Agenda - General Committee - 20051206GENERAL COMMITTEE
AGENDA
NO, 05-21
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2005
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CNAMBERS
AURORA TOWN HALL
PUBLIC RELEASE
02/12/05
TOWN OF AURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING
AGENDA
NO. 05-27
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
7:00 p.m.
Councillor Hogg in the Chair.
I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
II APPROVAL OFAGENDA
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) Mr. Allister Byrne and Ms. Regina Baezner, Grant Thornton
Town Auditors
Re: 2004 Audited Statements
(b) Ms Nathalie Karvonen, Executive Director of the (pg. D-1)
Toronto Wildlife Centre
Re: Toronto Wildlife Centre - Request for Support for
Services Provided in Aurora and York Region
(c) Ms Liz White, Director of Animal Alliance of Canada (pg. D-2)
Re: Item 3 - CS05-035 - Provision of Future Animal
Control Services
General Committee Meeting No. 05-27
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
Page 2 of 8
(d) Mr. Wayne Bando, Resident (pg. D-3)
Re: Repairs to driveways at 38 and 42 Collins Crescent
VI CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
Vll OTHER BUSINESS, COUNCILLORS
Vlll IN -CAMERA
Personnel and Security of Property/Corporation
RECOMMENDED:
THAT this Committee proceed In -Camera to address personnel and
Security of Property/Corporation matters.
IX ADJOURNMENT
General Committee Meeting No. 05-27 Page 3 of 8
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Correspondence from York Region Food Network (pg. 1)
Re: Hunger in York Region Neighbourhoods
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Committee provide direction on this matter.
2. TR05-035 — Annual Cancellation, Reduction or Refund (pg. 6)
of Property Taxes under Sections 357 and
358 of the Municipal Act
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the property taxes in the amount of $14,974.37 per Section 357 of
the Municipal Act, as amended, be adjusted; the Town of Aurora's portion
is $3,866.74; and
THAT the associated penalty/interest be cancelled in proportion to the tax
adjustment; and
THAT the Director of Financial Services/Treasurer be directed to adjust
the Collector's Roll as described in Report TR05-035.
3. CS05-036— Provision of Future Animal Control Services (pg. 11)
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the report Provision of Future Animal Control Services CS05-036 be
received; and
THAT the Town of Aurora enter into service agreements with the Town
of Georgina for the provision of animal shelter services at a cost of
$60,490 and with Wayne Jones Animal Control Services for the provision
of animal control enforcement at a cost of $93,000, for a total contract of
$153,490; and
THAT staff bring back a report recommending amendments to the Animal
Control By-law for an adjustment in the licensing fees for cats and dogs;
and
THAT staff continue to review options with municipalities in York Region or
Kennel Inn on a new animal shelter to service the Town of Aurora.
General Committee Meeting No. 05-27 Page 4 of 8
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
4. Correspondence from the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal (pg. 61)
Re: Planning for Growth and Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater
Golden Horseshoe - Better Choices, Brighter Future
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Committee provide direction on this matter.
5. PL05-108 — Application for Site Plan Approval (pg. 73)
Luc Dionne
136 Centre Street
Lot 1 and Part of Lot 2, Plan 107
File D11-15-05
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PL05-108 be received as information; and
THAT, subject to the resolution of all outstanding issues and the
submission of all fees and securities, Council authorize the Director of
Planning and Development Services to execute a Site Plan Agreement
between Luc Dionne and the Town of Aurora to permit the construction of
a 266.2m2 (2863 ft2) addition to the existing building.
6. PL05-111 — Zoning By-law Amendment Application (pg. 84)
Hollandview Professional Building Corporation
Part of Lot 23, 24 & 25, Part of Block 42 and Part of
Earl Stewart Drive, Plan 65M-2873, Part of Block 1,
Plan 65M-3193
372 Hollandview Trail
File D14-18-05
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council receive as information the following overview of Zoning B-
law Amendment Application D14-18-05, scheduled for the January 25 h
2006 Public Planning Meeting.
General Committee Meeting No. 05-27
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
Page 5 of 8
7. PL05-113 — Applications to Amend the Zoning By-law (pg. 89)
and Draft Plan of Subdivision
Brookvalley Developments (Aurora)
14425 Bayview Avenue, Aurora
Part of Lot 15, Concession 2, E.Y.S
Files D14-06-05 & D12-05-02A
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council receive as information the following overview of the
proposed Application to Amend the Zoning By-law and Draft Plan of
Subdivision Application (Files D14-06-05 and D12-05-02A), and schedule
these applications for the Public Planning Meeting of January 25'h, 2006.
8. PL05-114 — Site Plan Application (pg. 95)
Preserve Homes Corporation
Block 32, 65M-3850 (95-101 Zokol Drive)
File D11-16-05
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report PL05-114 be received as information; and
THAT, subject to the resolution of all outstanding issues and the
submission of all fees and securities, Council authorize the Director of
Planning and Development Services to enter into a site plan agreement
between Preserve Homes Corporation and the Town of Aurora respecting
the construction of four (4) row house units on the subject lands.
9. PL05-115 — Proposed Amendments to Adena Meadows Limited (pg. 105)
Vacant Land Condominium
Part of Lots 18,19 and 20, Concession 2 EYS
File D07-02-1A and
MI Developments Inc. Pt of Lot 20 Concession 2EYS
File D07-03-03A
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an amendment to the
Vacant Land Condominium Agreement for Adena Meadows Limited, File
D07-02-1A that will have the effect of reducing the number of units in the
development from 43 to 36; and
THAT seven units of servicing allocation be removed from File D07-02-1A;
and
General Committee Meeting No. 05-27
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
Page 6 of 8
10.
11
12.
THAT ten units of servicing allocation be granted to D07-03-03A (127309
and 690346 Ontario Inc.); and
THAT the Ontario Municipal Board be advised that the Town of Aurora
has no objection to the proposed amendment to vacant land condominium
D07-03-03A to create two units in place of Block 1 subject to the proposed
lots being brought into conformity with the zoning by-law.
LS05-065 — Recommendation for Concession and Snack Food
Vending at the New Aurora Recreation Complex
RECOMMENDED:
(pg. 116)
THAT Council approve the recommendation to proceed with Mr. Vending
for concession and snack food vending service at the new Aurora
Recreation Complex; and
THAT staff be directed to prepare an Agreement for Council approval.
PW05-033 — Funding for 10-Year Capital Plan
RECOMMENDED:
(pg.129)
THAT report PW05-033 dealing with funding for the reconstruction of the
Town's roads be received; and
THAT Council adopt the funding model recommended in report PW05-033
for funding of the 10-Year Capital Road Reconstruction Program to retain
the Town's current Pavement Condition Index over the period 2006 —
2015; and
THAT staff be directed to prepare and submit the 10-Year Capital Road
Reconstruction Program (2006 — 2015) based on the approved funding
model.
PW05-034 - Staffing Considerations — 2006 Pubic Works Budget
RECOMMENDED:
(pg. 135)
THAT report PW05-034 dealing with Public Works staffing considerations
for the 2006 Operations Budget be received for information.
General Committee Meeting No. 05-27 Page 7 of 8
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
13. PW05-035 - Waste Management 2006 Budget — Consideration (pg. 138)
of Bi-Weekly Waste Collection
RECOMMENDED:
THAT if Council wishes to implement the 3-Stream waste collection
system in 2006, staff be requested to:
1.1 Report further on this matter to the January 24, 2006
General Committee meeting, specifically with respect to the
waste collection schedule and parameter aspects for
Council's consideration; and
1.2 Retain the existing waste and recycling collection 2006
budgets as submitted to the Special General Committee
meeting of November 28, 2005.
2. THAT if Council wishes to co-ordinate implementation of the 3-
stream waste collection system with the other "northern" York
Region municipalities, staff be requested to:
2.1 Report further on the matter of an amalgamated tender call
for the collection of green bin, recyclable and landfill
materials with the northern municipalities of York Region
specifically with respect to the timing for the tender call and
implementation of the 3-stream collection system; and
2.2 Remove $200,000 from the waste collection budget as
presented to the Special General Committee meeting of
November 28, 2005; and
2.3 Set aside $5,000 from the funds noted in Recommendation
No. 2.2 as Aurora's share to engage a consultant to prepare
the necessary tender documents in co-operation with the
other northern municipalities of York Region; and
2.4 Report further on the waste collection schedule and
parameter aspects for Council's consideration.
3. THAT report PW05-035 be referred to the December 13, 2005
Council meeting for public input and the December 20, 2005
Council meeting for decision by Council.
General Committee Meeting No. 05-27 Page 8 of 8
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
14. PL05-110 — Ontario Municipal Board Hearing (pg. 142)
321 Ridge Road
Jim Irvine (ACI)
Committee of Adjustment File D13-66-05
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council determines its position pertaining to the appeal of minor
variance application D13-66-05 (Irvine — ACI) and based on this position,
either:
1. take no position, OR
2. direct staff to attend the hearing in support of the Committee of
Adjustment decision with either the Town solicitor or an external
solicitor, OR
3. oppose the decision in which case outside planning staff and either
the Town solicitor or external solicitor would need to be retained.
15. CS05-038— Council Pending List - Status Report (pg. 163)
RECOMMENDED:
THAT report CS05-038 be received for information purposes
16. Correspondence from the Town of Newmarket (pg. 185)
Re: Town of Newmarket Council Challenge
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Committee provide direction on this matter
17. TR05-036 — Audited Statements (pg. 186)
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the financial statement for the year 2004 be received and be
published in accordance with Section 295 of the Ontario Municipal Act;
and
THAT Council approve a contribution of $869,800. representing the 2004
general (operating) fund surplus to the Municipal Capital Reserve.
GENERAL COMMITTEE - DECEMBER 6, 2005
Delegation (b)
i'1i
Centi
GO (:.,'ad fL.III Hd., (Jt)it 4
r T(W)l )to, O V N43Y. Y-1
631-0662
x
November 18, 2005
Bob Panizza
Town Clerk/Director of Corporate Services
Town of Aurora
Office of the Town Clerk
1 Municipal Drive
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 6J1
Dear Mr. Panizza,
I am writing you to request that Toronto Wildlife Centre be placed on the agenda for the General
Committee meeting, being held on December the 6 h, 2005.
Toronto Wildlife Centre has been serving The Town of Aurora residents since 1993 by providing a
variety of wildlife related services 365 days / year. At the General Committee meeting, I would like
to inform the members of the committee of our work in your town and ask that they consider either:
1. A fee for service arrangement with Toronto Wildlife Centre to provide Wildlife Services to
the Town of Aurora.
2. A grant for providing Wildlife Services to The Town of Aurora.
We are requesting 10 minutes for our presentation, and are hoping that a portion of that presentation
could be done in PowerPoint. I will contact you closer to the date to confirm that there are the
technical requirements for such a presentation.
Thank you for your assistance. In a about a week, I will forward some written information to you to
be distributed to the members of the committee before the meeting.
Sincerely,
Nathalie Karvonen
Executive Director
416,631.9942
director@toroiitowildlifecentre.com
D-1
11/08/05 TUE 16:01 FAA
GENERAL COMMITTEE — DECEMBER 6, 2005
Anjimal Alliaxwe of Canada
221 f r(:rtdAriew Avenu(c Stan( IO1
'I"(�rnnhr�, (.?r.lt,aria h14nA'2,.(:;3
TO: Mr. Bob Paniz a. C'lerli
The Town of Aurora
1 Municipal Drivc
Aurora, Ontario L4(T bJ I
(P) 905-727-1.375
(9) 905-726-4732
FROM: Liz White, Director
Animal Alliance of (,anada
harry MacKay, Canadian Representative
Animal :Protection Institute
Delegation (c)
Subject: Deputation request: RPP-I I -OS and accompanying report Mtn the
delivery of animal control services ro tho Town of AUrOra.
Date: November 9, 2005
Dear Mr Pauizza,
"P11ank you IS)r rcturlting my phone call with reoa.rds to the scf,eduling of the.
animal control services report.
On behalf of our me.nabers in Auroral would lit<e to request: the: opportunity to
appcar befo rc the approllriat'e coinmi"e to comment on Aurora's animal, control
Programme,
Thank you l'br your assistance in this matter,
Since.t•
Liz While, Director
D-2
GENERAL COMMITTEE — DECEMBER 6, 2005 Delegation(d)
fr :. ..
e HFILMSIX11111111
Hand Delivered
December 1, 2005
Director of Corporate Services 'BSDEG i
Town of Aurora
Aurora, ON L4G 01
Re: Request for Deputation Status
Dear Sir:
I am requesting Deputation Status at the December 6, 2005 Committee Meeting to
discuss the failure of the Public Works Department to complete the driveways at 38 and
42 Collins Crescent as per the specifications contained in the Town tender documents and
the lack of rectification of the topsoil and/or sodding deficiencies.
The Town of Aurora prepared a revised design for the reconstruction of Collins Crescent
which included revisions to the driveways at 38 and 40 Collins Crescent. The Public
Works Department neglected to contact the owners at 38 Collins Crescent regarding the
proposed re -design of the driveway. I contacted the Public Works Department requesting
information on what was proposed for the subject driveway. We then received a written
undertaking from the Director of Public Works in the spring of 2003 confirming that the
Town would complete the proposed extension to the driveway. At the recommendation
of the Director, we the homeowners ordered $1080.00 of paving stones to accommodate
the Town's revised design. The paving stones were delivered in July 2003, however the
curb out did not line up with the driveway. The driveway at 42 Collins failed after the
asphalt paving in the summer of 2003. The topsoil delivered in the fall of 2003 was non
spec material and has not sustained proper growth during the summers of 2004 and 2005.
To -date the project bus not been finished by the Town due to errors on the part of the
Public Works Department. Due to the request by the Town to contribute $1080.00 we
have a vested interest in the final product, whereas the owners at 42 Collins have had
numerous verbal commitments with no closure. When can we expect the work
completed to the specifications prepared by the Town? I will appear at the above
mentioned Committee Meeting to get a reply from Council.
Thanking you in advance.
Yours truly,
Wayne Bando
D-3
GENERAL COMMITTEE - DECEMBER 6, 2
York Repior
November 15, 2005
Mr. Al Downey
Director, Leisure Services
Town of Aurora
100 John West Way, P.O. Box 1000
Aurora, ON L4G 6J1
Dear Mr. Downey:
[AGEN:DAITEM#
Re: Hunger in York Region's neighborhoods
During the past year the eight central food banks of York Region fed more than 44,000 people, including
19,000 children.
The population equivalent of the Town of Aurora!
And a survey of our neighbors who access emergency programs in the GTA revealed that over 60% of
adult food bank clients are employed and have a high school diploma.
York Region Food Network, working with York Region Health Services, tracks the five largest
community food banks on a monthly and annual basis, and the attached report reflects highlights from
food banks in Aurora, Georgina, Markham, Newmarket, and Richmond Hill. Food banks also operate in
Whitchurch-Stouffville, King Township, and Vaughan. Overall, the total number of people fed by food
banks increased 25% between 2001 and 2004 and the number of total visits increased 31%.
Food banks are volunteer driven and operate with little or no government support. Sadly, food banks no
longer provide just food to low-income families. They are also being required to provide basic necessities
such as toiletries, winter wear, and back to school supplies.
From this report we can conclude that emergency food banks are providing an even larger role in our
community. I ask that you review and bring this startling report to Council as soon as possible. It is
imperative that we find the means to eliminate food insecurity, and deal with hunger issues that are
affecting York Region residents on a daily basis.
Sincerely,
Terry O'Brien
Chair, York Region Food Network
Encl.
194 Eagle Street Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 1J6
Phone: 905-967-0428 toll free: 1-866-454 YRFN (9736) fax: 905-967-0097
website: www.yrfn,ca- 1 E-mail: yrfn@bellnet.ca
York Region
Food
Our vision is to
residents `of'Yc
DECEMBER 6, 2005
Hunger in York Region:
A Survey of People Accessing
Emergency Food Programs in the GTA
November 2005
York Region food banks are playing an increasingly important role feeding the
community. From 2001 to 2004, food bank use increased 25%. In 2004 the food
banks in Aurora, Georgina, Markham, Newmarket, and Richmond Hill fed
approximately 44,000 people. Almost half of those people were children, many
of whom were from single parent families.
Number of Food Bank Clients by Age,
York Region 2001-2004
25,000
m 2001 ■ 2002
20,000 — -----I-
5,000 ------
®2003 ■200415,000-------------------------10,000--------------------- ------ — -- —------
0
0-2 3-12 13-18 19-65 66+
Age (Years)
Food security is the assurance that all people, at all times, must be able to acquire
nutritional food in a way that upholds basic human dignity. York Region Food
Network's (YRFN) mission is to increase access to affordable, nutritious food
for all people in York Region. The Food Network raises awareness and promotes
change on food security issues and supports community -based food security
programs and services.
To learn more about York Region food bank clients, YRFN helped administer the
Survey of People Accessing Emergency Food Programs in the GTA. This survey is
coordinated annually by the Daily Bread Food Bank'. Results of this survey
provided here shed greater light into who uses York Region's food banks and the
challenges they face. Many clients are an average York Region resident with a
greater than average number of unfortunate circumstances.
...the voke of hunger in York Region
Survey results suggest that food bank clients are quite
well educated. About 3 out of every 4 adult food bank
clients have a high school diploma and 1 of 4 have a
university degree or college diploma. Approximately
30% of Region residents have similar post -secondary
education'. As well, about 9 of every 10 adult food
bank clients were born in Canada or have been here
10 years or more.
Education of Food Bank Adult Survey Respondents
® Grade School or Some
High School
�� ®Gmduated High:Schcol
o Trade Certification or
Some College/University
® Graduated
College/University or
Higher
Over 60% of adult food bank clients are employed or
live with an employed household member (39% full-
time). The income from this employment however:Js
too little to meet their needs. The average monthly
income ranges from about $725 per month for a single
person to $2100 per month for an extended family
with children. This annual income of $8,700 to
$25,200 is far below the average annual York Region
household income in 2001 of $91,8781. For over 60%
of clients, the majority of this income (50% or more)
pays for shelter. It is not surprising that income is a
key determinant of food insecurity and hunger`.
Shelter for food bank clients primarily consists of
rental accommodation or shared housing. Nine out of
10 respondents reported renting a room, apartment or
house, or sharing a house or apartment with others.
Over 90% of these people reported their landlord's
conduct to be average to very good and none reported
ever being evicted.
Research suggests that persons living in food insecure
households have poorer diets than those individuals
who are food secure and that this may result in a
higher incidence of certain types of chronic disease
and poorer functional health'-'. Many adults (41%)
reported being hungry at least one day a week
because they did not have enough food and most
(83%) reported that there were foods they should, but
didn't, eat because of the cost - fruits and vegetables,
meat/fish/poultry and mills and milk products being at
the top of the list.
Percentage of respondents not eating enough
specific food types due to cost.
Milk & Milk
Products
Meat/Fish/Poultry
Fresh Fruits and
Vegetables
Breads & Cereals
Beans/Lentils
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Mothers, in particular, have been shown to sacrifice
their own food in order that their children won't go
hungry'. Survey results supported this claim, with
parents going hungry more often than their children.
However, about one quarter of these kids still went
' Daily Bread Food Bank. 2005. Who's Hungry: 2005 Profile of Hunger Report: A Measure of Health, 2001
in the GTA. 'Dietitians of Canada. 2005. Individual and Household Food Insecurity
' Statistics Canada 2001 Census in Canada: Position of Dietitians of Canada.
'Statistics Canada. 2002. Population counts, land area, population 'Beaudry,M., Hamelin, A-M., and H. Delisle. 2004. Public Nutrition: An
density and population rank, for Canada, Provinces and Territories, aru13 _ Emerging Paradigm. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 95(5).
Census Divisions, 2001 Census as cited in York Region Health Status
huGME!q�kEstl°OfuflV 1,TI*Lando'MbEIMBEW 6,
missing required school items such as books, supplies
and clothing.
Survey findings echo research that indicates a linkage
between food security and health status. Only about
one quarter of adult food bank clients reported their
health to be excellent or very good. In comparison,
almost 60% adult York Region residents give their
health the same rating'. Many food bank clients (62%)
also reported a disability that prevented them from
securing employment. Fortunately, more than half of
the respondents reported having dental insurance
(53%) and prescription drug insurance (60%).
Much of the drug coverage was through the Ontario
government's drug benefit program.
Thank -you to the six food banks in the Region that
participated in the 2005 Survey of People Accessing
Emergency Food Programs in the GTA, as well as to
the many volunteer interviewers who administered the
surveys. Most especially, thank -you to the food bank
clients who participated in the survey process.
' Tarasuk, V. March 2003. Low income welfare and nutritional
vulnerability. Canadian Medical Association Journal., 168(6).
1 Statistics Canada 2003 Canadian Community Health Survey
I
Each year, York Region Food Network participates in the survey of People Accessing Emergency
Food Programs in the GTA. This survey is conducted annually by the Daily Bread Food Bank and
associated agencies. York Region Food Network assists by collecting York Region specific data in
order to provide a snapshot of the situations and circumstances faced by food bank clients in the
region. What follows is a summary of what was learned about York Region food bank clients.
• Education: the majority of food bank clients have graduated high school and a quarter
has a college/university degree — just like you and me.
• Employment: 2 of every 3 clients are from employed households — just like
you and me.
What is different?
• Housing: Only 8% own their own home while 9 out of 10 live in rental
housing. About two thirds of food bank clients are paying 50% or more of their
income towards shelter.
• Hunger: 41% of respondents reported being hungry as they didn't have enough food,
at least one day a week.
• Income: The average annual income of respondents ranged from $8700 per year for a
single person to $17,000 per year for a family. In comparison, the average annual
York Region household income in 2001 was $91,800.
The York Region food bank client could be you.
Hunger in York Region is a reality.
How can you help?
Support your local food bank - donate, volunteer, or advocate!
GENERAL COMMITTEE - DECEMBER 6, 2005
Ut6 TOWN OF AURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT
LNGENDA i
No. TROS-035
SUBJECT: Annual Cancellation, Reduction or Refund of property taxes under
Sections 357 and 358 of the Municipal Act
FROM: L. John Gutteridge, Director of Finance/Treasurer
DATE: December 6, 2005
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT the Property Taxes in the amount of $14,974.37 per Section 357 of the
Municipal Act, be adjusted; the Town of Aurora's portion is $3,866.74;
THAT the associated penalty/interest be cancelled in proportion to the tax
adjustment,
THAT the Director of Finance/Treasurerbe directed to adjust the Collector's Roll as
described in Report TR05-035..
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 2004 and 2005as
specified on the attached Schedule A.
Sections 357 and 358 of the MunicipalAct 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;
d) during the year or during the preceding year after the return of the assessment roll,
GENERAL COMMITTEE — DECEMBER 6, 2005
DECEMBER 6, 2005 - 2 - Report No. TR05-035
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 13 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 attached 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
N/A
FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The amount of property taxes adjusted for each of the Region of York and Boards of
Education will be reflected on the 2005 payment submissions to these bodies. The Town
of Aurora's portion of the levy for the two year 2004 and 2005 is $3.866.74.
The 2005 budget for tax write-offs is $150,000, To date, (including the adjustments
contained in this report) we have processed Assessment Review Board (ARB) Decisions,
—7—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — DECEMBER 6, 2005
DECEMBER 6, 2005
-3-
No. TR05-035
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) Reconsideration's, Bill79 and Bill 140
Capping and Clawback Adjustments; Municipal Act Sections 357 and 358 Adjustments
totalling $372,122.37. The Town of Aurora's share is $99,224.09 (See Schedule B
attached hereto).
The Town of Aurora maintains an Allowance for Tax Write Offs and Adjustments (GL
Code 1-1-00100-0100). The funds available in this allowance to offset unbudgeted Tax
Write Off's and Adjustments are $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 2003 through 2005 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 $14,974.37.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
N/A
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Attachments
Schedule A — Tax Adjustments under Sections 357 and 358 of the Municipal Act
Schedule B - Summary of all 2005 Property Tax Adjustments to date
Pre -Submission Review
Management Team Meeting - Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Prepared by. Paul Dillman, Ext. 4112
L. John utteridge
Director of Finance/Treasurer
ME
GENERAL COMMITTEE - DECEMBER 6, 2005
W m W W
m�-�ooN ooP
r
r
Q
OO r r O N
r P O o N
W P P r r (V
W N m N O r V N
r O N W OI M
r
GI
r
N
O
V h N M N
C] Cl
N A P n
<
P
r
r
wwwww
wwwwwwwwww
ifl
w
Z
O 2
Fo
M W. N W
WOmWn
N W N W ID N V1 m
tS, rn cr rr�N01m
W
W
o0
W
U F
� Q
v ai
� m
Nr�
ooi �droro W oro
o n W ry n� N� m
ui
vi
� U
uoOi
va0i
N v
vi
vi
XQw
wwwww
wwwwwwwwww
w
w
-'q
rmmry nor
W
m
o
10
Ntll
�
O
a
y
M O')oJ W d'
m{m2O M NO n Iqq N
h
n
3
O N O
ryO
N OW W
Or o W d
W
W
N P
w w w w w
w w w w w W w W w w
w
w
mmm9
gq^?99229��q
U
4
T��c�cm
ZLL
U
O W
Z
FC
F
U
coo.
o0o0
000000000
0000a0000
U
�a
❑oy❑W
Q W
w U
[WONMN
yWyW{W{��000WOW
(h NtO tN'lm ^^Ol V
J �
V
_ � b
0�LL'
F'I-HI-
n:U 6'CL
I-i-FF-I-LL FI-F
CL lL KfY d'-CC R'fL
UCC
J
K W
U
W
q=
n
J
J J
O
LL
O
O O
0 moo
S
x
CL fL
LL
w
o
WWWr
Wr �
wap
=0j,y
7LL JLL
h o ld
a
K K O
O O
�ZU
au~)t~AZ
NZNZ
a�W
c
N
LL
z zz
ZDZD W
r Z ¢�¢
C
NNf~i1K
K
W �wwOZ
F-
a
o�'
www0
wOyywO W on
o
N0 CL
O
fq CLh� Zfn
W
N
W
�
W
p OOU
000U w0
W2'a-L'Q W W
S `C�Q
1-II W W LL
U J-2
W d W LL W J W
}
0002
O`C DGIL 6111 LLLO
a
Z
�,
p
Z
O
m
�'
000
0000
F
o00000000o
0000vo0000W
i
h
�dddo
�a5
`�
�"'
ddocS Oddouw
m
W
OOOON
N r O r
W
OOor 00000
O r N O O Y Q T W
Nr
m
2
NrOOIY
=
~
-G�G W Vl
NON W
l�
Q
J
J
O
Q:
p
LL
I�N�4O
o`_•
O
tbQr CiO��fh fb
O�-�� 0000�"�
0
=
F
W
y
br�dd,r�
W
ddddgddddz
W
w
O 000
"
n
.0000080
pccc0 qo ooqq gq
4
z
N, 6 V
H
N
❑
m m O i O i
H
m m m m m m
O
O
'W
F
W
N
F
W
m
W
W
M
M_
C
CN
Z
H
U
F
U
Q
a
0
QMM
a
a
W 01
N Yl
O�NN
a
J
Q
NMmNfOr W W
O O O O O O O O
W
f/I
Q
x
a
O
�,
G.
000000000
00000OOOo
r
U
0000
o0oQ
V
poo'Ao0o
mo
jo0
OooOoo
Fa-
NN NNO
�
NNNNNNNNNF'
Or
OF
�
0
-9-
GENERAL COMMITTEE - DECEMBER 6, 2005
TOWN OF AURORA
SUMMARY 2005 TAX WRITE
OFFS AND ADJUSTMENTS
November 30, 2005
SCHEDULES
DESCRIPTION
YEAR
TOWN
REGION
EDUCATION
TOTAL
MUNICIPAL ACT, SECTION 357 (PREV. 442)
2003
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
Cancellation, reduction, refund of taxes
2004
$ 374A6
$ 540.41
$ 604.79
$ 1,525.66
2005
$ 3492.28
$ 4975.54
$ 4,980.89
$ 13,448.71
$ 3,866.74
$ 5,521.96
$ 5,585.68
$ 14,974.37
MUNICIPAL ACT, SECTION 358(PREV. 443)
2001
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
Overchanges
2002
$ -
$ -
$
$
2003
$
$
$
$
E
$
$
MUNICIPAL ACT, SECTION 359
Increase In taxes
2003
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
2004
$
$
$
$
MUNICIPAL ACT, SECTION 361
Rebates for Charities
2003
$ -
$ -
$
$ -
2004
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
2005
$10 074.41
$ 12 921.73
$ 7,485.84
$ 30,481.98
$10,074.41
$ 12,921.73
$ 7485.84
$ 30481.98
MUNICIPAL ACT, SECTION 362
2002
$ -
It -
$ -
$ -
Vacancy Rebates
2003
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
2004
$ 6,227.07
$ 7,524.40
$ 21,883.20
$ 34,735.27
2005
$
$
$
$
$ 5 227.fi7
$ 7,624.40
$ 21 883.20
$ 34 735.27
ASSESSMENT REVIEW BOARD
1998
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
2000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
2001
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
2002
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
2003
$ 1,072.31
$ 1,552.51
$ 4,701.49
$ 7,326.31
2004
$22,098.45
$ 32,245.49
$ 43,781.73
$ 98,125.67
2005
$16,097.15
$ 22,908.08
$ 13,271.16
111 52,276.39
Pending
$
$
5
$
$39,267.91
$ 56,706.08
$ 61764.38
$157728.37
BILL 14- NEW CONSTRUCTION
2000
$
$ -
$ -
2001
$ -
$ -
$ -
3 -
2002
i -
$ -
$ -
.$ -
2003
$
$
$
BILL 79 - POST BILLING ADJUSTMENT TO CAPPED CLASSES
1998
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
1989
$ -
$ -
$ -
$
2000
$
$
$
$
BILL 140 - NEW CONSTRUCTION/NEW TO CLASS
2001
$ . 10.73
$ 16.69
$ 56.06
$ 83.48
2002
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
2003
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
2004
$ 900.86
$ 13314.55
$ 3,774.05
$ 5989.46
$ 911.59
$ 1,331.24
$ 3,830.11
$ 6,072.94
BILL140-POST BILLING ADJUSTMENT TO CAPPED CLASSES
2001
$ 30.31
$ (30.32)
$ (6,,096.71)
$ (5,096.72)
2002
$ -
$ -
$ (3,072,63)
$ (3,072.53)
^
2003
$ 4,063.89
$ 5,883.72
11 17,013.47
$ 26,961.08
2004
$ 318.62
$ 465.22
$ 1335,63
$ 2,119.67
$ 3,775.38
$ 5,388.18
$ 6,508.60
$ 15,672.16
MPAC • MINUTES OF SETTLEMENT (RECONSIDERATIONS)
1998
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
1999
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
2000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
2001
$ -
$
$ -
$ -
2002
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
2003
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
2004
$ 7,810.53
111 11,396.93
$ 4,161.04
$ 23,368.50
2006
$28.289.92
$ 40,259.76
$ 20,539.06
$ 89,088.74
$36,100.45
$ 51,656.69
$ 24,700.10
$112467,24
SEV-SEVERANCE
2002
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
2003
$ -
$ -
$ -
$ -
2004
$ (0.04)
s 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.00
2005
$ 0.02
$ 0.02
$ 0.04
$ 0.04
$ 0.06
$ 0.04
$ 0.06
$ 0.04
TOTALS
$99224.09
$141;150.31
$131,747.97
1372,122.37
-10-
GENERAL COMMITTEE - DECEMBER 6, 2005
AGENDA ITEM # 3
TOWN OF AURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. CS05-036
SUBJECT: Provision of Future Animal Control Services
FROM: Bob Panizza, Director Corporate Services
DATE: December 6, 2005
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT the report Provision of Future Animal Control Services CS05-036 be received;
and
THAT the Town ofAurora enter into service agreements with the Town of Georgina
for the provision of animal shelter services at a cost of $60,490 and with Wayne
Jones Animal Control Services for the provision of animal control enforcement at a
cost of $93,000, for a total contract of $153,490; and
THAT staff bring back a report recommending amendments to the Animal Control
By-law for an adjustment in the licensing fees for cats and dogs; and
THAT staff continue to review options with municipalities in York Region or Kennel
Inn on a new animal shelter to service the Town of Aurora.
BACKGROUND
Over the past two years a Joint Municipal Ad -Hoc Committee composed predominantly of
By-law Enforcement staff representatives of the municipalities of Aurora, King, Markham,
Richmond Hill, and Vaughan have been examining animal control services that are
provided by Kennel Inn within the combined group of municipalities. During this time the
Committee also examined the operations of several animal control operations both within
the GTA and other jurisdictions.
This review was undertaken for a number of reasons namely:
• concerns from pet owners and other animal protection groups within York Region
• municipal staff concerns regarding facility standards provided by Kennel Inn
• overall operating costs and level of service provided by Kennel Inn
History
For the past 25 years, animal control services has been provided to the Town of Aurora
and surrounding municipalities in southern York Region by Kennel Inn, a private contractor
which has operated a shelter from a rural location located on the west side of Yonge St.
south of Industrial Pkwy in Aurora ( See photos in Appendix #1 attached).
-11-
GENERAL COMMITTEE — DECEMBER 6, 2005
December 6, 2005 - 2 - Report No. CS05-036
In recent years, the Town has received numerous letters from residents both within the
Town of Aurora and surrounding communities expressing their concerns regarding the
Kennel Inn facilities and the level of service provided (Appendix #2). In addition groups of
residents have also attended the Town Council meetings as well as those of the subject
municipalities to express their concerns. In all circumstances residents indicated their
desire to see a new animal control shelter constructed either as a Town owned operation
or as part of a joint effort with the other municipalities previously mentioned.
It should be noted that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food inspects all animal shelters and
pounds on a regular basis pursuant to the Pound Keepers Act and has given the Kennel
Inn facility a passing grade over the entire time that they have provided the service to
municipalities.
Research Analvsis
The committee has overthe past two years performed an extensive search into all possible
options for the provision of animal control services. The following is a summary of the work
carried out by the committee since starting the process in December of 2003.
Committee members visited a number of animal shelters including those in Durham
Region, the cities of Brampton, Kingston, London, Mississauga and Toronto and the Towns
of Caledon and Georgina. In addition to visiting these facilities, the Committee has met with
various animal service -related organizations including The Toronto Wildlife Centre, Earth
Rangers, the O.S.P.C.A., the Aurora Residents Pet Care Association and the Manager of
Animal Services for the City of Calgary.
As a result of the research and discussions, the committee made a recommendation to
their respective Councils that a joint Expression of Interest (EOI) be released to solicit
innovative proposals for animal control services. The EOI was released on December 9,
2004 by the City of Vaughan on behalf of the 5 municipalities. A total of 3 submissions
were received from the EOI process. The submissions were from Kennel Inn, Earth
Rangers and The Toronto Wildlife Centre.
The responses were reviewed by the committee and with all of the affected municipal
Councils and a Request for Proposal was released to the three respondents on May 8,
2005 by the Town of Aurora on behalf of all of the municipalities. All three respondents
submitted proposals, and the committee subsequently reviewed the submissions and
determined that all 3 submissions were unacceptable and were deemed informal as each
of the submissions failed to meet one or more of the requirements of the R.F.P.
The Committee also investigated the feasibility of building a joint facility, including the
costs of land, construction, furnishings, as well as the operational costs associated with
providing the animal control services for the five municipalities. Priorto this, the Committee
also met with the Director of the O.S.P.C.A. at their location on Woodbine Ave. to explore
the possibility of joint venturing. However this was not a viable option due to the limited size
of their facilities,
—12—
GENERAL COMMITTEE - DECEMBER 6, 2005
December 6, 2005 - 3 - Report No. CS05-036
In conducting this research the committee used three existing shelters as models. A small
shelter (Caledon) to service a population of approximately 60,000 residents, a medium
shelter (Brampton) to service a population of approximately 300,000 residents and a large
shelter (Calgary) to service a population of approximately 950,000 residents.
The costs of the construction for each of these facilities are actual costs based on the year
of construction. These costs naturally would require further adjustments to factor them into
current day actuals. Details of these respective operations are included as Appendix#3 to
this report.
The following is a summary that has been compiled by the Ad -Hoc Committee on the
services currently being provided by Kennel Inn to the combined municipal group in York
Region:
Number of municipalities participating in the ad -hoc group
5
Combined population of the municipalities in the ad -hoc
group
731,000
Total number of vehicles on patrol provided by Kennel Inn
5
Total Kennel Inn staff on duty daily
15
Total capacity within facilities to house animals
38 dogs &
68 cats
Average combined number of dogs handled annually
695
Average combined number of cats handled annually
982
Number of wildlife calls handled annually
418
Number of emergency calls handled annually
454
Total combined contract costs from York Region municipalities
$1,050,200
The following is a summary of service activities provided to the Town of Aurora
by Kennel Inn:
Total number of vehicles on patrol provided by Kennel Inn
1
Service hours
Mon to Fri
8:30 to 4:30
Number of Dogs handled annual) (Sept 30 2005
62
2004
92
2003
113
2002
92
Number of cats handled annual) (Sept 30 2005
77
2004
147
2003
130
2002
131
Average number of wildlife calls handled annually
25
Average number of emergency calls handled annual)
54
—13—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — DECEMBER 6, 2005
December 6, 2005 - 4 - Report No. CS05-036
COMMENTS
As a result of the research work conducted, a number of proposals are being presented to
Council for consideration. In addition, proposals are concurrently being presented to each
of the other municipalities in the group for consideration.
Proposals
Proposal #1 Joint Municipal Facility
In order to address the facility shortcomings of the current service provider as well as
respond to the concerns expressed by the resident groups, staff has considered the
possibility of building and operating a joint facility to service each of the member
municipalities in the group.
This model is not unique and currently is in operation in the Town of Georgina which owns
and operates an animal shelter near Keswick. Although Georgina initially built the facility
for their own use, the shelter services are now contracted out to other member
municipalities namely East Gwillimbury, Newmarket, and Whitchurch-Stouffville. Another
similar example is the combined effort of the Towns of Ajax, Whitby and Pickering who
jointly operate a municipally owned shelter as well as animal patrol services.
The construction and operation of a joint municipal facility would be more beneficial from
an economies of scale perspective, rather than each municipality having their own
separate shelter. However given the economic and political dynamics that would need to
be overcome, an agreement between all parties involved would require a considerable
amount of time and effort. In addition to this a number of other factors need to be
considered such as location, land availability, construction and an operating funding
formula just to name a few issues that need to be hurdled before an agreement may be
reached. A breakdown of the proposed costs for a joint facility is enclosed as Appendix#4.
The following is a list of positive and negative aspects of proposal #1:
Pros:
➢ Municipally owned and not reliant on service contractor
➢ Direct control over staff and resources
➢ Fundraising and volunteer opportunities not available with a private contactor
➢ Direct control over operational costs
➢ Improved public image
➢ Stream line customer service — readily available to address customer complaints
➢ Improved pet adoption programs
Cons:
➢ Substantial capital costs to construct and maintain
➢ Agreement on a funding formula for operational costs & revenue sharing
➢ Continued future funding
➢ Cost of land
—14—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — DECEMBER 6, 2005
December 6, 2005 - 5 - Report No. CS05-036
➢ Municipalities agreeing on location of the shelter
➢ Municipalities agreeing on the operating procedures of the facility
➢ Direct assumption of the liability of animal control for the municipality
Proposal #2 Continue With Contracted Service Provided by Kennel Inn
Recently Kennel Inn has submitted letters (Appendix #3) expressing their desire to expand
their operations to a new facility, subject to the concurrence by the present member
municipalities agreeing to a long term contract (i.e. 5 to 10 yrs). This would provide Kennel
Inn with financial stability in order to move ahead to absorb the costs associated with
funding the land acquisition and construction costs of a new facility.
The following is a list of positive and negative factors with proposal #2:
Pros:
➢ Continuity of service
➢ Power to negotiate is increased in a group
➢ Ability to demand value-added services
➢ No direct capital costs to municipalities
➢ No direct maintenance costs to municipalities
➢ Public familiar with company name
➢ Arms length public liability
➢ Ability to upgrade services levels
Cons:
➢ Current poor public image of the service provider from resident groups
➢ Increased contract costs for enhanced facilities
➢ Uncertainty of future costs for services and ability to negotiate with single source
provider
➢ Unknown future location
➢ No firm commitment or date for construction
Proposal #3 Construct and Operate a Town of Aurora Animal Shelter.
A Town of Aurora shelter could be a viable solution that would address the Town's current
and long term requirements. Furthermore it would not require the extensive land and
building costs that are associated with a joint municipal facility. The Town currently owns a
number of parcels of land and facilities that could possibly be used for animal control
services, however these sites would be subject to rezoning as the current land use
regulations do not permit kennel or animal shelter operations.
1. The Jack Woods property located at the intersection of Allaura Blvd./Edward St. would
provide sufficient land to accommodate this service, although an addition would be
required to the structure presently situated on the land, in order to provide adequate kennel
space for animals.
—15—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — DECEMBER 6, 2005
December 6, 2005 -6- Report No. CS05-036
2. The Aurora Hydro operation centre located on Industrial Pkwy will in all likelihood
become vacant in the future when the current tenant Powerstream, relinquishes its
occupation. This facility would be an ideal location providing ample space as an animal
control facility which could accommodate additional contracted services to nearby
municipalities such as Newmarket, W hitch u rch-Stouffvi Ile or King. This in turn would assist
in generating revenues to offset the operational costs of the service to the Town.
3. Vacant lot at Industrial Pkwy and Vandorf Rd. This parcel of land would also provide
sufficient space to accommodate a shelter.
Although each of the sites highlighted may provide a desired solution, funding for this
undertaking becomes a paramount issue. The Town has not identified any funding
sources in capital reserves or in the Development Charges levy to accommodate such an
expenditure.
The following is a list of positive and negative factors with proposal #3:
Pro:
➢ Municipally owned and not reliant on service contractor
➢ Direct control over staff
➢ Fundraising and volunteer opportunities not available with a private contactor
➢ Direct control over operational costs
➢ Improved public image
➢ The Town could be the sole user of the shelter, subject to any otherjoint ventures
➢ Town not dependent on negotiations and decision of the larger municipal group
➢ Improved pet adoption program
Cons:
➢ Increased costs for the operation of the shelter
➢ Possible loss of the ability to share cost
➢ Direct assumption of the liability of animal control for the municipality
➢ Capital costs to construct and maintain facility and vehicles
Proposal #4 Pursue a Contracted Service With the Town of Georgina
As previously outlined, the Town of Georgina provides animal shelter services for a number
of other municipalities in York Region, specifically itself, Newmarket, East Gwillimbury, and
Whitchurch-Stouffville. It should be noted that only the shelter/pound services are provide
in this arrangement. Animal patrol and enforcement is contracted out to an independent
company that conducts patrols for each municipality in the group. Town staff has recently
been in contact with both Georgina and Wayne Jones Animal Control Services in order to
obtain a quote for the service.
—16—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — DECEMBER 6, 2005
December 6, 2005 .7. Report No. CS05-036
The following is a list of positive and negative factors with proposal #4:
Pros:
➢ Maintains animal control and associated liability at arms -length from the Town
➢ Improves public image by shifting to a municipally owned shelter and new animal
control service
➢ Established service with proven track record for three other municipalities
➢ Sharing of operating costs
➢ No capital cost for construction of the shelter to the Town of Aurora
➢ Improved pet adoption program
Cons:
➢ Lack of direct control
➢ Distance to the shelter for the public to pick up lost pet
➢ Dependent on existing shelter accommodations
➢ Availability of patrols and enforcement
➢ Potential exposure to costs for the upgrading and expanding the existing facility
Proposal #5 Enter Into a Partnership With One or Two Other Municipalities to
Construct a New Shelter
As previously outlined, Newmarket, Aurora, Whitchurch-Stouffville and King have an
option to utilize the shelter services provided by the Town of Georgina, conversely one of
the drawbacks to this service is the distance to the shelter which is located near Keswick.
In lieu of entering into a joint venture with the southern three municipalities, whose needs
are far greater than Aurora, it may be advantageous to explore discussions with
neighbouring Towns such as Newmarket, King or Whitchurch-Stouffville to determine if
there is an interest in sharing the costs of building and operating a shelter in Aurora. The
size of the shelter would depend on the number of participating municipalities. It is
estimated that a building of 6,000 sq. ft will be required to accommodate the scope of
operation.
The following is a list of positive and negative factors with proposal #5:
Pros:
➢ Sharing of the capital and operational costs with the other municipalities and the
service partner
➢ Increased level of service
➢ Upgraded facility designed to accommodate future needs
➢ Fund raising and volunteer opportunities
➢ Improved public image
➢ Improved control over capital and operational costs
➢ Effective pooling of resources and expertise
➢ Stream line customer service — readily available to address customer complaints
➢ Improved pet adoption program
—17—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — DECEMBER 6, 2005
December 6, 2005 - 8 - Report No. CS05-036
Cons:
➢ Increased costs over single proprietorship
➢ Start up costs for new shelter and equipment
➢ Agreement on shared costs associated with future growth and public demands
➢ Cost of land
➢ Agreement on the operation and procedures of the facility
➢ Agreement on the costs and revenues of the operation of the shelter
➢ Direct assumption of the liability of animal control for the municipality
Proposal #6 Enter into a public -private partnership
An option that has not been explored to date is the possibility of a private/public
partnership. This concept would be different from the existing service contract provided
through an independent service provider such as Kennel Inn. A partnership of this nature
would involve negotiating with a private corporation to construct a shelter on either their
own privately lands or Town owned lands. In return the Town would enter into along term
lease or alternatively lease to purchase arrangement forthe land and building i.e. 20 years.
This solution would alleviate the up front capital costs of the land or building and provide
the Town with facilities based on its immediate needs. Operational costs associated with
the shelter and animal patrols would still be the responsibility of the Town.
Pros:
➢ Shifts the capital costs to the private partner
➢ Increased level of service
➢ Upgraded facility designed to accommodate future needs
➢ Fund raising and volunteer opportunities
➢ Improved public image
➢ Improved control over capital and operational costs
➢ Effective pooling of resources and expertise
➢ Stream line customer service — readily available to address customer complaints
➢ Improved pet adoption programs
Cons:
➢ Increased longterm costs for lease
➢ Costs associated with future growth and public demands
➢ Location and provision of land subject to availability of private partner
➢ Direct assumption of the liability of animal control for the municipality
21"
GENERAL COMMITTEE — DECEMBER 6, 2005
December 6, 2005 - 9 - Report No. CS05-036
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The financial implications for future animal control services and shelter operation are many
and varied depending on the desired proposal presented. Presently the Town is on a
month to month basis with Kennel Inn since the former contract expired on December 31,
2004. The following highlights the costs that the Town of Aurora has paid over the past
five years for its animal control services:
�� YEAR
.COSTS
2005 ____V_-F_
135,500
r 2004
104,050
F 2003 _�_96,200
200299,900�
2001 —
89,300
Expenses
A considerable amount of time and effort has been expended by the members of the Joint
Municipal Ad -hoc Committee in compiling statistical information on the operational costs of
the various facilities inspected. The costs for animal control services in other municipalities
are attached as Appendix #6. The following are financial estimates for each proposal
presented.
Proposal #1 Joint Municipal Facility
A facility to service the 5 joint municipalities would undoubtedly be the largest and most
expensive option given the scale of operation and the size to accommodate the number of
animals that may be housed within the building at any one time. In addition, the level of
enforcement would similarly have a bearing on the size of the building to address vehicle
and staffing requirements.
There is also a direct correlation between the combined population of the joint
municipalities and the building square footage required to properly conduct this operation.
Based on 2005 statistics, the combined population of the subject 5 municipalities is
approximately 731,200 and growing. It is therefore important to ensure that anew facility
will accommodate the current and future population growth of the combined municipal
group. It is therefore envisioned that a building of approximately 25,000 sq. feet. and 2 to 3
acres of land may be required.
Other Comparator Municipalities
r Municipality
F Population
r Size of Facility
F Calgary '
[_957,000 _C
21,000 sq. ft.
Brampton
[ 380,000
(_ 18,000 sq. ft.
Mississauga
640,000
F 10,500 (tb eW)
—19—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — DECEMBER 6, 2005
December 6, 2005 -10 - Report No. CS05-036
Kingston 104,800 ) 4,800 sq. ft.
__
London [_ 323,600 4,200 sq. ft.
Pickering/Ajax/UVhitby ( 252,056 _F 1,600 sq. ft.
Georgina et al 138,550 3,000 sq. ft.
F- OSPCA F _ T__d1,200 sq. ft. _.
Consequently, it is estimated that the costs associated with building anew facility, including
the costs for serviced land would be $2,642,500. Furthermore, it is also estimated that the
annual operating cost of this facility will be approximately $3,024,500. This naturally will
be subject to further examination and refinement prior to any final decisions. A detailed
estimate summary associated with this proposal is included as Appendix #4 to this report.
The financial impact of this proposal on each municipality has been calculated and outlined
in Appendix #7 attached to this report. It proposed that the costs to the Town of Aurora
would be approximately $168,000 for the construction costs and a further $192,300 for
annual operating costs.
It should be noted that staff resources for this operation may be contracted out to various
service providers, for example the CSPCA has indicated an interest in operating the shelter
and looking after the welfare of the animals placed in the facility. Correspondingly, the
animal patrol and enforcement can be contracted out to a current service provider such as
Kennel Inn or other interested parties.
Proposal #2 Continue With Contracted Service Provided by Kennel Inn
Through discussions as well as written correspondence, Kennel Inn has indicated that it is
prepared to construct and operate a new shelter in York Region (location to be determined)
provided that the existing municipal group commits to a long term contract (5 yrs to 10 yrs).
This commitment would ensure a funding source for the company to offset the capital
expenditure of a new facility.
At this time it is uncertain what the future contract price per municipality will be. It can be
speculated that the costs will be calculated at a rate that is conservatively estimated to be
of approximately $5 per capita based on the population of the municipality.. This would
then translate to a cost of approximately $232,500 per year for the Town of Aurora. The
Town contract and service with Kennel Inn is proceeding on a month to month basis of
$11,290 per month, ($135,500 annually for 2005). The proposed cost for 2006 is
$150,000.
Proposal #3 Construct and operate a Town of Aurora animal shelter.
In lieu of partnering with the larger municipal group, the Town m6y wish to proceed with
constructing its own shelter and operating animal control independently.
—20—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — DECEMBER 6, 2005
December 6, 2005 -11 - Report No. CS05-036
As previously outlined, the Town has an opportunity to utilize its own lands for the facility
thereby limiting costs to the construction of the building only. Depending on the location
selected, a facility could be constructed at a cost of approximately $350,000 to
$400,000.
Due to the specialized nature related to the care of animals within the shelter as well as the
animal patrol and enforcement, the Town would consider contracting out the services for
animal care to OSPCA staff which would work within the shelter. Similarlythe enforcement
component could be contracted out to another service provider.
It is estimated that the operating costs of animal control services would be approximately
$3.50 per capita or an annual cost of $162,750. The financial implication of this option
would require further detailed examination before a decision could be made.
Proposal #4 Pursue a Contracted Service With the Town of Georgina
A further option that has been reviewed is shifting the animal control services from the
Town's current service provider, Kennel Inn, to another contracted service. Accordingly,
Town staff have also contacted the Town of Georgina, who operates a shelter and Wayne
Jones Animal Control Services who provides the enforcement on behalf of Newmarket,
Georgina, East Gwillimbury and Whitchurch-Stouffville.
The quotation provided by Georgina is $60,490 for shelter services. The animal patrols and
enforcement quoted by Wayne Jones Animal Control Services is $93,000 for the same
service level currently available in Town. The total costs for this service would be
$153,490 for 2006. There is a caveat to Georgina's proposal that indicates a commitment
by all municipalities to participate in a 5 year program to help offset any additional costs
they may encounter for the expansion of the shelter to accommodate a large volume of
animals.
Proposal #5 Enter Into a Partnership With One or Two Other Municipalities to Construct
a New Shelter
An additional consideration to proposal #3 could be a joint venturing with a neighbouring
municipality such as Newmarket, King or Whitchurch-Stouffville in the sharing of costs for
the construction and operation of a shelter. The population of the three southern
municipalities would require a substantially larger facility in order to handle the volume of
animals that would be maintained. Correspondingly a larger property would also be
required to handle the vehicle fleet and staffing resources.
Alternatively the Town could venture with smaller population municipalities as mentioned
above that would require a smallerfacility and sharing in the financial burden. Then again,
the Town could proceed in constructing the shelter on its own and charge back an annual
fee in a similar fashion conducted by the Town of Georgina.
—21—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — DECEMBER 6, 2005
December 6, 2005 - 12 - Report No. CS05-036
This would provide an annual revenue source to offset the initial construction costs and
future maintenance costs for the facility. Services for the care of the animals and
enforcement/patrol could be contracted out to other service providers for the Town of
Aurora and other member municipalities. The Town of Georgina currently charges back
$161,295 annually for shelter services to the Towns of Newmarket, East Gwillimbury and
Whitchurch-Stouffville. The municipalities also pay an additional fee of $228,000
collectively for animal patrol & enforcement.
In the event this option is considered, additional financial evaluation would be required to
narrow the scope of the costs and to determine if any other municipality would be
interested in partnering with the Town.
Proposal #6 Enter into a public -private partnership
This last proposal has been presented only as an option and the financial implications
cannot be provided at this time since it is unknown whether a partner is available. If this
option is considered, staff would seek out a partnership following proper procurement
policy practices.
The following chart summarizes each of the proposals and associated costs as presented
in this report.
l?ROPOSALj.�
.� "r'�h�x�4'OPTION°s ''' �;.3
.COST OF"OPTION; `r
1.
Build & Operate a Joint Facility
Joint Group
Const. Costs $2,642,500
Ann. Oper. Costs $3,024,500
Aurora Costs
Const. $168,000
O er. $192,300
2.
Continue with Kennel Inn
Proposed 2006 Costs
$150,000
Future Ann. Costs $232,500
3.
Build & Operate Town Owned Shelter
Const. Costs $350,000 to
$400,000
Ann. O er. Costs $162,760
4.
New Contracted Service with Town of
Proposed 2006 Costs
Georgina
$153,490
5.
Partnership with Nearby Municipality
Const. Costs $5 to$600,000
Ann. O er. unknown ***
6.
Enter into a Public -Private Partnership
Construction Costs
Annual Operating Costs
unkown ***
*** Note: These items costs can not be accurately projected and are dependent on
an agreement with a partner.
—22—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — DECEMBER 6, 2005
December 6, 2005 - 13 - Report No. CS05-036
Revenue
Regardless which proposal may be considered by Council, the costs of animal control
enforcement has a significant on the impact on the Town's budget and correspondingly the
property taxes that supports this service. This service is provided solely for the benefit of
pet owners who either through their own negligence or by accident let their pets run at
large and then are eventually picked up by the animal patrol enforcement staff. Therefore
a factor that requires more scrutiny should be the user pay philosophy that would take the
burden from the general property taxpayer and shift more of the cost to the pet owner.
For years, the licensing fee for dogs and cats has been a nominal fee of $20 (dogs) $10
(cats). In addition the Town's licensing by-law granted an exemption to the fee to pets
belonging to seniors, or if the pet was micro chipped with an identification. The combination
of this together with delinquent pet owners failing to acquire a license for their pet has
resulted in a gradual decline in the revenue generated through licensing. The following is a
summary of licenses issued over the past few years and revenue generation.
Licenses
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dog Licenses Issued
2508
2495
2195
2393
1776
Cat Licenses Issued
1714
1611
1443
1595
742
Dog Lic. Revenue
$43,954
$36,596
$33,025
$15,832
$13,293
Cat Lic. Revenue
$12,135
$12,222
$10,176
$3,280
$2,563
Total Revenue
$56,089
$48,818
$43,201
$19,112
$15,856
With the increases in operating costs that are forecast, it is recommended that the fees
and charges for pet licensing and fines be re-evaluated to increase revenue that would be
applied towards the costs of the operation.
The Joint Municipal Ad -Hoc Committee reviewed in detail a new operational format of the
City of Calgary which was implemented several years ago, that instituted a more
aggressive campaign with pet owners in order to curb the number of pets running at large
thus reducing animal care costs and proactively generating more revenue through their
licensing program. The net result has been an annual profit of +$300,000 and no cost to
the property taxes, as compared to an operational deficit that is generally experienced in all
municipalities in Ontario. (See Appendix #3)
In the case of the Town of Aurora, the operating costs for 2005 are $135,500 while the
revenue generated is $15,856, for an operating deficit of $119,635. In order to offset future
escalating operational costs for animal control services, it is recommended that fees and
fines charged be analysed with a view to significantly increasing this amount on an
incremental basis over the next few years.
—23—
GENERAL COMMITTEE - DECEMBER 6, 2005
December 6, 2005 - 14 - 1 Report No. CS05-036
CONCLUSIONS
The information gathered by the ad -hoc committee through its research of other
municipalities' animal control services and visitations to other facilities has been a valuable
asset in the preparation of this report. The proposals presented provide Council with a
variety of options that can be considered.
One of the main concerns that has been expressed in the letters from the residents and
previous presentations to Council by the Aurora Residents Pet Care Association has been
the condition of the Kennel Inn facilities. Depending on the direction that is provided by
Council on the various proposals, it may require a considerable amount oftime to establish
a new animal shelter to address these needs, either through a municipally owned and
operated facility or through the development of a new site by Kennel Inn. In order to
respond to the immediate concerns of the residents and pet owners; staff is recommending
that the Town pursue a new service agreement with the Town of Georgina and Wayne
Jones Animal Control Services until a final decision is made on a future shelter. In the
interim, staff would continue to cooperatively work the ad -hoc committee or explore other
joint ventures opportunities depending on Council's direction.
Alternatively Council may wish to remain with Kennel Inn, in which case it is proposed that
the Town enter a new 1 year agreement with Kennel Inn subject to the following conditions:
1. reach an agreement on a location for a new modern facility that can accommodate
the municipalities present and future needs;
2. to agree on a date that the new facility will open for operation;
3. in the interim, Kennel Inn will make the necessary improvements to the existing
facility that will provide a better environment for the animals and the residents that
visit the facility; and
4. Kennel Inn will work with the committee to ensure the proper and adequate training
of staff on the handling of the animals and for the enforcement of the animal control
by-laws is provided.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Goal A
Speaks to reviewing areas where the provision of services might be shared amongst
service providers, both within the Town and in neighbouring communities; and
Formally confirming and maintaining a user pay philosophy and examining processes
whereby consumers of service pay for a portion of the cost of operating it.
-24-
pppp
555 �
L /
-
� h
Y
f
1 � AA