibly. The historic approach to dealing with mistakes by a municipality has been for the province to legislate a prescriptive solution. This practice of legislating to the lowest common denominator is not an appropriate one in a mature relationship where it is accepted by all of the parties that "Municipalities are... responsible and accountable governments ..." Detailed, prescriptive provincial legislation does not bring clarity. Rather, clear areas of responsibility given to municipalities in which discretion is required will result in municipalities that are able to govern their affairs as circumstances require locally. A provincial, top -down, one size fits all approach does not meet the diversity of Ontario's municipalities. Detailed, prescriptive provincial legislation cannot anticipate every situation. Nor can municipal officials contemplate every eventuality. Prescriptive legislation often leads to exclusions, intended or otherwise, and often to further amendments. This can be in the form of general legislation or, as is often the case, as private members' bills. The granting of general powers with few limitations or restrictions, on the other hand, allows municipalities to respond as the need arises without having to seek a prescriptive solution from the province. Municipal governments have been accountable to both the electorate and the province. By reducing the province's prescriptive controls on municipal governments there will be a shift away from municipal accountability to the province and a shift to be accountable for their decisions to their electorate. Municipalities are best held accountable to the electorate rather than another order of government. This is the essence of the relationship that the province —161— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 20 wants with the federal government, accountable to the electorate and not to each other. To achieve a mature relationship requires that the rest of the Municipa/Act reflect the importance of section 2. It also requires an examination of the impact that other legislation has on the general powers given to municipalities. It is not sufficient that the Municipal Act alone conform to the Principles set out above; all provincial legislation affecting municipal government must conform to the Principles. This evolution in approach requires a change in attitude by both provincial and municipal officials. There has been a long history of learned dependency. This has resulted in the prescriptive legislative approach by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and indeed all ministries when it comes to municipal government. One of the challenges of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs will be to change this approach and that of other ministries. This will require an examination of the relationship of the MunicipaiActand other legislation, including regulations. If the Municipa/Act is the defining legislative pronouncement on the relationship between the province and the municipalities then other legislation, no matter from which ministry it originates must reflect and acknowledge the existence and importance of the province's relationship with municipalities as mature, responsible and accountable governments. This is the challenge for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the entire ministry. It will require education on what municipalities actually do. It is a complaint heard regularly that programs are imposed which include requirements demonstrating a distrust of municipal capabilities but also a failure to understand the true nature of the municipal operation. The municipal sector through its various Associations is willing to work with the Minister in this challenge. The municipal sector has much to do to break the culture of learned dependency that exists within municipalities. This becomes the challenge of the professional municipal associations through education and training. Rather than asking the province for relief by way of prescriptive, detailed legislation, municipalities must accept the broad powers granted and begin to make policies without specific guidelines or rules. Again, the municipal associations are willing to accept this new opportunity. Provincial legislation, including the Municipa/Act must allow for continuing evolution of municipal government. —162— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 21 a) Provincial Interest There are situations where the legislation must limitmunicipal activity because there is a clear and legitimate provincial interest. If the municipal sector is accountable and responsible within its areas of jurisdiction then any prescriptive requirements imposed on municipalities by any provincial ministry must have the provincial interest defined and stated in the legislation. One example of a provincial interest currently in the Municipa/Act is section 275 which deals with restricted acts of council after nomination day, commonly referred to as the 'lame duck" provisions. This section is intended to regulate the conduct of councils during the period when, by virtue of the composition, the council may no longer be accountable. Other examples of provincial interest include: • Not budgeting for a deficit • Not borrowing long term for operating costs • Sound financial grounding of municipalities. One example of a matter that is clearly not a provincial interest is the form of the municipal tax bill. -- Recommendation -- That all provincial legislation affecting municipal government shall define the provincial interest in the legislation, b) Accountability Section 2 both recognizes and requires that municipal government be accountable government. Historically, this has been achieved by the province imposing rules on the conduct of municipalities and their officials, both elected and administrative. Accountability has been measured by municipal compliance to provincial rules. There are numerous examples of this prescriptive regime of accountable measures throughout the Act, for example the notice requirements, including budget notice, the need for lists, the form of the tax bill, the establishment of objectives and standards in section 299, the notice of the efficiency and -163- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 22 effectiveness of service delivery in section 300 and the development of policies on hiring and procurement in sections 270 and 271. Municipal accountability to the province creates micro -management but adds no local value. It often creates costs and additional red tape. Reporting requirements imposed by the province on municipal governments in the name of accountability ends up with a high level of micro -management. What does the province do with the information? Is the information merely collected? There is a substantial cost to municipalities and their taxpayers both in terms of time and dollars. Accountability must show value added. In each instance the question, "what is the provincial interest?" must be asked. The municipal sector can appreciate the province's concern with respect to the recent discussions between the provincial and federal governments on health care funding. In the early stages of the discussions there was frustration expressed by provincial officials about the treatment of the province by the federal government. The municipal sector understands the province's frustration with the funding partner, the federal government. It is the same frustration that municipal sector has felt in dealing with the province when being micro - managed. Legislation should be enacted recognizing that municipalities are governments capable of administering their own affairs. Each of the above examples illustrates the detailed micro -management of municipal government by the province. A mature relationship requires trust. Municipalities will perform responsibly and should be allowed to govern based on broad authority within their areas of jurisdiction. Accountability is a matter of outcome not process. Accountability is not prescribing a common form of tax bill but rather a system of taxation that can be explained. Why have accountability? For performance and effectiveness. Accountability should not be confused with the concept of agreement with a decision. Municipal councils, acting reasonably, will make decisions from time to time that may not be supported by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, another ministry or a member of the legislature. This is not an issue of accountability. Municipal government is open to its constituents. The public has direct access to council or a committee of council on issues, some of which require a public meeting but the majority do not. Municipal government has historically provided this direct access to the decision makers. This is a true example of accountability of municipal government to its citizens, accountability that is not mirrored to the same extent provincially. —164— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 23 Accountability does not mean that detailed rules be created with penalties imposed for failure to comply nor does it require a provincial agency to take on the role of accountability police to ensure compliance. Members of municipal councils are accountable to the electorate. Throughout the year and certainly at election time, the community evaluates the performance and effectiveness of both the individual councillor and the council as a whole. The election period is the standard of accountability of a responsible government that occurs in Ontario and it is but one of the standards of accountability that municipal councils are measured against. Thus, the province is urged to not draft legislation based on the lowest common denominator. Rather the Municipal Act should become the cornerstone of a mature provincial / municipal relationship in all of the province's dealings with the municipal sector. Legislation should be drafted on the basis that municipal government acts responsibly and is accountable to the electorate and the community at large. c) Open Meetings The rules respecting when a municipal council or committee may hold a closed meeting are set out in section 239 of the Act. These rules, in large measure, have been carried forward from the previous act. The rules for closed meetings are restrictive and often unworkable and sometimes result in some creative steps being taken to meet in a closed meeting. There is no forum or opportunity for municipal councils or their committees to meet in closed session to develop a strategic planning process for the community, undertake an educational program or just have an opportunity to ask "dumb" questions of staff or other members of council. There is no opportunity for a caucus meeting. There is a different standard when it comes to closed meetings provincially. While provincial legislation is enacted in a public forum, the legislature, regulations and other policy development is not open to the public. Cabinet is a closed body that makes decisions in closed session. Party caucus meetings are held in private. Contrast the provincial situation with that of municipal government where all meetings shall be open to the public unless the subject matter falls within one of the exceptions. This difference in the rules is illustrated by the very review currently being undertaken. All of the provincial deliberations on the legislative changes are at —165— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 24 closed meetings. Contrast this with the fact that a municipal council may not meet in a closed meeting to develop a strategy or a position for comment to the Minister on this very review of the Municipal Act, 2001. Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001 requires councils and committees to tell the public that a closed meeting is about to occur and the general nature of the subject matter to be discussed. There is no similar requirement on provincial meetings or caucuses. The scope of municipal issues has grown dramatically in recent years both in volume and complexity. Members of municipal councils are required to make well considered, intelligent decisions on a wide range of subjects such as the property tax system, technical aspects of the safe drinking water system, land ambulance and the list goes on. Municipal government has evolved. Today, municipal councils need to make business -based decisions. Business information needs to be protected. Mr. Justice Lacourciere of the Ontario Court of Appeal in a dissenting opinion in the case of Southam Inc, v. Hamilton -Wentworth (Regional Municipality) Economic Development Committee((1988), 54 D.L.R. (4th) 131, Ont. C.A.), recognized the importance of council being able to meet in a closed meeting. "The present issue, however, concerns gatherings of commissioners when no business is transacted; when, rather, they confer together and with each other; and when they collaborate in doing what may be called their "homework". It is important that they do so freely and without restraint. Like all who have the responsibility of making important decisions, they need an opportunity to express, exchange and test ideas, to deliberate freely, off the record, and without the restraint of outside influence. Freedom of discussion and the exchange of ideas is essential to an understanding of a problem. It cannot be satisfactorily accomplished under a spotlight or before a microphone." Section 239 of the Act should be amended to reflect the difficulties currently being experienced by municipal councils in responsibly conducting the day-to-day business of the municipality. This could be done either by way of adding additional reasons for which councils or committees may meet in closed session. Councils and committees must be able to meet in caucus to develop a framework for a strategic plan for the municipality. It is important that members of council be briefed by administration on technical or complex matters. Also, it is imperative that members of council be trained on various aspects of the responsibilities. —166— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 25 The preferred alternative is for the province to give municipal councils the discretion as to when and for what purpose the councils and committees may conduct closed meetings. This latter approach is consistent with the Principles for achieving a mature relationship. AMO believes that giving municipal government such authority would not bring a retreat on open meetings. Twenty years of practice and evolution will not disappear. Trying to define strategic planning sessions and the other circumstances will prove difficult. -- Recommendation -- That a municipal council be granted the discretion to determine when and for what purpose council or a committee may hold a closed meeting. d) Bill 99, An Act to Require Open Meetings for Provincial and Municipal Boards, Commissions and other Public Bodies First reading was given to Bill 99 on June 10, 2004. The municipal sector does not support the underlying philosophy of this Bill. It is contrary to the Principles set forth herein. The Bill's approach is fundamentally contrary to the Principle enunciated in section 2 of the Municipa/Act, 2001. Recognizing that it is a Private Member's Bill, we would encourage the member to agree that the review of Bill 99 be incorporated into the Minister's current review of the Municipa/Act, 2001. -- Recommendation -- That Bill 99 not be dealt with in the normal manner but be included as part of the Minister's review of the Municipal Act, 2001. e) Closed Meetings and MFIPPA There is a conflict between section 239 of the MunicipalActand the Municipal Freedom of.1nformation and Protection ofPrivacyAct("MFIPPA'). Under MFIPPA municipalities are required to keep certain information confidential and it is enforceable by prosecution or penalties for failing to do so. How can council deal with a matter which it is required to keep confidential under MFIPPA if it cannot discuss the same matter at a closed meeting because it is not a permitted reason to conduct a closed meeting? One or both statutes require amendment to clarify the situation. -167- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 26 -- Recommendation -- That the conflict between section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Municipal Freedom oflnformadon and Protection of Privacy Act be resolved by legislative amendment, f) Head of Council Section 225 sets out the role of the head of council. One of the roles is "to act as chief executive officer of the municipality". The use of the phrase "chief executive officer" is not new. It was included in section 69 of the previous act, although in more forceful way. Under the old act, the "Warden of a county, the mayor of a city or town and the reeve of a village or township is the head of council and the chief execuitive officer of the corporation". Contrast this with the wording in section 225 of the Municipal Act, 2001 which states that the head of council "acts as the chief executive officer". In both cases, the province chose not to define the term. The confusion that has arisen in recent months relates to whether the Head of Council as the member of council given the responsibility "to act as the chief executive officer" is responsible for overseeing the administrative operations of the municipality. There is provision for the appointment of a chief administrative officer whose duties include the "exercising general control and management of the affairs of the municipality for the purpose of ensuring the efficient and effective operation of the municipality". The appointment of a chief administrative officer is permissive. The current sections relating to the head of council (section 225), to administration (section 227) and to the chief administrative officer (section 229) are an example of what prescription in drafting the responsibilities can do. Instead of clarity in the roles, there is confusion. Clarification of this issue is encouraged. The province is urged to define the phrase "chief executive officer" as it has done for the chief administrative officer in section 229. -- Recommendation -- That the phrase "chief executive offcer"in section 225 be defined. CKM. GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 27 g) Integrity Commissioner The office of integrity commissioner should be a matter left to the discretion of individual councils. It will not be an office that will be required or requested by the vast majority of municipal councils in the province. However, a few may wish to appoint a person independent of the municipality to the office of Integrity Commissioner. The legislation should include broadly worded authority permitting a municipal council to appoint an integrity commissioner on the terms and conditions it deems appropriate. The only detail in the authorizing legislation may be to include adequate powers to undertake a full and complete investigation. -- Recommendation -- That the Municipal Act, 2001 be amended to permit municipalities to appoint an independent Integrity Commissioner with appropriate powers. h) Lobby Registry As with the Integrity Commissioner, individual municipalities should have the discretion whether to create a lobby registry.'Most municipalities will not create such a registry. The legislation should include a broadly worded authority. The provincial authority allowing a municipality to establish and maintain a lobby registry should not impose a higher standard on municipalities than the province imposes on itself. A municipal council may wish to impose a higher standard but this should be a council decision. -- Recommendation -- That the Municipal Act, 2001 be amended to permit municipalities to establish a lobby registry with appropriate powers, i) Codes of Conduct At present although there is no requirement for municipalities to enact a code of conduct affecting members of council and staff, many councils have put a code of conduct in place. Codes of conduct go to the issue of accountability but also bring clarity to both members of council and staff as to what is appropriate behaviour. —169— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 m If codes of conduct were enacted under a broad authority, then municipal councils could enforce conduct in extreme cases by prosecution. Many members of council seek guidance on the issue of closed meetings and what items can be discussed outside the closed meeting. The issue of repercussions on a member of council or staff who breach the confidentiality can also be dealt with in the code of conduct. It is not an area for the province to micro -manage municipal councils. The general requirement for the adoption of a code will leave the responsibility with the council to develop the code and to enforce it. -- Recommendation -- That municipal councils be authorized to enact codes of conduct with adequate enforcement tools, j) Joint and Several Liability While not an issue directly related to the review of the Municipa/Act, the impact of the legal principle of joint and several liability in negligence law should be examined as part of this review process. The impact on municipal government of this provision in the Negligence is substantial. By making two or more defendants in a negligence action jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff, there will always be an attempt by the plaintiff's lawyer to include in the law suit a defendant with the ability to pay any judgment. Municipalities have been seen as defendants with deep pockets. This is because municipalities have, at least in theory, an unlimited ability to tax and secondly they are insured. Many states in the United States have abandonned the principle of joint and several liability. The approval by the Law Society of contigency fees in civil litigation may have a detrimental impact on municipalities as defendants. The repeal of section I of the Neg/igenceAct would result in a dramatic drop in law siuts against municipalities, particularly in the area of roads. It would also result in a significant impact on municipal budgets as insurance premiums would be adjusted to reflect the change in risk, It would also bring a level of fairness tc the litigation process in that those responsible will be required to pay their fair share of the damages and no more. —170— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 29 -- Recommendation -- That the principle ofjoint and several liability be abandoned and that section 1 of the Negligence Act be repealed. CONCLUSION Premier Dalton McGuinty in an open letter to the Heads of Council of Ontario municipalities said, 'At the heart of our agenda is anew and mature partnership with municipalities built on real respect for municipal governments. All of us recognize that we work best when we work together". Municipal government in Ontario is evolving and the sector welcomes this review by the minister. It is an opportunity for the province and municipalities to achieve a mature relationship. The evolution of municipal government has occurred in a number of ways. The increased responsibilities both in volume and complexity of issues has placed greater pressure on members of municipal councils. The province has granted municipalities broad powers in the areas of the building code and municipal election and in both instances municipalities have responded professionally and responsibly. The municipal sector urges the minister to begin the legislative process by amending the Municipal Act, 2001 and other related statutes to give Ontario's municipalities the powers to be accountable and responsible governments with broad powers that will enable them to govern effectively for the benefit of their communities. As Minister Gerretsen indicated in his speech to the Board of Trade on June 22, 2004, W is my view, and the vision of the McGuinty government, that we no longer want to micro -manage municipal governments. They are a level of government, duly elected just like the provincial and federal levels. " Legislative changes consistent with the Principles set out above will result in municipalities that are equipped to act creatively, responsibly and with the tools to face the challenges faced by our communities. Responsible behaviour flows out of responsibility. —171— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 30 Appendix A Case Law Recent court decisions have examined the roles and responsibilities of municipal government. The courts have commented on the proper interpretation of municipal legislation and support the position contained in this report that municipal governments are levels of government and must be given the power and flexibility to govern within their areas of jurisdiction. Hudson The first case has become known as the "pesticide" or the "Hudson" case. In 1991 the Town of Hudson, Quebec adopted a by-law that restricted the use of pesticides within its boundaries to specified locations and for specific uses. In 1992 the two landscaping and lawn care companies, the appellants, that used pesticides in their businesses, were served with a summons by the Town to appear before the Municipal Court and respond to charges of having used pesticides in violation of the by-law. The appellants pled not guilty and obtained a suspension of the proceedings in order to apply to the Superior Court of Justice for a declaration that the Town's by-law was inoperative and outside its authority. The Superior Court of Justice determined that the by-law was indeed valid. In fact, the trial judge held that by-laws are presumed valid and legal. Specifically, "the Town, faced with a situation involving health and the environment, acted in the public interest by enacting the by-law in question" and "was addressing a need of their community", and that the municipality was attempting to fulfill its role as a "trustee of the environment". The appellants appealed the decision of the Superior Court of Justice to the Court of Appeal, which also determined that the by-law was validly enacted and operative. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that the by-law was enacted by the Town in the public interest and in response to health concerns expressed by residents. Finally, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada on two grounds: (1) did the Town have the statutory authority to enact a by-law regulating and restricting pesticide use; and (2) even if the Town had authority to enact it, was the by-law rendered inoperative because of a conflict with federal or provincial legislation. -172- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 31 The Supreme Court of Canada recognized that "as statutory bodies, municipalities may exercise only those powers expressly conferred by statute, those powers necessarily or fairly implied by the expressed power in the statute, and those indispensable powers essential and not merely convenient to the effectuation of the purposes of the corporation", and that "each level of government must be respectful of the division of powers that is the hallmark of our federal system; there is a fine line between laws that legitimately complement each other and those that invade another government's protected legislative sphere". However, the Court also determined: [I]t is no longer the key to this kind of problem to look at one comprehensive scheme, and then to look at the other comprehensive scheme, and to decide which scheme entirely occupies the field to the exclusion of the other. Instead, the correct approach is to look at the precise provisions and the way they operate in the precise case, and ask: Can they co -exist in this particular case in their operation? If so, they should be allowed to co -exist, and each should do its own parallel regulation of one aspect of the same activity, or two different aspects of the same activity. As a general principle, the mere existence of provincial (or federal) legislation in a given field does not oust municipal prerogatives to regulate the subject matter. Further, the Court recognized that "the case [arose] in an era in which matters of governance are often examined through the lens of the principle of subsidiarity [which] is the proposition that law -making and implementation are often best achieved at a level of government that is not only effective, but also closest to the citizens affected and thus most responsive to their needs, to local distinctiveness, and to population diversity". The Court acknowledged the existence of an emerging consensus that: [C]ourts must respect the responsibility of elected municipal bodies to serve the people who elected them and exercise caution to avoid substituting their views of what is best for the citizens for those of municipal councils. Barring clear demonstration that a municipal decision was beyond its powers, courts should not hold so. In cases where powers are not expressly conferred but may be implied, courts must be prepared to adopt [a] "benevolent construction"... and confer the powers by reasonable implication ... [w]hatever rules of construction are applied, they must not be used to usurp the legitimate role of municipal bodies as community representatives. —173— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 32 The Court also reasoned that, while municipalities may exercise only those powers as are granted to them by legislatures and must find a grant of authority somewhere in the provincial laws, such a grant of power must be construed reasonably and generously. However, interpretation cannot supplement the absence of power. Although creatures of provincial legislatures, a tradition of strong municipal government has become an important part of the Canadian democratic experience as this level of government usually appears more attuned to the immediate needs and concerns of the citizens. With respect to the by-law in question, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that in approaching a problem of construing a municipal enactment a court should endeavour firstly to interpret it so that the powers sought to be exercised are in consonance with the purpose of the corporation. The provision at hand should be construed with reference to the object of the municipality: to render services to a group of persons in a locality with a view to advancing their health, welfare, safety and good government. The Supreme Court of Canada determined that the subject matter of the by-law regulating and restricting the use of pesticides in Hudson was within the scope of normal local government activities as it dealt with the use and protection of the local environment within the community, targeted problems of use of land and property, and addressed neighbourhood concerns that have always been within the realm of local government activity. In the end, the Court held that the by- law was validly enacted and that it co -existed rather than conflicted with provincial and federal legislation. United Taxi Drivers' The second case is a more recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. In the United Taxi Drivers'Fellowship of Southern Alberta v. Calgary, the court looked at the effect of the Province of Alberta's new Municipal Government Act on the city of Calgary licensing scheme. The City of Calgary regulates its taxi industry through its Taxi Business by-law, which sets out several licensing requirements including the condition that all taxis must have a taxi plate licence. In 1986, the City's Taxi Commission adopted a restricted entry system for the taxi business to increase efficiency and stability, and accordingly froze the number of taxi plate licences issued. The freeze was continued in 1993 under a specific section of the by-law. Other —174— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 33 sections of the by-law permitted the transfer of licences and the creation of a lottery system to distribute revoked or relinquished licences. The following year, the provincial government enacted a new Municipal Government Act. Section 715 of the new Act deemed the existing by-law to have the same effect as if it had been passed under the new Act. The United Taxi Drivers' Fellowship of Southern Alberta, the respondents, challenged the validity of the freeze and the lottery process, and sought a declaration from the court that the City's actions were beyond its jurisdiction and were not authorized by the Municipal GovernmentAct. The trial judge determined that the City had the authority under the Municipal Government Act to limit the number of taxi plate licences. The respondents appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, which concluded that, while the old Municipal Government Act expressly granted the City the authority to limit the number of taxi licences, the new Act did not. The City appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada to ultimately determine whether the freeze on the issuance of taxi plate licences was within the City's authority under the new Municipal GovernmentAct. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized that: The evolution of the modern municipality has produced a shift in the proper approach to the interpretation of statutes empowering municipalities. The 'benevolent" and "strict" construction dichotomy has been set aside, and a broad and purposive approach to the interpretation of municipal powers has been embraced. This interpretative approach has evolved concomitantly with the modern method of drafting municipal legislation. Several provinces have moved away from the practice of granting municipalities specific powers in particular subject areas, choosing instead to confer them broad authority over generally defined matters. This shift in legislative drafting reflects the true nature of modern municipalities, which require greater flexibility in fulfilling their statutory purposes ... and is consistent with the Court's approach to statutory interpretation generally. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that the Alberta legislature did not intend to curtail the powers exercised by municipalities but rather sought to enhance those powers under the new Act subject to certain limitations contained within the Act. In fact, the Court found that the Municipal Government Act reflects the modern method of drafting municipal legislation, which must be interpreted using a broad and purposive approach. The Court —175— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 34 found no reason to question the authority of the Council for the City of Calgary to decide the best interests of its citizens in the regulation of the taxi industry. The City maintained the authority to limit the number of taxi licences under the new Act. 0, —176— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 35 Appendix B — Potential New Revenue Tools OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT September 14, 2004 Hon. John Gerretsen Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing 777 Bay Street, 17th Floor Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 Dear Minister Gerretsen: In his March 2004 letter to All Heads of Council, Premier Dalton McGuinty wrote: "As part of the dialogue on a new provincial -municipal partnership, we also want to review new municipal own -source revenue tools." At the last MOU meeting, when the government presented its Strong Communities consultation plan, AMO representatives raised concern that the consultation framework did not include any specific reference to new revenue tools. We raised the issue of new revenue tools because we believe that it is a discussion that needs to take place. Municipal governments in Ontario need new, permissive authority to generate revenue to address systemic fiscal pressures and to reduce reliance on property taxes. We also believe that the Strong Communities consultation framework provides an excellent opportunity for Ontario and AMO to explore this important issue together. In particular, the work to be undertaken by a proposed Cumulative Impact Assessment Committee provides an opportunity for discussions about new revenue tools for municipalities. We have attached a preliminary list of potential revenue sources. The list is not intended to be exhaustive; nor is it intended to reflect any formal AMO position on specific revenue tools. Rather, it is intended to provide a good starting point for further discussions. We look forward to working with you as we proceed with the Strong Communities consultations. Yours truly, Original signed by the President Roger Anderson President cc Hon. Greg Sorbara, Minister of Finance —177— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 3] PRELIMINARY LIST OF POTENTIAL NEW REVENUE TOOLS Transfers From Other Governments Conditional and unconditional grants are common tools for the transfer of funding to meet priorities of provincial/state and national governments. In the case of Ontario, where municipalities are currently required to subsidize provincial services, e.g., social assistance, disability and drug benefits, grants provide an important opportunity for the government to address historical fiscal sustainability pressures. Income and Consumption Taxes In a number of US jurisdictions, municipalities receive a share of income and/or consumption taxes. (Some municipalities in the US have the authority levy income or payroll taxes directly. Examples include New York City and Philadelphia.) Ontario municipalities would benefit from a share of income or consumption taxes, and the concept should be explored further. Property Taxes There are currently substantial constraints placed upon municipalities in the administration of provincially determined property tax policy, including limits on tax ratios, and on the types of property subject to taxation, including business equipment and even personal property. Constraints and limitations could be reviewed in the context of municipal fiscal capacity. Business Taxes In some jurisdictions, a variety of business taxation tools are available to municipalities, including taxation based on sales, rental income, etc. The use of business taxes in other jurisdictions provides an opportunity for further investigation. User Fees/ Licensing Fees Current limitations on the use of user fees ensure that user fees do not generate net revenue. As in a variety of other jurisdictions, user fees as revenue tools for matters such as use of public property (rights of way), services to land, parking etc., should be further explored. Similarly, licensing fees that generate net revenue, including vehicle registration fees could bolster municipal revenues. —178— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 37 Sales Taxes In some jurisdictions, municipalities receive revenue from sales taxes including the sale of goods such as fuel and energy use, or on the sale of services, such as hotel occupancy, car rentals, and professional services. Some of these may have potential for some or all of Ontario's municipal governments. September 14, 2004 —179— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 ATTACHMENT-3 AMIC1 V Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 A Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario October 2004 :m GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 **• AMCTO Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario Introduction On June 22" d 2004, the Honourable John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing announced the provincial government decision to launch an early review of the Municipal Act, 2001. As stated in the Minister's announcement, the government, in consultation with the municipal sector, was seeking opportunities to `provide local governments with more tools and greater flexibility to creatively serve their residents. " The Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario (AMCTO), while not expecting this early review of the Act, is pleased that the provincial government has signaled its willingness to strengthen the role that municipal government plays in Ontario. In particular, we note the Minister's statement that "we no longer want to micro -manage municipal governments. They are a level of government, duly elected just like the provincial and federal levels. " In response to this announced review of the Municipal Act, the AMCTO, through the efforts of its Legislative Committee and the contribution of other Association members, has compiled a series of technical amendments, which we believe would help to clarify and/or strengthen the Act, as currently written, and provide municipalities with an enhanced ability to conduct business on a daily basis. These amendments, which are detailed in Part II of this report, are not overly numerous, however, this should not be perceived as an indication that no other changes are required to the Act as it presently exists. Instead, we would point out that many municipalities are still in the relatively early stages of identifying and working with the tools provided to them through the new Act and consequently may not yet be in a position to itemize those sections of the Act, which require improvement or enhancement. As noted at a meeting of the Association's Legislative Committee, it is somewhat challenging to "think outside the box" when one has not yet had the opportunity to assess all that is available "within the box". While working on the technical amendments, referenced above, the AMCTO has also, in cooperation with several other municipal associations, taken the opportunity to explore the possibilities offered through this review process, to make bold and sweeping changes to the Municipal Act which would more clearly recognize that, as stated in Section 2 of the Act, municipalities are "responsible and accountable governments ". As a result of this cooperative effort, a series of broad principles and an accompanying set of specific recommendations for changes to the Municipal Act that result from the application of these principles have been developed for consideration by the Board of Directors of each participating Association. These principles and recommendations are set out in detail in a submission to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO). Through our submission, the AMCTO is pleased to offer additional comments and perspectives on these principles and recommendations. These comments are found in Part I of this report. An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 1 - —181— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 ♦00 AMCTO � 1004 Association of 0» Municipal Managers, 99 Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario Part I — Principles and Recommendations to Achieve a Mature Relationship Proposed Principles — AMO Submission AMO Recommendation: `It is recommended that the Principles for Achieving a Mature Relationship be adopted by the Province." As outlined in the Association of Municipalities of Ontario report to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, there is a strong interest in the municipal sector to see the development of a more mature relationship between the municipal and provincial levels of government. To achieve this mature relationship, legislation such as the Municipal Act must demonstrate a high level of trust and respect in municipal government's ability to act in a responsible and accountable manner. Based on this stated interest in a more mature relationship, a series of nine (9) broad principles, as set out in Exhibit 1, have been developed. As noted in the AMO submission, it is being recommended that these principles be applied against any proposed amendments to the Municipal Act and other related legislation. AMCTO's Perspective AMCTO supports the broad themes, which are identified within the principles set out in the AMO submission. The themes outlined through these principles are consistent with positions that the Association has carried forward in our submissions regarding proposed Municipal Act reforms, since 1998. "If increased flexibility, a business -like approach to administration and natural person powers are to be meaningful, the Government must avoid imposing restrictions on municipalities that detract from or conflict with flexibility, business- like conduct and the exercise of natural person powers. AMCTO submission —1998 "The AMCTO suggests that the responsibility and accountability should be placed on the municipality to decide how it will manage those powers and authorities permitted to it by statute. " AMCTO submission —November, 2001 To the AMCTO, the importance of recognizing and adopting these themes is, however, two- fold. In addition to developing a mature relationship between the provincial and municipal orders of government, we believe that the acceptance of these themes also recognizes the responsibility, accountability and professionalism of the managers, clerks and treasurers working in Ontario's municipal sector. As municipal professionals, these individuals provide the expert support required for the efficient, continuous and professional delivery of municipal services and An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 2 - —182— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 *• Amc-ro Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario are depended upon for the effective implementation of municipal legislation. While the application of these broad themes will, in our opinion, lead to a significantly less prescriptive Municipal Act, and other related legislation, it is our firm opinion that Ontario's municipal professionals are positioned to accept the responsibility and accountability that comes with a less prescriptive legislative environment. E xhibit 1— Proposed Principles — AMO Submission 1. Municipalities are responsible and accountable governments. 2. New legislation shall enhance existing municipal powers. 3. The province shall stop micromanaging municipal governments. 4. Where there is a compelling provincial interest, the province shall when regulating municipal government define at the outset that interest. 5. Provincial legislation shall be drafted with the expectation of responsible municipal government behaviour and not as a remedial too]. 6. Accountability means mutual respect between municipal government, the province and other public agencies. 7. Resources for municipal governments shall be sustainable and commensurate with the level of responsibility. 8. The Municipal Act shall include principles that will protect the Municipal Act and municipal powers from all provincial legislation. 9. The province shall commit to increasing the understanding and awareness of municipal government within all ministries and provincial agencies. Specific Recommendations As noted in the AMO submission, the application of the broad principles being recommended will result in considerably different legislation affecting municipalities. While changes can be anticipated in many pieces of legislation affecting municipal government, through the application of these principles, there are several significant changes to the Municipal Act, which are being recommended. The sections that follow, highlight these specific recommendations, and provide AMCTO's corresponding views. An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 3 - -183- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 900 AMCTO 1 � Association of Municipal Managers, injoClerks and Treasurers of Ontario 1. Natural Person Powers (Section 8) AMO Recommendation: "It is recommended that Natural Person Powers be enhanced to include the use of those powers for matters related to effective management and administration of the municipality and local boards, and by the reduction or elimination of the restrictions and limitations currently in the Act." One of the most notable additions to the Municipal Act was the inclusion of Section 8 which provided that "a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority" under the Municipal Act. Section 9 of the Act further noted that these powers were to be "interpreted broadly so as to confer broad authority on municipalities, (a) to enable them to govern their affairs as they consider appropriate; and (b) to enhance their ability to respond to municipal issues. " While the granting of these Natural Person Powers, as set out in the above -noted provisions, would seem to provide broad, new, flexible powers to the municipal sector, the reality following implementation of these powers proved to be substantially more narrow. "As in the 1998 draft act, newprovisions would propose that municipalities have powers of a natural person. This would enable municipalities to conduct their day- to-day business without the need for specific legislative authority. They could enter into agreements, purchase land and equipment, hire employees, and delegate administrative responsibilities to committees, staff members or other bodies, such as boards of management. Municipalities would not be allowed to provide a service for which they do not have legislative authority. " New Directions —A New Municipal Act for Ontario (August 2001) In fact, the limitations placed on the natural person powers resulted in them being largely the same as those available to municipalities under the former Municipal Act. Later Sections of the Act (especially Section 17) then proceed to systematically impose further restrictions and limitations on these broad natural person powers — leading to further confusion and concern with respect to their alleged flexibility. As a result, AMCTO members have noted the need to clarify certain aspects of the Act with respect to the numicipal power to act pursuant to Section 8. For example, provisions regarding municipal leasing, the appointment of officers, the power to expropriate property, and the power to borrow or invest money have all been identified as areas significantly clouded by the Natural Person Powers provisions and related restrictions currently in place. The concepts of enhancing and/or clarifying the Natural Person Power provisions to ensure the effective, more flexible management and administration of municipal government, as well as the request to reduce or eliminate restrictions and limitations currently in place are important to AMCTO's members and have been raised by the Association in our previous submissions to the province. An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 4 - -184- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 •' AMCTO of IgoAssociation Municipal Managers, OEM Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario "The AMCTO is concerned that the government on one hand is granting natural person powers and, on the other hand, is unduly and seriously circumscribing the exercise of those powers and, thus, retaining power and responsibility itself. This occurs in two fashions: one by excessive statutory prescription; the other by excessive statutory permission. Both, in our view, are inconsistent with the natural person formulation and will continue to confuse accountability and responsibility between municipal and provincial governments and could also lead to interpretative problems. " AMCTO submission —1998 "The AMCTO asserts that, with natural person powers, permissive statutory authorities are unnecessary and could lead to interpretive problems. The AMCTO, therefore, proposes that permissive authorities be removed from the [Act] except as they empower municipalities to exercise governmental authorities. " AMCTO submission —November 2001 This recommendation is supported by the AMCTO. 2. Spheres of Jurisdiction (Section 11) First AMO Recommendation: "It is recommended that three new spheres of jurisdiction, health, environment and emergency services be created and that the Principles be applied to all legislation affecting the spheres ofjurisdiction." Given the highly regulated setting that surrounds these proposed new Spheres (i.e. the Health Protection & Promotion Act and its regulations and the various statutes regarding the environment and emergency services), the AMCTO believes that the addition of any such new spheres first requires significant investigation of the role, which municipalities should play in the delivery of services that fall within these spheres. Should there be any interest in proceeding with adding additional spheres, we believe that, in addition to addressing the municipal versus provincial responsibility with the sphere, any corresponding legislation must be clear with respect to fiscal responsibility for services provided within the Sphere, the responsibility for setting service standards within the Sphere and the relationship between responsibilities assigned within the Sphere and those responsibilities already assigned to municipalities through other provincial statutes. The AMCTO recommends more detailed investigation in the areas of Public Health, the Environment and Emergency Services, as possible new Spheres of Jurisdiction, to determine the extent to which municipalities should play a role in the delivery of services that fall within these Spheres. An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page -5- -185- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 *** AMCTO P84 Association of * '6 Municipal Managers, �'� Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario Second AMO Recommendation: "It is recommended that Sphere of Jurisdiction 10 be amended to read `Economic Development and Tourism' and that it apply to all municipalities." While the current Sphere addresses Economic Development Services, it does not appear to expressly provide municipalities with the authority to provide Tourism Services. Since, for many municipalities, the provision of economic development and tourism services go hand - in -hand, such services are already being provided by many municipalities. In the interests of providing greater clarity to this particular Sphere of Jurisdiction, it would be beneficial for the Act to provide a clearer indication that the delivery of Tourism Services fall within the jurisdiction of municipal government. The AMCTO supports this recommendation. 3. Restriction on Receiving Shares (Section _D AMO Recommendation: "It is recommended that the restriction on the receiving and holding of shares of a corporation be removed. " Current restrictions found in Section 17 of the Act prohibit municipalities from acquiring shares in a corporation. This prohibition is problematic for municipalities in situations such as the following, where a municipality might receive, hold or sell shares in a corporation as a settlement of a debt or as a result of a bequest: ➢ Court recommendations that a municipality accept shares in a corporation as part of a court order pertaining to bankruptcy proceedings where the municipality is a creditor; ➢ The requirement for a municipality to acquire shares in a condominium corporation if it acquires a condominium unit as a result of the application of the municipal tax sale process; ➢ Situations where a bequest is made to a municipality, part or all of which is comprised of shares in a corporation. Such restrictions are inconsistent with the application of natural person powers to municipalities and, as stated in our November 2001 submission to the province `AMCTO suggests that the responsibility and accountability should be placed on the municipality to decide how it will manage those -powers and authorities permitted to it by statute. " It should also be noted that the examples cited above do not contemplate the option of municipalities holding shares for investment purposes. The issue of holding shares, as part of a municipal investment strategy is a much more complex issue and is better addressed through a detailed discussion regarding the current Ontario Regulation 438/97. An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page -6- :. GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 •00 AMCTO �� Associationof • Municipal Managers, 000 Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario This recommendation is supported by the AMCTO to the extent that it applies to situations other than the holding of shares for investment purposes. 4. Minimum Maintenance Standards for Roads (Section 44) AMO Recommendation: "It is recommended that municipal councils establish by by-law Minimum Maintenance Standards for municipal roads." Under the current provisions of the Municipal Act, municipalities were given an additional tool for the purpose of defending themselves against claims arising from the care and maintenance of municipal roads. This defence was provided to a municipality that met the minimum maintenance standards as set out in Ontario Regulation 239/02 (now O.Reg 288/02). While the development of these minimum maintenance standards was accomplished through direct consultation with the municipal sector, concerns have subsequently been expressed that the application of these prescribed standards on a province - wide basis may not recognize the differing circumstances and needs within different geographic areas of the province. Consequently, it has been suggested that local municipalities are better able to determine appropriate minimum standards, which take into account local climate, geography, etc. While recognizing the principle of removing the province from the micro -management of local government, the AMCTO is also mindful of the value which Section 44 and the application of the Minimum Maintenance Standard provides to municipalities. While supportive of the concept of providing municipalities with the opportunity to develop their own minimum maintenance standards for roads, in lieu of a provincially -imposed standard, the AMCTO would seek assurance that adherence to a municipally -developed minimum maintenance standard, adopted by by-law, would still provide municipalities with a defence against roads claims. The AMCTO supports this recommendation provided that adherence to a municipally - developed minimum maintenance standard for roads, adopted by by-law, will provide municipalities with at minimum an equal defence against claims arising from the care and maintenance of municipal roads. 5. Municipal Corporations (Section 203) AMO Recommendation: `It is recommended that the limitations on incorporating be repealed and replaced with a broad power permitting municipalities to incorporate corporations under either the Business Corporations Act or under Part III of the Corporations Act for any municipal purpose." An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page -7- -187- GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 •*• AMCTO Association of Municipal Managers, ��Clerks ■ and Treasurers of Ontario Currently, through the provisions of Section 203 of the Act and Ontario Regulation 168/03, municipalities may incorporate corporations for a limited set of purposes. AMCTO members have expressed concerns regarding these provisions and, overall, have noted that the current provisions are overly restrictive and prescriptive and, as a result of these limits, have been used sparingly. This limited use corroborates statements, which the Association has made in our previous submissions regarding the establishment of these corporations: "There should be five objectives or goals to justify the creation of any municipal share capital corporation: (a) organizational flexibility to deliver municipal services; (b) facilitating private sector participation as shareholders or as sources of financing; (c) bringing a range of expertise to the management of activities by appointing experts to the boards of municipally -owned or controlled corporations; (d)facilitating the identification of cost/revenue centres within municipal government for transparency and financing purposes or (e) facilitating joint ventures with other municipalities and with other levels of government. There should be no additional limitations on the activities that may be conducted by municipal share corporations. The standing rule should be that municipalities may perform indirectly through a share capital corporation any activity that the municipality may perform directly under applicable legislation regardless of geographic location or size of municipality. The corollary should be that the municipality may not do indirectly through a municipal share corporation that which it may not lawjully do directly as a municipal government. " AMCTO submission — October 2001 "The AMCTO recommends that municipalities be permitted to establish municipal service boards and municipal corporations within all ten spheres ofjurisdiction. " AMCTO submission —November 2001 The AMCTO also notes that during the previous consultation process undertaken with respect to the development of Ontario Regulation 168/03, participating stakeholders were advised that the proposed Regulation represented Phase One of the proposed program for municipal corporations. A second Phase was promised which, as understood by the consultation participants, would broaden the range of municipal options with respect to establishing municipal corporations. We believe that the time has come for this second Phase to proceed. The AMCTO supports this recommendation. An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 8 - -= GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 AMCTO r� Association of Municipal Managers, ®� Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario 6. Head of Council as Chief Executive Officer (Section 225) AMO Recommendation: "It is recommended that the phrase `chief executive offcer' in section 225 be defined." In addressing the matter of the Head of Council acting as the chief executive officer of the municipal corporation, it has been observed that the problems being encountered centre on the interpretation being applied to the term "chief executive officer" rather than on the actual responsibilities as set out in the Act. While the AMCTO understands that a clarification of the term, through a reasonable definition, would help add clarity regarding the role of the Head of Council with respect to the administration of the municipality it is felt that, alternatively, in recognition of the fact that Section 225 of the Act sets out the role of the Head of Council, in lieu of providing a definition for the term "chief executive officer", it would be equally feasible and effective to eliminate the "chief executive officer" terminology in Section 225 and replace it with a clear description of the duties that the chief executive officer position would entail for the Head of Council. In addition to providing further clarification with respect to the role of the "chief executive officer", the AMCTO also believes that greater certainty would be provided if the Act clearly established that there must be one individual within the municipal corporation who is assigned the responsibility for the overall operations of the corporation, excluding those activities which are already assigned by statute to other specific Municipal Staff. While recognizing the current provisions of the Act, which make the authority for appointing a chief administrative officer (CAO) permissive rather than mandatory, the AMCTO believes that there must still be one individual within the municipality (regardless of title) who assumes overall responsibility for the management of the municipal operations. We would further recommend that the Act make it clear that this individual be an appointed official rather than an elected official to clearly distinguish elected officials' governance role from the administrative role fulfilled by municipal staff. The AMCTO supports the need to provide further clarity regarding the role of "chief executive officer" and recommends that the term be eliminated and replaced with a clear description of the duties of the chief executive officer. The AMCTO further recommends that the Act require that there be one individual (appointed not elected) who is assigned the responsibility for the overall management of the municipal operations, excluding those activities that are assigned by statute to other Municipal Staff. An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 9 - lomm GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 *9s AMCTO PN O Association of 'a 0 le Municipal Managers, OEM Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario 7. Closed Meetings (Section 239) First AMO Recommendation: "It is recommended that municipal council be granted the discretion to determine when and for what purpose council or a committee may hold a _ closed meeting. " The conditions under which a municipal council or committee may hold a closed meeting, as set out in Section 239 of the Act, have for several years proven to be a challenge for some municipalities wishing to offer briefing sessions, educational programs and other learning opportunities for municipal councilors. Given the challenges that already exist, the AMCTO is concerned by the recent interest being shown, from various quarters, in the Act (or a new statute) becoming even more prescriptive regarding the conduct of closed meetings. The AMCTO believes that the problems being encountered under the current provisions stem, in part, from a difficulty with the broad definition of what constitutes a "meeting" under Section 238. Many municipalities are experiencing concerns in cases where "meetings" are essentially briefing sessions for members of Council on a specific issue. Since the volume and complexity of municipal issues has grown dramatically in recent years, these briefing sessions can be invaluable in ensuring the efficient conduct of municipal business. By their nature, such briefing sessions do not involve any decision -making by, or direction from, Council. Accepting that municipalities are both responsible and accountable, there should be an opportunity for a municipal Council to exercise some discretion with respect to the circumstances in which a meeting may be closed. With this responsibility, however, comes the additional responsibility of ensuring that the business of the municipality continues to be conducted in an open and accessible manner. Given this responsibility, the AMCTO believes that Section 239 of the Act could be clarified and expanded to provide Council with the opportunity, should they so choose, to hold a closed meeting for the purposes of conducting a long-range or strategic planning exercise, holding a briefing session on a technical and/or complex matter or engaging in training or professional development activities. We would, therefore, encourage further investigation of this matter and, in particular, how it is addressed in other jurisdictions. By way of one recent example, Subsection 94(3) of The Cities Act in Saskatchewan provides that, "every council may meet in meetings closed to the public for the purpose of long-range or strategic planning but no business may be transacted at that meeting." The AMCTO supports a review of Section 239 of the Municipal Act to explore possible opportunities to clarify and expand the current list of circumstances in which a meeting may be closed. An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 10 - -190- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 000 AMCTO PER Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and"freasurers ©fOntario Second AMO Recommendation: "It is recommended that Bill 99 not be dealt within the normal manner but be included as part of the Minister's review of the Municipal Act, 2001. " The AMCTO understands that the government's process for the consideration of Private Members' Bills such as Bill 99 — Transparency in Public Matters Act differs from the process followed for Government Bills. While not questioning the differing processes, we believe that the content of Bill 99 is too closely linked to the current provisions found within the Municipal Act to be considered independently. A more informed review of Bill 99, as it applies to the municipal sector, would be achieved if the Bill were to be considered in conjunction with the review of the Municipal Act now underway. AMCTO supports this recommendation. Third AMO Recommendation: "It is recommended that the conflict between section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001 and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act be resolved by legislative amendment. " Under the current provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, certain third party information, which needs to be addressed by municipal council may be kept confidential, however, there is no provision made under Section 239 of the Municipal Act to permit Council to discuss this confidential information in a closed meeting. For example, should municipal staff wish to have its council consider a unique/innovative proposal of a public -private partnership nature which includes sensitive information from the third party (i.e. scientific, technical, commercial information supplied in confidence), such information shall not be disclosed under the current freedom of information legislation. However, Section 239 of the Municipal Act does not currently permit a council to meet in closed session to receive and consider this type of confidential information. While this obvious conflict can be resolved through giving the municipal council the discretion to determine the circumstances under which a closed meeting can be held, as requested in the previously discussed reconunendation, it is important to ensure that the discrepancy is resolved in one way or another. AMCTO supports the continued exploration of the issues identified through this recommendation. 8. Notice Provisions (Section 251) AMO Recommendation: "It is recommended that the Municipal Act and Regulations be amended by deleting all requirements for `notice' and replacing with a general provision An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 11 - —191— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 AMCTO Association of Municipal Managers, son Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario allowing municipal councils to determine by by-law under what circumstances notice is required and the form, manner and timing of the notice." The current notice provisions within the Municipal Act are but one example of the micromanagement, which the municipal sector would like to see, eliminated through the application of the principles outlined previously. Under the Act, as it currently exists, there are approximately 69 different notice -related provisions scattered throughout the various sections. The AMCTO is concerned by the generally prescriptive nature of these notice provisions that are currently found throughout the Act. The inclusion of these detailed notice provisions is somewhat inconsistent with the overall premise of increased autonomy and flexibility given to municipalities through this Act. Given that many municipalities already conduct a public process for many matters not specifically identified in the Act, the AMCTO believes that municipal government has already demonstrated its openness and accountability to the public and, consequently, does not require detailed direction regarding the timing and method for giving notice. The AMCTO supports this recommendation. 9. Provincial Interest AMO Recommendation: "It is recommended that all provincial legislation affecting municipal government shall define the provincial interest in the legislation." Recognizing the respective roles and responsibilities of the municipal and provincial orders of government, it is understood that from time to time, the provincial government must introduce legislation or regulations that limit municipal activity and responsibility in certain areas to protect clear and legitimate provincial interests. However, it has also been our experience that the provincial government has, in the past, used its legislative powers to. respond to perceived taxpayer concerns in areas that are clearly within the municipal purview and in which there is no compelling provincial interest. As an example, the AMCTO would point to Ontario Regulation 301/03 that prescribes, in detail, the form and content of the municipal property tax bill. The provincial interest in prescribing the physical appearance of a property tax bill must be questioned. If the provincial interest in matters directly affecting municipal government were clearly defined in the corresponding legislation put forward by the province, the AMCTO believes that municipal government, and equally importantly municipal ratepayers and residents, would have a clearer picture of the respective responsibilities of the municipal and provincial governments. The AMCTO supports this recommendation. An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 12 - —192— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 90• AMCTU PON Association of • 910 Municipal Managers, � mom Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario 10. Codes of Conduct AMO Recommendation: `It is recommended that municipal councils be authorized to enact codes of conduct with adequate enforcement tools." At the present time, while there is no requirement for municipalities to enact a code of conduct for their elected and appointed officials, many municipalities have put such a code in place. Codes of conduct play a valuable role in defining acceptable behaviour. In considering the validity and value of a code of conduct, it must be noted that the current Municipal Act does not provide a municipality with a clear mechanism to govern the conduct of elected officials. While to some degree, the municipal procedural by-law attempts to address the conduct of council, it is limited in scope. With the absence of any enforceable penalty provisions within the Act with respect to the conduct of members of council, most municipal codes of conduct tend to only address the conduct of Staff and provide for penalty provisions in cases of inappropriate conduct. The inclusion of clear enforcement provisions with respect to the conduct of members of council would substantially increase the value of these codes of conduct in ensuring the acceptable and professional behaviour of both elected and appointed officials. AMCTO supports the development and implementation of codes of conduct for elected and appointed officials provided that, in addition to the enforceability provisions that already apply to appointed officials, municipalities can be provided with clear enforcement authority with respect to the conduct of elected officials. 11. Integrity Commissioner AMO Recommendation: `It is recommended that the Municipal Act, 2001 be amended to permit municipalities to appoint an independent Integrity Commissioner with appropriate powers. " In considering the feasibility of appointing an Integrity Commissioner, the focus of any required legislative amendments does not need to be directed towards the ability to appoint an Integrity Commissioner (an authority which municipalities already have) but rather towards ensuring that such an individual is granted the broad powers required to undertake a full and complete investigation. By way of example, this could include the legislative authority of a commissioner pursuant to Part II of the Public Inquiries Act. In addition, recognizing the overriding principle that "one size does not fit all", the AMCTO concurs that any required provisions related to the appointment of an Integrity Commissioner should be permissive rather than mandatory and should provide municipalities with the An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 13 - -193- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 • AMCTO Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario flexibility to define the terms and conditions which are most appropriate for their own unique circumstances. This is in keeping with the overall objective to reduce the prescriptive nature of any legislation introduced. The AMCTO supports the recommendation that, should a municipality choose -to appoint an Integrity Commissioner, the province must provide this Commissioner with the broad powers required to undertake a full and complete investigation. 12. Lobby Registry AMO Recommendation: "It is recommended that the Municipal Act, 2001 be amended to permit municipalities to establish a lobby registry with appropriate powers." The AMCTO concurs that the creation of a lobby registry should occur at the discretion of individual municipalities and should provide the flexibility needed to address local needs and circumstances. As stated previously, the municipal sector is not seeking a highly prescriptive approach to this issue but instead is seeking broad authority to assist in the implementation of it. The AMCTO supports this recommendation. 13. Municipal Budget Requirements AMO Recommendation: "It is recommended that any public agency, be it provincial or municipal, shall be required to provide the necessaryfinancial information in a timely way so that a municipality may adopt its budget prior to the beginning of the fiscal year." In the continuing environment of fiscal constraint, it is extremely important for municipalities to have access to all of the financial information required to prepare their annual operating budgets in a timely manner. This has proven to be difficult for many municipalities who must, at present, wait until well into the fiscal year to receive confirmation of the amount of any provincial grants for the year and the amounts levied against the municipality by other outside agencies, boards and municipalities. The absence of this confirmed data means that many municipalities do not approve their annual budget until they are well into the current fiscal year or are required to reopen their budget process following approval if the confirmed levy or grant amounts are substantially different from what had previously been estimated. If municipalities are expected to be accountable then, in accordance with sound business practices, they need to be able to approve budgets in advance of the fiscal year based on timely and complete data from all sources. However, it is also recognized that this An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 14 - —194— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 +1►!• AMCTCI Association of Municipal Managers, �� Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario requirement has a significant timing impact on other agencies (such as upper -tier municipalities, police service boards, etc.) who would be required to approve their respective budgets well in advance of the end of the current fiscal year so that they would be able to finalize their levy requirements for the upcoming year and convey these requirements to those municipalities responsible for the payment of these levies. Equally important, however, is the issue of in -year reductions to provincial fimding programs for municipalities. When municipalities have finalized their budgets for the year based on the parameters of current provincial funding programs, a provincial decision to dramatically decrease the funding available under the program part way through the municipal fiscal year can have a significant impact on the municipality. Although it extends beyond the scope of the Municipal Act Review process, the investigation of ways to improve the timing and communication of financial decisions affecting the municipal budget process should be pursued. The AMCTO supports the intent of this recommendation and recommends the investigation of ways in which the timing and communication of financial decisions by public agencies, affecting the municipal budget process, can be improved. 14. Joint and Several Liabili AMO Recommendation: `It is recommended that the principle of joint and several liability be abandoned and that section I of the Negligence Act be repealed. " The principle of joint and several liability has long been problematic for municipalities who may find themselves responsible for the payment of 100% of the amount of any claim awarded even in circumstances where their proven degree of liability is significantly less. Due to their perceived "deep pockets" municipalities often find themselves directed to make payments which should rightfully be made by other defendants who, for various reasons, are unable to make such payments themselves. As a result of these claims, municipal insurance premiums continue to rise and ultimately impose an increasingly greater financial burden on the municipal taxpayers. While the repeal of Section 1 of the Negligence Act would address the municipal concern, it would also be feasible to consider the option of providing a specific exemption from Section 1 of the Negligence Act to municipalities through the insertion of an exemption provision in the Municipal Act. Since there are legal implications associated with both of the solutions outlined above, although outside the scope of the Municipal Act Review, the AMCTO supports the intent of An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 15 - =016C GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 *** AMCT4 POO Association of • 0 '0 Municipal Managers, mom Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario the recommendation and encourages the province to undertake additional investigation into this matter. The AMCTO recommends the further examination of the legal implications of abandoning the principle of joint and several liability as it applies to municipalities. An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 16 - -196- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 ♦ • AMCTO Association of Municipal Managers, MEN Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario Part H— Other Technical Amendments In our review of the Municipal Act, 2001, the AMCTO also considered various technical amendments which: ➢ Were identified by our members in response to the announcement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on June 22nd 2004 regarding the province's initiation of a review of the Act; ➢ Were identified in previous AMCTO submissions to the provincial government but did not result in legislative changes at the time of our original submission. In presenting these technical amendments, the AMCTO must first note that many of these amendments will not be required if the nine (9) broad principles and the accompanying recommendations resulting from the application of these principles, as highlighted in Part I of our submission, are applied. Although the AMCTO generally supports the principles and recommendations set out in Part 1, we also feel that it is important for the province to be aware of the technical changes which we believe are necessary, should these aforementioned principles and recommendations not be implemented. 1. Sian Reaulation Currently Subsection 11(2) provides lower tier municipalities with the non-exclusive authority to regulate signage subject to the provisions of Paragraph I t (2)(5) which states that "a lower -tier municipality does not have the power to pass a by-law under a sphere or part of a sphere of jurisdiction to the extent that this Act (other than this section) or any other Act confers power to pass the by-law on its upper -tier municipality. " Section 59 provides that "an upper tier municipality may prohibit or regulate the placing or erecting of any sign, notice or advertising device within 400 metres of any limit of an upper -tier highway. " Since the provisions of Section 59 are permissive, it is possible that the regulation of signage within 400 metres of an upper -tier roadway may not occur even though signage is regulated along all other roadways within a municipality. The AMCTO recommends that the Act be amended to permit lower -tier municipalities to regulate signage along upper -tier highways despite the provisions of Paragraph 11(2)(5). An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 17 - —197— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 "• AMCTO Association of * Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers MEN of Ontario 2. Municipal Licensing Under the provisions of Subsection 150(9), fees charged for business licensing cannot exceed the costs directly incurred by "the municipality licensing that class of business ". Therefore, in a two-tier environment where, for example, policing services are provided by the upper -tier, a lower -tier municipality cannot include these upper -tier policing costs, incurred for the administration and enforcement of the municipal licensing by-law, in the calculation of the overall licensing and enforcement costs pertaining to the lower -tier licensing fees. AMCTO recommends that lower -tier municipalities be permitted to include all relevant upper - tier costs, such as policing costs, in the calculation of the overall costs for administration and enforcement of a municipal licensing by-law for the purpose of establishing licensing fees. Under the provisions of Section 153, a municipality may consult with the public before 'passing a by-law licensing a business under section 150 or issuing, renewing, revoking, imposing conditions on or suspending a business licence for an adult entertainment establishment, a rave or any other business. " The AMCTO questions the need for this section. Does Council require specific authority to consult with or seek the view of the public with respect to these matters? The AMCTO recommends that Section 153 be eliminated. We further recommend that, if this section is not eliminated, that the term "rave" should be defined. Section 154 sets out specific provisions with respect to a municipality's ability to license, regulate and govern the owners and drivers of tow trucks and other vehicles, other than motor vehicles, used for hire. While this section permits municipalities to establish the rates or fares to be charged for the conveyance of property or passengers, it does not provide municipalities with the authority to regulate the storage rates imposed by towing companies for those vehicles towed and then held by the company for a certain period of time. Municipalities are concerned that this lack of ability to regulate this aspect of a towing operation, can lead to excessive charges being imposed by such companies. It is recommended that the Act be amended to give municipalities the authority to regulate the storage rates imposed by towing companies. With respect to the provisions pertaining to the establishment of a business registry, it is noted that Subsection 157(6), which describes the scope of a municipality's power with respect to establishing and maintaining a business registry, does not include the authority to charge and collect a fee to cover the reasonable costs of establishing and maintaining a registry. Given the value to a municipality of being aware of the businesses located within its boundaries, the An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 18 - .M GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 *0* AWTO POO Associationof ♦ M 'a Municipal Managers, 000 Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario AMCTO supports the concept of the business registry but believes that the inability to charge a fee to at least cover the costs of establishing and maintaining such a registry may act as a disincentive for many municipalities that might otherwise consider the establishment of such a registry. The AMCTO recommends that subsection 157(6) be expanded to include the authority for municipalities to charge and collect a fee to cover the costs of establishing and maintaining a business registry. Section 158, which requires municipalities to establish and maintain a list regarding licensing for public inspection indicates that the list must include "the amount of each business licensing fee to be charged to each business and the cost of administering and enforcing the business licensing by-law with respect to each class of business. " These requirements are extremely detailed and will place an onerous burden on municipalities to track their costs and fees. The need to track costs to this level of detail may not permit enough flexibility in the structure of the licensing function to maximize the performance of enforcement staff. This in turn could lead to increased enforcement costs since the required structure may not allow for cost efficiencies to be realized. We recommend that section 158 be amended to require that municipalities include the amount of the fee to be charged for each type of business and that the costs for administration and enforcement be tracked and recorded at a corporate level rather than at the business class level. Under the provisions of Subsection 160(2), the scope of the licensing regulations that may be made by the Minister is such that the regulations may "be retroactive for a period not exceeding one year; require a municipality to return license fees collected during that period; and require a municipality to use the licence fees in the prescribed manner. " The AMCTO continues to be very concerned with the possibility for retroactive application of regulations; the significant financial impact on a municipality should the Minister require that licensing fees already collected be returned; and the potential for council to be limited in how it uses revenues that it receives from licensing, or from any other source. The AMCTO believes that the inclusion of this subsection is incongruous with the recognition of municipalities as responsible and accountable governments. The AMCTO recommends that subsection 160(2) be eliminated. An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 19 - —199— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 •*• AMCTO �OR Association of Municipal Managers, MEN Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario 3. Record Retention Periods Subsections 255(3) and 255(4) permit a municipality to establish retention periods, which are "subject to the approval of the municipal auditor. " Some auditors, by their own admission, do not view approval of retention schedules, with the exception of schedules pertaining to financial records, as being within their areas of expertise or responsibility. It is recommended that subsections 255(3) and 255(4) be amended to delete the phrase "subject to the approval of the municipal auditor" and "subject to the approval of the auditor of the local board respectively. We further recommend that these phrases be replaced with the phrase "subject to the review of the auditor prior to its taking effect. " 4. Vacant Seat on Council Currently, Subsection 259(1)(c) provides that the office of a member of council becomes vacant if the member "is absent from the meetings of council for three successive months without being authorized to do so by a resolution of council. " The AMCTO is concerned that there may be situations where, due to a council's meeting structure, a member may inadvertently contravene this section. AMCTO recommends that subsection 259(I)(c) be amended to read "is absent from the regularly scheduled meetings of council for three successive months ..." 5. Restricted Acts Subsection 275(1)(c) restricts council from disposing of real or personal property of the municipality "which had a value exceeding $50, 000 when it was acquired by the municipality. " We believe that the retrospective value of the property should not have a bearing on this restriction. Instead, we believe that the limitation imposed in this case should be based on the current estimated value of the property. We recommend that subsection 275(1) (c) be amended to read, "dispose of any real or personal property of the municipality which has an estimated value exceeding $50,000." 6. Remuneration and Expenses Subsection 283(1) provides that "a municipality may pay any part of the remuneration and expenses of the members of any local board of the municipality and of the officers and employees of the local board. " IIowever, the remaining subsections refer to the remuneration and expenses An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 20 - -200- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 �• AMCTO Association of 10 Municipal Managers, momClerks and Treasurers of Ontario of both local board members and members of council. The AMCTO believes that subsection 283(1) should also refer to the remuneration and expenses of the members of council. The AMCTO recommends that Subsection 283(1) be amended to reflect the ability for municipalities to pay the remuneration and expenses of the members of council. 7. Municipal Remedial Action The AMCTO continues to be supportive of provisions such as Subsection 427(3), which provides that a municipality may "recover the costs by action or by adding the costs to the tax roll and collecting them in the same manner as taxes ". We believe, however, that consideration should be given to making this section, and others throughout the Act, consistent with respect to the use of terms such as "same manner as taxes", "like manner as taxes", and "deemed to be taxes". While we understand the distinction between these phrases, we are also aware that their use can often lead to administrative difficulties when attempting to collect outstanding amounts. AMCTO recommends that the phrase "collecting them in the same manner as taxes" in subsection 427(3) be eliminated and replaced with "such costs added to the tax roll are deemed to be taxes. " We further recommend that all similar phrases throughout the Act be removed and replaced with a statement that the relevant amounts are "deemed to be taxes". An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 21 - -201- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 • AMCTO � � Association of * * Municipal Managers, momClerks and Treasurers of Ontario Conclusion The AMCTO appreciates the opportunity that has been provided to the municipal sector through the early review of the Municipal Act. While as stated at the outset of our report, the Association was not anticipating this early review, we recognize the importance of taking advantage of the opportunity to participate in the continued evolution of the Municipal Act and the maturing relationship between the provincial and municipal levels of government. As the organization representing the professionals responsible for municipal administration, we trust that our comments have helped the province understand the need for enhancements that will provide greater flexibility in the administration of internal and external municipal services. At the same time, through our comments regarding the broad principles and specific recommendations put forward in the report presented by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, we hope that we have shown the common interest of both elected and appointed officials in ensuring that municipalities continue to be recognized as responsible and accountable governments. We look forward to continued dialogue and consultation as the Municipal Act Review process moves forward. An Early Review of the Municipal Act, 2001 Response by the Association of Municipal Managers, Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario September 2004 Page - 22 - —202— GENERAL COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 To: Mayor Jones and Members of Council From: Scott Somerville, Interim Chief Administrative Officer Date: November 12, 2004 Re: Hydro One Draft Environmental Study Report — Supply to York Region Class EA Transmission Line Study RECOMMENDATION Council direction is respectfully requested with respect to a formal response to the Hydro One Draft Environmental Study Report — Supply to York Region Class EA Transmission Line Study issued by Hydro One under date of October 21, 2004. Cd el-09IRLWal The Town of Aurora has participated, as a full member, of the Hydro One Task Force; a group of representatives brought together that includes the Town of Markham, the Town of Aurora, the York Catholic District School Board and a joint community group know as S.T.O.P. with a common purpose of evaluating the total situation surrounding the designation by Hydro One of a preferred route for a new 230 kv Hydro line to bring power down from north to south along an existing 115 kv corridor running from Newmarket down through the Town of Aurora and Markham; and, through advice, to intervene with the EA process in whatever method legally possible in an attempt to influence Hydro One to look at and evaluate all possible alternate options for the delivery of power to York Region in 2006/2007; the belief being that the upgrading of the existing Hydro corridor is not the only viable option to provide necessary power to the growing and expanding. parts of the Region of York. Hydro One has not responded to any of the initiatives put forward by the Hydro One Task Force, the Town of Markham, the Town of Aurora, the Region of York, S.T.O.P. or the public at large with the result that Hydro One, on October 21, 2004 formally filed its Draft Environmental Study Report — Supply to York Region Class EA Transmission Line Study identifying the existing 115 kv corridor as Hydro One's preferred option for upgrading these lines through this corridor to 230kv. Hydro One has allowed a 60 day public review period commencing October 21, 2004 during which period the public at large has the opportunity to comment and/or object • Page 1 -203- GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 to any matter contained within the draft Environmental Study Report; and in addition may request a "bump up" of the Class EA to a full 'Individual' EA, which is a much more detailed and concentrated EA process. For the Town of Aurora, being part of that public at large, the options are twofold or one in the same: a) to formally correspond to Hydro One with the Town of Aurora's concerns, comments and objectives to the contents of the Draft Environmental Study Report; and/or b) to formally correspond with Hydro One and the Minister of the Environment and request a "bump up" of the current class EA to an Individual EA. The Town of Aurora does not have extensive resources to individually undertake to fulfill the broad requirements of the two above -noted options, however, the requirements of the options can be fulfilled in co-operation and collaboration with the Town of Markham which has volunteered to be of whatever assistance it can to assist Aurora if it desires to approve this course of action. The Hydro One Task Force has no legal status in the formal EA process consequently whatever action is taken, if taken, at the municipal level, must be taken by the Town of Markham, the Town of Aurora and/or the Region of York. Respectfully, Scott Somerville, Interim C.A.O. cc: Ms S. Pohjola, Town Solicitor Mr. R. Panizza, Director of Corporate Services and Town Clerk • Page 2 —204— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, THE ADOPTED RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED, READS AS FOLLOWS: 8. PL04-086 — Hydro One Electric Power Supply to York Region 1. THAT Hydro One be advised that the Council of the Town of Aurora adamantly opposes the current alternatives to upgrade the electric power supply to York Region; 2. THAT Hydro One, in evaluating all alternatives, be asked to ensure that there be no EMF risks imposed upon any existing or future residents in the Town of Aurora. 3. THAT Council request that the following actions be undertaken by Hydro One prior to its determination of a preferred alternative for the upgrade of the supply of electricity to serve northern York Region: 3.1 Hydro One undertake, as part of the Class Environmental Assessment Process, a fully documented identification and assessment of all possible routes and options for expanded power transmission capacity to northern York Region, including the use of other transmission corridors supplying northern York Region, the use of existing and proposed Ministry of Transportation corridors such as Highway's 404, 400 and future 427, pursuing new corridors on rural lands, and other alternatives; 3.2 Hydro One, in evaluating all alternatives, give greater consideration to medical, visual, environmental, social and economic impacts on existing and future urban areas and established and future residential communities, including schools adjacent to and in close proximity to the proposed transmission lines, and a lesser consideration to the factor of cost. 4. THAT Council request advance notice of and the opportunity to be represented at any meetings to be arranged by the Regional Chair with the appropriate Ministers to discuss the issues arising out of the Hydro One proposal; and THAT information regarding and resulting from these meetings be reported to Council and provided to the public; 5. THAT staff be directed to investigate mechanisms to advise purchasers of new and resale dwellings adjacent to the corridor of the current initiatives of Hydro One to upgrade the supply of electricity, and report back to the August 17, 2004 Council meeting; —205— GENERAL COMMITTEE — NOVEMBER 16, 2004 6. THAT the Regional Medical Officer of Health be requested to report to the Town of Aurora on the health issues relating to EMFs, and such information be placed on the Town's website for public information; 7. THAT in the event that the existing alternative is determined to be the preferred route for Hydro One, the Town contest such determination through the available mechanisms provided under the Environmental Assessment Act and any other pertinent legislation. 8. THAT the Town and Hydro staff continue to participate in discussions with the impacted municipalities and the Region to discuss their responses to the Hydro One proposal; 9. THAT the offer extended by the Town of Markham to participate jointly on a task force be accepted, and that the Town negotiate such proportionate financial and other assistance as may be necessary in that regard; and THAT Councillor Morris be appointed as the representative for the Town of Aurora on the Task Force; and THAT the Town of Aurora encourage the Town of Markham to extend their invitation to other Municipalities in York Region; 10. THAT the proposal to engage independent consultants to conduct a third party peer review of the potential alternatives and the possible EMF health risks, be referred to the Task Force for consideration. 11. THAT the Clerk forward a copy of this resolution to the Premier of Ontario, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Health and Long -Term Care, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, York Region MPPs, the York Region District School Board, the York Region Catholic District School Board, the Independent Electricity Market Operator, the Board of Aurora Hydro, all York Region Municipalities including the Region of York. —206—