Loading...
AGENDA - Council - 20110913PUBLIC RELEASE September 9, 2011 TOWN OF AURORA COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, September 13, 2011 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST II APPROVAL OF AGENDA RECOMMENDED: THAT the agenda as circulated by the Customer and Legislative Services Department be approved as presented. III ADOPTION OF MINUTES Council Minutes of August 16, 2011 pg. 1 RECOMMENDED: THAT the Council minutes of August 16, 2011 be adopted as printed and circulated. IV PRESENTATIONS (a) Shelley Ware, Special Events Coordinator pg. 17 Re: 2011 Aurora Teen Idol and 2011 Aurora’s Got Talent Presentations V PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS VI DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, September 13, 2011 Page 2 of 7 VII ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION VIII DELEGATIONS IX CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION X NOTICES OF MOTION/MOTIONS FOR WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (i) Notices of Motion None (ii) Motions for Which Notice Has Been Given (Motions (a)-(c) were deferred from the August 16, 2011 Council Meeting) (a) Councillor Gallo pg. 123 Re: Closed Session Pending List (b) Councillor Gaertner pg. 124 Re: Indemnification Policy (c) Councillor Gaertner pg. 125 Re: Integrity Commissioner (d) Councillor Buck pg. 126 Re: Heritage Property Application Fees (e) Councillor Buck pg. 127 Re: Museum Curator Position Terms of Reference (f) Councillor Buck pg. 128 Re: Sign By-law Variances (g) Councillor Buck pg. 129 Re: Traffic Calming Methodology XI REGIONAL REPORT None Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, September 13, 2011 Page 3 of 7 XII NEW BUSINESS/GENERAL INFORMATION - COUNCILLORS XIII CLOSED SESSION XIV READING OF BY-LAWS RECOMMENDED: THAT the following listed confirming by-law be given first, second, and third readings and enacted: 5362-11 BEING A BY-LAW to Confirm Actions by pg. 130 Council Resulting from Council Meeting 11-25 on September 13, 2011 XV ADJOURNMENT Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, September 13, 2011 Page 4 of 7 AGENDA ITEMS 1. General Committee Meeting Minutes of September 6, 2011 pg. 18 RECOMMENDED: THAT the minutes of the General Committee meeting of September 6, 2011 be received and the recommendations carried by the Committee be approved. 2. Deferred from Council meeting of August 16, 2011 (Item 1) BBS11-007 – Private Property Parking Enforcement pg. 23 RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive report BBS11-007; and THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute agreements, including any and all documents and ancillary agreements required to give effect to same, with third parties respecting enforcement of the Parking and Traffic By-law 4574-04.T on private property on behalf of the Town; and THAT upon execution of the agreement and all conditions being satisfied staff brings forward the necessary appointment by-laws for enactment. 3. Deferred from Council meeting of August 16, 2011 (Item 2) CFS11-023 – Capital Projects Status & Closures Report as of pg. 39 June 30, 2011 RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive report CFS11-023; and THAT the project closures and capital funding adjustments outlined in Attachments #1 and #2, and summarized in Attachment #3 be approved. Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, September 13, 2011 Page 5 of 7 4. Deferred from Council meeting of August 16, 2011 (Item 3) IES11-032 – Water Audit Report for Town of Aurora pg. 54 RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive report IES11-032; and THAT the Town be an active participant in the York Region/Municipality water audit; and THAT the Town continue to investigate and implement best practices for water management. 5. Deferred from Council meeting of August 16, 2011 (Item 16) PR11-032 – Sport Aurora – Trillium Application pg. 86 RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive report PR11-032; and THAT Council support the application to the Ontario Trillium Foundation by Sport Aurora. 6. Deferred from Council meeting of August 16, 2011 (Item 17) PR11-033 – Community and Cultural Grants pg. 90 RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive report PR11-033; and THAT Council approve the attached Policy and that $25,000.00 be approved from existing sources in the Operating Budget each year in support of the Community and Cultural Grant Program. Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, September 13, 2011 Page 6 of 7 7. Deferred from Council meeting of August 16, 2011 (Item 18) PR11-034 – Sponsorship of Third Party Events pg. 103 RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive report PR11-034; and THAT Council approve the attached Policy for Sponsorship of Third Party Events; and THAT $5,000.00 be allocated each year in the Operating Budget in support of the program. 8. Deferred from Council meeting of August 16, 2011 (Item 22) PR11-038 – Reallocation of Capital Project Funds pg. 115 RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive report PR11-038; and THAT Council authorize the reallocation of funds in Capital project No. 71058 Top Dresser to the Purchase of a Forestry Truck Mounted Body. 9. CLS11-016 – General Committee Closed Session Report dated pg. 119 September 6, 2011 1. Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; Re: Request for Reduction of Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Payment, 1 Lensmith Drive, Aurora RECOMMENDED: THAT Report No. LGL11-008 be received; and THAT the Mayor and Town Clerk be authorized to execute an Agreement to Amend the Development Agreement with the owners of 1 and 3 Lensmith Drive and 268 Kennedy Street West, Aurora, including any and all documents and ancillary agreements required to give effect to same. Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, September 13, 2011 Page 7 of 7 2. Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board; Re: LGL11-009 - Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board - 2C Secondary Plan (OPA #73) RECOMMENDED: THAT Council adopt the confidential recommendation of the General Committee Closed Session meeting of September 6, 2011. 10. Memorandum from Mayor Dawe pg. 121 Re: Communication from (O.M.W.A.) - Ontario Municipal Water Association RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive the memorandum regarding Communication from (O.M.W.A.) – Ontario Municipal Water Association for information. ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, September 13, 2011 ➢ Delegation (a) Mr. Klaus Wehrenberg, Resident Re: Item 11 — Memorandum from Councillor Buck Re: Leslie Street Underpasses ➢ Item 11 Memorandum from Councillor Buck Re: Leslie Street Underpasses ➢ Item 12 Memorandum from Director of Customer and Legislative Services/Town Clerk Re: By-law to Appoint a Deputy Clerk ➢ By-law 5364-11 BEING A BY-LAW to appoint a Deputy Clerk and to delegate certain authority to the Deputy Clerk/Manager of Administration on behalf of the Town. Customer and Legislative Services Town Clerk 905-727-3123 info@e-aurora.ca Town of Aurora 1 Municipal Drive, Box 1000, Aurora, ON L4G 6,11 DX1 EGA i ION REQUEST Requests for delegation status, any written submissions and background information for consideration by Council or committees of Council must be submitted to the Clerk's office by PLEASE PRINT COUNCUCOiV MITTEEIADVISORY COMMITTEE DATE: September 13,2011 (Council)—_ •C> Commumty N/A (l can not be'deettied to represent the Trails Sub -Committee, because the Committee has not,r»et,recently, to carry on dialogue on the issue, although the three voting Members of the Committee have previously asked for the inclusion of the underpasses. I would like to remind Gouncii that the proposed underpasses are principally going to opportunit6es are_pia�tned, east of E sails Street,_a[so withsn 1 krrs_of €..eslie. Additionally, there are commercial establishmetnts (IiValmartetc on the easside of Leslie,where most of the 8,000 residents will likely do most of their shoino, Further, S intend to talk about conditions that should be included in the request to the Region, to include the design of the uncder�_assgs 4n the REP for the proiect, sa that the actual cost of incSudin the most econcsmicaS +version of underpasses in the re -construction of Leslie Street are known befor a decision is made an whather to�pr o ahead with the construction of the undMr sees qr not, and with which ones_ Thirdly it is my intention to appear beffore Council so that I can be questioned on the various aspects of this matter, in my capacity as Chair of the Trails Sub -Committee I should mention that the Trails Sub -Committee has not had a chance to meet after the Region o9 steel a public notic® that the Env'sronmentai Stuff Report on the Lesiia Street oroie� ct has been completed a Report that,, unfortuna ems, does not recommend any underpasses, based on an -engineering report that must be deemed not to have utilized due professional diligence. Personal information on this form is collected under the legal authority of the Municipal Act, as amended. The information is collected and maintained for the purpose of creating a record that is avaitable to the general public, pursuant to Section 27 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Questions about this collection should be directed to the Town Clerk, Town of Aurora 1 Municipal Drive Box 1000 Aurora, ON 44G 6J1 Telephone 905 727.3123, i REVISED: September12,2011 AURORA ,yau.'re i rr. Good Coy r fiaH� MEMORANDUM I Councillor Buck Date: September 13, 2011 To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Councillor Buck Re: Leslie Street Underpasses RECOMMENDED: THAT Council Receive the memorandum for information Endorse the recommendations RProvide direction Page 1 of 2 Subject: FW: Leslie Street underpasses From: Klaus Wehrenberq Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 1:44 AM To: AIICoudllorsCale-aurora.ca ; chris@chnsballard.ca ; igallo@me.com ; evelyn buck@rogers.com Cc: mayor@aurora.ca ; adowney@aurora.ca ; itree@aurora.ca ; isimanovskis@aurora.ca ; jleach@aurora.ca ; irclement@rogers.com ; ragnor303@gmail.com Subject: Leslie Street underpasses Dear Councilors: Yesterday you were forwarded information that pertains to the Leslie Street underpass issue, by the Mayor's office. The documents: A Region of York report on the issue, prepared by the Transportation Services Committee (Report No 2) , and the Minutes of the Feb 17 Regional Council Meeting. As you will have found, I was a delegate at the meeting. However, the Minutes don't reflect the substance of my presentation. I am writing to you to: 1. inform you of what I said at the Feb 17 meeting 2. why I disagree with the Recommendation of Report No 2, and 3. to enlist your support to have the issue placed on the Agenda of the next Aurora Council Meeting, and to explain why I seek your support: Re 1: Allow me to point out that the previous Council had adopted the draft trail corridor layout for the 2C Lands as Town of Aurora policy. That layout includes three corridors which cross Leslie Street between Wellington and Aurora's north boundary, all of them along deep valleys that straddle Leslie in a more or less east -west direction. Report No 2 recommended that the trail traffic utilize a push button traffic light to cross Leslie, at grade. Being aware of the history of the underpass issue, that includes constant concerns about the costs of building such underpasses (estimated to be about $1 million, without any concrete backup), I asked Regional Council to include the design of the 3 underpasses in the terms of reference for the bidding process, the RFP for the widening of Leslie. 1 said that the bidders should be asked to quote on the cost of building each underpass, so that it would be known, in concrete terms, how much more it would cost if they were to be built. Aurora Council could then decide whether to have them included in the re -construction of Leslie - the precise costs would be on the table. Re 2: Report No 2, even though it appears comprehensive, is mute on two important items of information: a) The Report does not set out the fact that, in the 2C Area, about 8,000 residents are expected to be housed immediately west of Leslie, and that immediately east of Leslie, over 6,000 employment opportunities are to be created. The average distance between the residences and such places of employment is about 1 km - a distance over which just about any traffic participant should be able to move without using a car, and hence could utilize the proposed trails corridors. One should also consider that the higher density residential clusters will be closer to Leslie Street than the low density residential areas, thus potentially reducing the average commuting distance between home and work to below 1 km per commuting trip. In addition to commuting trips to the 6,000+ places of employment in the 2C Area, there will also be many shopping trips to the commercial (Walmart etc) area just to the south of the 2C Area, also on the east side of Leslie. Many of those trips could well be made via alternative modes of transportation, so called 'active' modes. The writers of the Report have thus failed to include key demographic and traffic analysis information \ that should automatically trigger recommendations that.encourage and promote non -motorized traffic, _ I t Page 2 of 2 including the elimination of at grade crossings of a 4 to 5 lane Regional Road. b) The Report also does not deal with the consequences of having non -motorized traffic cross a 4 to 5 lane road, via the push button triggered traffic light. Such crossings will happen predominantly in the high volume morning and afternoon periods, and will substantially inconvenience motorized traffic participants. Leslie Street is being widened to better move traffic - and then traffic is being slowed through lack of foresight No attempt has been made to assess cumulative wait times that will be suffered by the motorized Leslie Street traffic participant, and any consequent impacts. The one-time capital expenditure for the building of an underpass may pale in comparison to potential cumulative costs if non -motorized traffic is forced to cross at grade. The absence of relevant comparative data, and. related analysis, must be considered lack of due professional diligence, which renders the Report nonsuitable as a base for professional recommendations. c) At this stage, the Leslie Street Environmental Study Report has been advertised as completed. That means, with the Feb 17 Regional Council decision incorporated in that Report, that the Regional Municipality of York has rejected the building of underpasses under Leslie Street, as part of the re -construction and widening of their Regional Road. The Town of Aurora can ask the Minister of Environment to initiate a review of the Region's position. That request could be made based on the position that the widening of Leslie Street grossly conflicts with the Town of Aurora's policy to route 'active transportation' commuting corridors across Leslie, in that, e.g. at grade crossings are contrary to encouraging non -motorized traffic alternatives, and are contrary to Regional policies to encourage walkable communities and sustainable traffic, among other reasons. The Town of Aurora could also accept the Region's position, and not appeal to the Minister of Environment for a review. However, in that case, the Town could nevertheless ask the Region to include the design of the underpasses in the RFP process, and await the actual cost quotations, before making a decision as to whether to include all or some of the underpasses; that approach would burden the Town with the costs, starting with design costs. This approach, the request to have the designs included, can still be made. I have recently (Aug 23) been assured by the Region's Senior Project Manager that the design can still be included, if Aurora gives direction to that effect. The Town of Aurora could also pursue both of the above options. The last day on which the Minister of Environment can be asked to review the Region's Environmental Study Report is September 21 - the request to review must be in the Minister's hands by then. I am asking you, my Town Councilors, to request that this issue be placed on the Agenda of Council, before it is too late to take advantage of the re -construction of Leslie Street, to build underpasses. It will be prohibitively expensive to do itafter the fact in that the writers of Report No 2 and I agree. While one does not need special brains to arrive at that conclusion, realizing the impact of such delay should conjure up sober thought. I have twice tried to have the item placed on the Council Agenda, and my second attempt could yet bear fruit Hopefully I have convinced you why you should.have at least a political dialogue on this issue. It is not too late yet. You need to have your visionary mind in place, to realize the tremendous value of such underpasses - will they ever pay off! Klaus Wehrenberg Yore gion Clause No. 5 in Report No. 2 of the Transportation Services Committee was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of The Regional Municipality of York at its meeting on February 17, 2011. 5 REQUEST FOR GRADE -SEPARATED PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS CROSSINGS OF LESLIE STREET AND ST. JOHN'S SIDEROAD TOWN OF AURORA The Transportation Services Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations contained in the following report dated January 24, 2011, from the Commissioner of Transportation Services. 1. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that Regional Council: 1. Approve the at -grade pedestrian/cyclist crossings of Leslie Street (Y.R. 12), between Wellington Street (Y.R. 15) and Mulock Drive (Y.R. 74), and St. John's Sideroad (Y.R. 26), between Bayview Avenue (Y.R. 34) and Woodbine Avenue (Y.R. 8), as the preferred alternative for accommodating pedestrian and cyclist movements across the Regional corridors in this area. 2. Approve the inclusion of the at -grade pedestrian/cyclist crossings on Leslie Street as the preferred alternative in the Environmental Study Report for the widening of Leslie Street (Y.R. 12), from Wellington Street (Y.R. 15) to Mulock Drive (Y.R. 74), and in the detailed design of St John's Sideroad (Y.R. 26), from Bayview Avenue (Y.R. 34) to Woodbine Avenue (Y.R. 8). 2. PURPOSE This report provides information to Regional Council related to the Town of Aurora's request to construct grade -separated pedestrian underpass crossings of Leslie Street in the vicinity of St. John's Sideroad and of St. John's Sideroad, west of Leslie Street. A Regional context plan is appended (see Attachment 1). Clause No. 5 Report No. 2 Transportation Services Committee 3. BACKGROUND The Town of Aurora has requested York Region fund and build grade - separated pedestrian underpasses as part of the Leslie Street and St. John's Sideroad projects In August 2009, the Town of Aurora submitted a letter requesting York Region to consider including grade -separated pedestrian underpasses in the ongoing Cass Environmental Assessment (EA) for Leslie Street improvements and the ongoing detailed design project for St. John's Sideroad improvements. A grade -separated pedestrian underpass crossing is typically a culvert or bridge structure constructed below the elevation of the pavement. The structure facilitates pedestrian movements from one side of the Regional right-of-way to the other without pedestrians having to walk across the pavement. The four pedestrian underpasses requested by Town, of Aurora are generally located: • Crossing Leslie Street approximately 260 in north of State Farm Way • Crossing Leslie Street approximately 160 in south of St. John's Sideroad • Crossing Leslie Street approximately 380 in north of St. John's Sideroad • Crossing St. John's Sideroad approximately 325 in west of Leslie Street The locations of these crossings are appended to this report (see Attachment 2). These underpasses are located in the vicinity of the Aurora 2C Lands, where municipal planning is currently at the Secondary Plan stage. These pedestrian underpass crossings were not identified as being warranted in York Region's Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan (2008) because of the lack of need for the grade separated crossing and that pedestrian movements could be accommodated at signalized intersections. Town of Aurora staff are currently completing a Trail Master Plan project and the recommended concept is expected to provide justification and more detailed information regarding the proposed trail network and the requested underpasses. This Trail Master Plan is planned to be presented to the Council of the Town of Aurora in 2011, for consideration. York Region has three separate infrastructure projects underway in the vicinity of Leslie Street and St. John's Sideroad York Region has three separate infrastructure projects, at different phases of delivery, in the vicinity of Leslie Street and St. John's Sideroad. Clause No. 5 3 Report No. 2 Transportation Services Committee Staff are now completing the Class Environmental Assessment for Leslie Street improvements between Wellington Street and Mulock Drive This section of Leslie Street is in the final stages of preparation of a Class EA for the road improvements. The Environmental Study Report (ESR) is anticipated to be finalized in the spring 2011. This report will recommend Leslie Street be widened to four lanes with left and right turn lanes at intersections, and centre left turn lane, where appropriate. The construction of this work is scheduled to start in 2015 based on the draft 2011 Ten Year Roads Construction Program. Detailed design is also underway for upcoming improvements to St. John's Sideroad between Bayview Avenue to Woodbine Avenue This section of St. John's Sideroad is currently in the detailed design phase, with this work approximately 60% complete. The Class EA was completed in August 1999 from Yonge Street to Woodbine Avenue. The recommended improvements included widening between Yonge Street and Bayview Avenue and upgrading St. John's Sideroad to York Region standards, with left and right turn lanes being added at intersections, between Bayview Avenue and Woodbine Avenue. The construction of this work is scheduled to start in 2014 based on the draft 2011 10-Year Roads Construction Program. Construction of a new Regional watermain along Leslie Street is well underway York Region is presently constructing a 750 min diameter watermain along Leslie Street from Wellington Street to Mulock Drive. The construction began in September 2010, and is scheduled for completion in fall 2011. Consultation with Town of Aurora staff has been ongoing Discussions with Town of Aurora staff have been ongoing since September 2009 with formal responses submitted to Town of Aurora staff on June 28, 2010 and August 30, 2010. The response letters suggested a number of potential underpasses options, identified other elements that should be considered when determining the appropriate underpass concept, and the approximate construction cost of each underpass. This information is discussed in greater details in the following sections. At their meeting on September 13, 2010, the Council of the Town of Aurora adopted General Committee Report No. IES10-043 recommending the underpasses Senior Regional staff attended the September 13, 2010, meeting of the Council of the Town of Aurora. During this meeting staff agreed to defer the completion of the Leslie Street Class EA Study until York Region's Transportation Services Committee has had an opportunity to consider the Town of Aurora's request. Clause No. 5 Report No. 2 Transportation Services Committee 4. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS York Region staff have completed a preliminary assessment of the pedestrian crossings of Leslie Street and St. John's Sideroad As part of the technical work completed on the Leslie Street Class EA and St. John's Sideroad detailed design, a preliminary assessment of the options, benefits, impacts, constructability and costs were undertaken. Three options for grade -separated pedestrian underpass crossings were reviewed and assessed Three options were reviewed and assessed to provide grade -separated pedestrian underpasses. These options are: Option 1 — Combining the requested pedestrian underpass structures with already planned watercourse crossing structures. Option 2 - Providing separate structures for the pedestrian underpasses, at the preferred crossing locations, at the elevation of the valley floor Option 3 — Providing separate structures for the pedestrian underpasses, at the preferred crossing locations, at an elevation just below the pavement surface In addition, two other options for accommodating pedestrian movements in this area were considered Two additional options were reviewed and assessed to accommodate pedestrian movements in this area. These options are: Option 4 — Providing grade -separated pedestrian overpass crossings. These crossing would be bridge structures over top of Leslie Street and St. John's Sideroad. Option 5 - Providing at -grade pedestrian crossings, at the preferred locations, completed with separate pedestrian activated signal system. Clause No. 5 5 Report No. 2 Transportation Services Committee On balance, the benefits associated with Option 1 through Option 4 are relatively equal The benefits associated with the grade -separated options, Option 1 through Option 4, are relatively equal. The common benefits of theses options are: • Grade separated options do not require pedestrians to cross the pavement. • They may be perceived as minimizing pedestrian delays or effort of walking up and down between the elevations of the trail and the roadway, therefore encouraging more people to consider active forms of travel thereby reducing vehicle travel. • Promote Regional initiatives of providing healthy and walkable communities, and linking green spaces. Option 1 and Option 2 have the additional benefit of maintaining the connection for pedestrians between the trail system and the natural environment during the crossing of the Regional right-of-way. That is, pedestrians do not need to leave the natural environment area to cross the Regional right-of-way. They will continue through the right-of-way along the valley floor. Option 5 does provide many of the same benefits as Options 1 through 4 Option 5 does provide many of the same benefits as Option 1 through Option 4. That is Option 5 promotes the Regional initiatives of healthy and walkable communities, it provides a location specific link between the green spaces on opposite sides of the roadway. In addition, an at -grade crossing is significantly less expensive to implement and maintain, therefore increasing the ability of the Region to plan, fund, construct and operate such an option. The incremental impacts of the Options have been assessed The incremental impacts resulting from each of the options have been assessed at a very preliminary level of detail. These impacts are presented in Table 1. Clause No. 5 Report No. 2 Transportation Services Committee Table 1 Incremental Impacts of Options Option Description Incremental Environmental Effects Combine • Significant grading and vegetation removal High High underpass • Significant long-term operational, maintenance and crossings with future replacement costs watercourse • Significant pedestrian safety and security concerns culverts through a long tunnel (60-80 metres) structures • Must be constructed as part of road improvements • Extremely high capital cost (over $1M per crossing) Separate • Significant grading and vegetation removal High High underpass • Significant long-term operational, maintenance and crossings at future replacement costs the Valley • Significant pedestrian safety and security concerns floor elevation through a long tunnel (60-80 metres) structures • Significant constructability issues if not constructed as part of the road improvements • Extremely high capital cost (over $1M per crossing) Separate • Moderate grading and vegetation removal Medium Medium underpass • Significant long-term operational, maintenance and crossingsjust future replacement costs below the • Pedestrian safety and security concerns through a elevation of tunnel (40-60 metres) structures the pavement • Moderate constructability issues if not constructed as part of the road improvements • High capital cost (over $1M per crossing) Overpass • Significant grading and vegetation removal required in High High crossings order to construct the approach ramps - to meet AODA standard these ramps will be at least 80 metres long and would be required at both ends of each structure • Additional property required to accommodate structure supports and approach ramps • Poor aesthetics and integration between overpass structures and surrounding natural and built environments • Significant long-term operational, maintenance and future replacement costs • Significant difference in grade for pedestrians between the trail and overpass elevations • Moderate constructability issues if not constructed as part of the road improvements • Extremely high capital cost (over $lM per crossing) 5 At -grade • Difference in grade for pedestrians between trail and Low Low crossings pavement elevations • Low long-term operations, maintenance and future replacement costs • Moderate capital cost ($10OK-$200K per crossing) Clause No. 5 7 Report No. 2 Transportation Services Committee Building grade -separated crossings (underpass or overpass) as part of the initial road construction would be easier than retrofitting these later The construction of the watercourse crossing structures pose significant constructability challenges, including the length, depth relative to the roadway elevation, significant excavation requirement and traffic management during construction. Therefore, in light of these challenges, the incremental issues associated with incorporating the pedestrian crossings during construction of the road improvements are minor. The risks of constructing in the vicinity of York Region's 750 mm watermain would necessitate significant protection measures. The incremental challenges associated with building the grade -separated pedestrian crossings following York Region's road improvement projects are significant. These will include access, traffic control on a wider and busier roadway, restoration, etc. While Option 3 is the preferred grade -separated alternative, a preliminary estimate of the initial capital construction cost for it, is approximately $4AM From the grade -separated options, Option 3 is preferred. This option has similar benefits to the other grade -separated options; however, the incremental environmental effects, relative impacts and relative costs are the lowest, of the grade -separated options. As part of the technical analysis a preliminary estimate of the initial capital costs of the preferred grade -separated option, Option 3, concurrently with the road improvements is approximately $4.4M of which, $3.2M is for the crossings of Leslie Street and $1.2M is for the crossing of St. John's Sideroad. This represents the initial capital costs of constructing the structures and does not include the ancillary work of building the trail system, lighting and security measures, special requirements, if any, to satisfy Accessibilityfor Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) requirements, etc. Further, in order to fully understand the total lifecycle costs of these grade -separated pedestrian crossings, a fulsome review of the long-term operation and maintenance costs should be undertaken. It must be noted that the Region has not included the extremely high capital costs of such crossings in the 10-Year Roads Construction Program. In light of the greater environmental impacts, these options are not considered to form part of the technically - preferred solution to be advanced through the Region Class EA submission. Furthermore, it is suggested that Regional funding options not be considered further in the absence of a comprehensive policy review. Clause No. 5 Report No. 2 Transportation Services Committee Overall Option 5, is the preferred alternative for accommodating pedestrian movements and trail use in the vicinity of Leslie Street and St John's Road because it achieves the same benefit for pedestrians and cyclists and is significantly less expensive When considering the overall balance of impacts and benefits, Option 5 is the preferred alternative. There are Regional benefits of providing at -grade pedestrian crossings separate from the signalized intersections, as noted above. On a balance of impacts, the at -grade crossings are significantly less impact than any of the grade -separated crossings and could be accommodated within the Region's 10-Year Roads Construction Program in the future. Further, Option 5 does have significant additional benefits over the grade -separated options, some of which include: • Limited incremental impacts from a natural environment perspective. • Removes the safety and security concerns with directing trail users to a tunnel structure. • Provides better connectivity between the proposed on -road bike lanes on Leslie Street and St. John's Sideroad and the perpendicular trail system. • Nominal incremental capital costs and operation and maintenance costs. • Potential for York Region to fund both the capital construction and operation and maintenance costs of at -grade pedestrian crossings. • Nominal incremental cost of constructing the at -grade crossings as a retrofit following the road improvements. Regional staff are now moving forward to submit the Class EA for the Leslie Street improvements with the at -grade crossings forming part of the technically -preferred solution and completing the St. John's Sideroad detailed design improvements including as at -grade crossing As part of the technically -preferred solution for Leslie Street, at -grade pedestrian crossings will be included in the final Environmental Study Report (ESR). The ESR will document the need and justification for the pedestrian crossings and will include an analysis of the options considered and the final recommendation. As part of the St. John's Sideroad detailed design project, Regional staff will incorporate at -grade pedestrian crossing to accommodate future pedestrian movements in the area. Clause No. 5 9 Report No. 2 Transportation Services Committee 5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The capital construction cost of four at -grade pedestrian crossings has been estimated to be approximately $300K The estimated initial capital costs of constructing four at -grade pedestrian crossings in the vicinity of Leslie Street and St. John's Sideroad is approximately $300K; the timing of the expenditure is unknown because it is dependant on the construction of the trail system planned by the Town of Aurora. 6. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT The Town of Aurora will benefit from having a connected trail system between the residential land uses west of Leslie Street with the employment land uses east of Leslie Street. Providing safe and efficient means for pedestrians and trail users to cross the Regional Roadways while using the trails will provide benefit not only to the Town of Aurora but also York Region. 7. CONCLUSION Based on their safe and secure accommodation of pedestrians and cyclists and their low cost, at grade crossings are the preferred solution for trail -user crossings of the Regional roadways and will be documented in the Environmental Study Report for York Region's Class EA for Leslie Street from Wellington Street to Mulock Drive. For more information on this report, please contact Mr. Paul Jankowski, General Manager, Roads at Ext. 5901. (The 2 attachments referred to in this clause are attached to this report.) COUNCIL ATTACHMENT 1 COUNCIL ATTACHMENT 2 Aui;t,oRA yow're iw good, Cmarpassy MEMORANDUM Customer and Legislative Services Date: September 13, 2011 To: Mayor and Members of Council From: John D. Leach, Director of Customer and Legislative Services/Town Clerk Re: By-law to Appoint a Deputy Clerk RECOMMENDATION THAT Council enact a by-law to appoint Cindy Maher as a Deputy Clerk for the Town of Aurora. BACKGROUND Council enacted a by-law on September 9, 2008 to appoint two Deputy Clerks. The two positions shared administrative responsibilities for the Department and both were empowered to commission documents for which there is considerable demand. One of those positions became vacant a number of months ago. A recruitment process was conducted and Ms Cindy Maher is the successful candidate. It is being recommended that a by-law be enacted to appoint Ms Maher as a Deputy Clerk. J Leach D ect of Customer and Legislative Services/Town Clerk E t. 4771 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF A URORA By-law Number 5364-11 BEING A BY-LAW to appoint a Deputyy ,Clerk and to delegate certglh authority to the Deputy Cler %Manager of Administration on behalf of the Town. WHEREAS subsection 228(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended, states that a municipality may appoint deputy clerks who have all the powers and duties of the clerk under this and any other Act; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Aurora (the"Town") deems it necessary add expedient to appoint a Deputy Clerk; AND WHEREAS subsection 49(1) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56, as amended, ("MFIPPA"), states thata head may in wdting.delegatez.power or duty granted or vested in the head to an officer or officers of the institution or another institution subject to such limitations, restrictions, conditions -and requirements as the head may set out in the delegation; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Town deems it necessary and expedient to delegate the power to process requests for information and respond to inquiries under MFIPPA NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT Cindy Maher be and is hereby appointed as a Deputy Clerk for the Town. 2. THAT the duties and responsibilities of the Deputy Clerk/Manager of Administration -shall be -as -set out in Schedule "A" attached hereto. 3. THAT paragraph 3 of By-law Number 5160-09 is hereby deleted. 4. THAT this By-law shall come into full force and effect on the date of final passage hereof. READ A FIRST AND SECOND TIME THIS 13' DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011. READ A THIRD TIME AND FINALLY PASSED THIS 13r" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011. GEOFFREY DAWE, MAYOR JOHN D. LEACH, TOWN CLERK Appvved" toFo m yLya[.Savru., ��t. t3 ull By -Law Number 5364-11 Page 2 of 2 SCHEDULE"A" SUBJECT to the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O.2001, c. 25, as amended, and any other statutes, the duties and responsibilities of the Deputy Clerk/Manager of Administration shall be: 1. To assist the Clerk and carry out all of his or her statutory powers and duties including: • Acting as a Commissioner of Oaths; • Acting as a Deputy:Division Registrar; • .Acting as a Deputy Issuer of Marriage Licences; Acting as a Deputy Lottery Licensing Officer; and • Processing requests for information and responding to inquiries underthe Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c .M.56, as amended. 2. To be the Assistant Returning Officer for the purposes of municipal elections; 3. To execute, under seal, Corporate documents in the absence of the Clerk; 4. To be a member of the Municipal Emergency Control Group (MECG) as prescribed in the Town of Aurora Emergency Response Plan, in the absence of. the Clerk; and 5. To perform the duties as prescribed in the job description of his or her position, as may be amended from time to time.