Agenda - General Committee - 20060516FAL b - b
4 nTfr 0 v
40 04
GENERAL CO
AGENDA
N0.06-10
ITTEE
TUESDAY, MAY 16, 2006
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CNAMBERS
AURORA TOWN HALL
PUBLIC RELEASE
12/05/06
TOWN OFAURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING
AGENDA
NO. 06-10
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
7:00 p.m.
Councillor Kean in the Chair.
I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
N 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
None
VI CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
Vll OTHER BUSINESS, COUNCILLORS
Vlll IN -CAMERA
General Committee Meeting No. 06-10 Page 2 of 9
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Legal and Personnel Matters
RECOMMENDED:
THAT this Committee proceed In -Camera to address legal and personnel
matters.
IX ADJOURNMENT
General Committee Meeting No. 06-10 Page 3 of 9
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
AGENDA ITEMS
1. PW06-019 — Water Supply and Usage Update (pg. 1)
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No. PW06-019 entitled "Water Usage and Supply Update"
be received for information.
2. PW06-021 — Disposition of Former Aurora Hydro Building (pg. 9)
at 215 Industrial Parkway South
RECOMMENDED:
THAT staff be requested to report further on the potential costs and
benefits for various alternative uses for 215 Industrial Parkway South, as
generally described in Report No. PW06-021.
3. PW06-020 — Tender Award No. PW2006-27 — Emergency Repair (pg. 14)
to the Water and Sewer Distribution System and the
Installation of Water and Sewer Service Connections
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Tender No. PW2006-27 - For the Supply of all Labour, Material,
and Equipment Necessary for Emergency Repairs to the Town's Water
Distribution and Sewer System and the Installation of Water and Sewer
Service Connections, be awarded to VM DiMonte Construction Ltd. at its
tendered price of $345,000.00 (exclusive of GST) per year with the option
to renew for a further two one-year periods; and
THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Municipal Clerk to execute the
Agreement between the Town of Aurora and VM DiMonte Construction for
emergency repairs and service connections; and
THAT By -Law 4759-06.F Schedule "F" be amended to reflect the newly
introduced Flat Rate Water and Sewer Service Connection Fees.
General Committee Meeting No. 06-10
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Page 4 of 9
4. PW06-022 — Award of Contract for Consulting Services -
Reconstruction of Aurora Heights Drive, Laurentide
Avenue and Illingworth Court
RECOMMENDED:
(pg. 21)
THAT the Director of Public Works be authorized to sign an Engineering
Agreement with Totten Sims Hubicki Associates Limited for the provision
of consulting services for the preliminary and detail design for the
reconstruction of Aurora Heights Drive from Yonge Street to west of
Foreht Crescent, Laurentide Avenue, and Illingworth Court at a cost not to
exceed $57,200, exclusive of GST.
5. PW06-023 — Reconstruction of Collins Crescent and Ottawa (pg. 25)
Court — Issues Relating to Topsoil and Sod
RECOMMENDED:
THAT staff proceed to implement the recommendations of the report from
The Guelph Turfgrass Institute and Environmental Research Centre as
described in Report No. PW06-023.
6. PW06-024 — On -Call Environmental Consultant Contract Extension (pg. 41)
RECOMMENDED:
1. THAT the Director of Public Works be authorized to sign an extension
to the existing Engineering Agreement with Earth Tech Canada Inc. for
the provision of consulting services for an "On -Call Environmental
Consultant' for the Town with the Engineering Agreement modified as
described in Report No. PW06-024; and
2. THAT such signature as noted in Recommendation No. 1 shall not
occur until the Town Solicitor has reviewed and approved the
Engineering Agreement.
7. PW06-025— Proposed Regional Policies for Jurisdiction of (pg. 45)
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council receive for information Report No. PW06-025 - Proposed
Regional Policies for Jurisdiction of Water and Wastewater Infrastructure,
as presented by the Region of York Transportation and Works Committee;
and
General Committee Meeting No. 06-10
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Page 5 of 9
THAT the Regional Municipality of York be informed that the Town of
Aurora is in agreement with the Jurisdiction of Water and Wastewater
Infrastructure as detailed in Clause No. 1, Report No. 4 of the Regional
Transportation and Works Committee.
8. PW06-026 — Award of Tender No. PW-2006-33 — Reduce Extraneous (pg. 62)
Flows in the Wastewater Collection System
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Tender No. PW2006-33 for the works to 'Reduce Extraneous Flows
in the Wastewater Collection System" be awarded to Liqui-Force Services
(Ontario) Inc. at its tendered price of $269,700 (excluding GST);
THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Municipal Clerk to execute the
attached Form of Agreement between the Town of Aurora and Liqui-Force
Services (Ontario) Inc.; and
THAT Report PW06-026 be referred to the Regional Municipality of York
with a request that the Region consider increased sewage capacity
allocation for the Town of Aurora because of the continued reduction of
extraneous flows into the Regional sewer system as a result of the
implementation of Tender No. PW2006-33.
9. ADM06-009 — Offer to Sell Town of Aurora Lands to York Region (pg. 69)
for a York Regional Police Facility, Part Lot 19,
Concession 3, Town of Aurora (15059 Leslie Street)
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the Offer to Sell with
the Region of York substantially in the form appended to this Report as
Attachment#1; and
THAT Staff be authorized to take all necessary steps to be complete the
transaction.
General Committee Meeting No. 06-10
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Page 6 of 9
10
11
12
ADM06-011— External Legal Services Costs from May 1, 2005
to April 30, 2006
RECOMMENDED:
(pg. 83)
THAT Report ADM06-011 regarding External Legal Services Costs
incurred by the Town from the period commencing May 1, 2005 to Apr 30,
2006 be received for information.
CS06-019 — Council Remuneration Review
RECOMMENDED:
(pg. 88)
THAT Council provide direction on the preferred option with respect to
Councillor's remuneration for the next term of Council (2006-2009).
CS06-024 — Signage for Ontario Heart and Stroke Polo (pg. 100)
Charity Series
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council approve the placement of two directional signs for the
Ontario Heart and Stroke Polo Charity event which will be located at the
corner of Aurora Side Road and Leslie Street and Bloomington Side Road
and Yonge Street.
13. PL06-056 — Applications to Amend the Zoning By-law (pg. 104)
and Draft Plan of Subdivision
Stefano and Rose Polsinelli
14575 Bayview Avenue, Aurora
Part of Lot 16, Concession 2, E.Y.S
Files: D14-04-01 & D12-01-1A
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council receive as information the following overview of
Applications to Amend the Zoning By-law and Draft Plan of Subdivision
(Files: D14-04-01 & D12-01-1A) scheduled for the Public Planning
Meeting of June 28, 2006.
General Committee Meeting No. 06-10
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Page 7 of 9
14. PL06-057 — Applications to Amend the Zoning By-law
and Draft Plan of
Subdivision
Brookvalley Developments (Aurora)
14425 Bayview Avenue, Aurora
Part of Lot 15, Concession 2, E.Y.S
Files: D14-06-05 & D12-05-02A
RECOMMENDED:
(pg. 110)
THAT Council receive as information the following overview of
Applications to Amend the Zoning By-law and Draft Plan of Subdivision
D14-06-05 and D12-05-2A scheduled for the Public Planning Meeting of
June 28, 2006.
15. PL06-059 — Applications to Amend the Zoning By-law (pg. 116)
and Draft Plan of Subdivision
MI Developments Inc.
Part of Lot 21, Concession 2, E.Y.S
- Files: D14-03-06 & D12-01-06
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council receive as information the following overview of
Applications to Amend the Zoning By-law and Draft Plan of Subdivision
D14-03-06 and D12-01-06 scheduled for the Public Planning Meeting of
June 28, 2006.
16. PL06-060 —Application to Amend Zoning By-law 2213-78, (pg. 121)
as Amended
1087931 Ontario Ltd.
15356 Yonge Street
Lot 13, and Part of Lot 14, R.P.246
Files: D14-11-06
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council receive as information the following overview of Zoning By-
law Amendment Application D14-11-06, scheduled for the June 28, 2006
Public Planning Meeting.
General Committee Meeting No. 06-10
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Page 8 of 9
17. FSO6-016 — 2003, 2004 and 2005 Development Charge Reserve (pg. 127)
Fund Statement (Annual Report)
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Financial Services Report #FS06-016 "2003, 2004 and 2005
Development Charge Reserve Fund Statement (Annual Report)" be.
received for information; and
THAT the 2003, 2004, and 2005 Development Charge Reserve Fund
Statement (Annual Report) be forward to the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and Housing in accordance with Section 43(3) of the Development
Charges Act, 1997.
18. LS06-018 — Facility Naming Rights Policy (pg. 142)
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council approve the Facility Naming Rights Policy and direct staff to
proceed with the implementation of the Policy.
19. LS06-019 — New Recreation Complex Fundraising Campaign Update(pg. 148)
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council receive Report LS06-019 for information.
20. PL06-058 — Applications to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning (pg. 161)
By-law and Application for Site Plan Approval
Priestly Holding Corp. (Aurora Toyota)
623 and 669 Wellington Street East
Block 43, Registered Plan 65M-3461, Part of Lot 80,
Concession 1, E.Y.S
Files: D09-05-04, D14-06-04 & D11-04-06
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Council enact Official Plan Amendment 63 (By-law 4800-06.D) and
implementing Zoning By-law Amendment being By-law 4801.06.D; and
General Committee Meeting No. 06-10
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Page 9 of 9
THAT Report PL06-058 be received as information and that, subject to the
resolution of all outstanding issues and the submission of all fees and
securities, Council authorize the Director of Planning and Development
Services to execute a Site Plan Agreement between the Owner and the
Town of Aurora to permit the construction of a 2596.69m2 (27,995 ft2) car
dealership.
21. Memo from the Director of Corporate Services (pg. 189)
Re: Proposed Procedural By-law Amendments
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Committee provide direction on this matter.
22. Memo from Councillor West regarding the Notice of Motion (pg. 243)
from May 9, 2006 - Proposed Funding for the 15t Phase of the
Arboretum
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Committee provide direction on this matter.
23. Memo from Councillor West (pg. 244)
Re: Procedural By-law Review
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Committee provide direction on this matter.
24. Memo from Councillor West (pg. 245)
Re: Environmental Report: Tannery Creek
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Committee provide direction on this matter.
25. PL06-062 — Planning Applications Status List (pg. 246)
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Planning Applications Status List be received as information.
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
TOWN OF AURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT
SUBJECT: Water Supply and Usage Update
FROM: W. H. Jackson, Director of Public Works
DATE: May 16, 2006
RECOMMENDATIONS
No. PW06-019
THAT Report No. PW06-019 entitled "Wafer Usage and Supply Update" be received
for information.
BACKGROUND
Council, at its meeting of August 16, 2005 under Other Business, had requested:
"...that staff provide a report to Council with information, going back about five
years, regarding the number of days that the Town has had watering bans
and the magnitude of these bans."
Information was also requested:
"...regarding the number of serviced lots that have been approved by the
Region."
COMMENTS
In addition to the above noted information, this report also provides information on the
current state of the ground water supply, causes of water restrictions, and future
infrastructure and supply plans.
1.0 Existing Water Use By-law
Council in 2002 endorsed a Region wide harmonized Water Use By -Law that stipulated the
protocol for implementing staged water use restrictions. In this By-law, the Stage 1
Outdoor Water Use advisory requests that residents refrain from using municipal water to
irrigate their lawns and the Stage 2 Water Use Ban prohibits this practice. The Region
enacts the restrictions based on water storage and production capabilities of each specific
community system.
The basis of the Town's By -Law (No. 4376-02.E) is a watering restriction between May 15th
and September 30th, using the odd and even method of lawn watering outside the
enactment of a Stage 1 or 2. These summer time restrictions have existed throughout the
—1—
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 -2. Report No. PW06-019
other Regional communities for some time. It is also not uncommon to hear about other
imposed water restrictions similar to the Region's throughout the entire GTA during
prolonged dry spells, it is just the timing of such that may slightly vary. For example,
because the northern higher elevation reservoirs are dependant on the Toronto supply,
they are impacted first during hot spells and then because the Toronto system is all down
hill from these sites, their storage impact is a little delayed.
The outdoor water use restrictions has been shown to be an effective method of
communicating the need for cooperation of the residents to ensure that water is available
to meet the essential needs of the community.
2.0 History of Water Restrictions
A Stage 1 Water Advisory was in place from June 2 to September 1, 2005. A Stage 2
Water Ban was not necessary in 2005.
No bans were implemented in 2003 and 2004; however, the summers of 2001 and 2002
were recorded as the driest on record (since 1937) and resulted in 5 week and 6 week
water bans respectively.
In regard to the long time history of watering restrictions in Aurora, records are available
detailing restrictions from as far back as 1954. It appeared to be a common summer time
ritual, exampled by the following extract:
"Now that summer has finally arrived, the annual problem of watering
restrictions is with us again ... A prolonged heat wave plus inconsiderate
and selfish watering habits by some citizens were more than our system
could stand."
Dick 11 ingworth, Mayor, Town of Aurora
The Banner, July 24t", 1970
3.0 Causes of Water Use Restriction
The reason for water restrictions is that storage levels cannot be maintained during
unusually high water use periods. Municipal water systems are designed to supply enough
water to meet the maximum daily demand plus the required fire flows or the peak hour
demand, whichever is greater. These demands are based on the essential uses of water
such as drinking and hygiene in addition to fire fighting requirements.
During prolonged dry spells, residents tend to water their lawns more frequently, at the
same time and for extended periods (even on through the night). This volume of water can
sometimes double the typical average day demand and reservoirs cannot be replenished
fast enough because of the high water demand.
In Aurora's case, it is not that the current water supply source cannot meet the added
demands, but rather the pumping infrastructure is running at full capacity and cannot
-2-
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 - 3 - Report No. PW06-019
sustain the reservoir levels. The majority of Aurora's supply is still a ground water base
and must be pumped to storage to provide pressure. The route that the water takes from
the wells to storage is not a dedicated path and is part of the overall system supply
network. When the reservoirs call for water to be pumped, the pressurized water
simultaneously feeds the entire network on its path to storage. It is along this path that
residents are taking water for irrigation and compromising the ability to re -fill the reservoir.
During the summer months it is not uncommon for Aurora's six wells to be running 24
hours continuously trying to sustain reservoir levels. When demand exceeds this
maximum pumping rate, shortages result.
4.0 The Sustainability of our Ground Water Supply
The Region of York, in partnership with other Regions, Conservation Authorities and the
Province has recently conducted an extensive groundwater modelling study in the Oak
Ridges Moraine area, including our Yonge Street Aquifer. One of the key outcomes of the
study was the building of a database to identify regional geology and groundwater flow
models. Data was captured from historic reports for the entire study area that included
information from 600,000 geological descriptions, 1.8 million water well records, 140,000
boreholes, climate and stream flow data.
The study identified three main aquifer layers in the Moraine area and mapped the
recharge areas. This significant research has now provided a building block for future
collaboration and increased geological understanding. At a recent presentation to the
Region's Transportation and Works Committee, the study findings indicated that
groundwater takings in the Region are sustainable and are within the recharge capabilities
of the aquifers.
5.0 Aurora's Water Production
Appendix "A" depicts the total water production for Aurora during the past ten years. As is
typical, the water production shows a direct relationship to population growth.
Appendix "B" illustrates the 2005 Aurora production. Also shown are maximum average
day and total average day.
As described earlier, the maximum average day is the rate at the highest usage day of the
entire year and the average day is the pumping rate during the typical daily peak demand.
As can be seen on the graph, the demand last year exceeded the system design for about
five occurrences during the summer months. As noted in Section 2.0, this is when
restrictions were imposed.
6.0 Long Term Plans for Growth
Growth plans consist of efforts to improve our efficient use of water as well as the provision
of new infrastructure.
—3—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 - 4 - Report No. PW06-019
6.1 Water Efficiency Programs (What's Been Done)
In general terms, the cheapest method to provide additional water for essential uses
is to more efficiently utilize our existing water supply and infrastructure.
This was, in fact, the initial focus of the Long Term Water Supply study that has
been underway at the Region since 1998, with an emphasis on water efficiency and
the reduction of use before further long term supply alternatives were to be
explored.
The successful and award winning "Water for Tomorrow" program is now in its 8th
year and has achieved several milestones in improved water use efficiency
throughout the Region.
Some of the highlights in Aurora for example:
0 9,738 low flow showerheads were installed in 5,086 houses and 1,600
apartments.
0 12,076 early flowing toilet flappers were installed in 2,563 houses, 1,600
apartments, 16 schools and 673 businesses.
o Seven industrial/institutional water audits were completed and at one site, the
implemented recommendations saved 340,000 litres per day.
o The Youth Education component of study conducts two to four Grade 7 in -class
presentations annually and holds an annual York Children Water Festival at
Bruce's Mill. Over 275 Aurora students are registered to attend in 2006.
o Just over 189 water efficient residential landscape assessments have been
completed.
o Seminars are conducted throughout the Region informing people how to
landscape their properties in a water efficient manner.
The shower and toilet attachments save almost 900,000 litres of water per day and
in total, the residents and businesses save in the order of 1.37 million litres per day
as a result of the Water for Tomorrow program.
For Council's information, a copy of the Water Efficiency pamphlet is provided and
distributed at this meeting.
With several years of water efficiency initiatives completed, a review of the results
and the impact of past programs will be undertaken and new opportunities will be
explored. The Region will take inventory of the existing conditions regarding water
demand and water loss. Once completed, the water use efficiency master plan will
be updated to reflect current conditions and will set the future direction of water use
efficiency.
6.2 Infrastructure Improvements
The population of York Region has increased significantly over the last 10 years and
will continue to grow.
—4—
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 - 5 - Report No. PW06-019
To accommodate this growth and added demand, the Region has planned for new
water supply infrastructure in terms of trunk watermains, additions to existing
booster stations and an additional supply from Peel Region. The approved
development targets and rate of development have been accounted for in the long
term water supply strategies developed by the Region.
The primary enhancement to Aurora's water supply system will be 1.2m diameter
transmission main coming up Bathurst Street to be supplied by a new Peel Region
source. Over the past 3 to 4 years, preparations have— been -ongoing to
accommodate this new supply in terms of construction of a transmission watermain
grid under Wellington Street, Bathurst Street and Orchard Heights Boulevard.
The construction activity that we had experienced on Wellington Street was forthe
installation of a 900mm watermain that is also inter -connected to the local
distribution network. Once the new Bathurst Street supply is connected to these
pipes, a more secure and high volume supplementary supply to our existing well
system will be established. The estimated completion date for the construction of
the new Bathurst Street watermain is in 2007. Further reservoir construction and
pumping infrastructure will then follow.
These infrastructure additions will markedly improve the Region's pumping capacity
in Aurora.
At present, the Region has assigned servicing allocation to the Town for almost
2100 additional residential dwelling units.
7.0 Future Leaislation
Since Justice O'Conner's recommendations in the Walkerton Report in 2002, new
legislations have been enacted in the water industry for the assured safety of our water
supply. With respect to supply and quality of water, new legislation is presently being
enacted for source water protection under the Clean Water Act. Among other things, like a
newly required Drinking Water Quality Management System (DWQMS), the new act
amends other complimentary legislation and includes new provisions to provide source
water protection plans for existing and future sources of drinking water.
The new act will also establish requirements on watershed planning to support permits on
water taking applications, mandates Source Protection Committees, annual reporting,
implementation of by-laws for well head protection and risk assessments, a requirement for
a 50 year Water Supply Plan among other associated ground water quality and quantity
management implementations.
This new legislation is expected to be enacted in June 2006. There will be impacts to the
local municipalities in terms of zoning and by-laws to protect watersheds though the
management of the source protection will be more so with the agencies responsible forthe
water supply and with the local conservation authorities.
—5—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 - 6 - Report No. PW06-019
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial considerations with this Report.
CONCLUSIONS
With respect to summertime watering restriction, new water supplies, water source
protection legislation and improved water use efficiency will significantly improve our
situation but, unfortunately, no guarantees can be given regarding the elimination of
watering restrictions. Our partnership with the Region will continue to focus on public
education and the need for smarter lawn watering practices.
The Region has developed a viable long term supply solution to our growing demands but
we will continue to encourage water use efficiency programs and conservation techniques
to our residents.
We must remind ourselves and residents that water is our most cherished natural resource
and we must continue to conserve and intelligently manage our water.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Goal "A" - To Maintain a Well Managed and Fiscally Responsible Municipality
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix "A" — Aurora's Total Annual Water Production
Appendix "B" — Aurora's Daily Production Volume -2005
PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW
Management Team Meeting — May 8, 2006
Prepared by. Peter Horvath, Manager of Operations Services, Ext. 3446
- ,�.
W. H. Jack John S. Rogers
Director of Public Works C.A.O
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
TOWN OF AURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT
No. PW06-021
SUBJECT: Disposition of Former Aurora Hydro Building at No. 215 Industrial
Parkway South
FROM: W. H. Jackson, Director of Public Works
DATE: May 16, 2006
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT staff be requested to report further on the potential costs and benefits for
various alternative uses for No. 215 Industrial Parkway South, as generally
described in Report No. PW06-021.
BACKGROUND
On November 1, 2005, the transaction to sell to PowerStream was completed.
Aurora Hydro had conducted their operations from No. 215 Industrial Parkway South since
1987 and for the last 6 months, PowerStream had also operated from this location. This
building is owned by the Town and had been leased to the electrical utilities.
PowerStream has now informed the Town that they will be vacating the above noted
premises on May 31, 2006 and returning the empty building to the Town.
COMMENTS
The property at No. 215 Industrial Parkway South consists of a relatively new building
(1987) which appears in good repair and a significant fenced yard (26,200 square feet) for
the storage of materials, equipment and vehicles all sitting on 3.15 acres. The property,
which is located almost in the geographic centre of Aurora, has 100 feet of frontage on
Industrial Parkway South as shown in the attached aerial photograph (Appendix "A").
1. Building
The main building was constructed in 1987 and encompasses 20,500 square feet on 2
floors.
The first floor contains a 12 bay parking/service bay area, change/shower facilities, large
indoor storage/workshop area, reception area, cafeteria and offices all totalling over 13,200
square feet of which 7,200 square feet is the parking/service bay area.
men
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 -2 - Report No. PW06-021
The second floor has 7,300 square feet of additional offices, reception and boardroom
facilities. There is an elevator that connects the two floors. The second floor can also be
isolated from the first floor with some renovation.
In addition to the building, there its a significant quantity of office furniture that will remain
with the building when PowerStream vacates. An inventory is not, as yet, complete but it
appears that furnishing a number of the offices will be, to a large extent, complete using
the existing furniture.
As noted earlier, the property has been used to house both the administrative and
operational components of an electrical utility and consequently, is well suited for an
operations centre. The administration of the utility was basically carried out on the second
floor while the operational arm occupied the first floor. The loading docks, storage rooms
and change/locker room all attest to this previous use. They also may provide some
guidance on the future use of the building.
2. Yard Area
The yard consists of 26,200 square feet of secure storage area for equipment, vehicles
and material. Loading docks lead to inside warehouse facilities and the inside parking area
is accessed from this rear yard.
As can be seen from Appendix "B", this location is ideal from an operational aspect
inasmuch as the neighbours are either industrial based themselves or far enough away to
not be unduly impacted by typical operational activities.
3. Commentary
Any number of activities can operate successfully at No. 215 Industrial Parkway South.
The office space on the second floor can be used for a single entity or a number of
different organizations. Each of the offices can be locked to provide security and the
second floor can be cordoned off from the first floor with some renovation. The existing
elevators make the second floor totally accessible.
The first floor offices, cafeteria and warehouse areas combined with the outdoor storage
lends itself to an operational activity such as is provided by the Parks or Public Works
Operations sections. Of course, other activities are also possible in this area.
OPTIONS
Council may wish to make a decision with respect to the disposition of the Town property at
No. 215 Industrial Parkway South without further information.
—10—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 - 3 - Report No. PW06-021
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Presently, the Town receives in the order of $101,000 per year in lease payments for the
subject property. This income will cease as of May 31, 2006 and the budget shortfall must
be recovered from other accounts.
It is also noted that until a decision is made on how to deal with this property, monthly
operational expenses will also be incurred.
CONCLUSIONS
An excellent property and building has become available for Town use. At this time, there
are numerous options available from selling/leasing the entire property, to using it
exclusively for municipal purposes which could also include a combination of community
and Town staff uses.
At this time, staff does not believe sufficient information is available for Council to make a
proper considered decision. Accordingly, it is suggested that further information be
provided on the costs and benefits of various scenarios for this property. These options
would include, but not necessarily be limited to, selling/leasing the property, using the
property for various Town required activities, using the property for various community
activities or a combination of the above.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Goal "A" — To Maintain a Well Managed and Fiscally Responsible Municipality
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix "A" — Air Photo showing No. 215 Industrial Parkway South
Appendix "B" - Air Photo showing No. 215 Industrial Parkway South and surrounding
area
PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW
Management Team Meeting — May 10, 2006
Prepared by. W. H. Jackson, Director of Public Works, Ext. # 4371
W. H. JaW66n. = ' tihn S. Rogers
Director of Public Works C.A.O.
—11—
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
TOWN OF AURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT
AGENDA 1TLu 3
No. PW06-020
SUBJECT: Tender Award No. PW2006-27 -Emergency Repair to the Water and
Sewer Distribution System and the Installation of Water and Sewer
Service Connections.
FROM: W. H. Jackson, Director of Public Works
DATE: May 16, 2006
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT Tender No. PW2006-27 - For the Supply of all Labour, Material, and Equipment
Necessary for Emergency Repairs to the Town's Water Distribution and Sewer
System and the Installation of Water and Sewer Service Connections, be awarded to
VM DiMonte Construction Ltd. at its tendered price of$345,000.00 (exclusive of GST)
per year with the option to renew for a further two one-year periods;
THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Municipal Clerk to execute the Agreement
between the Town of Aurora and VM DiMonte Construction for emergency repairs
and service connections; and
THAT By -Law 4759-06.F Schedule "F" be amended to reflect the newly introduced
Flat Rate Water and Sewer Service Connection Fees.
BACKGROUND
Emergency repair is one of the standard maintenance components for the operation of
water and sewer systems. Additionally, an increasing service the Town provides to
property owners is the installation of new water and sewer service connections within the
municipal right-of-way.
COMMENTS
1. General
Tender PW2006-27 is comprised of two parts, "Emergency Repairs to the Water
Distribution and Sewer System" and "Installation of Water and Sewer Service
Connections". Both components include typical repair and connection scenarios that have
previously been experienced in the Town of Aurora.
-14-
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 .2- Report No. PW06-020
Emergency repairs involve fixing water and sewer main breaks. Typically, emergency
failures require immediate repairto lessen the damage and impact to the surrounding area
and residents. The Town has for several years maintained a list of contractors who we call
as needed. These contractors are fully competent and experienced in doing this type of
work, however, these contractors are not officially on -call and accordingly, their reaction to
our emergency needs was not always assured.
This multiple contractor approach had been in practice over the past years because the
number of emergencies did not provide enough volume of work for an individual contractor
to remain on -call year round. However, due to the increasing levels of environmental and
legislative responsibilities associated with water and sewer systems, staff believe it is time
to establish an on -call contractor system to ensure an immediate and diligent response.
The Tender establishes a fixed and advantageous pricing structure to the Town and
guarantees the contractor's response to emergencies.
Service connections are requested when developers, residents and commercial property
owners require additional or new water/sewer connections. Past practice has entailed
Public Works staff obtaining quotations for the specific site works and then ensuring the
works were completed properly. The cost for these connections (plus Town administration
charge) is fully borne by the applicant. This method of obtaining quotes each time a
request is made delayed the applicant and construction times. Additionally, administration
of the quotes by Public Works and Financial Services staff took time.
With Tender No. PW2006-027, applicants will receive the benefit of volume pricing and will
now be charged an up front and known flat installation fee without having to wait for
quotes. The contractor will be reimbursed according to the quoted prices in the contract.
Costs paid by the applicant will match the contractor's invoices plus the Town's
administration fees thereby continuing the practice of having these service connections
fully funded by the applicants. An added advantage is the time saved by Town staff in not
having to obtain quotes for each installation.
2. Tender Results
Tenders were received by the Town on April 4, 2006 for the emergency repairs to the water
distribution and water sewer system and the installation of water and sewer service
connections with the following results:
Tenderer Tender Bid/Year
1. VM DiMonte Construction Ltd. $345,000.00
2. A. Donofrio Construction Co. Ltd. $421,750.00
The Tender was issued by the Town's Financial Services Department and advertised
according to the requirements of the Town's standard purchasing procedures.
—15—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
% 2006 .3. Report No. PW06-020
The proposed fixed costs for standard flat rate service connections are detailed below:
Flat Rate Service
Connections Fees
Costs
20mm Water Service
$ 2,404.82
25mm Water Service
$ 2,715.12
40mm Water Service
$ 3,490.87
125mm Sanitary Service
$ 4,654.50
150mm Storm Service
$ 4,654.50
It is noted that the Tender is only until the end of 2006 with the option to renew for a further
two one-year periods should all terms and conditions be agreeable to all parties. The
hourly and unit rates, however, will be fixed during the time of this agreement.
3. Emergency Response Contract Conditions
Under the terms of the contract, the contractor is required to provide 24 hour, 7 days per
week emergency repair service and must respond to emergencies within 2 hours of being
notified. Failure for the contractor to meet the conditions of the contract will result in
liquidated damage fees of $300 per day and all back charges in price difference that the
Town may expend to complete the work.
OPTIONS
Council may not wish to engage in an Emergency Repair and Service Connection contract
and continue to secure services on an as -needed basis.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Sufficient funds have been allocated in the Public Works 2006 Operating Budget for the
emergency repair works. As well, sufficient funds have been proposed in the 2007 and
2008 Outlook portions of the budget for the future years of the term of this Contract.
CONCLUSIONS
Tender PW2006-27 is an improvement to the standard Public Works operational practice
of responding to emergency repairs and providing service connections.
Less administration time will be spent by Public Works and Financial Services staff in
providing these services and people in need of new water/sewer connections will know up
front and quickly how much this service will cost, thereby in total providing better customer
service.
The successful contractor has performed these operations for the Town in the past, as well
—16—
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 .4. Report No. PW06-020
as for other local area municipalities. Their past work has been of high quality and they
have presented themselves as municipal agents in an exemplary manner.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Goal A - To Maintain a Well Managed and Fiscally Responsible Municipality.
ATTACHMENTS
• Appendix "A" —Amended By -Law 4759-06.F Schedule "F" depicting new flat rate fees.
• Appendix "B" — Form of Agreement
PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW
Management Team Meeting — May 10, 2006
Prepared by. Erwin Molnar, Operations Technician, Ext.3441
//' , Piv
W. H. Jty6ks6n ohn Rogers
Director of Public Works C.A.O.
-17-
GE%5661�0AWITTEE-B'YTAW &.0g.S06
SCHEDULEF
Public Works Department
Description of Service for Fee or
Service Charge
Unit of
Measure
(i.e. per hour,
page,
document,
etc.
2006
(including
G.S.T.)
Specification and Design Manuals
per document
$ 35.00
Subdivision Engineering Fees
percentage of
servicing casts
4%
Benchmarks
erbenchmark
$ 50.00
Benchmark
Listing
per set of fisting
$ 10.00
PIot WIMS/SIMS Maps, Engineering
Drawings - drawings printed in-house
per sheet of map
$ 2.00
Plot WIMS/SIMS Maps, Engineering
Drawings - drawings sent out for
reproducing
per sheet of map
$15.00 or $2.50
per sheet,
whichever is
greater
Microfiche Drawings
er sheet
$ 1.00
Photoco ies 0f lans and documents
er sheet
$ 0.50
Fax Transmittal
first a e
$ 6.00
each additional
page
$ 2.00
Topsail Preservation Permit
flat fee + $20 per
he of site area
$ 250 +
$20/ha
Re uest for Information
erre uest
$ 40.00
Re uest for Traffic Data:
7-Da Traffic Counts
er location
$ 15.00
8-Hour Turnin Movement Count
er intersection
$ 30.00
Traffic Si nal Timin s
er intersection
$ 50.00
Work Performed for Residents,
Contractors and
Actual Labour+
35% overhead
Developers
+ Material (incl
PST & GST
+ Equip (MRA
135 Rates
+ 10% Mgmt Fee
& 30 %
Dislocation &
Inconvenience
Fee
Road Excavation Control Permit
whichever is
eater
$100.00 or 10%
Water Turn Off (Normal working hours)A$30.00
rn On Normal working hours
rn Off Outside workin hoursrn
On Outside workin hoursulk
Sale
3Water
PBulkSaIe
Service
3e
osit
nnection Fee
0
Sewage Rate
$ .660/m3
Sewer Camera Rate
actual cost
Sewer Connection Fee
$ 700.00
Water Sampling- New Subdivisions
$50.00+10%
Admin
Blue BWConnections
$ 6.00
Blue B$
100.00
Flat RConnections Fees1i
20mmice
$ 2,404.82
25mmrvice
$ 2,715.12
40mmrvice
$ 3,490.87
125mService
$ 4,654.50
150mervice
1 $ 4.654.50
Em
GENERAL COMMITTEE-'01119ORIPWAB®IOfFTHE TOWN OFAURORA
PUBLIC WORKS
APPENDIX "B"
TENDER # PW2006-27
DATE ISSUED: MARCH 21, 2006
CLOSING DATE: 12:00:00 NOON, LOCAL TIME, APRIL 4, 2006
FORM OF AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT made (in triplicate) this day of
BETWEEN:
P-1
The Corporation of the Town of Aurora
hereinafter called the "OWNER"
of the First Part
and
hereinafter called the "CONTRACTOR"
of the Second Part
WHEREAS the Bid of the Contractor respecting the construction work, hereinafter
referred to and described, as accepted by the Owner on the
_ day of 2006 .
THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the premises
and the covenants hereinafter contained, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
1. The Contractor hereby covenants and agrees to provide and supply at the Contractor's
own expense, all and every kind of labour, appliances, equipment, and materials for, and to
undertake and complete in strict accordance with this Bid Document dated April 4. 2006
prepared for the Town of Aurora Public Works Department, all of which said Documents are
annexed hereto and form part of this agreement to the same extent as if fully embodied herein at
and for the price or sum of $ 3+S—, o 0 o . 00 ( excluding G.S.T ).
2. The Contractor further covenants and agrees to undertake and perform the said work in
a proper work like manner under the supervision and direction and to the complete satisfaction of
the Owner within the period of time specified in the Form of Bid.
3. The Contractor further covenants and agrees that the Contractor will at all times,
indemnify and save, harmless the Owner, the Owners officers, servants, and agents from and
against all loss or damage, and from and against all actions, suits, claims and demands
whatsoever which may be made or brought against the Owner, the Owners officers, servants, and
agents by reason or in consequence of the execution and performance or maintenance of the said
work by the Contractor, the Contractor's servants, agents or employees.
4. The Contractor further covenants and agrees to furnish in accordance with the above
specification, a Performance Bond in an amount equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of the
contract price approved by the Owner's Solicitor, guaranteeing the faithful performance of the said
work, in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
5. The Owner hereby covenants and agrees that if the said work shall be duly and properly
executed and materials provided as aforesaid and if the Contractor shall carry out, perform and
observe all of the requirements and conditions of this agreement, the Owner will pay the
Contractor the contract price herein set forth in the Contractor's Bid, such payment or payments to
be made in accordance with the provisions of the General Conditions of the Contract referred to
above.
Q. This agreement and everything herein contained shall ensure to the benefit of and be
binding upon the Parties hereto, their successors and assigns, respectively.
Rev: Aug 21, 2005
MS Outlook\Public Folders7reasury\Purchasing0d Templates\Tender1\®OUERSHEET—Tender with Labour +Terms & Condilions.doc
GENERAL C0VMjrT'T'F&ationMkywrji6g beNZ6the parties or between them and the Town shall
be deemed to have been received by the addressee if delivered to the Individual or to a member
of the bidder or to an officer of the Corporation for whom they are intended or if sent by post,
telegram or facsimile addressed as follows:
THE OWNER: CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA
1 Municipal Drive
P.O. Box 1000
Aurora, Ontario
L4G6J1 FAX:905-841-71J19
THE CONTRACTOR: ,II1I�i��GN! LDIdSir"GfCliNN {�i/yi1TlO
FAX: �f )— �f- 5�90
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have hereunto affixed their corporate seals
duly attested by the hands of their proper officers in that behalf respectively.
CONTRACTOR
Plc-i0l�i lDr3zy ,agEWENT
OWNER
Mayor, T. Jones
Clerk, Bob Panizza, A.M.C.T.
Rev; Aug 21, 2005 �2
MS OuticoMPublic FolderslTreasury\Purchasing0d Templates\Tende�s'Z0Vi=RSHEET—Tender with Labour +Terms & Conditions.doc
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
AGENDA
_Diu ITEM
TOWN OF AURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT
No. PW06-022
SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Consulting Services -Reconstruction of
Aurora Heights Drive, Laurentide Avenue and Illingworth Court
FROM: W. H. Jackson, Director of Public Works
DATE: May 16, 2006
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT the Director of Public Works be authorized to sign an Engineering Agreement
with Totten Sims HubickiAssociates Limited for the provision of consulting services
for the preliminary and detail design for the reconstruction of Aurora Heights Drive
from Yonge Street to west of Foreht Crescent, Laurentide Avenue, and Illingworth
Court at a cost not to exceed $57,200, exclusive of GST.
BACKGROUND
Aurora Heights Drive from Yonge Street to west of Foreht Crescent, Laurentide Avenue,
and Illingworth Court (see attached Map included as Appendix "A") are scheduled for
reconstruction in 2007 as part of the 10-Year Capital Plan that was approved by Council on
March 21, 2006 (Report PW06-013 — Proposed 10-Year Capital Road Construction
Program (2006 — 2015). As per normal practice, the design for the project is commencing
at this time in order that the project can be tendered early in 2007, subject to Council's
approval of the 2007 Capital Budget.
Aurora Heights Drive, from Yonge Street to west of Foreht Crescent, is a collector road
currently constructed to a two-lane urban cross-section with sidewalk along both sides of
the street. The existing roadway is deformed and rutted, the sidewalk is in similarly poor
condition, and the watermain is aged and in need of replacement.
Laurentide Avenue is a local road constructed to a two-lane urban cross-section with
sidewalk along the west side of the street while Illingworth Court is a local two-lane
residential court with an urban cross-section and no sidewalk. Both these two existing
roadways are deformed and rutted. The sidewalk on Laurentide Avenue is also in poor
condition, and the watermains on both streets are aged and in need of replacement.
Reconstruction of these streets will improve the roads to provide safer driving conditions,
good drainage qualities, adequate street lighting and safer pedestrian traffic with improved
sidewalks.
-21-
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 - 2 - Report No. PW06-022
COMMENTS
A Request for Proposal (RFP PW2006-48) for the design of these three roads was issued
on April 21, 2006 by the Town's Financial Services Department and closed on May 5,
2006.
It is normal practice for the Director of Public Works to award the contracts for design
works for Capital reconstruction projects, however, as the cost for this particular
assignment is over $50,000, the Town's Purchasing Policy requires that Council award the
contract.
Eleven consultants submitted proposals for this project. The firms and their respective
fees were:
Totten Sims Hubicki
$57,200
Richardson Foster
$67,975
Mitchell, Hatt Assoc.
$68,500
Cole Engineering
$77,006
Associated Engineering
$79,436
D.M. Wills Assoc.
$89,900
Mitchell Pound & Braddock
$94,470
R.J. Burnside
$97,832
McCormick Rankin
$99,200
MGM Consulting
$110,838
SCS Consulting Group
$203,630
A review of the proposals was undertaken with each proposal evaluated on staff
experience (30% of total points), approach, methodology, deliverables (45% of total points)
and cost (25% of total points).
All of these proposals demonstrated a reasonable understanding of the terms of reference
for the required undertaking.
Based on staff's evaluation, the proposal from Totten Sims Hubicki Associates Limited
scored highest.
Totten Sims Hubicki Associates Limited has carried out a number of road reconstruction
design assignments for the Town of Aurora over the past several years and staff has
always found their work to be complete, thorough and accurate.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposal submitted by Totten Sims Hubicki Associates Limited is balanced,
reasonable, timely and within a budget that is commensurate with the scope of work
provided.
—22—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 - 3 - Report No. PW06-022
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The amount of $220,000 was allocated in the 2006 budget for the design of all 2007 capital
reconstruction projects and accordingly, adequate funds are available for this project.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Goal "A" speaks to maintaining a well -managed and fiscally responsible municipality.
ATTACHMENTS
• Appendix "A" — Key map showing proposed road reconstruction
PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW
Management Team Meeting — May 10, 2006
Prepared by: Patrick Ngo, Municipal Engineer, Ext. 4375
W. H. Jag* n ���� 0 hn S. Rogers
Director of Public Works C.A.O
—23—
Heiahts
APPENDIX "A"
V
Illingworth C
o
Devins m 0
� s
;Ktemono Rd. �t� 60
c C, Q m v° v
LL
Aurora �r Y
ec4/ seh
Lol
= Boulding L. Cr.
Q
0
0
Navan ' _ SUhrp
a o P
Or MCDon Id U
D r. p�
James Henry6
Bell Dr. Jasper
mm
0
0
N
�
6
�
c)
D r.
ILjj
Lu
0 Irwin Ave, Z
Cr Q 0
-c
Egan Cr. I
WELLI N GTON STREET WEST
LOCATION OF PROPOSED RECONSTRUCTION
KEY PLAN SHOWING LOCATION OF
PROPOSED ROAD RECONSTRUCTION
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT —24—
May 2006
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
AGENDA ITEM #5
TOWN OF AURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. PW06-023
SUBJECT: Reconstruction of Collins Crescent and Ottawa Court —Issues Relating
to Topsoil and Sod
FROM: W. H. Jackson, Director of Public Works
DATE: May 16, 2006
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT staff proceed to implement the recommendations of the report from The
Guelph Turfgrass Institute and Environmental Research Centre as described in
Report No. PW06-023.
BACKGROUND
Collins Crescent and Ottawa Court were reconstructed in 2003, as part of the Town's
Capital Reconstruction Program, by Direct Underground Inc.
This project involved the reconstruction of the two streets from their earlier semi -rural
cross -sections, with ditches and shoulders, to urban cross -sections with curbs and no
ditches. As part of the project, in the order of 6,300 mZ of topsoil and sod, were placed on
the two streets at a cost of almost $27,000.
It is noted that the two streets were originally constructed in 1956 (Ottawa Court) and 1958
(Collins Crescent). Pre -design photos taken in 2000 show that while, overall, the
conditions. of the existing grass on the two streets was relatively good there were certainty
a number of properties where the condition of the grass was less than optimal.
The new topsoil and sod were placed in the middle of October, 2003. These
reconstruction contracts are set up such that, generally, the contractor requests and
receives payment each month for works completed the previous month. In this case, the
contractor did not submit a request for payment for this item, among others, until the fall of
2004. The contractor was therefore paid for this item, along with the top layer of asphalt
and a number of smaller items, on October 15, 2004.
During 2005, a number of complaints were received regarding the condition of the sod on
the streets and staff notified the contractor on September 26, 2005 that there still appeared
to be an unusual amount of sod that was not in good condition (see attached Appendix
„A„
The condition of the sod on the streets came up during two delegations to General
Committee in late 2005. Staff had committed to reviewing the situation in the spring of
-25-
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 - 2 - Report No. PW06-023
2006 once conditions were more suitable. General Committee, at its meeting of April 4,
2006, also requested:
"...the Director of Public Works to provide a report containing
recommendations on how to proceed and estimated associated costs."
COMMENTS
Inasmuch as the sod had been in place for over 2 years and some of the current issues
might relate to the maintenance of the sod by the homeowners, staff were of the opinion
the best way to proceed was to hire an outside expert, at arms length to the Town, to
review the situation and to make recommendations on how to proceed.
The Guelph Turfgrass Institute and Environmental Research Centre (GTI), which is part of
the University of Guelph, were commissioned to undertake this review. GTI's mandate was
to generally review the topsoil and sod laid in the boulevard sections of the two streets in
2003.
The GTI report (Appendix "B") deals with a number of issues, as detailed below.
1.0 Topsoil
The GTI review of the topsoil was based on the following inputs:
The test results from the topsoil testing carried out by the Town in the fall of
2003; and
• The inspections made during the site visit by GTI staff on April 25, 2006.
Based on the above information, the GTI report concluded that the topsoil used was
adequate to sustain normal turfgrass growth, although the depth is not adequate in certain
areas (see Section 2.2 below).
2.0 Sod
The GTI report notes that there is a wide variation of sod conditions on various properties
on the two streets ranging from excellent turfgrass that is well -maintained with no
problems, to turfgrass that is either in weak condition or is dead.
GTI staff also noted that there seemed to be patterns of areas where the sod did not grow
well, as if some of the sod that was placed was already weak or stressed when it was laid.
i
With regard to the problem areas related to sod, the GTI report presents the following
general areas of concern:
—26—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 .3. Report No. PW06-023
2.1 Weak Turf -grass Due to Lack of Maintenance by Homeowners.
The GTI staff noted that there were a number of lawns where the turfgrass did not
show the expected fertility due to inadequate maintenance by the homeowners. In
these areas the turfgrass would have grown normally for the first year, but the sod is
now languishing due to lack of normal lawn care practices.
2.2 Weak/Dead Sod Along Edges of Driveways
GTI staff noted a number of areas where the granular base of the driveways
constructed during the reconstruction extended past the sides of the driveway. In
some of these areas the proper depth of topsoil was not placed and, as a result,
proper turfgrass growth could not occur.
2.3 Weak/Dead Sod
In a number of areas the report notes that the sod never seemed to start growing
properly. The report concluded that the sod used in these areas was inadequate in
that it failed shortly after it was placed in 2003, most likely because it had been
stored too long before it was placed.
2.4 Excessive Thatch in Turfgrass
Some of the weak turfgrass areas appear to have occurred because the sod that
was laid had an excessive layer of thatch in it. This caused the turfgrass to have a
variable appearance and can lead to the development of secondary diseases and
insect problems.
2.5 Extent of the Problem Areas
Table No. 1 below details the measured areas of weak/dead turfgrass on both
streets based on the descriptions provided in the GTI report.
Table 1: Areas of Various Turfgrass Problems
Street
Lack of
Weak/Dead
Weak/Dead
Weak Sod
Total
Maintenance
sod along
Sod In Other
due to
Area
(m2)
driveway
Areas (m2)
Excessive
(m2)
edges (m2)
(1)
Thatch (m2)
1
Collins
460
70
890
390
1,810
Crescent
Ottawa
170
10
240
140
560
Court
Total
630
80
1130
530
2,370
Cost to
$500 (2)
$700
$10,200
$4,800
$16,200
Repair
—27—
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 - 4 - Report No. PW06-023
Note: (1)Assignment of areas to these two categories is somewhat arbitrary in that often one lawn would have both problems, making
distinguishing between them difficult.
(2).Estimated cost to fertilize all boulevards on both streets except those that are in excellent condition
In total, approximately 2,370m2 or 38% of the original 6,300 m2 of turfgrass has been
deemed to be either weak or dead. Of the total amount of weak or dead sod, about 630 m2
or 27% appears to be due to lack of maintenance by the homeowners, and 1,740m2 or
73% is due to problems with either the depth of the topsoil that was placed or the quality of
the sod that was placed.
The costs to remedy those areas where the problems are due to dead sod or excess
thatch are estimated to be $15,700.
3.0 Fixing the Problems
The GTI report makes the following recommendations to deal with the various problem
areas:
1) Areas affected by lack of maintenance: Fertilize the areas with a fertilizer containing
a slow release nitrogen source;
2) Areas by driveway edges affected by insufficient topsoil depth: Remove and
replace topsoil and sod, ensuring that sufficient depth of topsoil is provided;
3) Areas affected by.dead sod caused by poor quality sod being used: Remove and
replace sod; and
4) Areas affected by excessive thatch: Repeated aeration, or remove and replace the
sod. Remove and replace is the preferred option.
Staff reviewed the GTI recommendations and agrees with the recommended removal and
replacement of the sod.
4.0 What Went Wrong
The problems that occurred with the topsoil and sod portion of this reconstruction project
are an isolated occurrence. The Town has reconstructed all or portions of more than 40
streets in the past 20 years, and this is the first time that we have encountered any
significant problem with the topsoil and sod portion of a project. However, problems did
occur during the course of this project, and as a result steps need to be taken to fix the
current problems and to ensure that similar problems do not occur again in the future.
For example, prior to receiving the GTI report, staff had already reviewed our topsoil and
sod standards and, in fact, has included updated, and more stringent, standards in our
2006 contracts.
own
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 - 5 - Report No. PW06-023
The other item that appears to be suggested by the GTI report is the matter of inspection of
the topsoil and sod used in this reconstruction project. Obviously staff is not pleased about
this comment nevertheless, it is apparent that closer inspection of this aspect of our
reconstruction projects is warranted and steps have already been taken to ensure this
occurs.
A final element to improve the overall performance of our road reconstruction projects is
the matter of encouraging homeowners to properly maintain the new grass that is laid. To
this end, an appropriate brochure will be developed and distributed with instructions to
homeowners on how to encourage and maintain good sod growth.
5.0 Recovery of Funds
As indicated in Section 2.5 of this report, approximately $15,700 of the total costto "fix" the
topsoil and sod problems on the subject streets can be related to some extent to the
condition of the sod and/or soil when it was originally laid.
Upon Council's adoption of this report staff will contact the contractor and request that he
immediately undertake the removal and replacement of the sod, including adjustments to
the topsoil as necessary, in those areas identified in the GTI report as having dead sod or
excess thatch. Should he decline to do so, the Town should undertake the work and then
pursue the contractor to recover the costs.
With regard to the fertilizing of those areas where it has been identified that lack of
homeowner maintenance is the problem, costs for fertilizing could not be attributed to the
contractor. Although there is no requirement or precedent for doing so, staff suggest that
the Town undertake to fertilize, once, all boulevards along both streets except for those
properties where the sod is in excellent condition. This work would happen after the
topsoil/sod removal and replacement has happened.
6.0 Timing of Remedial Work
The GTI Report recommends that any removal and replacement of the sod take place
either early in the spring or in September. Given the long term forecasts from Environment
Canada that southern Ontario is likely to experience hotter and dryer weather than is
normal in the summer of 2006, it is likely prudent to not undertake the work until
September 2006.
Whichever course of action is pursued, staff will communicate this information to the
residents of Collins Crescent and Ottawa Court.
OPTIONS
Council may direct staff to not take any further action with regard to the sod and topsoil on
Collins Crescent and Ottawa Court.
—29—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 - 6 - Report No. PW06-023
Council may direct that staff immediately undertake the recommended work, without first
offering the contractor the opportunity to do so. It is noted that this would make it difficult to
recover any costs from the contractor.
Council may direct staff not to undertake the fertilizing of the boulevards on the two streets.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
As noted above, the total cost to remove and replace sod as well as apply fertilizer to
specific areas is in the order of $16,200. In addition to this, the cost to engage GTI to
complete the review was $2,000.
There are sufficient funds in the Departments Engineering Fees account to payforthe GTI
study. The cost to fertilize the boulevards on both streets is estimated to be $500, and
funds are available in the project accounts for this work.
With respect to the $15,700 cost to remove and replace sod, should the contractor
undertake the work there will be no cost to the Town. Should the Town have to undertake
the work the Town would then pursue the contractor to recover the costs.
CONCLUSIONS
A review of the sod and topsoil conditions on Collins Crescent and Ottawa Court has
indicated that approximately 38% of the sod laid during the reconstruction of these streets
in 2004 is in relatively,poor condition or needs to be replaced. Although some percentage
of this sod could have been saved by proper homeowner maintenance, it also appears that
certain aspects of the reconstruction project could be improved.
Staff believes the most appropriate solution at this time is to request the contractor to
undertake the repairs. Should the contractor decline to do so, the Town should undertake
the work and then pursue the contractor for the costs.
Although this has been an isolated occurrence, improved procedures have been
implemented within our reconstruction contracts to minimize any potential future
occurrences of this nature,
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Goal "A" speaks to maintaining a well -managed and fiscally responsible municipality.
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix "A" — Letter of September 26, 2005
—30—
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 - 7 - Report No. PW06-023
• Appendix "B" - May 9, 2006 report for the Guelph Turlgrass Institute and Environmental
Research Centre
PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW
Management Team Meeting — May 10, 2006
Prepared by: David Atkins, Manager of Engineering Services
W. H. Jag n John S. Rogers
Director of Public Works C.A.O
—31—
GENERAL 1 !WS2006
ffln
Drive1 Municipal
Box 1000
Aurora,.,
6JI
September 26, 2005
Mr, Dale Carter
Direct Underground Inc.
11244 Keele Street, Unit #4, P.O.Box 636
Maple, Ontario
L6A 1 S5
Dear Mr. Carter
APPENDIX "A"
David Atkins, P.Eng
Manager of Engineering Services
(908)727-3123,Extension 4382
RE: Reconstruction of Collins Crescent and Ottawa Court - Contract
PW2003.04
Please be advised that we have received a number of residents' complaints
concerning quality of the top soil as well as the quality of the sod used on this
project. Inspections by our staff reveal that there are an unusual number of
properties with dead or poor quality sod which lead us to a conclusion that
something must be wrong with the sod and/or topsoil that was used on this
project.
Please inspect the properties on this project and advise as soon as possible of
your plan to correct this problem. If you have any questions, please contact Mr.
Jerry Kryst.
nee
Atkins, P.Eng.
Manager of Engineering Services
T04 Road construction 103-041 sod qualityljk
-32-
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
TOWN OF AURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT
No. PW06-024
SUBJECT: On -Call Environmental Consultant Contract Extension
FROM: W. H. Jackson, Director of Public Works
DATE: May 16, 2006
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT the Director of Public Works be authorized to sign an extension to the
existing Engineering Agreement with Earth Tech Canada Inc. for the provision of
consulting services for an "On -Call Environmental Consultant" for the Town with
the Engineering Agreement modified as described in Report No. PW06-024; and
2. THAT such signature as noted in Recommendation No. 9 shall not occur until the
Town Solicitor has reviewed and approved the Engineering Agreement,
BACKGROUND
At its meeting of July 15, 2003, Council authorized the Director of Public Works to sign an
Engineering Agreement with Earth Tech Canada Inc. for the provision of consulting
services for an "On -Call Environmental Consultant" for the Town.
The agreement was for a 3-year period and it will expire on August 13, 2006.
COMMENTS
1. General
The need for an on -call environmental consultant basically arose from a specific eventthat
required outside assistance in the identification, tracking and clean-up of a spill into
Tannery Creek. Among other lessons learned from this event, it was acknowledged that
when an adverse environmental event occurs, it is too late to begin looking for assistance.
Prior to the event, the mechanism should already be in place to quickly secure the services
of qualified environmental specialists in whatever activity is required at the time.
Over the last 3 years, Earth Tech Canada Inc. (Earth
environmental consulting service to the Town of Aurora.
has been co-ordinated and, for the most part, undertake
Earth Tech. This key person has provided prompt, tt
response to all requests from the Town. On average, tF
$15,000 per year for the consultants services.
Tech) has provided the on -call
To be more specific, this service
n by a single "key person" within
orough and effective service in
e Town has spent in the order of
-41-
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 - 2 - Report No. PW06-024
In 2003, the Town issued an RFP to five consulting firms known to have proven expertise
in various areas of environmental engineering/sciences such as water resources,
groundwater pollution control, solid waste management and hazardous material
emergency response. The proposals were independently evaluated by two Public Works
staff members in accordance with the evaluation matrix set out in the Request for Proposal
as follows: staff experience and qualifications (65% of total points), approach and
methodology (25% of total points) and fees estimate (10% of total points). The evaluations
by both staff members resulted in Earth Tech (Canada) Inc. being ranked first.
The continuing need for an on -call environmental consultant has, it is believed, been amply
demonstrated since 2003. The ability of staff to mobilize expert assistance has allowed a
quick and effective response to a number of issues over the last 3 years.
In consideration that the existing contract with Earth Tech expires in August of this year,
staff would typically issue a new RFP. In this case, however, because of the nature of the
work, it would be prudent that if Earth Tech were not the successful applicant that Earth
Tech would continue with those projects they are currently working on.
3. Alternative Proposal
As noted above, under normal circumstances, a new RFP would be issued so that the
Town could engage the services of a consultant.
However, our experience with this particular contract over the last three years has shown
that a major advantage to the Town is the continuity with which environmental matters are
dealt with. For example, because the key person with Earth Tech had already provided
consulting services to the Town on a matter at No. 12 Industrial Parkway South, this
person was quickly able to understand the potential for an interaction between that matter
and the presently on -going situation at No. 50 Industrial Parkway South. Additionally, this
key person has accumulated background knowledge of the Town's soil conditions as well
as groundwater and surface water flows which allows this person to respond more rapidly
and knowledgably (and at potentially less cost) to new environmental concerns.
In consideration of the above, and the fact that Earth Tech won the original contract in
competition with other qualified consulting firms, it is proposed to extend the existing
contract with Earth Tech for another 3 years provided this key person remains in the
employ of Earth Tech during that time.
3.1 Contract Details
There are only two matters that would differ from the existing contract, namely the
key person's employment with Earth Tech and the consulting fees paid.
If the key person were to leave the employment of Earth Tech then the above noted
-42-
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 .3- Report No. PW06-024
continuity would be lost and the contract would be structured to allow staff at that
time to issue an RFP if we felt it was warranted.
The second issue relates to the engineering fees associated with this contract. For
the last three years, the engineering fees have remained constant. Overthat time,
however, the charge out rate for Earth Tech employees has risen in the order of
12.5%. In consideration that all consultants have increased their charges and rates
over the last three years, it is proposed to increase the engineering fees and
services by 12.5% compared to the 2003 engineering fees and services butto keep
these charges at that rate for the extent of the contract.
3.2. Purchasing By-law Considerations
Section 6.10 of Purchasing By-law No. 46210-045 talks to negotiation being
"...used forthe procurement of goods, services ..." when certain criteria apply. One
of the criteria is detailed in sub -section (a) wherein it states:
`where the extension or reinstatement of an existing Contract with
Council approval would be more cost effective or beneficial to the
Corporation"
As explained in Section 3 above, the extension of the existing contract with Earth
Tech, under the conditions noted in Section 3.1 would, in staffs opinion, be
beneficial to the Corporation because we would retain the experience and local
environmental knowledge that has been gained by Earth Tech. This knowledge and
experience may also translate into quicker, less costly responses to Town requests
in some instances.
OPTIONS
Council may not wish to extend the on -call environmental consulting contract of Earth Tech
and direct staff to issue an RFP for this service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The average yearly cost of the existing on -call environmental consulting contract is about
$15,000. The new contract, for the same amount of consulting effort would cost an
additional $1,875 although this increase will remain constant for the next 3 years.
Sufficient funds are available in the Public Works budget to accommodate this increase.
CONCLUSIONS
A working arrangement has been developed between Town Staff and Earth Tech that has
—43—
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
16. 2006 - 4 - Report No. PW06-024
proven beneficial to the Town in responding to various environmental considerations over
the last 3 years. The existing contract with Earth Tech will expire in August, 2006 and staff
is proposing to extend the contract for a further 3 years. This extension will benefit the
Town inasmuch as the background knowledge that has been gained by Earth Tech (and
specifically a key employee of the consulting firm) related to the Town's environmental
features will continue. This will allow potentially quicker responses to environmental
matters and ultimately could save the Town consulting fees.
The extension to the contract is proposed to contain a clause that ties the contract
continuance to a key employee of Earth Tech. Additionally, an engineering consulting fee
increase is proposed to account for the increase that has occurred over the last 3 years.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Goal "A" — To Maintain a Well Managed and Fiscally Responsible Municipality
ATTACHMENTS
None
PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW
Management Team Meeting — May 10, 2006
Prepared by. W.H. Jackson, Director of Public Works, Ext. # 4371
z%///. ,
W. H. Jaakidn
Director of Public Works
ohn S. Rogers
C.A.O.
-44-
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
h
TOWN OF AURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT
No. PW06-025
SUBJECT: Proposed Regional Policies for Jurisdiction of Water and Wastewater
Infrastructure
FROM: W. H. Jackson, Director of Public Works
DATE: May 16, 2006
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT Council receive for information Report No. PW06-025 - Proposed Regional
Policies for Jurisdiction of Water and Wastewaterinfrastructure, as presented by the
Region of York Transportation and Works Committee; and
THAT the Regional Municipality of York be informed that the Town of Aurora is in
agreement with the Jurisdiction of Water and Wastewater Infrastructure as detailed
in Clause No. 1, Report No. 4 of the Regional Transportation and Works Committee.
BACKGROUND
Regional Council at its meeting of April 27, 2006, had adopted a Transportation and Works
Committee Report on the Regional jurisdiction of water and wastewater infrastructure and
had requested that the report be circulated to the local municipalities for comment prior to
May 31, 2006.
The report presents a policy that outlines the jurisdictional framework and specific criteria
of water and wastewater infrastructure, so that services can be accurately defined between
Regional or local municipal ownership.
This policy is a preliminary component of the formal Service Level Agreement under
development between the Region and municipalities to define roles and responsibilities for
the service delivery model for the provision of water and wastewater services.
COMMENTS
The general governance and responsibilities of providing water and wastewater services in
the Region of York are provided in the spheres of jurisdiction as set out under the
Municipal Act. Principally, it states the Region is responsible for providing wholesale water
and wastewater treatment and that the local municipalities are responsible for the retail
sales to residents. However, there is no other clear definition of water or wastewater
infrastructure that can discern between Regional or municipal responsibility.
The Regional adopted policy now provides a distinct description and criteria of the types of
infrastructure and their function in respect to the Region's master plan and servicing
context. For example, it states that the Region is responsible for the water treatment,
—45—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 - 2 - Report No. PW06-025
pumping, storage, inter -municipal metering, transmission mains and wastewater treatment
and the municipalities are (remain) responsible for the water distribution, retail metering
and the wastewater collection network.
The policy also provides decision making guidelines for determining ownership based on
various criteria as detailed in the attached policy (Appendix "A").
In respect to the current understanding of infrastructure responsibilities between the
Region and the Town of Aurora, the newly adopted criteria will not affect or change the
existing operational jurisdiction. The policywill, however, help in jurisdictional and financial
planning with future infrastructure development.
OPTIONS
The proposed jurisdictional policy does not impact the existing practice and understanding
of Aurora's infrastructure, and accordingly, there are no viable options.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial implications associated with this report.
CONCLUSIONS
The jurisdiction policy forwater and wastewater infrastructure has been underdevelopment
for some time and now provides a documented account of "who owns what". Though not
specifically naming the particular watermains or sewers, the policy defines the functions of
what would constitute a Regional infrastructure component. Because these definitions do
not change our existing practice and understanding with respect to Aurora's infrastructure,
staff believe this policy should be supported.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Goal A - To Maintain a Well Managed and Fiscally Responsible Municipality.
ATTACHMENTS
• Appendix "A"— Regional Jurisdiction Policy -Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW
Management Team Meeting — May 10, 2006
Prepared by: Peter Horvath, Manager of Operations Services, Ext.3446
�/p Y
W. H. Jad n John Rogers
Director of Public Works C.A.O.
—46—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16,
on
aIrA
April 28, 2006
Mr. Bob Panizza
MAY _ 3 2006
Corporate Services Dept.
APPENDIX "A"
Regional Clerk's Office
Corporate Services Department
Director, Corporate Services/Municipal Clerk CORP. SERVICES DEPT.
Town of Aurora CONIES CIRCULATED TO:
P.O. Box 1000, 1 Municipal Drive C.A.0,
Dir. Of Building tldinin.
Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 Fire Chief
Dir. Of Leisure services
Dear Mr. PariiZza: Dir. Of PlanningDir. of Public Works
Treasurer
Re: Proposed Regional Policies
Jurisdiction of Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
The Council of the Regional Municipality of York, at its meeting held on Thursday, April 27,
2006 adopted, without amendment, the attached Clause No. 1, Report No. 4 of the
Transportation and Works Committee.
By the adoption of the foregoing clause, Regional Council has authorized the following:
1. Regional Council approve the proposed policies in Attachments 1 and 2 entitled "Regional
Jurisdiction — Water Infrastructure" and "Regional Jurisdiction — Wastewater Infrastructure"
22.. The report be circulated to Clerks of the local municipalities requesting comments before
1L-sMay 31, 2006 prior to adoption; and
3. Staff be requested to provide a report to Committee in June, 2006.
A copy of Clause No. 1, Report No. 4 of the Transportation and Works Committee is attached
for your information.
Sincerely, �j
MAY 0 4 2006
Denis Kelly
Regional Clerk Corporate Services
E. St ei, n/mg
A t t a c ment
Copy to: Commissioner of Transportation and Works
The Regional Municipality of York, 17250 Yonge Street, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6Z1
Tel: 905-830-4444 Ext. 1320, 1-877-464-9675, Fax.• 905-895-3031
Internet: www:york.ca
—47—
GENERAL:°COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
110' rk Region
Clause No. 1 in Report No. 4 of the Transportation and Works Committee was adopted,
without amendment, by the Council of The Regional Municipality of York at its meeting
on April 27, 2006.
PROPOSED REGIONAL POLICIES
JURISDICTION OF WATER AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
The Transportation and Works Committee recommends:
The following report, March 23, 2006, from the Commissioner of
Transportation and Works be received;
The report be circulated to Clerks of the local municipalities requesting
comments before May 31, 2006 prior to adoption; and
3. Staff be requested to provide a report to Committee in June, 2006.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that:
1. Regional Council approve the proposed policies in Attachments I and 2 entitled
"Regional Jurisdiction — Water Infrastructure" and "Regional Jurisdiction —
Wastewater Infrastructure".
2. PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to update Council on the outcome of the Regional Water and
Wastewater Infrastructure Jurisdiction Policy discussions held with the local
municipalities and seek Council's approval of the proposed policies (see Attachments 1
and 2) defining Regional jurisdiction of water and wastewater infrastructure.
3. BACKGROUND
York Region and its local municipalities share the responsibility of water and wastewater
servicing. Jurisdictional responsibility was established at the time of the formation of the
Region (1970) and continues to form the foundation for defining infrastructure
ownership.
GEITJR*k l`00MM I TTEE — MAY 16, 2006
Report No. 4
Transportation and Works Committee
A September 1, 1999 report on sanitary sewer systems and a November 2, 2002 report on
water systems were adopted by Regional Council to clarify jurisdictional issues. These
policies have been applied and tested for the past several years and, although effective at
addressing concerns identified at the time, have been found to be too prescriptive to be
readily applicable across the Region in an equitable manner.
Staff proposed to revisit these policies and at its meeting of February 17, 2005, Council
adopted Clause l of Report No. 2 of the Transportation and Works Committee which
authorized staff to send revised draft policies on the Regional jurisdiction of water and
wastewater infrastructure to the nine local municipalities for their comments /
suggestions and report back to Council once this was done.
In the spring of 2005, staff coordinated meetings with each of the local municipalities to
discuss the policies and consider comments and feedback.
In reviewing the comments, it became evident that municipal opinions on the policies
varied significantly. In the summer of 2005, staff reviewed the objectives of the policy
and took an alternate approach to defining Regional jurisdiction that would be suitable to
addressing the differing priorities of the local municipalities. Final draft policies were
then prepared and sent back to the.local municipalities for review and comments.
From November 2005 to January 2006, meetings were coordinated with the local
municipalities during which the policy update process was reviewed. In addition,
comments and feedback on the final draft policies were discussed.
This report presents final policies for approval by Council
4. ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS
The spheres of jurisdiction set out under Section 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001, indicate
that York Region is given exclusive jurisdiction over water production, treatment and
storage. However, York Region and the lower -tier municipalities must mutually agree
before any transfer of water distribution, sewage treatment or sewage collection
infrastructure occurs. The Municipal Act does not give guidance on what constitutes
Regional water distribution or wastewater infrastructure.
Section 89 of the Municipal Act, 2001 also clearly restricts the Region's ability to sell
water directly to the end consumer. The Region is only permitted to wholesale service to
the local municipality who then have the responsibility to retail services to the end
consumer It is therefore important for the Region to have policies in place defining the
jurisdiction of water distribution and wastewater infrastructure.
—49—
GENeWe Ilk MM I TTEE — MAY 16, 2006
Report No. 4
Transportation and Works Committee
Although infrastucture jurisdiction definitions have not changed significantly in the
proposed policies, there has been a significant shift in how these criteria are to be applied
and interpreted. The shift is moving away from a prescriptive, detailed criteria -based
decision -making approach, to a more Regional, "system based" perspective where the
same fundamental criteria are applied along with an added consideration for the Regional
functionality and how it relates to each unique local municipality.
An example of this shift in approach can be considered when determining ownership of a
watermain; for instance, in this case, we move away from the idea that a certain
predetermined diameter watermain should be Regional, and focus on the question of how
a particular watermain fits in the system, and if it serves a Regional function. Although
diameter is an important criterion, if a watermain does not serve a Regional function, then
ownership should remain with the municipality responsible for the local servicing. The..
following sections provide some detail on how this approach will be implemented.
4.1 Use of Regional Master Plan as Basis for Defining Ownership
The key document that sets out Regional requirements for water and wastewater
infrastructure is the Master Plan. This document is intended to consider current and future
servicing needs, and identify a reasonable long-term servicing approach which minimizes
impacts on various aspects such as environmental, social and economic factors.
This document also recommends a capital program which would allow the Region to
meet the identified future servicing needs. Part of this process also involves
recommendations on local systems where the Regional modelling may identify
weaknesses in these systems, as well as identification of infrastructure that would be
more appropriately owned by Regional or local authorities. These recommendations are
based on the idea that the "system" must operate to support a Regional function.
Therefore the Master Plan strives to define a Regional system in the context of an
integrated two-tier system.
It is the intent of the proposed policy to use the water and wastewater Master Plan as the
guiding document to define Regional infrastructure through consideration of the specific
criteria and how they support the Regional context of the "system". The primary
principles that will be considered when defining Regional infrastructure through the
Master Planning Process are:
• Application of the spheres of jurisdiction set out under Section 11 of the Municipal
Act, 2001.
• Reduce fragmentation of the Regional system while not adversely affecting the local
systems.
• Application of defined criteria while considering the Regional context of the system
and the overall servicing scheme as defined by the Master Plan.
—50—
GEKJR.LN9AMM I TTEE — MAY 16, 2006
Report No. 4
Transportation and Works Committee
4.2 Regional Infrastructure Criteria
The Regional infrastructure criteria have also been reviewed with the local municipalities
and although not changed significantly, have been refined to address concerns raised
during the consultation process. The criteria are summarized as follows:
Regional Water Jurisdiction Criteria
Regional water infrastructure that is identified in the Master Plan shall meet the following
functions necessary to provide:
• Water treatment.
• Pumping to a storage tank or other Regional system.
• Storage of water.
• Metering for the purpose of municipal billing.
• Conveyance systems that meet a series of specific criteria intended to define and
support Regional functions listed above.
• Field information collection systems (SCADA) where appropriate.
• Interconnectivity where required through the Master Plan.
Regional Wastewater Jurisdictional Criteria
Regional wastewater infrastructure that is identified in the Master Plan shall meet the
following functions necessary to provide:
• Wastewater treatment.
• Pumping to a'treatment facility or other Regional system.
• Flow equalization tanks.
• Metering for the purpose of tracking inter -municipal flows.
• Conveyance systems that meet a series of specific criteria intended to define and
support Regional functions listed above.
• Interconnectivity where required through the Master Plan.
4.3 Condition Assessment Requirements
A new requirement being proposed in these policies is suggested for assets being
considered for transfer. This shall apply to assets being transferred either to the Region or
to the local municipality. The intent of this assessment is to ascertain the condition of the
infrastructure so that appropriate asset management practices can be continued to ensure
the maximization of the useful life of these assets.
Although intended to maximize asset usefulness, the policies have also allowed
opportunities for mutual agreement in determining the extent and cost of remedial works.
These decisions will require approval of both the Regional and the affected local
Municipal Council(s).
—51—
GBIffAle AOYM I TTEE — MAY 16, 2006
Report No. 4
Transportation and Works Committee
4.4 Input from Local Municipalities and Stakeholders
Regional staff have engaged all nine local municipalities in the development of these
policies. A number of meetings were held with local staff to discuss, in detail,
suggestions and comments. Most of the suggestions have been incorporated in the
proposed policies and any outstanding comments will be considered during the Master
Planning process to ensure local municipal support in thejurisdictional decisions being
made on infrastructure ownership.
4.5 Relationship to Vision 2026
The benefits of the approach in these proposed policies reflect the customer service
initiatives as outlined in the Region's Vision 2026. These modifications will ensure
continued effective infrastructure and fiscal planning, will provide clarity and
accountability, and will ensure that Regional design standards are consistently applied to
Regionally owned water and wastewater infrastructure.
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
There are no immediate financial implications to either the Regional or local
governments. Infrastructure that is identified for transfer will be assessed and reported to
the respective Councils as required by the transfer of assets policies and procedures
currently in place.
6. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT
These policies will assist in clarifying Regional jurisdiction and provide an equitable
infrastructure framework for defining the jurisdiction regardless of the population base of
the nine local municipalities.
7. CONCLUSION
The responsibility for constructing and maintaining water and wastewater infrastructure
is shared between the Region and the local municipalities. These policies are intended to
further support and clarify how Regional infrastructure is defined so that the Regional
system can continue to operate appropriately while providing equitable criteria for
defining the local systems of the local municipalities.
It is proposed that Regional Council endorse these policies.
The Senior Management Group has reviewed this report.
(The attachments referred to in this clause are attached to this report.)
—52—
G9NERAi_ COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
COUNCIL ATTACHMENT 1
STATUS
Council Approved Y N
CAO Approved: Y N
TITLE: Regional Jurisdiction — Water NO.:
Infrastructure Effective Date: March 2006
Latest Revision Date:
POLICY STATEMENT:
A policy to define Regional water infrastructure
APPLICATION:
The Regional Municipality of York and its constituent local municipalities. This policy is not
intended to apply to privately owned and operated water systems including those systems
operating under Municipal Responsibility Agreements.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this policy is to outline a Regional framework and specific criteria for defining
Regional water infrastructure.
DEFINITIONS:
Regional Servicing Master Plan
The master plan shall be based on the Regional Official Plan, which outlines Regional objectives
for servicing and growth. The master plan is intended to provide a rational, integrated and long-
range perspective on servicing needs while considering Regional population projections and
jurisdictional criteria outlined in this policy.
Regional infrastructure shall be defined primarily through the master planning process and shall
be based on supporting the functional system requirements necessary for servicing the area
municipalities.
General Infrastructure Jurisdictional Criteria
Jurisdictional criteria as outlined in this policy are intended to provide guidance in identifying
Regional infrastructure. Application of these criteria shall be governed by the following:
I . The spheres ofjurisdiction set out under Section 1 1 of the Municipal Act, 2001.
2. Occur primarily through the master planning process which is updated on a five year cycle.
-53—
GENWA,4&nag9WsUTeTiE9--N1'M6ryiiiIAstr�Ptqe
3. Results in reducing fragnnentation of the Regional system while not adversely affecting the
local municipal water system.
4. Applied with due consideration to the Regional context of the serviced area and overall
servicing scheme as defined by the master plan. They are not to be applied independently of
the master plan.
Regional Water Jurisdictional Criteria
Regional water infrastructure that is identified in the master plan shall meet the following
functions necessary to provide:
1. Treatment of water including wells
2. Pumping of water either;
a. directly to storage facilities; or
b. to a Regional system and which is of sufficient capacity to be considered Regional in the
context of the community profile and the master plan.
3, Storage of water
4. Metering to determine inter -municipal flow and other flow information necessary to support
the management of the Regional system.
5. Conveyance systems in the form of water -mains whose prime purpose is to transmit water to
the distribution system of a local area municipality. These watermains do not have service
connections (to private property), or fire hydrants along their length and:
a. provide a link between a supply source that is outside a municipally approved urban
area/town/village boundary and an appropriate location within the local municipal
distribution system; or
b, provide a link between a supply point at the Regional boundary to a Regional facility; or
c. provide a metered interconnection between local municipalities; or
d. are necessary to allow a service area to be in a desired Regional pressure district; or
e. are necessary to service more than one municipality; and
f, in all cases is of sufficient capacity to be considered Regional in the context of the
community profile and the master plan.
6. Control and data for the Regional SCADA system.
7. Interconnectivity between Regional facilities where appropriate and supported through the
master plan.
Infrastructure that meets this criteria but that is not currently identified in the master plan will be
reviewed during the periodic master plan updates to ensure appropriate Regional context is
considered in the decision making process.
DESCRIPTION:
Decision Making Framework
1. Jurisdictional Issues
The water distribution system is owned and operated by two levels of government, being the
local and Regional levels. Jurisdictional understanding is important in determining ownership
—54—
1 k h1PF RA4a1Ci1 WMdiFttfJ5F— WJ*yhi#&str&M
boundaries and areas of responsibility. An added consideration of this system is the variation in
relative size and complexity of the system depending on municipality. For these reasons, this
policy has been developed based on a hierarchy of decision making.
From the Regional perspective, it is important to consider jurisdictional issues as to how they
relate to the overall system and its operations. Some of the considerations include:
a. Level of fragmentation and compliance with the master plan
b. Inter -municipal services
c. Community size
d. Relative size of local system vs Regional system
From the local municipal perspective, considerations can, be much more varied depending on
community size, and geographic location relative to other communities and Regional service.
Regional jurisdiction as set out under Section 11 of the Municipal Act, 2001 indicates that York
Region is given exclusive jurisdiction over water production, treatment and storage. York Region
and the lower -tier municipalities must mutually agree before any transfer of water distribution
infrastructure occurs.
2. Decision Making Process
The criteria established for this policy have considered these perspectives and the decision
making process is based on the following guidelines:
a. Regional servicing and jurisdictional issues shall be resolved through the master planning
process
b. Criteria shall be applied to each municipality on a consistent basis considering their local
conditions and how these conditions are addressed in the master plan
c. The criteria are to form the basis of the decision making process during the master
planning process with specific conditions being addressed through sound master planning
principles and within the appropriate Regional servicing context.
d. Application of the criteria shall only occur in the context of the master plan and cannot be
applied independently.
e. Considerations for jurisdictional changes may occur outside the master planning process if
necessary, but must consider the master plan approach. Decisions made outside the master
plan process must be reviewed during the next update and may be adjusted if warranted.
In practicing the application of this policy, deviations to the criteria may be considered provided
it is warranted and it is in alignment with the overriding servicing objectives of the master plan.
Condition Assessment Requirements
A condition assessment is required for assets being considered for transfer. This shall apply to
assets being transferred either to the Region or to the local municipality. The intent of this
assessment is to ascertain the condition of the infrastructure so that appropriate asset
management practices can be continued ensuring a maximized life of these assets.
—55—
G E f�Ina�.QQ��Ii�tT��—tiI�YI n�rfdsh acQQ
The condition of any infrastructure that meets the criteria for transfer will be reviewed jointly by
the engineering departments of the Region and local municipality. This review shall establish the
status of the infrastructure to be transferred and will detenmine any necessary remedial work and
the relevant financial implications required to ensure that the infrastructure meets a mutually
acceptable standard. This review may also be completed by an independent third party
Professional Engineer (P.Eng) if so decided.
A complete set of record drawings shall be provided at the time of assumption. Prior to
assumption, the Region shall determine the suitability of existing records and, if deemed
incomplete, the local municipality shall be responsible for preparing the necessary documents
and records at their own cost. Reciprocal wording also applies to this clause for infrastructure to
be transferred from the Region to a local municipality.
Any condition assessments and financial implications related to infrastructure transfers shall be
included in reports to Council and corrected as mutually agreed.
RESPONSIBILITIES:
Transportation and Works Department:
• Design
• Construction
• Operation
• Maintenance
Finance Department:
• Budgeting
• Update of Development Charge By-law
Corporate Services Department:
• Preparation of assumption by-laws
Planning and Development Services Department:
• Ensure compliance of servicing scheme within Official Plans and Amendments
—56—
1'iGEN htaClDil%hTcTi6)i--NV M@rYlnT&str2a0ix
REFERENCE:
-Clause 10 of Report Number 10 of the Transportation and Works Committee adopted by
Council on 2 1 " November 2002; re: Regional Jurisdiction - Water Facilities.
-Report Number 13of the Transportation and Works Committee adopted by Council on I"
September 1999; re: Regional Jurisdiction New Trunk Sanitary Sewer Facilities
- Municipal Act, 2001, Section 11
CONTACT:
Manager, Technical Support, Water and Wastewater Branch, Transportation and Works
Department.
APPROVAL INFORMATION
CAO Approval Date:
Committee: Clause: Report No:
Council Approval: Minute No. Page: Date:
Document Produced: March, 2006
H. lPolicllIP06 - Transportation and IForks CornmilteeTeports (Drcf)l?006 ReportsUpril 2006Vin-isdictional
Policv A11ch I. doc
—57—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
York legion
COUNCIL ATTACHMENT 2
STATUS
Council Approved Y N
CAO Approved: Y N
TITLE: Regional Jurisdiction — NO.:
Wastewater Infrastructure Effective Date: March 2006
Latest.Revision Date:
POLICY STATEMENT:
A policy to define Regional wastewater infrastructure
APPLICATION:
The Regional Municipality of York and its constituent local municipalities. This policy is not
intended to apply to privately owned and operated wastewater systems including those systems
operating under Municipal Responsibility Agreements.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this policy is to outline a Regional framework and specific criteria for defining
Regional wastewater infrastructure.
DEFINITIONS:
Regional Servicing Master Plan
The master plan shall be based on the Regional Official Plan, which outlines Regional objectives
for servicing and growth. The master plan is intended to provide a rational, integrated and long-
range perspective on servicing needs while considering Regional population projections and
jurisdictional criteria outlined in this policy.
Regional infrastructure shall be defined primarily through the master planning process and shall
be based on supporting the functional system requirements necessary for servicing the area
municipalities.
General Infrastructure Jurisdictional Criteria
Jurisdictional criteria as in this policy are intended to provide guidance in identifying Regional
infrastructure. Application of these criteria shall be governed by the following:
1. The spheres of jurisdiction set out under Section I 1 of the Municipal Act, 2001.
2. Occur primarily through the master planning process. The master plan is updated on a five
year cycle.
Im
InNOucture .
3. Result in reducing fragmentation of the Regional system while not adversely affecting the
local municipal wastewater system.
4. Applied with due consideration to the Regional context of the serviced area and overall
servicing scheme as defined by the master plan. They are not to be applied independently of
the master plan.
Regional Wastewater Jurisdictional Criteria
Regional wastewater infrastructure that is identified in the master plan shall meet the following
functions necessary to provide:
1. Treatment of wastewater prior to discharge to the natural environment
2. Pumping of wastewater either;
a. directly to a treatment facility; or
b. to a Regional system and which is of sufficient capacity to be considered Regional in the
context of the community profile and the master plan.
3. Flow equalization for the purpose of increasing pumping efficiency and security and
typically located adjacent to Regional pumping facilities (not to include oversized sewers
primarily intended for conveyance unless the sewer meets Regional criteria).
4. Metering to determine inter -municipal flow and other flow information necessary to support
the management of the Regional system.
5. Conveyance systems;
a. that do not have private service connections; or
b. are necessary to service more than one municipality; or
c. that terminate at a local treatment facility; and
d. in all cases of sufficient capacity to be considered Regional in the context of the
community profile and the master plan.
6. Interconnectivity between Regional facilities where appropriate and supported through the
master plan.
Infrastructure that meets this criteria but that is not currently identified in the master plan will be
reviewed during the periodic master plan updates to ensure appropriate Regional context is
considered in the decision making process.
DESCRIPTION:
Decision Making Framework
1. Jurisdictional Issues
The wastewater servicing system is owned and operated by two levels of government, being the
local and Regional levels. Jurisdictional understanding is important in determining ownership
boundaries and areas of responsibility. An added consideration of this system is the variation in
relative size and complexity of the system depending on municipality. For these reasons, this
policy has been developed based on a hierarchy of decision making.
-59—
GEl egionalG�Wdih &F_ �Wastelval&'Int 9RAicture
From the Regional perspective, it is important to consider jurisdictional issues as to how they
relate to the overall system and its operations: Some of the considerations include:
a. Level of fragmentation and compliance with the master plan
b. Inter -municipal services
c. Community size
d. Relative size of local system vs Regional system
From the local municipal perspective, considerations can be much more varied depending on
community size, and geographic location relative to other communities and Regional service.
Regional jurisdiction as set out under Section l 1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 indicates that York
Region and the lower -tier municipalities must mutually agree before any transfer of sewage
treatment or sewage collection infrastructure occurs. The Municipal Act does not give guidance
on what constitutes Regional wastewater infrastructure. It is therefore important for the Region
to have criteria in place defining the jurisdiction of wastewater infrastructure.
2. Decision Making Process
The criteria established for this policy have considered these perspectives and the decision
making process is based on the following guidelines:
a. Regional servicing and jurisdictional issues shall be resolved through the master planning
process
b. Criteria shall be applied to each municipality on a consistent basis considering their local
conditions and how these conditions are addressed in the master plan
c, The criteria are to form the basis of the decision making process during the master
planning process with specific conditions being addressed through sound master planning
principles and within the appropriate Regional servicing context.
d. Application of the criteria shall only occur in the context of the master plan and cannot be
applied independently.
e. Considerations for jurisdictional changes may occur outside the master planning process if
necessary, but must consider the master plan approach. Decisions made outside the master
plan process must be reviewed during the next update and may be adjusted if warranted.
In practicing the application of this policy, deviations to the criteria may be considered provided
it is warranted and it is in alignment with the overriding servicing objectives of the master plan.
Condition Assessment Requirements
A condition assessment is required for assets being considered for transfer. This shall apply to
assets being transferred either to the Region or to the local municipality. The intent of this
assessment is to ascertain the condition of the infrastructure so that appropriate asset
management practices can be continued ensuring a maximized life of these assets.
The condition of any infrastructure that meets the criteria for transfer will be reviewed jointly by
the engineering departments of the Region and local municipality. This review shall establish the
GENERAL Y01y11�1 ;TEE —VA1 �, 20t06
16 Regional uris is ion —Wastewater nfras ructure
status of the infrastructure to betransferred and will detennine any necessary remedial %vork and
the relevant financial implications required to ensure that the infrastructure meets a mutually
acceptable standard. This review may also be completed by an independent third party
Professional Engineer (P.Eng.) if so decided.
A complete set of record drawings shall be provided at the time of assumption. Prior to
assumption, the Region shall determine the suitability of existing records and, if deemed
incomplete, the local municipality shall be responsible for preparing the necessary documents
and records at their own cost. Reciprocal wording also applies to this clause for infrastructure to
be transferred from the Region to a local municipality.
Any condition assessments and financial implications related to infrastructure transfers shall be
included in reports to Council and corrected as mutually agreed.
RESPONSIBILITIES:
Transportation and Works Department:
• Design
• Construction
• Operation
• Maintenance
Finance Department:
• Budgeting
• Update of Development Charge By-law
Corporate Services Department:
• Preparation of assumption by-laws
Planning and Development Services Department:
• Ensure compliance of servicing scheme within Official Plans and Amendments
REFERENCE:
-Clause 10 of Report Number 2 of the Transportation and Works Committee adopted by Council
on 2 1 " November 2002; re: Regional Jurisdiction - Water Facilities.
-Report Number 13 of the Transportation and Works Committee adopted by Council on I"
September 1999; re: Regional Jurisdiction New Trunk Sanitary Sewer Facilities
-Municipal Act, 2001, Section 11
—61—
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
Regional Jurisdiction— Wastewater Infrastructure
CONTACT:
Manager, Technical Support, Water and Wastewater Branch, Transportation and Works
Department.
APPROVAL INFORMATION
CAO Approval Date:
Committee: Clause: Report No:
Council Approval: Minute No. Page: Date:
Document Produced: March, 2006
H: IPolicylP06 - Transportation and 6Vorks CommitteelReports (Draft)0006 Reports Apri1200611urisdictional Policy
AttcUdoc .
—62—
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
LAGENLDAITEM # g
TOWN OF AURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. PW06-026
SUBJECT: Award of Tender No. PW-2006-33 — Reduce Extraneous Flows in the
Wastewater Collection System
FROM: W. H. Jackson, Director of Public Works
DATE: May 16, 2006
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT Tender No. PW2006-33 for the works to "Reduce Extraneous Flows in the
Wastewater Collection System" be awarded to Liqui-Force Services (Ontario) Inc.
at its tendered price of $269,700 (excluding GST);
THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Municipal Clerk to execute the attached
Form of Agreement between the Town of Aurora and Liqui-Force Services
(Ontario) Inc.; and
THAT Report PW06-026 be referred to the Regional Municipality of York with a
request that the Region consider increased sewage capacity allocation for the
Town of Aurora because of the continued reduction of extraneous flows into the
Regional sewer system as a result of the implementation of Tender No. PW2006-
33.
BACKGROUND
As a continuation of a maintenance program (Phase II) to reduce extraneous storm
water from entering the sanitary sewer system, Tenders were once again called for
various remedial measures to control this inflow/infiltration (1/1).
The reduction program had been initially launched under a Regional 1/1 initiative in 2000
that encompassed the Towns of Newmarket, Aurora and Richmond Hill. A Regional
report presented in 2003 had identified through investigations and flow monitoring
models certain targeted areas in the three communities that were recommended for
remedial measures to reduce 111.
COMMENTS
1. General
It is noted that the control or elimination of storm and/or ground water from the sanitary
sewer system is a significant capacity improvement element. It is estimated that at
-62-
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 - 2 - Report No. PW06-026
capacity, upwards of 70% of the flow in certain sections of the Regional sewer system
consists of storm water. The specific measured extraneous flows in the target areas
noted above were measured to be in the range of 50%. Accordingly, it can be seen that
the works to be undertaken for this contract will have a significant benefit to the capacity
and service performance of the Town's sanitary sewer system as well as increasing the
capacity of the Region's sanitary sewer system.
To date, several remedial measures have already been completed under the Phase I
project in the older sections of Town. The sanitary sewers in these areas have now
been sealed and lined to control the Ill,
During this previous work a combined sewer (connections to both the storm sewer and
sanitary sewer) was identified in the Mosley Street area. Further testing, however, is
required to accurately identify inflow sources and the treatment of the Mosley Street
Sewer is still to be completed.
2. Project Description
The project work areas for Phase II will primarily remain in various older sections in
Town, concentrating in the southeast and northeast quadrants. The works called for in
the Tender have once again included various trenchless technology practices to
rehabilitate and repair piping systems to reduce extraneous flows.
In addition to Phase I, we have also now included a work item to perform a smoke test
in the target areas. Smoke tests are performed by forcing non -harmful smoke through
the sanitary network with fans and witnessing any atypical areas or structures that emit
smoke. For example, should smoke present itself from a roadside catch basin or a
home's roof leader, corrective measure would then be developed to eliminate that
specific connection.
Such tests require a comprehensive public notification program and are performed in
cooperation with the Fire Services people. The Fire Services people are necessary
because, should a home have a faulty floor drain during the test, smoke may possibly
enter the house and cause alarm to residents.
3. Tender Process
The project was tendered on April 5, 2006 and on Friday, April 21, 2006 the Tender
Opening Committee opened three tenders with the following prices:
TENDERER
TENDER PRICE(Excluding GST
Li ui-Force Services Inc.
$269,700.00
D.M. Robichaud Associates Ltd
$552,025.00
Sewer Tpchnolo ies Inc.
$575,180.00
—63—
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 .3. Report No. PW06-026
The tender was issued by the Town's Financial Services Department and advertised
according to the requirements of the Town's standard purchasing procedures.
4. Proiect Costs
Tendered costs were based on estimated quantities of typical works necessary to fulfil
the project's goals and objectives. Unit costs for various items were requested to serve
as a basis to compare tenders. Individual work items (cleaning, CCTV inspection, lining
etc.) may be increased or decreased depending on the specific circumstances with all
work quantities approved by Town staff.
5. Discussion
All submitted tenders met the requirements for the project and were evaluated by Public
Works staff. As well as the tendered costs, the submissions were evaluated on various
criteria to establish the Contractor's experience, knowledge and acceptability.
It is once again noted that eliminating extraneous flow benefits the local municipalities
as it frees up sewer capacity.
OPTIONS
Council may not wish to proceed with this project.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Council had approved funds in the amount of $250,000 in the 2006 Capital Budget from
the Sewer Reserve Account for this project and accordingly, an additional $19,700 may
be required from the Sewer Reserve Account. As noted above, final quantities of work
is controlled by staff and accordingly, depending on the circumstances, the cost of this
tender can be limited to remain within the budgeted amount..
CONCLUSIONS
Liqui-force Services (Ontario) Inc. has successfully completed previous trenchless
infrastructure rehabilitation works throughout the Town.
All tender requirements have been fulfilled and it is suggested that the lowest bid
submitted by the Liqui-Force Services (Ontario) Inc. be accepted.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Goal "A" speaks to maintaining a well -managed and fiscally responsible municipality.
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 .4. Report No. PW06-026
ATTACHMENTS
• Appendix "A" - 2006 Capital Budget Sheet
• Appendix "B" -Form of Agreement— Tender No. PW2006-33
PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW
Management Team Meeting — May 10, 2006
Prepared by. Peter Horvath, Manager of Operations Services, ext. 3446
W. H. Jacf
Director of Public Works
John S. Rogers
C.A.O.
-65-
L§b6R6bDgg4M1TA5§PTEbAbEttUBtO0t0, 2005
TOWN OF AURORA
APPENDIX "A
Project ID :
Proj ect Name :
Department:
Service / Program
Year of Initiation
Flexible:
CAPITAL BUDGET - ANALYSIS BY PROJECT
42022
WASTEWATER INFRAS REHAB PROGRAM
Storm Sewer
Storm Sewer
2006
Yes
Program: Storm Sewer —To collect and analyze condition data for the Town's sanitary sewer
infrastructure, to provide the background information necessary for the creation of an overall
Sanitary Sewer Maintenance/Rehabilitation Plan.
Essential step in the creation of a long range rehabilitation/maintenance program to ensure the
integrity of the Town's sanitary sewer infrastructure, which will result in a reduction in the reactive
approach to infrastructure maintenance, and decreased potential liability to Town.
This is a continuation of a current program which utilize sewer video cameras and in -place point repair trenchless
technologies to provide staff with better knowledge of the existing condition and maintenance requirements for the
Town's wastewater collection infrastructure.
The results of this project are intended to provide real time analysis capabilities to project an overall Wastewater
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program.
The program is concentrated within the older sections of Town and will move to the newer sections over a number of
years.
itures
Estimated Financing
boo
GENERAL COMMI-TTEE — MAY 16, 2006
APPENDIX "B"
. '7<D1Ii PsUpIS®9Ip PUUUB YIIpUUS II pF pUp0p�
r
ENDER # PW20118 33
DAVE ISSUED: April 5, 2006
....nn.nn Nt17mN. LOCAL TIME, APRI_ L 2�r2006
FORM OF AGROEMEN'I
THIS AGREEMENT made (in tdplicate) this „,r,...._ day of .,, AD 2005
sE tWE'_EN; The Corporatlon of the town of Aurora
hereinafter called the sthee 00"ER"
t Part
and _
— herainafier called the "CONTRA[: i Un-.
of the Second Part
WHEREAS the Bid of the Contractor respecting the construction work, hereinafter
referred to nd dealt`K as accepted by the 4wn6r on the
day of 2006 .
tF T ..� .rwdrasaMegT that in consideration of the premises
WrrNF.&t9 17
and the eavenents hereinafter Contained, the Parties heielo agr� a nd 8UPP� at the Contractor's
h. The CornreCtar hereby covenants and agiaeesto tNq pmarrk and matedais tor, and to
are
own expense, all and every kind of labour, app
prepared for tine 7apwn of Aurora Pubic Worns Depertme k all aF whiohdseid f3
annexed hereto artd farm peert� Gq : � � nt � 1��1� ®n �� fully emk>gdied hanaln at
and for the prtae or sum of �—
The Contractor further covenants and agrees to undertake and pet�rm khe said warn in
n of
a proper work Ilke manner under the supervision and direction and to the complete aaGsfaa6o
the ownorwifhin tiny Faded of tlme specified In the Form of Bid.
s. The Contractor further awenente and agrees that the Contractor will at all times,
IndemnifY and save harmless the owner, the I0MM afters, servants, and agents from and
against all 14e9 or damage, and from and against ail o done, Butts, clbims and demand
whatsoever which may be made or brought against the Owner. the owners affims,
and agents by reason or in consequanaa of the execution and performance or maintenance of the
said work by the Contractor, the CantlYtataia servants,'gard" or employee&
and
furnish In jAcoordqnQ* with the obove
specificad�on, a Performance Band n an amourrt eagrees
aient to one hundred Ferro (100°y^} of the
wntract price approved by the Owners SoOcitpr, guarartFeein9 4he fafthful pedarmencs of the
dy
said work, In accordanrs with the terms of this Agreement,
F The owner hereby covenants and agrees that If the said work shall be duly and and
executed and matsrials provided as aiaresBid and if the Contractor shall carry cut perform and
obseNe all of the requirements and aond'itiana of this apreament thepaCSvmet will pay the
ants
made In a�canarda ce then provisions of the General CondllfonshnF th0 ontraC re rred
to beto abays.
7, This agreemenx and everything herein contained shall ensure to the Benefit of and be
binding upon the ParGas harm, their suooessors and assigns, Faspectively.
f3, All communications in writing between the parties or between them and the Town shag
be deemed to have been received by the addressee If delivered to the Individual or to a member
—67—
GENERAL COMMITTEE- 16, 2006
ot mA oidtier or to an officer tit fora CotporPlion for whom t1?6Y are intended or If igem by PoO.,
ti-,. I P. n m. rm or temsim 1 m edd ms r ed A P, foll MY-5:
GORPf�"ARATiCjhl Or"'THE TUVVW OF AIAORA
I &4.p'j"jpEj;
P.O. Box 1000
Aurorm, OntRelo
L44 6J'1 > FM;
'1"11ECONTRACTOR:
Q Sprew A;E 11 �R
FAY
hc-
474 .h10 mt.".)� S
x"r offic.a.r.c. in thit t>eh a ff m8paotbeely.
of the'lr urol
GON'T Rnf."Tor% OWNER
mftvor, T. Jones
Clerk,90� il4intmia, AA,G.T.
SIZE
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
TOWN OF AURORA AGENDA ITEM #
GENERAL COMMITTEE No. ADM06-009
SUBJECT: offer to Sell Town of Aurora Lands to York Region for a York
Regional Police Facility, Part Lot 19, Concession 3, Town of
Aurora (15059 Leslie Street)
FROM: John S. Rogers, Chief Administrative Officer
DATE: May 16, 2006
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the Offer to Sell with
the Region of York substantially in the form appended to this Report as
Attachment #1.
THAT Staff be authorized to take all necessary steps to be complete the
transaction.
BACKGROUND
By letter dated May 5, 2006 and received on May 8, 2006 the Region of York has
requested that the Town of Aurora sign an Offer to Sell approximately 2.44 acres of land to
the Region of York for $117,010.00. These lands would be combined with 5.16 acres of
land to be acquired from Hallgrove Estates Inc. to make a total site of approximately of 7.6
acres. This site would be used for the construction of a substantial facility to accommodate
certain Police services that are presently located in 3 leased facilities in the area. The
projections are that the facility would be completed in 2008 or 2009 and by 2015 would
accommodate as many as 600 employees. This would bean increase of 410 employees
over the current 190 employees in the area.
COMMENTS
Attachment #2 to this Report is a list of the pros and cons relating to the transfer of this
land to the Region. The sum of $117,010.00 is the original amount paid for the lands when
the Town purchased the property in 2000. This amount is well below the current appraised
value of the land and should be considered an incentive for the Police to locate in Aurora.
We are not in a position to reveal the appraised value of the land publicly as it would put
the Town at an economic disadvantage in the future sale of the balance of the lands owned
by the Town.
Staff are of the view that the positive aspects of this transfer far outweigh the negative
aspects and subject to the suggested revisions to the Offer contained in Attachment #1 it is
recommended that the Offer to Sell be executed.
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
May 16, 2006 -2- Report No. ADM06-009
OPTIONS
There are four basic options that Council may wish to consider:
1. Execute the Offer to Sell as presented by the Region
2. Execute the Offer to Sell as shown in Attachment #1
3. Offer to sell the property to the Region for the appraised value of the lands.
4. Offer to sell the lands to the Region for $10.00 with a condition attached that
would require the distribution of the proceeds of any future sale of the land by
the Region to the Town on a pro rata basis.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
If the recommendation is adopted there is the loss of potential revenue as the sale price is
not the appraised value of the land. There is however the sum of $117,010.00 that will be
received and it will be placed in the Sale of Municipal Land Discretionary Reserve Fund.
CONCLUSIONS
This is an opportunity for Council to be the catalyst for the development of the prestige
business park in the Leslie/Wellington area. Not only will there be a consolidated Police
presence in the Town of Aurora with the economic spin offs, it will also be the impetus to
have Hallgrove service its lands that will in turn, allow for the servicing of the Town owned
lands making the saleability and value of the Town owned lands increase. The Region has
also recently adopted a requirement that would see all future Regional Facilities of this size
constructed to a LEED silver level (LEED silver is an environmental certification of the
building) this is one of the few opportunities where the Town can offer an incentive to a
future user of the property without breaching the bonusing restrictions of the MunicipalAct.
This project will be beneficial to the economic prosperity of the Town and it is an
opportunity to set the trend for the nature of the business park development in this area.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Goal A —Maintaining a well managed and fiscally responsible municipality.
Goal B — Supporting a healthy business environment that attracts new business and is
responsive to the needs of our current business community.
Goal C — Continuing controlled, well planned growth.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 — Offer to Sell
Attachment 2 — Pros and Cons
Attachment 3 — Proposed Options - Air Photo Map
Attachment 4 — Proposed Option - Zoning Map
Attachment 5 — Town Draft Plan
Attachment 6 — Hallgrove Draft Plan
—70—
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
16. 2006 - 3 - Report No. ADM06-009
PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW
Senior Management Team - May10, 2006
Prepared by. John S. Rogers, Chief Administrative Officer- Ext. 4744
Rogers
Chief Administrative Officer
-71-
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
OFFER TO SELL ATTACHMENT-1
BETWEEN:
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA
(the "Vendor)
and -
!0 51s�ITDM ORF"iri i)_ePM12 8YYALe ab(Otoit
(the " Region")
DESCRIPTION OF LANDS
1.1 The Vendor offers to sell to the Region the following lands:
Being Part of Lot 19, Concession 3, Town of Aurora, Regional Municipality of York and shown as Blocks
1, 2 and 3 on a proposed plan of subdivision (a photocopy of part of the plan is attached to this
agreement).
(the "Lands")
CLOSING DATE
2.1 The closing of this transaction shall take place on the 29't day of September 2006, or as may be mutually agreed by each
parWs solicitor.
(the "Closing Date")
PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION
3.1 The Region shall pay to the Vendor on the Closing Date the Sam of $117,010.00 (One Hundred and Seventeen
Thousand and Ten Dollars), exclusive of the Goods and Services Tax, as compensation for the Lands (the
"Compensation") in lawful money of Canada, payable to the Vendor, or as the Vendor may direct, by cheque.
FEES
4.1 The Region agrees to pay all reasonable legal fees incurred by the Vendor in connection with this Agreement, subject
to the approval of the Region's Manager of Realty Services.
VACANT POSSESSION
6.1 The Region shall have vacant possession of the Lands on the Closing Date.
PERMISSION TO ENTER
6.1 The Region, its employees, agents, contractors and consultants shall have the right at any time, after the acceptance
of thin Agreement by Regional Council, to enter upon the Lands for the purpose of carrying out a Phase 1 and 2
Environmental Assessment and the necessary Goo -Technical investigation to ensure that a structure ran be built on
the subject lands.
INSPECTION AND CONDITIONS
7.1,1 The Vendor warrants that, to the best of the Vendor's knowledge and belief having made due enquiry, there are no
building deficiencies or violations of any Federal or Provincial laws or regulations, or any non-compliance with any
orders or approvals of any government authority relating to the Lands or their use or which might interfere with the
Region's intended use of the Lands. The Vendor undertakes to advise the Region immediately: (i) upon becoming
aware of any error in this statement; or (if) upon receipt of notice from any municipal or governmental authority
regarding the foregoing; or (iii) upon becoming aware of any changes in the circumstances under which such
statement is made.
7.2 The Vendor represents and warrants to the Region that, to the beet of the Vendor's knowledge and belief,
(a) the Lands have never been used as a waste disposal site;
(b) no contaminants, pollutants, dangerous substances, liquid waste or hazardous materials exist or have been
stored in or on the Lands;
(c) no underground storage tanks or surface impoundments have been or are in or on the Lands;.
TITLE
8.1 The Vendor represents and warrants that title to the Lands is and will be on the Closing Date goad and free from
restrictions, covenants, easements, charges, liens and encumbrances except for the encumbrances listed on the
attached Schedule _ (the "Permitted Encumbrances').
8.2 The Vendor shall deliver to the Region, on or before the Closing Date, each of the fallowing:
(a) a registerable deed in favour of the Region (except for any Land Transfer Tax Act Affidavits);
(b) such other deeds, conveyances, resolutions and other documents as the Region or the Region's council may
reasonably require in order to implement the intent of this Agreement; and
8.3 The Vendor acknowledges that there shall be no adjustments to the Compensation on closing for realty taxes or any
other matters.
CLOSING ARRANGEMENTS:
9.1 Where each of the Vendor and the Region retain a lawyer to complete the Offer to Sell, and where the transaction
will be completed by electronic registration pursuant to Part III of the Land Registration Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990,
Chapter L4, and any amendments thereto, the Vendor and the Region acknowledge and agree that the delivery of
documents and the release thereof to the Vendor and the Region may, at the lawyers' discretion; (a) not occur
contemporaneously with the registration of the transfer/deed (and other registerable documentation,) and (b) be
subject to conditions whereby the lawyer receiving dacuments and/or money will be required to bold them in trust
and not release them except in accordance with the terms of a written agreement between the lawyers.
PREPARATION AND REGISTRATION OF TRANSFER/DEED
10.1 The Transfer/Deed, except for the Land Transfer Tax Act Affidavit, shall be prepared and registered by the Vendor in
a form acceptable to the Region.
-72-
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
2
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
11.1 The Region warrants that it is a registrant under the Excise Tax Act in respect of the payment of the Goods and
Services Tax and will, if this transaction is subject to the payment of Goods and Services Tax, remit the Goods and
Services Tax payable directly to the appropriate taxing authority following completion of this transaction. The
Region's GST registration number is 124761123.
PLANNING ACT -
12.1 This Agreement shall be effective to create an interest in the Lands only if the subdivision control provisions of the
Planning Act are complied with by the Vendor on or before closing.
IRREVOCABILITY
13.1 This offer shall be irrevocable by the Vendor for 120 days. Acceptance of this offer by the Regional Council and the
Region of York Police Services Board shall be good and sufficient acceptance and shall be subject to the findings and
results contained in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Assessment report and the Geo-Technical report
prepared on the subject site.
GENERAL
14.1 Time shall be of the essence.
14.2 Any covenants of this Agreement not completed on or before the Closing Date shall survive the closing.
14.3 This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and there is no representation, warranty,
collateral agreement or condition affecting this Agreement or the Lands other than expressed herein.
14.4 Any tender of documents or money under this Agreement may be made upon the Vendor or Region, or their solicitors.
14.5 The provisions of this Agreement shall extend to, bind and enure to, the benefit of the heirs, executors,
administrators, successors and assigns, as the case may be, of each of the parties.
14.6 This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario.
14.7 This Agreement shall be subject to the provisions of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
Act.
14.8 Each of the parties shall promptly do, make, execute, deliver or cause to be done,made, executed or delivered all
such further acts, documents and things as the other party hereto may reasonably require for the purpose of giving
effect to this Agreement whether before or after the Closing Date.
14.9 Upon acceptance of this offer, this shall be a binding Agreement of Purchase and Sale.
NOTICE
15.1 Any notice under this Agreement is sufficiently given if delivered personally or if sent by ordinary prepaid mail or
prepaid courier to the Region at:
The Regional Municipality of York
17250 Ycnge Street
Newmarket, ON MY 6Z1
Attention: Manager of Realty Services
Telephone: (905) 830-4444 Ext.1424 or 1-877-464-9675 Ext. 1424
and to the Vendor at:
The Corporation of the Town of Aurora
P.O.Boxl000,1-Hun;cipa.l >nvs,
Aurora, ON L46'6J1
16.1 Schedule "A" attached forms part of this Agreement.
OFFERED BY the Vendor this day of , 2006.
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF AURORA
Name:
Title:
Name:
Title:
I/We have authority to bind the corporation.
-73-
GENERAL COMMITTEE - MAY 16, 2006
Schedule "A"
To An Agreement between:
The Corporation of the Town of Aurora
-and-
The Regional Municipality of York
The Purchaser agrees to have the following covenant and restriction registered
against the title to the lands:
1. The owner covenants and agrees that any buildings constructed on these
lands or the lands immediately to the north of these lands will be
constructed in a manner that takes advantage of energy conservation
opportunities. In particular the building will be constructed to a LEED
silver standard under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
green building rating system (LEED TM).
2. This Offer to Sell is conditional upon the Region completing the purchase
of Blocks 16, 16 and 17 on the Draft Plan of Subdivision currently owned
by Hallgrove Estates Inc.
-74-
GENERAL COMMITTEE — MAY 16, 2006
ATTACHMENT - 2
Analysis of Leslie Street Proposal
Pros
o Gets Hallgrove moving with its plan of subdivision
o Ensures a quality project as the first development in this area
o Makes the Town lands more valuable and attractive as servicing will be
available to the boundaries
o Economic Impact — for every dollar spent by Police employees local
economy can expect a two to three times impact
o The 600 police jobs will yield an additional 150 jobs in the local economy
over the 10 year time frame
o Police presence will increase and bring a sense of community safety
o LEED silver building will be constructed
Cons
o Loss of income of sale of the lands
o Loss of taxation revenue (would occur even if full price was paid)
—75—