Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda - General Committee - 20060124
GENEwel AGENDA N0.06-02 ITTEE TOESBAT, MOARY 2AL 2006 too PAN CHAMBERS AURORA YOWN HALL PUBLIC RELEASE 20/01 /06 TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA NO. 06-02 Tuesday, January 24, 2006 7:00 p.m. Councillor West in the Chair. I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST 1! APPROVAL OF AGENDA RECOMMENDED: THAT the content of the Agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services Department be approved as presented. 111 DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION IV ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION V DELEGATIONS (a) Mr. Tony Van Bynen, Regional Councillor, Newmarket (pg. D-1) Re: Smart Commute Newmarket (b) Ms Patricia Robertson, CAO, York Region (pg. D-3) Neighbourhood Services/Social Enterprise Canada Mr. Randy Reid, Director, Boys and Girls Clubs of York Region Ms Kim Thompson, Director, Ontario Early Years Services Re: Proposal for Use of Jack Woods Property General Committee Meeting No. 06-02 Tuesday, January 24, 2006 (c) Mr. D. J. Lawrence, Director, Kennel Inn Inc. Re: Animal Control (d) Mr. Murray Berman Past President and Mr. Bruce Dealhoy, President, Aurora Model Aircraft Club Re: Future Use of Property at 15059 Leslie St. Page 2 of 9 (pg. D-5) (pg. D- 6) VI CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION Vll OTHER BUSINESS, COUNCILLORS Vlll IN -CAMERA Legal Matter RECOMMENDED: THAT Committee proceed In -Camera to address a legal matter. IX ADJOURNMENT General Committee Meeting No. 06-02 Page 3 of 9 Tuesday, January 24, 2006 AGENDA ITEMS 1. Memo from Councillor Morris (pg. 1) Re: Federation of Canadian Municipalities (Deferred from General Committee Meeting of December 13, 2005) RECOMMENDED: THAT the Committee receive the information from Councillor Morris regarding the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. 2. Correspondence from Councillor Hogg (pg. 10) Re: Lump Sum Tax Reconciliation Payments for PAP Users RECOMMENDED: THAT the Committee provide direction on this matter. 3. Correspondence from Mayor Jones (pg. 14) Re: Alert from the Association of Municipalities on Ontario (AMO) OMERS Update - Bill206 RECOMMENDED: THAT the Committee provide direction on this matter. 4. CS06-005— Provision of Future Animal Control Services (pg. 24) RECOMMENDED: THAT the report Provision of Future Animal Control Services CS06-005 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 General Committee Meeting No. 06-02 Tuesday, January 24, 2006 Page 4 of 9 THAT staff continue to review long term options with municipalities in York Region or Kennel Inn or any other interested parties on a new animal shelter and animal control enforcement to service the Town of Aurora. 5. PW06-001 — Acceptance of Municipal Services — Bayview (pg. 79) Wellington North Subdivision — Phase I - Registered Plan 65M-3497 VA RECOMMENDED: THAT Council accept the municipal services contained within Registered Plan 65M-3497 being Phase I of the Bayview Wellington North Subdivision as detailed in Report PW06-001; and THAT Council enact By-law 4755-06.D for the assumption of the subject municipal services; and THAT the Director of Public Works be authorized to issue a Certificate of Acceptance of Public Works for said lands as required under Section 3.12 of the Subdivision Agreement; and THAT the Director of Financial Services/Treasurer be directed to reduce the municipal servicing securities held in relation to the Bayview Wellington North Subdivision Phase I to $81,000. CSO6-007 — Administration Procedure No. 38 RECOMMENDED: (pg. 84) THAT Report CS05-007 entitled amendments to Administration Procedure No. 38, Staff Recruitment and Selection be received; and THAT the revised Administration Procedure appended to this report be approved. FS06-003 — Proposed 2006 Water, Wastewater, Storm Sewer and Sewage Pumping Station Rates RECOMMENDED: (pg. 95) THAT Council approve in principle the 2006 Retail Water rate of $0.871 per cubic meter and the Retail Wastewater rate of $0.660 per cubic meter for all bills issued on and after April 1, 2006; and General Committee Meeting No. 06-02 Tuesday, January 24, 2006 Page 5 of 9 THAT Council approve in principle the 2006 Flat Rate Storm Sewer charge of $55.40 per unit per annum for Residential properties and $673.80 per unit per annum for metered Commercial/Industrial and Multi - Residential properties for all bills issued on and after April 1, 2006; and THAT Council approve in principle the 2006 Flat Rate Sewage Pumping Station charge for the 165 users of the Ballymore Sewage Pumping Station of $103.00 per annum on all bills issued on and after April 1, 2006; and THAT Council approve in principle the 2006 Flat Rate Sewage Pumping Station charge for the 260 users of the Bayview Vandorf Sewage Pumping Station of $66.00 per annum on all bills issued on and after April 1, 2006; and THAT Council approve in principle the 2006 Flat Rate Service Charge for the Turing Water Off/On of $30.00 per event during working hours and $80.00 per event during other than normal working hours; and THAT Council approve in principle the 2006 Bulk Purchase Water Rate of $1.531 per cubic meter; and THAT the necessary by-law to implement the foregoing be introduced at the Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 14, 2006 and circulated in accordance with Section 12 of Ontario Regulation 244/02 — Fees and Charges. 8. LS06-003 — Recreation Complex Update (pg. 106) RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive Report LS06-003 for information purposes; and THAT Council approve the extension of the existing Agreement with MHPM until March 31, 2006 at a cost of $54,000. 9. LS06-002 — Recreation Complex Naming Rights (pg. 109) RECOMMENDED: THAT Council endorse the fundraising targets identified within this report regarding the naming rights for the new Recreation Complex; and THAT Council approve the Naming Rights Policy attached to this report. General Committee Meeting No. 06-02 Tuesday, January 24, 2006 Page 6 of 9 10. PW06-004 — Request for Topsoil Permit for the Conseil Scholaire de District Catholique Centre-Sud Secondary School Site RECOMMENDED: (pg. 113) THAT Council authorize the Director of Public Works to issue the Topsoil Permit for the Conseil Scholaire de District Catholique Centre-Sud Secondary School Site in advance of the execution of the Site Plan Agreement; and THAT if Council approves the issuance of the Topsoil Permit for this site that the permit be issued only after all necessary approvals have been obtained from internal Town departments and external agencies. 11. PL06-011 —Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Applications (pg. 118) Conseil Scolaire De District Catholique Centre-Sud (French Catholic School Board) Part of Lot 71, Concession 1 Bathurst Street and Bloomington Road Files D14-04-04 and D11-18-05 RECOMMENDED: THAT Implementing Zoning By-law 4766-06.D be enacted; and THAT, subject to a satisfactory review by the Site Plan Committee, the Director of Planning and Development Services be authorized to execute a site plan agreement between Conseil Scolaire De District Catholique Centre-Sud and the Town of Aurora respecting the construction of a secondary school, stormwater management pond and part of Street "C". 12. CS06-006 — Municipal Election 2006 Update RECOMMENDED: (pg. 132) THAT pursuant to Section 8 of the Municipal Elections Act, 1996, the last day that a question or by-law may be submitted to the Clerk for inclusion on the ballot for the 2006 municipal election be confirmed as Tuesday, April 11'h, 2006; and THAT Council provide direction with respect to the establishment of a Compliance Audit Committee and Contribution Rebates. General Committee Meeting No. 06-02 Tuesday, January 24, 2006 Page 7 of 9 13. 14. 15. 16. ADM06-001 — Finance Advisory Committee Membership RECOMMENDED: (pg. 140) THAT Council appoint a new Councillor to the Finance Advisory Committee to fill the current vacancy. PL06-012 — Zoning by-law 4469-03.13 — Oak Ridges Moraine (pg. 144) RECOMMENDED: THAT the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be advised that the Council of the Town of Aurora supports the modifications to By-law 4469-03.D as proposed by the Province as further modified by staff within Attachment 3. CS06-008 — Town of Aurora Lottery Licensing Policy (pg. 208) RECOMMENDED: THAT CS06-008 be received; and THAT the Lottery Licensing Policy attached as Appendix #1 to report be approved and implemented; and THAT the former Break Open Ticket Lottery Licensing Policy be repealed. PLO6-014 — Places to Grow, A Growth Plan for the (pg. 233) Greater Golden Horseshoe RECOMMENDED: THAT Report No. PL06-014 be received by Council as information; and THAT the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal again be requested to amend Schedule 4 (Urban Growth Centres) to include the 2C area of the Bayview East Urban Expansion Area as a Future Growth Area; and THAT the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal be requested to include in the Proposed Growth Plan, clear policies regarding transitional planning applications which are straight forward and easy to interpret and implement; and General Committee Meeting No. 06-02 Tuesday, January 24, 2006 Page 8 of 9 THAT the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal be requested and required to provide the necessary funds and backing in order to achieve the infrastructure objectives to support the increased growth projected for the Region through the Plan. 17. PL06-008 — 2006, Interim Planning Application Fees (pg. 245) RECOMMENDED: k" 19. THAT Staff Report PL06-008, entitled 2006 Interim Planning Application Fees be received; and THAT an amendment to the Planning Application Fee Schedule to the Town's Fees and Service Charge Bylaw, as attached to this staff report as draft Bylaw 4763-06.F, be enacted by Council. FSO6-004 — 2006 Fees and Service Charges RECOMMENDED: (pg. 257) THAT the 2006 Fees and Service Charges for licences and services itemized on the attached schedules be approved. THAT By-law General Administration fees 4759-06F with attached schedules: Schedule A Administration/Legal Services Division Schedule B Building Administration Department Schedule C Corporate Services Department Schedule D Planning Department Schedule E Committee of Adjustment Schedule F Public Works Department Schedule G Financial Services Department be enacted at the January 31, 2006 Council meeting. ADMO6-002 — Disposition of Aurora Hydro Connections Sale (pg. 269) Proceeds — Selection of a Facilitator RECOMMENDED: THAT CivicSolutions + Inc. (C. David Weldon) be retained as a consultant to facilitate the determination of how the Town of Aurora wishes to manage the proceeds of the sale of Aurora Hydro Connections Limited including the preparation of a report to Council; and General Committee Meeting No. 06-02 Tuesday, January 24, 2006 Page 9 of 9 THAT the provisions of the Town of Aurora Purchasing By-law be waived to allow CivicSolutions + Inc. to be the sole source of the required services; and THAT Staff be authorized to take all necessary steps to proceed with the contract with Civic Solutions + Inc. GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 24, 2006 Office of the Mayor 6 TIM M.JONES et TOWN OF AURORA December 23, 2005 Town of Newmarket 395 Mulock Drive PO Box 328, STN Main Newmarket, ON L3Y 4X7 Attention: Tony Van Bynen Regional Councillor - Dear Tony: Re: Smart Commute Newmarket Delegation (a) 1 MUNICIPAL DRIVE BOX NO. 1000 AURORA, ONTARIO L4G 6J1 TEL: (905) 727-1375 FAX: (905) 727-4993 EMAIL: tjones@town.aurora.on.ca Thank you for your letter of December 20ei, 2005, following up our telephone conversation about the Smart Commute initiative. I would like to request that someone make a presentation at our General Committee meeting on this initiative and what commitment is being requested. We have two General Committee meetings in January: Tuesday the I Oh and the 24 h. They will start at 7:00 pan. Please advise in advance so that we can make arrangements. Thank you, and best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Yours truly, Tim M. Jones Mayor We are a Character Community Respect * Responsibility * Honesty * Integrity * Compassion * Courage Inclusiveness *Fairness *Optimism *Perseverance *Initiative D-1 GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 :3-0 tonal Councillor Office of the Reg A). (Tony) Van December 20, 2005 B Mayor Tim Jones Town of Aurora 1 Municipal Drive Box 1000 Aurora, ON L4G 6J1 Dear Tim: Re: Smart Commute Newmarket R CEWED DEC 2 1 2V5 MAYOR'S OFMC Town of Newmarket 395 Mulock Drive PO Box 328, STN Main Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X7 Telephone: (905) 895-5193 Toronto: (905) 773-7723 Fax: (905) 953-5133 Further to my voice mail message yesterday, I thought you would find the enclosed documents informative as background information. Please note we are proposing that the Town of Newmarket proceed with this initiative.. We would be delighted to have Aurora engaged as a participant and funding partner. You will note the next meeting is scheduled on January 17, 2006 at the Newmarket Chamber of Commerce. Please let me know of your interest and if you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Tony Varxynen Regional Councillor — Newmarket /it Enclosures D - 2 GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 Delegation(b) Panizza, Bob From: Patricia Robertson Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 2:48 PM To: Panizza, Bob Cc: Downey, Al Subject: Council Presentation Request Mr. Bob Panizza, Director of Corporate Services/Town Clerk Corporate Services Department 1 Municipal Drive Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 Phone: (905) 727-1375 ext. 4221 Fax: (905) 726-4732 January 17, 2006 Dear Mr. Panizza, I am writing to request that a delegation from York Region Neighbourhood Services/ Boys and Girls Clubs of York Region be added to the Town of Aurora Council agenda for the January 24th 2006 Meeting. Our intent is to request the support and endorsement of Council to prepare and present report on the options to develop the Jack Woods property into a vibrant community resource centre that will potentially house; • A premier Boys and Girls Clubs of Canada full member youth centre • An Ontario Early Years Center • A community child care service • Continued support for other community group use • Support for and to provide Best Start services as developed by the Region of York on behalf of the Province of Ontario. Our presentation will make use of audio visual equipment and will include; • An overview of York Region Neighbourhood Services / Social Enterprise Canada. • A profile of our service within York Region. • A profile of Boys and Girls Club Services and Resources • A presentation of the Ontario Early Year and Child Care Services. • An overview of our vision for the Jack Wood property and our request for support from council to form a project review and development team. Our delegation will consist of 3 persons who are each requesting to speak for 5 minutes for a total 1/17/2006 D - 3 Page 2 of 2 GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 24, 2006 presentation that will not exceed fifteen (15) minutes. Our delegation includes: Patricia Robertson, Chief Executive Officer, of YNS and SEC Randy Reid, Director of Boys and Girls Clubs of York Region Kim Thomson, Director of Ontario Early Years Services Speaking order will be: • Patricia Robertson: Introduction and YNS overview 2 min. • Randy Reid: Boys and Girls Clubs 4 min. • Kim Thomson: Ontario Early Years and Child Care 4 min • Patricia Robertson, our plan and request for support 3 min. We will be asking council to endorse the development of the report, authorize AI Downey to work with us on its development and to appoint one or more council members to review findings as they are developed and support the formation of recommendations. I can be reached at (905) 895 0809 x 30 to confirm our attendance or to clarify any questions on our presentation. Sincerely, Patricia Robertson, cc: AI Downey 1/17/2006 D - 4 GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 Delegation (c) Animal Control Centre 14378 Yong$ St, RR#2r Aurora, Onado L40 3138 January 5, 2006 Mr, R. Panizza, Director of Corporate Services Town of Aurora Dear Mr..Panlzza Re: Committee of the 'Whole — January 24, 2006 I would like to request permission to be in attendance when Council reconvenes on January 241h, in order to answer questions and speak on matters pertaining to Animal Control. Could you please confirm and specify the time I should arrive. YOU'$•" 1 , Di! r . nee, Director Kenn Inn Inc D - 5 GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY n2406 Delegation (d) r^U November 281", 2005 Town of Aurora 1 Municipal Drive BOX 1000 Aurora, On L4G 6J1 Your Worship Mayor Tim Jones and Council. Dear Members, COPIES C�_:�='::)::':.;rv_ C.A.O. Din Of Dir. Of Cuq. S,,,w, Dir. Of Laisar, Dir. Of Dir. Of P-AL' wc_ i::: Treasurer Please accept this letter as our request to appear before council on Tuesday evening January 17th 2006 at 7:30 PM regarding our future use of a portion of the property at 15059 Leslie Street. In 2006 we will be entering the fourth year of our five year agreement with the Town. In view of the fact that the Town is promoting the property for development and has held meetings on the proposed subdivision of this property, we would appreciate the opportunity to bring our thoughts and suggestions to the Council's attention. We appreciate the fine co-operation we have received from the Town and in particular Mr. Al Downey and Mr. Jim Tree. Anticipating your reply, Yours truli�'c Murra Beaman, Past President, Auto a Model Aircraft Club 47 P rk L,ane Circle Richmond Hill, Ont. L4C 6S8 905 764 3490 berman @bromarsfstems.com ��.............. Bruce Dealhoy, President Aurora Model Aircraft Club 8 Poreht Crescent Aurora, Ont. L4G 3E8 905 841 1035 bdealhoy( symuatico.ca M. GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 24, 2006 AGENDA ITEM # ,. Auyt EXTRACT FROM COUNCIL MEETING NO. 05-39 HELD ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2005 1. Memo from Councillor Morris Re: Federation of Canadian Municipalities Moved by Councillor West Seconded by Councillor Wallace THAT this matter be deferred to a General Committee meeting. CARRIED CORRESPONDENCE SENT BY: ACTION DEPT.: INFO DEPT.: Councillor Morris, Pending (GC - Jan 10/06 -1- Z 900z t SlaaOw lliAm sbulleaW eall!wwoo BulpuelS pue sawoolno peog;o luewwns egl;o Adoo a asn.moA jo; pagoege pul; aseald puZ cap - glOS noN - eme;lO - ' s6upaaW aaI41wwoo 6ulpua4s pue sawoalno ryeog;o kewwns s,Wod :aaaEgns sbupaaW aaAlwwoo 6ulpue4S pue sawoalnO peog;o Aaewwns s,WJd :md elaafgns ,ea'mwne-amD=uedq, :a:) ,e]'eADAne-4 (@sJollDunO]Ile, :ol WV OT:9 SOOZ'£T uagwanap 'Aepsanl :quas slaaOW d :wad -----a essaw leul6lio----- SJIMOW slllAgd joll!ounoo noA 4uegl •aw eslnpe aseald suollsenb Aue aje ajagl dl 'epua6e Ilaunoo lxeu egg clue peoeld aq of l;eup a aw Oulpues Ag000 o; paewlo; Noo! I -as op of Addeq aq pinom I - luasajd of ew luem op Aegl legl suogow Ilounco;l oslnoo;o 'papaau osle Allaessaoau sl uope;ussaud a enepeq;ou an I - pepualle 1 sbulleaw Plod agl sauglno podW eq sV Aue aneq Aagl p - suopsanb Ise osle ueo Aegl „11 eAlsoa;, of palsanbm aq ueo pounoo sdegiad Isgl pue peace;ap sem liodal aql leg} bu0els ';lesAw woa; payeup eq owaw a Iegl lsa6Bns I 'Is!l 6ulpued sql jjo slgl jeelo of '41 le;ep of pewBe 1 (6 awg) anp;nq - epuebu oql uo Alsnolnwd sem 11 puelslepun I pagoe;la podai Bupeaw Nod anoge ego ql!m- l!ounoo of possalppe - owaw papiom Alqellns a ajedaid legl Bullsenbai we I """ Allpowwoa pellw!l a s1 'awp gelsj llounoo sV qog jeep s6ugaeW aal4lwwoo Bulpunlg pue sawoolno pieog;o AiewwnS s,pyOd :Md :loafgns ugof 'wa6oa :A>looO 'spl3 :00 gog'ealuej :oy Wd 99:Z6 900Z 'bl Ajenuep'Aepsoupem :hies [m uo loe@n spjow-d) swoyn d :ovoid qog 'ezzlued T 3ologed 9DDZ 'v3 AuvnNVf — 3311IWWOD ItllRNsa GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 24, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO THE FCM NATIONAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS SUMMARY OF BOARD OUTCOMES AND STANDING COMMITTEE MEETINGS DECEMBER 1-3, 2005 OTTAWA, ONTARIO -3- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 INTRODUCTION Overview FCM's National Board of Directors met in Ottawa, December 1-3, 2005, for its regular meeting. With the January 23 federal election as a backdrop, the Board called on all federal parties to clarify where they stand on key municipal issues. Of specific concern during the course of the campaign, the Board identified the need to secure a long-term legislated commitment to eliminating the infrastructure deficit, as well as the need to secure the quick transfer of money for affordable housing and transit contained in Bill C- 48, and to develop a strong partnership between the Government of Canada and the municipal sector. As part of this call, the Board urged the broadcasters' consortium that will organize the four scheduled leader's debates to guarantee municipal issues would be discussed (see attached news release). Televised debate In keeping with its proactive strategy, the Board kicked off the proceedings with a nationally broadcast town -hall meeting with representatives of the Liberal, Conservative and New Democratic parties to discuss and debate where the three parties stand on municipal issues. Board members heard and questioned John Godfrey, Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities, and opposition critics Rahim Jaffer of the Conservative Party of Canada and David Christopherson of the New Democratic Party. The event was co- sponsored by FCM and the Cable Public Affairs Channel (CPAC) and moderated by CPAC host Ken Rockburrn and was broadcast live. CPAC will re -broadcast the event during the election campaign. Fourth Municipal Leaders' Summit on Climate Change In preparation for the Fourth Municipal Leaders Summit on Climate Change, co- sponsored by FCM, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and the City of Montreal, FCM First Vice -President and Winnipeg city councillor Gord Steeves, Montreal Mayor Gerald Tremblay, and ICLEI Secretary General Konrad Otto -Zimmerman briefed media via conference call. Municipal leaders from around the world are meeting in Montreal from December 5 to 7 and will work toward a joint declaration on climate change initiatives and objectives. FCM is represented by Councillor Steeves and CEO James Knight. Election Strategy The Board also developed an election strategy designed to push municipal issues and concerns onto the national agenda and the platforms of the federal parties during the election campaign. ZZ GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 STANDING COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY SAFETY AND CRIME PREVENTION Vice Chair Randy Goulden welcomed members of the committee and led the discussion on amendments and approvals of the committee's work plan. The committee reviewed a recommendation from Mayor Derek Corrigan of the City of Burnaby regarding the Mayors for Peace movement and agreed to forward the recommendation to staff for action. Committee members discussed the effects of crystal methamphetamine use on their communities said municipalities should share information on local strategies to combat use of this drug. Councillor Berry Vrbanovic provided an update on the work of the National Coordinating Committee on Marijuana Grow Operations and Organized Crime Working Groups. Major -General (Retired) Clive Addy presented an update on the research his firm, the National Security Group, is conducting for FCM. He was joined by former RCMP Commissioner Phil Murray. Research outcomes will include a comprehensive review of the Government of Canada's security initiatives, with consideration of the role municipal governments can play in developing current and future national strategies on emergency management, disaster mitigation and pandemics, and a final report on Government of Canada responses to the new security environment. Staff presented the 2006-2007 Community Safety and Crime Prevention Policy Statement outline, which was reviewed and approved by the committee. The joint Chairs, Councillor Ron Hayter and Richelle Leonard, provided an update from the Joint Committee on Community Corrections. The committee discussed funding for policing in local communities, as well as various concerns related to the renewal of RCMP contracts in 2012. The committee also discussed the City of Toronto's pandemic plan and asked staff to circulate the report on the plan to the Board of Directors. RURAL FORUM Chair Larry McDermott provided an update on activities, including FCM participation in the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation Conference in Twillingate, NL, and meetings with Parliamentary Secretary Wayne Easter. Mayor McDermott outlined discussions with rural organizations in the United States and emphasized the need to build relationships with them. Jack Hayden provided an overview of recommendations made by the Prime Minister's External Advisory Committee on Cities and Communities in its report, which will be released in April 2006. Research shows that rural communities are responsible for well over 50 per cent of the resources exported from Canada and are strong contributors to the national economy. Rural constituents have clearly outlined the mounting infrastructure challenges in small communities and the importance of relationships between urban and rural communities. Mr. Hayden has forwarded a recommendation to the federal government to ensure full participation by rural members in the sector -table process. —5— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 The Forum agreed to establish a task force on rural advocacy groups to develop recommendations on structure and funding options for review by the Forum in March 2006. Members discussed the need to ensure representation from British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. The Forum discussed a staff proposal to augment communications and strengthen the Forum's advocacy function by adding a media -outreach component to future Forum meetings. A new format was proposed for the meetings beginning in March 2006, with equal time allocated for advocacy and policy. Mayor McDermott spoke about need to build the federal government's capacity to respond to the needs of rural communities. He suggested that a Minister responsible for rural affairs would strengthen this function. The Forum discussed the adverse effects the federal gun registry has had on rural and northern communities. Members examined the proposed outline for the 2006 policy statement on rural issues, and committed to approving the outline by conference call when additional comments have been received. Members also reviewed the status of the September 2005 committee recommendations and received an update on the sector -table process. NORTHERN FORUM Chair Doug Graham provided an update on current events in Yukon, including efforts to develop a template for Integrated Community Sustainability Plans. Forum members indicated their interest in the material on youth exodus being developed by the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development. The Forum examined the proposed outline for the 2006 policy statement on northern issues and agreed to approve the outline by conference call when additional comments have been received. The Forum also discussed the value of sharing information regarding northern and rural issues across jurisdictions, and of institutional strictures to strengthen relationships with Aboriginal groups in the territories. To prepare for the upcoming federal election, the Forum reviewed issue briefings on the federal Northern Strategy, infrastructure, broadband and economic development. The Forum also reviewed the status of recommendations from the September 2005 meeting. Members discussed an update on the sector tables and expressed the need to represent issues from communities north of the 55th parallel. They cited travel costs as a significant barrier to northern participation. Tanis Houck, Project Coordinator for FCM's Increasing Women's Participation in Municipal Government project, reported on progress to date and expressed interest in organizing a project workshop in the North. GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 STANDING COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT The Standing Committee reviewed and adopted the proposed outline for the policy statement on environmental issues and sustainable development. Members were invited to submit additional comments to FCM staff before January 15. A more detailed draft of the policy statement will be distributed to committee members by January 31, 2006. The Committee received an update on community energy missions and sector tables, then discussed and endorsed the recommendations included in FCM's submission to the federal government on the proposed offset system for greenhouse gas emissions. The report "Adapting to Climate Change: An Introduction for Canadian Municipalities" was provided to members for information purposes. The Committee reviewed and discussed a draft of the Municipal Leaders Declaration, being developed for presentation at the Fourth Municipal Leaders Suunmit on Climate Change in Montreal, a parallel event of the I lth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP11) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) taking place in Montreal Dec. 5-7. STANDING COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS FCM foreign partners and FCM staff were introduced. Brock Carlton, Director of FCM's International Centre for Municipal Development, reported on the status of the Municipal Partnership Program, the Global Advisory Board, and Sri Lanka and Indonesia tsunami reconstruction. Sebastien Hamel told members that a report will be forthcoming on the special committee established to oversee fund management in Sri Lanka. The Committee adopted the consent agenda, and members circulated to meet each project team and their partners at established booths. STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ARRANGEMENTS Chair Karen Leibovici led discussion on amendments to and approvals of the Committee's work plan. The Committee created a working group to develop the 2006 policy statement and discussed the need for the policy statement to emphasise sustainable finding for municipalities. The Committee also discussed having Board reports of the other Standing Committees posted on FCM's website. Gloria Kovach reported on FCM's budget submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Committee members discussed the need for ongoing advocacy with their Members of Parliament, for a year -long advocacy plan, and for a better understanding of the federal legislative process.Gord Steeves reported on recent developments with respect to the U.S. Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative on new U.S. passport requirements. Howard Moscoe updated the Committee on Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), noting that a workshop is scheduled in December to discuss the PILT Best Practices. David Devine of International Trade Canada presented on upcoming WTO trade negotiations in Hong Kong, the International Trade Primer and other initiatives. —7— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 STANDING COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION POLICY The Committee created a working group to develop the 2006 policy statement and discussed the need for the policy statement to include fitness and amateur sport infrastructure, as well as libraries and other cultural amenities. Councillor Mike Badhain presented a five-year business plan for InfraGuide, which incorporates alternative revenue sources. Staff reported on recent initiatives of the RAC/FCM Rail Proximity Committee. Committee members and the National Board of Directors were invited to attend a RAC/FCM Rail Proximity Committee workshop in Bromont, Quebec, immediately before the Board meeting there. Councillor Howard Moscoe updated the committee on telecommunications and antenna tower issues. The committee agreed to use a portion of the Rights of Way Legal Defence Fund to support a part-time staff position, which will offset the high legal costs associated with the file. The committee also agreed to send an update of activities to municipal contributors to the Legal Defence Fund. John Hobbs, Executive Director of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada made a presentation on urban design awards. STANDING COMMITTEE ON INCREASING WOMEN'S PARTICIPATION IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT Councillor Louise Poirier provided an update on her participation in the first anniversary activities of Equal Voice (National Capital Region chapter). The Committee reviewed the proposed outline of the policy statement and suggested amendments for the next version, to be prepared for review in March 2006. The Committee welcomed international guests, including Mayor Ortega of the City of San Fernando, Republic of the Philippines, who expressed support for women's participation in municipal government. An update of the 2005 scholarship presentation was provided and a sub -committee was formed to evaluate the 2006 scholarship applications. The Committee received updates on the "Increasing Women's Participation in Municipal Government" Project. The Committee thanked Councillor Jeff McConnell, Councillor David Alexander, Councillor Pam McConnell, and Mr. Phillip Abrahams for their assistance in organizing a mobilization tour event in Toronto, ON, and project workshops in Virden, MB, and Hamilton, ON. Staff provided an update on upcoming workshops in Edmonton, AB, Regina, SK, Sydney, NS, and Moncton, NB. Committee members emphasised the importance of regional considerations when organizing project events. am GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 Appendix A — News Release ly Fs�^ i~_ratt A111+mt ftafoiom h, © 1hicd1w i Let Canadians hear leaders debate municipal issues, says FCM OTTAWA, Dec. 3 /CNW - Telbec/ - Canada's prosperity depends on strong cities and communities. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) is calling on the broadcasters' consortium overseeing the televised leaders' debates to guarantee that questions about issues affecting municipalities are included in each debate. That was the message from the FCM National Board of Directors, meeting in Ottawa today. "We've had expressions of support from every party, but now it's time to hear the details," said FCM President Michael Coleman. "The leaders' debates will give Canadians a chance to hear first-hand how the parties intend to deal with street -level problems, like decaying infrastructure, affordable housing, water quality and spiralling transportation costs." "It may be a winter election, but we don't want to be frozen out of this debate," Coleman said. FCM has been calling for a commitment to erasing the $60-billion municipal infrastructure deficit. The Federation also wants funds allocated by the last Parliament for affordable housing and transit to be paid out quickly by the next government. "Our communities urgently need these funds, and we want to hear from all the party leaders that moving quickly on these questions will be at the top of the agenda for the new Parliament," said Coleman. -30- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 AGENDA ITEM # °� Panizza, Bob From: Rogers, John Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 10:48 AM To; 'Bill Hogg' Cc: Jones, Tim; 'John Sanderson'; Panizza, Bob Subject: RE: Equalized payments Bill: I recall this being discussed at our last meeting of the Aurora Hydro Board and there was a response that I thought was to be forwarded to you. By copy of this email I am asking Bob Panizza to place your correspondence on the next General Committee Agenda however I trust John Sanderson will be able to help us with clarifying the response. - John S. Rogers, Chief Administrative Officer Town of Aurora, 1 Municipal Drive, Box 1000 Aurora, Ontario, L4G 6,11 Direct 905-726-4744 905-727-3123, Ext 4744 Fax 905-727-4993 Confidential Fax 905-726-4737 PLEASE NOTE: Our email and web address have changed - the new email is jrogers@e-aurora.ca - the now web Is www.e-aurora.ca Aurora is a Character Community this month's attribute is CO-OPERATION The Information contained in this message is directed in confidence solely to the persona named above and may not be otherwise distributed, copied or disclosed. The message may contain information that is privileged,. confidential and exempt from disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection and Privacy Act. If you have received this message In error, please notify the sender immediately advising of the error and delete the message without making a copy. Thank you. -----Original Massa a ----- From: Bill Hogg Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 12:10 PM To: Rogers, John Cc: Jones, Tim; 'John Sanderson' Subject: RE: Equalized payments If it takes a Councillor this long to get any response I can only imagine what it must be like as a customer. I would like to bring this forward to Council since it has been impossible to get a response this way. John please add this issue to the next GC meeting and attach this correspondence Cheers! 1/162006 —1 0 - � `- 90OZ/9I/1 esgl 96nuow o} saglwo]. awoau! daMol/pail} }cadxa aM op MOH - an1oA uopop ay} }O ssa!pdo6aa 'H}uow S ul asoadoul OPEC o -- OZ 696$ Aod of pahadxa wn 2 logo}no ul }nq; sumw }ngl'y,q po uo pvpnpap Apoadlo dYd A!q;uow Aw o; uol;lppo ul sl y+LZ 100 anp }uawAod 02'ZL9$ aH; }nH} aas pun;uawa;o;s �uoq Aw pvvD?go {snf I -uol}nwdo].ul allow - Addos s;uawAed pazllenb3 :Md :7nafgnS va6oy uyop !sauol LULL :30 uowapues ugoF :ol as c 'AepunS queS 660H 1119 :woad pagzwz7 suozgaavuo0 QxPAH azo.xnv -wagsAs =ox moxq a6sseam SIM ana Tep pue izew-a usngax Aq au: A;xgou aseald 'xozza uz a6essaw sigq paniaoaz aneq pue quazdtoaz pa�uaqu; agq qou aze noA dI pegTgTqoxd AT40Txgs sz uotgeoiunwmoo sign 3o @en xaggo zo Adoo-pzeg on uojszoAuoo '6uiAdoo 'uo?gng?znsip 'uoZgev?waaazp*cc?=s?wsvexn-ax 'enaTnaz Ave gegq par ;zgou Agazaq aae noA 'quazd-Daz papuaquz oqq qou axe ncA ;I—UvjZNHHIjNOO NO/QNH X,IVI377I60id 'OHDRIIAIHd SI IH NOIIKW Djmi NIviNOJ .0 QNY S=dIJHN GaaNn,[N Hi:� d0 asn HM N09 camalNI A'INO SI S`J Sssw SIM pa;!wll suol}oauuOO wpAH eaoinV ODO Pue;uap!sajd ,6UE'duoslapueg'. ugOr ugop oep -6u!}aaw pdeog eq; ja}]e noA o; �oeq;a6 II!M I ;nq aeaA Ise[ anssl s!q; pas!ai noA eou!s salnseaw anpoeodd awns ua�e} aneg aM .epua6e eq; o; udaouoo InoA ppe p!M l golgM;e 6uluaOw MwLOwO; 6ul;aaw paeog e aneq aM';no suan};l sV s;uawAed pazllenb3 :3T1 :ycargns ,5Ja6oa uqo[, !,saucl LULL, :c0 ,WmWueS ug06, !,66oH II!9, :01 Wd 9S:Z SOOZ'bZ dagopo'AepuoW quaS [eruo•wpAgejomepo uowapuesLcillew] ucsiapue9 ugoc :woad ----a6essow leul6po----- dolpcuno0 660H IN 90OZ 'VZ AHVNNV — 33illRWOO IV8AN30 GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 24, 2006 7ohn/Tim, please add this to the next possible agenda for discussion. I would like to understand whether this is unique to me or is in fact a situation that others are faced with. You may wish to have a report developed prior to discussion, so please let me know your plans Cheersl Bill Hogg Councillor MCI Ito Phone -----Original Mes ----- From: Bill Hogg Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 11:45 AM To: John Sanderson Jsanderson@aurorahydro.ori Cc: Tim Jones (tjones@town.aurora.on.c@); John Rogers (]Rogers@Town.Aurora.ON.CA) Subject: FW: Equalized payments I am sending the email again, with the same question that I asked last year. I did not get a response last year but will insist on one this year. Again this year I received my yearly reconciliation and was surprised by a monthly bill that was $672.20 versus my monthly PAP of $287.00 -- 234% increase or $385.20. Further, my monthly has risen by 27% from $287 to $353 - a increase of $66/month or $792/year. While I know everyone doesn't have a large house, my question remains; "How do we expect people on fixed/lower incomes to manage lump payments like this? What proactive steps can we take to minimize the impact of this situation?" If we do not have a process in placeto address this issue then I would ask that it be placed before the Board for a recommendation. Possibly we need to implement a mid -year review on usage and make the adjustments bi-annually. I look forward to your thoughts, Cheers! Bill Hogg Councillor mailto: Phone: -----Original Messa e---- From: Bill Hogg Sent: Sunday, October 311 2004 11:48 AM To: John Sanderson Jsanderson@aurorahydm.on.ca); Tim Jones ([Jones@town.aurcra.on.ca) Subject: Equalized payments 1/16/2006 -1 2 .EL— 900Z/91/I auo4d :oypow uopiounoy 560H II!8 pdaa�o [uol}on{is siq} }o {mdwl ay} aziump o{ ado} am uoa sda}s aAI{=Odd ID9M Zsiq{ aril +uawAod dwnl o 25nuaw 4 sawOnul paxlf vo aldoad }aadxO am op moll }uawAod Alg4uow Aw algnop uoyi allow - Ham so OUOw s14i }uawAod uoµopiouooad o q;lm }jq som I 6uppq Aly+uow doln6ad Aw oy uoi� ppo ui loq; pug oy pasidduns som puo 6uilIIq �uaaad Aw paniaaad I good 'bd kavnNvr — 33111WWOD IVH3N30 GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 24, 2006 AGENDA ITEM Panizza, Bob From: Jones, Tim Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 1:42 PM To: Panizza, Bob; AIICouncillors; Gutteridge, John; Rogers, John Cc: Ellis, Cooky Subject: RE: AMO alert (1) with (1) attachment Bob, Would you please put this on the next General Committee with recommendation to follow up as requested by Roger Anderson to the Provincial government expressing our concerns. Thanks Tim -----Original Message ----- From; Panizza, Bob Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 12:37 PM To: AllCouncillors; Gutteridge, John; Rogers, John Cc: Ellis, Cooky Subject: FW: AMO alert (1) with (1) attachment -----Original Message ----- From: communicate@amo.on.ca [mailto:communicate@amo.on.ca] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 12:12 PM To: Panizza, Bob Subject: AMO alert (1) with (1) attachment TO THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE CLERK AND COUNCIL Attached are (1) AMO Alert and (1) attachment, as below: - Alert 06/002 - January 16, 2006 - OMERS Update - Bill 206 - Attachment - AMO letter of January 16, 2006 to Heads of Council If you have problems opening the attachment(s) please call AMO at (416) 971-9B56. PLEASE NOTE AMO communications will be broadcast to the municipality's administrator and clerk. Recipients of the AMO broadcasts are free to redistribute the AMO broadcasts to other municipal staff and elected officials as required. We have decided to not add other staff to these broadcast lists in order to ensure accuracy and efficiency in the management of our various broadcast lists. DISCLAIMER These are final versions of AMO documents. AMO assumes no responsibility for any discrepancies that may have been transmitted with the electronic version. The printed versions of the documents stand as the official record. GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 Member•m • Association of a Municipalities 'r of Ontario 393 University Avenue, Suite 1701 Toronto, ON M5G 1 E6 Tel: (416) 971-9856 • fax: (416) 971-6191 email: amo@amc.on.ca To the immediate attention of the Clerk and Council January 16, 2006 — Alert 061002 OMERS UPDATE — BILL 206 (All 382 Municipal Governments that are OMERS Employers Should Read this Alert Immediately) Issue: Response to Minister Gerretsen's December 20th letter to Heads of Council and AMO letter to Northumberland Today. AMO's Action: At Standing Committee hearings in December, the interests of OMERS employers, municipal governments and property tax payers were fundamentally ignored. The result is a Bill that a number of stakeholders have described as deeply flawed. On December 20, 2005, Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister John Gerretsen wrote to all Heads of Council setting out the Government's position on Bill 206. In response to the letter, AMO President Roger Anderson is writing to all Heads of Council in a letter attached to this Alert. AMO's letter is intended to assist municipal councils in considering the real impacts of Bill 206. There has been considerable debate in Ontario about Bill 206. The debate has been intense. For example, a January12th article in Northumberland Today describes an exchange at Northumberland County Council with MPP Lou Rinaldi. It is linked to this Alert for your information. AMO has responded to the article with a letter to the Editor of the paper, which is attached. AMO has requested an opportunity to make another presentation to the Standing Committee on Bill 206 later this month as it proceeds to Second Reading consideration. We will continue to keep members informed of developments on this important matter. Your Action: Members are encouraged to work with their MPPs, local chambers of commerce, and residential and business taxpayer groups to ensure they understand the implications of Bill 206. AMO's website (members and subscribers only) contains information that can help you locally. For more information, contact416-971-9856: Pat Van in!, AMO Executive Director, ext. 316; or Brian Rosborough, AMO Director of Pollcy at ext. 318 —15— OsPrey Media. - Northumberland Today GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 Page 1 of 3 HOME > NORTHUMBERIAND TODAY > LOCAL NEWS —inside Northumberland • Local News • Local Sports • Editorial Classifieds E_ni ainme.n-t Events Horoscope Lotto c Features Automotive Home Csprey.Health. Series Osprey_Writers_ Group Queen's _Par lc. Colu.mn... Travel —About Northumberland • General • Advertising • Circulation • Newsroom • Go! Magazine Northumberland Specialty Publications • Northumberland Relocation Guide •Phon.ebooks Communities •The_Apple_Route • Brighton • Cobourq Colborne Cramahe • Grafton. Port Mope • •- �: b gt, I . Find thtampassto MPP told to stuff new legislation Cecilia Nasmith Local News - Thursday, January 12, 2006 @ 09:00 Tempers flared at Northumberland County council this week, to the point that Trent Hills Mayor Hector Macmillan told Northumberland MPP Lou Rinaldi to take Bill 206 and stuff it. Tuesday, Article Se: {ysgrrtey+�s Local Ne •Local, can( platforms-; CDCI Eas for suppor Father.of t himself in School ro( Bantams_F record in The changes the bill proposes for the Ontario Municipal Employees' Retirement a Special In System will cost municipalities dearly. The new legislation will eliminate the province's . Subscribe_ sponsorship of the system and, at the same time, enshrine supplemental benefits Con;acts including early -retirement rights (and costs) for police, fire and paramedic personnel. Cobourg Mayor Peter Delanty told Mr. Rinald! that this is one of the biggest issues they face. "You can wash it any way you want this is going to cost us. This is calculated by (the Qybu Association of Municipalities of Ontario) to add three per cent to our taxpayer. "This is a real concern for the Town of Cobourg, and it's a $1.2-million impact for the county. You can say this is a worst -case scenario, but I bet you in five or six years we ' are there," Mr. Delanty predicted. spreyffli The two aspects he asked Mr. Rinaldi to address are the haste with which the bill is going through and his own suggestion that, if the province is so keen to have this bill, F6mtm ed1 why they don't pay for it. lantesW Mr. Rinaldi never really answered the second aspect, but he did object to the Man Thar accusation of haste. The idea was first considered 12 years ago under the NDP RBE 0 government. The normal consultation with stake holders did go on, he insisted, even after the first reading which is unusual. —16— http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/webapp/sitepages/content. asp?contentID=140686&... 1 /17/2006 Osprey Media. - Northumberland Today GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 • Rice._Lake "People invited to the table were AMO, the Association of Police Boards of Ontario, the City of Toronto as the single largest employer under OMERS, and union —Services Links representatives from the police and fire departments," Mr. Rinaldi listed. Cobourg, Public Llbrar..y "AMO refused to take,part. The Association of Police Boards did not so that outreach • Commu..n..ity was there. Employ-m,ant Resource Centre "You are members of AMO. You pay good money to be part of AMO. I would • Community personally talk to your AMO representative and ask them why they did not come Information forward when they were asked to discuss the issues in an open manner." Centres • North Lmberland The MPP expressed his belief that many concerns councillors have are addressed in Unte..d.Way the 100 amendments that have been made to the bill to date. And since municipalities Northumberlan_ d must negotiate with their employees anyway, he added, there Is that opportunity to Hills Hospital minimize the impact. Arts & Growing more agitated with each statement, Mr. Delanty told the MPP, "You know --Entertainment what AMO's stand is. You know our stand. You know this is going to be an excessive Links burden on us. You know that your government knows that, and yet they are saying, We are going to go forward.' That three -per -cent increase Is really going to cripple us." • The_Capitol Theatre N don't agree with the numbers," Mr. Rinaldi murmured. • Cobo..urg Victo...ria Hall ..Concert....._H...all 'Whether AMO was at the table every second doesn't matter," Mr. Delanty continued heatedly. "This doesn't make sense. Let the province pick it up. Don't put it on us so, —Business Links when people forget they will ask us to explain why that three -per -cent increase is • Pgrt_Hope &, there." District Chamber of_Comme_rce. If Queen's Park truly believes the cost is insignificant, Mr. Finley challenged, let them PiA.H..o...p..e cover it for the first three years "Then you can come back to us and say, See? This Economic didn't cost anybody anything."' Development Brighton & District "It may be an idea going back to the NDP, but that was pre-1995 before downloading," Chamber of Mr. Macmillan said. Commerce Coboura "AMO has made it very clear, and there are resolutions streaming through the system Chamber. of that have told the province we don't want it. We don't want to pay for it. I don't know Com...e.rce m how much clearer it can be. It should never have made second reading." —Organization Links Mr. Macmillan took a piece of paper from his desk to read Mr. Rinaldi the resolution Northumberland county council had recently passed that they refused to accept the administrative and Forest Users financial costs the bill would impose. Co_ mmttee Friends of "Belleve it," he warned Mr. Rinaldi. "We are going to stand up to you on this one, and Presyu' l-- we are going to make more noise than any other delegation has ever made at Queen's Park. _Local Government Links "I don't know how much clearer the message can be. We are saying take the OMERS • Paul, Mack.ln_MP devolution and stuff it. We don't need to be sitting down and making amendments to • M,unicipai ty_. this bill. Don't waste any more of the taxpayers'time on it. We don't want it. We won't Po.rt_Hope. take it. This is the last straw. We are there. Mu_nidipaltyof „We are asking you not as a member of the provincial government coming out here Brighton and telling us what's going on there. I am asking you as our MPP for Northumberland County that you take our concerns to them and tell them we are serious. We are going —Tourism Links to push the government to the maximum, and we are serious." Northumberland Cou..nty_Travel_&, Mr. Rinaldi asked the councillors to be fair and not try to calculate the cost on a worst - Tourism. case scenario. Still, when cornered by Mr. Macmillan how much smaller they might Po t Hope realistically expect the numbers to be, he couldn't commit to a percentage. Tourism Municipality of "I understand what you are saying," Mr. Macmillan allowed. 'The problem is, it doesn't Brighton Tourism matter what the costs are. We aren't interested." Rice Lake Tourist Association "So you tell your employees who want a raise, We are not interested?"' Mr. Rinaldi The.._.A..pple Ro.u_te challenged heatedly. Roseneath --_...-.-.....- Carouse.ell Asked to tell the MPP what his calculations had been, county treasurer Todd Austin Page 2 of 3 http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/webapp/sitepages/content. asp?contentED=140686&... 1 /17/2006 Osprey Media. - Northumberland Today Page 3 of 3 GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 Cobou...rg stated that it would start at $150,000 to $200,000. Osprey Personals "The point is, it's a supplemental plan enshrined in legislation. This is not going to be OSprey.p..e..rs...o..nals negotiated as part of an over-all wage increase it's a supplemental, additional cost, and that's the concern," Mr. Austin explained. _Osprey News "It can't be argued. That's a fact. It's $200,000 up front, and it will be $1.2-million in the Archive Service span of five years. It's in the figures. They don't Ile:' Pfinfomart Archive_Service Port Hope's experience is a good example, Warden Rick Austin added. The police negotiated a four -per -cent annual raise, but added the supplemental considerations that work out to a 12-per-cent raise for many of them. Hamilton Township Mayor Forrest Rowden offered his own experiences as a Teamster in the 1970s going through a similar exercise. "And guess what?" Mr. Rowden said. "Many, many of the companies affected have gone bankrupt" "We have known you for a long time," Alnwick-Haldimand Township Mayor Bill Finley said. "I realize you are the elected MPP, but I think you have got a decision to make: you will either serve your riding or you will serve the government you serve under. I don't think you can do both at this time. It's going to come down to that" Discussion Closed ID-140656 ih Pri_n..tab.le.Vers..on.. Thank you fo.r..readngNorthumbe..rland Today_onlne,. Click hereto order convenient_ home delivery, Disclaimer < Privacy ® Webslte Advertising Opportunities • Osprey News Feed ©20 http://v,n ww.orthumberlandtoday.com/webapp/sit pages/content.asp?eontentID=140686&... 1/17/2006 GENERAL COMMITTEE'— JANUARY 24, 2006 A h� �A OVKM M_ Association of Municipalities of Ontario January 12, 2006 ILTA III Wne 11M, 1001 Managing Editor Northumberland News Dear Mr. Johnston: OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT RE: MPP Told to Stuff New Legislation Sent via email On behalf of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), I am writing to support the Northumberland County Council's opposition to the Province's Bill 206 and to correct the record with respect to statements made by Northumberland MPP Lou Rinaldi. As this paper correctly reported, Bill 206 proposes changes to the Ontario Municipal Employees' Retirement System that, over time, will cost municipalities and local taxpayers dearly. It is estimated that the supplementary pension benefit increases proposed in the Bill represent a new financial burden of $1.2 million annually for Northumberland County, while providing absolutely no improvement in municipal services or benefit to taxpayers. Province - wide, Bill 206's provisions will require an estimated municipal property tax increase of approximately 3 per cent to cover an estimated $380 million in new costs. Reference to the benefit increases will not be found in any campaign platform, government pronouncements or Throne Speech. Far from consulting broadly as Mr. Rinaldi suggests, the provincial government shut the majority of stakeholders out of its Committee Hearings on Bill 206, including the Association of Police Boards of Ontario, which was refused standing despite being directly named within the Bill. And concerns voiced by AMO and others have largely been ignored to the detriment of municipalities and taxpayers. By necessity, AMO has communicated its concerns regarding Bill 206 to Mr. Rinaldi's Government through several other channels. The only meetings that AMO refused to participate in were closed door meetings that the Province and two unions organized to negotiate how the costly pension benefits that the government has put in the Bill would be implemented. In effect, AMO was being asked to help facilitate implementation of a policy that would hurt its members and it refused. Cobourg Mayor Peter Delanty told the plain truth when he told MPP Rinaldi that, "You know what AMO's stand is. You know our stand. You know this is going to be an excessive burden on us. You know that your government knows that, and yet they are saying, 'we are going to go forward.' /2 393 University Ave., Suite 1701 Toronto, ON M5G 1 E6 tel: (416) 971-9856 s toll free: 1-877-426-6527 • fax: (416) 971-6191 w email: amo(@amo.on.ca —19— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 -2- The OMERS pension plan is already one of the most generous pension plans in Canada. Taxpayers, and particularly pensioners on fixed incomes, should not have to pay higher property taxes to fund even greater pension benefits for a select few. AMC believes that the Province is ignoring the best interests of communities, small business groups, seniors and property taxpayers in general. AMC will voice its strong opposition to this Bill during two days of Standing Committee on Bill 206 in January. We hope that taxpayers will be given the same opportunity. Yours truly, Roger Anderson President —20— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, �kkl* Association of Municipalities of Ontario January 16, 2006 To: All Heads of Council Dear Municipal Colleague: 2006 OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Re: Bill 206, Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act I am writing to you in response to a December 20, 2005 letter to all Heads of Council from Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister John Gerretsen. The Minister's letter sets out the Government's position on Bill 206 and asserts that the Bill will not impose any new cost or pension benefit that would result in added costs for municipalities. This assertion by the Government is based on fact that access to the proposed OMERS supplemental plans will be subject to local bargaining and interest arbitration. At the same time, the Minister's letter goes on to state that the costs of supplemental plans provided as a result of Bill 206 would be "quite onerous" for both employers and employees under current solvency rules under the Ontario Pension Benefits Act. The issue of costs resulting from Bill 206 supplemental plans provisions has been an important part of the debate over Bill 206. It is not surprising. Bill 206 is, first and foremost, a supplemental plan bill; packaged as a bill that would, if passed, devolve sponsorship responsibility to OMERS employee and employer members. If this Bill were about autonomy, it would not mandate supplemental plans, and arbitration, among other matters. OMERS employers and employees are already managing an average 9% increase in their OMERS contributions resulting from the current financial performance of the OMERS basic plan. Does anyone doubt that there will be additional contribution rate increases within the basic plan in future years? Costs related to Bill 206 supplemental plans will be in addition to escalating costs for the OMERS basic plan. When Bill 206 was introduced, it made it essentially inevitable (through arbitration) that OMERS would be required to offer a number of supplemental plans that would enhance the retirement benefits of police and fire service employees. Analysis undertaken by AMO and its members, using actuarial estimates developed by OMERS (at AMO's request) concluded that the potential cost impact for municipalities to be as much as $380 million a year. During the Standing Committee review of the Bill, the Government introduced amendments that would increase those costs dramatically, including making the provision of supplemental plans mandatory within two years and adding paramedics to the list of emergency services workers for whom supplemental plans must be available. AMO's costing estimates did not include mandatory supplemental benefits for paramedics or civilian police services employees. /2 393 University Ave., Suite 1701 Toronto, ON M5G 1 E6 tel: (416) 971-9856 • toll free: 1-877-426-6527 • fax: (416) 971-6191 • email: amo@.amo.on.ca —21— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 -2- In December, the Finance Minister Dwight Duncan wrote to OMERS indicating that, if Bill 206 passes, and once OMERS supplemental plans are created, he would recommend to Cabinet that OMERS supplemental plans be exempted from solvency requirements under the Ontario Pension Benefits Act, While AMO does not question the sincerity of the Minister's commitment, the Minister has provided no guarantee that OMERS supplemental plans will be exempt. Nothing in Bill 206 changes solvency requirements for OMERS supplemental plans. Consequently, it would be irresponsible for AMO or anyone to adopt reduced costs estimates tied to a potential solvency exemption. Bill 206 can only be considered within the current statutory and regulatory framework governing pension solvency provisions in Ontario. While the Government and others recognize that supplemental plans will be onerous and expensive under current rules, to our knowledge, only AMO has made a request to OMERS to produce and distribute costing information based on Bill 206 provisions. With the Government's amendments to the Bill during Standing Committee, those costs will increase, not decrease. Even if a solvency exemption is provided at the time when the supplemental plans are created, the additional costs of supplemental plans will result in property tax increases without any additional investment local services, including public safety, and no benefit whatsoever to property tax payers in our communities. Since the introduction of Bill 206 in June 2005, AMO has been asking the Government to demonstrate that it has done its due diligence in assessing the potential cost impacts of the Bill on municipalities. To date, the Government has not provided any information that would demonstrate that it has analyzed the potential cost implications for municipalities. Consequently, as was noted in AMO's Alert 05/092 of December 15, 2005, AMO has made a formal request for this information under the provisions of the Freedom of information and Protection of Privacy Act. The information has not yet been provided. The Minister's letter also notes that the Bill contains a provision to limit costs for OMERS employer and employee members; namely, the requirement for a stability reserve of 105 per cent before benefits could be increased and a cap of 0.5 per cent for both employees and employers on awards arbitrated for the Sponsors Corporation. These provisions will be important if Bill 206 passes but it is critically important to recognize that they do not apply to supplemental benefits. If Bill 206 passes in its current form, municipalities will need to begin planning for significant cost increases and consequent property tax increases. —22— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 -3- In closing his letter to Heads of Council, the Minister invites municipal governments in Ontario to provide "further recommendations and comments on this important matter". I urge you and your Council to consider responding to his request. Let the Government know that Ontario's communities and Ontario's property tax payers reject Bill 206 and are not prepared to accept a legacy of provincial legislation that drives up municipal property taxes and undermines our ability to provide local services and build Strong Communities. Yours truly, Roger Anderson President cc Hon. Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario Hon. John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Hon. Dwight Duncan, Minister of Finance Members of the Provincial Parliament David Kingston, Chair, OMERS Board —23— GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 24, 2006 --� AGHKA ITEM 4 -TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. CS06-005 SUBJECT: Provision of Future Animal Control Services FROM: Bob Panizza, Director Corporate Services DATE: January 24, 2006 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the report Provision of Future Animal Control Services CS06-005 be received; and THAT the Town ofAurora enterinto 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 Bylaw for an adjustment in the licensing fees for cats and dogs; and THAT staff continue to review long term options with municipalities in York Region or Kennel Inn or any other interested parties on a new animal shelter and animal control enforcement to service the Town of Aurora. BACKGROUND At the General Committee meeting of December 6, 2005 a comprehensive report (attached as Appendix #1) was presented to Committee which outlined in detail operational issues with the Town's animal control services and recommended that the Town move it's operations to the Town of Georgina animal shelter and shift its animal control enforcement to Wayne Jones Animal Control Services. This report was received with a further recommendation: "That a notice be placed in the newspaper to advise residents that the Town will be considering the temporary relocation of Aurora's animal shelter to Georgina." -24- GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 24, 2006 January 24, 2006 - 2 - Report No. CS06-005 As requested by Council, staff arranged to have notices placed in the Era -Banner Town Notice Board Page on December 20, January 10, 17 & 24, the Auroran newspaper on January 17, and on the Town's web site. To date 2 letters have been submitted, copies enclosed as Appendix #2 against the proposed change in service provider. Consequently, staff continues to support the proposal to move its animal control operations to the animal shelter in Georgina and arrange to have Wayne Jones Animal Control services provide the necessary enforcement. Wildlife Services In June and December General Committee received delegations from the Earth Rangers and Toronto Wildlife Centre both of whom outlined the services that their respective organizations provide to the residents of Aurora and requested consideration for the provision of wildlife rescue services as part of the Towns animal control program. At the present time the Town does not provide any support services with respect to calls from residents that are encountering wildlife problems on their properties. Normally these calls are channelled directly to agencies like the aforementioned or to pest control companies. In the event of injured wildlife, the Town's animal control contractor arranges to pick up and deliver the injured animal to one of the wildlife rescue agencies. Accordingly staff recommends that the Town maintains its current arrangements when dealing with wildlife rescue inquiries and that no new level of service be introduced with either Earth Rangers or Toronto Wildlife Centre. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The financial implications forfuture animal control services and shelter operation are many and varied depending on the desired proposal previously presented. The Town is currently on a month to month contract arrangement with Kennel Inn since the former contract expired on December 31, 2004. The current rate is $11,250 per month. Should Council wish to remain with Kennel Inn, the proposed new annual contract price is $150,000. The 2006 Corporate Services budget provides the necessary funding forthe proposed contract of $153,490 with the new animal control services providers. OPTIONS The selection of service providers for animal control services are entirely at the discretion of Council. Council may proceed with the recommended proposal or remain with the current contractor. -25- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 January 24, 2006 - 3 - Report No. CS06-005 CONCLUSIONS Staff recommends that the contract for animal control services be changed to the proposal from the Town of Georgina animal shelter and Wayne Jones Animal Control Services for a one year contract, and that in the interim the Town continues to discuss the future of animal control services with the nearby municipalities and any other interested parties for the long a long range solution for this service. 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. ATTACHMENTS Appendix #1-Staff Report CS05-035 Appendix #2 - Letters Received PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team — January 18, 2006 Prepared by: Bob Panizza, ext. 4221 Bob Panizza, Director Corporate Services —26— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 APPENDIX #1 '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 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 staffbring 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 Histo 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). —27— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 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 forthe 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. Howeverthis was not a viable option due to the limited size of their facilities. Ims GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 24, 2006 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 factorthem 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 Dos handled annually: Se t 30 2005 62 2004 92 2003 113 2002 92 Number of cats handled annuals (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 -29- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 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 Wh itch urch-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 —30— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 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 Si. 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. —31— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 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, Whitchurch-Stouffville 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. —32— GENERAL COMMITTEE - JANUARY 24, 2006 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, W hitch u rch-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 shelterwhich 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 -33- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 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 a long term lease or alternatively lease to purchase arrangementfor the 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: ➢ Cons: Shifts the capital costs to the private partner Increased level of service Upgraded facility designed to accommodate future 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 Improved pet adoption programs needs address customer complaints Increased, long term 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 —34— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 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 1 135,500 ` 2004 104,050 2003 96,200 r2002 99,900 2001 891300 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 a new 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 Municipality Population Size of Facility Calgary 957,000 21,000 sq. ft. Brampton F 380,000 18,000 sq. ft. R GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 December 6, 2005 .10. Report No. CS05-036 Kingston 104,800 '1 4,800 sq. ft. London 323,600 F 4,200 sq. ft. Pickering/Ajax/Whitby 252,050 1,600 sq. ft. F Georgina et al F 138,550 3,000 sq. ft. �— OSPCA 31,200 sq. ft. Consequently, it is estimated that the costs associated with building a new 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 OSPCA 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 may wish to proceed with constructing its own shelter and operating animal control independently. —36— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 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 Wh itch u rch-Stouffvill e 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 smaller facility 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. -37- GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 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. xEkL Tj 1. Build & Operate a Joint Facility Joint Group Const. Costs $2,642,500 Ann. Oper. Costs $3,024,500 Aurora Costs Const. $168,000 Oper. $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 $162,750 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. —38— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 December 6, 2005 .13. Revenue No. CS05-036 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. —39— GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 December 6, 2005 -14 - Report No. GS05-036 CONCLUSIONS The information gathered by the ad -hoc committee through its research of other municipalities' animal control services and visitations to otherfacilities 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 agreementwith Kennel Inn subjectto 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. M GENERAL COMMITTEE — JANUARY 24, 2006 December 6, 2005 - 15 - Report No. CS05-036 ATTACHMENTS Appendix #1 Kennel Inn Facilities Photos Appendix #2 Letters from Residents Appendix#3 Comparator Municipalities Construction Costs Survey Appendix #4 Proposed Joint Facility Costs Appendix#5 Correspondence from Kennel Inn Appendix#6 Animal Control Costs Comparison Appendix #7 Joint Operation Cost Split by Municipality PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team — November 30, 2005 Prepared by, Bob Panizza, ext 4221 Chris Alexander, ext 4241 #MAI Bob Panizza, Dire for Corporate Services —41— lH _4 a i z r irs tomm r6�� T