AGENDA - General Committee - 20160419GENERAL COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
TUESDAY,APRIL 19,2016
7 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AURORA TOWN HALL
PUBLIC RELEASE
April 12,2016
TOWN OF AURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING
AGENDA
Tuesday,April 19,2016
7 p.m.
Council Chambers
Councillor Gaertner in the Chair
1.DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE
THEREOF
2.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the agenda as circulated by Legal and Legislative Services be approved.
3.DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
4.ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
5.DELEGATIONS
(a)Chris Denich,P.Eng,Aquafor Beech Ltd.pg.1
Re:Item 1 IES16-035 Town of Aurora Comprehensive
Stormwater Management Master Plan
6.PRESENTATIONS BY THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR
7.CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Page 2 of 7
8.NOTICES OF MOTION
9.NEW BUSINESS/GENERAL INFORMATION
10.CLOSED SESSION
11.ADJOURNMENT
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Page 3 of 7
AGENDA ITEMS
1.IES16-035 Town of Aurora Comprehensive Stormwater Management pg.2
Master Plan
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.IES16-035 be received;and
THAT The Comprehensive Stormwater Management Master Plan be endorsed
subject to future budget approval;and
THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to the Clerk of York Region .
2.IES16-036 Award of Tender IES 2016-20 The Reconstruction of pg.10
Catherine Avenue
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.IES16-036 be received;and
THAT Tender IES 2016-20 for Capital project No.31111 for the Reconstruction of
Catherine Avenue be awarded to IL Duca Contracting Inc.in the amount of
$732,706.20,excluding taxes;and
THAT the Mayor and Town Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary
Agreement,including any and all documents and ancillary agreements required to
give effect to same.
3.IES16-037 Water,Wastewater and Stormwater Budget pg.15
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.IES16-037 be received;and
THAT the 2016 combined Water,Wastewater budget of $18,744,076 and the
Stormwater budget of $1,325,841 be approved;and
THAT the 2016 retail water rate of $2.14 per cubic meter and the retail wastewater
rate of $1.89 per cubic meter of water be approved;and
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Page 4 of 7
THAT the 2016 flat rate stormwater charge of $5.01 per unit per month for
residential and condominium properties and $63.63 per unit per month for metered
non-residential commercial/industrial and multi-residential properties be approved;
and
THAT the new approved retail water,retail wastewater and stormwater charge
rates become effective for all billings issued by the Town on or after May 1,2016,
and be retroactive for all consumption newly billed on such billings;and
THAT the 2016 bulk water purchase rate of $4.03 per cubic meter dispensed
effective May 1,2016 be approved;and
THAT the necessary by-law be enacted to implement the 2016 retail water rate,
retail wastewater rate,stormwater charge and bulk water purchase rate;and
-time staff complement be increased by one to 212 (excluding
Library Board and Central York Fire Services staff)by approving the new non -
union position of Water Compliance Analyst for 2016,to be funded from the water
wastewater and stormwater rates budget.
4.IES16-038 Extension of Janitorial Services Contract pg.53
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.IES16-038 be received;and
THAT cleaning for the new Aurora Operations Centre be awarded to Royal
Building Cleaning Ltd.for the period of May 1 to July 31,2016 in the amount of
$40,000 excluding taxes.
5.IES16-039 Purchase Order Increases P.O.No.713 and P.O.No.714 pg.56
HVAC Maintenance Services
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.IES16-039 be received;and
THAT Purchase Order No.713 for Carmichael Engineering Ltd.,be increased for
year one of Contract IES 2015-35 for HVAC Services at various Town Facilities,in
the Town of Aurora,in the amount of $125,000,excluding taxes;and
THAT Purchase Order No.714 for Dunlis Mechanical Services Ltd.,be increased
for year one of Contract IES 2015-35 for HVAC Services at various Town
Facilities,in the Town of Aurora,in the amount of $125,000,excluding taxes.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Page 5 of 7
6.IES16-040 Facility Projects Status Report pg.60
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.IES16-040 be received for information.
7.PRS16-017 Mavrinac Park Conceptual Design pg.66
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.PRS16-017 be received;and
THAT staff be directed to conduct a Public Open House for the purposes of
obtaining input and comments from the public on the proposed design and
facilities to be included in the park;and
THAT funding from the Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Reserve,in an amount not to
exceed $1,300,000.00 for the design and construction of the park,be approved;
and
THAT staff report back to Council with the information and comments received at
the Public Open House including any revisions to the park concept plan,cost
estimate and a proposed date of construction commencement.
8.PDS16-023 Zoning By-law Amendment pg.72
BG Properties Aurora Inc.(formerly Coutts)
14222,14314,14358 &14378 Yonge Street
Related File:SUB-2012-03
File Number:ZBA-2012-16
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.PDS16-023 be received;and
THAT Application to Amend the Zoning By-law File No.ZBA-2012-16 (BG
Properties Aurora Inc.)to add Single Detached Residential,Open Space and
Environmental Protection uses on the subject lands be approved;and
THAT the implementing Zoning By-law be presented at a future Council Meeting.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Page 6 of 7
9.PDS16-024 Application for Exemption from Part Lot Control pg.85
Brookfield Homes (Ontario)Aurora Ltd.
Blocks 15,16 &19,Plan 65M-4467 being 65R-36163 and 65R-
36213
File No.:PLC-2016-02
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.PDS16-024 be received;and
THAT the Application for Exemption from Part Lot Control submitted by Brookfield
Homes (Ontario)Aurora Ltd.to divide Blocks 15,16 and 19,on Plan 65M-4467
into 17 separate lots for townhouse units be approved;and
THAT the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law be introduced and enacted at a
future Council meeting.
10.PDS16-026 Cultural Precinct/Library Square Repurposing pg.93
Project Plan
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.PDS16-026 be received;and
THAT Council endorse the planning approval process outlined in this report;and
THAT staff prepare reports and schedule public consultation meetings in
accordance with the approval process.
11.Community Recognition Review Advisory Committee Meeting pg.102
Minutes of March 22,2016
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Community Recognition Review Advisory Committee meeting minutes of
March 22,2016,be received for information.
12.Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of March 22,2016 pg.106
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Finance Advisory Committee meeting minutes of March 22,2016,be
received for information.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Page 7 of 7
13.Special Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting pg.110
Minutes of March 31,2016
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Special Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting minutes of
March 31,2016,be received;and
THAT the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee recommend to Council:
1.PRS16-015 Implementation of the Sport Plan
THAT tasks T1,T3,T15,T16,T17,T21,and T22 be referred to the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Committee prior to a recommendation being presented to
Council.
2.Parks and Recreation Master Plan Implementation Schedule
THAT tasks T1,T4,T4a,T4b,T5,T9,T16,T27,T30,T34,and T35 be referred
to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee prior to a recommendation
being presented to Council;and
THAT task T41 be referred to the Trails and Active Transportation Committee
prior to a recommendation being presented to Council.
14.Canada 150 Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Minutes of March 16,2016 and pg.125
April 4,2016
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Canada 150 Ad Hoc Committee meeting minutes of March 16,2016,
and April 4,2016,be received for information.
DELEGATION REQUEST
This Delegation Request form and any written submissions or background information for
the following deadline:
4:30 P.M.ON THE BUSINESS DAY PRIOR TO THE REQUESTED MEETING DATE
COUNCIL/COMMITTEE/ADVISORY COMMITTEE DATE:April 19,2016
SUBJECT:Delegation -
NAME OF SPOKESPERSON:Chris Denich,P.Eng
NAME OF GROUP OR PERSON(S)BEING REPRESENTED (if applicable):
Stormwater Management Master Plan (CSWM-MP)
BRIEF SUMMARY OF ISSUE OR PURPOSE OF DELEGATION:
Delegation is in support of the staff Report entitled
PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
Have you been in contact with a Town staff or Council member
regarding your matter of interest?YES NO
IF YES,WITH WHOM?Anca Mihail,Manager of Engineering DATE:Apr.20,2014 Apr.
19,2016
I acknowledge that the Procedural By-law permits five (5)minutes for Delegations.
Legal and Legislative Services
905-727-3123
CSecretariat@aurora.ca
Town of Aurora
100 John West Way,Box 1000
Aurora,ON L4G 6J1
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Delegation (a)-1
-1 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 1 Page -1
-2 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 1 Page -2
-3 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 1 Page -3
-4 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 1 Page -4
-5 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 1 Page -5
-6 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 1 Page -6
-7 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 1 Page -7
-8 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 1 Page -8
-9 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 2 Page -1
-10 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 2 Page -2
-11 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 2 Page -3
-12 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 2 Page -4
-13 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 2 Page -5
-14 -
TOWN OF AURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No.IES16-037
SUBJECT:Water,Wastewater and Stormwater Budget
FROM:Ilmar Simanovskis,Director of Infrastructure &Environmental
Services
DATE:April 19,2016
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT Report No.IES16-037 be received;and
THAT the 2016 combined Water,Wastewater budget of $18,744,076 and the
Stormwater budget of $1,325,841 be approved;and
THAT the 2016 retail water rate of $2.14 per cubic meter and the retail wastewater
rate of $1.89 per cubic meter of water be approved;and
THAT the 2016 flat rate stormwater charge of $5.01 per unit per month for
residential and condominium properties and $63.63 per unit per month for
metered non-residential commercial/industrial and multi-residential properties be
approved;and
THAT the new approved retail water,retail wastewater and stormwater charge
rates become effective for all billings issued by the Town on or after May 1,2016,
and be retroactive for all consumption newly billed on such billings;and
THAT the 2016 bulk water purchase rate of $4.03 per cubic meter dispensed
effective May 1,2016 be approved;and
THAT the necessary by-law be enacted to implement the 2016 retail water rate,
retail wastewater rate,stormwater charge and bulk water purchase rate;and
-time staff complement be increased by one to 212
(excluding Library Board and Central York Fire Services staff)by approving the
new non-union position of Water Compliance Analyst for 2016,to be funded from
the water wastewater and stormwater rates budget.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -1
-15 -
April 19,2016 -2 -Report No.IES16-037
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
The purpose of this report is to present the budget for rate supported utility programs
and set the 2016 rates for the water,wastewater and stormwater services for billings
issued on or after May 1,2016.
BACKGROUND
water systems
The services of water supply,wastewater management and stormwater management
are greatly regulated by the Province.This regulation has been a part of the industry for
a long time.However,as a result of the Walkerton tragedy in 2000,significant changes
to legislation occurred resulting in continued improvements to how water supply is
delivered.The best practices coming out of the changes to water regulations has been
of great benefit to increasing confidence and certainty in the delivery of safe water to the
community.Full cost recovery,including the costs of maintaining sustainable
infrastructure,is an important aspect for utilities.
Overseers of water systems are held to a standard of care for public safety
The Safe Drinking Water Act,2002,focuses on water supply and outlines the expected
standard of care for overseers of water supply systems.This Act is the basis of our
operations and great effort is placed in ensuring compliance and continual improvement
in meeting all the requirements.
Wastewater and Stormwater systems have similar Acts and Regulations
Legislation for wastewater and stormwater are also in place and have similar
requirements for these services.Recent legislation for stormwater protection includes
the Lake Simcoe Protection Act 2008 for which Aurora is a participating partner within
this watershed.Our stormwater masterplan has been recently reviewed by the Lake
Simcoe Conservation Authority and will be provided to Council later this year.
Safe Drinking Water Act Requires that Council Assume Responsibility for
Standard of Care of Water System
One of the many important recommendations that came out of the Walkerton Inquiry
was that as the safety of drinking water is essential for public health,those who
discharge the oversight responsibilities of the municipality should be held to a statutory
standard of care .Members of a Municipal Council have an important role to play in
ensuring that their community has access to safe,high quality drinking water and they
are legally obliged to do so.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -2
-16 -
April 19,2016 -3-Report No.IES16-037
Section 19 of the Safe Drinking Water Act expressly extends legal responsibility to
people with decision-making authority over municipal drinking water systems.Anyone to
whom the duty of care applies is required to exercise the level of care,diligence and
skill that a reasonably prudent person would be expected to exercise in a similar
situation.They must also act honestly,competently and with integrity,with a view to
ensuring the protection and safety of users of the municipal drinking water system.
The Safe Drinking Water Act does recognize that those persons exercising decision
making and oversight roles may need to rely on experts and accordingly,allows any
person subject to the duty of care to rely in good faith on a report of an engineer,
lawyer,accountant or other persons whose professional qualifications lend credibility to
the report.
This report and related presentation material is provided to Council with relevant
information to assist Council in its decision making role.
COMMENTS
Overview of Budget Pressures
Pressures for Sustainability
Infrastructure and sustainability pressures on regional water systems passed
down through wholesale rates
The municipal water industry is continuing to move through substantial changes in how
services are delivered and how future sustainability is accommodated and planned for.
York Region has seen significant increases in costs in its wholesale rates over the past
has been revised to continue with high rate increases into the near future as they reach
sustainable funding levels.The rate increases will remain at 9%per year until 2020.
These approved regional rate increases have a direct impact on retail rates as the
regional charges reach 66%of the total Town operating costs.
Town water rate pressure is a result of wholesale costs and long term capital
requirements
The passes on Regional costs to the consumer in order to maintain
sustainable revenue levels.The financial plan as required by the Province was
submitted February 28,2012.The financial plan is required to demonstrate to both the
Province and the consumers that the Town has taken the responsibility of infrastructure
sustainability seriously.Cost pressures related to sustainability include:
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -3
-17 -
April 19,2016 -4-Report No.IES16-037
Reduced reliance on Reserves to supplement the operating budget
Continued infrastructure reserve contributions to support the long term,
capital replacement program.
Program efficiencies and service delivery reviews continue to improve budget
process
There have been a number of efficiencies introduced into the rate program budget
process aimed at creating better accountability and improved service delivery and
budget forecasts.
Increased Accuracy in Water Demand Forecast:
Changes in the methodology of forecasting water and wastewater wholesale and retail
volumes have closed the gap in potential underfunding.The consumption actuals have
virtually matched forecast volumes in recent years.This has a beneficial effect on the
budget as more accurate revenue forecasts result in minimal subsidy requirements or
potentially surplus funds that further maintain reserve balances.
Reductions in Unbilled and Unaccounted for Water:
There is always a portion of water consumed for operational needs,and testing.Water
loss that is unrelated to operational uses also occurs.Minimizing this quantity reduces
operating costs and increases revenues.Improvements have been made in how water
loss is tracked and systems,such as metering the watermain flushing activities,have
been introduced to more accurately track known unbilled uses.In addition,a meter
change out program was initiated in 2014 with a replacement of 1,000 meters per year
for the next 9 years.This program has virtually eliminated known residential meter
issues through selective replacement while a program proceeds in selected areas.
In addition,capital funding has been approved in 2016 for some larger meter
replacements where known issues with either water custody or metering discrepancies
with the private side meters are known.
Reduced Reliance on Reserves to offset Revenue Shortfall in Operating:
The three rate supported programs have achieved full cost recovery as budgeted
reliance on reserves is now eliminated for the first time in over a decade.
System Water Loss
System water loss is reported to Council separately.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -4
-18 -
April 19,2016 -5-Report No.IES16-037
Request for New Water Compliance Analyst Position to Support Operations Staff
The water and wastewater department has had to respond to a changing legislative
environment since 2003 related to increased testing,documentation and reporting
requirements as required by the Clean Water Act and related regulations as a result of
the Walkerton event of 2000.The Town had to develop a Drinking Water Quality
Management System and related processes through 2009 and this system requires
continued staff training and support.
These additional operational and administrative responsibilities have been managed
with existing staffing levels as no new complement has been added to the program
since 2008 (As of arrival of the current Director).The staff complement has been 8
water operations staff and 1 administration staff for the past 8 years.
Continued community growth pressure and increased requirements related to reporting
and work management have strained the existing resources resulting in a reduced
capacity to maintain historic service levels.A new position was forecast for 2016 to
accommodate these pressures and further details are provided as follows.
In reviewing the changing needs,it has been determined that a non-unionized position
of Water Compliance Analyst is required at this time.This need is based on changes to
operational duties and the outcome of the LEAN operations review completed in 2015.
The goal is to shift to a specialization strategy by keeping unionized staff focused on
their high yield activities primarily related to field work and hire the non-union Water
Compliance Analyst to focus on more technical requirements that do not currently fit
within the unionized staff skill set.This approach will free up more front line capacity
and bring in the necessary expertise to support the more technical activities.Areas of
activity will include:
Reduce administrative/technical duties from the unionized operations staff to
allow more capacity for the field staff to perform more field related activities
required to maintain new infrastructure brought on through development growth.
Oversee new programs such as the Back Flow Prevention program which
currently is not proceeding due to resource constraints and which has been
approved by Council in September 2014.This program has an annual revenue
forecast of $36,000 which will further offset the new salary position.This
program would be initiated as soon as a new hire is secured.
o Note that the initial strategy for this program was through existing
resources,however,efforts to reduce contract reliance for various duties
was a key outcome of our LEAN operations review and staff have taken
on additional duties in exchange for reductions in contracted services.A
key area for this team is the assumption of street light electrical utility
locates as part of the watermain locate services .This has reduced the
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -5
-19 -
April 19,2016 -6-Report No.IES16-037
need for contracted locates by about $90,000 which was a significant
cost pressure in 2015 due to high locate demands.The 2016 contracted
services is expected to be about one third of the 2015 costs for locates or
about $50,000 compared to $140,000 in 2015.
Oversee the expanding Drinking Water Quality Management Standards related
to regular update requirements and accommodation of the expanding
infrastructure network.
Provide analytical support and compliance reporting to the water supervisor.
To support operations staff when water quality or performance issues arise that
needs additional technical support which is currently provided by the
Supervisor.
To provide an additional Overall Responsible Operator licenced person on the
team that allows for additional system coverage should there be staff absences
that put the Town in a difficult position for compliance (Currently have three
qualified persons which can at times be problematic due to vacation,sickness).
Support stormwater maintenance and rehabilitation activities in cooperation with
engineering.
Provide technical input on operational needs and requirements related to
development applications.
Primary liaison with York Region Environmental Services related to
infrastructure coordination and operational meetings.
This position is proposed as a recommendation to better support the water staff and
ensure compliance and reporting requirements are met as the Town continues to grow.
The salary including benefits has been budgeted at $115,000.The rate impact of this
position is $0.02 per cubic meter on a proposed combined rate of $4.03.
2016 Budget Overview
The proposed changes in the operating budget are summarized as follows:
2015 Budget 2016 Budget %Change
Region Charges 11,639,036 12,720,302 Nominal 9.0%
Operations 4,054,299 4,318,774 6.5%
Subtotal Expenses 15,693,335 17,039,076 8.6%
Reserve Contributions 2,100,000 2,300,000 9.5%
Less:Miscellaneous.Revenue*(334,000)(595,000)-78.1%
Net Expenses 17,459,335 18,744,076 7.4%
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -6
-20 -
April 19,2016 -7 -Report No.IES16-037
Reserve to offset operating (380,348)Nil -100.0%
Required rate revenues 17,078,987 18,744,076 9.8%
The components of the 9.8 percent increase for 2016 are summarized in the following
table:
Components Net Impact on Costs
Salaries 0.7%$126,473
Materials costs 1.4%$245,200
Contracts -0.6%($108,197)
Reliance on reserve for operating 2.2%($380,348)
Reserve Contribution (R/R program)1.2%$200,000
Internal Transfers 0%$0
Miscellaneous Revenue -1.5%($261,000)
Sum of Controllable cost pressures 3.4%$583,824
Regional Charges Increase Portion 6.3%$1,081,265
Sum of Impacts on Required Customer Revenues 9.8%$1,665,089
2016 Rate Budget
The following tables are based on the financial forecasts presented in the 2016
Proposed Budget.
2016 Water Budget and Rate Calculation
Table 1A Water Rate
Rate Component 2015
Rate
2016
Proposed
Wholesale Cost $1.02 $1.11
Operating Costs $0.97 $1.03
Total Retail Water Rate $1.99 $2.14
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -7
-21 -
April 19,2016 -8 -Report No.IES16-037
2016 Wastewater Budget and Rate Calculation
Table 1B Wastewater Rate
Rate Component 2015
Rate
2016
Proposed
Wholesale Cost $1.16 $1.26
Operating Costs $0.52 $0.63
Total Retail Wastewater
Rate
$1.68 $1.89
Table 1C Combined Rate
Rate Component 2015
Rate
2016
Proposed
Change (%)
2016 Combined Rate $3.67 $4.03 9.8%
Staff were able to identify savings in the water and wastewater system budgets based
on some of the budget opportunities identified in this report.These savings reflect the
ongoing improvements being implemented in both front line services as well as tracking
and managing delivery of these services.
2015 Miscellaneous Charges
Bulk Water
The Town operates a bulk water filling station for contractors who require their water
tank trucks to be filled.The current rate for such sale of bulk water is $3.67 per m3.This
is the same rate charged to retail customers for both water and wastewater services
combined.The Town incurs wholesale costs for both services based on metered water
consumption.The 2016 bulk water rate therefore is to increase to the combined charge
of $4.03 per m3 on May 1,2016 to correspond to the retail rate changes.Bulk water
accounts are billed at the end of each month for water dispensed in that period.Water
dispensed on or after May 1 will be charged at the new rate.
2016 Stormwater Charges
Stormwater charges are collected as flat rate fees to residents and commercial
accounts
In 1998,Aurora implemented a flat rate charge for stormwater operation and
maintenance.The operating costs consist primarily of routine maintenance and periodic
capital upgrades to the existing infrastructure,together with required contributions to
infrastructure reserve funds for future capital needs.The costs are apportioned between
the residential and non-residential accounts based on a fixed formula which are then
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -8
-22 -
April 19,2016 -9-Report No.IES16-037
calculated and charged as a monthly fixed fee per account.A summary of the costs are
presented in the table below.
Table 2A
Rate Component 2015
Costs
2016
Proposed
Change (%)
Gross Operating Costs $458,640 $425,841 -7.2%
Storm Infrastructure Reserve
Contribution
$1,000,000 $900,000 -10%
Rate Stabilization ($145,640)nil -100%
Total Recovery $1,313,000 $1,325,841 2.0%
Table 2B
Stormwater Flat Rate 2015 Rate 2016
Proposed
Rate
Rate Change
Residential/year $57.34 $60.14 $2.80
Non-Residential/year $755.57 $763.57 $8.00
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Strategic Plan Goal of Supporting an Exceptional Quality of Life for All
Objective 2:Invest in Sustainable Infrastructure
Both legislation and fiscal management lead to creating sustainable water,wastewater
and stormwater infrastructure.Providing the appropriate rates ensures that sufficient
revenues are generated to create financial sustainability and maintain the assets
accordingly.
ALTERNATIVE(S)TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS
The rates for the various services are established each year based on coming into
effect May 1st of the current year and are applied to all consumption,regardless of
reading interval,on all billings prepared and issued on or after May 1st.Approval of the
recommendations in advance of May 1st will allow the revised rates to be charged at
the appropriate time to fulfill budget projections.
Staff is requesting an additional Full Time Equivalent position for Water Compliance
Analysist as part of the 2016 budget.Council may choose not to approve this position.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -9
-23 -
April 19,2016 -10 -Report No.IES16-037
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Water and Wastewater rates are both based on the volume of water purchased by
the end users.The Stormwater Rates are based on an apportioned cost per property
that receives a water bill for the cost of maintaining the stormwater system.The
following table summarizes the net revenues required to fund the various programs for
2016.
Table 3A-Revenue Forecast
Component 2015
approved
2016
Proposed
Change
Water/wastewater $17,078,987 $18,744,076 $1,665,089
Stormwater $1,313,000 $1,325,841 $12,841
Total $18,391,987 $20,069,917 $1,677,930
CONCLUSIONS
The water,wastewater and stormwater programs are all funded through a rate structure
based on consumption and full cost recovery.The budget for 2016 rates outlined in the
approach to achieving full cost recovery for future years.All rates are forecast to be in
effect May 1,2016 until April 30,2017.Billing of these rates is subject to timing of billing
cycles with new rates coming into force for the same period for each account.Further
clarification of billing cycles and timing can be obtained from the Finance Department.
PREVIOUS REPORTS
None
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix -Water Wastewater Stormwater Information Package
PRE-SUBMISSION REVIEW
Executive Leadership Team Meeting of March 31,2016.
Prepared by:Ilmar Simanovskis,Director,IES -Ext.4371
_________________________
Ilmar Simanovskis
Director,Infrastructure &
Environmental Services
_________________________
Doug Nadorozny
Chief Administrative Officer
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -10
-24 -
1Water,WastewaterandStormwaterSystems2016BudgetApril19,2016General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -11
-25 -
2ComplywithlegislativeandregulatoryrequirementsCleanWaterActEnvironmentalProtectionActHealthProtectionandPromotionActOntarioWaterResourcesActSafeDrinkingWaterActSustainableWaterandSewageSystemsActFinancialsustainabilitythroughfullcostrecoveryincludingreplacementfundingWaterservicescostsarepassedthroughfromproductiontothefinalconsumer.Toronto/Peel,YorkRegion,Town,ConsumerGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -12
-26 -
3CouncilapprovedwatersystemFinancialPlaninFebruary2012(staffreportIES12-004)Goalistoachieveallaspectsofthefullcostmodel2016budgethasachievedfullcostrecoveryGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -13
-27 -
4SystemOverviewDrinkingWaterSupplyBlendedSupply,2015ratiowas30%wellsupplyand70%LakeOntariosupplySourceisfrom6regionalwellswithinAurora,TorontoWaterSystemandPeelWaterSystemTorontoandPeelwholesaletoYorkRegionwhothenwholesaletolocalmunicipalitiesTownResponsiblefordistributiontoendconsumer(195kmtownwatermains)592commercial,14,543residentialaccountsGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -14
-28 -
5SystemOverviewWastewaterSystemPrimarilygravitycollectionsystemwith6localpumpingstationsTownresponsibleforwastewatercollectionfromconsumeranddeliverytoregionalsystem(175kmoftownsewers)General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -15
-29 -
6WholesaleCostsIncrease9%YorkRegionapproved9%annualincreaseonratesto2020StrategytoEliminateReserveRelianceSuccessfulIncreaseinaccuracyofforecastreducesriskofrevenueshortfallandhaseliminatedrelianceonreservefundingNewStrategyistoBuildCapacityforGrowthAdditionalresourceshavebeenforecastedtoaccommodategrowinglegislativepressuresandnewdevelopmentGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -16
-30 -
OverallProgramSuccesses2011strategysetgoaltoeliminateanyratesubsidywithin4yearsGoalfullyachievedin2016budgetLeanOperationalOpportunitiesSomeopportunitiesimplementedin2015resultinginimmediatebudgetsavingsandoperationalefficiencies2011RateRestructuringgoalachievedRatesettinghasbeenstabilizedandresponsivetovaryingconsumptiondemands7General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -17
-31 -
8OperatingBudgetW/WW2013201420152016201720182019GrossBudget15,437,66516,629,01117,793,33519,339,07620,982,34022,543,19524,200,992GrossActuals14,322,15015,929,22917,859,524$1,500,000$6,500,000$11,500,000$16,500,000$21,500,000$26,500,000W/WWGrossOperatingCostsGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -18
-32 -
9BudgetbyComponentW/WW2013201420152016201720182019RegionalChargesBudget8,903,5569,897,11610,580,94211,639,03612,720,30213,915,54815,195,425ReserveContributionBudget1,726,0001,800,0001,800,0002,100,0002,300,0002,500,0002,700,000OperatingBudget3,740,5494,248,0694,054,2994,318,7744,566,7924,647,7704,908,027RegionalChargesActual9,070,8949,471,4729,900,000ReserveContributionActual1,726,0001,800,0001,929,084OperationsActual3,112,0883,050,6784,100,145-5,000,00010,000,00015,000,00020,000,00025,000,000General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -19
-33 -
102016Budget2015BudgetBudgetbyComponentW/WWRegionalSupply65%Salaries9%MaterialsandSupplies2%ContractedServices11%InternalTransfers1%contributiontoreserves12%RegionalSupply66%Salaries9%MaterialsandSupplies3%ContractedServices9%InternalTransfers1%contributiontoreserves12%General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -20
-34 -
11RegionalCouncilApproveda6yearratestrategybasedonthefollowingincreasesYearIncrease%Increase$20169%$2.3720179%$2.5920189%$2.8220199%$3.0720209%$3.3520212.9%$3.45General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -21
-35 -
12-1234562013201420152016201720182019CubicMetresMillionsforecastActualsGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -22
-36 -
13EstimatedVolumetopurchasefromRegionm3BlendedRateRegionCharges(reflectingMay1ratechangedate)Cost20155,500,000$2.12/m3$11,639,03620165,500,000$2.31/m3$12,720,302PercentChange0%9%9%General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -23
-37 -
142015Budget2016Budget%ChangeRegionCharges11,639,03612,720,302Nominal9.0%Operations4,054,2994,318,7746.5%SubtotalExpenses15,693,33517,039,0768.6%ReserveContributions2,100,0002,300,0009.5%Less:MiscRevenue*(334,000)(595,000)-78.1%NetExpenses17,459,33518,744,0767.4%Reservetooffsetoperating(380,348)Nil-100.0%Requiredraterevenues17,078,98718,744,0769.%General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -24
-38 -
15Compositionof9.8%increasein2016programcostsComponentsNetImpactonCostsSalaries0.7%$126,473Materialscosts1.4%$245,200Contracts-0.6%($108,197)Relianceonreserveforoperating2.2%($380,348)ReserveContribution(R/Rprogram)1.2%$200,000InternalTransfers0%$0MiscRevenue-1.5%($261,000)SumofControllablecostpressures3.4%$583,824RegionalChargesIncreasePortion6.3%$1,081,265SumofImpactsonRequiredCustomerRevenues9.8%$1,665,089General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -25
-39 -
16RegionandTownRateContribution0.00001.00002.00003.00004.00005.00006.00002013201420152016201720182019RetailRateForecastRegionalWholesaleCostsTownCostsGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -26
-40 -
17RetailWaterRate:2015$1.99perm32016$2.14perm3Increase$0.15perm3RegionImpact5.7%TownImpact2.2%NetIncrease7.9%RetailWastewaterRate:2015$1.68perm32016$1.89perm3Increase$0.21perm3RegionImpact6.2%TownImpact6.2%NetIncrease12.4%General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -27
-41 -
18CombinedRetailRate:2015$3.67perm32016$4.03perm3Increase$0.36perm3PercentIncrease9.7%ImpactonResidentialUser(245m3annualaverage)AnnuallyQuarterly2015$898.35$224.592016$987.65$246.91NetIncrease$89.30$22.32General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -28
-42 -
19General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -29
-43 -
20SystemOverviewStormwaterSystemEntirelyownedandoperatedbytheTown(154kmtownsewers)StormwaterdischargespredominantlyintotheLakeSimcoewatershedwhichisundergoingaprovinciallyledwaterqualityimprovementinitiativeGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -30
-44 -
21ComplywithlegislativeandregulatoryrequirementsConservationAuthoritiesActEnvironmentalProtectionActLakeSimcoeProtectionActLakesandRiversImprovementsActSourceProtectionActCreatesustainablefundingforthelongtermmaintenanceandpreservationoftheinfrastructureassetsGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -31
-45 -
22EnsureadequatereservecontributionstosustainlongtermstormwatersystemmaintenanceOptimizeprogramservicesEstablishratetoachievefullyfundedprogramGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -32
-46 -
232013201420152016201720182019OperatingBudget372,667423,260458,640425,841429,468434,234439,143ReserveContributionBudget1,000,0001,000,0001,000,000900,000900,000900,000900,000OperatingActual235,709320,503277,882ReserveContributionActual1,000,0001,000,0001,000,000-200,000400,000600,000800,0001,000,0001,200,0001,400,0001,600,000GrossCostsGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -33
-47 -
2015BudgettoActualVarianceThisprogramhasbeenunderspentintheareasofsalaries,materialsandcontractsatavalueof$180,000.TherearetwomainreasonsforthisoutcomeContractperformanceresultedinacontractcancelationandreassignmentcausingprogramdeliverydelaysStaffresourceissueswithotherprioritiesresultedinalowerlevelofpreventativemaintenanceactivitieswhichwillrequireadditionalattentionin201624General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -34
-48 -
252015Budget2016Budget%ChangeOperations458,640425,841-7.2%ReserveContributions1,000,000900,000-10%GrossExpenses1,458,6401,325,841-8.2%Relianceonreserveforoperating(145,640)nil-100%Netprogramcosts(toberecoveredfromRates)1,313,0001,325,8412.0%General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -35
-49 -
26Compositionof2%increasein2016programcostsComponentsNetImpactonCostsSalary4.28%$56,201Materialscosts0%$0Contracts-5.7%($75,000)Relianceonreserveforoperating11.1%($145,640)ReserveContributionnochange-7.6%($100,000)InternalTransfers0%$0SumofImpactsonRequiredCustomerRevenues2.0%$26,841General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -36
-50 -
27YearResidentialCommercial2015(AnnualFees)$57.34$755.572016(AnnualFees)$60.14$763.57Increase$2.80$8.00General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -37
-51 -
28$0.00$10.00$20.00$30.00$40.00$50.00$60.00$70.0020122013201420152016General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 3 Page -38
-52 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 4 Page -1
-53 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 4 Page -2
-54 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 4 Page -3
-55 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 5 Page -1
-56 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 5 Page -2
-57 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 5 Page -3
-58 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 5 Page -4
-59 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 6 Page -1
-60 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 6 Page -2
-61 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 6 Page -3
-62 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 6 Page -4
-63 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 6 Page -5
-64 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 6 Page -6
-65 -
TOWN OF AURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No.PRS16-017
SUBJECT:Mavrinac Park Conceptual Design
FROM:Allan D.Downey,Director of Parks &Recreation Services
DATE:April 19,2016
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT Report No.PRS16-017 be received;and
THAT staff be directed to conduct a Public Open House for the purposes of
obtaining input and comments from the public on the proposed design and
facilities to be included in the park:and
THAT funding from the Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Reserve,in an amount not to
exceed $1,300,000.00 for the design and construction of the park,be approved;
and
THAT staff report back to Council with the information and comments received at
the Public Open House including any revisions to the park concept plan,cost
estimate and a proposed date of construction commencement.
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
To provide Council with a conceptual park plan and the estimated construction and
maintenance costs that include various elements that could be considered in a typical
neighborhood park.
BACKGROUND
Council,at the meeting held on March 8,2016 Council resolved as follows;
THAT Report No.PRS16-013 be received;and
THAT staff be directed to proceed with the design and development of Block 208
on Mavrinac Boulevard as a park,and report back to Council on potential design
options,including but not limited to basketball courts,tennis courts,and
accessibility features,by May 3,2016.
CARRIED AS AMENDED
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 7 Page -1
-66 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 7 Page -2
-67 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 7 Page -3
-68 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 7 Page -4
-69 -
Attachment #1
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 7 Page -5
-70 -
Attachment #2
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 7 Page -6
-71 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 8 Page -1
-72 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 8 Page -2
-73 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 8 Page -3
-74 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 8 Page -4
-75 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 8 Page -5
-76 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 8 Page -6
-77 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 8 Page -7
-78 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 8 Page -8
-79 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 8 Page -9
-80 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 8 Page -10
-81 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 8 Page -11
-82 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 8 Page -12
-83 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 8 Page -13
-84 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 9 Page -1
-85 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 9 Page -2
-86 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 9 Page -3
-87 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 9 Page -4
-88 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 9 Page -5
-89 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 9 Page -6
-90 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 9 Page -7
-91 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 9 Page -8
-92 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 10 Page -1
-93 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 10 Page -2
-94 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 10 Page -3
-95 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 10 Page -4
-96 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 10 Page -5
-97 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 10 Page -6
-98 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 10 Page -7
-99 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 10 Page -8
-100 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 10 Page -9
-101 -
TOWN OF AURORA
COMMUNITY RECOGNITION REVIEW
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
Date:Tuesday,March 22,2016
Time and Location:3 p.m.,Tannery Room,Aurora Town Hall
Committee Members:Councillor Tom Mrakas (Chair),Diane Buchanan,Tim
Jones,Steven Hinder,Brian North,and Jo-anne Spitzer
Members Absent:Councillor Sandra Humfryes (Vice Chair)
Other Attendees:Jennifer Norton,Web Services and Corporate Events Co-
ordinator,and Linda Bottos,Council/Committee Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
1.DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE
THEREOF
There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of
Interest Act.
2.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Moved by Brian North
Seconded by Tim Jones
THAT the agenda as circulated by Legal and Legislative Services be approved.
CARRIED
3.RECEIPT OF THE MINUTES
Community Recognition Review Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of
February 16,2016
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 11 Page -1
-102 -
Community Recognition Review Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Tuesday,March 22,2016 Page 2 of 4
Moved by Diane Buchanan
Seconded by Brian North
THAT the Community Recognition Review Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of
February 16,2016,be received for information.
CARRIED
4.DELEGATIONS
None
5.MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
1.2016 Awards Event Sponsorship –Update and Discussion
Staff provided an update regarding the sponsorships for food and printing.
Moved by Tim Jones
Seconded by Jo-anne Spitzer
THAT the comments of the Committee regarding the 2016 Awards Event
Sponsorship –Update and Discussion be taken into consideration by staff.
CARRIED
2.2016 Awards Event Details –Update and Discussion
Staff provided an update regarding the event program,photography,award
formats,and other logistics of the event.It was agreed that the event roles of the
Committee members would be discussed at the next meeting,which would be
held on a date closer to the event date.
Moved by Diane Buchanan
Seconded by Brian North
THAT the comments of the Committee regarding the 2016 Awards Event Details
–Update and Discussion be taken into consideration by staff.
CARRIED
6.INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 11 Page -2
-103 -
Community Recognition Review Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Tuesday,March 22,2016 Page 3 of 4
3.Extract from Council Meeting of February 23,2016
Re:Community Recognition Review Advisory Committee Meeting
Minutes of February 2,2016
Moved by Steve Hinder
Seconded by Diane Buchanan
THAT the Extract from Council Meeting of February 23,2016,regarding the
Community Recognition Review Advisory Committee meeting minutes of
February 2,2016,be received for information.
CARRIED
4.Extract from Council Meeting of March 8,2016
Re:Community Recognition Review Advisory Committee Meeting
Minutes of February 16,2016
Moved by Tim Jones
Seconded by Brian North
THAT the Extract from Council Meeting of March 8,2016,regarding the
Community Recognition Review Advisory Committee meeting minutes of
February 16,2016,be received for information.
CARRIED
5.Extract from Council Meeting of March 8,2016
Re:Memorandum from Acting Manager of Corporate Communications
Re:Community Recognition Review Advisory Committee Terms of
Reference
Moved by Tim Jones
Seconded by Brian North
THAT the Extract from Council Meeting of March 8,2016,regarding
Memorandum from Acting Manager of Corporate Communications,Re:
Community Recognition Review Advisory Committee Terms of Reference,be
received for information.
CARRIED
7.NEW BUSINESS
The Committee expressed disappointment at the lack of nominations in some
categories of the 2016 Community Recognition Awards.The Committee
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 11 Page -3
-104 -
Community Recognition Review Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Tuesday,March 22,2016 Page 4 of 4
discussed various options to increase awareness and encourage participation in
the nomination process.It was agreed that this matter would be further addressed
by the Committee following the 2016 event.
Staff provided an update regarding the Award winners and the event invitation
process.
8.ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Tim Jones
Seconded by Brian North
THAT the meeting be adjourned at 4:06 p.m.
CARRIED
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT BINDING ON THE TOWN UNLESS
ADOPTED BY COUNCIL AT A LATER MEETING.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 11 Page -4
-105 -
TOWN OF AURORA
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
Date:Tuesday,March 22,2016
Time and Location:5:30 p.m.,Leksand Room,Aurora Town Hall
Committee Members:Councillor Michael Thompson (Chair),Councillor Harold Kim
(arrived 5:53 p.m.),and Mayor Geoffrey Dawe
Member(s)Absent:None
Other Attendees:Councillor Tom Mrakas,Doug Nadorozny,Chief
Administrative Officer,Al Downey,Director of Parks and
Recreation Services,Dan Elliott,Director of Corporate and
Financial Services/Treasurer,Jason Gaertner,Manager of
Financial Planning/Deputy Treasurer,and Linda Bottos,
Council/Committee Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
1.DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of
Interest Act.
2.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Moved by Mayor Dawe
Seconded by Councillor Thompson
THAT the agenda as circulated by Legal and Legislative Services be approved.
CARRIED
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 12 Page -1
-106 -
Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Tuesday,March 22,2016 Page 2 of 4
3.RECEIPT OF THE MINUTES
Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of February 16,2016
Moved by Councillor Kim
Seconded by Mayor Dawe
THAT the Finance Advisory Committee meeting minutes of February 16,2016,be
received for information.
CARRIED
4.DELEGATIONS
None
5.CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS
1.Memorandum from Treasurer
Re:Departmental Budget Review –Parks and Recreation Services (PRS)
Presentation by Al Downey,Director of Parks and Recreation Services
Mr.Downey presented an overview of the departmental budget for Parks and
Recreation Services for the four main functions of Administration,Business
Support,Recreation,and Culture.He discussed aspects of the consolidated and
detailed budget worksheets and challenges,the business review including
program utilization and subsidies,market and community group pressures,
retention,and residential growth,and new initiatives respecting Culture,a
subsidy program,and the seniors’discount.The Committee suggested using
program utilization as a key performance indicator going forward to illustrate cost
effectiveness.Staff reviewed the options for next steps and the Committee
indicated areas that would require clarification.
Moved by Mayor Dawe
Seconded by Councillor Kim
THAT the memorandum regarding Departmental Budget Review –Parks and
Recreation Services be received;and
THAT the presentation,comments,and explanations provided by the Director
of Parks and Recreation be received;and
THAT the comments and discussions of the Committee be referred to staff.
CARRIED
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 12 Page -2
-107 -
Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Tuesday,March 22,2016 Page 3 of 4
2.Review of the BMA Management Consulting Inc.Municipal Study –2015
Link to full report:http://www.aurora.ca/bma
Presentation by Dan Elliott,Director of Corporate and Financial
Services/Treasurer
Mr.Elliott presented highlights of the BMA Management Consulting Inc.
Municipal Study –2015 including background,executive summary for the Town
of Aurora,and comparisons related to socio-economic factors,assessment and
housing,and financial indicators.The Committee indicated that context and
comparable community data would be useful.Staff indicated that review of the
Municipal Study would be continued at the next meeting.
Moved by Councillor Kim
Seconded by Mayor Dawe
THAT the presentation and comments from the Director of Corporate and
Financial Services/Treasurer be received;and
THAT the comments and discussions of the Committee regarding the BMA
Study and its relevance and use by the Town of Aurora be referred to staff for
consideration.
CARRIED
3.Memorandum from Treasurer
Re:History of Residential/Non-residential Assessment Split
Motion to defer
Moved by Mayor Dawe
Seconded by Councillor Kim
THAT Item 3,Memorandum from Treasurer,Re:History of Residential/Non-
residential Assessment Split,be deferred to the Finance Advisory Committee
meeting of April 19,2016.
CARRIED
6.NEW BUSINESS
None
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 12 Page -3
-108 -
Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Tuesday,March 22,2016 Page 4 of 4
7.ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Councillor Kim
Seconded by Mayor Dawe
THAT the meeting be adjourned at 6:51 p.m.
CARRIED
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT BINDING ON THE TOWN UNLESS
ADOPTED BY COUNCIL AT A LATER MEETING.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 12 Page -4
-109 -
TOWN OF AURORA
SPECIAL PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
Date:Thursday,March 31,2016
Time and Location:7 p.m.,Holland Room,Aurora Town Hall
Committee Members:Councillor Michael Thompson (Chair),Councillor Tom Mrakas
(Vice Chair),Juergen Daurer,Richard Doust,Stephen
Kimmerer,Eric McCartney,and Brian Trussler
Member(s)Absent:None.
Other Attendees:Councillor John Abel (arrived 7:10 p.m.),Councillor Wendy
Gaertner,Allan Downey,Director of Parks and Recreation
Services,and Samantha Kong,Council/Committee Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7 p.m.
1.DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of
Interest Act.
2.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Moved by Juergen Daurer
Seconded by Eric McCartney
THAT the agenda as circulated by Legal and Legislative Services be approved.
CARRIED
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 13 Page -1
-110 -
Special Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Thursday,March 31,2016 Page 2 of 3
3.MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
1.PRS16-015 Implementation of the Sport Plan
Staff provided a brief overview of the Sport Plan and discussed next steps to
implement the Plan.
Moved by Councillor Mrakas
Seconded by Stephen Kimmerer
THAT Report No.PRS16-015 be received;and
THAT Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee recommend to Council:
THAT tasks T1,T3,T15,T16,T17,T21,and T22 be referred to the Parks
and Recreation Advisory Committee prior to a recommendation being
presented to Council.
CARRIED
2.Parks and Recreation Master Plan Implementation Schedule
Staff provided an overview of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the
corresponding Implementation Schedule.
Moved by Councillor Mrakas
Seconded by Juergen Daurer
THAT the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Implementation Schedule be
received;and
THAT Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee recommend to Council:
THAT tasks T1,T4,T4a,T4b,T5,T9,T16,T27,T30,T34,and T35 be
referred to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee prior to a
recommendation being presented to Council;and
THAT task T41 be referred to the Trails and Active Transportation
Committee prior to a recommendation being presented to Council..
CARRIED
4.ADJOURNMENT
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 13 Page -2
-111 -
Special Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Thursday,March 31,2016 Page 3 of 3
Moved by Richard Doust
Seconded by Juergen Daurer
THAT the meeting be adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
CARRIED
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT BINDING ON THE TOWN UNLESS
ADOPTED BY COUNCIL AT A LATER MEETING.
Attachment 1 Extract from Council Meeting of March 29,2016,Re:Report No.
PRS16-015 Implementation of the Sport Plan
Attachment 2 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Implementation Schedule
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 13 Page -3
-112 -
Page 1 of 1
9.CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
1.General Committee Meeting Report of March 22,2016
(14) PRS16-015 Implementation of the Sport Plan
Moved by Councillor Thompson
Seconded by Councillor Pirri
THAT Report No.PRS16-015 be received;and
THAT this report satisfies the conditional approval in the 2016 Operational Budget
and implementation of Sport/Sport Tourism Plan;and
THAT the services of Sport Aurora Inc.be engaged for one (1)year in the amount
of $56,000.00 to fulfill the short-term goals of the Sport Plan to be funded from the
2016 Sport Plan Implementation Funding Account.
CARRIED
EXTRACT FROM
COUNCIL MEETING OF
TUESDAY,MARCH 29,2016
Attachment 1
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 13 Page -4
-113 -
TOWN OF AURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No.PRS16-015
SUBJECT:Implementation of the Sport Plan
FROM:Allan D.Downey,Director of Parks &Recreation Services
DATE:March 22,2016
RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT Report No.PRS16-015 be received;and
THAT this report satisfies the conditional approval in the 2016 Operational
Budget and implementation of Sport/Sport Tourism Plan;and
THAT the services of Sport Aurora Inc.be engaged for one (1)year in the amount
of $56,000.00 to fulfill the short-term goals of the Sport Plan to be funded from the
2016 Sport Plan Implementation Funding Account.
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
To receive Council approval for the engagement of Sport Aurora Inc.
BACKGROUND
The Sport Plan was approved by Council on March 8,2015.Twenty-Two tasks within
the Sport Plan were subject of that approval and were to be completed over a period of
five years.Staff have placed the tasks in the following chart and identified the year in
which each recommendation will be presented to Council for approval:
Task
Number
TASK -Project Goals YEAR 1 YEAR 2-
3
YEAR 4-
5
Sport Leadership YEAR 1 YEAR 2-
3
YEAR 4-
5
T1
Develop an Aurora Sport Policy that outlines the role of sport in the
community.The policy should specifically address the roles and
responsibilities of the Town and local sport stakeholders including sport
clubs and collectives,the business sector,education,public health,etc.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 13 Page -5
-114 -
March 22,2016 -2-Report No.PRS16-015
T2
Change the name of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee to the
Parks,Recreation and Sport Coordinating Committee.Expand the
Committee’s mandate to include sport matters including the implementation
of the Aurora Sport Plan and ensuring Town-wide priorities are addressed
through parks,recreation and sport.
T3
Reconstitute Sport Aurora into a Sport Council with an expanded mandate
and representation from the entire sport community.The Sport Council’s
Executive Committee should be appointed through a fair and transparent
democratic process.
T4
Add a Sport Development Officer as a new position in Parks and Recreation
Department to implement initiatives of the Aurora Sport Plan.
Sport Sustainability YEAR 1 YEAR 2-
3
YEAR 4-
5
T5
Develop three year budget projections to deliver on the recommendations of
the Aurora Sport Plan and identify stable and alternate funding sources.
T6
Seek Partnerships to address the financial implications of the Sport Plan to
secure and retain stable and alternate funding.
T7
Develop a Sport Development Grant Program to assist groups in
implementing elements of the Sport Plan as well as in their efforts to
address their own sport priorities.
T8
Develop a list of sport opportunities that could benefit from sponsorships and
create a mechanism that that simplifies funders’responses to sponsorship
opportunities.
T9
Create a Volunteer Development Strategy that addresses volunteer
recruitment,selection,training,retention and recognition.
T10
Develop training programs and an e-tool kit that is focused on sport
volunteer priorities and that provides insights into recruitment,screening,
training,retention and recognition for use by sport stakeholder groups.
T11
Procure volunteer software that serves to develop a database of community
volunteers and matches perspective volunteers with the opportunities that
become available within the community.The software should also track the
number of active community volunteers and the annual number and value of
volunteer hours.
T12
Develop performance measures to capture the inputs,outputs,efficiencies
and effectiveness of sport delivery in Aurora.Annually report on the results
and any impacts on plans for the subsequent year.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 13 Page -6
-115 -
March 22,2016 -3 -Report No.PRS16-015
Task
Number
TASK
Sport Participant YEAR 1 YEAR 2-
3
YEAR 4-
5
T13
Continue to provide the Physical Literacy training for persons working and
volunteering with pre-school and children’s groups and expand the program
to include all age groups.
T14
Train staff and volunteers in working with culturally diverse groups to better
understand their sport needs and look to other communities within the region
that have responded to changing demographics by providing both culturally
appropriate sports and an introduction to traditional Canadian sports
(Markham and Richmond Hill).
T15
Convene a meeting with agencies supporting persons with disabilities to
better understand their needs in being included in sport in Aurora.
T16
Develop a Recreation and Sport Access Policy that identifies barriers to
participation and addresses mechanisms that can increase participation and
full access for residents from low income backgrounds.
T17
Work with Social Service staff from the Region of York to introduce sport
opportunities and support funding for persons from low income
backgrounds.Develop a brochure for Social Service workers to help their
clients navigate the sport system.
T18
Inventory existing participation of girls and women in sport to determine if
there are any gaps in participation.
T19
Assess the current provision of sports for older adults by all sectors in
Aurora and work with the older adult population to address gaps and
emerging sport needs.
T20
Quantify participation of diverse and marginalized groups in sport and
measure the effectiveness of interventions.
Sport Promotion and Celebration YEAR 1 YEAR 2-
3
YEAR 4-
5
T21 Develop a broad based Sport Marketing Strategy.
Sport Tourism YEAR 1 YEAR 2-
3
YEAR 4-
5
T22 Develop an Aurora Sport Tourism Strategy.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 13 Page -7
-116 -
March 22,2016 -4-Report No.PRS16-015
COMMENTS
Sport Aurora has played an integral role in the creation and development of the Sport
Plan and has now provided a proposal for the execution of tasks within the Sport Plan.
Sport Aurora has been a key driver in the development and delivery of many initiatives
related to Sports and Recreation over the past several years.They have developed the
expertise and volunteer base to establish community events such as:
The Breakfast of Champions;
Volunteer Recognition;
Sports Hall of Fame;
All Kids Can Play;and
Coaching Clinics.
to mention a few.
They have also been successful in the promotion of sport tourism and the engagement
of local sponsors to support these events.
Sport Aurora Inc.has approached the Town with a proposal to deliver the tasks of the
Sport Plan and continue with their efforts to elevate sports and recreation in the
community.They would be a contracted service to the Parks and Recreation Services
Department eliminating the requirement for a Sports Development Officer at this time.
Sport Aurora Inc.has outlined their deliverables and the metrics for measuring success
that will be the subject of an annual report to Council.Recommendations will be
presented to Council by staff on the effectiveness of this contract and whatever
extension to the contract or modifications are warranted.Staff will be reporting to
Council on the effectiveness of this community partnership during the 2017 Operating
Budget deliberations.
ALTERNATIVE(S)TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS
1.Council could request that the Town not enter into a contract.This option would
require the hiring of a Sports Development Officer to assign the tasks identified in
the Sport Plan.
2.Further Options as required.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Sport Aurora Inc.has identified a fee of $56,000.00 for year one.Council has budgeted
$100,000.00 in the 2016 Operating Budget to support the recommendations of the Sport
Plan.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 13 Page -8
-117 -
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 13 Page -9
-118 -
TaskNumberTASK-ProjectGoals201620172018201920202021PriorityTaskDependenciesTaskAssignment(PMR)TargetStartDatePercentageCompletedTargetdatetobecompletedBudgetReqiuredApproachIndoorRecreationFacilitiesT1UndertakeanarchitecturalfacilityfitandconceptdesignexploringthefeasibilityassociatedwithexpandingtheStronachAuroraRecreationComplex(SARC)toincludeagymnasium,multi-purposeprogramspacesand/orafullservicefitnesscentre(thelattersubjecttoRecommendation#8).ImplementationofthisrecommendationdependsontheTownofAurora’schosencourseofactionforindooraquatics(seeRecommendation#4)asexpansionoftheSARCisonlyaplausibleconsiderationifnotproceedingwithanewmulti-purposecommunitycentre.HighFeasibilityStudy,Approvals,FacilityExpansionT2Existingmunicipalfacilitiesshouldbeevaluatedforwaystoimprovecomfortandfacilitateopportunitiesforinformalinteractionsandsocializationtotakeplace(includingwithinlobbiesandothercommonareas)amongallresidents,includingbutnotlimitedtofamilies,youthandolderadults.MediumCostdependsonEnhancementT3Maintainasupply offive icepads over the nextfiveyearswithagreateremphasis placed on tracking user registrations (particularly among residents ofAurora)alongwithmonitoringarenabookingsandutilizationrates.LowT4IntheeventthattheTownofAuroraisnotinterestedinmaintainingthestatusquoregardingprovisionofindooraquaticscentres,cannotsecureanacceptablepartnershipagreementwithathirdpartytoaccessnewpooltimes,andiscomfortablewiththelevelofriskassociatedwithaddingnewaquaticinfrastructure,onenew25metre,6lanerectangularpooltankshouldbeexploredinthefollowingorderofpriority:#4aT4AUndertakeanArchitecturalandEngineeringStudytodeterminethefeasibilityandcostsassociatedwithaddinga6lane,25metrepooltanktotheexistingAuroraFamilyLeisureComplex(AFLC)throughexpansionofthebuildingenveloptotheeastoftheexistingaquaticcentrespace.ThisStudyshouldalsoincludethefeasibilityandcostsassociatedwithrenovationoftheexistinghottubandconversionoftheleisure/lanehybridtanktoawarmerwaterleisuretank.HighFeasibilityStudy#4bT4BShouldtheStudy(notedabove)deemtheexpansionoftheAFLCaquaticspacenotfeasibleortoocostly,undertakeasiteselectionprocess(asperRecommendation#38)fortheprovisionofanewindooraquaticfacilitycontaininga6lane,25metretank,awarmerwaterleisure/therapeutictank.Theprovisionofthisaquaticfacilityshouldincludeagymnasium,multi-purposeprogramroomsandpossiblyafitnesscentre(in-lieuoffacilitiesbeingaddedattheSARC).Intandemwiththisrecommendation,explorealternativeusesfortheexistingaquaticfacilityspaceattheAFLCasthisfacilitywouldbecomeredundant.HighFeasibilityStudy,Study&SiteSelectionProcessGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 13 Page -10
-119 -
TaskNumberTASK-ProjectGoals201620172018201920202021PriorityTaskDependenciesTaskAssignment(PMR)TargetStartDatePercentageCompletedTargetdatetobecompletedBudgetReqiuredApproachT5ReclassifySaturdayafternoonandSundaymorningandafternoontimeslotsasprimetimepoolhourstoencouragegreateruseofremainingpoolcapacity,possiblythroughareviewoftheTownofAuroraPoolAllocationPolicy.HighReviewPoolAllocationPolicyT6UndertakearchitecturalconceptplanandcostingexercisetodeterminethefeasibilityofconstructingagymnasiumattheSARC(alsorefertoRecommendation#1).Thedesignofthisgymnasiumshouldbe‘sportfriendly’tofacilitateobjectivescongruentwiththeSportPlanandprovidethenecessaryfeaturestofacilitatelocally-basedsportingactivitiestooccur.ImplementationofthisrecommendationwilldependontheTownofAurora’schosencourseofactionforindooraquatics(seeRecommendation#4)asexpansionoftheSARCisonlyaplausibleconsiderationiftheTowndoesnotproceedwithanewmulti-purposecommunitycentre.HighRefertoRecommendation#1T7ConductanoperatingperformancereviewoftheAFLC’sgymnasiumafterithascompletedaminimumoftwofullyearsofoperationwhetherprogrammingandrentalopportunitiesarebeingmaximized,alongwithanyoperationaladjustmentsorimprovementsrequiredtothisend.MediumOperatingperformancereviewT8Proactivelymonitormembership,programparticipation,memberretention/satisfactionandotherappropriateperformancemetricsassociatedwiththerejuvenatedClubAuroraforaminimumoftwoyearsinordertoinformasubsequentbusinessplanningprocessthatexplorestheviabilityandsuitabilityofexpandingtheTown’sfullservicefitnesscentremodeltoanotherlocation(s).MediumRefertoRecommendation#1T9AnindoortennisfacilityshouldonlybepursuedusinganoperatingmodelthatisconsistentwiththeTown’sexistingpractices,wherebytheTowncouldbeapartnerintheprovisionoflandbutwouldassumenooperatingresponsibilitiesorfinancialcostsofoperation,insteadplacingsuchresponsibilitiesonathirdpartythatdemonstratesacapabilitytosustainablydoso.ThiswillrequireaCouncildecisiontobemade.MediumDecisionrequiredregardingdesiredtypeofpartnershipT10ContinuetopromotemembershipandprogramopportunitiesthroughtheAFLCsquashcourtsinordertooptimizeuseofthesefacilities,providedthattherecontinuestobemarketsupportandthatthelevelofusejustifiesthefinancialcostsofoperations.LowOngoingprocessT11Multi-purposeprogramroomslocatedwithinexistingcommunitycentresshouldbeevaluatedforimprovementtoincreasetheirappealandflexibilitythatexpandsusage.MediumCostdependsontypeofenhancementT12Newmulti-purposeroomsshouldbeassessedthroughtheproposedexpansionoftheSARC(seeRecommendation#1)andotherappropriateprojects,aswellasexploredaspartofprivatelanddevelopmentprojectsinareasofintensificationMediumOngoingprocessT13ConsistentwiththeAuroraPublicLibraryFacilityNeedsAssessment,theTownshouldinitiatediscussionswiththeAuroraPublicLibrarytodiscussthemeritofreassigningresponsibilityoftheMagnaandLebovicRoomstotheLibrary,and/orredefiningtheprogrammingfocusincollaborationwithLibraryStafftoservicemutuallycomplementaryobjectivesHighDiscussionswithLibraryBoardGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 13 Page -11
-120 -
TaskNumberTASK-ProjectGoals201620172018201920202021PriorityTaskDependenciesTaskAssignment(PMR)TargetStartDatePercentageCompletedTargetdatetobecompletedBudgetReqiuredApproachT14PendingoutcomesoftheAuroraCulturalPrecinctPlanandotherformalstudieswithintheAuroraPromenade,undertakeapotentialusestudyoftheformerpubliclibraryonVictoriaStreettodetermineitssuitability,capabilityandassociatedcostsfordeliveringservicesofferedbytheParks&RecreationDepartmentorothermunicipaldepartmentsinordertoaddresstheneedsofintensifyingpopulationsthatareexpectedtoarriveshortlyafterthemasterplanningperiodintheAuroraPromenadeHighRe-useStudyT15Continuallyassess,andaugmentwherenecessary,thedeliveryof‘youth-friendly’servicesandprogrammingwithintheTownofAurora’sexistingmulti-usecommunitycentresandothercivicdestinations(e.g.AuroraPublicLibrary,formerpubliclibrary,etc.)byconsideringopportunitiestoimprovespacessuchasmulti-useprogramrooms,studiospace,commonareasandotherappropriateareas(alsorefertoRecommendation#2).HighCostdependsontypeofenhancementT16ContinuetopositiontheAuroraSenior’sCentreastheprimaryhubfor55+programmingwhileexploringwaystoextendthereachofservicesintoneighbourhoodsthroughuseofexistingmulti-usecommunitycentres,parksandothercivicdestinations(e.g.AuroraPublicLibrary,theformerpubliclibrarybranch,etc.).HighCostdependsontypeofenhancementOutdoorRecreationFacilitiesT17Establishasportsfieldcomplexcontainingaminimumofthreelitfull-sizerectangularfieldsandsupportedbyappropriatefacilitiesorientedtofurthertheplayerand/orspectatorexperience.Oneofthesefieldsshouldbedesignedasa‘multi-use’fieldcapableofaccommodatingfieldsportsbeyondsoccer.HighCapitalcostrangefrom500Kto750KperfieldT18ConstructoneoutdoorartificialturffieldatStewartBurnettPark,aspercurrentmunicipalplans,toserviceabroadrangeoffieldsportswhileprovidingtheTownwithflexibilitytoaccommodatefutureneeds.Anyadditionalartificialturffieldsbeyondthisoneshouldbesubjecttoconfirmationthroughmunicipalbusinessplanningexercisesaspercurrentpractice.HighCapitalcostsrangefrom$1Mto$1.5MperfieldT19Continuetoworkwitheducational,industrialandothersuitablepartnerstoproviderectangularsportsfieldsonnon-municipallands.Anyadjustmenttothesupplyofnon-municipalfieldsshouldbeconsideredandappropriatelyreconciledbytheTownofAurorausingexistingand/orfutureparks,andpotentiallythroughfieldcapacityimprovementssuchaslightingand/orartificialturf.HighOngoingprocessT20Inconsultationwithlocalballassociations,constructonenewballdiamondthatisdesignedtobe‘sport-friendly’andemploysalargerdesigntemplateinordertoaccommodateusebyadultleaguesand/orhardballusers.HighCostdependsonupgradesundertakenT21Constructtwoadditionaloutdoortenniscourts,preferablylocatedinthenortheasttobolstergeographicaccessacrosstheTown.HighCapitalcostsrangefrom$5Kto$7KpercourtGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 13 Page -12
-121 -
TaskNumberTASK-ProjectGoals201620172018201920202021PriorityTaskDependenciesTaskAssignment(PMR)TargetStartDatePercentageCompletedTargetdatetobecompletedBudgetReqiuredApproachT22Createopportunitiesforoutdoorpickleballthroughuseofamulti-usecourttemplate(e.g.liningneworexistingtenniscourtsforbothtennisandpickleball)andprovidingaminimumoftwocourtsthatarepreferablylocatedinanareahavingahighconcentrationofolderadults.MediumCapitalcostsrangefrom$5Kto$7KpercourtT23Exploretheintegrationofmulti-usecourtsthroughparkrenewalandrevitalizationprojectsinareaswheregeographicgapsexist.MediumCapitalcostsrangefrom$35Kto$60KpercourtT24Integrateminorskateboardingandbikingzoneswithinappropriatecommunity-levelparksundergoingrenewalandrevitalizationactivities,largelyconsistingofoneortwobasicelementssimilartotheTown’sexistingmodel.MediumCapitalcostsrangefrom$25Kto$50KperzoneT25ConstructanurbanwaterfeatureemployingadualpurposedesignthatfacilitatesrecreationaluseandlendsitselftoTown’surbandesignandcivicplacemakingobjectives,potentiallythroughrevitalizationprojectwithintheAuroraPromenade.HighCostsdependonsizeandscaleT26Integratetwo‘minor’splashpadsconsistingofbasiccoolingelements(designedtoasmallerscalethantheexistingmunicipaltemplate)toserviceresidentialareaslocatedwestofYongeStreet,northandsouthofWellingtonStreet.MediumCapitalcostrangefrom$100Kto$150KperminorsplashpadT27Theprovisionofadditionaloff-leashparksinAurorashouldbeevaluatedusingamodelsimilartothatusedatCanineCommons,wherebyacommunityorganizationisprimarilyinvolvedwiththeestablishment,generalmaintenanceandongoingoperationoftheoff-leasharea.MediumT28Playgroundsshouldbeprovidedinnewandexistingresidentialareaswheregeographicgapsexist,generallycalculatedthroughapplicationofan800metreserviceradiusthatisunobstructedbymajorpedestrianbarriers.HighOngoingprocessT29Throughtheplaygroundinspectionandrenewalprocess,evaluateopportunitiesinwhichtoincorporatebarrier-freecomponentstofacilitateaccessto,andusewithintheplaygroundapparatusforpersonswithdisabilities.HighCostdependsonsizeandscaleT30Anoutdoorartificialrink,eitherinanewlocationorbyupgradinganexistingnaturalsurface,shouldbeaconsiderationwhenundertakingcivicplanning,urbandesignand/oreconomicdevelopmentanalysesgiventhesizeablecoststoconstructandoperaterefrigeratedrinks.LowCostdependsonsizeandscaleT31RemainapprisedoftrendsandusageattheMcMahonParklawnbowlinggreenthroughcontinuedcollaborationwiththeAuroraLawnBowlingClub.LowOngoingprocessT32RequestsforfacilitiespresentlynotpartoftheTownofAurora’scoreparksandrecreationservicemandateshouldbeevaluatedonacase-by-casebasis,afterfirstconsideringthemunicipality’sroleinprovidingtheserviceinrelationtoquantifiedmarketdemandandcost-effectivenessofsuchservices,whilealsoidentifyingpotentialstrategiestoaddresslong-termneedforsuchrequestsshouldasufficientlevelofdemandbeexpressed.HighGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 13 Page -13
-122 -
TaskNumberTASK-ProjectGoals201620172018201920202021PriorityTaskDependenciesTaskAssignment(PMR)TargetStartDatePercentageCompletedTargetdatetobecompletedBudgetReqiuredApproachT33Tosupplementdecision-makingandperformancemeasurementexercisessupportinginvestmentinfacilitiesfallingwithinandbeyondtheTownofAurora’scorerecreationfacilityservicemandate,collectregistrationinformationfromusergroupsregularlybookingtimeinarenas,indoorpools,sportsfieldsandothermajorrecreationalfacilitiesincludingthroughimplementationofallocationpoliciesandotherappropriatemeans.HighOngoingprocessParksT34Re-examineandadjust,wherenecessary,themunicipalparklandclassificationsystemthroughthenextOfficialPlanReviewprocessbaseduponenvisionedlanduseformsanddensities.Inparticular,theservicelevelforCommunityParksshouldbereviseddownwardsintherangeof1.0to1.5hectaresper1,000residentstobetterreflectcurrentrateofprovision,programmedandunprogrammedspaceneeds,andrecognizingthelimitedavailabilityoflandastheTownreachesbuildoutofgreenfieldlands.Similarly,theNeighbourhoodPark/Parkettedesignationsshouldalsocollectivelytargetprovisionbetween1.0and1.5hectaresper1,000.HighT35ThroughtheTownofAuroraOfficialPlanReview,integratepoliciesthatprescribetheabilitytosituatepermittedactiveparksandoutdoorrecreationaluseswithintheOakRidges,wheresuchparksandrecreationusescannotbeaccommodatedwithinthedesignatedbuilt-uporgreenfieldareas.HighT36Ataminimum,targetbetween10and16.5hectaresofdevelopabletablelandswithinthequantumofparklandrequiredtomeettheparklandserviceratiosarticulatedintheTownofAuroraOfficialPlan(asrevisedperRecommendation#34),inordertoaccommodateactiverecreationalfacilities.ThebalanceofoutstandingparklandrequirementscanbesatisfiedattheTown’sdiscretionthrougheitheractiveorpassiverecreationaland/orculturalpurposes.HighCostsdependonacreage,location,conveyanceamountsetc.T37AcquirelargerNeighbourhoodParksandCommunityParksasaprioritytoensurefuturepopulationshavesufficientaccesstospacesthatarecapableofaccommodatingabroadrangeofactiverecreationalpursuits.Partnershipswithareamunicipalitiesshouldbeexploredasameanstobolsteringactiveparklandsuppliessincefewopportunitiesremaintocost-effectivelyacquireanddeveloplargertractsofparklandforactiverecreationaluse.HighCostsdependonacreage,location,conveyanceamountsetc.T38Utilizealandbankingapproachtoexplorethepotentialacquisitionofland(s)forafutureindoorand/oroutdoorrecreationfacilitycomplexthatmayberequiredtoserviceneedsbeyondthecurrentfiveyearmasterplanningtimeframe.MediumActualcostsdependonlocation,acreage,etc.General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 13 Page -14
-123 -
TaskNumberTASK-ProjectGoals201620172018201920202021PriorityTaskDependenciesTaskAssignment(PMR)TargetStartDatePercentageCompletedTargetdatetobecompletedBudgetReqiuredApproachT40Workwiththelanddevelopmentindustrytoinnovativelyaddresstheneedforparkssuchasdevelopingpublicallyaccessiblelandsonprivateland.Ataminimum,thismayincludeprovidingenhancedpedestrian/cyclistinfrastructure,encouragingcondominiumdevelopmentsthatcontainrooftopgardensandcourtyards,etc.throughuseofthePlanningAct’sSection37provisionsandothercreativetools.HighOngoingprocessT41AugmentthesystemoftrailsandpathwaysthroughcontinuedimplementationoftheTownofAuroraTrailsMasterPlan,explorebarrier-freeaccessibility-relatedimprovements,andprioritizeresurfacingandotherrequiredremediationactivitiesaccordingtoshort,mediumandlong-termpriorities.HighRefertoTrailsMasterPlanT42ContinuetopursuepartnershipsandfundingopportunitieswiththeRegionofYorkTransportationDepartmentfortheinclusionofbarrierfreeaccessofregionalroadcrossings.HighOngoingprocessT43TheTownshouldimplementacommunityallotmentgardenprogramonatrialbasisthatconsistsofatleastonesite–ifdeemedsuccessfulbytheTown,additionalsitesshouldbesecuredinpartnershipwithinterestedcommunitygroupsHighCostsdependonlocation,acreage,etc.T44ImplementtheWildlifeParkMasterPlantocreateauniqueenvironmentalareawithintheAuroraNortheast2Clandstoshowcasenaturalheritageandprovideopportunitiesfornatureeducationandinterpretationamongresidents.HighRefertoWildlifeParkMasterPlanT45SupplementparklandacquisitionpoliciesprescribedintheTownofAuroraOfficialPlanwithotherappropriatemeansofacquisition,particularlywithanemphasistowardssecuringsuitablysizedandqualitytablelandparcelsorientedtoactiverecreationalusesHighGeneral Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 13 Page -15
-124 -
TOWN OF AURORA
CANADA 150 AD HOC COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
Date:Wednesday,March 16,2016
Time and Location:6 p.m.,Leksand Room,Aurora Town Hall
Committee Members:Mayor Geoffrey Dawe (Chair),Art Hagopian,Kelly Mathews
(arrived 6:07 p.m.),Natalia Sidlar,and Ken Turriff
Member(s)Absent:Damian D’Aguiar
Other Attendees:Laura Sheardown,Cash Flow &Investment Co-ordinator/
Financial Analyst,Shelley Ware,Supervisor,Special Events,
and Linda Bottos,Council/Committee Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
1.DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of
Interest Act.
2.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Moved by Natalia Sidlar
Seconded by Art Hagopian
THAT the agenda as circulated by Legal and Legislative Services,with the following
additions,be approved:
Delegation (a)Nancy Black,Aurora Sports Hall of Fame;Re:Sport Legacy Project
Delegation (b)Shelley Ware,Supervisor,Special Events;Re:SESQUI,A Canada
150 Signature Initiative
Delegation (c)Laura Sheardown,Cash Flow &Investment Co-ordinator/Financial
Analyst;Re:Canada 150 Fund Grant Application
CARRIED AS AMENDED
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 14 Page -1
-125 -
Canada 150 Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Minutes
Wednesday,March 16,2016 Page 2 of 4
3.RECEIPT OF THE MINUTES
Canada 150 Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Minutes of February 11,2016
Moved by Natalia Sidlar
Seconded by Ken Turriff
THAT the Canada 150 Ad Hoc Committee meeting minutes of February 11,2016,be
received for information.
CARRIED
4.DELEGATIONS
(a)Nancy Black,Project Manager,Aurora Sports Hall of Fame
Re:Sport Legacy Project
(Added Item)
Ms.Black provided background regarding the Aurora Sports Hall of Fame and
aspects of the Sport Legacy Project as it would relate to the Canada 150
celebrations.She advised that the mandate of the Project is to research,
publish,and exhibit Aurora’s sport history timeline,including basic information
on how each sport started in Canada and in Aurora.Ms.Black noted that
help would be needed in the research,sharing,and promotion of this
information toward preservation of Aurora’s history and the inspiration of
future generations,and agreed to provide the Committee with additional
information.
Moved by Art Hagopian
Seconded by Ken Turriff
THAT the comments of the delegation by Nancy Black be received for
information.
CARRIED
(b)Shelley Ware,Supervisor,Special Events
Re:SESQUI,A Canada 150 Signature Initiative
(Added Item)
Ms.Ware gave a brief overview of the national plans for celebrating Canada’s
150th anniversary of Confederation in 2017,to include fifteen Canada 150
Fund Signature Initiatives,and presented two short videos,“Dream Together”
and “What is SESQUI?”She advised that the SESQUI initiative would
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 14 Page -2
-126 -
Canada 150 Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Minutes
Wednesday,March 16,2016 Page 3 of 4
engage Canadians through three mobile dome villages that will tour across
Canada during 2017.Ms.Ware noted that further information is available at
www.sesqui.ca,and that there is an opportunity for the Town to apply to be
one of the 175 locations to be included in the SESQUI tour.
Moved by Ken Turriff
Seconded by Kelly Mathews
THAT the comments of the delegation by Shelley Ware be received;and
THAT staff be directed to prepare an application package toward the Town’s
participation as a SESQUI site.
CARRIED
(c)Laura Sheardown,Cash Flow &Investment Co-ordinator/Financial Analyst
Re:Canada 150 Fund Grant Application
(Added Item)
Ms.Sheardown provided a brief overview of the grant process and
requirements,and requested direction from the Committee in order to develop
the application.She suggested that the Committee could build on existing
Town events and offered ideas for legacy projects.
Moved by Kelly Mathews
Seconded by Natalia Sidlar
THAT the comments of the delegation by Laura Sheardown be received;and
THAT staff be directed to begin preparing the Canada 150 Fund grant application
based on the enhancement of a minimum of four current Town events and the
addition of a legacy project.
CARRIED
5.MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
1.Canada 150 Ad Hoc Committee Next Steps Round Table Discussion
The Committee discussed various ways in which the Town could celebrate
Canada’s 150th anniversary,including options for events,legacy projects,and
branding and promotion of the SESQUI logo.Staff agreed to provide a draft of
the application for the Committee’s review at the next meeting.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 14 Page -3
-127 -
Canada 150 Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Minutes
Wednesday,March 16,2016 Page 4 of 4
6.INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
2.Correspondence from Communities in Bloom Ontario
Re:Celebrate Canada’s 150th Anniversary
Moved by Ken Turriff
Seconded by Art Hagopian
THAT the correspondence regarding Celebrate Canada’s 150th Anniversary be
received for information.
CARRIED
7.NEW BUSINESS
None
8.ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Ken Turriff
Seconded by Art Hagopian
THAT the meeting be adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
CARRIED
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT BINDING ON THE TOWN UNLESS
ADOPTED BY COUNCIL AT A LATER MEETING.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 14 Page -4
-128 -
TOWN OF AURORA
CANADA 150 AD HOC COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
Date:Monday,April 4,2016
Time and Location:6 p.m.,Tannery Room,Aurora Town Hall
Committee Members:Mayor Geoffrey Dawe (Chair),Damian D’Aguiar (arrived at 6:10
p.m.),Art Hagopian,Kelly Mathews,and Ken Turriff
Member(s)Absent:Natalia Sidlar
Other Attendees:Councillor John Abel,Laura Sheardown,Cash Flow &
Investment Co-ordinator/Financial Analyst,Shelley Ware,
Supervisor,Special Events,and Samantha Yew,
Council/Committee Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
1.DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of
Interest Act.
2.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Moved by Kelly Mathews
Seconded by Ken Turriff
THAT the agenda as circulated by Legal and Legislative Services be approved.
CARRIED
3.RECEIPT OF THE MINUTES
Canada 150 Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Minutes of March 16,2016
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 14 Page -5
-129 -
Canada 150 Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Minutes
Wednesday,April 4,2016 Page 2 of 3
Moved by Ken Turriff
Seconded by Art Hagopian
THAT the Canada 150 Ad Hoc Committee meeting minutes of March 16,2016,be
received for information.
CARRIED
4.DELEGATIONS
None
5.MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
None
6.INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
1.Memorandum from Cash Flow &Investment Co-ordinator/Financial
Analyst
Re:Additional Information Requested for Canada 150 Fund (Events)
Staff gave a brief overview of the memorandum,and further detailed the list
of proposed enhancements to existing Town events that could be included in
the Canada 150 Fund application.The Committee expressed support for the
proposed enhancements.
Moved by Ken Turriff
Seconded by Kelly Mathews
THAT the memorandum regarding Additional Information Requested for
Canada 150 Fund (Events)be received;and
THAT staff proceed with the Canada 150 Fund application,with the inclusion
of the enhancement of existing Town events,as outlined in the
memorandum.
CARRIED
Staff gave an overview of the list of proposed legacy features that could be
included in the Canada 150 Fund application,and the Committee discussed
various aspects of the proposed features.The Committee agreed that some
of the proposed legacy features could be combined in the application.The
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 14 Page -6
-130 -
Canada 150 Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Minutes
Wednesday,April 4,2016 Page 3 of 3
Committee also agreed to explore the possibility of working with the Aurora
Farmers’Market and Artisan Fair to provide Canada 150-themed
programming at the Market throughout the summer to promote the event.
Moved by Damian D’Aguiar
Seconded by Art Hagopian
THAT staff include the following legacy features in the Canada 150 Fund
application:
Monument creation and property naming
Community Garden
Management and display of public art
CARRIED
7.NEW BUSINESS
None
8.ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Art Hagopian
Seconded by Kelly Mathews
THAT the meeting be adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
CARRIED
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT BINDING ON THE TOWN UNLESS
ADOPTED BY COUNCIL AT A LATER MEETING.
General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 14 Page -7
-131 -
TOWN OF AURORA
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
FOR GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday,April 19,2016
7 p.m.
Council Chambers
Revised General Committee Meeting Agenda Index
Item 15 –Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of pg.132
April 11,2016
Item 16 –Memorandum from Mayor Dawe pg.137
Re:York Region Report –Land Use Planning and Appeal and
Development Charges Systems Review
Item 17 –Memorandum from Mayor Dawe pg.177
Re:Correspondence from MPP Laurie Scott –Proposed
Bill 158 –Human Trafficking
Item 18 –Memorandum from Mayor Dawe pg.181
Re:Sponsorship Breakdown for the Run or Walk for
Southlake Hospital -May 1,2016
Notice of Motion (a)Councillor Thompson pg.182
Re:Development of an Attraction Strategy for the Hotel Industry
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting Agenda
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Page 2 of 2
Closed Session Item 1 –Litigation or potential litigation including matters before
administrative tribunals,affecting the Town or a Local Board (section 239(2)(e)
of the Municipal Act,2001);Re:Closed Session Report No.IES16-041 –
Aurora Family Leisure Complex
Closed Session Item 2 –A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of
land by the Town or Local Board (section 239(2)(c)of the Municipal Act,
2001);Re:Potential Purchase of Lands –Yonge Street
PUBLIC RELEASE
April 12,2016
TOWN OF AURORA
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING
AGENDA (REVISED)
Tuesday,April 19,2016
7 p.m.
Council Chambers
Councillor Gaertner in the Chair
1.DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE
THEREOF
2.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the agenda as circulated by Legal and Legislative Services,with the
following additions,be approved:
Item 15 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of April 11,2016
Item 16 Memorandum from Mayor Dawe
Re:York Region Report Land Use Planning and Appeal and
Development Charges Systems Review
Item 17 Memorandum from Mayor Dawe
Re:Correspondence from MPP Laurie Scott Proposed Bill 158
Human Trafficking
Item 18 Memorandum from Mayor Dawe
Re:Sponsorship Breakdown for the Run or Walk for Southlake
Hospital -May 1,2016
Notice of Motion (a)Councillor Thompson
Re:Development of an Attraction Strategy for the Hotel Industry
General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised)
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Page 2 of 10
Closed Session Item 1 Litigation or potential litigation including matters before
administrative tribunals,affecting the Town or a Local Board (section 239(2)(e)
of the Municipal Act,2001);Re:Closed Session Report No.IES16-041
Aurora Family Leisure Complex
Closed Session Item 2 A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of
land by the Town or Local Board (section 239(2)(c)of the Municipal Act,
2001);Re:Potential Purchase of Lands Yonge Street
3.DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
4.ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
5.DELEGATIONS
(a)Chris Denich,P.Eng,Aquafor Beech Ltd.pg.1
Re:Item 1 IES16-035 Town of Aurora Comprehensive
Stormwater Management Master Plan
6.PRESENTATIONS BY THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR
7.CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION
8.NOTICES OF MOTION
(a)Councillor Thompson pg.182
Re:Development of an Attraction Strategy for the Hotel Industry
(Added Item)
9.NEW BUSINESS/GENERAL INFORMATION
10.CLOSED SESSION
RECOMMENDED:
THAT General Committee resolve into Closed Session to consider the following
matters:
General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised)
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Page 3 of 10
1.Litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative
tribunals,affecting the Town or a Local Board (section 239(2)(e)of the
Municipal Act,2001);Re:Closed Session Report No.IES16-041 Aurora
Family Leisure Complex
(Added Item)
2.A proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the Town or Local
Board (section 239(2)(c)of the Municipal Act,2001);Re:Potential Purchase
of Lands Yonge Street
(Added Item)
11.ADJOURNMENT
General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised)
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Page 4 of 10
AGENDA ITEMS
1.IES16-035 Town of Aurora Comprehensive Stormwater Management pg.2
Master Plan
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.IES16-035 be received;and
THAT The Comprehensive Stormwater Management Master Plan be endorsed
subject to future budget approval;and
THAT a copy of this report be forwarded to the Clerk of York Region .
2.IES16-036 Award of Tender IES 2016-20 The Rec onstruction of pg.10
Catherine Avenue
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.IES16-036 be received;and
THAT Tender IES 2016-20 for Capital project No.31111 for the Reconstruction of
Catherine Avenue be awarded to IL Duca Contracting Inc.in the amount of
$732,706.20,excluding taxes;and
THAT the Mayor and Town Clerk be authorized to execut e the necessary
Agreement,including any and all documents and ancillary agreements required to
give effect to same.
3.IES16-037 Water,Wastewater and Stormwater Budget pg.15
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.IES16-037 be received;and
THAT the 2016 combined Water,Wastewater budget of $18,744,076 and the
Stormwater budget of $1,325,841 be approved;and
THAT the 2016 retail water rate of $2.14 per cubic meter and the retail wastewater
rate of $1.89 per cubic meter of water be approved;and
General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised)
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Page 5 of 10
THAT the 2016 flat rate stormwater charge of $5.01 per unit per month for
residential and condominium properties and $63.63 per unit per month for metered
non-residential commercial/industrial and multi-residential properties be approved;
and
THAT the new approved retail water,retail wastewater and stormwater charge
rates become effective for all billings issued by the Town on or after May 1,2016,
and be retroactive for all consumption newly billed on such billings;and
THAT the 2016 bulk water purchase rate of $4.03 per cubic meter dispensed
effective May 1,2016 be approved;and
THAT the necessary by-law be enacted to implement the 2016 retail water rate,
retail wastewater rate,stormwater charge and bulk water purchase rate;and
THAT the Tow -time staff complement be increased by one to 212 (excluding
Library Board and Central York Fire Services staff)by approving the new non -
union position of Water Compliance Analyst for 2016,to be funded from the water
wastewater and stormwater rates budget.
4.IES16-038 Extension of Janitorial Services Contract pg.53
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.IES16-038 be received;and
THAT cleaning for the new Aurora Operations Centre be awarded to Royal
Building Cleaning Ltd.for the period of May 1 to July 31,2016 in the amount of
$40,000 excluding taxes.
5.IES16-039 Purchase Order Increases P.O.No.713 and P.O.No.714 pg.56
HVAC Maintenance Services
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.IES16-039 be received;and
THAT Purchase Order No.713 for Carmichael Engineering Ltd.,be increased for
year one of Contract IES 2015-35 for HVAC Services at various Town Facilities,in
the Town of Aurora,in the amount of $125,000,excluding taxes;and
THAT Purchase Order No.714 for Dunlis Mechanical Services Ltd.,be increased
for year one of Contract IES 2015-35 for HVAC Services at various Town
Facilities,in the Town of Aurora,in the amount of $125,000,excluding taxes.
General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised)
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Page 6 of 10
6.IES16-040 Facility Projects Status Report pg.60
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.IES16-040 be received for information.
7.PRS16-017 Mavrinac Park Conceptual Design pg.66
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.PRS16-017 be received;and
THAT staff be directed to conduct a Public Open House for the purposes of
obtaining input and comments from the public on the proposed design and
facilities to be included in the park;and
THAT funding from the Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Reserve,in an amount not to
exceed $1,300,000.00 for the design and construction of the park,be approved;
and
THAT staff report back to Council with the information and comments received at
the Public Open House including any revisions to the park concept plan,cost
estimate and a proposed date of construction commencement.
8.PDS16-023 Zoning By-law Amendment pg.72
BG Properties Aurora Inc.(formerly Coutts)
14222,14314,14358 &14378 Yonge Street
Related File:SUB-2012-03
File Number:ZBA-2012-16
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.PDS16-023 be received;and
THAT Application to Amend the Zoning By-law File No.ZBA-2012-16 (BG
Properties Aurora Inc.)to add Single Detached Residential,Open Space and
Environmental Protection uses on the subject lands be approved;and
THAT the implementing Zoning By-law be presented at a future Council Meeting.
General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised)
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Page 7 of 10
9.PDS16-024 Application for Exemption from Part Lot Control pg.85
Brookfield Homes (Ontario)Aurora Ltd.
Blocks 15,16 &19,Plan 65M-4467 being 65R-36163 and 65R-
36213
File No.:PLC-2016-02
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.PDS16-024 be received;and
THAT the Application for Exemption from Part Lot Control submitted by Brookfield
Homes (Ontario)Aurora Ltd.to divide Blocks 15,16 and 19,on Plan 65M-4467
into 17 separate lots for townhouse units be approved;and
THAT the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law be introduced and enacted at a
future Council meeting.
10.PDS16-026 Cultural Precinct/Library Square Repurposing pg.93
Project Plan
RECOMMENDED:
THAT Report No.PDS16-026 be received;and
THAT Council endorse the planning approval process outlined in this report;and
THAT staff prepare reports and schedule public consultation meetings in
accordance with the approval process.
11.Community Recognition Review Advisory Committee Meeting pg.102
Minutes of March 22,2016
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Community Recognition Review Advisory Committee meeting minutes of
March 22,2016,be received for information.
12.Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of March 22,2016 pg.106
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Finance Advisory Committee meeting minutes of March 22,2016,be
received for information.
General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised)
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Page 8 of 10
13.Special Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Meeting pg.110
Minutes of March 31,2016
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Special Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting minutes of
March 31,2016,be received;and
THAT the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee recommend to Council:
1.PRS16-015 Implementation of the Sport Plan
THAT tasks T1,T3,T15,T16,T17,T21,and T22 be referred to the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Committee prior to a recommendation being presented to
Council.
2.Parks and Recreation Master Plan Implementation Schedule
THAT tasks T1,T4,T4a,T4b,T5,T9,T16,T27,T30,T34,and T35 be referred
to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee prior to a recommendation
being presented to Council;and
THAT task T41 be referred to the Trails and Active Transportation Committee
prior to a recommendation being presented to Council.
14.Canada 150 Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Minutes of March 16,2016 and pg.125
April 4,2016
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Canada 150 Ad Hoc Committee meeting minutes of March 16,2016,
and April 4,2016,be received for information.
15.Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of April 11,2016 pg.132
(Added Item)
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of April 11,2016,be
received;and
General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised)
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Page 9 of 10
THAT the Heritage Advisory Committee recommend to Council:
1.HAC16-003 Heritage Permit Application,20 Catherine Avenue,
File:NE-HCD-HPA-16-01
THAT Heritage Permit Application NE-HCD-HPA-15-06 be approved to
permit the construction of a 52m2 accessory structure as per submitted plans;
and
THAT the demolition of the existing detached garage be approved.
2.Memorandum from Planner
Re:Additional Information,Heritage Advisory Committee Report No.
HAC15-015,101 Tyler Street
THAT the property located at 101 Tyler Street be considered for removal
from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest;
and
THAT the proposed elevations be subject to approval of Planning Staff to
ensure the proposed new dwelling will maintain the heritage character of the
area;and
THAT items of significance be salvaged and incorporated into the new
dwelling or donated to the Aurora Architectural Salvage Program;and
THAT the tree located in the front yard of the existing dwelling be retained,if
feasible.
16.Memorandum from Mayor Dawe pg.137
Re:York Region Report Land Use Planning and Appeal and
Development Charges Systems Review
(Added Item)
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the memorandum regarding York Region Report Land Use Planning and
Appeal and Development Charges Systems Review be received for information.
General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised)
Tuesday,April 19, 2016 Page 10 of 10
17.Memorandum from Mayor Dawe pg.177
Re:Correspondence from MPP Laurie Scott Proposed Bill 158
Human Trafficking
(Added Item)
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the correspondence from MPP Laurie Scott Proposed Bill 158 Human
Trafficking be received;and
THAT Council provide direction.
18.Memorandum from Mayor Dawe pg.181
Re:Sponsorship Breakdown for the Run or Walk for Southlake
Hospital May 1,2016
(Added Item)
RECOMMENDED:
THAT the memorandum regarding Sponsorship Breakdown for the Run or Walk
for Southlake Hospital - May 1, 2016, be received for information.
TOWN OF AURORA
HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
Date:Monday,April 11,2016
Time and Location:7 p.m.,Holland Room,Aurora Town Hall
Committee Members:Councillor Jeff Thom (Chair),Councillor Wendy Gaertner
(Vice Chair),Barry Bridgeford,James Hoyes,John Kazilis,
Bob McRoberts (Honorary Member),and Martin Paivio
Member(s)Absent:Kathy Constable and Carol Gravelle
Other Attendees:Councillor Tom Mrakas,Marco Ramunno,Director of
Planning and Development Services,Jeff Healey,Planner,
and Samantha Kong,Council/Committee Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
1.DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST AND GENERAL NATURE THEREOF
There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of
Interest Act.
2.APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
Moved by Martin Paivio
Seconded by Barry Bridgeford
THAT the agenda as circulated by Legal and Legislative Services be approved.
CARRIED
3.RECEIPT OF THE MINUTES
Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of March 7,2016
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 15 Page -1
-132 -
Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Monday,April 11,2016 Page 2 of 5
Moved by John Kazilis
Seconded by James Hoyes
THAT the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of March 7,2016,be
received for information.
CARRIED
4.DELEGATIONS
(a)Chris Alexander,Owner of 101 Tyler Street
Re:Item 2 –Memorandum from Planner;re:Additional Information –
Heritage Advisory Committee Report No.HAC15-015,101 Tyler
Street
Mr.Alexander provided a brief history of the property and presented concept
elevations as a reference to his proposal of building a new home.
Moved by Councillor Gaertner
Seconded by James Hoyes
THAT the comments of the delegation be received and referred to Item 2.
CARRIED
5.MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
The Committee consented to consider Item 2 prior to Item 1.
1.HAC16-003 –Heritage Permit Application,20 Catherine Avenue,
File:NE-HCD-HPA-16-01
Staff indicated that evidence suggests the existing accessory structure is not
original and noted that the proposed location,materials,and colours of the
new accessory structure would be consistent with the neighbourhood and
original location of the accessory structure on the property.
The Committee expressed support towards the design and location of the
proposed accessory structure.
Moved by James Hoyes
Seconded by John Kazilis
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 15 Page -2
-133 -
Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Monday,April 11,2016 Page 3 of 5
THAT Report No.HAC16-003 be received;and
THAT the Heritage Advisory Committee recommend to Council:
THAT Heritage Permit Application NE-HCD-HPA-15-06 be approved to
permit the construction of a 52m2 accessory structure as per submitted
plans;and
THAT the demolition of the existing detached garage be approved.
CARRIED
2.Memorandum from Planner
Re:Additional Information,Heritage Advisory Committee Report No.
HAC15-015,101 Tyler Street
The Committee expressed support for the construction of a new dwelling as
presented in the proposed elevation drawings and requested an effort from
the owner,in consultation with staff,to retain the tree in the front yard if
feasible.
Moved by Bob McRoberts
Seconded by John Kazilis
THAT the memorandum regarding Additional Information,Heritage Advisory
Committee Report No.HAC15-015,101 Tyler Street,be received;and
THAT the Heritage Advisory Committee recommend to Council:
THAT the property located at 101 Tyler Street be considered for removal
from the Aurora Register of Properties of Cultural Heritage Value or
Interest;and
THAT the proposed elevations be subject to approval of Planning staff to
ensure the proposed new dwelling will maintain the heritage character of
the area;and
THAT items of significance be salvaged and incorporated into the new
dwelling or donated to the Aurora Architectural Salvage Program;and
THAT the tree located in the front yard of the existing dwelling be
retained,if feasible.
CARRIED
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 15 Page -3
-134 -
Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Monday,April 11,2016 Page 4 of 5
6.INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
3.Memorandum from Planner
Re:Approval of Wood Plaque Application,7 Kennedy Street
Staff provided a brief history of the property and indicated that three notable
residents have lived in the home.Staff proposed that the wood plaque state
“The Ellwood Davis House,1914”due to the length of ownership and
occupancy by Ellwood Davis and the Davis family.
The Committee expressed support and commended the owners for seeking
approval of the wood plaque as it is a part of the Heritage Advisory
Committee education initiative.
Moved by Martin Paivio
Seconded by Barry Bridgeford
THAT the memorandum regarding Approval of Wood Plaque Application,7
Kennedy Street West,be received for information.
CARRIED
4.Extract from Council Meeting of March 8,2016
Re:Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of February 8,2016
Moved by Bob McRoberts
Seconded by James Hoyes
THAT the Extract from Council Meeting of March 8,2016,regarding the
Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of February 8,2016,be
received for information.
CARRIED
7.NEW BUSINESS
Staff extended a reminder to the Committee regarding the site visit to the Pet
Cemetery on Friday,April 15,2016,and noted that interested members are to
meet in the Holland Room at Town Hall by 8:30 a.m.
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 15 Page -4
-135 -
Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes
Monday,April 11,2016 Page 5 of 5
8.ADJOURNMENT
Moved by James Hoyes
Seconded by Barry Bridgeford
THAT the meeting be adjourned at 8 p.m.
CARRIED
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT BINDING ON THE TOWN UNLESS
OTHERWISE ADOPTED BY COUNCIL AT A LATER MEETING.
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 15 Page -5
-136 -
DATE:April 19,2016
TO:Members of Council
FROM:Mayor Geoffrey Dawe
RE:York Region Report Land Use Planning and Appeal and Development
Charges Systems Review
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the memorandum regarding York Region Report -Land Use Planning and Appeal and
Development Charges Systems Review be received for information.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 -York Region Committee of the Whole Report from meeting of April 14,2016,Re:
Land Use Planning and Appeal and Development Charges Systems Review (dated
January 9,2014)
Attachment 2 -Correspondence from The Premier of Ontario,dated September 25,2014
Town of Aurora
Office of the Mayor
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -1
-137 -
Clause No.19 in Report No.1 of Committee of the Whole was adopted,without
amendment,by the Council of The Regional Municipality of York at its meeting held
on January 23,2014.
19
LAND USE PLANNING AND APPEAL AND DEVELOPMENT CHARGES
SYSTEMS REVIEW
Committee of the Whole recommends adoption of the following
recommendations contained in the report dated December 12,2013 from the
Executive Director,Corporate and Strategic Planning,Commissioner of Finance
and the Commissioner of Transportation and Community Planning:
1.RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that:
1. Council endorse the contents of this report and Attachments 1 and 2 as York
Region’s position on improving the Land Use Planning and Appeal and
Development Charges Systems.
2.The Regional Clerk submit this report and attachments to the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing as York Region’s response to EBR Postings 012-
0241 and 012-0281.
3.The Province be requested to undertake a comprehensive review of the role,
operations,practices and procedures of the Ontario Municipal Board within the
Land Use Planning and Appeal System.
4.The Regional Clerk circulate this report to the planning departments of all nine
local municipalities.
2.PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of the recommendations made
in response to the Land Use Planning and Appeal and Development Charges Systems
review being undertaken by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH).
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -2
-138 -
Clause No.19,Report No.1 2
Committee of the Whole
January 9,2014
3.BACKGROUND
On October 24,2013,MMAH initiated a review of the Land Use Planning
and Appeal and Development Charges Systems review
MMAH is consulting from October 2013 to January 2014 on what changes are needed to
improve the Land Use Planning and Appeal and Development Charges Systems.The
opportunity to provide written comments is open until January 10,2014.
MMAH has provided guidance on the specific elements to be considered
during this review
MMAH has published consultation documents that guide and scope review of the Land
Use Planning and Appeal and Development Charges Systems.These consultation
documents identify 8 themes being addressed through these reviews,including:
1.predictability and accountability in the planning and appeal process
2. greater municipal leadership in local land use planning decisions
3.better engaging citizens in the local planning process
4. alignment of land use planning and infrastructure decisions
5. recovering the cost of growth from growth
6.prescriptive versus permissive legislation
7.transparency and accountability
8. strengthening development charges as a broader policy tool
MMAH has also been explicit in identifying items that will not be addressed through
these reviews,including:
eliminating or changing the OMB’s operations,practices and procedures
removing or restricting the provincial government’s approval role and ability to
intervene in matters
removing municipal flexibility in addressing local priorities
changing the “growth pays for growth”principle of development charges
education development charges and the development charges appeal system
It is clear the Province does not intend this review to be a complete overhaul of either
system.
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -3
-139 -
Clause No.19,Report No.1 3
Committee of the Whole
January 9,2014
Extensive consultation was used to arrive at the recommended Regional
response
Staff from the Long Range Planning and Revenue Forecasting and Policy Branches co-
led the review of the Land Use Planning and Appeal and Development Charges Systems.
Extensive internal and external consultation occurred to develop the recommended
Regional response.Internally,consultation occurred with staff from a variety of
departments,including:
CAO’s Office,Long Range Planning
Community and Health Services (Policy and Program Support,Housing,Business
Operations and Quality)
Corporate Services (Legal Services,Property Services)
Environmental Services (Environmental Promotion and Protection,Water Resources,
and Capital Planning and Delivery)
Finance (Treasury Office)
Transportation and Community Planning (Transportation Planning,Strategic Policy
and Business Planning,Community Planning)York Region Police
Externally,consultation occurred with representatives from the following:
Local Municipalities (Planning and Finance representatives)
York Region Planning Commissioners and Directors
York Region Area Treasurers’Group
Municipal Finance Officers’Association of Ontario
It is anticipated that most of the Region’s local municipalities will make their own
submissions.The York Region response only references local municipal comments
where common areas of concern have been identified.
4.ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS
York Region’s comments on MMAH’s review of the Land Use Planning and Appeal and
Development Charges Systems are detailed in Attachments 1 and 2.The following
discussion identifies the key recommendations that emerged through the review process.
LAND USE PLANNING AND APPEAL SYSTEM
Over the past decade the Province has produced a number of planning related statutes and
plans,requiring both upper and lower-tier municipalities to proceed with a series of
amendments and changes to bring planning documents into conformity with these
Provincial documents.As a result of this almost perpetual state of updates and appeals to
the OMB,the Land Use Planning System is in need of a comprehensive overhaul.It is
not sufficient to simply update the system as it is today.
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -4
-140 -
Clause No.19,Report No.1 4
Committee of the Whole
January 9,2014
The scope of the review must be expanded to fully address the Ontario
Municipal Board (OMB).
The OMB plays a significant role in the Land Use Planning System in Ontario.Board
decisions on planning matters have a tremendous impact on the shape and form of
communities.York Region recommends the Province expand the scope of this review to
examine the role,operations,procedures and practices of the OMB.
An expanded review is critical to fully assess the effectiveness of the Land Use Planning
and Appeal System in Ontario and should include:
resource requirements (members,staff,financial and time commitments)necessary to
effectively participate in the OMB process
costs associated with initiating or participating in an appeal
type of issues and planning applications brought before the Board
ability of the OMB to hear and adjudicate appeals and issue decisions in a timely
manner
qualification and selection process for members
consistency in decision-making (role of precedent decisions)
The ability to appeal municipal conformity exercises and whole plan
appeals should be removed from the Land Use Planning System
Appeals of new official plans,or amendments required to bring those plans into
conformity with Provincially legislated plans,frustrate municipal efforts to implement
Provincial planning legislation and policy.These types of appeals and resulting hearings
cost municipal government millions of dollars and often years of staff time.Municipal
conformity exercises should not be subject to appeal under the provisions of the Planning
Act,except where municipalities are implementing policy more restrictive than required
by Provincial direction.
It has been our experience that whole plan appeals are simply used as a bargaining tool at
the OMB.A whole plan appellant will withdraw appeal on certain parts of a plan in
return for beneficial policy direction changes in other parts of the plan.Clearly there was
no issue with the parts of the plan for which the appeal is withdrawn.MMAH should
also look at mechanisms to remove the ability to initiate whole-plan appeals and require
appellants to identify specific elements of any plan that they intend to dispute.
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -5
-141 -
Clause No.19,Report No.1 5
Committee of the Whole
January 9,2014
The Land Use Planning and Appeals System needs to place greater priority
on local decision making
York Region and its nine local municipalities have,and will continue to develop
sophisticated planning policy and plans through open and transparent processes involving
significant stakeholder engagement and collaboration.These collaborative processes are
often side tracked through site-specific,highly speculative development proposals.York
Region recommends that privately-initiated official plan amendments only be considered
at the time of the 5 year municipal comprehensive review.
Further,the OMB should give higher credence than simply having regard to municipal
council planning decisions.Municipal decisions implement Provincial and municipal
land use planning priorities,as identified in approved official plans that are developed
through comprehensive,open and transparent processes.Section 2.1 of the Planning Act
should be amended to prescribe how the OMB can give consideration to the context and
process within which the council decision have been made,and not simply “have regard”
for a municipal decision.
Opportunity for local decision making is removed through OMB appeal
The review and approval of strategic planning documents and large development
applications have become increasingly complex and time-consuming.As a result,
Regional and local municipalities are struggling to make planning decisions within the
180-day timeframe prescribed in the Planning Act under Sections 22 (7.0.2)and 17 (40).
Six months is not sufficient processing time to allow for all agency input to be responded
to and a fulsome public participation process to be undertaken.As well,consideration of
an entirely new Official Plan is subject to the same decision time frame as a development
application.In our experience,the result has been that applications are appealed for lack
of decision (under Section 17 (40))and the ability to complete comprehensive
consultation process and make local decisions is lost.MMAH should extend the decision
time frame from 180 to 365 days and close the Section 17 (40)loophole to allow for local
decisions.
Coordination of policy language and review dates of all Provincial planning
legislation and policy will help municipalities keep their planning
documents up to date
Over the past decade,municipal plans have been in an almost constant state of review
because of the number of amendments required to ensure conformity with Provincial
plans and updates to those plans.This has been a strain on municipal resources and has
impacted many municipalities ability to keep planning documents current.
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -6
-142 -
Clause No.19,Report No.1 6
Committee of the Whole
January 9,2014
MMAH is responsible for implementing and protecting Provincial interests through the
Land Use Planning and Appeals System.MMAH should work towards addressing
consistency and overlap between key legislation and policy documents,including:
Provincial Policy Statement
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan)
Greenbelt Plan
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan
Lake Simcoe Protection Plan
Clean Water Act and Source Water Protection Plans
Metrolinx’s Big Move
Endangered Species Act
At a minimum,MMAH should work towards combining documents and/or coordinating
reviews to provide consistency in Provincial requirements and reduce the frequency of
amendments to planning documents at the municipal level.
DEVELOPMENT CHARGES SYSTEM
The current Development Charges Act was implemented in 1997.It introduced a number
of restrictions and additional requirements not found in the previous Act.The 1997 Act
was seen as striking a balance between municipal interests and development interests.
However,over the past few years,stakeholders have raised concerns regarding the impact
of development charges on housing affordability,investment in strategic infrastructure,as
well as Growth Plan implementation and economic growth.
The growth pays for growth principle needs to be strengthened in the
Development Charges Act,1997
Development Charges (DCs)are the most fair and efficient way to raise funds for
growth-related infrastructure,because these charges link those who pay with those who
benefit.However,provisions in the Development Charges Act,1997 are inconsistent
with the growth paying for growth principle,and limit the ability of municipalities to use
DCs.This results in the transfer of growth-related costs to either the tax levy or to user
fees.To further strengthen the growth pays for growth principle in the Development
Charges Act,1997 the Province should consider the following:
growth-related capital costs for solid waste management facilities,hospitals and
municipal administrative buildings be fully recoverable through DCs
the 10-year historic average service level cap be replaced with a forward looking
service standard for transit and other services
the planning period for transit infrastructure be extended beyond 10 years
the 10 per cent statutory discount be removed for all services
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -7
-143 -
Clause No.19,Report No.1 7
Committee of the Whole
January 9,2014
Municipal flexibility regarding DCs rate calculation,structures and
reporting formats needs to be maintained
DCs calculations are based on projected growth and infrastructure needs over a long
period of time.While the determination of DCs is a rigorous and technical exercise,it
also relies to a significant degree on professional judgement.The current legislative
framework achieves a good balance between rigour and flexibility,by allowing
municipalities to determine specific details such as:
determining the extent to which a project constitute a benefit to existing development
choosing between an area-specific DCs rate structure or municipal-wide DCs rate
structure
devising additional policies regarding discounts,phase-ins and exemptions
The Development Charges Act,1997 and related regulations set out an effective system
of checks and balances,including the preparation of background studies,disclosure,
management of development charges reserve funds,and process for appeals.These
provisions provide strong incentives for municipalities to take the utmost care to set DCs
rates that are fair to both the development community,and the municipality.
Additional rules and definitions in the Development Charges Act,1997 simplify
background studies and reduce the likelihood of OMB challenges.However,one size
does not fit all.York Region recommends that any changes to the Development Charges
Act,1997 should not limit municipal flexibility to address local circumstances.The
Province may consider including a statement of principles that municipalities should have
regard to when calculating DCs-recoverable capital costs.
There are sufficient checks and balances in the development charges
system to ensure transparency and accountability
The Development Charges Act,1997,and regulations set out an effective system of check
and balances,including the preparation of background studies,disclosure,management
of DCs reserve funds,and appeals,and dispute resolution.Despite these provisions,
members of the development industry question if development charges are spent on
projects for which they are intended.In addition,there are also calls for greater
transparency with respect to Section 37 agreements,parkland dedication rates and
voluntary contributions.
The current level of disclosure regarding how DCs revenues are been spent is sufficient.
The Treasurer’s development charges reserve fund statement,required under in the
Development Charges Act,1997,provides detailed information on development charge
reserve balances,amount collected,funds allocated for capital projects,debt payments,
interest earnings and allocation,loans between services,and credits given.
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -8
-144 -
Clause No.19,Report No.1 8
Committee of the Whole
January 9,2014
To get a full picture of the Region’s growth capital program,development charges
reserve fund statements should be interpreted alongside the DCs background study and
the capital budget.The background study lists all growth-related capital projects,and
these projects are part of the negotiations the Region undertakes with the development
community.In addition,projects funded by DCs reserves are listed in the Treasurer’s
DCs Reserve Fund Statement,as well as the Region’s multi-year capital budget presented
to Council each year.
Going beyond meeting the minimum requirements in the Development Charges Act,
1997,York Region consults extensively with the public and the development community
as it prepares the Background Study to ensure that the charges are appropriate and that
the process is open and transparent.The consultations not only help the Region gain
support from the public and the development industry prior to the Council adopting the
DCs Bylaw,but also serve as a rigorous peer review of the DCs charge calculation
methodology.
Removing the barriers to cost recovery helps align DCs with broader policy
objectives
DCs across the GTA have risen steadily since the passing of the Development Charges
Act,1997.This has led to the suggestion that DCs have a direct impact on housing
affordability.In addition,some academics and think tanks raised concerns that
municipalities have not fully used DCs as a tool to achieve smart growth objectives,
promote economic growth and support housing affordability.
DCs are predominately a financing tool,which should be used in conjunction with a suite
of other financing and regulatory tools.Property tax policies,user rates,development
charges,and regulatory measures should be examined comprehensively as a means to
achieve broader policy objectives.The Province could consider providing greater
guidance on the optimal policy mix (incentive-based and regulatory)to achieve smart
growth objectives as well as municipal fiscal sustainability.
Currently,restrictions in the Development Charges Act,1997 make it very difficult for
municipalities to raise capital for infrastructure that supports intensification and city
building efforts.Transit is a good example.In addition,the Development Charges Act,
1997 regulations mandate that the level of service used to determine an area specific
development charge doesn’t exceed the level of service applicable to the whole
municipality.This rule can restrict the ability of municipalities with area-specific
charges to recover growth-related costs through DCs,particularly if the differential in the
level of service between areas is high.
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -9
-145 -
Clause No.19,Report No.1 9
Committee of the Whole
January 9,2014
The staff recommended response to the Province highlights the following key messages:
development charges support growth by funding the necessary infrastructure
removing the barriers to cost recovery in the Development Charges Act,1997 and
related regulations helps align development charges with broader policy objectives
municipalities should maintain the flexibility to adopt the development charge rate
structure and policies best suited to their local circumstances and policy goals
The Province should ensure that municipalities and appellants of DCs
bylaws are on an even playing field at the OMB
The OMB is prevented by the Development Charges Act,1997 from issuing a ruling that
would benefit a municipality (e.g.,increase DCs payable,remove or reduce exemptions
etc.).Furthermore,the onus is on the municipality to justify a charge.Consequently,
appellants and municipalities bear different levels of accountability and risks.This
uneven playing field may put additional pressures on municipalities.The Province
should consider removing section 16(4)of the Development Charges Act,1997,which
limits the ability of the OMB to issue rulings that benefit municipalities.The Province
should also consider amending the Development Charges Act,1997 to allow any Board
rulings that benefit municipalities to be open to an appeal for a limited period of time by
any property owner that is impacted by it.
Link to key Council-approved plans
Improvements in the Land Use Planning and Appeal and Development Charges Systems
supports the “Continue to Deliver and Sustain Critical Infrastructure”,“Focus Growth
Along Regional Centres and Corridors”and “Manage the Region’s Finances Prudently”
priority areas with the 2011 to 2015 Strategic Plan.It also supports the “Liveable Cities
and Complete Communities”and “Open and Responsive Government”theme areas in
Vision 2051.Finally,improvements in the Land Use Planning and Appeal and
Development Charges Systems also assists in implementing policy in the “Economic
Vitality”,“Growth Management”and “Implementation”sections of the York Region
Official Plan,2010.
5.FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Land Use Planning and Development Charges Systems review was undertaken
within the 2013 Revenue Forecasting and Policy,Long Range Planning Branch and
Community Planning Branches budget allocations.There will likely be financial impact
on all Ontario municipalities should the Province elect to amend the Planning Act and/or
the Development Charges Act,1997.
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -10
-146 -
Clause No.19,Report No.1 10
Committee of the Whole
January 9,2014
OMB hearings can be a drain on municipal resources
To date,York Region has spent approximately $4 million defending the York Region
Official Plan,2010 at the OMB including associated appeals at the local level.
Removing the ability to appeal conformity exercises could prevent and/or reduce
expenditures in the future.
DCs are a key funding source for the Region’s capital program
During the past few years,DCs revenues account for roughly 18 per cent of gross
revenues.Looking ahead,DCs revenues fund over half of the Region’s 10-year capital
budget.
According to York Region’s 2012 DCs Background study,under the current DCs
calculation methodology,York Region is able to recover approximately half of the gross
growth-related capital costs from 2012-2031 1 through DCs in the current bylaw.Of the
$7.2 billion in costs not recoverable through DCs,approximately 17 per cent (or $1.2
billion)relate to the historic level of service cap;and approximately $16 million relate to
the 10 per cent statutory deduction.
In addition,under the current framework,growth-related costs for solid waste
management,hospital and municipal administrative buildings are not eligible for
development charges funding.An order of magnitude estimate for the growth-related
costs associated with these services is $50 million per year.
6.LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT
Regional staff consulted with the staff from our local municipalities and held a joint
session to collectively discuss the 17 questions posed by the Province.In general,there
was consensus on the major issues that need to be addressed including the number,
complexity and difficulty in implementing Provincial planning legislation and plans.
In comparison with the Region,local municipalities have a greater number of planning
documents to keep current and spend more time and financial resources defending local
planning policy at the OMB.Any improvements to streamline and provide greater
certainty in the Land Use Planning and Appeal System process will be beneficial to York
Region and more impactful to our nine local municipalities.
1 Note that the planning period for water,wastewater,roads and police is 20 years.However,the planning
period for some soft services (e.g.,transit,ambulance,social housing etc.)is 10 years.
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -11
-147 -
Clause No.19,Report No.1 11
Committee of the Whole
January 9,2014
7.CONCLUSION
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing initiated a review of the Land Use
Planning and Appeal and Development Charges Systems Review.The intended purpose
of the review is to ensure that the Land Use Planning and Appeal and Development
Charges Systems are efficient,transparent and responsive to the changing needs of
communities.
York Region is fully supportive of improvements to the Land Use Planning and Appeal
System including:
undertaking a review of the OMB
extending decision timeframes under the Planning Act
combining and/or coordinating Provincial planning legation,plans and their
associated reviews
removing the ability to appeal whole plans and conformity exercises
York Region is also fully supportive of changes to the Development Charges Act,1997
which would ensure:
the growth-related capital costs for solid waste management facilities,hospitals,and
municipal administrative buildings are fully recoverable through DCs
the historic service level cap is replaced with a forward looking service standards for
transit and other services
the planning period for transit infrastructure is extended beyond 10 years
the 10 per cent statutory discount is removed for all services
municipalities maintain their flexibility regarding the details of DCs rate calculation
methodology,rate structures,and reporting formats
an even playing-field for municipalities and appellants at the OMB
For more information on this report,please contact Karen Whitney,Director of
Community Planning at Ext.71505,Valerie Shuttleworth Director of Long Range
Planning at Ext.71525,or Lindsay Allison,Manager of Revenue Forecasting and Policy
at Ext.76260.
The Senior Management Group has reviewed this report.
Attachments (2)
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -12
-148 -
Attachment 1
Theme A: Achieve more predictability, transparency and
accountability in the planning/appeal process and reduce costs
1.How can communities keep planning documents, including official plans,
zoning by-laws and development permit systems (if in place) more up-to-
date?
York Region has been successful in keeping the Regional Official Plan current by
consistently reviewing the document within the mandatory 5 year time-frame.
However,the number and complexity of provincial plans and regulations,combined
with Ontario Municipal Board (OMB)appeals associated with conformity exercises,has
made it increasingly difficult to keep this document current.As an example,the new
Regional Official Plan (to conform to the Growth Plan)was adopted in 2009 and
portions of it still remain before the OMB.The length of time from appeal to Ontario
Municipal Board decisions impedes the ability of municipal decision making on updates
to in-force planning documents.The delays are further compounded when local
municipal conformity work is also appealed and stalled at the OMB.Local municipal
staff indicate that they are unable to undertake comprehensive zoning by-law updates
because of constant official plan updates and managing OMB appeals.
The province has implemented major reforms to the legislative and policy framework
that directs land use planning in the province.MMAH is responsible for implementing
and protecting provincial interests through the land use planning and appeal system.
MMAH should work towards addressing consistency and overlap between key policy
documents,including:Provincial Policy Statement,Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe,Greenbelt Plan,Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan,Lake Simcoe
Protection Plan,Clean Water Act,Source Water Protection Plans,Metrolinx’s Big Move
and Endangered Species Act.MMAH should also work towards combining documents
Page 1 of 9
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -13
-149 -
and/or coordinating plans and reviews to reduce the number of documents and the
frequency of amendments to municipal planning documents.
MMAH should also consider providing guidance documents for interpreting policy to
minimize error.This would assist municipalities in updating relevant planning
documents in a consistent manner.Consistency amongst municipal jurisdictions in
interpretation and implementation of Provincial policy would also be beneficial to the
development industry.Older,outdated guidance documents should clearly be
withdrawn from use.
2.Should the planning system provide incentives to encourage communities to
keep their official plans and zoning by-laws up-to-date to be consistent with
provincial policies and priorities, and conform/not conflict with provincial
plans? If so, how?
The question implies that municipalities are not willing to keep documents current and
incentives might “encourage”them to do so.Incentives are not necessary.
Willingness is not the issue.Providing incentives will not address the underlying issues
that frustrate municipal efforts to keep planning documents up-to-date.These
underlying issues relate to processing times associated with official plan amendments
and large,often complex development proposals.The time required to ensure that all
agency concerns are addressed and meaningful public input is gathered is lengthy.
This process,coupled with OMB appeals and hearings often tax municipal resources
and frustrate larger processes undertaken to update comprehensive official plans and
zoning by-laws.
3.Is the frequency of changes or amendments to planning documents a
problem? If yes, should amendments to planning documents only be allowed
within specified timeframes? If so, what is reasonable?
This has been an issue for the Region,given the almost never ending cycle of official
plan amendments and updates required as a result of new and updated provincial
legislation and becomes especially problematic when conformity amendments are
appealed to the OMB.In a two-tier system it has become clear that most local
municipalities have even greater difficulty keeping their official plans and zoning by-
laws up-to-date.
Site-specific,highly speculative official plan amendment applications intended to
accommodate individual development proposals also frustrate efforts to keep planning
Page 2 of 9
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -14
-150 -
documents up-to-date.These proposals are often submitted when municipalities are in
the process of updating planning documents or defending those documents at the
OMB.These proposals derail and divert municipal resources away from official pan
updates,conformity exercises or secondary planning processes.York Region suggests
that official plans should only be amended at the time of the 5 year municipal
comprehensive review;unless a conformity update is required by provincial legislation.
Additionally,site-specific,privately initiated Official Plan amendments should only be
considered at the time of an upper-tier municipal comprehensive review.If private
land owners were prevented from applying to change Official Plans (provided the
documents are kept current),complexity would be reduced and Councils would again
be able to focus on directional and forward thinking planning decisions rather than
negotiating settlements to site-specific OMB appeals.Private land owners with
development aspirations beyond or contrary to those provided for in up-to-date
official plan could be invited to submit requests at the time of a municipal
comprehensive review.
4.What barriers or obstacle may need to be addressed to promote more
collaboration and information sharing between applicants, municipalities
and the public?
The threat of appeal to the OMB is an obstacle to promotion of collaboration between
applicants,municipalities and the public.Most often it is the development proponent
that has the resources to manage a costly OMB process while municipalities and the
public often do not have access to similar resources.Limits on what can be appealed
and when must be set to foster a more collaborative planning system in Ontario.As
long as the threat of an appeal exists,the incentives for collaboration and cooperation
are not equal between all parties involved.
Currently,the land use planning system mandates one statutory public meeting
occurring during the planning process.Improved information sharing and
collaboration could be achieved by encouraging earlier and additional engagement
through both formal and informal means.
5.Should steps be taken to limit appeals of entire official plans and zoning by-
laws? If so, what steps would be reasonable?
Whole plan appeals should no longer be permitted.Additionally,amendments to bring
plans into conformity with provincial legislation should not be subject to appeal.
Appeals on conformity exercises would be permissible only where municipalities seeks
to establish policy more restrictive than provincial direction (i.e.Greenbelt Plan
Page 3 of 9
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -15
-151 -
policies allows municipalities to implement more restrictive policies in certain
circumstances).Where appeals are initiated,appellants should be required to identify
the specific elements of the plan being disputed.
6.How can these kinds of additional appeals be addressed? Should there be a
time limit on appeals resulting from a council not making a decision?
It often takes municipalities more than 180days to review new official plans,secondary
plans,significant amendments or development proposals.The sheer volume of
applications a municipality is dealing with can seriously impact process timeframes.
Given the number of stakeholders involved,discussions of conformity and proposed
changes to lengthy documents,as well as a number of these processes occurring
concurrently or overlapping,the 180-day decision time frame is not realistic.
Conformity amendments to official plans and zoning by-laws should not be subject to
appeal at all and timeframes for other amendment types or development proposals
should be extended to 365 days.
Official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications submitted to accommodate
site-specific,highly speculative development proposals often represent a significant
departure from development provided for in a current official plan.As above,these
proposals involve extensive consultation with residents and stakeholders,which takes
time.As well,evaluation of development proposals not in keeping with an approved
official plan is much more time consuming.On occasion,proponents appear to be
non-responsive to requests for additional information,public meetings or suggested
changes,seeming to just let the 180days pass so a non-decision appeal can be filed.
For these reasons,official plan amendment applications should not be subject to non-
decision appeals.
Non-decision appeals are also used by applicants to expedite applications.At the
lower-tier level,these kinds of appeals are used as a mechanism to move development
applications to the front of the line.Staff and Council resources are diverted to
negotiating settlements and the OMB.This “queue-jumping”puts development
proponents who are working collaboratively with the municipality and public through
the planning process at a disadvantage.
7.Should there be additional consequences if no decision is made in the
prescribed timeline?
No.The reasons for planning decisions not being made within prescribed timeframes
are wide ranging.Not all of these are within the approval authority’s control (i.e.time
Page 4 of 9
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -16
-152 -
necessary for development proponents to clarify or provide additional information,
respond to requested changes,and additional public engagement).
8.What barriers or obstacles need to be addressed for communities to
implement the development permit system?
The development permit system is implemented at the lower-tier municipal level.
Theme B: Support greater municipal leadership in resolving issues
and making land use planning decisions
9.How can better cooperation and collaboration be fostered between
municipalities, community groups and property owners/developers to
resolve land use planning tensions locally?
As mentioned previously,the threat of appeal to the OMB is an obstacle to promotion
of collaboration between applicants,municipalities and the public.Limits on what can
be appealed and when must be set to foster a more collaborative planning system in
Ontario.
Proposals that represent a significant departure from approved plans should only be
considered at the time of an upper or single tier municipal comprehensive review.If a
municipality has an up-to-date official plan,submission of a site-specific,privately-
initiated official plan amendment applications should not be permitted.Removal of the
OMB threat will result in submission of more realistic proposals in keeping with the
communities Official Plan vision and all parties may be more inclined to work
cooperatively to implement stated Official Plan designations and policies.
Page 5 of 9
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -17
-153 -
Planning tensions often arise locally when individual development applications are
proposed within neighbourhoods.This tension occurs when the development
proposal is not in keeping with the community vision established through official plan
or secondary planning exercises.This tension could be reduced by promoting the use
of pre-zoning.In particular as-of-right zoning could be used to implement
intensification areas that have been designated in official plans or secondary plans.
What barriers or obstacles may need to be addressed to facilitate the creation of local
appeal bodies?
10.Should the powers of a local appeal body be expanded? If so, what should be
included and under what?
No local appeal bodies have been established in York Region.In general,municipal
staff have indicated that capacity may not exist at the local municipal level to support
the financial and administrative resources necessary to support a local appeal body.
It may be more appropriate that a local appeal body (rather than Ontario Municipal
Board)hear appeals on minor variances and consents.The Province should consider
developing resources to support municipalities in establishing and resourcing these
bodies.
11.Should the powers of a local appeal body be expanded? If so, what should be
included and under what conditions?
No local appeal bodies have been established at this time and commenting on
expansion of powers would be difficult.They should have the ability to adjudicate
committee of adjustment matters including minor variances and consents.
12.Should pre-consultation be required before certain types of applications are
submitted? Why or why not? If so, which ones?
Pre-consultation is essential to ensuring timely and effective consideration of planning
applications.It should be required for all planning applications but municipalities
should have discretion to implement pre-consultation processes that can be scoped
based on the nature of the application.The pre-consultation process goes hand-in-
hand with the complete application process.It has been suggested that failure to
deem an application “complete”should not be appealable.
13.How can better coordination and cooperation between upper and lower-tier
governments on planning matters be built into the system?
Lower-tier municipalities should not be given the same deadlines as upper and single-
tier municipalities for conformity with provincial plans.York Region suggests that
Page 6 of 9
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -18
-154 -
lower-tier municipalities be required to undertake provincial conformity exercises one
year after approval of the upper-tier conformity exercise.
In this manner we can work together with our local partners on the upper-tier plans to
ensure conformity at the lower-tier level later.This would avoid the drain on
resources that occurs with planning documents are updated concurrently at the upper
and lower-tier level.
To reduce the layers and complexity of planning documents,Official Plans documents
could rest solely with the upper-tier municipality.Lower tier municipalities can then
focus on implementation through Secondary Plan exercises,zoning by-laws and urban
design guidelines.
Theme C: Better engage citizens in the local planning process
14.What barriers or obstacles may need to be addressed in order for citizens to
be effectively engaged and be confident that their input has been considered
(e.g. in community design exercises, at public meetings/open houses,
through formal submissions)?
Early engagement is key,but it remains difficult with a currently disenfranchised
public.Decisions affecting future development are made at the Official Plan stage.
However,citizens are rarely interested in public meetings related to such policy
documents.The challenge is to engage the public before a building is proposed next
door.Citizen advisory groups for larger planning initiatives are sometimes effective,
but legislation requiring them is not necessary.
Communication is critical to effectively engage citizens.Currently,the Planning Act
regulates the wording used in statutory notices to advise the public of complete
applications,public meetings and decisions.This language needs to be revised and
provided in “plain language”.Additionally,the Planning Act should be reviewed and
updated to reflect changes in technology that facilitate communication through e-mail
and social media.Specifically,the Planning Act should be updated to allow the use of
electronic notices in addition to or instead of newspaper ads.
15.Should communities be required to explain how citizen input was considered
during the review of a planning/development proposal?
York Region already does this through its reporting process.However,to report fully
on all citizen input can be very time consuming and perhaps burdensome on lower-
tier municipalities who receive much more input.Such an arduous process should
only be undertaken if the OMB places some amount of weight on the consideration.
Page 7 of 9
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -19
-155 -
Theme D: Protect long-term public interests, particularly through
better alignment of land use planning and infrastructure decisions
and support for job creation and economic growth
16.How can the land use planning system support infrastructure decisions and
protect employment uses to attract/retain jobs and encourage economic
growth?
Requests for conversion of employment lands to other uses through the lower tier
municipal comprehensive review are problematic from an upper-tier perspective.The
cumulative impact of multiple requests for employment land conversions in all the
local municipalities can have significant impact on Regional employment forecasts and
land budget.To avoid this,the Province should prohibit the conversion of
employment lands,unless initiated through an upper-tier municipal comprehensive
review.
York Region is committed to providing infrastructure to its communities that is safe,
well-managed,and delivered in a fiscally responsible manner while ensuring that the
Region’s environment is protected and enhanced.To achieve these goals,York Region
undertakes master planning exercises for pedestrians,cycling,transit,roads,water
and wastewater systems to identify current and future infrastructure needs to support
the built form and population and employment growth envisioned in our Regional
Official Plan.There need to be mechanisms to streamline the infrastructure planning
and approval processes under the Planning and Environmental Assessment Acts.As
an example,the requirements of infrastructure master plans are often duplicated
through the secondary plan process.Explicitly recognizing master plans in the Planning
Act would eliminate this duplication.
Infrastructure decisions and investments are undermined through site-specific,
privately initiated,highly speculative development proposals in areas that are not
contemplated for such development in approved official plan documents or in
provincial and municipal infrastructure master plans.As previously discussed,York
Region supports prohibitions on site-specific,private initiated high-speculative Official
Plan amendment applications.These prohibitions would assist York Region in
implementing infrastructure decisions in a cost effective manner.
Page 8 of 9
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -20
-156 -
17.How should appeals of official plans, zoning by-laws, or related amendments,
supporting matters that are provincially-approved be addressed? For
example, should the ability to appeal these types of official plans, zoning by-
laws, or related amendments be removed? Why or why not?
Yes,the ability to appeal conformity amendments,including land budget exercises
that implement Provincial policy,should be removed.Further,York Region
recommends that the Province prepare technical guidance documents and workshops
that provide direction on policy implementation and undertaking the land budget
process.
Page 9 of 9
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -21
-157 -
Attachment 2
The Development Charges Process
1.Does the development charge methodology support the right level of
investment in growth-related infrastructure?
Municipalities pay for the cost of growth-related infrastructure through development
charges (DCs),user fees (e.g.,water rates),the general tax base,and senior level
government grants and subsidies.DCs (as established in the Development Charges Act,
1997)are arguably the most fair and efficient way to raise funds for incremental growth-
related infrastructure,because DCs link those who pay with those who benefit.
However,a number of provisions in the Development Charges Act,1997 are inconsistent
with the growth paying for growth principle and limit the ability of municipalities to use
DCs.This results in the transfer of growth-related costs to either the tax levy or to user
fees.These restrictions include:
Ineligible services
Historic service level cap
The mandatory 10%discount for some services
These restrictions can create a number of distortions with respect to the magnitude of
investments in growth-related infrastructure,as well as the types of infrastructure
investment:
Growth not paying enough for growth;if sufficient funding is not raised from
other sources,service levels may decrease
Other tax-supported capital programs such as state of good repair could
compete with growth projects for capital dollars
The restrictions in the Act may impact the timing of infrastructure investments
Page 1 of 14
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -22
-158 -
The restrictions in the Act provide an adverse incentive for municipalities to
continue supporting existing patterns of growth (e.g.,it is easier to raise funds
for roads rather than transit)in contrast to supporting a more efficient compact
and transit-supportive growth pattern
2.Should the Development Charges Act, 1997 more clearly define how
municipalities determine the growth-related capital costs recoverable from
development charges? For example, should the Act explicitly define what is
meant by benefit to existing development?
A standardized approach to calculate DC-recoverable capital costs could simplify
background studies and reduce the likelihood of OMB challenges.However,a
standardized methodology does not necessarily have to take the form of definitions in
the Act itself.Municipalities may benefit from additional provincial guidance,and
sharing of best practices.
In the case of benefit to existing (BTE),municipalities should have some degree of
flexibility in interpreting what constitutes a BTE,because circumstances may vary
between municipalities and may vary over time as well.Municipal flexibility in defining
BTE allows for DC rates that are fair to both the municipality and the development
community.York Region works with the development community to review the list of
projects to devise different BTE rates for different project within the same service
category in order to correctly capture the individual characteristics of the projects.
Finally,establishing a prescriptive methodology for calculating deductions like benefit to
existing,post period benefit,and level of service cap,for all municipalities and across all
services may be challenging and one size does not fit all.
York Region recommends that any changes to the Act should not limit municipal
flexibility to address local circumstances.The Province may consider including a
statement of principles that municipalities should have regard to when calculating DC-
recoverable capital costs.For example,York Region abides by the following principles
when determining benefit to existing:
Where existing development has an adequate service level that will not be
tangibly increased by an increase in service,no benefit to existing is involved
Where a general existing service problem is to be remedied,a deduction should
be made as part of the DC calculation
The percentage of the cost of the new infrastructure that is attributable to
existing development depends,in part,on how well the needs of existing
development are met at the present
Page 2 of 14
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -23
-159 -
3.Is there enough rigor around the methodology by which municipalities
calculate the maximum allowable development charges?
York Region believes that the Development Charges Act and the related regulation
provide sufficient rigour around the methodology for calculating the maximum
allowable development charges.The current Act sets out detailed rules on what must be
accounted for and deducted in order to arrive at the maximum allowable DC funding
envelope.The Act also sets out an effective system of check and balances,including the
preparation of Background studies,disclosure,management of DC reserve funds,and
appeals.
Going beyond meeting the minimum requirements in the Act,York Region consults
extensively with the public and the development community as it prepares the
Background Study to ensure that the charges are appropriate and that the process is
open and transparent.The consultations not only help the Region gain support from the
public and the development industry prior to the Council adopting the DC Bylaw,but
also serve as a rigorous peer review of the DC charge calculation methodology.
Consultations include:
Holding consultative meetings with the public and representatives from the
development industry prior to the release of the DC background study
Providing the development community with position papers that clearly defined
the methodologies used to calculate infrastructure investment needs,and the
methodologies and assumptions used to attribute cost between development
types to arrive at the proposed DC rate.
Published notification of the passage of DC bylaw on two separate occasions
In addition,the inputs into the Development Charges Background Study and Bylaw are
also generated through rigorous analysis and consultation:
Supporting the capital costs estimates with the Region’s Official Plan,and various
master plans,which draw a clear linkage between growth and infrastructure
needs
Undertaking a thorough and transparent budgeting and master planning process
Based on the extensive level of consultation along with the current system of checks
and balances,York Region is of the opinion that the level of rigor regarding the
development charge methodology is appropriate.
Page 3 of 14
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -24
-160 -
In addition,the rigour of the DC calculation methodology will continue to improve as
municipalities,consultants and developers continue to work together to refine the
methodology.That being said,the current dispute resolution system puts municipalities
and appellants on an uneven playing field.The OMB is prevented by the Act from issuing
a ruling that would benefit a municipality (e.g.,increase DCs payable,remove or reduce
exemptions etc.).Furthermore,the onus is on the municipality to justify a charge.
Consequently,appellants and municipalities bear different levels of accountability and
risks.This uneven playing field may put additional pressures on municipalities.The
Province should consider removing section 16(4)of the Act,which limits the ability of
the OMB to issue rulings that benefit municipalities.The Province should also consider
amending the Act to allow any Board rulings that benefit municipalities to be open to an
appeal for a limited period of time by any property owner that’s impacted by it.
Eligible Services
4.The Development Charges Act, 1997 prevents municipalities from collecting
development charges for specific services, such as hospitals and tourism
facilities. Is the current list of ineligible services appropriate?
York Region is of the opinion that the current list of ineligible services is not appropriate
as it does not adhere to the “growth pays for growth”principle.The result is that
growth related costs associated with ineligible services are funded by the general tax
base.This creates pressure on other investment priorities.
There needs to be a closer match between the municipal responsibility for providing the
growth-related service,and the municipal ability to fund those services.The list of
ineligible services should be updated so that municipalities are able to recover all
growth–related costs from development charges.
The Province should consider making the following services eligible for DC funding:
Solid Waste Management:
Solid Waste Management is an integral part of the Regional services and
environmental protection infrastructure.Development charges are needed to
finance waste management facilities to service a growing population and
increasingly diverse waste material types.
Given the regulatory environment for waste management and the lack of merchant
processing capacity in the province,municipalities need to construct facilities that
transfer,sort,and process waste materials.As service populations increase,so does
Page 4 of 14
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -25
-161 -
waste management infrastructure needs.Capital investments will likely be required
for organics processing,energy from waste capacity and possible expansion of the
Region’s network of public depots/community environmental centres to
accommodate projected growth.
York Region’s proposed 10 year capital outlook projects almost $55 million in waste
management investment to meet the demands of growth.Without access to DCs,
this growth will be funded by the general tax base.
Hospitals:
The need for additional hospital infrastructure is linked to growth.Therefore,
growth should pay for its share of the required local contribution attributable to the
increased service demand.
York Region has a long history of contribution to the capital costs of hospitals.Prior
to 2009,York Region contributed over $110 million for York Region hospital
expansions.These contributions were funded through the tax levy.On November
19,2009,York Region signed an MOU with the York Region hospitals and the
Vaughan Health Campus of Care.This MOU sets aside $12 million per year (indexed
by assessment growth rate)for distribution among the York Region hospitals to
fund capital construction through 2031.In 2013 alone,York Region Council
approved a contribution of $12.7 million towards the construction of four hospitals.
Municipal administrative buildings:
There is a clear link between growth and the need for additional municipal services
and associated municipal staff.York Region has delayed funding facilities to
consolidate locations and accommodate staffing growth.These delays resulted in
additional capital expenditures for escalation costs and leasehold improvements
along with the operating impacts on existing owned facilities.Departments are
currently fragmented in a number of different locations,which has an impact for
the Region.
If the list of ineligible services remains,the Province may consider moving the list from
the legislation to the regulations to allow for greater flexibility to adapt to future
changes in the type of services provided,as well as to changes in the responsibility for
service planning and funding.
Page 5 of 14
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -26
-162 -
5.The Development Charges Act allows municipalities to collect 100% of growth
related capital costs for specific services (water, wastewater). All other
eligible services are subject to a 10% discount. Should the 10% discount be re-
examined?
York Region believes the 10 per cent discount should be re-examined for all services,to
adhere to the growth paying for growth principle.Under the current system,the cost of
the 10 per cent discount falls on the property tax base rather than the new
development it will service.
The 10 per cent mandatory discount was introduced as a cost control measure.
However,there are more effective mechanisms already in place in the Act.These
include the requirement to attribute costs between growth and existing development
(BTE),and the requirement to consider long term operating and capital costs associated
with the growth-capital program.In light of these measures,the requirement to reduce
recoverable cost by a further 10 per cent provides an unnecessary restriction on the
municipalities’ability to raise needed funds.
If the statutory discounts are to remain,there should be clarification as to why some
services are subject to discount while others are not.The inconsistent application of the
10 per cent discount creates some unintended consequences:
Transit and roads cannot be combined together into one service as the Act
prevents funds collected for 100 per cent eligible and 10 per cent discount
services from being combined.This is a barrier to integrated planning for
transportation.
The 10 per cent discount makes it more difficult to raise funds for some services
compared to others,even though municipalities can demonstrate clear linkages
between growth and either category of services.
The province must ensure that hard services continue to remain 100 per cent
recoverable,particularly for those services whose service level is mandated by other
provincial legislation (e.g.,water and wastewater infrastructure).
Page 6 of 14
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -27
-163 -
6.Amendments to the Development Charges Act, 1997 provided Toronto and
York Region an exemption from the 10 year historical service level average
and the 10% discount for growth-related capital costs for the Toronto-York
Subway Extension. Should the targeted amendments enacted for the Toronto-
York Subway Extension be applied to all transit projects in Ontario or only
high-order (e.g. subways, light rail) transit projects?
The targeted amendments enacted for the Toronto-York Subway Extension should be
applied to all transit projects in the Region.
The 10 per cent discount,and 10-year historic service level standards,and to a lesser
degree the 10-year planning horizon,all limit the ability of a municipality to fund transit,
a strategic priority that also supports intensification,complete communities and other
Growth Plan initiatives and targets.
As argued in the previous responses,the 10 per cent discount should be
removed.
The 10-year historic service level standards not only make it more difficult for
municipalities to raise funds for transit,but also constrains municipalities’ability
to promptly respond to changing infrastructure preferences,particularly in fast
growing communities.Transit service levels do not always ramp up gradually
but rather can move up in a step-wise fashion,particularly if they are provided
when certain thresholds are met.
Replacing the backward looking service level cap with forward looking standards
would address many of these concerns.Forward-looking service caps should be
tied to official/capital plan or other planning document,including the Provincial
Growth Plan,to ensure development charges reflect a realistic estimation of
infrastructure needs.
Should municipalities elect to create a combined road and transit service
category,the forward-looking service cap should apply to the entire category
rather than transit only.This will help facilitate integrated system-wide planning
and optimization.Municipalities can also benefit from provincial guidance on
how to establish an integrated service level calculation for all transportation
infrastructures,including roads and transit.
Finally,any changes to the 10-year historic service level standards requirement
should be examined alongside changes to benefit to existing development.
Page 7 of 14
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -28
-164 -
Currently,only the capital costs associated with growth over the next 10 years
can be included in the cost estimates for the purpose of DC calculations.This
restriction should be removed,so that the DC planning horizon for transit could
better match with the long-term benefit associated with transit projects.This
will allow DCs to recover more of the capital costs of over-sizing transit
infrastructure from future developments.
This principle should also be applied to other large infrastructure projects such
as waste management as the most efficient and cost effective practice is to build
a large facility that can service a large portion of the population.
In addition,as noted in the response to the previous question,the current restriction in
the DCA makes it more difficult for municipalities to achieve integrated financial
planning for public transportation (both roads and transit).In many built-up and
intensifying areas,road service levels are going to decline.Public transit and higher
order transit is needed to fill the gap.They are an essential part of the Region’s growth
management strategy.Finally,providing municipalities with more room to raise funds
for transit through DCs would also reduce the uncertainty associated with transit
projects.This will provide a more favorable environment for residential development
and business investments.
GO Transit
Municipalities in the GTHA are required to contribute to GO capital costs,which is a
Provincial responsibility.In 2001,a joint GO Transit DC Background study was
completed.The DC rates for GO Transit were set based on historic service levels.
Currently,municipalities continue to set and charge DCs to fund GO transit
infrastructure based on historic service levels (with updates to reflect indexing).
However,GTA municipalities do not have the ability or responsibility to determine
service levels or capital expenditures for GO Transit.While removing constraints to fund
growth-related transit infrastructure costs could also be considered for GO transit,
municipal DCs may not be the most appropriate funding mechanism.
An option to consider is to treat GO transit DCs in a similar fashion as education DCs
(EDC)1 under the Education Act.The province/Metrolinx should have the responsibility
1 EDC is a tool school boards can use to pay for land for new schools.Before passing an EDC by-law,a
school board is required to prepare a background study,demonstrate school enrollment exceeds capacity,
hold at least one public meeting,and receive written approval of the estimated enrolment projects,and
estimated number of new school sites from the Minister of Education.
Page 8 of 14
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -29
-165 -
to set and justify the DC rates.In this way,the responsibility for capital planning and
service delivery is matched with the ability to raise funds.This would provide greater
accountability and transparency.
Reserve Funds
7.Is the requirement to submit a detailed reserve fund statement sufficient to
determine how municipalities are spending reserves and whether the funds
are being spent on the projects for [which] they were collected?
Municipalities provide a sufficient amount of disclosure with respect to how DC reserve
funds are spent.A reserve fund statement is just one part of the disclosure.To get a
full picture of the Region’s growth capital program,DC reserve fund statements should
be interpreted alongside the DC background study and the capital budget.The
background study lists all growth-related capital projects,and these projects are part of
the negotiations the Region undertakes with the development community.In addition,
projects funded by DC reserves are listed in the Treasurer’s DC Reserve Fund Statement,
as well as the Region’s multi-year capital budget presented to Council each year.
8.Should the development charge reserve funds statements be more broadly
available to the public, for example, requiring mandatory posting on a
municipal website?
York Region has always made this information public through reports to Council,and by
posting them on its website to be accessed free of charge.
9.Should the reporting requirements of the reserve funds be more prescriptive,
if so, how?
No,the existing regulations are sufficiently clear.Sections 12 and 13 of the Ontario
Regulation 82/98 under the DC Act,1997 has provided detailed rules and methods for
the reporting of reserve funds.
Section 37 (Density Bonusing) and Parkland Dedication Questions
10.How can Section 37 and parkland dedication processes be made more
transparent and accountable?
The Region does not use Section 37 agreements or parkland dedication to fund growth-
related infrastructure.
Page 9 of 14
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -30
-166 -
11.How can these tools be used to support the goals and objectives of the
provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe?
Voluntary Payment Questions
12.What roles do voluntary payments outside of the Development Charges Act,
1997 play in developing complete communities?
The Region does not use voluntary payments to fund growth-related infrastructure.
13.Should municipalities have to identify and report on voluntary payments
received from developers?
14.Should voluntary payments be reported in the annual reserve fund statement,
which municipalities are required to submit to the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing?
Growth and Housing Affordability Questions
15.How can the impacts of development charges on housing affordability be
mitigated in the future?
The price of homeownership includes both initial upfront cost as well as ongoing costs
such as user fees,property taxes and household maintenance and financing costs.DCs
are but one of many factors that impact housing affordability.Any growth related costs
not captured by DCs are borne by residents either through the property tax base or
through user fees.Thus the key question is what policy outcomes are desired and what
is fair and equitable in distributing the costs of growth.If the costs of incremental
growth are borne by the general tax base,then the principle of growth pays for growth
would not be adhered to.
Currently,York Regional DCs account for approximately 6 per cent of the median price
of a single family dwelling (see table below).
DC as a %of Single Detached House Price
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013
Regional DC Rate
Median Price *
%
$24,181
$548,990
4.4%
$31,991
$585,990
5.5%
$40,421
$644,900
6.3%
$40,750
$695,990
5.9%
Page 10 of 14
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -31
-167 -
* Year-to-date (June)median price for absorbed single detached home in York Region (CMHC)
In addition to the policy considerations,decisions regarding DC discounts should be
made in the context of prudent fiscal management.Development charges pay for
infrastructure and other amenities that provide tangible benefits to residents and
businesses.DCs are a cheaper way to pay for large infrastructure,because it capitalizes
the cost of infrastructure in home mortgages rather than through municipal debt.
Given York Region’s rapid growth and low vacancy rates,home prices in York Region are
largely market driven.In the current environment,it is unclear whether a DC discount
would actually reduce home prices.Home and land prices are also impacted by
Provincial growth management policies.The Growth Plan may have had the effect of
constraining the supply of land for low-rise housing below market demand,thereby
contributing to an increase in housing prices across the GTA.
Moreover,an increase in property taxes would be needed to fund the DC discount.This
also has an impact on housing affordability.If DCs are discounted so that the existing
taxpayers would bear more of the cost of growth,anti-growth sentiment is likely to
increase.
Municipalities also play a key role in the provision of social housing infrastructure.
Targeted DC reductions can help to support these initiatives.For example,York Region
has a Municipal Housing Facilities (MHF)by-law that provides DC relief through grants
equivalent to DC payable.The Region has the power to provide such grants to both
private and public sector partners.The grants are funded from the social housing
reserve fund.The Region has entered into a number of agreements to-date with non-
profit partners.
Perhaps most importantly,municipalities have a big role to play in maintaining overall
housing affordability by ensuring an adequate supply of housing in a range of types and
locations.This is achieved primarily through land use planning controls.DCs in fact
support this role by funding infrastructure (e.g.,water and wastewater systems)to
create developable land.
16.How can development charges better support economic growth and job
creation in Ontario
DCs fund the vital infrastructure that businesses depend on to thrive.Empirical research
in the UK has highlighted a number of key factors in business location decisions,
Page 11 of 14
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -32
-168 -
including:existing institutions,good transportation links,access to risk and venture
capital,and a life style that may attract knowledge workers 2.The spatial pattern of
office space growth in the GTA confirms this view3.
Development charges are arguably a more efficient way of raising funds for transit
compared to other municipal sources.Bringing transit into the same level of
importance as roads in the DC framework will allow municipalities to better support
economic growth.The availability of DC funding for transit also reduces risks for
developers to build offices.
York Region is undergoing a process of intensification and there is a greater need for
higher order transit to connect where people live and where they work.As residential
growth continues to outpace employment growth in Toronto,an increasing number of
Toronto residents will likely be working in surrounding municipalities4.Transit
investment in York Region helps to complete a GTHA wide network that provides
enhanced mobility options for residents and commuters.There is also a need for higher
order transit to better connect employment lands to each other.
The Development Charges Act,1997,gives municipalities some flexibility to structure
DCs to suite local circumstances,and to achieve local objectives.For example,some
municipalities provide deep DC discounts in downtown areas in order to spur
regeneration.Municipalities can also set area-specific rates to reflect disparity in the
cost of infrastructure services across the municipality.These decisions are made after
considering their policy merit,administrative complexity,and their financial impact.
Maintaining municipality flexibility to make the right decisions at the right time is
crucial.Finally,DCs should be viewed as one part of a suite of tools to help support
economic growth and job creation.
High Density Growth Objectives
17.How can the Development Charges Act, 1997 better support enhanced
intensification and densities to meet both local and provincial objectives?
Currently,restrictions in the Act make it more difficult for municipalities to raise capital
for certain infrastructure that support intensification.Transit is a good example.The
2 HM Treasury Report on Productivity in the UK,November 2001
3 Dobson,I.,Miller,G.,Morton,K.,Shah,Y.,Jattan,C.,and Lamont,K.,Strategic Regional Research,A
Region in Transition,Canadian Urban Institute,January 2013
4 According to the latest Growth Plan population and employment projections,for every person added in
the 905 between 2013 and 2041,0.43 jobs are added,compared to 0.27 jobs in the City of Toronto.
Page 12 of 14
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -33
-169 -
responses provided to the previous questions have already addressed these points in
detail.
In addition,Ontario Regulation 82/98 can restrict the usage of area-rated DCs as a tool
to support intensification.Section 4(4)of the regulation states that “if a development
charge by-law applies to a part of the municipality,the level of service and average level
of service cannot exceed that which would be determined if the by-law applied to the
whole municipality”.This rule can restrict the ability of municipalities with area-specific
charges to recover growth-related costs through DCs,particularly if the differential in
the level of service between areas is high.
DCs are but one financial tool municipalities can use to meet intensification and density
objectives.Property tax policies,user rates,development charges,and regulatory
measures should be examined together,rather than in isolation.The types and relative
mix of tools used should also evolve with time.The province could consider providing
greater guidance on the optimal policy mix (incentive-based and regulatory)to achieve
smart growth objectives as well as municipal fiscal sustainability.
18.How prescriptive should the framework be in mandating tools like area-rating
and marginal cost pricing?
The framework should let municipalities retain the flexibility to structure DCs to suit
their local circumstances -one size does not fit all.However,municipalities can benefit
from the sharing of best practices and latest research.The Province may consider
releasing a best practice guide on marginal cost pricing/area specific rates,particularly
on how they can support intensification and encourage more compact densities.
Currently,the Region employs an average cost methodology (in most cases),in part
because the Region believes it is a confederation of municipalities with shared interests.
Many regional services are delivered using municipal-wide level of service standard
governed by legislation (e.g.,water and wastewater treatment).As such,there is scant
opportunity to differentiate DC rates for a significant share of the charge.In addition,
the technical support required to defend marginal cost charges for complex area-rates
can be difficult to establish and justify.
Area-rated charges could be explored for services that have clear boundary delineation
(e.g.,EMS and police).Area rates could be based on the provincially defined built
boundary,which is delineated based on density and the type of development.
Page 13 of 14
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -34
-170 -
19.What is the best way to offset the development charge incentives related to
densities?
The best way to offset development charges incentives related to densities depends on
the specific tool (i.e.,DCs,Section 37 contribution,Parkland dedication etc.),as well as
local fiscal health,and the development climate.It is very important for municipalities
to maintain the flexibility to make these decisions on their own.
Targeted Regional DC incentives can play a role in supporting intensification.For
example,York Region allows high density residential and office developments to defer
payment of regional DCs.However,the Region does not currently offer DC discounts.
Compared to discounts,other effective incentive measures have less adverse impact on
revenues.For example,municipalities may consider setting DC rates based on some
factor of density (e.g.,sqft.or lot frontages)rather than average occupancy.
Municipalities may also consider charging different DC rates for services whose cost is
particularly sensitive to density.An earlier study conducted for York Region advanced
the case that medium-high density residential development occurring in centres and
corridors could be assigned a lower road DC rate and a higher transit and Toronto York
Subway Extension DC rate than in the case of standard greenfield rates.The differential
would reflect anticipated differences in roads and transit trip generation made possible
as a result of the density differences,and the transportation arrangements involved.
Page 14 of 14
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -35
-171 -
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -36
-172 -
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -37
-173 -
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -38
-174 -
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -39
-175 -
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 16 Page -40
-176 -
DATE:April 19,2016
TO:Members of Council
FROM:Mayor Geoffrey Dawe
RE:Correspondence from MPP Laurie Scott Proposed Bill 158 Human
Trafficking
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the correspondence from MPP Laurie Scott Proposed Bill 158 Human Trafficking be
received;and
THAT Council provide direction.
Town of Aurora
Office of the Mayor
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 17 Page -1
-177 -
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 17 Page -2
-178 -
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 17 Page -3
-179 -
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 17 Page -4
-180 -
MEMORANDUM
DATE:April 19,2016
TO:Members of Council
FROM:Mayor Geoffrey Dawe
RE:Sponsorship Breakdown for the Run or Walk for Southlake Hospital -May 1,2016
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the memorandum regarding Sponsorship Breakdown for the Run or Walk for Southlake
Hospital -May 1,2016 be received.
On March 29,2016 Aurora Town Council approved the following:
THAT the memorandum regarding Sponsorship of Run or Walk for Southlake Hospital be received;
and
THAT Council sponsor the Run or Walk for Southlake through in-kind contributions to the event by
various Town departments in the amount of $7,500,to be funded from the 2016 Council Operating
Contingency account.
As committed,the following is the breakdown of the $7,500.00 funding:
Amount Item
Parks and Recreation Services $5,000 permits for space,staff time,
etc.
Infrastructure and
Environmental Services $1,500 set up and take down
of roadblocks
Contingency $1,000
as this is only the second year
of the event at the SARC,the
group is still working to refine
the total costs
Total $7,500
Town of Aurora
Office of the Mayor
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Item 18 Page -1
-181 -
NOTICE OF MOTION Councillor Michael Thompson
DATE:April 19,2016
TO:Mayor and Members of Council
FROM:Councillor Thompson
RE:Development of an Attraction Strategy for the Hotel Industry
WHEREAS Aurora’s Strategic Plan identifies the establishment of a hotel and/or
convention centre that meets the growing needs of our businesses and residents as a
key objective;and
WHEREAS Aurora’s Cultural Master Plan,Economic Development Action Plan,and
Sport Plan all reference the need for a hotel;and
WHEREAS the Mayor and Members of Council have expressed the importance of
attracting a hotel to Aurora and identified it as a key priority this Term;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THAT the Economic Development
Advisory Committee and staff be directed to develop a strategy and comprehensive
action plan to enhance the Town’s ability to attract and secure a hotel;and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff report back to Council prior to the approval of
the 2017 Budget.
Additional Items for General Committee Meeting
Tuesday,April 19,2016 Notice of Motion (a)Page -1
-182 -