The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda - General Committee - 20200114 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 7 p.m. Council Chambers Aurora Town Hall Public Release January 7, 2020 Town of Aurora General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 7 p.m., Council Chambers Councillor Thompson in the Chair 1. Approval of the Agenda 2. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof 3. Community Presentations (a) Bruce Gorman, Chief Executive Officer, Aurora Public Library Re: Aurora Public Library – Telling Our Stories 4. Delegations 5. Consent Agenda 6. Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Recommended: That the following Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes items, A1 to A2 inclusive, be received: General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Page 2 of 5 A1. Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of December 9, 2019 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of December 9, 2019, be received for information. A2. Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of December 18, 2019 1. That the Finance Advisory Committee meeting minutes of December 18, 2019, be received for information. 7. Consideration of Items Requiring Discussion (Regular Agenda) R1. CMS20-001 – Outdoor Field Development Strategy Presentation to be provided by Steve Langlois, Principal Planner, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants. Recommended: 1. That Report No. CMS20-001 be received; and 2. That the recommendations from Monteith Brown Planning Consultants’ Sports Field Development Strategy be endorsed in principle, subject to Council approval of budgetary implications. R2. OPS19-019 – Hallmark Baseball Diamonds – Additional Funding (Deferred from General Committee meeting of December 3, 2019) Recommended: 1. That Report No. OPS19-019 be received; and 2. That the total approved budget for Capital Project No. 73287 – Hallmark Lands Baseball Diamonds be increased to $3,942,000, representing an increase of $942,200 to be funded from the Parks Development Charges reserve. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Page 3 of 5 R3. PDS20-002 – Stream Management Master Plan and Flood Relief Study Presentation to be provided by consultant Robert Amos, MASc, P.Eng., Fluvial Geomorphologist, Aquafor Beech Limited. Recommended: 1. That Report No. PDS20-002 be received; and 2. That the Stream Management Master Plan and Flood Relief Study dated September 30, 2019, be endorsed in principle, subject to budget approval for the erosion and flood mitigation projects listed herein. R4. PDS20-001 – Development Planning Fees and Charges Update Recommended: 1. That Report No. PDS20-001 be received; and 2. That the recommended updates to the Town’s Development Planning Fees and Charges be endorsed in principle, subject to consultation with the development industry and the public; and 3. That staff be authorized to proceed with consultation with the development industry and the public to obtain input on proposed updates to the Town’s Development Planning Fees and Charges. R5. PDS20-008 – Application for Site Plan Approval Dormer Hill Inc. 14029 Yonge Street File Number: SP-2018-01 Related File Numbers: OPA-2017-02, ZBA-2017-01, SUB- 2017-01 and CDM-2017-01 Recommended: 1. That Report No. PDS20-008 be received; and 2. That Site Plan Application File SP-2018-01 (Dormer Hill Inc.) to permit the development of 27 single-detached dwellings on 27 single-detached lots be approved in principle, subject to the following conditions: General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Page 4 of 5 (a) Execution of the outstanding subdivision agreement for 19T-17A071 (SUB-2017-01); and (b) Resolution of all outstanding comments from internal department and divisions as described herein, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services; and (c) Resolution of all outstanding comments from external agencies including The Regional Municipality of York and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services; and (d) Execution of a site plan agreement; and 3. That, in accordance with By-law No. 6212-19, the Town’s Director of Planning and Development Services be authorized to execute the Site Plan Agreement, including any and all documents and ancillary agreements required to give effect to same. R6. Memorandum from Mayor Mrakas Re: Appointment to the Community Advisory Committee Recommended: 1. That the memorandum regarding Appointment to the Community Advisory Committee be received; and 2. That the Terms of Reference for the Community Advisory Committee be amended to include two representatives from Council; and 3. That Councillor Harold Kim be appointed to the Community Advisory Committee. 8. Notices of Motion (a) Councillor Kim Re: Workplace Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 9. New Business General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Page 5 of 5 10. Closed Session 11. Adjournment Town of Aurora Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Monday, December 9, 2019 Time and Location: 7 p.m., Holland Room, Aurora Town Hall Committee Members: Neil Asselin, Jeff Lanthier, Bob McRoberts (Vice Chair), Hoda Soliman, Councillor Sandra Humfryes, James Hoyes (Aurora Historical Society board member on behalf of John Green) Members Absent: John Green, Matthew Kinsella Other Attendees: Mayor Tom Mrakas (ex-officio), Carlson Tsang, Planner, Linda Bottos, Council/Committee Coordinator The Vice Chair called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. 1. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Hoda Soliman Seconded by Councillor Humfryes That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved. Carried 2. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50. 3. Receipt of the Minutes Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of November 4, 2019 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item A1 Page 1 of 4 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, December 9, 2019 Page 2 of 4 Moved by Neil Asselin Seconded by Councillor Humfryes That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of November 4, 2019, be received for information. Carried 4. Delegations Moved by Councillor Humfryes Seconded by Jeff Lanthier That the delegation of Brian Atkins, Architect, representing the Applicant, regarding Item 1 be added to the agenda. Carried (a) Brian Atkins, Architect, representing the Applicant Re: Item 1 – HAC19-007 – Proposed Consent to Sever and Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report for 15074 Yonge Street Mr. Atkins advised that he has recommended to his client that the property be designated, and he suggested deferring the item until such time that staff have had the opportunity to review details of the recently submitted Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment of the property prepared by the owner’s consultant, Mr. Wayne Morgan, Heritage Planner. Moved by Councillor Humfryes Seconded by Hoda Soliman That the comments of the delegation be received and referred to Item 1. Carried 5. Matters for Consideration General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item A1 Page 2 of 4 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, December 9, 2019 Page 3 of 4 1. HAC19-007 – Proposed Consent to Sever and Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report for 15074 Yonge Street Staff confirmed that no permit applications have been received from the owner and there would be no time limitations to consider relative to a deferral of this item. The Committee expressed a preference to discuss the item once the complete information is available for consideration, including staff’s review and recommendations on the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment of the property. The Committee also requested that a tour of the property be arranged for members of the Committee prior to the April 6, 2020 meeting. Moved by Hoda Soliman Seconded by Jeff Lanthier 1. That Report No. HAC19-007 – Proposed Consent to Sever and Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report for 15074 Yonge Street be deferred to the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting of April 6, 2020. Motion to defer Carried 2. Election of Chair and Vice Chair for Year 2020 of the Heritage Advisory Committee (2018-2022 Term) Moved by Neil Asselin Seconded by Councillor Humfryes 1. That Jeff Lanthier be elected as Chair for Year 2020 of the Heritage Advisory Committee (2018-2022 Term). Carried by acclamation Moved by Neil Asselin Seconded by Councillor Humfryes 2. That Hoda Soliman be elected as Vice Chair for Year 2020 of the Heritage Advisory Committee (2018-2022 Term). Carried by acclamation General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item A1 Page 3 of 4 Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, December 9, 2019 Page 4 of 4 6. Informational Items None 7. Adjournment Moved by Neil Asselin Seconded by Hoda Soliman That the meeting be adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Carried General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item A1 Page 4 of 4 Town of Aurora Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 Time and Location: 5:00 p.m., Holland Room, Aurora Town Hall Committee Members: Councillor Michael Thompson (Chair), Councillor John Gallo, Mayor Tom Mrakas (departed at 6:15 p.m.) Member(s) Absent: None Other Attendees: Keith Taylor, Investment Manager, ONE Investment, Colin Macdonald, Investment Services Manager, Municipal Finance Officers’ Association of Ontario, Doug Nadorozny, Chief Administrative Officer, Rachel Wainwright-van Kessel, Director of Finance, Jason Gaertner, Manager, Financial Management Services, Karen Oreto, Financial Analyst, Laura Sheardown, Financial Analyst, Ishita Soneji, Council/Committee Coordinator Councillor Gallo was re-appointed to the Finance Advisory Committee at the Council meeting of October 22, 2019. The meeting time was changed to 5 p.m. The Chair called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. 1. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Councillor Gallo Seconded by Mayor Mrakas That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved. Carried General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item A2 Page 1 of 4 Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 18, 2019 Page 2 of 4 2. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50. 3. Receipt of the Minutes Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of September 25, 2019 Moved by Mayor Mrakas Seconded by Councillor Gallo That the Finance Advisory Committee meeting minutes of September 25, 2019, be received for information. Carried 4. Delegations None 5. Consideration of Items The Committee consented to consider the items in the following order: Items 3, 2, and 1. 1. Memorandum from Financial Management Advisor Re: Review of Investment Policy Statement under Prudent Investor Regime Staff provided a brief overview of the memorandum and the process in adopting the Prudent Investor Regime thus far noting that the investment policy statement would outline the framework for long-term funds management to be managed by ONE Joint Investment Board (JIB). Mr. Keith Taylor and Mr. Colin Macdonald, representing ONE Investment and Municipal Finance Officers’ Association of Ontario respectively, were present to respond to any questions. The Committee sought clarification on the ONE JIB process in determining the funding strategy and framework, parameters of determining investment General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item A2 Page 2 of 4 Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 18, 2019 Page 3 of 4 specific risk tolerances, asset allocation and potential return on investments, the reporting structure, and inquired about obtaining a legal opinion on Council liability. Staff provided clarifications noting that ONE JIB would determine the funding strategy specific to the Town based on the details provided in the investment policy statement, municipal client questionnaire, and the current financial circumstances communicated to ONE JIB. The Committee requested further information regarding possible asset allocations and best practices, projected return on investments and associated risks, and suggested that in addition to an annual report to Council, a quarterly report to the Finance Advisory Committee be provided as part of the process. Moved by Councillor Gallo Seconded by Mayor Mrakas 1. That the memorandum regarding Review of Investment Policy Statement under Prudent Investor Regime, be received; and 2. That the comments and suggestions regarding the Review of Investment Policy Statement under Prudent Investor Regime be referred to staff for consideration and action as appropriate. Carried 2. Memorandum from Project Management Office Re: Town’s Major Capital Projects Update Staff provided a status update of the Town’s current major capital projects, noting that all projects are on schedule and on budget, and that staff is currently working on delay claims regarding the Armoury project. The Committee inquired about the possibility of sending notifications to residents residing around the fire hall site and requested that the sign on the site be updated upon award of contract and finalization of the new design. Moved by Mayor Mrakas Seconded by Councillor Gallo 1. That the memorandum regarding Town’s Major Capital Projects Update be received for information. Carried General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item A2 Page 3 of 4 Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 18, 2019 Page 4 of 4 3. Distribution and Introduction of Detailed Financial Budget Information Re: Community Services Department Staff noted that Robin McDougall, Director of Community Services would be present at the next meeting to review the detailed budget information for the Community Services department. The Committee requested that 2018 actual and the most recent 2019 forecast amounts and variance explanations be provided at the next meeting for discussion. Moved by Councillor Gallo Seconded by Mayor Mrakas 1. That the detailed financial budget information for community Services Department be received and deferred for discussion and detailed review at the January 21, 2020 meeting of the Finance Advisory Committee. Carried 6. New Business None 7. Adjournment Moved by Councillor Gallo Seconded by Councillor Thompson That the meeting be adjourned at 6:16 p.m. Carried General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item A2 Page 4 of 4 Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. CMS20-001 Subject: Outdoor Field Development Strategy Prepared by: John Firman, Manager, Business Support Department: Community Services Date: January 14, 2020 Recommendation 1.That Report No. CMS20-001 be received; and 2.That the recommendations from Monteith Brown Planning Consultants’ Sports Field Development Strategy be endorsed in principle, subject to Council approval of budgetary implications. Executive Summary This report introduces the completed Outdoor Field Development Strategy (the strategy), as prepared by Monteith Brown Planning Consultants (MBPC). This report includes: •Council discussed the need for an Outdoor Field Development Strategy in 2018 during discussions regarding the development of the Hallmark lands •A detailed scope of work was prepared to ensure the strategy includes appropriate inputs and provides appropriate recommendations for Council’s consideration •MBPC consulted with staff, outdoor sport field user groups and other stakeholders in the development of this strategy •MBPC will be present at the General Committee meeting to present their strategy and answer questions Background Capital project No. 73317 – Outdoor Field Development Strategy received approval in the 2019 Capital Budget, following a report to Council on June 25, 2019. A comprehensive field development strategy is needed to help ensure that the Town is properly positioned to meet the existing and future outdoor sports field needs for the community. This will help maximize opportunities with existing assets and provide informed recommendations for the acquisition/development of new assets. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 1 of 113 January 14, 2020 Page 2 of 6 Report No. CMS20-001 In accordance with the Procurement By-law, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants were engaged to complete the Outdoor Field Development Strategy. MBPC also completed the Parks and Recreation Master Plan in January 2016. Analysis Council discussed the need for an Outdoor Field Development Strategy in 2018 during discussions regarding the development of the Hallmark lands During Council deliberations and discussions with various sport field user groups regarding the development of the Hallmark Lands, Council identified the need for a comprehensive strategy. With conflicting information from user groups and extensive research required to properly develop a strategy, staff recommended an independent consultant be retained to conduct this research and develop a strategy. In addition to existing challenges in meeting community sports field needs, other contributing factors toward the need for a comprehensive strategy include the fact that almost half of all sports fields are owned by third parties, with no guarantee of future availability to the Town. We also know that the 19 fields on the Stronach Group property (Magna fields) will be lost in the not too distant future and will need to be replaced. A detailed scope of work was prepared to ensure the strategy included appropriate inputs and provide appropriate recommendations for Council’s consideration Staff issued an RFP in accordance with the Procurement By-Law, which included a scope of work to ensure that all appropriate inputs were received, including: • Inventory of existing assets • Community user group requirements • Census, statistical and other relevant community data The scope of work also ensured fulsome recommendations were provided as an outcome of the study, including: • Recommendations for re-purposing existing assets • Recommendations for the acquisition/development of new assets • Recommendations for alternative strategies for multi-use assets, rather than one- for-one replacements • Recommendations for the replacement of third party fields that are expected to be lost in the near future General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 2 of 113 January 14, 2020 Page 3 of 6 Report No. CMS20-001 The complete scope of work was presented to Council with report CMS19-016. MBPC was the successful proponent. MBPC consulted with staff, outdoor sport field user groups and other stakeholders in the development of this strategy To maximize community user group and stakeholder input, MBPC invited all major community user groups to complete an online survey and to participate in Stakeholder Focus Group meetings. In addition, one-on-one interviews were schedule with other stakeholders, including school boards and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, and others. Further details and participant lists are included in the strategy document. MBPC will be present at the General Committee meeting to present their strategy and answer questions Although almost half of all Town operated sports fields are on property not owned by the Town, if the Town were to secure land to accommodate all of the field needs identified in this Strategy, it is estimated that up to an additional 32 hectares of parkland would be required. These needs cannot be met strictly by traditional means such as the land development process as greenfield land supplies are dwindling and additional community parks are not anticipated. As a result, sports field development must focus on improving what we have, optimizing our sites, acquiring land, and working in partnership with owners of other large sites. MBPC has identified several strategies for both rectangular fields and ball diamonds, and have prioritized strategies based on the following factors: • Adding capacity; • Addressing high priority needs; • Leveraging community partnerships; • Reducing conflicts and/or creating multi-field complexes; • Replacing facilities that are underused or in poor condition; • Compatibility with surrounding uses; and • Having a reasonable chance to be implement. All strategies proposed by MBPC are subject to further investigation to confirm site feasibility, ability to partner, prioritization of conflicting recommendations, dependency on the implementation of other strategies, etc. The strategies outlined by MBPC are summarized as follows: General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 3 of 113 January 14, 2020 Page 4 of 6 Report No. CMS20-001 Rectangular Fields 1 Improve and re-purpose existing sports fields 1.1 Convert fields to better match dimensions and uses with demands. 1.2 Add lighting to extend play opportunities. 1.3 Improve fields to enhance playability and address areas of demand. 2 Develop new fields and/or permit fields within existing and new parks 2.1 Construct new fields to strengthen the supply of rectangular sports fields. 2.2 Permit more fields in existing parks. 2.3 Consider opportunity-based acquisition for sports field development. 3 Expand partnerships 3.1 Partner with School Boards to permit available school fields. 3.2 Partner with School Boards to improve and/or construct fields. 4 Modify operational practices 4.1 Upon termination of the third-party lease agreement, resume Town- operations of the Aurora Sports Dome and investigate the potential to add air conditioning to maximize usage during the summer months. 4.2 Identify and circulate opportunities amongst affiliated groups for last minute sports field rentals. 4.3 Work with surrounding municipalities to ensure that cross-border sports organizations that serve regional players have coordinated access to fields within and outside of Aurora. Ball Diamonds 1 Improve and re-purpose existing sports fields 1.1 Improve fields to enhance playability and address areas of demand. 2 Develop new fields and/or permit fields within existing and new parks. 2.1 Construct new fields 3 Expand partnerships 3.1 Work with St. Andrew’s College to improve community access to the hardball diamond. 4 Modify operational practices General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 4 of 113 January 14, 2020 Page 5 of 6 Report No. CMS20-001 4.1 Work with surrounding municipalities to ensure that cross-border sports organizations that serve regional players have coordinated access to fields within and outside of Aurora. 4.2 Identify and circulate opportunities amongst affiliated groups for last minute sports field rentals. Advisory Committee Review Staff attended the Community Advisory Committee meeting on October 10, 2019 and presented a project description. Legal Considerations None Financial Implications Any recommendations arising from the Strategy will be included in the appropriate budget process for consideration. Communications Considerations The consultant’s report was developed in conjunction with stakeholder engagement initiated before the Community Engagement Policy was implemented, and would fall into the Involve category. The Involve category of the Community Engagement Framework indicates while Council has the authority to make the decision and implement it, public feedback will be taken into consideration. This report has been posted to the Town website in order to ensure the community has access to the report and accompanying documents. Link to Strategic Plan An Outdoor Field Development Strategy supports the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting an exceptional quality of life for all in its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objective within this goal statement: Objective 4: Encouraging an active and healthy lifestyle General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 5 of 113 January 14, 2020 Page 6 of 6 Report No. CMS20-001 Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council can provide further direction. Conclusions The outdoor field development strategy will serve to inform future recommendations to meet community needs for outdoor sports fields. Attachments Attachment #1 - Outdoor Sport Field Development Strategy Previous Reports CMS19-016 2019 Capital Budget - Outdoor Field Development Strategy Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on December 18, 2019 Departmental Approval Approved for Agenda Robin McDougall Director Community Services Doug N dorozny Chief Administrative Officer General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 6 of 113 ^ƉŽƌƚƐ&ŝĞůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ^ƚƌĂƚĞŐǇ ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϬϭϵ D^ϮϬͲϬϬϭƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚϭ General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 7 of 113 Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 8 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I ii Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. iii 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Primary Drivers ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 2 2. Planning Context ............................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update ................................................................................... 3 2.2 Population and Growth in Aurora ................................................................................................. 4 2.3 General Outdoor Sports Participation and Facility Design Trends ............................................... 6 3. Stakeholder Consultation................................................................................................ 8 3.1 Input from Rectangular Sports Field Users ................................................................................... 9 3.2 Input from Ball Diamond Users ................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Input from Schools and Agencies ................................................................................................ 11 4. Rectangular Sports Field Needs Assessment .................................................................. 12 4.1 Inventory ..................................................................................................................................... 12 4.2 Key Trends ................................................................................................................................... 15 4.3 Usage Profile ............................................................................................................................... 20 4.4 Needs Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 24 5. Ball Diamond Needs Assessment .................................................................................. 26 5.1 Inventory ..................................................................................................................................... 26 5.2 Key Trends ................................................................................................................................... 27 5.3 Usage Profile ............................................................................................................................... 30 5.4 Needs Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 33 6. Sports Field Development Strategies ............................................................................. 35 6.1 Implementation Framework ....................................................................................................... 35 6.2 Focusing on Alternatives to Land Acquisition ............................................................................. 36 6.3 Rectangular Sports Field Development Strategy ........................................................................ 37 6.4 Ball Diamond Development Strategy .......................................................................................... 68 6.5 Summary of Proposed Strategies and Phasing ........................................................................... 79 Appendix A: Stakeholder Survey Results ............................................................................. A-1 Appendix B: Input from Rectangular Sports Field Users ....................................................... B-1 Appendix C: Input from Ball Diamond Users ........................................................................ C-1 Appendix D: Field Dimensions ............................................................................................ D-1 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 9 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I iii Executive Summary Aurora is an active and growing community. Demand for sports fields is rising. Usage data and input from user groups indicate that the Town’s supply of sports fields – including ball diamonds and rectangular fields for sports such as soccer, football, rugby, lacrosse and field hockey – are at or approaching capacity. With the Town’s population projected to increase 22% by 2031, sport fields needs are also expected to increase, although at a slightly slower rate. As Aurora begins to grow inwards and upwards, there will be fewer opportunities for community park development, including sites that are large enough to accommodate sports fields. Increasingly, the Town must explore options for optimizing its field supply and work in partnership with other landowners – such as schools – to meet needs. We must plan ahead, make the most of our assets, and work with others. This Sports Field Development Strategy examines short and long-term needs through research and input from local stakeholders and user groups. Strategies for meeting community needs are proposed, often in partnership with others. It will take a variety of approaches and sustained investment to address community needs. This Strategy uses market-driven provision targets that consider standards in nearby communities, but that reflect Aurora’s specific usage and demand profiles. By linking the target to participation levels, we can monitor trends and estimate long-term needs associated with local growth factors. The Town has made strides, but strategic investment is needed to keep pace with evolving interests. To enhance capacity for soccer and other turf sports, the Town has recently invested in new and improved rectangular fields at locations such as Stewart Burnett Park, Sheppard’s Bush Conservation Area and through partnerships with schools. Efforts are also underway to address growing demand for ball diamonds, as two diamonds are planned for the Hallmark Lands (a site recently purchased by the Town for sport field development). Nearly half of the 60 rectangular fields permitted by the Town are owned by non-municipal entities, such as schools and The Stronach Group (“Magna Fields”). These fields are vital to meeting current and future needs. As the 19 Magna Fields could be removed from service as early as 2022/23, we need to start planning for their eventual replacement so as not to create a disruption in service. Participation in sport is also evolving, with a growing emphasis on competitive sport, year-round training, and high quality facilities. Participation in soccer grew tremendously in the early 2000s, and baseball has been on the rise more recently. Other field sports also capture the interest of many residents, and Aurora’s location in the Greater Toronto Area make it a convenient destination for organizations serving the entire York Region. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 10 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I iv Sports groups are seeking more and higher quality fields. Consultation for this Strategy included stakeholder focus groups, surveys, interviews and written submissions. All local sport field users were provided multiple opportunities to contribute. Several organizations voiced a desire to improve and expand the sports field inventory to address their waiting lists and/or enhance their programs. Groups identified that some Town parks contain multiple types of sports fields (e.g., soccer and baseball), often with overlapping templates that do not allow for simultaneous play. They also suggested that parks or school sites may have the potential for greater use, particularly through the expansion of fields or installation of lighting and/or artificial turf. Among the items most often sought by user groups are artificial and lighted fields, indoor fields for winter use, locations with multiple fields, and barrier-free accessibility. Not only do these features facilitate local needs, they also help groups to attract and retain athletes and support sport tourism. Fields are being used to capacity. Despite declining registration in youth soccer, the demand for rectangular fields remains strong due to increased interest in skill development, adult play, and growth in sports such as football and lacrosse. Different age groups also require different field sizes, adding to the challenges of creating a supply that adequately fits Aurora’s needs. In 2019, the Town’s rectangular sports fields were booked 80% of the time (90% on weekdays and 57% on weekends), while ball diamonds were booked 73% of the time (61% on weekdays and 22% on weekends). These levels are indicative of a system that is being used to capacity, recognizing that some smaller and lower quality fields are not fully utilized. It is important to note that no field can be booked 100% of the time due to rainouts, time limits and scheduling practices, field rest, etc. Usage is greatest on senior/large fields, particularly those with lights and/or artificial turf. More rectangular fields will be required to address growth and the closure of the Magna Fields. Because lit and artificial turf fields offer added capacity, the Town’s supply of 60 rectangular fields are equivalent to 66 unlit fields. Based on a target of one rectangular field (unlit equivalent) per 85 participants, the available supply is currently meeting needs. However, growth-related demands will result in a need for an additional 7 fields by 2031. In addition, it is estimated that approximately 13 fields of varying sizes will be required to offset the loss of the Magna fields. This results in a total need for 20 additional rectangular fields by 2031; approximately two of these should be lit artificial turf fields. Our needs are currently greatest for ball diamonds. The Town permits 18 ball diamonds, all of which are Town-owned. Because lit diamonds (of which there are 10) offer added capacity, the Town’s supply is equivalent to 23 unlit diamonds, the base level of measurement in this Strategy. Based on a target of one ball diamond (unlit equivalent) per 90 participants, the Town currently has a deficit of two ball diamonds (unlit equivalents), increasing to 5 additional diamonds by 2031. The Town is well positioned to address the short-term needs through the development of two diamonds on the Hallmark Lands. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 11 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I v Land acquisition options are extremely limited. If the Town were to secure land to accommodate all of the field needs identified in this Strategy (projecting out to 2031), it is estimated that up to an additional 32 hectares of parkland would be required (20 for rectangular sports fields and 12 for ball diamonds). These needs can not be met strictly by traditional means such as the land development process as greenfield land supplies are dwindling and additional community parks are not anticipated. As a result, sports field development must focus on improving what we have, optimizing our sites, acquiring land, and working in partnership with owners of other large sites. The Town should employ a variety of strategies to enhance and expand the supply. The following strategies have been identified to guide implementation; recommendations and options have been developed for each: Strategy 1: Improve and Re-purpose Existing Sports Fields Strategy 2: Develop New Fields and/or Permit Fields within Existing and New Parks Strategy 3: Expand Partnerships Strategy 4: Modify Operational Practices Recommendations – Rectangular Sports Fields 1.1: Convert fields to better match dimensions and uses with demands. 1.2: Add lighting to extend play opportunities. 1.3: Improve fields to enhance playability and address areas of demand. 2.1: Construct new fields to strengthen the supply of rectangular sports fields. 2.2: Permit more fields in existing parks. 2.3: Consider opportunity-based acquisition for sports field development. 3.1: Partner with School Boards to permit available school fields, most notably the York Region District School Board. This would require the Town to allocate additional operating funding toward field maintenance, in agreement with the respective school boards. 3.2: Partner with School Boards to improve and/or construct fields. 4.3: Upon termination of the third-party lease agreement, resume Town-operations of the Aurora Sports Dome and investigate the potential to add air conditioning to maximize usage during the summer months. Recommendations – Ball Diamonds 1.1: Improve fields to enhance playability and address areas of demand. 2.1: Construct new fields. This would require land acquisition (aside from the Hallmark Lands). 3.1: Work with St. Andrew’s College to improve community access to the hardball diamond. Recommendations – All Sports Fields 4.1: Identify and circulate opportunities amongst affiliated groups for last minute sports field rentals. 4.2: Work with surrounding municipalities to ensure that cross-border sports organizations that serve regional players have coordinated access to fields within and outside of Aurora and that field capacity is properly managed. Consider restricting usage from organizations representing memberships having a high percentage of non-Aurora residents. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 12 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I vi Specific options for addressing sports field needs have been identified and assessed. Several options (e.g., candidate sites) for enhancing the sports field supply have been assessed. A focus has been placed on Town parks and schools, and different options are occasionally considered for the same site (e.g., exclusively used for rectangular fields or ball diamonds). Priority and timing have been assigned to each (see Section 6.4 for a summary). High priority projects are those that: a) Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users, etc.); b) Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields); c) Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school); d) Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or creates multi-field complexes; e) Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition; f) Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (e.g., lighting, parking impacts, etc.); and g) Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.). It is recognized that implementation of some options may be impacted by site size/capacity, ability to accommodate field lighting, other parkland priorities, partnership agreements, funding and community support. The options represent a starting point for further analysis or partner discussions. New options may emerge over time and should be evaluated against the assessment criteria. Nothing in this report should prohibit the Town from continuing to undertake minor maintenance and/or field improvements on an as-needed basis. There are many options for addressing rectangular sports fields needs. The Strategy identifies the potential to increase the supply by up to 37.0 rectangular sports fields (unlit equivalents or ULE) through new fields, access agreements, and enhancements. Not all will be required to meet community needs (20 additional fields are required by 2031), nor are all options mutually exclusive and some enlargements may result in a net loss of fields. Several options are presented to reduce conflicts through field conversions (e.g., Machell Park, etc.), field improvements (e.g., Norm Weller Park, etc.), field development (e.g., small fields in new neighbourhood parks), and expanded partnerships (e.g., facilitating access to YRDSB fields, turf field at Cardinal Carter, etc.). Summary of Rectangular Sports Field Development Strategies Facilitating community access to YRDSB fields may be the Town’s most viable solution to replacing the Magna fields as it could be implemented quickly and most school fields are smaller templates. In General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 13 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I vii addition, the Dr. GW Williams Secondary School site (which is slated for closure in 2023 but is anticipated to remain in YRDSB ownership) presents an excellent opportunity due to its location and size; additional discussions with the school board will be required to explore future options. There are fewer options for addressing ball diamond needs. The Strategy identifies the potential to increase the supply by up to 4.5 ball diamonds (unlit equivalents or ULE), largely through new field development. This is slightly less than the projected need for 5 additional diamonds by 2031. To create larger diamonds, some options would result in a net loss of fields. Options for enhancing the supply of ball diamonds are few. Due to their size and buffer requirements, ball diamonds are hard to fit within many parks. Further, there are no schoolyards or private parks in Aurora that contain ball diamonds, putting the onus for provision solely on the Town. The Hallmark Lands represent the most tangible opportunity to expand the ball diamond inventory, barring additional land acquisition. Options for adding ball diamonds to existing parks without removing well-established and highly utilized park amenities simply do not exist. Although some diamonds can be expanded to accommodate a wider range of users, this will not add to the supply. Furthermore, viable options for accommodating the lit hardball diamond recommended in the Town’s 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan have yet to be identified. Summary of Ball Diamond Development Strategies New approaches and partnerships will be the keys to success. As a best practice, opportunities to develop multi-field sports fields at a single location to accommodate league play and tournaments should be encouraged. Where possible, new sports field development should generally be full-size with goal posts (with consideration given to uprights), and supporting amenities such as lighting, parking, spectator seating, etc. With a limited land base available to construct new sports fields, there will be a need to expand existing partnerships and/or form new partnerships with non-municipal organizations that provide outdoor space. To meet future needs, the Town must build on its past success in providing or accessing outdoor sports fields with partners, such as school boards, St. Andrew’s College, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, and others. Some of these options – particularly those involving artificial turf – present the best opportunity for the Town to address not only soccer needs, but also the growing demand of sports such as football, rugby and lacrosse. Any municipal investment in third-party fields should be accompanied by a suitable agreement that protects the municipal investment and guarantees appropriate community access. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 14 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose Aurora’s outdoor sports fields are vital community assets that accommodate physical activities and promote healthy lifestyles, athletic development, and sport tourism. The provision of outdoor sports fields is currently guided by the Town’s 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update. While the Town has moved forward with the Master Plan’s recommendations, a more detailed strategy is needed to guide the development of sports fields, as well as opportunities to enhance capacity at existing sports fields and re-purpose underutilized sports fields, parks and open spaces. This Sports Field Development Strategy establishes an understanding of local sports field needs through research, an updated needs assessment, and engagement with stakeholders and user groups. The focus of this report is on rectangular sports fields (for activities including soccer, football, rugby, lacrosse and field hockey) and ball diamonds. Although an emphasis is placed on outdoor fields, consideration has been given to the ability of indoor fields in meeting peak demands. Overall, the Sports Field Development Strategy provides insight to better understand user needs and confirms future directions relative to outdoor sports fields. Specific attention is given to short-term needs related to the future of the Magna soccer fields and strategies to identify alternative field locations, as well as ball diamond needs to ensure that there is sufficient field capacity available in Aurora over the next ten years. 1.2 Primary Drivers The need for a Sports Field Development Strategy is being driven by a number of factors. 1. Aurora is an active community, with a large core of residents of all ages interested in field sports. The Town and broader region are also growing, which will lead to increased demand for fields over the long-term. 2. With demand rising, local sport organizations are seeking greater access to fields, placing pressure on existing fields. Despite recent investments in municipal sports fields – and plans for additional capital improvements (e.g., Hallmark lands) – organizations are seeking access to additional prime-time hours. 3. Opportunities to secure land and develop additional fields – particularly full-size fields and multiple fields at one site – are becoming fewer. The high cost of land, coupled with the Town’s location in the greenbelt and lack of large undeveloped parcels, present significant challenges to new sport field construction. Changes to legislation and land use patterns will also make it more Lambert Willson Park General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 15 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 2 difficult for the Town to secure suitable parkland for sports fields through the development process. 4. Local users – particularly soccer clubs – rely heavily on non-municipal fields provided by the school boards, St. Andrew’s College and The Stronach Group (“Magna Fields”). Most notably, the Aurora Youth Soccer Club uses 19 soccer fields on lands leased from The Stronach Group; the club and Town need to plan for the eventual removal of these fields from the inventory as the land is slated for residential development. School closures and openings also offer both challenges and opportunities for field development, though the tightening of provincial budgets poses a threat. 5. Participation in sport is evolving. While the recreational and social aspects of sport remain, the level of competition is rising at all levels. This is leading to greater demand for year-round training opportunities (both outdoor and indoor), typically on the highest quality fields. Participation in soccer grew tremendously in the early 2000s, and baseball has been on the rise more recently. Field lacrosse, football, rugby and other field sports also capture the interest of many residents, and Aurora’s location in the Greater Toronto Area make it a convenient destination for organizations serving the entire York Region. 6. While Aurora has a Parks and Recreation Master Plan that focuses on town-wide needs and priorities, it lacks a comprehensive assessment of sport field opportunities and implementation options; this is the core purpose of this study. For example, there may be opportunities to enhance capacity and access by undertaking improvements to the current inventory, modifying scheduling practices, and/or working with others. 1.3 Methodology The foundation for this Strategy utilized a framework that is based on an understanding of population growth, municipal and non-municipal sports fields inventories, participation trends, and usage. These inputs were supported by stakeholder consultation that included a mixture of focus groups and interviews with local sports groups, and a stakeholder survey. Building upon the Phase One findings, a sports field needs assessment was undertaken to identify current and future needs using a combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses. The findings from the needs assessments inform future provision strategies moving forward. The final phase involved the development of the Sports Field Development Strategy that summarizes all projects tasks, as well as the recommended sports field provision strategy. Phase One: Background Review Phase Two: Needs Assessment Phase Three: Strategy Community Profile Field Inventory and Usage Participation and Design Trends Stakeholder Consultation Needs Assessment Provision Strategy Draft and Final Sports Field Development Strategy General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 16 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 3 2. Planning Context 2.1 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Aurora’s 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update guides major capital decisions relating to the Town’s parks and recreation facilities over a five-year period, with consideration given to influencing factors such as demographics, trends, data, and public input. Table 1 summarizes the recommendations from the Master Plan Update that have relevance to the Sports Field Development Strategy. Table 1: Summary of Key Recommendations from the 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Sports Field Recommendations Status Establish a sports field complex containing a minimum of three lit full-size rectangular fields and supported by appropriate facilities oriented to further the player and/or spectator experience. One of these fields should be designed as a ‘multi-use’ field capable of accommodating field sports beyond soccer. The development of a sports field complex has not yet been completed; however, the Town has expanded the artificial turf field at Sheppard’s Bush Conservation Area to accommodate a variety of sports including soccer, football, and rugby. Construct one outdoor artificial turf field at Stewart Burnett Park, as per current municipal plans, to service a broad range of field sports while providing the Town with flexibility to accommodate future needs. Any additional artificial turf fields beyond this one should be subject to confirmation through municipal business planning exercises as per current practice. In 2018, an artificial turf field for soccer was constructed at Stewart Burnett Park. Continue to work with educational, industrial and other suitable partners to provide rectangular sports fields on non-municipal lands. Any adjustment to the supply of non-municipal fields should be considered and appropriately reconciled by the Town of Aurora using existing and/or future parks, and potentially through field capacity improvements such as lighting and/or artificial turf. The Town continues to work with its partners to provide access to non-Town fields such as those located at St. Maximilian Kolbe CHS and St. Andrew’s College. While it is recognized that access will eventually be lost to the Magna soccer fields, the Town is actively seeking alternative rectangular sports field locations, which will be informed by the findings contained in the Sports Field Development Strategy. Ball Diamond Recommendation Status In consultation with local ball associations, construct one new ball diamond that is designed to be ‘sport- friendly’ and employs a larger design template in order to accommodate use by adult leagues and/or hardball users. The Town of Aurora purchased approximately 5.2 hectares (13 acres) of industrial land from Hallmark Cards in 2015 for the purposes of addressing a shortfall in Community Parkland. Over the past two years, the Town undertook a process that included consultation with stakeholders, usage and participation analysis, and concept design. In 2018, Council approved the development of two lit adult softball diamonds. A design process for the ball diamonds has recently been completed. No action has been taken on addressing the needs of hardball users. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 17 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 4 Summarized below, the 10 Year Capital Investment Plan developed by Town staff and Council and informed by the Master Plan identifies specific projects related to the improvement or development of capital assets. Most projects have been deferred to the Sports Field Development Strategy. Table 2: Planned Outdoor Sports Field Projects, 10 Year Capital Investment Plan (2018) Year Project Description Status 2018 Field renovation to Norm Weller Park On hold, pending Sports Field Development Strategy. 2019/20 Hallmark Lands baseball diamonds Construction Tender closed. Council to review upon receipt of Sports Field Development Strategy. 2020 Field drainage improvements to the diamonds/soccer field at Willson Park On hold, pending Sports Field Development Strategy and further condition assessment. 2020 Hardball Diamond No location identified. Source: 10 Year Capital Investment Plan, 2018 2.2 Population and Growth in Aurora An understanding of Aurora’s demographic makeup and projected population growth is fundamental to ensuring that sports fields are available to respond to community needs. Aurora has grown at a moderate pace over the past two Census periods, though more slowly between the 2011 and 2016 Census when Aurora’s population grew by 4% to 57,219 (including Census undercount).1 Aurora’s Development Charges Background Study contains the Town’s population projections in five- year increments. For 2019, the Town’s population is estimated to be 61,320.2 The Town’s population is estimated to grow by 22%, reaching 74,900 residents by 2031. A growth summary of historical and projected population growth is illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1: Historical and Projected Population Growth Source: Town of Aurora Development Charges Background Study (2019). Includes Census Undercount (3.2%). 1 Census Undercount is 3.2%. 2 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 2019. Development Charges Background Study (Draft). General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 18 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 5 Aurora’s age structure also provides key insights into the potential demand for outdoor sports fields. The focus of this Strategy centres around two age groups – children and youth (ages 5 to 19) and adults (ages 20 to 54) – as these segments account for the majority of sports field users. Over the past two Census periods, both of these age groups experienced marginal levels of decline. Between 2011 and 2016, the population of children and youth dropped by 5%, while adults declined by 1%. Age cohort projections suggest that the proportion of children/youth and adults will decline between 2019 and 2031, although they will increase in total numbers by 10% and 13% respectively. A summary of age cohort projections is illustrated in Table 3. Table 3: Age Cohort Projections Age Group 2016 Census 2019 Estimate* 2031 Estimate* Change (2019-2031) Children and Youth (Age 5-19) 11,651 11,438 12,566 10% Adults (Age 20-54) 27,234 28,783 32,517 13% Total Population 57,219 61,320 74,900 22% Source: Adapted from Environics Analytics *2019 estimate is based on applying 19% (for children and youth) and 47% (for adults) to the total protected population. 2031 estimate is based on applying 17% (for children and youth) and 44% (for adults) to the total projected population. Includes Census Undercount (3.2%). The projections assume that there will be growth among each of these age groups over the foreseeable future. While historical growth records indicated that this has not always been the case, it represents a reasonable scenario for long-term planning. Like many municipalities across the Province, Aurora is an aging community - its median age increased from 39.5 years to 41.5 years between the 2011 and 2016 Census. Another indicator is long-term accommodation planning studies prepared by area school boards, which estimate that student enrollment has plateaued in Aurora and forecast relatively stable enrollment until 2022, followed by a slow decline.3,4 There are other factors that will influence the demand for field sports. Research revealed that there is a softening emphasis on sport participation as there is a broadening interest in a variety of activities, particularly in non-sport opportunities. Coupling competing interests with the increasingly busy lifestyles of Canadians, many people are becoming too busy to participate in recreation and physical activities. Trends also suggest that newcomers and immigrants in the GTA are also less likely to participate in sports and recreation activities due to other priorities such as employment, education, and financial stability. Newcomers and immigrants that do participate in sports and recreation activities may also have a lower interest in participating in traditional North American sports such as baseball. With these factors in mind, it will be prudent to continually monitor population growth (particularly children, youth and adults), together with participation trends in order to plan for the future of field sports. 3 York Region District School Board. (2018). Capital Strategy 2018-2022. 4 York Catholic District School Board. (2019). Long Term Accommodation Plan. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 19 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 6 2.3 General Outdoor Sports Participation and Facility Design Trends Broad trends impacting the provision and planning of sports fields are discussed below. Sports Field Renewal The 2016 Canadian Infrastructure Report Card, which surveyed members of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, found that municipal sports fields across Canada are generally in good condition. While investment in recreation facilities has traditionally been under-funded, pressures have been reduced through recent provincial and federal stimulus programs. The Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program has recently allocated $1.3 Billion in building, expanding or rehabilitating new recreation and sports facilities over a ten-year period.5 With respect to local sports fields, the Town has been diligent in exploring strategies to maximize the use of existing sports fields to accommodate the needs of organizations. In 2018, the Town opened the new artificial turf soccer field at Stewart Burnett Park and in early 2019, the Town expanded the artificial turf field at Sheppard’s Bush Conservation Area into a multi-purpose field that could accommodate field sports such as soccer and football. Barrier-Free Facilities Municipalities have embraced the principles of inclusivity through facility design, which is guided by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) and the Ontario Building Code. Local accessibility is guided by Aurora’s 2014 – 2021 Accessibility Plan. The Town remains committed to removing participant barriers within its recreation facilities (where appropriate) to meet legislative requirements. Multi-Field Facilities Many municipalities have experienced growing pressures for multi-field complexes. There are a number of benefits associated with co-locating several sports facilities on a single site. For example, multi-field sport complexes achieve efficiencies through having common infrastructure such as irrigation, lighting and drainage systems, parking, and washrooms, as well as centralized staff operations for maintenance. There are some multi-field locations examples found throughout Aurora including Magna Field, Sheppard’s Bush, Machell Park, and St. Andrew’s College, though most are not owned by the Town. Sports Tourism and Sport-Friendly Design Sports tourism is an emerging trend in many communities across Ontario, driving the desire for high quality facilities and sport-friendly designs, such as complexes with multiple fields and supporting infrastructure. In order to accommodate tournaments, sport organizations generally desire the use of 5 Infrastructure Canada. (2018). Investing in Canada Infrastructure Plan. Retrieved from https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca Stewart Burnett Park General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 20 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 7 multi-field sites with two to four sports fields, at a minimum, to support simultaneous games. Given that tournament-ready facilities would be used by teams from other communities, establishing a first impression of local facilities is imperative. As a result, tournament facilities must be high quality and be supported by a range of ancillary features that are typically found at multi-field sites such as parking, washrooms, spectator seating, concessions, lighting, fencing, and other desirable amenities that enhance the user experience. Housing tournaments also draws economic spin-offs for restaurants, hotels, and other commercial proprietors, which are key considerations for visiting teams and municipal hosts. Lambert Willson Park is one example of a tournament-ready facility in Aurora. Plans are also underway to build hotels in Aurora, which should enable travel teams to stay locally. Extending Playing Opportunities The Town has made efforts in providing field lighting and artificial turf fields, thereby enhancing its sports field supply and providing extended playing opportunities. As prime-time hours are finite and fields are most in demand during the weekday evenings, lighting sports fields is a common approach that may be employed to extend playing times, programming and improve maintenance efficiencies. In some communities, the provision of lit fields can also be more cost effective compared to acquiring new lands to provide additional unlit fields. Lit artificial turf fields can also provide enhanced playing experiences and respond to increasing demands for year-round play. Given that artificial turf fields are not susceptible to damage during the early spring and late fall and do not have usage restrictions, artificial turf fields can be utilized for extended playing seasons. They can accommodate multiple field activities including soccer, football, lacrosse, rugby, field hockey, ultimate Frisbee, baseball, and others. By contrast, artificial turf fields may not be appropriate for all sport types as users may be subject to higher rates of injury or turf-rash. Increased Focus on Skill Development and Competition Most sport governing bodies in Canada are shifting to a Long-Term Development in Sport and Physical Activity model that emphasizes quality experiences, optimal conditions, inclusion and collaboration. This model identifies the needs of participants at various stages of their development, including training and competition needs and also addresses the appropriate stages for the introduction and refinement of technical, physical, mental and tactical skills. As a result of this and other factors (such as the amalgamation of organizations and changes to residency requirements that allow for greater player movement), competitive development experiences and opportunities are in high demand. The higher the level of play and the greater the focus on athlete development, the more time that is required for practices, games and camps. Many organizations are altering their standards of play in order to offer their registrants more facility time during all seasons. Training academies and other enhanced development experiences are turning soccer and other sports into year-round activities. While this model allows for more time on the field of play, it also coincides with growing demands for indoor turf. Optimist Park General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 21 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 8 3. Stakeholder Consultation This section summarizes the input received from the consultation with Aurora sports field users. This information was critical to establishing a profile of sports field use and potential future demand. Stakeholders were invited to participate in the study in the following ways: 1. Stakeholders were requested to complete an organization-wide questionnaire that examined participation levels, trends, and demand pressures. A summary of survey results can be found in Appendix A. 2. Two stakeholder focus groups were held with Aurora’s major sports field users on September 9, 2019 to introduce the project and the planning process and to collect input on matters relating to participation trends, opportunities to improve existing sports fields, and future needs. A summary of input from rectangular sports field users is located in Appendix B and input from ball diamond users can be found in Appendix C. 3.One-on-one interviews were conducted with key agencies, municipalities, and landholders that help to support and provide sports fields in the community. Table 4 identifies the organizations and stakeholders that participated in the consultation program. All major user groups were invited to attend the session and were circulated the session summary, with an opportunity to provide written feedback. Table 4: Stakeholder Focus Group Participants Stakeholder Focus Group Participants Ball Diamond Users 1. Aurora Diggers Softball Association 2. Aurora King Baseball Association (written submission) 3. Aurora Ladies Softball Association 4. Aurora Mixed Slo-Pitch League 5. Aurora Special Olympics 6. Oak Ridges Co-Ed Recreational Slo-Pitch League 7. Sport Aurora 8. Team Ontario Astros Elite Baseball Club Rectangular Sports Field Users 1. Aurora Barbarians RFC 2. Aurora Soccer Club 3. Aurora Special Olympics 4. Aurora Youth Soccer Club 5. Evolve Elite Lacrosse 6. York Region Lions Football Interview Participants 1. ANB Futbol Academy 2. King Township* 3. Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority 4. St. Andrew’s College 5. York Catholic District School Board 6. York Region District School Board *King Township also spoke on behalf of future facilities planned for Seneca College, which are to be operated by the Township. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 22 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 9 3.1 Input from Rectangular Sports Field Users Key findings from the focus group with rectangular sports field users are highlighted below. 1. Groups generally reported that participation is increasing, particularly in adult soccer, youth football and girls/competitive lacrosse. The majority of groups anticipate that participation will continue to increase over the next five years due to a variety of factors such as the strong popularity of rectangular field sports, local population increase, and greater promotion and raising awareness of sports groups. Participation in youth soccer and rugby is declining, though future growth is anticipated. 2. Parks with multiple fields, artificial turf fields, or 11v11 fields are the most popular locations such as Sheppard’s Bush Soccer Fields, St. Maximilian Kolbe CHS, St. Andrew’s College, Stewart Burnett Park, Fleury Park, Norm Weller Park, Optimist Park, and Highland Park. 3. The growth of organizations is limited by access to rectangular sports fields. Half of groups indicated that more field time is needed to accommodate increasing participation and the desired level of programming. As a result, groups have been required to rent fields outside of Aurora or indoor field time (which is costly during the off-season), as a result. There were requests for additional full-size natural grass fields and artificial turf fields. Some groups regularly use time outside of Aurora due to the regional nature of the organization. 4. Suggestions for specific improvements to rectangular sports field include: a. Replace existing grass fields with artificial turf fields. b. Enhance frequency of field maintenance (cutting and lining). c. Greater coordination between groups and schools to ensure goal netting is installed in advance of games. d. Use/upgrade/develop fields at the former Dr. GW Williams Secondary School. e. Install lights at 11v11 grass fields such as at Machell Park and Norm Weller Park to extend playing periods. f. Provide access to washrooms and change rooms to support elite level competitions. g. Improve deteriorating goal mouths. h. Provide supporting amenities to meet league regulations at key parks, such as multi- field sites, washrooms, change rooms, football/rugby uprights, parking, spectator seating. Scoreboards, audio and visual equipment, and other ancillaries. Suggested locations to provide these amenities include, but not limited to, Sheppard’s Bush Soccer Fields, St. Maximilian Kolbe CHS, and Fleury Park. i. Ability to book fields online (and early in advance). j. Construct a second indoor artificial turf field dome for year-round activities. k. Ensure that indoor artificial turf field domes are equipped with air conditioning to support use during the summer months. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 23 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 10 3.2 Input from Ball Diamond Users Key findings from the focus group with ball diamond users are highlighted below. 1.Participation has been increasing as a result of interest in adult ball. Participation in youth ball is increasing (especially at the competitive level), but at a slower rate. Interest in indoor/dome ball is also growing. The majority of groups anticipate that participation will remain stable over the next five years. This is largely due to factors such as limited diamond time availability and fewer youth participants. 2.Adult ball diamonds are the most popular facilities for groups to play at, including those located at Lambert Willson Park, Stewart Burnett Park, Optimist Park, Norm Weller Park, and Town Park. 3. Many groups indicated that there is a need for more adult ball diamonds to accommodate the growing number of adult players. More early time slots for youth ball were also requested, particularly to accommodate tournaments. 4. Suggestions for specific improvements to ball diamonds include: a. Expand t-ball diamonds at Machell Park and Summit Park to accommodate other forms of baseball. b. Improve the backstop and fencing at Optimist Park. c. Improve the playing surface at senior diamonds such as at Stewart Burnett Park. Suggestions included a smoother infield to outfield transition, weeding, surface grading, improved dug-out security, mound improvements, etc. Positioning the diamond at Stewart Burnett Park as a stadium venue was also suggested, such as more spectator seating, concessions, and controlled access that would potentially accommodate a semi- professional team. d. Improvements to the ball diamonds at Lambert Willson Park including netting, grading, and drainage. e. Multi-diamond tournament facility for adults. It was suggested that the proposed diamonds at the Hallmark lands would satisfy this need. f. Enlarge the ball diamonds at Norm Weller Park and Fleury Park to accommodate new adult playing standards. g. Install lighting at more adult ball diamonds. h. Explore the potential for hybrid fields (e.g., ball diamond overlapping a soccer field) with artificial turf. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 24 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 11 3.3 Input from Schools and Agencies One-on-one interviews were conducted with school boards and agencies that help support the provision of sports fields in Aurora. These discussions underscored the need and interest in fostering and strengthening partnerships to optimize fields and maximize community access where the mandates of the Town and others are in alignment. The Town’s current sports field partnerships with the YCDSB, St. Andrew’s College and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority were all viewed positively. While many of these schools and agencies have lands suitable for sports fields – particularly rectangular sports fields (few schools have ball diamonds) – they require municipal resources to develop and/or improve fields for community use. In cases where this can be achieved for everyone’s benefit, it is a “win-win”. Various opportunities were discussed with the school boards as many local schools have unimproved rectangular fields that could be useful, especially when the Magna Fields become unavailable. For example, with additional municipal resourcing the Town could maintain and permit YRDSB fields, something that the Town currently does with several YCDSB fields. In addition, improving rectangular fields – including adding lights, artificial turf, and/or air-supported domes (where appropriate) – may be options for several secondary school properties; this is a model that has been used successfully in adjacent municipalities. New schools and/or under-utilized school properties (such as Dr. GW Williams Secondary School) also present potential opportunities for constructing fields that could serve both student and public needs, but would require funding from the Town. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 25 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 12 4. Rectangular Sports Field Needs Assessment This section examines rectangular sports field needs, which are informed by inputs such as inventories, trends, and usage. These inputs are also used to validate the input received from the stakeholder consultations. This information forms the building blocks for projecting future needs, taking into account projected population, participation figures and a market-based provision target. The results of the needs assessment were used to formulate facility development strategies and recommendations. 4.1 Inventory Based on facility inventory data provided by the Town, Aurora has access to 60 rectangular sports fields that collectively accommodate a range of field sports including soccer, rugby, football, and lacrosse. This supply is comprised of 31 Town-owned fields and 29 permitted fields located at elementary schools, high schools, and agreements with private owners. Recognizing that lit natural grass and artificial turf fields can accommodate extended play into the evening (thus increasing their capacity), an equivalency factor is applied. Based on the 2015 Parks & Recreation Master Plan Update, each lit natural grass and artificial turf field is assumed to provide an equivalent capacity of 1.5 and 2.5 unlit natural fields during peak season, respectively. With three lit natural grass fields and three artificial turf fields, Aurora has an effective supply of 66 unlit equivalent rectangular fields. Since the 2015 Master Plan Update was completed, two notable changes occurred to the Town’s rectangular field supply. First was the construction of the artificial turf field at Stewart Burnett Park, which has allowed the Town to extend playing periods during the evenings and shoulder seasons. Secondly, the Town expanded the size of the artificial turf field at Sheppard’s Bush to accommodate multi-use sports (e.g., soccer, football, etc.), which resulted in the loss of two 7v7 natural grass fields. In addition to these projects, the Town has been diligent in reconfiguring existing rectangular sports fields to meet the Long-Term Development in Sport and Physical Activity requirements. Within the short term, it is anticipated that the Town will lose the Magna soccer fields. This will require the Town to seek solutions for relocating usage associated with 19 soccer fields, including two 11v11, two 7v7, two 9v9, ten 5v5, and three 3v3 fields. Replacing these 19 fields in their entirety would require a land base equivalent to 7.5 11v11 (full size) fields or approximately 7.0 hectares (plus parking and other amenities). Potential relocation options are considered through this Strategy. Sheppard’s Bush General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 26 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 13 The distribution of rectangular sports fields is illustrated in the figure below. The following tables summarizes the Town’s rectangular sports field inventory by class and by field type (Town-owned and permitted). Figure 2: Distribution of Rectangular Sports Fields Table 5: Class A (Senior) Soccer Fields (Lights, Irrigation, and Drainage) # Name Size # Name Size 1. Fleury Sr. Field 11 v 11 3. Optimist Park 11 v 11 2. Highland Field 11 v 11 Table 6: Class B (Senior) Soccer Fields (Irrigation and Drainage) # Name Size # Name Size 1. Confederation Park Sr. Field 11 v 11 8. Norm Weller Park 11 v 11 2. Craddock Park 11 v 11 9. St. Andrew’s College Sr. #2* 11 v 11 3. École Renaissance H.S. Field* 11 v 11 10. St. Andrew’s College Sr. #3* 11 v 11 4. Lambert Willson Legion Field 11 v 11 11. St. Andrew’s College Sr. #4* 11 v 11 5. Machell Sr. Field 11 v 11 12. St. Andrew’s College Sr. #5* 11 v 11 6. Magna #1 Sr.* 11 v 11 13. Summit Park 11 v 11 7. Magna #2 Sr.* 11 v 11 *Non-municipal rectangular sports field General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 27 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 14 Table 7: Class C (Senior) Soccer Fields # Name Size # Name Size 1. Ada Johnson Park Field 7 v 7 13. Queen's Diamond Jubilee Field 7 v 7 2. Aurora Grove P.S. Field* 7 v 7 14. St. Andrew’s College Field* 7 v 7 3. Confederation Field 7 v 7 15. Sheppard's Bush #1 7 v 7 4. Hamilton Park Field 9 v 9 16. Sheppard's Bush #10 9 v 9 5. Harmon Park Field 7 v 7 17. Sheppard's Bush #2 7 v 7 6. Hickson Park Field 7 v 7 18. Sheppard's Bush #3 7 v 7 7. Holy Spirit P.S. Field* 7 v 7 19. Sheppard's Bush #4 7 v 7 8. Light of Christ P.S. Field* 7 v 7 20. Sheppard's Bush #7 9 v 9 9. Magna #11* 7 v 7 21. Sheppard's Bush #8 7 v 7 10. Magna #12* 7 v 7 22. Sheppard's Bush #9 9 v 9 11. Magna #13* 9 v 9 23. St. Maximilian Kolbe CHS Field* 7 v 7 12. Magna #14* 9 v 9 24. Sunoco Field (Machell Park) 7 v 7 *Non-municipal rectangular sports field. Note: Excludes two 7v7 fields located at Sheppard’s Bush remove in 2018 to accommodate artificial turf field. Table 8: Class D/E (Junior/Minor) Soccer Fields # Name Size # Name Size 1. Magna #1* 5 v 5 10. Magna #10* 5 v 5 2. Magna #2* 5 v 5 11. Magna #15* 3 v 3 3. Magna #3* 5 v 5 12. Magna #16* 3 v 3 4. Magna #4* 5 v 5 13. Magna #17* 3 v 3 5. Magna #5* 5 v 5 14. McMahon #1 3 v 3 6. Magna #6* 5 v 5 15. McMahon #2 3 v 3 7. Magna #7* 5 v 5 16. Town Park #1 3 v 3 8. Magna #8* 5 v 5 17. Town Park #2 3 v 3 9. Magna #9* 5 v 5 *Non-municipal rectangular sports field Table 9: Class F (Senior) Soccer or Multi-Use Fields (Lights, Artificial Turf, Seating, Drainage) # Name Size # Name Size 1. Sheppard's Bush Artificial Turf 11 v 11 3. Stewart Burnett Artificial Turf 11 v 11 2. St. Maximilian Kolbe Artificial Turf 11 v 11 Note: Artificial turf fields at Sheppard’s Bush and St. Maximilian Kolbe are multi-use fields with goal posts and uprights that can accommodate various activities including soccer, football, etc. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 28 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 15 4.2 Key Trends Based on background research as well as an understanding of best practices in similar communities, a number of soccer and sport trends were identified that will influence the provision of fields in Aurora. Participation Outdoor Soccer At the national level, the number of participants registered with the Ontario Soccer Association (OSA) peaked in 2007 with 385,026 participants and has slowly declined each year since. For 2018, the organization reported a total of 287,682 participants, which is a decline of 25% from the 2007 peak (Figure 3). The York Region Soccer Association is Aurora’s regional affiliate, which includes Aurora FC (youth), Aurora Soccer Club (adult), and similar clubs throughout the Region. The regional organization demonstrated a similar participation trend over the past decade. Regional participation peaked in 2011 with 40,509 participants. In 2018, the organization reported a total registration of 30,819 participants, which is a decline of 24% from the 2011 peak. Table 10 summarizes the change in regional soccer participation by age group since the participation peak in 2011. Participation in youth and adult soccer declined by 21% and 34%, respectively. Figure 3: Participation in Provincial and Regional Outdoor Soccer, 2008 – 2018 Source: Ontario Soccer Association AGM Reports. Excludes players in non-OSA organizations such as casual leagues, academies, schools, etc. Table 10: Participation in Regional Soccer by Age Group, 2011 - 2018 York Region Soccer Association 2011 (Peak Participation) 2018 Change Youth Participants 32,572 25,592 -21% Adult Participants 7,937 5,227 -34% Total 40,509 30,819 -17% Source: Ontario Soccer Association AGM Reports. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 29 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 16 The overall decline in participation may be due to a number of factors such as demographic trends and the emergence of non-standard soccer clubs and academies that are not affiliated with the OSA. Despite the declining participation trends reported by the OSA, soccer continues to be the most popular organized sport among Canadian youth. The popularity of the sport is driven by its worldwide appeal, high fitness quotient, and relatively low cost to participate. As a result, soccer fields are in high demand in many municipalities. Other Field Sports While soccer continues to dominate the popularity of field sports in Canada, other organized rectangular sports have experienced varying levels of growth and popularity, including football, lacrosse, field hockey and rugby. A high-level examination of each of these sports is highlighted below. x Football is a sport with cyclical popularity and is generally played by minor age groups under the age of 20, although the sport is popular to follow among adults. Anecdotally, participation in the sport is steady or has grown marginally across different communities. The sport is often challenged by access to well-lit artificial turf fields (or dedicated football fields), as football is traditionally an autumn sport and night falls earlier during this time of year. Seasonal leagues that avoid the high school football season are emerging, which are leading to increased demand throughout the year. Due to the lack of artificial turf fields in some communities, football games are played on natural turf, which tends to result in field damage in high traffic areas, thus limiting field use by other sports. Concerns over head injuries due to the nature of the sport has also been a limiting growth factor, although some community groups are adapting programs to reduce the likelihood of injuries such as non-contact football at the grassroots level. The York Region Lions Football Association is a regional group that has nearly 800 total participants. The organization uses the outdoor field at St. Maximilian Kolbe Catholic High School and the artificial turf field at Sheppard’s Bush. x Field Hockey is a sport that has many similarities to soccer and ice hockey. The sport is primarily played outdoors on a natural grass or artificial turf field, although some groups and programs also offer a more fast-paced version of the game in gymnasiums. Between 2015 and 2018, Field Hockey Ontario reported that participation has declined by 22%, although this does not include non-affiliated groups or school leagues.6 The Dolphins Field Hockey Club is an Aurora-based group that plays at the Aurora Dome, as well as other indoor locations outside of the Town. x Field Lacrosse is considered to be one of North America’s oldest sport and while its popularity has not gained the same level of soccer, it is becoming more popular for children and youth between the ages of 5 and 18.7 Local lacrosse groups include Redbirds, Elite Evolve, and Aurora Masters, which use the fields at Sheppard’s Bush, St Andrew’s College, and St. Maximilian Kolbe Catholic High School. The sport is typically played during the early spring, although elite teams are seeking opportunities throughout the year. 6 Field Hockey Ontario. 2018. Annual General Meeting of Members 2018. Retrieved from https://docs.wixstatic.com 7 The Canadian Business Journal. Canadian Lacrosse Association. Retrieved from http://www.cbj.ca General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 30 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 17 x Rugby participation fluctuates across the Province, with stable participation in communities with strong programs. The rugby season typically begins in May and continues through the summer. The Aurora Barbarians is the local organization that provides rugby to male and female participants of all ages (minor, junior and senior). The organization, which reported a total of 370 players in 2019, plays at St. Maximilian Kolbe Catholic High School in Aurora as well as in Markham. Registration Estimates for Aurora Consultation with rectangular sports field user groups in Aurora revealed that there are currently 6,238 participants, adjusted to 5,609 recognizing that some groups serve a regional membership and regularly use field time outside of Aurora (see table below). Input received through the consultation process found that participation in adult soccer, youth football and girls/competitive lacrosse is growing. It was reported that participation in youth soccer and rugby is declining; however, additional field time for youth soccer is being required to meet program requirements for practices and skill development. Table 11: Summary of Rectangular Sports Field User Group Participation, 2019 Organization Current Registration (TOTAL) Adjusted Registration* (AURORA-BASED - proportional to field rentals) Aurora Barbarians Rugby Football Club 370 240* Aurora FC Youth Soccer Club 3,000 3,000 Aurora Men's Sunday Soccer Group 45 45 Aurora Soccer Club 1,179 1,179 Evolve Elite Lacrosse 350 116* Extreme Goalkeepers Inc. 150 150 Redbirds Lacrosse 220 220 Rising Stars Soccer Academy 85 85 Rovers Soccer 45 45 York Region Lions Football Association 794 529* Total 6,238 5,609 * For groups serving a regional membership and using fields outside of Aurora, their total participation figures have been adjusted to reflect proportionality with field rentals in Aurora. Source: Consultation with local rectangular sports field user groups. Field Design The OSA’s adoption of the Long-Term Development in Sport and Physical Activity model has evolved the delivery of soccer programs. This model focuses on improved coaching, fewer games, more ball time, and skill development, rather than emphasizing scoring and winning. Programming is tailored towards each age group and as a result, new standards have been developed, which includes varying coaching styles, number of players per team, playing time, field size, and other variables. Some of these new standards are having a direct impact on the provision of municipal soccer fields, particularly with respect to the standards in field size and the number of players, as well as reducing the number of players per team. These changes result in an increase in the number of teams and thus, have a direct impact on the demand for field time. Field dimensions are summarized in Appendix D. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 31 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 18 Given that most rectangular fields were designed and constructed prior to these dimensions coming into effect, not all fields meet current specifications. Historically, most municipalities develop their fields as “full/regulation” size, “intermediate/junior” size, and “mini/micro” size. The full field – if designed to FIFA standards – is similar to the 11v11 dimensions and this type of field can generally accommodate smaller field sizes. Using existing line markings with cones and portable nets, one 11v11 field can accommodate eight 3v3 fields, five 5v5 fields, and one 7v7 field. 9v9 fields have been the most challenging field size to provide. Aurora’s sports field classification system categorizes the Town’s rectangular sports fields in six classes. Each class describes the field size, maintenance standard, and level of amenity. Amenities vary by field class but may include lighting, irrigation, drainage, seating, parking, and washroom/change rooms. Indoor Turf Facilities The following are key trends in artificial turf sport participation and facility management that are likely to be affecting local demand. These trends are based on research at the provincial and national levels, supplemented by the consulting team’s experience in jurisdictions across Canada. a) The development of indoor artificial turf facilities is a widespread trend across Canada. These facilities support extended and/or year-round training for competitive athletes of several sports (mainly soccer) and a variety of recreational activities. Indoor soccer appeals to a smaller market segment than the outdoor game, but has the potential to continue to grow in popularity, particularly with trends suggesting strong interest from adult participants and competitive youth groups. b) The way indoor sports field facilities are designed, funded and operated varies widely across Canada. The financial viability of an indoor turf facility is heavily influenced by its size, building model and operating model. For example, these facilities may be: x stand-alone structures or combined with other spaces within a multi-use sports complex; x comprised of individual indoor turf fields that range from small templates (ice pad size) to large templates (regulation FIFA); and x funded/operated by a municipality, not-for-profit group, public institution and/or private sector (sometimes through partnerships involving multiple sectors). c) The demand for turf facilities has been largely driven by an increased emphasis on year-round training, skill development and competition. Provincially, the number of indoor soccer players registered by the OSA has increased by 10% between 2007 and 2018 (compared to a 25% decline in outdoor registration in the same time period). However, provincial indoor soccer registration peaked in 2015 and has since declined 19% by 2018. Regionally, indoor soccer participation peaked in the same year, decreasing by 28% in 2018 (Figure 4). Indoor soccer attracts a smaller segment of the potential market compared to outdoor soccer, but seems to be increasing in popularity, especially among adults – in most communities, demand is constrained by the supply, making it difficult to capture a true understanding of needs. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 32 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 19 Figure 4: Participation in Provincial and Regional Indoor Soccer, 2008 – 2018 Source: Ontario Soccer Association AGM Reports. Excludes players in non-OSA organizations such as casual leagues, academies, schools, etc. d) Adult sports leagues have proven to be a strong revenue generator for turf facilities. As of 2018, 36% of OSA registered indoor soccer participants were adults. The strength of adult soccer can be partially attributed to the aging of youth soccer participants from the 1990s and continuing participation in soccer. e) In many communities, the growth of soccer academies and camps has advanced the popularity of the sport and increased the demand for year-round turf facilities. Academies generally cater to the interests of children and youth players looking to gain increased soccer proficiency with a view to progressing to a higher level of competitive play. Soccer academies can be structured in many ways depending on the needs and market strength in the local community. f) Depending on their design, indoor turf fields can be used for sports such as baseball training, field hockey, football, lacrosse, rugby, ultimate frisbee and other sports or events. Participation in many of these field sports is growing; however, they collectively represent a much smaller market compared to soccer. g) A scan of comparator communities indicates that the average level of provision is one small- sided field (a full-size FIFA field can accommodate four small fields) per 50,000 to 75,000 population (regardless of provider) and that this ratio is changing as the development of turf facilities is outpacing population growth. OSA registration data indicates that the current ratio of outdoor to indoor soccer players is 3 to 1 across the province, which is consistent with registration levels reported by the York Region Soccer Association – which serves Aurora and surrounding areas. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 33 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 20 4.3 Usage Profile Booking data for Aurora’s rectangular sports fields was examined to analyze trends over a three-year period (2017-2019). The data represents the allocation of rectangular sports fields during peak season – June 1 to August 31 for natural grass fields (13 weeks) and June 1 to September 30 for artificial turf fields (17 weeks). For the purposes of this assessment, the sampling period parameters in Table 12 were used. It should be noted that the Highland Field is excluded given that it is exclusively used by the Aurora Soccer Club through a user agreement (the Town will occasionally permit the field from time to time). Table 12: Rectangular Field Sampling Period Lit Rectangular Fields Unlit Rectangular Fields Season Length June 1 – August 31 or 13 weeks (natural grass fields) June 1 – September 30 or 17 weeks (artificial turf fields) Typical Weekday Window 7:00 pm to 11:00 pm 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm Typical Weekend Window 9:00 am to 5:00 pm (Saturday) 9:00 am to 9:00 pm (Sunday) 9:00 am to 5:00 pm (Saturday) 9:00 am to 8:00 pm (Sunday) Typical Prime Time Availability (minus rest periods) 24 hours per week (Class A) 40 hours per week (Class F) 12 hours per week (Class B) 10 hours per week (Class C/D/E) Note: The usage and capacity figures quoted in this analysis should be interpreted with caution as it is not possible to use 100% of available field time due to a variety of factors: x Field resting requirements – particularly for grass rectangular sports fields – generally prohibit fields from being used more than five days per week; these restrictions are in place to maintain safe and high quality playing surfaces; this represents up two days per week (often one weekday and one weekend) in addition to rainouts; x Rainouts and field conditions impact field usage and can change from year to year; x The scheduling practices of community organizations often result in early evening hours, selected evenings and weekends being underutilized; x Although the Town works with groups to maximize rentals, small gaps in bookings and other scheduling nuances can all contribute to residual capacity; and x Field dimensions and amenities strongly influence usage; for example, small fields are predominantly used for children’s sports and are not appropriate for adult play. In 2019, the Town’s rectangular sports fields were booked for a total of 8,054 hours during the sampling period, which is consistent with 2017 bookings. The majority of booked time is during weekdays (6,356 total hours); weekends (1,696 total hours) have fewer bookings, which is common in many usage profiles across Ontario given that players may have other commitments or out-of-town tournaments. This level of bookings translates into a Town-wide usage rate of 80% (90% on weekdays and 57% on weekends). Based on industry practices and the above-noted considerations, these usage levels are generally considered to be fully utilized. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 34 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 21 An examination of 2017-2019 data by field class for the defined sampling period revealed the following findings (Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7). In some cases, usage rates may exceed 100%, which is indicative of bookings outside the typical program period due to high demand. x Class A senior rectangular sports fields (2 fields) were booked for a total of 705 hours in 2019, resulting in a usage rate of 113%. Weekdays had 624 hours booked, yielding a 150% usage rate. Weekends were booked for 81 hours, translating into a usage rate of 39%. x Class B senior rectangular sports fields (13 fields) were booked for a total of 1,649 hours in 2019, translating to a usage rate of 81%. Weekdays were booked at full capacity (100%) with 1,352 hours. More than half of these fields were not booked on the weekend (297 hours), resulting in a usage rate of 44%. x Class C senior rectangular sports fields (24 fields) had a total of 2,400 hours booked for 2019 and a usage rate of 77%. The majority of this time is during the week with 2,100 hours, translating to a usage rate of 84%. The fields have limited bookings on weekends (with nine fields not booked), resulting in 314 hours and a usage rate of 50%. x Class D/E junior/minor rectangular sports fields (17 fields) were booked for a total of 1,597 hours in 2019, resulting in a usage rate of 72%. Weekdays had 1,213 total hours booked and a usage rate of 69%. Weekends had a total of 384 hours booked and a usage rate of 87%. x Class F artificial turf fields (3 fields) were booked for a total of 1,689 hours in 2019, resulting in a usage rate of 83%. Artificial turf field usage has doubled over the past three years by nearly 900 hours, partly due to the development of the turf field at Stewart Burnett Park. Weekdays were fully booked during the typical program period (100%) with 1,070 hours; 619 hours were booked during the weekend, yielding a usage rate of 61%. Figure 5: Summary of Total Rectangular Field Bookings by Field Class, 2017-2019 (June to August Sampling Period) General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 35 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 22 Figure 6: Summary of Weekday Rectangular Field Bookings by Field Class, 2017-2019 (June to August Sampling Period) Figure 7: Summary of Weekend Rectangular Field Bookings by Field Class, 2017-2019 (June to August Sampling Period) The following table shows that in 2019, 30% of usage occurred on Class A/F fields (full size fields with lights and/or turf), despite these fields only accounting for 8% of the inventory. Usage on Class B/C/D/E fields is low, amounting to approximately 105 hours on average during the three-month sampling period in 2019. During this time, the average Class A/F field accommodated 4.5 times as many bookings as the average Class B/C/D/E field. The highest quality grass fields (Class A) receive an acceptable level of use given field maintenance and rest requirements and are unable to accommodate substantially more usage. While there is additional capacity available on Class B/C/D/E fields, demand is substantially lower for these fields as many of them serve a narrower range of users. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 36 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 23 Table 13: Summary of Usage by Field Class (2019) – Rectangular Sports Fields Class A Class B Class C Class D/E Class F (Turf) Total Lights Yes No No No Yes -- Total Fields Available (2019)* 2** 13 24 17 3 59 Percent of Total Inventory 3% 22% 41% 29% 5% 100% Total Bookings (June-Aug or Sept for Turf) 705 hours 1,649 hours 2,415 hours 1,597 hours 1,689 hours 8,054 hours Average Bookings (June-Aug or Sept for Turf) 353 hrs/field 127 hrs/field 101 hrs/field 94 hrs/field 563 hrs/field 137 hrs/field Percent of Total Bookings 9% 20% 30% 20% 21% 100% * Not adjusted to account for unlit equivalents ** Highland Field is excluded given that it is used exclusively by the Aurora Soccer Club under a lease agreement (the City will permit the field occasionally). Table 14 and Table 15 examine 2019 bookings for the 19 Magna Fields and other Class B/C/D/E fields. On average, the Magna Fields were used for a total of 94 hours each between June and August; a similar level of use was experienced across the same field classes in Town parks. Should these fields need to be replaced elsewhere, a total of 1,800 hours of capacity across varying field sizes is required. Most of this usage (82% of hours booked at Magna Fields) is required on weekdays. From a field capacity perspective, accommodating this demand would be a challenge given that Class A/B/F fields are considered to be fully utilized during the weekdays, although there is weekday capacity available at other Class C/D/E fields. Adjustments to the scheduling practices of user groups may also be required to utilize available time during the weekends (times that have historically been difficult to fill). Table 14: Summary of Usage (2019) – Magna Fields Only Class B Class C Class D/E Total Lights No No No -- Total Fields Available (2019) 2 4 13 19 Percent of Total Inventory 11% 21% 68% 100% Total Bookings (June-Aug) 196 376 1,223 1,795 Average Bookings (June-Aug) 98 hrs/field 94 hrs/field 94 hrs/field 94 hrs/field Percent of Total Bookings 11% 21% 68% 100% General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 37 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 24 Table 15: Summary of Class B/C/D/E Field Usage (2019) Weekday Weekend Total Magna Fields All Other Fields Magna Fields All Other Fields Total Fields Available (2019) 19 40 19 40 59 Total Bookings (June-Aug) 1,481 hours 3,183 hours 314 hours 682 hours 5,660 hours Average Bookings (June-Aug) 78 hrs/field 80 hrs/field 17 hrs/field 17 hrs/field 96 hrs/field Percent of Total Bookings 26% 56% 6% 12% 100% 4.4 Needs Assessment A market-based target is the preferred approach to determining current and future rectangular sports field requirements as it is able to reflect accepted standards of play, participation rates, local usage capacity, population growth, and demographic factors. The 2015 Master Plan Update utilized a target of one rectangular sports field per 80 participants. There is merit in adjusting this target to one rectangular sports field per 85 participants (unlit equivalent) due to the following considerations: x Usage is shifting towards more adult play, which allows for more players to be accommodated on fields on a weekly basis due to lesser practice requirements (compared to children/youth). x To accommodate program standards, some of the Town’s fields can be sub-divided into multiple fields to facilitate simultaneous programs. As a result, youth-level organizations are able to accommodate more practices and games on the field during a single field booking. x Although there is growing demand for larger and higher quality fields, there is available capacity within lower quality fields to accommodate additional bookings (subject to market demand). Generally speaking, the Town’s overall field supply matches demand, but will need to increase to meet growing needs over time and the replacement of the Magna fields. There are currently 5,609 participants (adjusted) that regularly use rectangular sports fields in Aurora.8 This includes 4,340 youth and 1,269 adults, which make up 38% and 4% of the Town’s estimated 2019 youth and adult population, respectively. With 66 unlit equivalent fields, the current ratio is one field per 85 participants, matching the provision target (unlit equivalents). Applying these capture rates to the projected 2031 population, it is estimated that there will be a total of 6,202 rectangular sports field users (4,768 youth and 1,434 adults) if capture rates remain consistent. Based on the recommended provision target, there will be need for a total of 73 unlit equivalent fields by 2031, seven more than the current inventory of 66 fields (unlit equivalents) (Table 16). Some of these new and/or reconfigured fields should allow for use by multiple sports, such as soccer, football, rugby and lacrosse. Approximately 20 hectares of land would be required to accommodate these additional fields unless alternatives can be found. 8 Current participation has been proportionally adjusted to recognize the fact that some regional groups regularly book time outside of Aurora. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 38 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 25 Table 16: Projected Rectangular Sports Field Needs, 2019 - 2031 2019 2031 Total Children and Youth Population (Age 5-19) 11,438 12,566 Estimated participants (Based on 38% of the child and youth population) 4,340 4,768 Total Adult Population (Age 20-54) 28,783 32,517 Estimated participants (Based on 4% of the adult population) 1,269 1,434 Total Number of Participants (estimated) 5,609 6,202 Number of Unlit Equivalent Rectangular Sports Fields Required (Based on a target of one field per 85 participants, ULE) 66.0 73.0 Existing Supply of Unlit Equivalent Rectangular Sports Fields (ULE) 66.0 Unlit Equivalent Surplus (Deficit), ULE 0.0 (7.0) Note: ULE = unlit equivalent Recognizing that the Town is expected to lose access to Magna fields, it is anticipated that rectangular sports field needs will increase further. While there are 19 fields at Magna, a number of these are smaller in scale (e.g., 3v3 and 5v5) and are not used to capacity. If they were relocated to another location it is possible that they could be replaced with a smaller number of fields as some capacity exists within the current inventory to accommodate additional bookings at Class C/D/E fields and during the weekends (with some modification to scheduling) and if replacement fields were designed as on larger templates that could be lined and programmed to run multiple games and practices simultaneously. It is estimated that the Town would require approximately 13 unlit equivalent rectangular sports fields of varying sizes to offset the loss of the Magna fields, which could occur as early as 2022/23; a strategic approach is necessary so as not to create a disruption in service. Table 17: Summary of Rectangular Sports Field Needs, 2019 - 2031 Field Demand Current Needs Future Needs (Projected to 2031) Suggested Field Classes Additional Fields to Serve Growth 0 ULE 7 ULE Class F (up to 2) Additional Fields to Replace Magna Fields 0 ULE 13 ULE Class B (3), Class C (4), Class D/E (6) Total 0 ULE 20 ULE Class A (11v11, lit): 0 (0 ULE) Class B (11v11, unlit): 5 (5 ULE) Class C (7v7, 9v9): 4 (4 ULE) Class D/E (3v3, 5v5: 6 (6 ULE) Class F (turf, lit): up to 2 (up to 5 ULE) Note: The sizing/class of fields is subject to change based on project-specific assessments. ULE = unlit equivalent Section 6 contains a number of strategies to meet rectangular field demand, which includes a combination of new field development, improving existing fields, partnering with others and other strategies. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 39 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 26 5. Ball Diamond Needs Assessment This section examines rectangular ball diamond needs, which are informed by inputs such as inventories, trends, and usage. These inputs are also used to validate the input received from the stakeholder consultations. This information forms the building blocks for projecting future needs, taking into account projected population, participation figures and a market-based provision target. The results of the needs assessment were used to formulate facility development strategies and recommendations. 5.1 Inventory The Town permits to 18 ball diamonds, all of which are Town-owned. The supply includes two hardball and 16 softball diamonds. The 2015 Master Plan Update used an equivalency factor of 1.5 unlit ball diamonds for lit diamonds due to their extended capacity, which continues to be used for this Strategy. With 10 lit diamonds (8 unlit diamonds), the Town has an effective supply of 23 unlit equivalent ball diamonds. The distribution of ball diamonds is illustrated in Figure 8. The tables on the following page summarize the Town’s ball diamond inventory. Figure 8: Distribution of Ball Diamonds General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 40 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 27 Table 18: Class A (Senior) Baseball Diamonds (Lights, Irrigation and Drainage) # Name # Name 1. Lambert Willson Diamond #4 2. Stewart Burnett Diamond Table 19: Class A (Senior) Softball Diamonds (Lights, Irrigation and Drainage) # Name # Name 1. Fleury Park Senior Diamond 5. Lambert Willson Diamond #3 2. James Lloyd Senior Diamond 6. Norm Weller Diamond 3. Lambert Willson Diamond #1 7. Optimist Park Diamond 4. Lambert Willson Diamond #2 8. Town Park Diamond Table 20: Class B (Senior) Softball Diamonds # Name 1. Copland Park Table 21: Class C (Minor) Softball Diamonds # Name # Name 1. Confederation #1 5. Machell Diamond 2. Confederation #3 6. Machell T Ball Diamond 3. Elizabeth Hader Diamond 7. Summit Park Diamond 4. James Lloyd T Ball Diamond 5.2 Key Trends Through background research and an understanding of best practices in similar communities, a number of ball diamond trends were identified that will influence the provision of fields in Aurora. Participation Participation in baseball (and related forms such as softball, slo-pitch and hardball) has been on the rise over the past ten years. Participation data collected by Baseball Ontario revealed that there were 14,337 registered participants in 2017, which is an increase of 28% from 2007 (11,244 participants) (Figure 9). General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 41 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 28 Figure 9: Participation in Provincial and Regional Baseball, 2007 - 2017 Source: Baseball Ontario AGM Reports. A similar trend was observed in regional baseball participation. The York Simcoe Baseball Association is Aurora’s regional affiliate for Aurora King Minor Baseball Association. The regional organization reported a membership of 2,211 participants for 2017, which is an increase of 88% compared to 2007. It should be noted that registration reported by Baseball Ontario does not include recreational/house leagues and participants registered in non-affiliated ball groups and as a result, actual participation figures may be greater. At the local level, ball diamond user groups reported a total participation of 3,474 players; adjusted to 2,135 to recognize the fact that some groups serve a regional membership and regularly book time outside of Aurora (Table 22). Input received through the consultation process indicated that participation in the sport is increasing, particularly for adult ball, although many adult groups indicated that registration is currently being capped due to the lack of sufficient diamond time. Participation in youth ball is also increasing (especially at the competitive level), but at a slower rate. Town Park General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 42 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 29 Table 22: Summary of Ball Diamond User Group Participation, 2019 Organization Current Registration (TOTAL) Adjusted Registration (AURORA-BASED - proportional to field rentals) Aurora Diggers Softball 117 117 Aurora King Minor Baseball Association 1,030 773* Aurora Ladies Softball Association 55 55 Aurora Men's Slo-Pitch 310 310 Aurora Mixed Slo-Pitch League 400 400 Oak Ridges Co-Ed Recreational Slo-Pitch League 1,200 180* Seneca College Varsity Baseball 35 35 Team Ontario Astros 84 84 Valhalla Mixed Slo-Pitch League 128 128 York Region Baseball League 115 53* Total 3,474 2,135 *For groups serving a regional membership and using fields outside of Aurora, their total participation figures have been adjusted to reflect proportionality with field rentals in Aurora. Source: Consultation with local rectangular sports field user groups. The renewed interest in baseball is driven by a number of factors such as a greater focus in skill development and grassroots programs to engage children and youth at a young age to participate in sport. The increased popularity of the Toronto Blue Jays is also likely a contributing factor. Since Baseball Canada adopted the Long-Term Development in Sport and Physical Activity model, the organization has focused on developing and honing skills and coaching styles, as well as fostering leadership and organization. Suitable competition formats and facility types are also core components of Baseball Canada’s model. Diamond Design The design of ball diamonds can vary considerably based on site conditions (including proximity of park boundaries and adjacent land uses), infield surface materials, and other specifications. These design guidelines only apply to competition level ball, which is in the minority of usage. According to the Baseball Canada, the current Long-Term Development in Sport and Physical Activity model identifies nine stages of play that are geared towards specific age groups to develop various skill sets. Seven of these playing stages use a specific ball diamond template, which is summarized in Appendix D. Ball diamonds can feature a broad range of supporting amenities to enhance the player experience. The level of amenity at each diamond typically depends upon its intended function. Premier diamonds that may be suitable for competitive play tend to have higher quality clay-based infields with outfield fencing, player and spectator seating, batting cages, washrooms, parking, lighting and more. Town-wide ball diamonds may also feature a limited selection of amenities found at premier diamonds. Lower- order diamonds and those found in neighbourhood parks do not tend to have any amenities at all (aside from backstop fencing) as they typically facilitate lower level community play. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 43 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 30 5.3 Usage Profile Similar to rectangular sports fields, the Town’s ball diamond usage between 2017 and 2019 was analyzed. The following data represents the allocation of ball diamonds during peak season (June to September) using the same parameters as defined during the 2015 master planning process; actual usage may differ. As with rectangular sports fields, the Town is working towards minimizing block booking to reduce instances where diamond time is scheduled but not being used. For the purposes of this assessment, parameters for the sampling period is contained in Table 23. Table 23: Ball Diamond Sampling Period Lit Ball Diamonds Unlit Ball Diamonds Season Length June - August Typical Weekday Window 7:00 pm to 11:00 pm 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm Typical Weekend Window 9:00 am to 5:00 pm (Saturday) 9:00 am to 9:00 pm (Sunday) 9:00 am to 5:00 pm (Saturday) 9:00 am to 8:00 pm (Sunday) Typical Prime Time Availability 40 hours per week 29 hours per week Note: The usage and capacity figures quoted in this analysis should be interpreted with caution as it is not possible to use 100% of available diamond time due to a variety of factors: x Rainouts and field conditions impact field usage and can change from year to year; x The scheduling practices of community organizations often result in early evening hours, selected evenings and weekends being underutilized; x Although the Town works with groups to maximize rentals, small gaps in bookings and other scheduling nuances can all contribute to residual capacity; and x Diamond dimensions and amenities strongly influence usage; for example, small diamonds are predominantly used for children’s sports and are not appropriate for adult play. On a system-wide basis, Aurora’s ball diamonds were booked for a total of 4,611 hours in 2019 during the sampling period, which is an increase of 12% from 2017. This finding is consistent with broader trends and input from local ball organizations that suggest that interest and participation has been increasing over the past couple of years. Similar to rectangular field bookings, the majority of rentals occurred on weekdays (3,324 total hours), with fewer bookings on weekends (1,287 total hours). These bookings translate into a Town-wide usage rate of 73% (61% on weekdays and 22% on weekends). A summary of bookings by ball diamond class is illustrated in Figure 11 and Figure 12. Based on industry practices, these usage levels are generally considered to be fully utilized based on the factors previously described (e.g., rainouts, etc.). Capacity is available at some underutilized Class B and C diamonds, as well as during the weekends; however as with rectangular sports fields, weekend usage is generally not favourable among ball diamond organizations due to other commitments, including out- of-town play for competitive teams. Input received through ball diamond organizations also revealed that some of the Town’s diamond locations receive low levels of use because they do not meet the needs of groups. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 44 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 31 Figure 10: Summary of Total Ball Diamond Bookings by Diamond Class, 2017-2019 (June to August Sampling Period) Figure 11: Summary of Weekday Ball Diamond Bookings by Diamond Class, 2017-2019 (June to August Sampling Period) Figure 12: Summary of Weekend Ball Diamond Bookings by Diamond Class, 2017-2019 (June to August Sampling Period) General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 45 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 32 An examination of 2017-2019 ball diamond allocation data for the defined sampling period revealed the following findings. In some cases, usage rates may exceed 100%, which is indicative of bookings outside the typical program period due to high demand. x Class A senior hardball diamonds (2 diamonds) were booked for a total of 1,231 hours in 2019, resulting in a usage rate of 118%. Weekdays and weekends each had 615 total hours booked and a usage rate of 118%. This level of usage highlights pressure for additional senior hardball diamonds in Aurora. x Class A senior softball diamonds (8 diamonds) were booked for a total of 2,620 hours in 2019, representing a usage rate of 63%. These diamonds were nearly fully utilized during the week with 1,958 total hours booked and a usage rate of 94%; weekend bookings were lower with 662 total hours booked and a usage rate of 32%. x Class B senior (1 diamond) and Class C minor softball diamonds (7 diamonds) generally have low levels of use as they are not suitable for all users. Weekdays had total bookings of 750 hours and weekends had total bookings of 10 hours (usage rates between 19% and 75%). Table 24 shows that in 2019, 84% of usage occurred on Class A diamonds, despite these fields only accounting for 55% of the inventory. Usage on Class B and C diamonds is low, amounting to less than 100 hours on average during the three-month sampling period in 2019. During this time, the average Class A diamond accommodated at least 3 times as many bookings as the average Class B/C diamond. There is additional capacity available on Class B and C diamonds; however, demand is substantially lower for these fields as many of them serve a narrower scope of users. Table 24: Summary of Usage by Field Class (2019) – Ball Diamonds Class A (Hardball) Class A (Softball) Class B Class C Total Lights Yes Yes No No -- Total Diamonds Available (2019)* 2 8 1 7 18 Percent of Total Inventory 11% 44% 6% 39% 100% Total Bookings (June-Aug) 1,231 hours 2,620 hours 72 hours 689 hours 4,611 hours Average Bookings (June-Aug) 616 hrs/field 328 hrs/field 72 hrs/field 98 hrs/field 256 hrs/field Percent of Total Bookings 27% 57% 2% 15% 100% * Not adjusted to account for unlit equivalents General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 46 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 33 5.4 Needs Assessment The Town’s 2015 Master Plan Update used a per capita based target of one ball diamond per 1,000 residents; however, reliable participation data was not available for the 2015 Master Plan update. A participant-based, market-driven target is preferred because it is able to more accurately capture Aurora-specific demand as it considers factors such as standards of play, participation rates, local usage capacity, and market trends. Through the preparation of this Strategy, participation data was collected from the Town’s major ball diamond users, which provides a sufficient basis for using a market-based target. With 23 unlit equivalent diamonds, the Town’s current ratio is one diamond per 98 participants. Communities in the GTA generally utilize a target of one ball diamond per 90 to 100 participants. In light of increasing local participation and pressures for additional diamond time (particularly during the week), it is recommended that the Town adopt a target of one ball diamond per 90 participants. This target suggests that the Town currently has a deficit of two ball diamonds (unlit equivalents; based on 2,255 participants). Participation data indicates that there are currently 2,255 ball participants that can be attributed to Aurora diamonds.9 This includes 974 youth and 1,281 adult players, which translates into a capture rate of 9% and 4% (respectively) of the estimated 2019 youth and adult population. Applying these capture rates to the projected 2031 population suggests that there will be a total of 2,517 players – 1,070 youth and 1,447 adults (assuming that capture and participation rates remain steady). Application of the recommended provision target suggests that there will be a need for 28 total unlit equivalent ball diamonds by 2031. This is five more than the Town’s supply of 23 unlit equivalent diamonds (Table 25). Approximately 12 hectares of land would be required to accommodate these additional diamonds unless alternatives can be found. Table 25: Projected Ball Diamond Needs, 2019 - 2031 2019 2031 Total Children and Youth Population (Age 5-19) 11,438 12,566 Estimated participants (Based on 9% of the child and youth population) 974 1,070 Total Adult Population (Age 20-54) 28,783 32,517 Estimated participants (Based on 4% of the adult population) 1,281 1,447 Total Number of Participants (estimated) 2,255 2,517 Number of Unlit Equivalent Ball Diamonds Required (Based on a target of one field per 90 participants) 25.0 28.0 Existing Supply of Unlit Equivalent Ball Diamonds 23.0 Unlit Equivalent Surplus (Deficit) (2.0) (5.0) Projected ball diamond needs exclude the two adult ball diamonds planned for the Hallmark lands. Note: ULE = unlit equivalent 9 Current participation is adjusted to recognize the fact that some regional groups regularly book time outside of Aurora. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 47 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 34 While the 2015 Master Plan Update recognized the fact that participation in ball diamond sports is increasing, the recommendation to construct one new hardball diamond has not yet been implemented but remains a priority. As a result, pressures have continued to increase for this and other varieties of the sport. Table 26: Summary of Ball Diamond Needs, 2019 - 2031 Field Demand Current Needs Future Needs (2031) Suggested Field Classes Additional Diamonds to Serve Growth 2 ULE 5 ULE Class A (lit hardball): 1 (1.5 ULE) Class A (lit softball): 2 (3.0 ULE) Class B (unlit adult): 1 (1.0 ULE) Class C (unlit junior): 0 Note: The sizing/class of fields is subject to change based on project-specific assessments. ULE = unlit equivalent The following section contains number of strategies to meet ball diamond demand, which includes a combination of new diamond development, improving existing diamonds, partnering with others and other strategies. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 48 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 35 6. Sports Field Development Strategies The needs assessment in Section 4 identified that an additional seven rectangular sports fields (unlit equivalents) will be required by 2031, phased in over time. Factoring in the eventual loss of Magna fields, this need could increase to up to 20 rectangular sports fields (unlit equivalents) of varying sizes, although it is recognized that the majority of Magna fields are smaller in size; timing of replacement fields is currently unknown, but could be as soon as 2022/23. During the same period, the Town will also require up to five additional ball diamonds (unlit equivalents), as noted in Section 5. These sport field needs amount to a substantial shortfall given that the Town is not expected to acquire or develop large quantities of parkland over the foreseeable future. 6.1 Implementation Framework Several high-level strategies to improve public access to improved and new sports fields have been identified based on overall themes and potential approaches. Recommendations and options have been developed for each strategy. The following strategies have been identified to guide implementation: Strategy 1: Improve and Re-purpose Existing Sports Fields Strategy 2: Develop New Fields and/or Permit Fields within Existing and New Parks Strategy 3: Expand Partnerships Strategy 4: Modify Operational Practices Elements of several strategies will be required to enable the Town to respond to community needs over the long-term, although not all recommendations or options may need to be implemented in order to satisfy current and future needs. The timing and cost of the strategies presented will influence implementation – for example, some can be achieved more quickly and at a lower cost than others. It is recommended that the Town regularly monitor field usage and registration to ensure that changes in demand are identified and to inform ongoing planning. Through the establishment of recommendations, various options (e.g., candidate sites) were reviewed to evaluate sports field development opportunities (including a facility fit exercise). The site reviews identified several parks and schools that have the potential to be enhanced to bolster the Town’s sports field supply and meet the needs of user groups; privately-owned sites were not considered as part of this review. An evaluation system was developed in order to assess options and to prioritize implementation. Seven criteria were identified to determine the benefit and practicality of implementation. Strategy Recommendations Options General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 49 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 36 High priority projects are those that: a) Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users, etc.); b) Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields); c) Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school); d) Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or creates multi-field complexes; e) Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition; f) Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (e.g., lighting, parking impacts, etc.); and g) Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.). It is important to note that not all options will be required to meet the needs identified in this report, nor will all options ultimately be viable. The options represent a starting point for further analysis or partner discussions. New options may emerge over time and should be evaluated against the assessment criteria identified above. In addition, recommended strategies exclude minor maintenance and/or improvements such as repairs or upgrades that do not enhance overall field capacity (e.g., re-sodding, drainage, etc.); however, these should continue to be assessed and implemented by the Town on an as-needed basis. Timing and priority have been identified for each option. In many cases, the higher the priority, the sooner the option should be implemented. There are, however, higher priority options that are not likely to be implemented until the long term due to various factors such as timing of park/school development, partnerships that require further coordination, complexity, and funding. The timing and priority identified for each option should only be interpreted as a guide in order to inform planning processes. The approaches may be altered or accelerated to respond to emerging park redevelopment, partnership, and funding opportunities. The priority and timing of the options is organized in the following categories. Timing Priority Short-Term: 2020-2023 Mid-Term: 2024-2027 Long-Term: 2028+ High: meets the majority of the criteria Medium: meets some of the criteria Low: meets few of criteria 6.2 Focusing on Alternatives to Land Acquisition Due to their size and ancillary requirements, sports fields require lands that are large and relatively flat. This is amplified by the objective and efficiency associated with accommodating multiple fields on a single site. Aurora’s 2C lands represent the last remaining greenfield lands of any notable size in the town; the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and Greenbelt Act largely restrict large-scale development beyond these lands. In the future, growth will be focused on intensifying existing neighbourhoods, making park redevelopment and enhancement a priority. No additional community parks (i.e., larger parks typically associated with sports fields) are anticipated to be conveyed through the land development process. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 50 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 37 As a result, sports field development must focus on improving what we have, optimizing our sites, acquiring land, and working in partnership with owners of other large sites. Options for gaining access to new lands may include surplus schools or underutilized/ vacant industrial land, as was the case with Hallmark. These opportunities are few and far between, and Town staff regularly explore and monitor such options. However, due to the constrained land supply and growing market, the cost of land acquisition can be high. If the Town were to secure land to accommodate all of the field needs identified in this Strategy (projecting out to 2031), it is estimated that up to an additional 32 hectares of parkland would be required (20 for rectangular sports fields and 12 for ball diamonds). These amounts of land are simply not available in Aurora, thus other options are required (although some land acquisition may be required to achieve full implementation of this Strategy). In addition to limited land supplies, full implementation of this report may be impacted by other restrictions such as the capacity of sites to accommodate larger fields and fields with lights, competing priorities for parkland, partnership agreements, funding and community support. As a result, the Town will be required to be creative in its approach to meeting the needs of its sports field groups. 6.3 Rectangular Sports Field Development Strategy The four strategies have the combined potential to add up to 37.0 unlit equivalents to the rectangular sports field supply through new fields, access agreements, and enhancements (Figure 13). Not all will be required to meet community needs. The Town is encouraged to validate the options and pursue the highest priority projects, with consideration to project feasibility. The options identified in this section should not be considered exhaustive; additional opportunities may emerge and should be assessed at the appropriate time. Note: Some options are not mutually exclusive as certain parks may be capable of accommodating additional or improved rectangular sports fields at the expense of ball diamonds, or vice versa. Figure 13: Summary of Rectangular Sports Field Development Strategies General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 51 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 38 Strategy 1: Improve and Re-purpose Existing Sports Fields Through the consultation process and site visits with staff, several opportunities to improve the Town’s existing sports fields were identified in order to enhance usage. As some of the Town’s rectangular sports fields are not optimized due to factors such as size and quality, improving these assets is the first step in maximizing the use of existing facilities. The following recommendations and options would increase the Town’s field supply by up to 7.0 unlit equivalents. Each potential option is evaluated further on the following pages. Note: The Town is encouraged to work with sports field organizations to identify and prioritize upgrades and improvements to existing fields in order to improve playing conditions (e.g., turf quality, amenities, etc.). However, upgrading fields (such as adding lights) is not feasible at all locations due to neighbourhood concerns, park capacities, etc. This has been factored into the analysis to the degree possible; however, site-specific investigations and/or public consultation may be required for major upgrades. Recommendation 1.1: Convert fields to better match dimensions and uses with demands. Consider the following options: a. Convert the existing ball diamond at Confederation Park to a 7v7 field. b. Convert the 11v11 field at Craddock Park to a lit artificial turf field. c. Convert the two overlapping ball diamonds at Machell Park to a 9v9 field and construct two 5v5 fields. d. Convert the two 3v3 fields at McMahon Park to one 7v7 field. e. Convert the 11v11 field at Norm Weller Park to a lit artificial turf field. Recommendation 1.2: Add lighting to extend play opportunities. Consider the following options: a. Add lights to the 11v11 field at Machell Park. b. Add lights to the 11v11 Legion Field at Lambert Willson Park. Recommendation 1.3: Improve fields to enhance playability and address areas of demand. Consider the following options: a. Add goal uprights to the 11v11 fields at Confederation Park to accommodate rugby and/or football games and practices. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 52 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 39 1.1a. Confederation Park (Option 1) Proposed Strategy Convert the existing ball diamond at Confederation Park to a 7v7 field Change in Capacity +1.0 unlit equivalent Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Medium-Term 2024-2027 Project Priority Medium Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) No 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) No 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes Yes 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition Yes 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: The existing ball diamond and 11v11 field overlap, causing a conflict. The development of a new 7v7 field would further bolster the site as a multi-field venue. The proposed strategy would require the removal of a ball diamond, which was booked for 104 hours in 2019. An alternate option (Option 2) has been proposed in the Ball Diamond strategies that would convert the existing diamond into a senior adult diamond. The preparation of a site master plan may assist in determining the most appropriate course of action. See also Option 2.3b (adding goal uprights to 11v11 field) Note: Cannot be combined with Ball Diamond Option 1.1a. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 53 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 40 1.1b. Craddock Park Proposed Strategy Convert the 11v11 field at Craddock Park to a lit artificial turf field Change in Capacity +1.5 unlit equivalents Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Long-Term 2028+ Project Priority Low Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) Yes 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) No 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition Yes 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) No 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) No Notes: While the proposed strategy replaces a full- size field that was booked for 64 hours in 2019, an artificial turf field at this location would provide an enhanced level of use. The proposed footprint for the artificial turf field includes provisions for light fixtures and spectator seating. Further investigation would be required to confirm facility fit due to the presence of a floodplain, limited parking opportunity, and proximity to the residential area. Changes to existing vegetation features may also be required. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 54 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 41 1.1c. Machell Park (Option 1) Proposed Strategy Convert the two overlapping ball diamonds at Machell Park to a 9v9 field and construct two 5v5 fields Change in Capacity +3.0 unlit equivalents (loss of 2 ULE Ball diamonds) Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority High Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) Yes 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) No 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes Yes 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition Yes 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: Under this option, two ball diamonds (booked for 150 hours in 2019) with overlapping outfields are proposed to be replaced with a 9v9 field. Two 5v5 fields are also proposed to be constructed, creating a multi-field complex (together with the existing 11v11 field to remain). An alternate option (Option 2) has been proposed in the Ball Diamond strategies that would convert the existing diamonds into a senior adult diamond. The preparation of a site master plan may assist in determining the most appropriate course of action. See also Option 2.2a (adding lights to 11v11 field) Note: Cannot be combined with Ball Diamond Option 1.1c. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 55 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 42 1.1d. McMahon Park Proposed Strategy Convert the two 3v3 fields at McMahon Park to one 7v7 field Change in Capacity -1.0 unlit equivalent Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Long-Term 2028+ Project Priority Low Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) No 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) No 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) No 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition No 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: While replacing two 3v3 fields with one 7v7 field at McMahon Park would result in a net loss of one unlit equivalent field, the larger field size would provide for the field to be used by older age groups. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 56 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 43 1.1e. Norm Weller Park Proposed Strategy Convert the 11v11 field at Norm Weller Park to a lit artificial turf field. Change in Capacity +1.5 unlit equivalent Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority High Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) Yes 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) Yes 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition No 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) No Notes: While the proposed strategy replaces a full- size field that was booked for 127 hours in 2019, an artificial turf field at this location would provide an enhanced level of use. The proposed footprint for the artificial turf field includes provisions for light fixtures and spectator seating. Further investigation may be required to confirm that the appropriate infrastructure services are available in the area. A partnership opportunity may also exist with the adjacent schools. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 57 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 44 1.2a. Machell Park Proposed Strategy Add lights to the 11v11 field at Machell Park Change in Capacity +0.5 unlit equivalent Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Medium-Term 2024-2027 Project Priority Low Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) Yes 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) No 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition No 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) No 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: Further investigation may be required to confirm that the appropriate infrastructure services are available in the area. Concerns over proximity of lighting to the adjacent residential area may require mitigation. See also Option 1.1c (converting ball diamonds to mini fields). General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 58 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 45 1.2b. Lambert Willson Park Proposed Strategy Add lights to the 11v11 Legion Field at Lambert Willson Park Change in Capacity +0.5 unlit equivalent Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority Medium Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) Yes 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) No 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition No 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: Further investigation may be required to confirm that the appropriate infrastructure services are available in the area. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 59 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 46 1.3a. Confederation Park Proposed Strategy Add goal uprights to the 11v11 fields at Confederation Park to accommodate rugby and/or football games and practices. Change in Capacity None Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority Medium Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) No 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) No 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) Yes 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition Yes 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: The addition of goal uprights to the 11v11 fields at Confederation Park would allow rugby and/or football users to utilize the field for games, thereby bolstering usage. At present, these groups can only use the field for practices due to the lack of goal uprights. An alternate option (Option 2) has been proposed in the Ball Diamond strategies that would convert the existing diamond into a senior adult diamond. See also Option 1.1a (converting ball diamond to 7v7 field). Note: Cannot be combined with Ball Diamond Option 1.1a. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 60 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 47 Strategy 2: Develop New Fields and/or Permit Fields within Existing and New Parks A combination of park tours with Town staff and high-level scans of aerial imagery provided insight into potential locations where new rectangular sports fields may be developed, either at existing or new parks. Additional investigation will be required to assess the feasibility of constructing fields at these locations. Full implementation of these recommendations would increase the Town’s supply by up to 8.0 fields (unlit equivalents). Each potential option listed under recommendations 2.1 and 2.2 is evaluated further on the following pages. As a best practice, opportunities to develop multi-field sports fields at a single location to accommodate league play and tournaments should be encouraged. Where possible, new sports field development should generally be full-size with goal posts (with consideration given to uprights), and supporting amenities such as lighting, parking, spectator seating, etc. Recommendation 2.1: Construct new fields to strengthen the supply of rectangular sports fields. Consider the following options: a. Construct one 3v3 field at Chapman Park. b. Construct two 5v5 fields at the future Edward Coltham Park. c. Construct two 5v5 fields at the future park at Hartwell Way and Roth Street. d. Construct two 5v5 fields at Trent Park. Recommendation 2.2: Permit more fields in existing parks. Consider the following options: a. Program the 7v7 field at Lions Park (YRDSB lands). Recommendation 2.3: Consider opportunity-based acquisition for sports field development. Consider the following options: a. Regularly review and respond to opportunities to acquire lands within Aurora that are large enough to construct multiple sports fields in a single location, as well as to accommodate supporting infrastructure and amenities. This may include under-utilized lands, undeveloped lands, surplus schools, etc. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 61 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 48 2.1a. Chapman Park Proposed Strategy Construct one 3v3 field at Chapman Park Change in Capacity +1.0 unlit equivalent Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Medium-Term 2024-2027 Project Priority Medium Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply)Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) No 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) No 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) in poor condition No 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: While this area is currently not programmed, it was historically permitted for soccer. Due to its small size and lack of on-site parking, programming opportunities may be limited. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 62 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 49 2.1b. Edward Coltham Park Proposed Strategy Construct two 5v5 fields at the future Edward Coltham Park Change in Capacity +2.0 unlit equivalents Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority Medium Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) No 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) No 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes Yes 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition No 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: Two 5v5 fields should be considered in the design of the future Edward Coltham Park. Consideration should be given to supporting amenities such as parking, landscape screening, and other features that bolster the site as a sport-friendly venue, while balancing community needs. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 63 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 50 2.1c. Hartwell Way and Roth Street (Future Park) Proposed Strategy Construct two 5v5 fields at a future park at Hartwell Way and Roth Street Change in Capacity +2.0 unlit equivalents Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority Medium Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) No 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) No 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes Yes 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition No 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: Two 5v5 fields should be considered in the design of the future park located at Hartwell Way and Roth Street. Consideration should be given to supporting amenities such as parking, landscape screening, and other features that bolster the site as a sport-friendly venue, while balancing community needs. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 64 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 51 2.1d. Trent Park Proposed Strategy Construct two 5v5 fields at Trent Park Change in Capacity +2.0 unlit equivalents Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Medium-Term 2024-2027 Project Priority Medium Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) No 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) No 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes Yes 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition No 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: High level observations of Trent Park indicated that there is adequate space for two 5v5 fields. This site would be a suitable location for minor games and practices due to the presence of on-site parking and washroom facilities. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 65 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 52 2.2a. Lions Park Proposed Strategy Program the 7v7 field at Lions Park Change in Capacity +1.0 unlit equivalent Site Ownership York Region District School Board Potential Timeframe Medium-Term 2024-2027 Project Priority Medium Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) No 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) Yes 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition No 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: While a one 7v7 field currently exists at Lions Park, it is not programmed. Permitting the field would expand the Town-wide sports field capacity. It is understood that the sports field is located on lands owned by the York Region District School Board. Coordination with the school board may be required to ensure that this field is accessible. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 66 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 53 Strategy 3: Expand Partnerships With a limited land base available to construct new sports fields, there will be a need to expand existing partnerships and/or form new partnerships with non-municipal organizations that provide outdoor space. To meet future needs, the Town must build on its past success in providing or accessing outdoor sports fields with partners, such as school boards, St. Andrew’s College, Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, and others. Some of these options – particularly those involving artificial turf – present the best opportunity for the Town to address not only soccer needs, but also the growing demand of sports such as football, rugby and lacrosse. The following recommendations would increase the Town’s supply by up to 22.0 unlit equivalents. Each potential option is evaluated further on the following pages. Any municipal investment in third-party fields should be accompanied by a suitable agreement that protects the municipal investment and guarantees appropriate community access. Recommendation 3.1: Partner with School Boards to permit available school fields, most notably the York Region District School Board. This would require the Town to allocate additional operating funding toward field maintenance, in agreement with the respective school boards. Note: This option may be a short-term solution to the loss of the Magna fields as it could be implemented quickly and most school fields are smaller templates. Consider the following options (schools with under-utilized rectangular fields): a. Access and improve the 7v7 field at Aurora Montessori School. b. Access and improve the existing 11v11 field at Cardinal Carter Catholic Elementary School (YCDSB) and seek opportunities to convert the field it to lit artificial turf. c. Access and improve the 7v7 field at École Elementaire Catholique Saint-Jean (MonAvenir Catholic School Board). d. Access and improve the 7v7 field at Northern Lights Public School (YRDSB). e. Access and improve the 7v7 field at Our Lady of Grace Catholic School (YCDSB). f. Improve community access to the artificial turf field at St. Andrews College. An opportunity may also exist to add lights to the turf field. Recommendation 3.2: Partner with School Boards to improve and/or construct fields. Consider the following options: a. Construct up to two lit artificial turf fields and one grass fields at the Dr. GW Williams Secondary School (YRDSB). Other field development options may also be considered (e.g., 2 rectangular fields and 1 ball diamond). General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 67 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 54 b. Permit fields at future schools, including: i. The replacement school for Dr. GW Williams Secondary School on Bayview Avenue (YRDSB; anticipated opening in 2023) – one 11v11 field; and ii. The two proposed elementary schools in Northeast Aurora (one YRDSC, one YCDSB; anticipated opening in 2023). c. Permit the 11v11 field at Aurora High School (YRDSB). d. Construct two 7v7 fields at Devins Drive Public School (YRDSB). e. Construct one 5v5 field at St. Joseph Catholic Elementary School (YCDSB). f. Add uprights to École Renaissance High School (MonAvenir Catholic School Board) so that it can be used for rugby games and practices. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 68 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 55 3.1a. Aurora Montessori School Proposed Strategy Work with Aurora Montessori School to access and improve the 7v7 field Change in Capacity +1.0 unlit equivalent Site Ownership Aurora Montessori Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority Medium Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) No 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) Yes 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition Yes 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: A 7v7 field is located at Aurora Montessori School. An opportunity may exist to work with the school to access the sports field – particularly as a partial replacement for Magna fields – potentially through a user or reciprocal agreement. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 69 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 56 3.1b. Cardinal Carter Catholic High School Proposed Strategy Work with the York Catholic District School Board to access and improve the 11v11 field at Cardinal Carter Catholic High School and seek opportunities to convert it to lit artificial turf Change in Capacity +1.0 to 2.5 unlit equivalents Site Ownership York Catholic District School Board Potential Timeframe Medium-Term 2024-2027 Project Priority High Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) Yes 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) Yes 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition Yes 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts)Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: Cardinal Carter Catholic High School would be a good candidate for converting the existing field to lit artificial turf. The school board has expressed interest in this opportunity, as well as the potential to install a dome. Town funding would likely be required. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 70 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 57 3.1c. École Elementaire Catholique Saint-Jean Proposed Strategy Work with the French language school board to access and improve the 7v7 field at École Elementaire Catholique Saint-Jean Change in Capacity +1.0 unlit equivalent Site Ownership Conseil scolaire de district catholique de l'Est ontarien Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority Medium Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) No 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) Yes 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition Yes 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: An opportunity may exist to work with the school to access the sports field – particularly as a partial replacement for Magna fields – potentially through a user or reciprocal agreement. Improvements to the existing sports field may be required in order to accommodate regular permitted use. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 71 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 58 3.1d. Northern Lights Public School Proposed Strategy Work with the York Region District School Board to access and improve the 7v7 soccer field at Northern Lights Public School Change in Capacity +1.0 unlit equivalent Site Ownership York Region District School Board Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority High Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) No 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) Yes 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes Yes 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition Yes 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: An opportunity may exist to work with the school to access the sports field, particularly as a partial replacement for Magna fields. The proposed strategy provides an opportunity to create a multi-field venue given the presence of the adjacent 11v11 field located at Optimist Park. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 72 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 59 3.1e. Our Lady of Grace Catholic School Proposed Strategy Work with the York Catholic District School Board to access and improve the 7v7 soccer field at Our Lady of Grace Catholic School Change in Capacity +1.0 unlit equivalent Site Ownership York Catholic District School Board Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority High Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) No 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) Yes 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes Yes 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition Yes 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: An opportunity may exist to work with the school to access the sports field, particularly as a partial replacement for Magna fields. The proposed strategy provides an opportunity to create a multi-field venue given the presence of the adjacent 7v7 field located at Harmon Park. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 73 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 60 3.1f. St. Andrew’s College Proposed Strategy Work with St. Andrew’s College to improve community access the artificial turf field; an opportunity may also exist to add lights to the turf field Change in Capacity Up to +2.5 unlit equivalents Site Ownership St. Andrew’s College Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority Medium Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) Yes 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) Yes 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition No 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) No Notes: The existing artificial turf field is booked by the College and well used during the school months. Some available capacity exists in the summer; greater coordination with the Town may assist in maximizing community access to this existing field. The field is not lit, though this may present an opportunity for extended use. Concerns over proximity of lighting to the adjacent residential area may require mitigation. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 74 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 61 3.2a. Dr. GW Williams Secondary School Proposed Strategy Work with the York Region District School Board to construct two lit artificial turf fields and one grass field at Dr. GW Williams Secondary School Change in Capacity up to +6.0 unlit equivalents Site Ownership York Region District School Board Potential Timeframe Medium-Term 2024-2027 Project Priority High Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) Yes 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) Yes 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes Yes 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition Yes 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: It is anticipated that this school will close as a secondary school in 2023 (a replacement school is being built on Bayview Avenue), but it will remain in the ownership of YRDSB. Further discussions with the school board will be required to determine the feasibility of field improvements and community access. This site has the potential for up to two lit artificial turf fields and one natural grass field, although other field development options may also be considered (e.g., 2 rectangular fields and 1 ball diamond). The preparation of a site master plan may assist in determining the most appropriate course of action. All options must ensure the availability of sufficient parking, buffering between adjacent land uses, and other supporting amenities. This site has the potential to become a premiere sports complex, strengthening local athletics and sport tournament potential. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 75 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 62 3.2b. Future Elementary and High Schools Proposed Strategy Permit fields at future schools including the replacement of Dr. GW Williams Secondary School on Bayview Avenue and two elementary schools (one YRDSB and one YCDSB) Change in Capacity Up to +3.0 unlit equivalents Site Ownership York Region District School Board and York Catholic District School Board Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority High Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) Yes 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) Yes 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition No 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts)Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: The replacement of Dr. GW Williams Secondary School is expected to open in 2023, which will be located on the northwest corner of Bayview and Borealis Avenue (at left). Due to the size of this site and proximity to residential neighbourhoods, it is not a candidate for lights or artificial turf. The YRDSB and YCDSB are also both slated to build elementary schools in the northeast area of Aurora (2C Lands) during the same year. Once these schools are constructed, the Town is encouraged to permit these fields as they may service as partial replacements for Magna fields. The location of the two future elementary schools in the 2C Lands have not been illustrated. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 76 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 63 3.2c. Aurora High School Proposed Strategy Work with the York Region District School Board to permit the 11v11 field at Aurora High School Change in Capacity +1.0 unlit equivalents Site Ownership York Region District School Board Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority High Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) Yes 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) Yes 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition No 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: The 11v11 field at Aurora High School is a good candidate for increased community use. However, due to its proximity to the adjacent residential area, the location is not suitable for lights. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 77 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 64 3.2d. Devins Drive Public School Proposed Strategy Work with the York Region District School Board to construct two 7v7 fields at Devins Drive Public School Change in Capacity +2.0 unlit equivalents Site Ownership York Region District School Board Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority Medium Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) No 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) Yes 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes Yes 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition No 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: The school currently does not have any sports fields on site. An opportunity may exist to work with the school board to construct two 7v7 fields at this location, particularly as a partial replacement for Magna fields. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 78 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 65 3.2e. St. Joseph Catholic Elementary School Proposed Strategy Work with the York Catholic District School Board to develop one 5v5 field at St. Joseph Catholic Elementary School Change in Capacity +1.0 unlit equivalent Site Ownership York Catholic District School Board Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority Medium Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) No 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) Yes 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition Yes 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: A high level review of the site revealed that there is not currently a soccer field at this school. An opportunity may exist to work with the school to create a 5v5 field to offset the loss of the Magna fields. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 79 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 66 3.2f. École Renaissance High School Proposed Strategy Add uprights to École Renaissance High School (MonAvenir Catholic School Board) so that it can be used for rugby games and practices Change in Capacity None Site Ownership Conseil scolaire de district catholique de l'Est ontarien Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority Medium Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) No 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) Yes 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) Yes 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition Yes 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: The Town currently permits the field located at École Renaissance High School. Additional opportunities may exist to enhance usage by adding goal uprights so that the field can be programmed for rugby/football games. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 80 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 67 Strategy 4: Modify Operational Practices In addition to developing and securing access to rectangular sports fields, there are new approaches that the Town may consider to better utilize its sports field supply through policy and coordinating with others. These options can generally be implemented immediately and thus they are considered to be high priorities. Most of these options apply equally to rectangular sports fields and ball diamonds. Recommendation 4.1: Identify and circulate opportunities amongst affiliated groups for last minute sports field rentals. Recommendation 4.2: Work with surrounding municipalities to ensure that cross-border sports organizations that serve regional players have coordinated access to fields within and outside of Aurora and that field capacity is properly managed. Consider restricting usage from organizations representing memberships having a high percentage of non-Aurora residents. Recommendation 4.3: Upon termination of the third-party lease agreement, resume Town-operations of the Aurora Sports Dome and investigate the potential to add air conditioning to maximize usage during the summer months. Adding air conditioning will add capacity equivalent to 1.0 field during the summer, while assuming operation of the facility will allow the Town to manage and maximize community access. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 81 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 68 6.4 Ball Diamond Development Strategy The following recommendations have the potential to add up to 4.5 unlit equivalents to the Town’s ball diamond supply (Figure 14). The Town is encouraged to validate the options and pursue the highest priority projects, with consideration to project feasibility. The options identified in this section should not be considered exhaustive; additional opportunities may emerge and should be assessed at the appropriate time. Figure 14: Summary of Ball Diamond Development Strategies Strategy 1: Improve and Re-purpose Existing Sports Fields Note: The Town is encouraged to work with ball diamond organizations to identify and prioritize upgrades and improvements to existing ball diamonds in order to improve playing conditions (e.g., infield and outfield quality, amenities, etc.) and facilitate adult play. However, upgrading fields (such as adding lights) is not feasible at all locations due to neighbourhood concerns, park capacities, etc. This has been factored into the analysis to the degree possible; however, site-specific investigations and/or public consultation may be required for major upgrades. Each potential option is evaluated further on the following pages. Recommendation 1.1: Improve fields to enhance playability and address areas of demand. Consider the following options: a. Re-orient and enlarge the existing ball diamond at Confederation Park to a senior diamond to facilitate youth/adult play. b. Enlarge the existing ball diamond at Fleury Park to facilitate youth/adult play. c. Convert the two overlapping ball diamonds at Machell Park to an enlarged senior ball diamond. d. Enlarge the existing ball diamond at Summit Park to facilitate youth/adult play. e. Convert the Stewart Burnett Park ball diamond to a stadium in order to attract an Intercounty Baseball League team. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 82 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 69 1.1a. Confederation Park (Option 2) Proposed Strategy Re-orient and enlarge the existing ball diamond at Confederation Park to a senior diamond to facilitate youth/adult play Change in Capacity Loss of 1.0 ULE rectangular sports field Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Medium-Term 2024-2027 Project Priority Medium Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) No 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) Yes 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) No 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes Yes 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition Yes 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.)Yes Notes: The existing ball diamond and 11v11 field overlap, causing a conflict. The proposed strategy would replace the existing ball diamond and remove an 11v11 field (booked for 60 hours in 2019). An enlarged ball diamond (with a centre field distance of approximately 280 feet) would accommodate additional usage by facilitating youth/adult ball play. The strategy would require repositioning the diamond and would require re-routing the existing pathway. Due to the proximity of surrounding residential area, the field may not be a suitable candidate for lighting. An alternate option (Option 1) has been proposed in the Rectangular Field strategies that would convert the existing diamond into a 7v7 field. The preparation of a site master plan may assist in determining the most appropriate course of action. Note: Cannot be combined with Rectangular Sports Field Option 1.1a or 1.3b. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 83 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 70 1.1b. Fleury Park Proposed Strategy Enlarge the existing ball diamond at Fleury Park to facilitate youth/adult play Change in Capacity None Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Medium-Term 2024-2027 Project Priority Low Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) No 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) Yes 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) No 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition Yes 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: The proposed senior ball diamond is based on a centre field distance of approximately 280 feet. Further investigation may be required to confirm facility fit due to the proximity to the soccer field and woodlot. Some woodlot clearing that may also be required to accommodate an enlarged ball diamond. Due to the proximity of surrounding residential area, the diamond may not be a suitable candidate for lighting. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 84 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 71 1.1c. Machell Park (Option 2) Proposed Strategy Convert the two overlapping ball diamonds at Machell Park to an enlarged senior ball diamond Change in Capacity -1.0 unlit equivalent Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority High Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) No 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) Yes 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) No 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes Yes 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition Yes 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: The park currently contains two overlapping ball diamonds (booked for a total of 150 hours in 2019). Developing an enlarged senior diamond (with a center field distance of approximately 280 feet) provides the potential to accommodate more use through facilitating youth and adult play. Due to the proximity of surrounding residential area, the diamond may not be a suitable candidate for lighting. An alternate option (Option 1) has been proposed in the Rectangular Fields strategies that would convert the existing diamonds into three smaller soccer fields. The preparation of a site master plan may assist in determining the most appropriate course of action. Note: Cannot be combined with Rectangular Sports Field Option 1.1c. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 85 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 72 1.1d. Summit Park Proposed Strategy Enlarge the existing ball diamond at Summit Park to facilitate youth/adult play Change in Capacity None Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Medium-Term 2024-2027 Project Priority Low Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) No 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) Yes 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) No 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition Yes 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) No 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.)Yes Notes: The proposed senior ball diamond is based on a centre field distance of approximately 280 feet. It is recognized that this strategy may result in overlapping fields with the existing soccer field; further assessment would be required. Due to the proximity of surrounding residential area, the diamond may not be a suitable candidate for lighting. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 86 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 73 1.1e. Stewart Burnett Park Proposed Strategy Convert the Stewart Burnett Park ball diamond to a stadium venue in order to attract an Intercounty Baseball League team. Change in Capacity None Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Long-Term 2028+ Project Priority Low Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) No 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) No 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) No 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition No 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) No Notes: A user group requested that the ball diamond be upgraded to a stadium field that could support an Intercounty Baseball League team. This option may include (but not be limited to) more spectator seating, concessions, washrooms, controlled access, etc. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 87 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 74 Strategy 2: Develop New Fields and/or Permit Fields within Existing and New Parks Due to their size and buffering requirements, there are few options for developing new ball diamonds and all available diamonds in Town parks are currently permitted. Full implementation of these recommendations would increase the Town’s supply by up to 4.5 ball diamonds (unlit equivalents). The options below are evaluated further on the following pages. Recommendation 2.1: Construct new fields. This would require land acquisition (aside from the Hallmark Lands). Consider the following options: a. Construct two lit ball diamonds at Hallmark Lands. b. Select a location for the development of a lit hardball diamond as recommended in the 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 88 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 75 2.1a. Hallmark Lands Proposed Strategy Construct two lit ball diamonds at Hallmark Lands Change in Capacity 3.0 unlit equivalents Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority High Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) Yes 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) No 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes Yes 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition No 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) Yes Notes: Two lit senior ball diamonds are planned to be constructed at Hallmark Lands. Senior ball diamonds are based on a centre field distance of approximately 280 feet. Based on a high level review of the site, there should be sufficient space for supporting amenities including, but not limited to, parking, washrooms and change rooms, spectator seating, concession, and ancillary open space. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 89 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 76 2.1b. Future Park, Acquisition or Partnership (Location TBD) Proposed Strategy Select a location for the development of a lit hardball diamond. Change in Capacity +1.5 unlit equivalents Site Ownership Town of Aurora Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority High Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) Yes 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) - 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes - 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition - 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) - 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) - Site To be determined Notes: The Town’s 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan recommended that a location be selected to construct a lit hardball diamond. This may be located at a future park, require land acquisition or partnership, or potentially be achieved through converting an existing softball diamond to hardball. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 90 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 77 Strategy 3: Expand Partnerships Most schools in Aurora do not have ball diamonds within their inventory, thus the options for gaining access to non-municipal ball diamonds are limited. Recommendation 3.1: Work with St. Andrew’s College to improve community access to the hardball diamond. 3.1. St. Andrew’s College Proposed Strategy Work with St. Andrew’s College to improve community access the hardball diamond Change in Capacity Up to +1.0 unlit equivalent Site Ownership St. Andrew’s College Potential Timeframe Short-Term 2020-2023 Project Priority Medium Priority Project Evaluation Criteria 1. Add capacity (e.g., lights, turf, new supply, accommodate additional users) Yes 2. Address a high priority need (e.g., large fields) Yes 3. Leverage a community partnership (e.g., school) Yes 4. Reduce conflicts (e.g., overlapping fields) and/or create multi-field complexes No 5. Replace a facility(ies) that is underused or in poor condition No 6. Appear to be compatible with the surrounding uses (lighting, parking impacts) Yes 7. Have a reasonable chance of being implemented (e.g., cost, approvals, etc.) No Notes: This diamond is maintained and permitted by the College. Weekend use of this diamond is currently limited due to the lack of maintenance staff. There may be potential for further community use (up to +1.0 unlit equivalent) if additional resources were available. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 91 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 78 Strategy 4: Modify Operational Practices In addition to developing and securing access to ball diamonds, there are new approaches that the Town may consider to better utilize its ball diamond supply through policy and coordinating with others. These options can generally be implemented immediately and thus they are considered to be high priorities. These options apply equally to ball diamonds and rectangular sports fields. Recommendation 4.1: Identify and circulate opportunities amongst affiliated groups for last minute sports field rentals. Recommendation 4.2: Work with surrounding municipalities to ensure that cross-border sports organizations that serve regional players have coordinated access to fields within and outside of Aurora and that field capacity is properly managed. Consider restricting usage from organizations representing memberships having a high percentage of non-Aurora residents. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 92 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 79 6.5 Summary of Proposed Strategies and Phasing Table 27 and Table 28 summarizes the proposed strategies and phasing for rectangular sports fields and ball diamonds, respectively. Table 27: Summary of Proposed Strategies and Phasing for Rectangular Sports Fields Location Timing Priority Potential Additions / Improvements Potential Removals / Lights Turf 11v11 9v9 7v7 5v5 3v3 Re-purposing Strategy 1: Improve and Re-purpose Existing Sports Fields 1.1a Confederation Park (Option 1) Medium Medium 1 1 minor ball diamond 1.1b Craddock Park Long Low 1 1 1 11v11 1.1c Machell Park (Option 1) Short High 1 2 2 minor ball diamonds 1.1d McMahon Park Long Low 1 2 3v3 fields 1.1e Norm Weller Park Short High 1 1 1 11v11 1.2a Machell Park Medium Low 1 1.2b Lambert Willson Park Short Medium 1 1.3b Confederation Park Short Medium Add goal uprights to 11v11 field Strategy 2: Develop New Fields and/or Permit Fields within Existing and New Parks 2.1a Chapman Park Medium Medium 1 2.1b Edward Coltham Park Short Medium 2 2.1c Hartwell Way and Roth Street (Future Park) Short Medium 2 2.1d Trent Park Medium Medium 2 2.2a Lions Park Medium Medium 1 Strategy 3: Expand Partnerships 3.1a Aurora Montessori School Short Medium 1 3.1b Cardinal Carter Catholic High School Medium High 1 1 3.1c École Elementaire Catholique Saint-Jean Short Medium 1 3.1d Northern Lights Public School Short High 1 3.1e Our Lady Grace Catholic School Short High 1 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 93 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 80 Location Timing Priority Potential Additions / Improvements Potential Removals / Lights Turf 11v11 9v9 7v7 5v5 3v3 Re-purposing 3.1f St. Andrew's College Short Medium 1 1 3.2a Dr. GW Williams Secondary School Medium High 2 2 1 3.2b Future Elementary and High Schools Short High 1 2 3.2c Aurora High School Short High 1 3.2d Devins Drive Public School Short Medium 2 3.2e St. Joseph Catholic Elementary School Short Medium 1 3.2f École Renaissance High School Short Medium Add goal uprights to the 11v11 field Total 8 6 3 1 11 9 1 ULE +4 +12 +3 +1 +11 +9 +1 -4 rectangular sports fields Total Up to +37.0 rectangular sports fields General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 94 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I 81 Table 28: Summary of Proposed Strategies and Phasing for Ball Diamonds Location Timing Priority Potential Additions / Improvements Potential Removals / Re-purposing Lights Senior Minor Strategy 1: Improve and Re-purpose Existing Sports Fields 1.1a Confederation Park (Option 2) Medium Medium 1 1 minor ball diamond and 1 11v11 field 1.1b Fleury Park Medium Low 1 1 minor ball diamond 1.1c Machell Park (Option 2) Short High 1 2 minor ball diamonds (overlapping) 1.1d Summit Park Medium Low 1 1 minor ball diamond 1.1e Stewart Burnett Park Long Low Convert to Stadium Field Strategy 2: Develop New Fields and/or Permit Fields within Existing and New Parks 2.1a Hallmark Lands Short High 2 2 2.1b Future Park, Acquisition or Partnership (Location TBD) Medium High 1 1 Strategy 3: Expand Partnerships 3.1 St. Andrew's College Short Medium 1 Total 3 8 0 ULE +1.5 +8 0 -5 diamonds Total Up to +4.5 ball diamonds General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 95 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I A-1 Appendix A: Stakeholder Survey Results Note: The following is a verbatim transcript of input received from sports field user groups. Efforts have not been made to verify the accuracy of the written information; however, issues, concerns and improvements were discussed in more detail through in-person focus groups. Rectangular Sports Field User Group Responses Name Mandate 2019 Registration 2019 Waitlist 2018 Registration 2018 Waitlist 2017 Registration 2017 Waitlist Age Range % Aurora Residents Aurora Barbarians RFC To develop and promote the game of rugby for ages 4 to 64 (sometimes higher). We're 'a club for all.' no cuts, no experience required 370 0 420 435 0 4-64 25% Aurora FC (Aurora Youth Soccer Club) The Aurora Youth Soccer Club (Aurora FC) provides our members the highest level of soccer development possible and the opportunity to develop friendships in a healthy, inclusive, enjoyable and safe environment by embracing the concepts of good sportsmanship and Fair Play. We provide well-organized and administered Recreational, Developmental, Competitive and High Performance Programs that meet our members’ needs and embrace Community values. We represent the sport of soccer in an ethical and responsible manner. 3000 1% 3000 3188 1% 4-29 73-75% Aurora Men's Sunday Soccer Group Our group runs a Sunday pick up soccer match for men 18+, from May to October. Our mandate: Ensure a venue for men who want to play friendly, non-competitive soccer - Promote healthy lifestyle among men; Foster friendships among local adult men; Develop a broader sense of community, allowing families of players to meet and create networks 45 5 45 40 0 18-55 95% Aurora Soccer Club The Aurora Soccer Club inspires individuals and teams to develop a passion for soccer through an environment of sport, comradery, learning, belonging, and fun for all through our broad array of competitive and recreational adult soccer, charitable initiatives and social programming. Our quality soccer field, player and team experience generates pride in our members, and our social environment welcomes all who want to ignite passion for the world's most popular sport. 1179 n/a 987 850 n/a 70% Aurora Special Olympics We currently have athletes participating in many sports including (basketball, softball, soccer, bocce and swimming) 125 20 110 115 15 8-60 95% Evolve Elite Lacrosse We are an Elite travel lacrosse program. We draw local athletes as well as those from across the province to train to participate in the US. The end goal for most is to play at the collegiate level either in the NCAA or here at home in Canada. 350 n/a 320 300 n/a 7-18 10% Extreme Goalkeepers Inc. Are mandated to train as many young boys and girls as soccer goal keepers in our local area helping them to achieve scholarships and professional trials. 150 150 150 9-15 20% Rising Stars Soccer Academy Rising Stars Soccer Academy places emphasis on fitness, skill development, and character building while maintaining focus on the core value that keeps children motivated to excel; having fun. We believe that improving physical fitness while having fun will instill a passion for soccer, and healthy active living overall that continues to grow along with our children. 85 25 0 2-8 75-80% Rovers Soccer To promote and provide organized Men's soccer geared towards older players. To promote and provide organized Ladies soccer after the Youth years are over. 45 45 30 30 30 Men:- 40 Ladies:- 25 75% York Region Lions Football Association Our goal is to organize, develop and promote minor football for all youth (ages 5 to 19) of York Region. Leagues are divided into 4 groups: Development, Flag, Spring/Summer Competitive and Fall Competitive. We promote football as a pathway to post-secondary, developing a love of academics and sport at a young age. We primarily run football programs for youth, but also provide football education and introductory demonstrations with exceptional needs groups. We are proud to provide ALL equipment necessary to participate, and ensure that single parent and at-risk youth are able to participate in sports. 794 803 747 751 683 693 6-19 40% General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 96 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I A-2 Name Over the next 5 years, do you expect your total membership or number of participants to: What are the main reasons that contribute to your future membership or participant expectations? Which parks and sports fields in the Town of Aurora does your group use the most? This may include spaces owned or leased by the Town of Aurora or those provided by others such as schools, conservation areas or private property. Aurora Barbarians RFC Increase Rugby Ontario will be moving the age groups back to even years. The past two years have been odds and many of the grade 12 students stop playing. We hope to rebound from this. Also our numbers of players under the age of 15 are at record highs. The normal entry point in rugby is 15 (grade 9) who start to play in school. We have over 125 players under 15 already which is a good sign for the future. St. Max of Kolbe CHS has been our home base since the fields opened at the school. The only issue we have now is all the female coaches unlucky wish to practice on the turf as it has taken its toll on the players. It was great for us to get the Grass field at St. Max this year as our U13 and U15 Girls have been using it but hopefully in 2020 we can add a full size grass field with rugby markings. Aurora FC (Aurora Youth Soccer Club) Increase Largest participation sport in Aurora Soccer in Aurora is one of the largest per capita participation sport in Canada Expected population Increase Greater attraction to the sport by the changing Aurora demographic Initiatives focusing on promoting more active community/population Upcoming World Cup of Soccer (hosted in Canada/North America) Promotion related to hosting of more prestigious/elite level of competition events by the Club Outdoor: Turf Fields (Stewart Burnett, Sheppard’s Bush) Lit Grass Fields (Fleury, Optimist) Grass Fields (Machell, Magna (19 fields used at least 4 days a week), Sheppard’s Bush , St Andrews, Craddock, Norm Weller, School Fields) Indoor: Aurora Sports Dome, School Gyms Aurora Men's Sunday Soccer Group Increase Word of mouth, as more players tell others; Unmet demand in Aurora Aurora Grove Public School soccer field. In the past, we have played at Optimist Park, Sheppard's Bush, St. Maximilian Kolbe grass pitch, and Centennial Park. Aurora Soccer Club Increase Apart from the fact that demographically we are dealing with an ever increasing adult cohort, the comprehensive programming that the ASC offers its members provides an opportunity for all skill levels and adult age group to participate at the club. 2020 will see the organization introduce a co-ed program which will drive even higher demand for field time both in our Summer and Winter programs. The ASC utilizes Highland Park Mon – Fri 7pm – 11pm, however we also utilize other facilities both in Aurora and in surrounding towns to accommodate the demand for both our competitive and recreational programs. Aurora Parks: Highland Park, Sheppard's Bush, St. Maximilian, Fleury Park Non-Aurora Parks: YRP Policy Shed, Ray Twinney, Lions Park (Mount Albert) Aurora Special Olympics Increase The growing need for athlete programs amongst the intellectual disability community. Basketball- no permits available therefore both programs are run out of Newmarket Softball - The York Regional police she - due to the same reason as above Swim - Stronach Center Soccer - St Andrews College Evolve Elite Lacrosse Increase Overall experience. Quality training facilities. Location. Positive word of mouth. St. Max, Sheppard's Bush, Aurora Sports Dome St. Andrew's College Lower fields. Other full size soccer fields. Extreme Goalkeepers Inc. Increase My work is bringing me back to my local neighbourhoods thus attracting many more local kids from the area. Shepherds Bush, Saint Maximilian turf, Burnett turf Rising Stars Soccer Academy Increase We have over tripled our registration with just over one year active so we believe our numbers will continue to rise. Sheppard's Bush and Cardinal Carter Rovers Soccer Stay the same / Remain stable An outlet to continue playing from Youth, or Open age Soccer. Fleury { grass ) St. Max ( Turf ).....early and late season York Region Lions Football Association Increase We actively promote our organization, and have partnered with not only York University's Varsity Football Program, but also MLSE/Toronto Argos. We're working to increase our field time in surrounding towns which should help increase our numbers. St. Maximilian Kolbe CHS, Aurora; Shepherd's Bush Aurora, The Dome General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 97 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I A-3 Name Do you feel that your organization is able to rent sufficient time at fields or diamonds to meet your needs? If not, please explain. How can we improve existing fields or diamonds to better meet your group's needs? Overall, what is the most pressing sports field need or concern currently facing your group? Aurora Barbarians RFC The town staff have been great over the years. We have been in a pinch a number of times this year- due to the weather and have been bailed out by the ability to have last minute bookings. As mentioned above, we would love to be about to get one full sized grass rugby pitch in the future for our female teams. We have request Williams from the school board the past 4 years but still haven't had any luck. We are very happy with the level of service- we currently receive. Thank you! Full sized Grass Field. Currently we have rented 2 in Markham (Fletcher's Field) but would love to keep our presence in Aurora. Aurora FC (Aurora Youth Soccer Club) We are not able to rent any grass fields time before May 15 We are not able to rent sufficient time in March/April/May for our year round High Performance/Competitive programs We are forced to rent very expensive Indoor Dome time for outdoor programs. School fields not practically available for first half of the season. No adequate replacement fields during partial fields cancellations due to rain/flooding Fields maintenance cycles (cutting and lining) needs to be performed more often to improve quality and safety of the participants especially during the start of the season. Better coordination with school boards to provide better maintenance cycles and allow for netting to be placed on goals starting in May. With improved year round maintenance, GW Williams fields can be made into excellent soccer venue. Lights at Machell Park would increase the availability of the existing field complex. Provide access to proper change rooms and washrooms as mandated by Elite Level provincial competitions. Provide more lit grass fields and more turf fields to provide longer access during the day. Greater availability of higher quality grass fields (through increased maintenance cycles or availability of new fields). Planning/replacement of the Magna field complex (19 grass fields). Access to significantly more rental time at Sheppard’s Bush for our outdoor programs especially at the start of the season in March/April/May Access to some rental time at St Max Kolbe Turf field Adequate access to Stewart Burnett change rooms for semi-pro League 1 games Adequate access to drinking water required for competition hydration stations. Indoor Dome time is prohibitively expensive – the for-profit business presently operating the Dome should be acquired by the Town and managed by the soccer club. Availability/access to an affordable Club House Aurora Men's Sunday Soccer Group Yes Overall, we fell the pitch is usable and good. If possible, improvements would include: more frequent painting of sidelines; fixing the grass at the mouths of the goals Fix the grass in front of the goal mouths. Aurora Soccer Club Unfortunately we are required to rent space outside of town The ASC’s primary user group is adult, who are required by league regulations to play between 7pm – 11pm. This drives the necessity of floodlights for most of the season which starts in May and ends at the beginning of October. We schedule ASC cup’s, Youth Soccer Cup’s, play-off’s and charity events on weekends, respecting the need to also rest the field. With regards to existing fields, the Town can certainly look to some existing parks to introduce floodlights, however the size of these fields needs to be reviewed as many of them such as Norm Weller are not large enough for either Adult or Youth competitive play. More field time between 7pm – 11pm. May – October. Floodlight More indoor Dome time Thu/Fri 8pm- 11pm. October – April. Aurora Special Olympics Currently I do not we are creating programs and currently do not have the permit history other programs do. We attempt to apply however many of the established programs already seem to have the majority of the permits. We would be willing to use the Leisure Complex however have been told that it is not available and night at any time and is very costly to our organization. Availability our athletes often just require a safe place to practice and play their sport Basketball Facility as we currently run Aurora special Olympics in a very small Newmarket public school through another association. Evolve Elite Lacrosse Generally yes. Staff has been very accommodating. The one challenge we do have is booking the Dome in May as we need the whole dome and the town controls 2 fields and the dome 1. More garbage cans as St. Max and Sheppards Bush. Ability to book further in advance. More turf fields. So there are not limits during the spring and fall when fields are not accessible. Also open up more availability General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 98 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I A-4 Name Do you feel that your organization is able to rent sufficient time at fields or diamonds to meet your needs? If not, please explain. How can we improve existing fields or diamonds to better meet your group's needs? Overall, what is the most pressing sports field need or concern currently facing your group? Generally it has worked out, but there is always a day or two that are challenges and we are forced to look outside Aurora (Bradford) for fields. Online availability to allow for planning. Not online booking as that should be centralized to avoid groups over booking. during the summer when fields do not have maximum use quotas so that they cannot be rented due to evening soccer use. Extreme Goalkeepers Inc. Yes I have always been relatively fortunate to find proper fields. Change rooms and washrooms We need more Fields to grow. Rising Stars Soccer Academy Yes, we have been very happy with the fields and the representative at the town, Shauna. Honestly, we are currently fully satisfied with the fields. At this point, there are no pressing needs other than ensuring regular maintenance. Rovers Soccer Yes, we feel that we have sufficient time. With the Rovers, I have used Fleury for the last 35 years. Apart from a couple of seasons where the North end was getting a face lift, the field has been in excellent shape. Over the years, there has been a variety of different seating provided at the field. For whatever reason, 2018 / 2019 has seen zero seating at the field. Not suggesting we get big crowds, but the teams need a bench of some sort. Substitutes are not allowed to stand during games. Being a very small organization, we are very happy with the service and allocation from the Town. Except somewhere to sit!!!!!!! York Region Lions Football Association No - while I do expect our programming to increase, this is due to field access in surrounding areas. Specifically the Dome we have trouble getting time that we can afford. As a non-profit, we are subject to regular rates through them and cannot afford the time. We also compete with other organizations for prime indoor time that are FOR profit - they have more resources, so they get the time. Ensure better access for non-profit groups over the winter. We have two. Indoor field time is one during the winter. The other are changerooms. Leagues mandate changerooms for older players, but we are in a position where we need to rent out classrooms at St. Max for this, which aren't always available, carry very high rates as custodians need to be on duty, and do not reflect a non-profit rate. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 99 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I A-5 Ball Diamond User Group Responses Name Mandate 2019 Registration 2019 Waitlist 2018 Registration 2018 Waitlist 2017 Registration 2017 Waitlist Age Range % Aurora Residents AURORA DIGGERS GIRLS SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION TO PROVIDE SOFTBALL ACTIVITIES TO GIRLS AGED 5 TO 18. TO PROMOTE LEARNING, TEAMWORK, FAIR PLAY, PHYSICAL LITERACY, AND PROVIDE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR GIRLS TO HAVE FUN AND MAKE NEW FRIENDS WHILE ENJOYING THE SPORT OF SOFTBALL. PROMOTE COMPETITION IN GIRLS SOFTBALL AT THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE LEVEL THUS ENSURING THAT LEARNING TECHNIQUES ARE CONSTANTLY IMPROVING. OUR OBJECTIVE ISA TO COMPETE AT ALL LEVELS OF GIRLS SOFTBALL WHERE THERE IS SUFFICIENT INTEREST AND COMPETITIVE ABILITY. 117 148 138 5 - 18 65% Aurora King Baseball To provide an opportunity to Aurora residents the opportunity to participant in physical activity through the sport of baseball and to provide the opportunity for those participants to develop to the highest level they desire to achieve. 1030 0 1047 35 985 0 4 – 18 75% Aurora Ladies Softball 18+ semi-competitive ladies fast pitch 55 0 65 3 65 10 25 – 45 75% Aurora Men’s Slo-Pitch League Men’s Slo-Pitch baseball. Two divisions: a) Masters, over 40 b) open, over 19 310 10 305 8 317 .? 19 to 40+ 60% AURORA MIXED SLO PITCH LEAGUE Providing adult slo-pitch, for both men and woman (adult families) across Aurora and surrounding areas. 400 80 350 25 250 0 28 – 50 80% OAK RIDGES COED RECREATIONAL SLOPITCH LEAGUE (ORCRSL) We are a slo-pitch softball league. Our mandate is to provide a safe and fun place where players can play the game they love to play. 1200 NONE 1200 1200 20 – 45 100% Seneca College - Varsity Baseball Varsity Baseball team practices and games 35 n/a 35 n/a 35 n/a 17 – 24 Varies St. Maximilian Kolbe CHS Provide programs (engaging opportunities) for our students to expand their comfort level, and introduce them to sports/activities that expand their ability and likelihood of being Healthy Active Participants for life. 400 n/a 400 n/a 400 n/a 14 – 18 40% Team Ontario Astros Elite Baseball Club--Affiliated with the Canadian Premier Baseball League Our group's mandate is the prepare York-Simcoe and GTA-area student-athletes for the rigors of US College and Canadian University baseball and academic programs. Our motto is "Training Student-Athletes to be Future Champions". Our primary baseball activities include 32 league games in the CPBL for which we need senior and junior diamond times for our 5 teams (14U-18U), four tournaments in the USA annually, an annual March Break Spring Training trip to West Palm to prepare our teams for the upcoming season, and hosting at least one CPBL Championship Playoff per year at Stewart Burnett for which we have procured Mayor Tom Mrakas to throw out the ceremonial first pitch. We also have a working relationship with the AKBA to provide player and coaches clinics to boost the quality of baseball in Aurora and King. We also have a working relationship with the Town of Aurora to provide maintenance expertise with Stewart Burnett Park (cutting the infield, bricking mounds, grading the basepaths, prepping the bullpen mounds we built for the Town). 84 n/a 82 n/a 94 n/a 13 – 17 20% York Region Athletic Association Provide Inter-school athletics for high schools in York Region. 23000 n/a 2300 n/a 22500 14 – 19 15% York Region Baseball League Baseball League 115 21 100 14 85 29 – 39 30% Valhalla Mixed Slo-Pitch League Baseball 128 n/a 124 n/a 124 25 – 78 90% General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 100 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I A-6 Name Over the next 5 years, do you expect your total membership or number of participants to: What are the main reasons that contribute to your future membership or participant expectations? Which parks and sports fields in the Town of Aurora does your group use the most? This may include spaces owned or leased by the Town of Aurora or those provided by others such as schools, conservation areas or private property. AURORA DIGGERS GIRLS SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION Stay the same / Remain stable LACK OF DIAMONDS HAS LIMITED OUR MEMBERSHIP AND HAS CAUSED A DECREASE IN MEMBERSHIP. WE SAW A DROP IN MEMBERSHIP IN 2019 BECAUSE WE COULD NOT PROVIDE AN EARLY DIAMOND TIME TO A YOUNGER AGE GROUP. WE DO NOT HAVE A WAIT LIST. WHEN WE ARE FULL WE REFER KIDS TO NEWMARKET OR OTHER NEIGHBOURING TOWNS. WE CANNOT GROW OUR MEMBERSHIP BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF FACILITIES. FLEURY, MACHELL, SUMMIT, AND TOWN PARK DIAMONDS. LOCAL SCHOOLS FOR INDOOR WINTER TRAINING. Aurora King Baseball Increase There are two contributing factors to our projected growth in participation numbers. 1) Like all other sports, the popularity of a sport is predicated on the success of that sports professional franchise or Canada's success in that sport in the most recent Olympics. While the Toronto Blue Jays have had a dip in success the last couple of years, the future of the team and their young prospects are bright, therefore we anticipate a spike in our participation numbers as a reflection. 2) The AKBA Board is making structural changes which will be leading to change in programming to adjust to the needs of the community and attract more players to the sport. Stewart Burnett; Lambert Willson (Diamond 3 and 4), would love diamond 1 or 2 more often; Town Park; Optimist Park; James Lloyd; Norm Weller; Confederation diamond 1 and 3 Elizabeth Hader We also use other smaller diamonds once or twice a week that are important. Aurora Ladies Softball Stay the same / Remain stable 16-18 year olds graduating out of softball, numbers for the younger teams has risen over the years. Town Park Aurora Men’s Slo-Pitch League Don't Know Playing time availability. We are in hold mode for adding new teams and/or players. Attrition from existing teams is the only mechanism to add new players. Lambert Willson 1, 2 and 3. AURORA MIXED SLO PITCH LEAGUE Increase We are the only Coed Adult, fully sanctioned, slo-pitch league in Aurora. I am a director with slo-pitch national and also able to host provincial qualifying tournaments (if we had diamond space and availability to do so). We provide the adult family members, a place to come out, play an amazing sport with their local coworkers, neighbors, spouses and friends. Lambert 1, 2 and 3....(when available) we have been forced to obtain Newmarket permits (2 to 3 parks per week) to accommodate our growth. Other diamonds offered, such as Fleury, are way too small for adults. Optimist and James Lloyd aren't available for us, as they would be our options to keep all games in aurora, weekly. OAK RIDGES COED RECREATIONAL SLOPITCH LEAGUE (ORCRSL) The affinity and popularity of the sport of slo-pitch/softball has exploded over the last 5 years. Also many players are starting to play more and playing in 2 or 3 Leagues. If the growth continues at current pace more ball diamonds will be needed. James Lloyd Park, Optimist Park, Norm Weller Park, Lambert Willson Park Seneca College - Varsity Baseball Stay the same / Remain stable One team - this will not change Stewart Burnett Lambert Willson #4 St. Maximilian Kolbe CHS Stay the same / Remain stable 1. A staff member - to organize and provide the opportunity; 2. Facility - Space to provide the activity; 3. Participant sign-up - students that decide to join the event/activity/sport Judy Sherin - Arena Willson Lambert diamonds - Baseball, Slo-Pitch AFLC - Beach Volleyball Courts AFLC - Trails and pathways - Running routes AFLC - Squash Courts AFLC - Pool (Triathlon, and swimming) Flurry Courts - Tennis Team Ontario Astros Elite Baseball Club--Affiliated with the Canadian Premier Baseball League Increase We provide academic and athletic support to our players to help them attain their goal of playing US College or Canadian University Baseball. Our program is tied for the oldest Elite baseball program in Ontario. We are a member of the best Elite league in Ontario--the Canadian Premier Baseball League that annually has 6-10 of its players drafted directly into Major League Baseball and produces annually over 150 scholarships and placements to US Colleges and Canadian Universities. In the last two years, the Team Ontario Astros have placed 30 of its graduating players in US Colleges in eleven different states including Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, We use two fields: Stewart Burnett Park and Lambert Willson Park. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 101 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I A-7 Name Over the next 5 years, do you expect your total membership or number of participants to: What are the main reasons that contribute to your future membership or participant expectations? Which parks and sports fields in the Town of Aurora does your group use the most? This may include spaces owned or leased by the Town of Aurora or those provided by others such as schools, conservation areas or private property. Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Alabama, and Michigan. We are also proud of our placements of players at Ontario universities including Brock, Western, McMaster, and Carleton in the last two years. We have placing players in these destinations for 21 years and are proud of our franchise's history of helping Ontario ballplayers achieve their student-athlete goals. Please see our Media Guide that has been presented to Mayor Mrakas and Shauna Young. Our program is growing and we need ballfields in Aurora. York Region Athletic Association Stay the same / Remain stable No new schools planned in Aurora area Sheppard’s Bush, Lambert Willson Baseball, York Region Baseball League Increase Consistent diamond availability year to year in Aurora. Lambert Willson Park(LC4), Stewart Burnett Park Valhalla Mixed Slo-Pitch League Stay the same / Remain stable Returning participants Advertisement Having fun Clean and maintained fields Leisure complex- Diamond 1-2 Name Do you feel that your organization is able to rent sufficient time at fields or diamonds to meet your needs? If not, please explain. How can we improve existing fields or diamonds to better meet your group's needs? Overall, what is the most pressing sports field need or concern currently facing your group? AURORA DIGGERS GIRLS SOFTBALL ASSOCIATION NO. THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH TIME SLOTS AVAILABLE FOR US ESPECIALLY IN THE EARLY TIME SLOTS FOR YOUNGER PARTICIPANTS. IN ADDITION WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO HOST TOURNAMENTS AS WE CANNOT RENT ENOUGH DIAMONDS TO BRING IN TEAMS FROM OUT OF TOWN. SCHOOLS HAVE REMOVED ALL OF THEIR DIAMONDS CAUSING A SIGNIFICANT SHORTAGE. THE SMALL DIAMONDS AT MACHELL AND SUMMIT COULD HAVE THE INFIELD EXTENDED INCLUDING THE FENCES SO IT CAN BE USED FOR MORE THAN JUST T BALL. HAVING MORE DIAMONDS TOGETHER IN ONE PARK LIKE LAMBERT WILLSON SO WE CAN HOST MULTIPLE TEAMS FROM OUT OF TOWN IN TOURNAMENTS. WE ALSO NEED MORE EARLY TIMES FOR OUR YOUNGER PLAYERS AS THESE ARE THE GRASS ROOTS THAT WILL GROW OUR ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIP. Aurora King Baseball "The number of both competitive and recreational teams that we have that require playing on senior diamonds is increasing and there are numbers coming up the pipeline to maintain those numbers. We do not have adequate time on the senior diamonds with the likes of Sr. Men's Rec. league taking time, a league that is based out of North York. In addition we do not run very many tournaments because the infrastructure is not set up to support, a tournament and the additional activities to support the cost of running a tournament. While Lambert Willson diamonds are nice, the distance between them, and the fact that all three diamonds use a different parking lot, means there is limited foot traffic near the picnic shelter to attract people to come and buy concession stand items, or for a team to run a bbq for a fundraiser. With a growing amount of competitive teams, we are also struggling to find adequate diamond time on appropriate diamonds for teams to play and practice. While we get game times in, practice time is limited and that is where players develop. Most of our time is pushed up against Slo-Pitch times General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 102 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I A-8 Name Do you feel that your organization is able to rent sufficient time at fields or diamonds to meet your needs? If not, please explain. How can we improve existing fields or diamonds to better meet your group's needs? Overall, what is the most pressing sports field need or concern currently facing your group? and on some occasions we start practices at 5:30pm to get 2hrs in before Sp gets on. Aurora Ladies Softball Aurora Men’s Slo-Pitch League NO!! Our representative teams are continually having to squeeze games and practices in before the Slo-pitch groups come to play on the diamonds. Men’s Senior HL program (based out of North York) takes away time that we need on the Senior Hardball diamonds. While Lambert Willson park has adequate diamonds, having diamond structure where diamonds are closer in proximity we would be able to have more weekend tournament in town." 1) We need the two Hallmark diamonds which will be in close proximity to each other to run tournaments into town. 2) We need Optimist to be fixed, the backstop is a huge liability for the leagues playing on it and the Town because of the huge whole in the back stop. The diamond is one of the newest in town and looks the worst. Fences along both sides have gaps at the bottom etc. 3) We need to have better control (of the Town does) of who uses Stewart Burnett. It is one of the nicest diamonds in York Region and unless users treat it better, it will not last. 4) We need Lambert Willson diamonds fixed so that the grading is such that pools and ponds are not created after a rain storm. This has been a long standing issue. Too many rainouts after a morning rain because the diamonds are not graded properly. Diamond #3 is the biggest priority. I am sure there are other items not listed, but these would be the top four. Appropriate diamond time for all ages. AURORA MIXED SLO PITCH LEAGUE No, we are unable to secure a second night with a 4 hr time slot at the same park, limiting our league to 4 teams. Another diamond is not an option as Town Park is the only suitable diamond for women’s fastball. Groups need to play where it makes sense. Kids at small diamonds, adult’s slo-pitch at large diamonds where balls can be contained in the field. That we always fear losing our diamond time. OAK RIDGES COED RECREATIONAL SLOPITCH LEAGUE (ORCRSL) Yes, based on current size of our league. "Netting for left field on diamond 3 and right field on diamond 1. Seneca College - Varsity Baseball Drainage at home plate on diamond 3 is very poor. Even though diamonds were open after heavy rain, diamond 3 was unplayable where diamonds 1 and 2 were ok." Probably netting. Diamond 3 grading improvement for drainage. St. Maximilian Kolbe CHS Our league isn't offered sufficient time or parks as they're not available for us (see comment above) To have more adult diamonds, with lights, that we can use, so we can keep our growing league within the community and not have to outsource. Not enough adult, class A diamonds, we need more so our teams can play. Team Ontario Astros Elite Baseball Club--Affiliated with the Canadian Premier Baseball League At current time there are just enough diamonds to cover league play and the ability to cover off rained-out makeup games. With the current growth rate more diamonds will be needed in the very near future to meet demand. Diamonds such as Norm Weller and Fleury Park are too small for today's Adult Standards....they need to made to be bigger, at least 265/70 feet at the corners. The need for more ball diamonds at today’s Adult Standards. Most municipalities have current adult play standards of 250 from the backstop which ends up being 238 feet to the corners from the plate which is placed 12 feet out on most diamonds. York Region Athletic Association time works - more weekend availability would be great Mound rebuild on both diamonds would be great Home game availability for September. diamond time into October General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 103 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I A-9 Name Do you feel that your organization is able to rent sufficient time at fields or diamonds to meet your needs? If not, please explain. How can we improve existing fields or diamonds to better meet your group's needs? Overall, what is the most pressing sports field need or concern currently facing your group? York Region Baseball League Usually it is not a problem, sometimes our times are a little different then on the hour. But the Parks staff have always been good at accommodating to the best of their abilities. Bookings during the school day hours can be difficult at times. Longer seasons for permit use. As a school permit user our seasons and use are different then your regular permit users. Diamonds - opening and closing Valhalla Mixed Slo-Pitch League We do not have sufficient time at these parks. This Fall, we lost time and space to the Titans Baseball Club--a faux elite organization that doesn't even have an Elite League to play in. We also lost time to the Seneca Sting. Neither of these teams put in the time we do to maintain Stewart Burnett Park. Neither of these teams provide free baseball clinics as we have for the AKBA over the last four years. In 2018 alone, we ran 17 free clinics for the AKBA both in King City and in Aurora. We were very disappointed with our allotment of field time this Fall at these parks. To be supplanted by these organizations was disappointing. We were satisfied with our field time during this past Spring and Summer and Shauna was very helpful in getting our teams on the field at Burnett and LC4. We are adding a 17U team this coming season so we will need 33% more senior field time. We were also pleased to host the Canadian Premier Baseball League 16U championships this past July for which Shauna was extremely helpful. Some of the best baseball players in the country played in Aurora for four days (Aug1-4). We would like to continue to host high-level, truly Elite baseball events in Aurora. Stewart Burnett needs a full maintenance schedule and we have provided top ten lists of things to do to Burnett to make it safer for participants. Dangerous turf lips have formed all over the infield at Burnett. Dangerous glare off the tennis dome needs to be blocked out to keep right fielders, first basemen, and umpires safe. The entire playing surface needs to be rolled annually to take out all the bumps in the grass. Weeding needs to be maintained around the fence lines. Clay needs to be added to the channel and home plate area to facilitate proper drainage. Mounds need to be maintained monthly both on the infield and the bullpens. Dugouts need better locks to keep people from vandalizing the park, specifically the infield. A scoreboard, press box with washrooms, and more bleachers and trees would make the park of IBL quality. We would be glad to submit our annual plan to help with maintenance. Assured diamond time from the Town of Aurora. We have a growing program and need senior baseball field time. Burnett and LC4 are sufficient but another senior diamond would be great. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 104 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I B-1 Appendix B: Input from Rectangular Sports Field Users The following is a record of input received from the Town of Aurora Rectangular Sports Field Stakeholder Focus Group held on September 9, 2019. The session was facilitated by Monteith Brown Planning Consultants in support of the Sports Field Development Strategy. Along with usage trends, research, and input from other stakeholders, this input was considered for the purposes of identifying future directions and strategies for developing and improving sports fields in Aurora. At each workshop, participants were provided with an overview of the planning process and recent achievements that have taken place since the completion of the 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update such as the completion of the lit artificial turf field at Stewart Burnett Park, as well as broader changes to trends and factors that impact the sport and the provision of rectangular sports fields. Following this presentation, participants engaged in facilitated discussions guided by a series of focus questions (see below). This summary was prepared by Monteith Brown and is not intended to provide a verbatim transcript of the meeting but instead captures the perspectives and advice provided by participants. These notes were distributed to all invited workshop participants, who were afforded an opportunity to clarify or add new information. All written input received after the workshop has been inserted into this summary. Attendance Eight representatives from following six groups. A written submission was also received from the Aurora Rugby Football Club. Organization Attended Registration Aurora Rovers No n/a Aurora Barbarians Rugby Football Club Yes 370 Aurora Soccer Club Yes 1,179 Aurora Summer Soccer No n/a Aurora Youth Soccer Club Yes 3,000 Evolve Elite Lacrosse Yes 350 Extreme Goalkeepers Inc. No n/a Redbirds Lacrosse No n/a Rising Stars Soccer Academy No n/a Special Olympics Ontario – Aurora Yes 125 York Region Lions Football Yes 794 1. What registration trends are you experiencing? x Participation in adult soccer, youth football and girls/competitive lacrosse is growing. Participation in youth soccer and rugby is declining, though future growth is anticipated. x The adult soccer group is having to turn away new participants because they are unable to accommodate new players within their existing program. The Town is aging and adults are attracted to the sport as it combines socializing and physical activity. x The youth football group actively promotes the organization to attract new players and have partnered with the York University Varsity Football program as well as MLSE/Toronto Argos. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 105 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I B-2 x Evolve Elite Lacrosse identified that participation is growing because it attracts users from all over Ontario – they are an elite travel team. It is believed that registration in the local boys minor lacrosse organization is declining. The minor lacrosse group was not in attendance to confirm this trend. x Registration in youth soccer has declined; this is correlated to the decline in Aurora’s youth population. However, there continues to be growing field requirements to meet Long Term Player Development regulations. x Participation in rugby is declining overall due to fewer adult players. Factors include more injuries, the lack of field time, and participants moving to other areas. The lack of certified rugby coaches also limits the ability for the organization to provide programming. Youth rugby is increasing, particularly among girls and the group is unable to expand further without access to additional fields. x The Aurora Special Olympics chapter indicated that they provide new sports activities when there is sufficient demand to form teams. With respect to field sports, the group indicated that there is a growing demand for soccer as there is a need for athletic programs for persons with disabilities. 2. Is your organization getting the hours that you need? x Generally speaking, most groups are not getting sufficient field time to accommodate their programming and participation. This is expected to become a larger issue as the Town grows. x Soccer o Due to the popularity of adult soccer, the organization is required to seek time outside of Aurora (discussed further in Question 3). o Youth soccer expressed the desire to access fields earlier in the season but in place of this, they rent time at the indoor field, which is very costly. x Rugby o Access to adequate and appropriate fields has been a constraint to the rugby group. It was indicated that upright posts are required for games; however, there are only two fields in Aurora that has uprights – St. Maximilian Kolbe CHS and Sheppard’s Bush. Full- size grass fields (with goal uprights) are preferred. x Lacrosse o Evolve Elite Lacrosse identified that more access to artificial turf is always ideal. x Football o The youth football organization does not get enough access to fields – there is a desire for more access to turf fields with uprights and football lines. It was mentioned that the group uses the indoor field in Aurora, although it is very costly. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 106 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I B-3 3. Does your organization use sports fields outside of Aurora? x Due to the lack of available time in Aurora, most groups indicated that they use sports fields in other communities. x Soccer o Adult soccer reported the use of fields in Mount Albert (East Gwillimbury) and Newmarket. It was recognized that one of the fields in Newmarket (The Shed – York Region Police Association) will no longer be available after 2020 or 2021 due to development and as a result, the group will be required to find field time elsewhere. o The youth soccer group is restricted to playing within the boundaries of Aurora. When additional field time is required; the group resorts to using the indoor field, which is very costly during the off-season (summer rental costs are comparable to outdoor turf fields). Additional outdoor field time would reduce the reliance on the indoor field and provide better rescheduling opportunities for rainouts. x Lacrosse o Evolve Elite Lacrosse identified that due to the traveling nature of the team, the group trains in Aurora and travels to the United States for games. x Football o As the group serves all of York Region, the group travels outside of Aurora to access fields. 4. How might access to fields be affected by the eventual loss of the 19 Magna fields? x The youth soccer group is the exclusive user of the Magna fields. x Magna is a great multi-field site, particularly as it is the only location with side-by-side fields and multiple 5v5 fields, which is ideal for hosting games and tournaments. All this will be lost when the fields are no longer available. x Concern was expressed that the loss of these fields will result in a chain reaction as users will be to be accommodated on other fields. x Similar concerns were expressed over the St. Andrews College fields as these are also not under municipal control. 5. What specific strategies should we consider to meet current and future needs? x New field development: o Construct a new artificial turf field that could accommodate a dome. It was mentioned that York University is regularly seeking access to an indoor field, which could present a potential partnership or major user opportunity. o Construct a new full size natural grass field. Some organizations mentioned that they prefer to play on natural grass as this type of playing surface is less prone to causing injuries. o Create hybrid fields (e.g., ball diamond overlapping a soccer field) at strategic locations to offer multi-programs at one location. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 107 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I B-4 o Work with the York Region District School Board to gain access to the fields at Dr. GW Williams Secondary School, Aurora High School and the proposed new high school on Bayview Avenue. x Improve existing fields: o Construct a removable dome at an existing artificial turf field (such as at St. Maximilian Kolbe CHS or Stewart Burnett Park). It was recognized that there are challenges with respect to doming an outdoor artificial turf field that was not originally designed for a dome. o Replace existing grass fields with artificial turf fields. o Add lights to grass fields located at Machell Park or Norm Weller Park. o More frequent field grooming to maintain grass at an appropriate height. x The development/redevelopment of sports fields should give consideration to supporting amenities to meet league regulations, such as multi-field sites, washrooms, change rooms, football/rugby uprights, parking, spectator seating, scoreboards, audio and visual equipment, and other ancillaries as necessary. The provision of high quality fields also lends itself to attracting tournaments. x It was suggested that the Town implement a new program that informs groups of what sports fields are available over a given period in the event that new time slots open up during the season. While groups are looking for consistent rental periods, last minute transfer allows for fields to be maximized. x Town staff to continue to be proactive in minimizing block booking/over-booking of sports fields to free up opportunities for groups that are looking for more time. x Some groups expressed the desire to begin using fields in early May. While the Town tries to accommodate this, the decision is usually weather dependent. 6. To summarize, what are your highest priority concerns or suggestions? x There is a desire for affordable access to an indoor field in Aurora, particularly during the winter season. x There is a need for at least two or three lit artificial turf fields (with goal uprights) to relieve pressures at existing fields, to accommodate new programs and new participants. Full-size grass fields would also be welcomed. x Future development or redevelopment of sports fields should have consideration for “sport- friendly” amenities to attract tournaments. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 108 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I C-1 Appendix C: Input from Ball Diamond Users The following is a record of input received from the Town of Aurora Ball Diamond Stakeholder Focus Group held on September 9, 2019. The session was facilitated by Monteith Brown Planning Consultants in support of the Sports Field Development Strategy. Along with usage trends, research, and input from other involved stakeholders, this input was considered for the purposes of identifying future directions and strategies for developing and improving sports fields in Aurora. At each workshop, participants were provided with an overview of the planning process and recent achievements that have taken place since the completion of the 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update such as the proposed development of the Hallmark Lands, as well as broader changes to trends and factors that impact the sport and the provision of ball diamonds. Following this presentation, participants engaged in facilitated discussions guided by a series of focus questions (see below). This summary was prepared by Monteith Brown and is not intended to provide a verbatim transcript of the meeting but instead captures the perspectives and advice provided by participants. These notes were distributed to all invited workshop participants, who were afforded an opportunity to clarify or add new information. All written input received after the workshop has been inserted into this summary. Attendance Eight representatives from six groups were in attendance. A written submission was also provided by the Aurora King Minor Baseball Association. Organization Attended Registration Aurora Diggers Softball Yes 117 Aurora King Minor Baseball Association No 1,030 Aurora Ladies Softball Association Yes 55 Aurora Men's Slo-Pitch League No n/a Aurora Mixed Slo-Pitch League Yes 400 Aurora Preparatory Academy No n/a Central Jays No n/a Oak Ridges Co-Ed Recreational Slo-Pitch League Yes 1,200 Rookies Hockey School No n/a Seneca College No n/a Special Olympics Ontario - Aurora Yes 125 Sport Aurora Yes n/a St. Maximilian Kolbe C.H.S. No n/a Team Ontario Astros Yes 84 Transcontinental Markham No n/a Valhalla Mixed Slo-Pitch League No n/a Yonge Aurora Co-ed Slo-Pitch No n/a York Region Athletic Association No n/a YR Men's Baseball League No n/a General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 109 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I C-2 1. What registration trends are you experiencing? x Participation is generally increasing, which is primarily due to the growth of adult ball. Participation in youth ball is also increasing (especially in competitive levels), but at a slower rate. Interest in indoor/dome ball is growing. x The popularity of adult ball is expected to continue over the foreseeable future as the population is aging and there is a desire to participate in physical activity and socialize with others. It is anticipated that the popularity of adult ball will translate into growing youth participation as parents want their kids to have the same physical and social experiences. x Most groups have capped registration as they reported challenges with securing sufficient time at adult ball diamonds and as a result, groups have a waitlist for teams and individual players. x There was a general consensus that groups would like to grow their programming and accommodate more participants, although access to ball diamonds is a constraint. x There is a concern that due to the lack of access to ball diamonds, teams/participants that are waitlisted will go play elsewhere (outside of Aurora), although there is a shortage across York Region. 2. Is your organization getting the hours that you need? x Groups generally reported that the existing hours that they are allocated work well; however, there is always a desire for more hours to accommodate growth. x 7pm to 9pm or 7pm to 11pm time slots are common. Groups generally do not want 5pm to 7pm time slots (which are sometimes available) due to the commuting lifestyle of many participants, particularly adults. x Some groups expressed the desire to extend the ball diamond season from the beginning of May until October/November; however, it was indicated that the early spring season is unpredictable with respect to flooded sports fields. Operational challenges were also identified during the fall as down time is typically required for sports field rehabilitation and repair. x Adult groups that cannot get sufficient time in Aurora may go to other communities; however, minor ball groups are constrained by municipal boundaries. Girls’ softball reported the lack of sufficient diamond time, particularly since they no longer have access to school diamonds, all of which have been removed over time through attrition. x The youth ball organization reported that they are not getting sufficient access to adequately- sized ball diamonds, particularly at the competitive level for older age groups. Due to the lack of sufficient access, teams have less training time and are not as competitive as desired. As a result, the group is concerned that they would lose players to other organizations. x Holding tournaments has been a challenge due to many groups due to the lack of multi- diamond sites, as well as the availability of supporting amenities such as a hotel (it is recognized that two hotels are currently being planned). Organizations are also cognizant that other groups use diamonds during the weekend and do not want to bump them for a tournament. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 110 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I C-3 3. Does your organization use ball diamonds outside of Aurora? x Due to the lack of available ball diamonds in Aurora, some groups indicated that they use ball diamonds in adjacent communities such as East Gwillimbury, Newmarket, Richmond Hill, Markham, and King. Due to the elite level of play, one group also indicated that they frequently travel to the United States. x For groups using diamonds in Newmarket, it was noted that fields at “The Shed” (York Region Police Association) will no longer be available after 2020 or 2021 due to development. 4. What specific strategies should we consider to meet current and future needs? x Suggestions were received to improve the drainage conditions at ball diamonds including Lambert Willson Park and Stewart Burnett Park. x There may be opportunities to enlarge existing t-ball and/or minor ball diamonds to accommodate a broader variety of users. Enlarging the infields and backstop fencing at t-ball diamonds or minor diamonds may accommodate older youth and adults. At present, it was mentioned that both minor and adult groups use undersized diamonds, although there is a greater risk of injury as portions of the outfield are used as the infield. Groups suggested enlarging the infield and expanding the outfield for ball diamonds located at Fleury Park, Machell Park, Summit Park, and Confederation Park. x Some suggested that the Town should create hybrid fields (e.g., ball diamond overlapping a soccer field) at locations such as the Sheppard’s Bush artificial turf field. x Consideration should be given to the use of artificial turf as an infield surface. There are many benefits associated with the use of artificial turf compared to traditional surfacing including reduced maintenance requirements, improved drainage, and extended playing periods. x The Town should give consideration to constructing larger diamonds to recognize the advancements in new ball equipment and the athletic ability of some adult players (e.g., hitting the ball further). x Interest was expressed in upgrading the ball diamond at Stewart Burnett Park in order to attract an Intercounty Baseball League team (e.g., stadium location). x It was suggested that a permanent home be established for the Aurora King Baseball Association that would allow the group to have priority space and first right of refusal. The organization indicated that there are other communities that have this type of agreement such as in Newmarket. By having a permanent diamond facility, this would allow the group to consolidate usage to one location, while freeing up time at other diamonds for groups seeking time. x Consideration should be given to locating special events in other areas that do not interfere with the use of ball diamonds. There was concern that groups may be bumped for special events (e.g., Town Park). x It was suggested that the Town implement a new program that informs groups of what diamonds are available over a given period in the event that new time slots open up during the season. While groups are looking for consistent rental periods, last minute transfer allows for fields to be maximized. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 111 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I C-4 x Town staff to continue to be proactive in minimizing block booking/over-booking of diamonds to free up opportunities for groups that are looking for more time. x Some groups expressed the desire to begin using fields in early May. While the Town tries to accommodate this, the decision is usually weather dependent. 5. To summarize, what are your highest priority concerns or suggestions? x There is a demand for lit adult ball diamonds in order to alleviate current pressures to accommodate participants and to provide additional programming. x There may be opportunities to improve and/or enlarge existing ball diamonds that are appropriate for adult slo-pitch/fastball and hardball. x Construct a new lit adult hardball diamond. x Consideration should be given to the design of “sport friendly” ball diamonds in order to attract sport tourism, particularly at Lambert Willson Park and Stewart Burnett Park. This would include the provision of multi-diamond sites with supporting amenities including, but not limited to, change rooms and washrooms, spectator seating, lighting, parking, scoreboard, audio and video equipment, and other ancillaries that are required by affiliated leagues in order to host games and tournaments. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 112 of 113 Town of Aurora Sports Field Development Strategy December 2019 I D-1 Appendix D: Field Dimensions Soccer Fields The Long-Term Development in Sport and Physical Activity model tailors field dimensions specifically to the age and ability of players, recognizing the various stages of physical and cognitive development. Table 29: Typical Soccer Field Dimensions Age Group Format Field Width Field Length Goal Size 3 v 3 18 m to 22 m (59 ft to 72 ft) 25 m to 30 m (82 ft to 98 ft) U5 – U9 4 v 4 20 m to 25 m (66 ft to 82 ft) 30 m to 36 m (98 ft to 118 ft) 1.5 m x 2.4 m (5 ft x 8 ft) 5 v 5 25 m to 30 m (82 ft to 98 ft) 30 m to 36 m (98 ft to 118 ft) U8 – U12 6 v 6 / 7 v 7 30 m to 36 m (98 ft to 118 ft) 40 m to 55 m (131 ft to 180 ft) 1.8 m x 4.8 m (6 ft x 16 ft) U11 – U 16 8 v 8 / 9 v 9 42 m to 55 m (138 ft to 180 ft) 60 m to 75 m (197 ft to 246 ft) 1.8 m x 5.5 m (6 ft x 18 ft) U15 – U 20 11 v 11 FIFA reg. FIFA reg. 2.5 m x 7.3 m (8 ft x 24 ft) Source: Canadian Soccer Association Long Term Player Development, 2009. Ball Diamonds Seven of the nine stages of play utilize a specific ball diamond template, as depicted in Table 30. Table 30: Typical Ball Diamond Dimensions Stage Age Group Distance to Foul Pole (m / ft) Distance to Centre Field (m / ft) Distance to First Base (m / ft) Distance to Pitcher (m / ft) (1) Active Start Ages 0 – 6 N/A N/A N/A N/A (2) Fundamentals Ages 5 – 9 N/A N/A 18 m / 60 ft. 12 m / 40 ft. (3) Learn to Train Ages 8 – 12 55 m / 180 ft. 61 m / 200 ft. 18 m / 60 ft. 13 m / 44 ft. (4) Train to Train Ages 11 – 16 66 m / 215 ft. 80 m / 260 ft. 24 m / 80 ft. 16 m / 54 ft. (5) Learn to Compete Ages 15 – 18 100 m / 325 ft. 122 m / 400 ft. 27 m / 90 ft. 18 m / 60 ft. (6) Train to Compete U23 100 m / 325 ft. 122 m / 400 ft. 27 m / 90 ft. 18 m / 60 ft. (7) Learn to Win Ages 18+ 100 m / 325 ft. 122 m / 400 ft. 27 m / 90 ft. 18 m / 60 ft. (8) Train to Win Ages 18+ 100 m / 325 ft. 122 m / 400 ft. 27 m / 90 ft. 18 m / 60 ft. (9) Active for Life Varies Varies Varies Varies Varies Note: All distances from home plate. Source: Baseball Canada Long Term Athlete Development, 2007. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R1 Page 113 of 113 Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. OPS19-019 Subject: Hallmark Baseball Diamonds – Additional Funding Prepared by: Sara Tienkamp, Manager Parks & Fleet Department: Operational Services Date: December 3, 2019 Recommendation 1. That Report No. OPS19-019 be received; and 2. That the total approved budget for Capital Project No. 73287- Hallmark Lands Baseball Diamonds be increased to $3,942,000, representing an increase of $942,200 to be funded from the Parks DC reserve. Executive Summary This report seeks Council approval to increase funding for Capital Project No. 73287 for the construction of a new municipal park with two (2) baseball diamonds: • Earthworks and site servicing significantly impact approved budget. Background On July 24, 2018, the following motion was carried by Council: That the construction of two baseball diamonds be approved. Approved budget for Capital Project No. 73287 – Hallmark Lands – Baseball Diamonds is $3,000,000. Staff generated a Terms of Reference for Consulting Services, for the design and contract administration for the project commencing September 2018, releasing RFP 2018-94-OPS-P. After the review process/evaluation, contract was awarded in December 2018. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R2 Page 1 of 5 December 3, 2019 Page 2 of 5 Report No. OPS19-019 In early January 2019, design works were initiated with the engagement of Aurora-King Baseball Association (AKBA). Following the redesign of the park to accommodate site challenges, tender 2019-86-OPS-P for the Construction of a New Municipal Park with two (2) Baseball Diamonds was released for competitive bid July 11, 2019. Analysis Earthworks and site servicing significantly impact approved budget. The initial $275,000 cost estimate utilized to set budget for grading/earthworks was based on an approximate quantity subject to a detailed grading plan for the facility and geotechnical investigations to determine soil composition. Following the completion of the grading plan, geotechnical analysis and preliminary design by the consultant, it was determined that a significant amount of fill required removal from the site to facilitate the design. Cost estimate for fill removal was approximately $1,000,000. Staff worked with the consultant to accommodate fill on site, creating berms and keeping the current elevation of the land. The land is elevated approximately 3m above the surrounding property frontages. This exercise substantially reduced the earthwork cost estimate; however, geotechnical results indicating unstable soils, increased the need for over excavation in areas where asphalt is to be laid (pathways, driveway and parking lot). The site servicing allowance prepared for budget purposes was $260,000. Drainage of this site is a challenge. A drainage easement is in the northeast corner of the lands, requiring park drainage to flow to this catchment area, maintaining the existing drainage pattern. As we are obligated not to increase the storm runoff from the site, bio swales and a storm water management area need to be incorporated. The drainage design for the site is quite extensive, resulting in a considerable funding increase over and above the original allowance. In addition, there is no electrical service on the frontage of the lands. Electrical power needs to be accessed from the opposite side of the street, under the road, further increasing electrical funding required as part of site servicing. Between the earthworks and site servicing components, necessary parts of the construction contract, costs are approximately $500,000 over the initial budgeted allotments. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R2 Page 2 of 5 December 3, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Report No. OPS19-019 Advisory Committee Review None. Legal Considerations None. Financial Implications The following chart summarizes the additional funding required to construct the two (2) baseball diamonds: Contingency and non-refundable taxes $406,497 of the total budget variance. Communications Considerations The Town of Aurora will inform the public of any construction and closures as a result of the capital project by posting to social media, the Town website and having appropriate signage at the site. Approved Budget Capital Project 73287 $3,000,000 Total Approved Budget $3,000,000 Less previous commitments ( Design/Construction Consultant) $130,065 Funding available for subject contract $2,869,935 Contract Award excluding HST $3,235,187 Provisional Items (landscaping) $170,453 Contingency (10%) $340,564 Non-refundable taxes (1.76%) $65,933 Total Funding Required $3,942,200 Budget Variance -($942,200) General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R2 Page 3 of 5 December 3, 2019 Page 4 of 5 Report No. OPS19-019 Link to Strategic Plan The project supports the Strategic Plan Goal of Supporting an Exceptional Quality of Life for All, by encouraging an active and healthy lifestyle. Develop a long-term needs assessment for recreation programs, services and operations to match the evolving needs of the growing and changing population. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. Council could approve Capital Project No.73287 be increased to $3,746,824, representing an increase of $746,824 and not install the Provisional Landscape Items as part of Tender No.2019-86-OPS. 2. Council provide further direction. Conclusions Staff recommends that this project move forward as per original approved scope, for the construction of a new community park with two (2) baseball diamonds, washroom/shade canopy and provisional landscaping. Consequently, it is recommended that Capital Project No. 73287 budget be increased to 3,942,000 to complete construction, with all incremental funding from the Parks DC Reserve. Attachments None. Previous Reports OPS18-008 100 Vandorf Sideroad – Hallmark Lands Community Park Design, April 17, 2018 OPS18-018 100 Vandorf Sideroad – Hallmark Lands Community Park, July 17, 2018 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team Review on August 22, 2019. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R2 Page 4 of 5 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R2 Page 5 of 5 Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS20-002 Subject: Stream Management Master Plan and Flood Relief Study Prepared by: Anca Mihail, Manager of Engineering and Capital Delivery Department: Planning and Development Services Date: January 14, 2020 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS20-002 be received; and 2. That the Stream Management Master Plan and Flood Relief Study dated September 30, 2019, be endorsed in principle, subject to budget approval for the erosion and flood mitigation projects listed herein. Executive Summary This report presents to Council, for information, the conclusions and recommendations of the Stream Management Master Plan and the Tannery Creek Flood Relief Study. • The study identifies areas of concern and a range of opportunities to address them directly and through broader watershed management strategies. • Extensive Public Consultation has been undertaken during the study. • The Stream Management Master Plan identified problem areas but also many opportunities to reduce flooding risks and improve the overall health of the Town’s streams and creeks. • Flood Relief Assessment for Tannery Creek identified concerns, opportunities and the top 10 flood mitigation projects to be undertaken by the Town. • The Implementation Plan with cost estimates addresses the recommended list of 20 erosion and flood mitigation projects within the Town’s jurisdiction. Background Council at its meeting of March 27, 2018 approved the following motion: General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R3 Page 1 of 17 January 14, 2020 Page 2 of 11 Report No. PDS20-002 “Whereas the Insurance Bureau of Canada now expects a severe flood event somewhere in Canada every two to three weeks between April and November; and Whereas Aurora needs to be prepared for flood events by ensuring that our storm water drainage systems are functioning at an optimum level; and Whereas the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority's Flood Plain Map shows many Aurora homes currently sitting within the flood plain; 1. Be It Further Resolved That staff be directed to prepare a report on the following: (a) The condition of the dams and flood control measures located in the old part of Aurora, including when they were last inspected and updated; (b) What challenges the new development in this area will present for our old infrastructure; (c) Identify infrastructure throughout the Town that is in need of remedial capital work to be ready to safely and efficiently cope with heavy rains, and identify the requirement for any additional infrastructure; (d) The budget that will be required for these capital works and the maintenance of the system.” The Town of Aurora, in compliance with the Lake Simcoe Protection Act, 2008, was required to complete a comprehensive stormwater management master plan. The Town retained Aquafor Beech Ltd. to prepare the Comprehensive Stormwater Management Master Plan (CSWM-MP) which was completed in 2015 and endorsed by Council in 2016. The CSWM-MP recommended that the Town complete additional studies including a Town-wide stream management master plan and an update to the 1995 Tannery Creek flood relief study, to develop solutions that mitigate existing public health and safety risks from erosion and flooding, infrastructure damage and environmental degradation. Council approved capital budget funding requests for these two studies in 2015 and 2017. The Stream Management Master Plan (SMMP) focuses on the mitigation of stream erosion risks, including stream restoration opportunities. This part of the study deals General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R3 Page 2 of 17 January 14, 2020 Page 3 of 11 Report No. PDS20-002 with historically engineered, constrained and environmentally degraded watercourses on public property that are considered to be the responsibility of the Town. The purpose of the Tannery Creek Flood Relief Study (TCFRS) is to review and update recommendations from a 1995 flood relief study for Tannery Creek using updated data sources and considering recent hydrological and hydraulic modelling updates completed by the Lake Simcoe and Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA). The study develops a long term program of cost effective flood damage reduction measures that would minimize potential flood damage and risk to life within the Tannery Creek segment of Town of Aurora. Aquafor Beech Ltd. was retained to complete both studies, and in May 2018, the Town and Aquafor Beech Ltd. decided to combine them into one integrated report. The integrated report includes recommendations for addressing creek erosion and minimizing flood damage potential, and provides a list of rehabilitation projects and environmental enhancement opportunities with cost estimates attached that will be addressed by an implementation plan. Analysis The study identifies areas of concern and a range of opportunities to address them directly and through broader watershed management strategies. The study was completed in accordance with the Municipal Class EA planning process and provides a strategy for implementing a large number of projects of a similar nature with differences being primarily due to site specific conditions. Master Plans, by definition, are long-range plans of 15-20 years that integrate infrastructure for existing and future land use with environmental assessment planning principles. Also, it is important to identify potential synergies with other Town strategic plans, sub watershed studies, Master Plans, Secondary Plans, Environmental Assessments and policies. The erosion component of the study is focused on approximately 40 km of stream within the Town, and the flood relief component, on the Tannery Creek subwatershed. The Erosion Mitigation Component of the study includes the following: • Characteristics of the watercourses in terms of geomorphology and erosion. • An inventory of the erosion sites, restoration opportunities, and other stream management issues. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R3 Page 3 of 17 January 14, 2020 Page 4 of 11 Report No. PDS20-002 • A prioritization of the erosion and creek rehabilitation projects. The Flood Relief Component for Tannery Creek includes: • A review, update and confirmation of the hydrologic and hydraulic modelling for Tannery Creek. • Identifies flood problems, flood prone areas and flood relief opportunities. • Prioritizes flood relief projects and evaluates alternative solutions. The integrated study provides the following: • Integrates the erosion and flooding mitigation components and provides a list of combined projects. • Develops an implementation plan to undertake the recommended works. • Provides recommendations for ongoing monitoring and maintenance strategies. Extensive Public Consultation has been undertaken during the study. The study followed the Master Planning process within the Class Environmental Assessment for the Municipal Water and Wastewater Projects process, and was subject to the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. As such includes consultation with affected parties (e.g. regulatory agencies and public) at the start and in the final stages of the study. The Regulatory Agency involvement included consultation and meetings with staff from LSRCA where erosion and flood priority projects were presented along with an integrated implementation plan. Three (3) Public Information Centres (PICs) were held over the course of the study on September 5, 2017, May 1, 2018 and September 5, 2019, to inform residents of the study’s progress and to solicit their input with respect to priority restoration sites and erosion restoration alternatives. The flooding component of the study was introduced at the second PIC, on May 1, 2018. The Study’s Final Report, dated September 30, 2019, was displayed for public review, for a period of 30 days, from October 17 to November 16, at the Town Hall and Aurora Public General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R3 Page 4 of 17 January 14, 2020 Page 5 of 11 Report No. PDS20-002 Library. Four people contacted the Town during the review period to provide input on the study. The Stream Management Master Plan identified problem areas but also many opportunities to reduce flooding risks and improve the overall health of the Town’s streams and creeks. Field walks were completed for Aurora streams (approximately 40 km) in May and June 2017 which identified a number of concerns but also many opportunities. The following concerns were identified: • Risks due to erosion and deteriorated infrastructure: old engineering treatments (e.g. gabion walls) in poor condition putting property and habitat at risk. • Large woody debris jams in the watercourses that create flooding hazards. • Flooding risks due to undersized culverts that constrain high stream flows creating hydraulic pinch points and increasing risks of flooding and erosion. • Stream buffer encroachment related to existing structures and landscaping on private property impacting stream health. • Risks to private and public property due to bank erosion and slope instability. • Historic legacy of dams and weirs that are in varying state of repair and under public or private ownership influencing flooding risks. Erosion sites have been classified based on field site classification (e.g. similar problems), field scoring (out of 100) and site location and property scoring data. Erosion sites with field scores between 75–100 were considered for high priority projects. Moderate priority field scores between 65-75 were considered for integration with high priority projects based on proximity and similar problem types. Low priority sites, with scores below 65, were identified for future monitoring by the Town. The top 10 erosion projects identified for the implementation plan are presented in the Attachment #1. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R3 Page 5 of 17 January 14, 2020 Page 6 of 11 Report No. PDS20-002 Flood Relief Assessment for Tannery Creek identified concerns, opportunities and the top 10 flood mitigation projects to be undertaken by the Town. The flood study’s tasks included: • Updating the Tannery Creek hydraulic model and mapping the Regional floodplain within the Town’s limits. • Undertake a flood risk assessment to identify buildings susceptible to flooding and estimate the frequency of flooding of roadway crossing structures (e.g. road culverts). • Define Flood Damage Centres (which include flood susceptible buildings), please see map in Attachment #2. • Identify undersized culverts and bridges. • Conceptualize flood mitigation projects for the identified flood susceptible areas. • Prioritize the flood mitigation projects based on flood risk reduction potential. • Develop preliminary designs for the top 10 flood mitigation projects. Flooding issues identified may be a direct or indirect result of urbanization and human modification of the landscape. The key flood related issues identified are summarize as follows: • Flood susceptible buildings within the Regional Floodplain – 259 total buildings (230 residential buildings). • Road crossing structures undersized as per the current MTO Standards – 21 undersized public structures, 7 undersized private structures. • Road crossing structures that are too narrow and fail to meet MNR current design criteria for pedestrian and passenger vehicle access (32 structures) and emergency vehicle access (9 structures). The replacement of the undersized crossing structures will be paired with road reconstruction projects to reduce construction costs and impacting neighborhoods. In the Town of Aurora, the Regional storm (Hurricane Hazel 1954) is considered the most severe flooding scenario, and it is used to generate the floodline. Flood susceptible General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R3 Page 6 of 17 January 14, 2020 Page 7 of 11 Report No. PDS20-002 buildings are the buildings partially or fully contained within the floodline. In total 259 buildings were identified as being flood susceptible, 89% of which are residential buildings (single and multi-unit). This count does not include accessory buildings on residential properties (e.g. sheds). To identify and prioritize the top 10 flood mitigation projects, the flood risk reduction potential was estimated based on the numbers and types of flood susceptible buildings (e.g. if a larger number of buildings are taken out from the floodplain, the project is considered as high priority). Flood mitigation measures considered include: • Culvert capacity upgrades consists of removal and replacement of certain undersized culverts to improve the conveyance capacity and reduce the frequency of flooding; • Stormwater flood storage consists of constructing 2 subsurface storage facilities below Machell Park and Fleury Park to reduce the volume of flood waters through subsurface storage; and • Channel realignment and watercourse capacity upgrades consists of re-aligning and widening the stream corridors, where possible, to improve conveyance and rehabilitate the watercourse using natural channel design approaches through armour stone walls and restore riparian areas with native tree and shrub plantings. • New development: the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority restricts development or re-development in the floodplain to ensure that creek and floodplain alterations do not impact negatively flooding conditions. Regulation under the LSRCA prevents additional potential flood risks posed by new development. The top 10 flood mitigation projects identified for the implementation plan are presented in the Attachment #3. The Implementation Plan with cost estimates addresses the recommended list of 20 erosion and flood mitigation projects within the Town’s jurisdiction. The criteria used to evaluate the relative priorities and planning horizons of the projects included ease of implementation, risk assessment, cost efficiency and integration benefit. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R3 Page 7 of 17 January 14, 2020 Page 8 of 11 Report No. PDS20-002 With the recommended list of 20 erosion and flood mitigation projects, an integrated Implementation Plan has been developed, with short-term projects (2-10 years), intermediate term projects (10-20 years) and long-term projects (20-30 years) as follows: • 2-10 year planning horizon for delivery – 5 combined projects estimated at $5.3 million (please see Attachment # 4); • 10-20 year planning horizon for delivery – 5 projects estimated at $7 million (please see Attachment #5); • 20-30 year planning horizon for delivery – 6 projects estimated at $28.7 million (please see Attachment #6). The total cost estimate for all of the recommended erosion and flood mitigation projects is $41 million with $22.4 million recommended for the Tannery Creek Restoration Reach, project E-10 and the associated flood mitigation projects. This amount does not take into account the replacement of the culvert and related works associated with the Charlieville development proposal which could lower the overall cost of the project. Each project cost estimate includes 15% for engineering design and approvals and a 15% contingency, but excludes HST. For budgeting purposes, this works out to an annual budget in the range of $530,000 to $2.87 million per year over the next 30 years to address all recommended projects within the Town. The cost estimates do not include the cost of land acquisition that might be required in certain cases. Flood proofing costs of structures by private landowners are also not included. The recommended projects, within the 2-10 year planning horizon for delivery, have been included in the 10 year capital plan and will be presented to Council for approval as part of the yearly budget process starting with the 2020 capital budget. The design for the creek rehabilitation and culvert replacement at Devlin Place and the creek rehabilitation behind Willow Farm Lane were approved by Council in the 2020 capital budget on October 22, 2019 (please see Attachment #4). Also, staff will be submitting an application for funding under the “Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program – Green Infrastructure Stream”. The Provincial and Federal Governments signed an agreement for federal funding under the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP), the Green Infrastructure Stream, for projects that support rehabilitation, renewal and/or replacement of eligible assets to address health and safety risks and, municipalities with populations under 100,000 that own stormwater infrastructure assets, are eligible to apply. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R3 Page 8 of 17 January 14, 2020 Page 9 of 11 Report No. PDS20-002 Advisory Committee Review Not applicable. Legal Considerations None. Financial Implications The total cost estimate for all of the recommended erosion and flood mitigation projects is $41 million over a 30-year planning horizon for delivery. To address all recommended projects within the Town and for budgeting purposes, this works out to an annual budget in the range of $530,000 to $2.87 million per year over the next 30 years. The recommended projects, within the 2-10 year planning horizon for delivery, have been included in the 10 year capital plan and will be presented to Council for approval as part of the yearly capital budget process starting with the 2020 capital budget (Devlin Place and Willow Farm Lane projects were approved by Council on October 22, 2019). This recommended project work will be fully funded from the Town’s Stormwater Services reserve. The recent 2020 Ten Year Capital Investment Plan included a portion of these noted projects. Should Council endorse the Town’s Stream Management Master Plan and Flood Relief Study, the full scope of planned capital works will be inserted into the Town’s next ten year capital investment plan to ensure that this plan is affordable. The final approval to proceed with each of these noted projects will be subject to funding availability. Communications Considerations Please see the Analysis section for information on how the community was engaged in this process. Moving forward, recommended works as a result of this report, will follow the Inform category, ensuring information regarding construction is sent to affected homes and businesses in the area by e-mail and information is posted to the Town’s website and social media where appropriate. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R3 Page 9 of 17 January 14, 2020 Page 10 of 11 Report No. PDS20-002 Link to Strategic Plan This report supports the Strategic Plan goal of Supporting an Exceptional Quality of Life for All through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objective within this goal statement: Invest in sustainable infrastructure: Maintain and expand infrastructure to support forecasted population growth through technology, waste management, roads, emergency services and accessibility. Alternative to the Recommendation 1. That Council provide direction. Conclusions The Town has completed a Stream Management Master Plan (SMMP) in accordance with the 2016 Comprehensive Stormwater Management Master Plan and the 2009 Lake Simcoe Protection Plan. The SMMP has also incorporated the Tannery Creek Flood Relief Study and thus the SMMP addresses both erosion and flood risks issues. The SMMP implementation plan recommends projects to mitigate existing erosion and flooding issues within the Town in the short and long term. Further, the SMMP recommends long-term maintenance and monitoring plans, to support responsibility for and stewardship of the natural infrastructure within the Town’s streams and watercourses. The total cost estimate for all of the recommended erosion and flood mitigation projects is $41 million over a 30-year planning horizon for delivery. To address al recommended projects within the Town and for budget planning purposes, this works out to an annual budget in the range of $530,000 to $2.87 million per year over the next 30 years. The recommended projects, within the 2-10 year planning horizon for delivery, have been included in the 10 year capital plan and will be presented to Council for approval as part of the yearly capital budget process starting with the 2020 capital budget. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R3 Page 10 of 17 January 14, 2020 Page 11 of 11 Report No. PDS20-002 Attachments Attachment #1 : Top I O erosion projects in Aurora Attachment #2: Flood Damage Centers in Aurora Attachment #3: Top I O flood mitigation projects Attachment #4: Implementation Plan 2-10 year Attachment #5: Implementation Plan 10-20 year Attachment #6: Implementation Plan 20-30 year Previous Reports None. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on December 18, 2019 Departmental Approval Approved for Agenda W C(!David Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE Director Planning and Development Services Chief Administrative Officer General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R3 Page 11 of 17 Attachment #1 PDS20‐002 Implementation plan table for ten (10) erosion mitigation projects** Project # Project Name Erosion Sites # Length (m)Risks and Opportunities EA Schedule Property Ownership Cost Estimate* Planning Horizon Erosion Mitigation Projects E‐1 Devlin Place 10, 11 150 Failing gabion wall, outfall, old concrete culvert, weir B Town of Aurora $400,000 2 ‐ 10 yrs E‐2 Jones Court 8 130 Bank erosion, narrow corridor B Town of Aurora $700,000 2 ‐ 10 yrs E‐3 Wellington St. W 19, 20 300 Erosion of road embankments, scour at outfall pipes, failing gabion, hydro‐poles B Region, Private, and Town of Aurora $3,400,000 10 ‐ 20 yrs E‐4 Willow Farm Lane 26 330 Bed erosion, failure of gabion wall and slope, and trail at risk B Town of Aurora and Private $700,000 2 ‐ 10 yrs E‐5 Manhole Risk Project 2, 3, 13, 23 135 Manholes exposed in channels, adjacent to bank erosion B Town of Aurora, School Board, and Private $600,000 2 ‐ 10 yrs E‐6 45 Tyler St. 5 200 Deteriorated culvert, weir, and gabion baskets, local erosion B Private and Town of Aurora $600,000 2 ‐ 10 yrs E‐7 Sandusky Park 7 200 Deterioration of infrastructure in channel: concrete weir, outfall, CSP culvert B Private and Town of Aurora $600,000 10 ‐ 20 yrs E‐8 Harriman Road Driveways 33 250 Deteriorated culverts and hydraulic flood risks, driveways within Town property B Private and Town of Aurora $1,100,000 10 ‐ 20 yrs E‐9 Country Lane Estates 16 50 Erosion of valley embankment adjacent to private apartment buildings B Private Property $200,000 10 ‐ 20 yrs Reach‐Scale Restoration Project E‐10 Tannery Creek Restoration Reach 1, 24, 25 1,250 Buildings and infrastructure in straightened and historically engineered stream corridor, with public buildings, park, private parking lot at risk. Individual EA Schedule B (see text) Town of Aurora, School Board, and Private $7,000,000 20 ‐ 30 yrs * Cost estimate includes 15% for engineering design and approvals and 15% contingency, rounded up to the nearest $10 **The Master Plan satisfies the EA schedule B process for all erosion projects except for E‐10 which requires a separate individual EA study. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R3 Page 12 of 17 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R3 Page 13 of 17 Attachment #3 PDS20‐002 Implementation plan table for ten (10) flood mitigation projects** Project # Project Name Erosion Sites # Flood Damage Centre Length (m) Brief Description EA Schedule Property Ownership Cost Estimate* Planning Horizon Flood Mitigation Projects F‐1 15085 Yonge Street 2 3 75 Daylighting of channel through removal of 44 m culvert and berm. B Private $400,000 2 ‐ 10 yrs F‐2 Davis Road, Jones Court and Murray Drive Culverts 8 6 110 Culvert capacity upgrade at Davis Rd and Murray Dr and flood proofing of houses. B Town of Aurora and Private $3,300,000 20 ‐ 30 yrs F‐3 Delayne Drive ‐ 8 300 Channel realignment and floodplain regrading to improve conveyance capacity. B Town of Aurora $1,500,000 2 ‐ 10 yrs F‐4 Fleury Park 25 2 1,000 Underground flood storage facility, channel conveyance capacity improvements and regrading from Wellington St E to Orchard Heights Blvd. B** Town of Aurora, School Board, and Private Flood Storage: $4,000,000 Channel Works: $3,900,000 20 ‐ 30 yrs F‐5 Child Drive, Glass Drive and Seaton Drive Culverts ‐ 7 180 Culvert capacity upgrade at Child Dr, Glass Dr and Seaton Dr at end of life and flood proofing of houses. B Town of Aurora and Private $3,000,000 20 ‐ 30 yrs F‐6 Yonge Street and Batson Drive Culverts ‐ 2 150 Culvert capacity upgrade (3) at end of life. B Town of Aurora $3,600,000 20 ‐ 30 yrs F‐7 Machell Park 24 2 ‐ Underground flood storage facility with upgraded soccer field. B*** Town of Aurora and Private $7,800,000 20 ‐ 30 yrs F‐8 Henderson Drive to Davis Road ‐ 6 325 Channel improvements and floodplain regrading to improve conveyance capacity. B Town of Aurora $1,700,000 10 ‐ 20 yrs F‐9 Devlin Place Culvert 10, 11 7 50 Culvert capacity upgrade at end of life. B Town of Aurora $1,000,000 2 ‐ 10 yrs F‐10 Kennedy Street W to Tyler Street 5, 6 3 450 Channel improvements and floodplain regrading to improve conveyance capacity B Town of Aurora and Private $1,400,000 2 ‐ 10 yrs * Cost estimate includes 15% for engineering design and approvals and 15% contingency, rounded up to the nearest $100K, but is exclusive of HST. Flood proofing costs are not included. **Master Plan satisfies EA schedule B process for project F‐4, however channel restoration component has been identified for individual EA under project E‐10. ***Master Plan satisfies EA schedule B process for project F‐7, however channel restoration component has been identified for individual EA under project E‐10. The Master Plan satisfies the EA schedule B process for all flood projects. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R3 Page 14 of 17 Attachment #4 PDS20‐002 Integrated implementation plan table for erosion and flood mitigation projects, 2‐10 year planning horizon Project # Project Names Erosion Sites # Flood Damage Centre Length (m) EA Schedule Property Ownership Cost Estimate* Planning Horizon 2 ‐ 10 years E‐1  Devlin Place 10, 11 150 B Town of Aurora $400,000  F‐9 Devlin Place Culvert 10, 11 7 50 B Town of Aurora $1,000,000 E‐2  Jones Court (Project F‐2 in 10‐20 yrs) 8 130 B Town of Aurora $700,000 E‐5  Manhole Risk Project 2, 3, 13, 23 135 B Town of Aurora, School Board, and Private $600,000  F‐1 15085 Yonge Street 2 3 75 B Private $400,000 E‐6  45 Tyler Street 5 200 B Private (and Town of Aurora) Potentially to be addressed by private development  F‐10 45 Tyler Street 5, 6 3 200 B Private (and Town of Aurora) E‐4 Willow Farm Lane 26 330 B Town of Aurora and Private $700,000 F‐3 Delayne Drive ‐ 8 300 B Town of Aurora $1,500,000 Vertical arrows indicate potential integration of projects 2 – 10 Years Total Cost Estimate* $5,300,000 Average Cost Per Year Over 10 Years $530,000 * Cost estimate includes 15% for engineering design and approvals and 15% contingency, rounded up to the nearest $100K, but is exclusive of HST (see text). General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R3 Page 15 of 17 Attachment #5 PDS20‐002 Integrated implementation plan table for erosion and flood mitigation projects, 10‐20 year planning horizon Project # Project Names Erosion Sites # Flood Damage Centre Length (m) EA Schedule Property Ownership Cost Estimate* Planning Horizon 10 ‐ 20 years E‐3 Wellington St. W 19, 20 300 B Region, Private, and Town of Aurora $3,400,000 E‐7 Sandusky Park 7 200 B Private and Town of Aurora $600,000 E‐8 Harriman Road Driveways (also see flood risks)** 33 250 B Private and Town of Aurora $1,100,000 F‐8 Henderson Drive to Davis Road ‐ 6 325 B Town of Aurora $1,700,000 E‐9 Country Lane Estates 16 50 B Private Property $200,000 10 – 20 Years Total Cost Estimate* $7,000,000 Average Cost Per Year Over 10 Years $700,000 * Cost estimate includes 15% for engineering design and approvals and 15% contingency, rounded up to the nearest $100K, but is exclusive of HST (see text). **Erosion mitigation for project E‐8 also to address local flood risks within Flood Damage Centre 5. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R3 Page 16 of 17 Attachment #6 PDS20‐002 Integrated implementation plan table for erosion and flood mitigation projects, 20‐30 year planning horizon Project # Project Names Erosion Sites # Flood Damage Centre Length (m) EA Schedule Property Ownership Cost Estimate* Planning Horizon 20 ‐ 30 years F‐2 Davis Road, Jones Court and Murray Drive Culverts (Project E‐2 in 2‐10 yrs) 8 6 110 B Town of Aurora and Private $3,300,000 F‐5 Child Drive, Glass Drive and Seaton Drive Culverts ‐ 7 180 B Town of Aurora and Private $3,000,000 20‐30 Year Cost Estimate* **(Without Tannery Creek Main Branch) $6,300,000 Average Cost Per Year Over 10 Years $630,000 E‐10  Tannery Creek Restoration Reach 1, 24, 25 1,250 Individual EA Schedule B Town of Aurora, School Board, and Private $7,000,000  F‐4  Fleury Park 25 2 1,000 B Town of Aurora, School Board, and Private $4,000,000***  F‐6  Yonge Street and Batson Drive Culverts ‐ 2 150 B Town of Aurora $3,600,000  F‐7 Machell Park 24 2 ‐BTown of Aurora and Private $7,800,000 Vertical arrows indicate potential integration of projects 20 – 30 Year Cost Estimate* **(Tannery Creek Restoration Reach & Flood Mitigation) $22,400,000 20 – 30 Year Total Cost Estimate* $28,700,000 * Cost estimate includes 15% for engineering design and approvals and 15% contingency, rounded up to the nearest $100K, but is exclusive of HST (see text). **Main Branch Tannery Creek Restoration Reach & Flood Mitigation costs listed separately requiring additional long‐term budget planning and possibly other external funding partnerships beyond typical annual budget planning for capital projects of $0.5 – 1.0 million per year. ***Note that $3.9 million for channel works in flood mitigation project F‐4 is covered under erosion mitigation project E‐10. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R3 Page 17 of 17 Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS20-001 Subject: Development Planning Fees and Charges Update Prepared by: Anna Henriques, Senior Planner, Development Department: Planning and Development Services Date: January 14, 2020 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS20-001 be received; and 2. That the recommended updates to the Town’s Development Planning Fees and Charges be endorsed in principle, subject to consultation with the development industry and the public; and 3. That staff be authorized to proceed with consultation with the development industry and the public to obtain input on proposed updates to the Town’s Development Planning Fees and Charges. Executive Summary This report seeks Council’s approval, in principle, of recommended updates to the Town’s Development Planning Fees and Charges: • The Town’s Fees and Charges were recently updated with Council’s enactment of a new Fees and Charges By-law, By-law 6219-19, which came into effect January 1, 2020. The updates primarily reflect a 2% inflationary increase and a new fee was introduced for Development Planning for Pre-Application Consultation. • The Town’s Development Planning Fees were last comprehensively reviewed in 2007 • In September 2019, the Town retained Watson to undertake a review of its Development Planning Fees and Charges • The Town’s full cost of service delivery for Planning Application review is approximately $1.5 million and on average only 64% ($944,000) is currently being recovered • The recommended new fees will increase the overall Planning Application cost recovery from 64% to 95% and are anticipated to increase the budgeted Planning Application revenue by 49% General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 1 of 68 January 14, 2020 Page 2 of 10 Report No. PDS20-001 • Recommended fees will not change the Town’s rank amongst municipal competitors when assessing the total cost of overall development fees and planning fees • Next steps include consultation with the development industry (BILD) and the public prior to enactment of a by-law to update Planning Fees and Charges, including an approach for implementation Background The Town’s Fees and Charges were recently updated with Council’s enactment of a new Fees and Charges By-law, By-law 6219-19, which came into effect January 1, 2020. The Town’s Fees and Charges By-law outlines fees and charges based on each department in the form of departmental schedules. All fees and charges listed on the schedules are for user pay services, where the requesting party is the sole beneficiary from the service. Most of the fees are on a full cost recovery basis, which allows the Town to fully recover the costs of providing a specific service or use of property. It is the Town’s practice to review its fees and charges on an annual basis. Typically, this review results in an increase to the Town’s fees and charges, consistent with cost of inflation, to maintain applicable service cost recovery benchmarks. The Town recently reviewed and updated its fees and charges with Council’s enactment of a new Fees and Charges By-law which came into effect on January 1, 2020. The updates to the fees and charges mainly reflect a 2.0% inflationary increase to maintain service cost recovery. The Town’s Development Planning Fees and Charges are primarily outlined on Schedule ‘H’ of the Town’s Fees and Charges By-law, By-law 6219-19. In addition to inflationary increases, the new Fees and Charges By-law introduced a new Development Planning fee for Pre-Application Consultation (Schedule ‘B’). This new fee covers the cost of staff time reviewing proposals prior to submission of Planning Act applications. The Town’s Development Planning Fees were last comprehensively reviewed in 2007 In 2007, Watson and Associates Economists Ltd. (Watson), in association with Performance Concepts Consulting, undertook a review of the Building Code Act and the Planning Act mandated Development Applications Approvals Process fees (D.A.A.P). General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 2 of 68 January 14, 2020 Page 3 of 10 Report No. PDS20-001 The review consisted of an assessment of the Town’s Building and Planning processes and providing a legislative compliance framework for rationalizing processes and user fees mandated by the Planning Act, Building Code Act and the Municipal Act. The review also included the development of an activity-based costing (A.B.C.) model for calculating full cost D.A.A.P. fees. In September 2019, the Town retained Watson to undertake a review of its Development Planning Fees and Charges Since the last comprehensive review of the Town’s Planning Fees and Charges in 2007, there have been many Provincial planning policy changes that have resulted in changes in the types and annual volumes of Planning Applications submitted to the Town. In addition, the Town has experienced an increase in the complexity of applications submitted which ultimately impacts review processes. In response to the changes in Planning Application types, volumes and complexity, the Town retained Watson in September 2019 to review and update its Planning fees and charges. The primary objectives are to: • Review and update of the Town’s A.B.C. model (2007 review) for planning application review processes to determine the full cost of service and historic levels of cost recovery • Determine full cost recovery fees for planning applications • Recommend new fees and fee structure Analysis The Town’s full cost of service delivery for Planning Application review is approximately $1.5 million and on average only 64% ($944,000) is currently being recovered To determine the full cost of service delivery and recovery for the Town’s Planning Applications, Watson reviewed the Town’s planning application review processes which included, to varying degrees, staff efforts from various departments and divisions throughout the Town. This review was largely based on the 2007 D.A.A.P. review and was updated with respect to current staff capacity and involvement in the Development Planning and Policy Planning and Economic Development divisions within the Planning and Development Services Department. This information was then reviewed with current planning application fees, average planning application volumes from 2015- General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 3 of 68 January 14, 2020 Page 4 of 10 Report No. PDS20-001 2019 and staffing allocation patterns currently in place within the Development Planning and Policy Planning and Economic Development divisions. The results of the review identify that the Town’s full cost of service delivery for the review of Planning Applications is approximately $1.5 million and that only 64% of this cost is being recovered through existing planning fees. The recovery levels vary based on applications types with Condominium Applications having the highest cost recovery at 84% and Committee of Adjustment Applications (minor variances and consents) having the lowest cost recovery at 50%. Appendix 2 (Tables 3-3 and 3-4) highlights the current cost recovery for each planning application type. The recommended new fees will increase the overall Planning Application cost recovery from 64% to 95% and are anticipated to increase the budgeted Planning Application revenue by 49% In addition to Watson’s review of the full cost of service delivery and recovery for the Town’s Planning Applications, a review of planning fees from other municipalities was also undertaken to ensure recommended fees are consistent with industry best practices and comparable with neighbouring municipalities. The recommended fees strike a balance between recovery of application processing costs, Planning Act compliance, affordability for applicants and municipal revenue certainty. In addition to the recommended fee increases, Watson is also recommending revisions to simplify the existing fee structure. For example, several Planning Applications require fees at different stages during the review process such as an Official Plan Amendment Application. The current fee structure requires payment of a base fee at application submission and an additional processing fee is also required prior to adoption of the amendment. Similarly, for Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications, a base fee plus a fee per unit/hectare is required at applications submission and an additional fee is required at the time of registration of the subdivision agreement. To simplify the fee structure, Watson is recommending that base fees and additional processing fees, where applicable, be incorporated into one base fee due at application submission. It is anticipated that the recommended new planning fees will increase the overall Planning Application cost recovery to 95%. Fees for all application types will achieve full cost recovery with the exception of minor variance applications. Minor variances applications are typically submitted by residents and to address concerns relating to affordability, staff have recommended to Watson that the fee only be increased to an amount that is consistent with the average minor variance fee for municipalities within York Region. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 4 of 68 January 14, 2020 Page 5 of 10 Report No. PDS20-001 Please see Attachment 3 for a complete list of recommended new fees for Schedule ‘H’ of the Town’s Fees and Charges Bylaw, 6219-19 (2020 revised). Below is a summary of recommended fees by application type: Official Plan Amendment • Official Plan Amendment fee to increase from $27,051 (major) and $17,713 (minor) to $43,927 (base fee and processing fee). The new recommended fee will apply to all Official Plan Amendment applications and there will no longer be application sub-types for major and minor. • Processing fee incorporated into new base fee and due at time of application submission Zoning By-law Amendment • Major Zoning By-law Amendment fee increasing from $18,398 (base fee and processing fee) to $25,497. Processing fee incorporated into new base fee and due at time of application submission • Minor Zoning By-law Amendment fee increasing from $12,465 (base fee and processing fee) to $13,806. Processing fee incorporated into new base fee and due at time of application submission. Draft Plan of Subdivision • Draft Plan of Subdivision fee increasing from $20,408 (base fee and registration of subdivision agreement fee) to $45,575 (base fee only) plus: o A decreasing block per unit/lot fee to recognize the decreasing marginal costs of processing as applications increase in size • Revision to Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision fee increasing from $4,493 to $6,238 • Extension to Draft Plan Approval fee increasing from $2,353 to $3,267 Draft Plan of Condominium • Draft Plan of Condominium fee increasing from $25,307(base fee and registration fee) to $30,167 (base fee only) General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 5 of 68 January 14, 2020 Page 6 of 10 Report No. PDS20-001 • Revision to Draft Approved Plan of Condominium fee increasing from $3,682 to $4,389 • Extension to Draft Approval fee to remain unchanged at $2,353 Site Plan Approval • Major Site Plan Approval fee increasing from $6,548 to $15,300 (base fee) plus: o A decreasing block per residential unit fee o A decreasing block per non-residential square metre of gross floor area • Minor and Amending Site Plan Approval base fee increasing from $3,517 to $8,217 plus: o A non-residential per square metre fee where there is an increase in gross floor area • Site Plan Exemption base fee increasing from $629 to $1,046 • Site Plan Review (Stable Neighbourhoods) to remain unchanged at $1,046 Committee of Adjustment • Consent fee increasing from $3,550 to $5,195 plus: o Per lot fee increasing from $1,783 to $2,609 • Minor Variance fee for ground related residential increasing from $2,038 to $2,869 • Minor Variance fee for Oak Ridges Moraine Residential increasing from $1,702 to $2,397 • Minor Variance for all other uses, including ICI fee increasing from $2,498 to $3,517 In addition to the recommend fees as summarized above and comprehensively outlined in Attachment 3, two new fees are recommended to be introduced: • Deeming By-law fee, $4,077 • Additional Public Meeting fee, $1,065 In addition to the recommendations by Watson, staff also recommend that the Pre- Application Consultation fee ($400) on Schedule ‘B’ of the Town’s Fees and Charges By- law be waived for Site Plan Review (Stable Neighbourhood) Applications. This exemption General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 6 of 68 January 14, 2020 Page 7 of 10 Report No. PDS20-001 is recommended to address affordability concerns since this type of application is typically submitted by residents. Recommended fees will not change the Town’s rank amongst municipal competitors when assessing the total cost of overall development fees and planning fees Although the recommended fees will result in higher development fees for the Town, Watson undertook an assessment of the development fees charged by other municipalities and found that the Town’s rank amongst competitor municipalities will remain unchanged. Chapter 4 of Watson’s report (Appendix 1) highlights the different development scenarios that were assessed and the Town’s ranking amongst competitor municipalities within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). Next steps include consultation with the development industry (BILD) and public prior to enactment of a by-law to update Planning Fees and Charges, including an approach for implementation The Planning Act does not require public consultation or notice prior to the enactment of a by-law to establish Planning Fees and Charges. However, it is the opinion of staff that consultation with the development industry is good practice and as such, staff will be consulting with BILD in February/March to obtain their feedback. Also, in accordance with the Town’s Notice Provision Policy, notice must be provided respecting updates to the Town’s fees and charges. Prior to Council’s enactment of a by-law to update the Town’s Planning Fees and Charges, notice will be provided on the Town’s website and in the Town newspaper as per Town policy. Feedback received will be considered, as appropriate, and a draft by-law to update Planning fees and charges will be provided to Council for consideration, including an approach for implementation. Communications Considerations Utilizing the Community Engagement Framework, the Town will involve the development industry and the public by obtaining comments on the proposed fee changes. Comments received will be considered, as appropriate, prior to bringing a by- law forward to Council for their consideration. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 7 of 68 January 14, 2020 Page 8 of 10 Report No. PDS20-001 Notice to the public will also be provided prior to enactment of a by-law to establish new Planning Fees and Charges. Advisory Committee Review No communication required. Legal Considerations The Planning Act allows the Town to impose fees and charges for the purpose of recovering the anticipated cost to the Town to process planning applications. An applicant may pay under protest any imposed feed and then appeal the levying of the fee or the amount of the fee to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal within 30 days of payment. Financial Implications Although the Town reviews and updates its fees annually to adjust for changes in the cost of providing the service, sometimes a more thorough review and comparison with surrounding municipalities is required. This more in depth fee analysis ensures that the Town is collecting the appropriate percentage of cost recovery and is in alignment with the surrounding municipalities for the services provided. All fee increases alleviate pressure on the tax base; when costs increase as a result of inflation but non-tax revenues do not, the tax levy must accommodate this additional budget burden. Communications Considerations Planning will consult with BILD and the public in the first quarter of 2020 to obtain their input on the proposed Planning fee updates. Planning will also work with Corporate Communications staff to ensure the proposed fee changes are posted in accordance with the Town’s Notice Provision Policy. Link to Strategic Plan Reviewing and updating the Town’s fees and charges on a regular basis for user pat services contributes to achieving the Strategic Plan guiding principle of ‘Leadership in General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 8 of 68 January 14, 2020 Page 9 of 10 Report No. PDS20-001 Corporate Management’ and improves transparency and accountability to the community. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation 1. That Council provide direction. Conclusions The Town has retained Watson and Associates Economists Ltd. to undertake a review of its Planning fees. The last comprehensive review of the Town’s Planning fees was completed in 2007. Watson is recommending increasing and restructuring of the Town’s Planning fees in a manner that places Aurora within the average of other municipalities within the GTA. Staff recommend Council receive the recommended Planning fees and charges, as summarized in this report and outlined in Appendix 3 and authorize staff to consult with the development industry and the public. Following consultation staff will bring a by-law forward to Council for consideration at a later date. Attachments Attachment 1- Draft Report: Development Planning Fee Review Attachment 2- Table 3-3: Planning Fees Modelled Impacts by Application Type (2019$) Table 3-4: Planning Fees Modelled Impacts by Application Sub-Type (2019$) Attachment 3- Schedule H: Recommended Fee Structure (2020 revised) Previous Reports Not applicable. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 9 of 68 January 14, 2020 Page I O of 10 Report No. PDS20-001 Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team Meeting review on December 18, 2019 Departmental Approval David Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE Director Planning and Development Services Approved for Agenda Doug Na Chief Administrative Officer General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 10 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. 905-272-3600 January 2, 2020 info@watsonecon.ca Development Planning Fee Review Town of Aurora ________________________ Final Report Attachment 1 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 11 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Table of Contents Page Executive Summary.......................................................................................................i 1. Introduction......................................................................................................1-1 Background.............................................................................................1-1 Study Process.........................................................................................1-2 Legislative Context for Planning Application Fees Review .....................1-3 2. Activity Based Costing Model........................................................................2-1 Methodology...........................................................................................2-1 Application Category Definition...............................................................2-2 Processing Effort Cost Allocation............................................................2-4 Direct Costs............................................................................................2-5 Indirect Cost Functions and Cost Drivers................................................2-6 Capital Costs ..........................................................................................2-7 3. Planning Application Fees Review ................................................................3-1 Staff Capacity Utilization Results............................................................3-1 Planning Application Type Impacts.........................................................3-3 Planning Application Rate Structure Analysis.........................................3-6 4. Impact Analysis of Recommended Fee Structure........................................4-1 Impact Analysis.......................................................................................4-1 Impact Analysis Summary ....................................................................4-11 5. Conclusion.......................................................................................................5-1 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 12 of 68 Executive Summary General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 13 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE i H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Executive Summary This Planning Application Fees Review has been prepared as an update to the Town’s 2007 D.A.A.P. Fees Review, in recognition of changes in the types and annual volumes of planning applications and increases in the complexity of the review processes. This planning application fee review seeks to support the Town in determining a cost recovery budget/policy framework that balances the interest of new and existing development and creates a pathway towards fiscal sustainability. Also, a full cost recovery fee review will ensure that the Town achieves/maintains legislative compliance with Section 69 of the Planning Act.In this regard, the review provides evidence-based support for any potential future planning application fee appeals to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal This technical report: x summarizes the legislative context for the fees review; x provides in detail the methodology utilized to assess the full costs of processing planning applications; and x presents the full costs recovery planning application fees, including a schedule of recommended fees and comparison to municipal development fees for other GTAH municipalities. Methodology The A.B.C. methodology utilized in this fee review, as it pertains to municipal governments, assigns the Town’s resource costs to the services provided to the public (i.e. processing planning applications). Conventional municipal accounting structures are typically not well suited to the costing challenges associated with planning application review activities; as these accounting structures are department focussed and thereby inadequate for fully costing services with involvement from multiple Town departments. An A.B.C. approach better identifies the costs associated with the processing activities for specific permit types and thus is an ideal method for determining full cost planning application fees. The A.B.C. methodology attributes processing effort and associated costs from all participating departments to the appropriate user fee service categories. The resource costs attributed to processing activities and application categories include direct General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 14 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE ii H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx operating costs, indirect support and corporate overhead costs, and capital costs. Once support costs have been allocated amongst direct departments, the accumulated costs (i.e. indirect, direct and capital costs) are then distributed across the various user fee categories based on each department’s direct involvement in processing activities. The assessment of each department’s direct involvement in processing reflects the 2007 D.A.A.P. review processes with updates related to the involvement of the staff from the Planning & Development Services Department’s Development Planning and Policy Planning & Economic Development divisions as staff from these divisions have the greatest involvement in the planning application review process. Moreover, the capacity utilization results were updated using 2015-2018 average application volumes, and staffing allocation patterns currently in place across with the Development Planning and Policy Planning & Economic Development divisions. This A.B.C. approach to setting user fees preserves the Town’s ability to shelter existing taxpayers from service costs directly benefitting recipients, while cost justifying any required fee adjustments. Maintaining this approach embraces “best practices” utilized by other urban and growth municipalities in Ontario. Staff Capacity Utilization Results and Full Cost of Service Based on the application of 2015 to 2018 average annual application volumes to established processing effort estimates, with adjustments by staff to reflect current staff utilization patterns, the Development Planning and Policy Planning & Economic Development divisions division spend 44% of their annual available capacity processing planning applications. Measuring the direct involvement of the Development Planning and Policy Planning & Economic Development divisions and other direct participants within the Town, in addition to indirect and capital support costs, results in a total annual costs of processing planning applications of $1.5 million (Table E-1). Furthermore, based on the average annual volume and mix of planning applications, current planning fees are recovering 64% of the full cost of service. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 15 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE iii H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Table E-1 Planning Fees Modelled Impacts by Application Type (2019$) Fee Recommendations Fee structure recommendations have been developed to align the recovery of processing costs to application characteristics and to balance Planning Act compliance, applicant benefits and affordability, and municipal revenue certainty. The recommended fee structure has been developed to recover the full costs of service (except for Minor Variance fees) while being consistent with industry best practices and comparable to those of neighbouring municipalities. The fee recommendations will increase modelled cost recovery from 64% to 95%, decreasing the tax based funding support required by $462,000. The recommended fees, which are presented in Table E-2, were also assessed in terms of the impact on the Town’s competitive position relative to other York Region and GTAH municipalities for six sample development types. The municipal comparison was prepared to look at not only lower tier planning application fees but also the total municipal development application fees (including planning applications, building permits, and development charges) to give context to the broader implications. The ranking of Town amongst the GTAH comparators remains unchanged when assessing the total cost of municipal development fees (Planning, Building, and Development Charges) at 10 th out of the 22 municipalities surveyed. Furthermore, when assessing the position of the Town relative to the other York Region municipalities for lower tier planning application fees only, the Town is on average 4th out of the nine municipalities. Description Direct Costs (S,W & B) Direct Costs (non-S,W & B) Indirect Costs Capital Replacement Cost Total Costs Revenue Cost Recovery % Committee of Adjustment 144,817 12,975 76,075 1,578 235,445 116,668 50% Official Plan 113,875 9,802 51,655 1,237 176,569 107,821 61% Zoning By-law Amendment 146,345 11,168 66,007 1,575 225,096 166,265 74% Site Plan 262,821 24,128 124,246 2,869 414,064 237,892 57% Subdivision 183,787 14,689 79,858 1,985 280,318 201,900 72% Condominium 69,722 6,992 35,494 767 112,975 94,814 84% Part Lot Control 19,168 1,673 8,846 208 29,895 18,231 61% Deeming By-Law 261 23 121 3 408 - 0% Additional Public Meetings 79 3 23 1 106 - 0% Total 940,875 81,454 442,325 10,223 1,474,878 943,592 64% General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 16 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE iv H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Table E-2 Recommended Fee Structure Description of Service for Fee or Service Charge Unit of Measure (i.e. per hour, page, document, etc.) 2020 (Including H.S.T. where applicable) Recommended Fees base fee 21,591 43,927 processing fee/surcharge prior to adoption of OPA 5,460 n/a revision fees 2,353 2,353 base fee 12,253 n/a processing fee/surcharge prior to adoption of OPA 5,460 n/a revision fees 1,803 1,803 base fee 12,938 25,497 processing fee/surcharge prior to enactment of ZBA 5,460 n/a revision fees 2,353 2,353 base fee 7,005 13,806 processing fee/surcharge prior to enactment of ZBA 5,460 n/a revision fees 1,803 1,803 base fee 4,430 9,890 processing fee/surcharge prior to enactment of ZBA 5,460 n/a base fee 6,485 16,555 processing fee/surcharge prior to enactment of ZBA 5,460 n/a extension of the Temporary By-law 6,485 8,988 base fee 16,007 45,574 Residential processing fee/surcharge 0-25 units (per unit) 657 796 26-100 units (per unit) 657 677 101-200 units (per unit) 657 575 >200 units (per unit) 657 489 Per hectare or part thereof for all other lands (see Note 5) 8,636 9,647 Non-Residential processing fee/surcharge Per hectare or part thereof for all other lands (see Note 5) 8,458 9,448 registration of Subdivision per agreement 4,401 n/a revision fee (where applicant makes revisions to plans requiring recirculation) 1,874 2,602 revisions to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision, or Conditions of Draft Approval 4,493 6,238 extension of Draft Approval 2,353 3,267 Minor (see Note 4) Removal of Hold Temporary Use Draft Plan of Subdivision Draft Plan of Subdivision Official Plan Amendment Major (see Note 1) Minor (see Note 2) Zoning By-law Amendment Major (see Note 3) General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 17 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE v H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Table E-2 Recommended Fee Structure (cont’d) Description of Service for Fee or Service Charge Unit of Measure (i.e. per hour, page, document, etc.) 2020 (Including H.S.T. where applicable) Recommended Fees base fee 20,814 30,166 registration of Subdivision per agreement 4,493 n/a revisions to Approved Draft Plan of Condominium 3,682 4,389 extension of Draft Approval 2,353 2,353 Part Lot Controls base fee 2,536 4,158 base fee 11,053 11,053 processing fee/surcharge $577/hectare or part thereof $577/hectare or part thereof base fee 6,548 15,300 plus: per unit for residential 657 plus: per unit for multi- residential (apartments) 337 plus: per unit for residential 0-25 units (per unit) 662 26-100 units (per unit) 397 101-200 units (per unit) 238 >200 units (per unit) 143 plus: ICI buildings for first 2,000m2 - per m2 of GFA 3.44 6.76 plus: ICI buildings portion of GFA between 2,001m2 and 10,000m2 - per m2 of GFA 2.23 4.39 plus: ICI buildings portion of GFA beyond 10,000m2 - per m2 of GFA 1.12 2.21 base fee 3,517 8,217 plus: ICI buildings for first 2,000m2 - per m2 of GFA 3.44 6.76 plus: ICI buildings portion of GFA between 2,001m2 and 10,000m2 - per m2 of GFA 2.23 4.39 plus: ICI buildings portion of GFA beyond 10,000m2 - per m2 of GFA 1.12 2.21 Major Site Plan (each) 1,255 8,217 Minor Site Plan (each) 1,255 4,413 Site Plan Review (Stable Neighbourhood)each 1,046 1,046 base fee 629 1,046 request for site plan exemption beyond 2nd submission 261 261 Radio Communication Tower/Antenna Facilities base fee 8,519 8,519 Minor and Amending Plans (see Note 6: per m2 fee applicable only if there is an increase in GFA) Recirculation/Revisions (where the applicant fails to revise drawings as requested by the Town beyond the third submission or the Applicant changes the plans/proposal) Site Plan Exemption (All Types) Part Lot Controls Block Plans Block Plans Site Plan Approval Major Draft Plan of Condominium General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 18 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE vi H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Table E-2 Recommended Fee Structure (cont’d) Description of Service for Fee or Service Charge Unit of Measure (i.e. per hour, page, document, etc.) 2020 (Including H.S.T. where applicable) Recommended Fees base fee 3,550 5,195 plus: per new lot created 1,783 2,609 change of conditions (only before a final consent is granted) 938 938 recirculation fee (see Note 7) 2,669 2,669 Ground Related Residential Zoned Lands base fee 2,038 2,870 Oak Ridges Moraine Residential base fee 1,702 2,397 base fee 2,038 2,870 plus: per lot or unit 1,068 1,504 All Other Uses, including ICI base fee 2,498 3,517 Recirculation/Revisions (see Note 7) each 1,415 1,415 Deeming By-law base fee n/a 4,158 Additional Public Meeting base fee n/a 1,086 Owner's Request to Cancel Public Planning Meeting base fee 3,555 3,555 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Referral Fee (for all types of development applications) base fee 619 619 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Referral Fee (Minor Variances and Consent) base fee 320 320 File Maintenance Fee per year 732 732 Cash in Lieu of Parking Agreement base fee 5,228 5,228 Section 37 (Bonusing Agreement) base fee 5,228 5,228 Municipal Street Name Change each 1,681 1,681 Municipal Addressing Change each 1,093 1,093 Minor Variances or Permission More than one Variance related to a Draft Approved Plan of General Fees Notes Committee of Adjustment Consent Lot Creation, Lot Addition, Establishment of Easements, Mortgage change over, Lease over 21 years General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 19 of 68 Report General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 20 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Chapter 1 Introduction General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 21 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 1-1 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx 1. Introduction Background In 2007 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. (Watson), in association with Performance Concepts Consulting, undertook a review of Building Code Act and Planning Act mandated Development Applications Approvals Process fees (D.A.A.P.). The scope of the undertaking consisted of providing the Town with a legislative compliance framework for rationalizing processes and user fees mandated by the Planning Act,Building Code Act and Municipal Act. The review also entailed the development of an activity-based costing (A.B.C.) model for calculating “full cost” D.A.A.P. fees that also meets ongoing Bill 124 reporting requirements. Since the preparation of the 2007 review of D.A.A.P. fees, the Town has experienced changes in the types and annual volumes of planning applications and increased complexity of the review processes. In response to the changes in the nature of planning application review, Watson has been retained by the Town to update the Town’s A.B.C. model as it pertains to planning application review to assess the full costs of processing all planning applications imposed by the Town. This planning application fee review seeks to support the Town in determining a cost recovery budget/policy framework that balances the interest of new and existing development and creates a pathway towards fiscal sustainability. Also, a full cost recovery fee review will ensure that the Town achieves/maintains legislative compliance with Section 69 of the Planning Act.In this regard, the review provides evidence-based support for any potential future planning application fee appeals to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (L.P.A.T.), formerly the Ontario Municipal Board (O.M.B.). The primary objectives of the study are to: x Review the Town’s current planning application review processes and A.B.C. model to determine the full costs of service and historical levels of cost recovery; x Determine full cost recovery fees; and General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 22 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 1-2 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx x Recommend new fees and fee structure improvements that: o are defensible and conform with the requirements of the Planning Act; o balance the Town’s need to maximize cost recovery with stakeholder interests, affordability, and competitiveness; and o reflect industry best practices; This technical report summarizes the legislative context for the fees review, provides in detail, the methodology utilized to assess the full costs of processing planning applications, and presents the full costs recovery planning application fees, including a schedule of recommended fees and comparison to municipal development fees for other GTAH municipalities. Study Process Set out in Table 1-1 is the project work plan that has been undertaken in the review of the Town’s planning application fees. Work Plan Component Description 1. Project Initiation and Orientation x Project initiation meeting with Town staff to review project scope, work plan, legislative context, fee review trends, A.B.C. full cost methodology and refinements to fee categorization and service delivery 2. Review Background Information x Review of cost recovery policies, by-laws, 2015- 2018 cost recovery performance and application patterns 3. Municipal Policy Research x Municipal development fee policy research regarding GTAH development fee structures and implementation policies 4. Document Fee Categories and Subcategories and Update Staff Capacity Utilization Results x Working session with Town staff to review and refine fee design parameters and establish new costing categories x Working session to review established costing categories with regard to processing distinctions by application type. x In collaboration with Town staff, determine processing effort for new costing categories General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 23 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 1-3 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx x Effort estimates were examined to quantify and test overall staff capacity utilization (i.e. capacity analysis) for reasonableness 5. Update A.B.C. Model to Determine the Full Costs Processes x Update Town’s A.B.C. model to reflect the current cost base (i.e. 2019$), fee costing categories, direct and indirect cost, and full cost fee schedule generation 7. Calculation of Full Cost Recovery Fees and Financial Impact Analysis x Modeled costing results were used to generate full cost recovery fee structure options x Prepare municipal comparison survey for municipalities and fees x Full cost recovery fee structure calculated and compared to municipal comparators x Recommended fee structure developed to increase costs recovery levels while maintaining market competitiveness with regard for applicant affordability x Overall financial impact and planning fee structure impact analysis was undertaken x Provided impact analysis for sample development types and for municipal comparators x Draft fee structure and findings presented to the Town Staff 8. Draft Report x Preparation of Draft Report x Presentation of findings to General Committee 9. Development Industry Consultation x Present draft report findings and fee structure recommendations to Development Industry Stakeholders (e.g. BILD) 9. Final Report x Final Report and Proposed Fee Schedules prepared for Council consideration Legislative Context for Planning Application Fees Review The context for the fees review is framed by the statutory authority available to the Town to recover the costs of service. The Planning Act, 1990 governs the imposition of fees for recovery of the anticipated costs of processing each type of planning application. The following summarizes the provisions of this statute as it pertains to application fees. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 24 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 1-4 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Section 69 of the Planning Act allows municipalities to impose fees through by-law for the purposes of processing planning applications. In determining the associated fees, the Act requires that: The council of a municipality, by by-law, and a planning board, by resolution, may establish a tariff of fees for the processing of applications made in respect of planning matters, which tariff shall be designed to meet only the anticipated cost to the municipality or to a committee of adjustment or land division committee constituted by the council of the municipality or to the planning board in respect of the processing of each type of application provided for in the tariff. Section 69 establishes many cost recovery requirements that municipalities must consider when undertaking a full cost recovery fee design study. The Act specifies that municipalities may impose fees through by-law and that the anticipated costs of such fees must be cost justified by application type as defined in the tariff of fees (e.g. Subdivision, Zoning By-Law Amendment, etc.). Given the cost justification requirements by application type, this would suggest that cross-subsidization of planning fee revenues across application types is not permissible. For instance, if Site Plan application fees were set at levels below full cost recovery for policy purposes this discount could not be funded by Subdivision application fees set at levels higher than full cost recovery. Our interpretation of the Section 69 is that any fee discount must be funded from other general revenue sources such as property taxes. The legislation further indicates that the fees may be designed to recover the “anticipated cost” of processing each type of application, reflecting the estimated costs of processing activities for an application type. This reference to anticipated costs represents a further costing requirement for a municipality. It is noted that the statutory requirement is not the actual processing costs related to any one specific application. As such, actual time docketing of staff processing effort against application categories or specific applications does not appear to be a requirement of the Act for compliance purposes. As such our methodology, which is based on staff estimates of application processing effort, meets with the requirements of the Act and is in our opinion a reasonable approach in determining anticipated costs. The Act does not specifically define the scope of eligible processing activities and there are no explicit restrictions to direct costs as previously witnessed in other statutes. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 25 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 1-5 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Moreover, recent amendments to the fee provisions of the Municipal Act and Building Code Act are providing for broader recognition of indirect costs. Acknowledging that staff effort from multiple departments are involved in processing planning applications, it is our opinion that such fees may include direct costs, capital-related costs, support function costs directly related to the service provided, and general corporate overhead costs apportioned to the service provided. The payment of Planning Act fees can be made under protest with appeal to the L.P.A.T. if the applicant believes the fees were inappropriately charged or are unreasonable. The L.P.A.T. will hear such an appeal and determine if the appeal should be dismissed or direct the municipality to refund payment in such amount as determined by the Tribunal. These provisions confirm that fees imposed under the Planning Act are always susceptible to appeal. Unlike other fees and charges (e.g. Development Charges) there is no legislated appeal period related to the timing of by- law passage, mandatory review period or public process requirements. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 26 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Chapter 2 Activity Based Costing Model General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 27 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 2-1 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx 2. Activity Based Costing Model Methodology An A.B.C. methodology, as it pertains to municipal governments, assigns an organization's resource costs through activities to the services provided to the public. Conventional municipal accounting structures are typically not well suited to the costing challenges associated with development or other service processing activities, as these accounting structures are department focussed and thereby inadequate for fully costing services with involvement from multiple municipal departments. An A.B.C. approach better identifies the costs associated with the processing activities for specific user fee types and thus is an ideal method for determining full cost recovery planning application fees. As illustrated in Figure 2-1, an A.B.C. methodology attributes processing effort and associated costs from all participating municipal departments to the appropriate planning application categories. The resource costs attributed to processing activities and application categories include direct operating costs, indirect support costs, and capital costs. Indirect support function and corporate overhead costs are allocated to direct departments according to operational cost drivers (e.g. information technology costs allocated based on the relative share of departmental personal computers supported). Once support costs have been allocated amongst direct departments, the accumulated costs (i.e. indirect, direct, and capital costs) are then distributed across the various fee categories, based on the department’s direct involvement in the processing activities. The assessment of each department’s direct involvement in the planning application review process is accomplished by tracking the relative shares of staff processing effort across each fee category’s sequence of mapped process steps. The results of employing this costing methodology provides municipalities with a better recognition of the costs utilized in delivering fee review processes, as it acknowledges not only the direct costs of resources deployed but also the operating and capital support costs required by those resources to provide services. The following sections of this chapter review each component of the A.B.C. methodology as it pertains to the Town’s planning application fees review. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 28 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 2-2 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Figure 2-1 Activity Based Costing Conceptual Cost Flow Diagram Application Category Definition A critical component of the full cost recovery fees review is the selection of the planning application costing categories. This is an important first step as the process design, effort estimation and subsequent costing is based on these categorization decisions. It is also important from a compliance standpoint where, as noted previously, the Planning Act requires application fees to be cost justified by application type consistent with the categorization contained within the Town’s tariff of fees. Moreover, the cost categorization process will provide insight into any differences in processing costs for each costing category within an application type, which is informative to the fee structure design exercise. Updates to the fee categories developed as part of the 2007 D.A.A.P. review were made to reflect additional processes and fees reflected within the Town’s fee current schedule. These discussions and the fee categorization process was developed during the initial meetings with Town staff at the outset of this review. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 29 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 2-3 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Given the cost justification requirements of the Planning Act and comments of the O.M.B. with respect to marginal costing, this level of disaggregation within application types is in direct response to the comments of the O.M.B. and reflects an evolution in the costing methodology to exceed the statutory requirements and to better understand the factors influencing processing effort. Summarized in Table 2-1 are the planning application fee costing categories that have been included in the Town’s model and used to rationalize changes to the Town’s Development Planning User Fee schedule. The following explains the rationale for the major planning application categorization decisions utilized in the fee review: x 2007 D.A.A.P. categorizations were made to address major and minor processes for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan applications to understand the differences in the processes undertaken and the intensity of effort involved. Site Plan Amendment and Site Plan Exemption categories were also included to provide justification for the costing of these sub processes. x New categories as part of this update were included to reflect: o Application sub-types (i.e. Zoning By-law Amendment Temporary Use Applications, Site Plan Review in stable neighborhoods); o Sub processes (e.g. revisions to Site Plan, Subdivision, and Condominium applications and extensions to Condominium and Subdivision draft approved plans); and o Other applications and processes (i.e. Deming By-law and additional public meetings) General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 30 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 2-4 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Table 2-1 Planning Application Fee Types and Costing Categories Processing Effort Cost Allocation In undertaking the 2007 D.A.A.P. review process templates were prepared for each of the application costing categories to capture each participating Town staff member’s relative level of effort in processing planning applications. The individual process maps were populated by Town staff in facilitated working sessions to reflect the effort estimates related to the planning application processing activities by participating staff within each department by application type. These effort estimates were then applied to average historical planning application volumes, by application type, to produce annual processing effort estimates by Town staff position. Committee of Adjustment C.O.A. - Consent C.O.A. - Minor Variance Official Plan Minor Official Plan Amendment Major Official Plan Amendment Zoning By-law Amendment Minor Zoning By-law Amendment Major Zoning By-law Amendment Zoning By-Law Amendment - Temporary Use Zoning By-Law Amendment - Temporary Use - Extension Removal of H Holding Site Plan Site Plan Minor Site Plan Site Plan Amendment Site Plan Exemption Site Plan - Review Site Plan - Recirculation/Revisions Subdivision Subdivision Subdivision - Recirculation Subdivision - Revision to Draft Approved Plan Subdivision - Extension of Draft Approval Condominium Condominium Condominium - Revision to Draft Approved Plan Condominium - Extension of Draft Approval Other Part Lot Control Deeming By-Law Additional Public Meetings General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 31 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 2-5 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Annual processing effort per staff position was compared with available processing capacity (staff capacity utilization) to determine overall service levels. The process for updating the processing effort estimates and staff capacity utilization as part of this planning application fee review involved aligning the 2007 estimates to the current staff compliment and then updating the staff capacity utilization results based on more recent average annual application volumes for the 2015-2018 period. Effort estimates for additional costing categories that were not included within the 2007 D.A.A.P. review were developed by determining the relative complexity of the process compared to related pre-existing costing categories. Those estimates were further tested for reasonableness in comparison to the relationships between fee types in other municipalities. Working sessions were then held with Town staff to further define the scope and nature of staff involvement in planning application fee review activities to reflect current staff utilization levels. These refinements provided for the recognition of efforts within the planning application fees review ancillary to direct processing tasks, i.e. application oversight activities by departmental senior management. Effort related to planning policy, preparation for and defence of applications at L.P.A.T., and special projects related to planning applications were not included in the definition of planning application processing activities. The capacity utilization results are critical to the full cost recovery fee review because the associated resourcing costs follow the activity generated effort of each participating staff member into the identified planning application fee categories. As such, considerable time and effort was spent ensuring the reasonableness of the capacity utilization results. The overall departmental fee recovery levels underlying the calculations are provided in Chapter 3 of this report. Direct Costs Direct costs refer to the employee costs (salaries, wages, and benefits), supplies, materials, and equipment, and purchased services, that are typically consumed by directly involved departments. Based on the results of the resource capacity analysis summarized above, the proportionate share of each individual’s direct costs is allocated to the respective fee categories. The direct costs included in the Town’s costing model General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 32 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 2-6 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx are taken from the Town’s 2019 Operating Budget and includes cost components such as: x Labour Costs, e.g. salary, wages and benefits; x Supplies, Material & Equipment; and x Contracts and Consulting; and It should be noted that transfers to reserves (reserve funds) and transfers to capital have been excluded from the direct service costs, as these reflect financing costs. Moreover, capital costs have been provided for separately within the analysis Indirect Cost Functions and Cost Drivers An A.B.C. review includes both the direct service cost of providing service activities as well as the indirect support costs that allow direct service departments to perform these functions. The method of allocation employed in this analysis is referred to as a step- down costing approach. Under this approach, support function and general corporate overhead functions are classified separate from direct service delivery departments. These indirect cost functions are then allocated to direct service delivery departments based on a set of cost drivers, which subsequently flow to planning application fee categories according to staff effort estimates. Cost drivers are a unit of service that best represent the consumption patterns of indirect support and corporate overhead services by direct service delivery departments. As such, the relative share of a cost driver (units of service consumed) for a direct department determines the relative share of support/corporate overhead costs attributed to that direct service department. An example of a cost driver commonly used to allocate information technology support costs would be a department’s share of supported personal computers. Cost drivers are used for allocation purposes acknowledging that these departments do not typically participate directly in the development review process, but that their efforts facilitate services being provided by the Town’s direct departments. The indirect cost allocation to the direct service departments was prepared in undertaking the 2007 D.A.A.P. review. The support and corporate overhead cost drivers used in the 2007 D.A.A.P. review reflects accepted practices within the municipal sector by municipalities of similar characteristics. Indirect costs from the following Town Departments were considered: General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 33 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 2-7 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx x Governance x (Mayor, Council & Clerks) x CAO Administration x Treasury Administration x Human Resources x Information Technology & Telecommunications x Legal x Communications/Website/Marketing x Facilities (Town Hall) The results of the 2007 D.A.A.P. review A.B.C. model provided that indirect costs represented 30% of the total cost of service. For the purposes of this update, indirect costs have been maintained at the levels witnessed in 2007, which are within the ranges seen in similar municipalities. Capital Costs The inclusion of capital costs within the full cost planning application fees calculations follow a methodology similar to indirect costs. The annual replacement value of assets commonly utilized to provide direct department services is included to reflect capital costs of service. The replacement value approach determines the annual asset replacement value over the expected useful life of the respective assets. This reflects the annual depreciation of the asset over its useful life based on current asset replacement values using a sinking fund approach. This annuity is then allocated across all fee categories based on the capacity utilization of direct departments. Consistent with the approach used for indirect costs, the assumptions within the 2007 D.A.A.P. review have been maintained for the purposes of this update (i.e. capital costs equal to 1% of the direct costs of service). These annual capital cost estimates were then allocated to the fee categories based on resource capacity utilization. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 34 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Chapter 3 Planning Application Fees Review General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 35 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 3-1 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx 3. Planning Application Fees Review Staff Capacity Utilization Results The planning application review process considered within this assessment involves to varying degrees, staff from multiple departments/divisions across the organization. The planning application processing effort estimates in this report reflect the 2007 D.A.A.P. review processes with updates related to the involvement of the Development Planning and Policy Planning and Economic Development divisions (within Planning & Development Services Department) as staff from these divisions have the greatest involvement in the planning application review process. Moreover, the capacity utilization results were updated using 2015-2018 average application volumes, and staffing allocation patterns currently in place across with the Development Planning and Policy Planning and Economic Development divisions. Table 3-1 summarizes the staff capacity utilization and number of full time equivalent (F.T.E.) positions attributable to Town planning application processes. Currently, Town planning application processes consume approximately 9.0 F.T.E.s annually across the organization. Table 3-1 Planning Application Resource Utilization by Department/Division Planning Applications The capacity utilization of the Development Planning and Policy Planning and Economic Development divisions is further broken out by major application type in Table 3-2 Description Compliment Capacity Utilization FTE Development Planning & Policy Planning and Economic Development 17 44.0% 7.5 Engineering and Public Works 34 0.8% 0.3 Building Administration 10 1.3% 0.1 Other Departments 66 1.8% 1.2 Total 127 7.1% 9.0 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 36 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 3-2 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Table 3-2 Planning Application Resource Utilization for the Development Planning and Policy Planning and Economic Development Divisions Planning Applications The following observations are provided based on the results of the capacity analysis presented in Tables 3-1 and 3-2: x On average approximately 44% of all available staff resources within the Development Planning and Policy Planning and Economic Development divisions are fully consumed annually processing planning applications. Although staff from the Development Planning division has a greater involvement in planning application review then staff from the Policy Planning and Economic Development division, Staff across these divisions provide the majority of effort related to processing planning applications within the Town at 83% of the overall involvement. This level of planning application involvement does not reflect the significant amount of non-planning application processing effort provided by these planning divisions for corporate management, policy initiatives, and L.P.A.T. appeals, consistent with the approach utilized in other Ontario municipalities. x The overall utilization of Development Planning and Policy Planning and Economic Development divisions (44% annually) is largely consistent with the 2007 D.A.A.P. review in which 43% of the Planning and Development Services department was utilized on those processes. x In comparison to the 2007 D.A.A.P. review, there is less involvement from the Engineering department in large part due departmental re-organizations resulting Development Planning & Policy Planning and Economic Development Capacity Utilzation Compliment 17 Committee of Adjustment 7.6% Official Plan Amendment 5.2% Zoning By-Law Amendment 6.8% Site Plan 12.0% Subdivision 8.0% Condominium 3.5% Part Lot Control 0.9% Deeming By-law 0.0% Additional Public Meetings 0.0% Planning Total 44.0% General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 37 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 3-3 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx in the relocation of staff from the Engineering department to the Development Planning division. x Site Plan review represents the greatest share of the Development Planning and Policy Planning and Economic Development divisions’ annual involvement in planning application review (12% of annual available hours or 27% of planning application review processes) Planning Application Type Impacts As presented in the introduction, the Planning Act requires fees to be cost justified at the application type level. Moreover, recent O.M.B. decisions require that there is consideration given to the marginal costs of processing applications of varying size and complexity. In this regard, planning application review processes have been costed at the application type and sub-type level. This level of analysis goes beyond the statutory requirements of cost justification by application type to better understand costing distinctions at the application sub-type level to provide the basis for a more defensible fee structure and fee design decisions. Application costs reflect the organizational direct, indirect and capital costs based on 2019 budget estimates. Summarized in Table 3-3 are the direct, indirect, and capital costs by application type and costing category. The overall recovery levels are based on the average annual historical application volumes over the 2015-2018 period and current application fees. The full annual cost of service is $1.5 million, of which current application fees are on average recovering 64% (i.e. $944,000). Within the overall cost recovery levels, all application types are underperforming, with the performance by application type varying between a low (for applications types with current fees) of 50% cost recovery for Committee of Adjustment applications to a high of 84% cost recovery for Condominium applications. Of the annual revenue shortfall under the current application fees of $531,000, 33% or $176,000 is related to Site Plan review, contributing the greatest share of the annual shortfall by planning application type. Other underperforming application types in terms of the overall impact on cost recovery are Committee of Adjustment ($119,000 or 22% of annual shortfall), and Subdivision ($78,000 or 15% of annual shortfall). General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 38 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 3-4 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Table 3-3 Planning Fees Modelled Impacts by Application Type (2019$) Summarized in Table 3-4 are the per application processing costs compared with the Town’s current application fees by application sub-type. Description Direct Costs (S,W & B) Direct Costs (non-S,W & B) Indirect Costs Capital Replacement Cost Total Costs Revenue Cost Recovery % Committee of Adjustment 144,817 12,975 76,075 1,578 235,445 116,668 50% Official Plan 113,875 9,802 51,655 1,237 176,569 107,821 61% Zoning By-law Amendment 146,345 11,168 66,007 1,575 225,096 166,265 74% Site Plan 262,821 24,128 124,246 2,869 414,064 237,892 57% Subdivision 183,787 14,689 79,858 1,985 280,318 201,900 72% Condominium 69,722 6,992 35,494 767 112,975 94,814 84% Part Lot Control 19,168 1,673 8,846 208 29,895 18,231 61% Deeming By-Law 261 23 121 3 408 - 0% Additional Public Meetings 79 3 23 1 106 - 0% Total 940,875 81,454 442,325 10,223 1,474,878 943,592 64% General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 39 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 3-5 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Table 3-4 Planning Fees Modelled Impacts by Application Sub-Type (2019$) Cost per Application Revenue per Application Cost Recovery % Committee of Adjustment C.O.A. - Consent 5,306 3,626 68% C.O.A. - Minor Variance 4,488 2,039 45% Official Plan Minor Official Plan Amendment 24,919 17,366 70% Major Official Plan Amendment 43,519 26,521 61% Zoning By-law Amendment Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 22,076 12,221 55% Major Zoning By-law Amendment 25,187 18,037 72% Zoning By-Law Amendment - Temporary Use 25,187 11,711 46% Zoning By-Law Amendment - Temporary Use - Extension 20,051 6,358 32% Removal of H Holding 6,356 9,696 153% Site Plan Site Plan 29,397 21,580 73% Minor Site Plan 16,083 3,448 21% Site Plan Amendment 19,439 3,448 18% Site Plan Exemption 5,139 617 12% Site Plan - Review 1,470 1,025 70% Site Plan - Recirculation/Revisions 9,422 1,230 13% Subdivision Subdivision 100,526 75,392 75% Subdivision - Recirculation 51,095 1,837 4% Subdivision - Revision to Draft Approved Plan 68,971 4,405 6% Subdivision - Extension of Draft Approval 2,416 2,307 95% Condominium Condominium 25,941 24,811 96% Condominium - Revision to Draft Approved Plan 17,798 3,610 20% Condominium - Extension of Draft Approval 624 2,307 370% Part Lot Control 4,077 2,486 61% Deeming By-Law 4,077 - 0% Additional Public Meetings 1,065 - 0% Total Description Per Application Impact General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 40 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 3-6 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx As presented in Table 3-4, all Town planning application fees, with the exception of fees for Removal of Holding applications and Extension of Draft Approval for Condominium applications, are recovering less than the average costs of processing. Planning Application Rate Structure Analysis Fee structure recommendations were developed with regard for the cost and revenue impacts presented in Tables 3-3 and 3-4. The recommended fee structure, presented in Table 3-5, seeks to align the recovery of processing costs to application characteristics to balance Planning Act compliance, applicant benefits and affordability, and municipal revenue certainty. The recommended fee structure has been developed to recover the full costs of service while being consistent with industry best practices and comparable to those of neighbouring municipalities. The Town’s current fee structure has been generally maintained within the recommended fee structures. Exceptions include revising the variable per unit fee structure for Subdivision and Site Plan applications in recognition of the decreasing marginal costs of processing within larger applications and the removal of separate processing fees for certain application types. The fee structure recommendations are anticipated to increase overall planning application cost recovery performance from 64% currently to 95%cost recovery levels. Anticipated revenues are less than full cost recovery due to staff recommendations for Committee of Adjustment fees (discussed further in section 3.3.6). As such, based on the recommended application fees, the historical mix of application volumes, and typical size characteristics, budgeted Town planning application revenue would increase by approximately 49%. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 41 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 3-7 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Table 3-5 Recommended Fee Structure Description of Service for Fee or Service Charge Unit of Measure (i.e. per hour, page, document, etc.) 2020 (Including H.S.T. where applicable) Recommended Fees base fee 21,591 43,927 processing fee/surcharge prior to adoption of OPA 5,460 n/a revision fees 2,353 2,353 base fee 12,253 n/a processing fee/surcharge prior to adoption of OPA 5,460 n/a revision fees 1,803 1,803 base fee 12,938 25,497 processing fee/surcharge prior to enactment of ZBA 5,460 n/a revision fees 2,353 2,353 base fee 7,005 13,806 processing fee/surcharge prior to enactment of ZBA 5,460 n/a revision fees 1,803 1,803 base fee 4,430 9,890 processing fee/surcharge prior to enactment of ZBA 5,460 n/a base fee 6,485 16,555 processing fee/surcharge prior to enactment of ZBA 5,460 n/a extension of the Temporary By-law 6,485 8,988 base fee 16,007 45,574 Residential processing fee/surcharge 0-25 units (per unit) 657 796 26-100 units (per unit) 657 677 101-200 units (per unit) 657 575 >200 units (per unit) 657 489 Per hectare or part thereof for all other lands (see Note 5) 8,636 9,647 Non-Residential processing fee/surcharge Per hectare or part thereof for all other lands (see Note 5) 8,458 9,448 registration of Subdivision per agreement 4,401 n/a revision fee (where applicant makes revisions to plans requiring recirculation) 1,874 2,602 revisions to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision, or Conditions of Draft Approval 4,493 6,238 extension of Draft Approval 2,353 3,267 Minor (see Note 4) Removal of Hold Temporary Use Draft Plan of Subdivision Draft Plan of Subdivision Official Plan Amendment Major (see Note 1) Minor (see Note 2) Zoning By-law Amendment Major (see Note 3) General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 42 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 3-8 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Table 3-5 Recommended Fee Structure (cont’d) Description of Service for Fee or Service Charge Unit of Measure (i.e. per hour, page, document, etc.) 2020 (Including H.S.T. where applicable) Recommended Fees base fee 20,814 30,166 registration of Subdivision per agreement 4,493 n/a revisions to Approved Draft Plan of Condominium 3,682 4,389 extension of Draft Approval 2,353 2,353 Part Lot Controls base fee 2,536 4,158 base fee 11,053 11,053 processing fee/surcharge $577/hectare or part thereof $577/hectare or part thereof base fee 6,548 15,300 plus: per unit for residential 657 plus: per unit for multi- residential (apartments) 337 plus: per unit for residential 0-25 units (per unit) 662 26-100 units (per unit) 397 101-200 units (per unit) 238 >200 units (per unit) 143 plus: ICI buildings for first 2,000m2 - per m2 of GFA 3.44 6.76 plus: ICI buildings portion of GFA between 2,001m2 and 10,000m2 - per m2 of GFA 2.23 4.39 plus: ICI buildings portion of GFA beyond 10,000m2 - per m2 of GFA 1.12 2.21 base fee 3,517 8,217 plus: ICI buildings for first 2,000m2 - per m2 of GFA 3.44 6.76 plus: ICI buildings portion of GFA between 2,001m2 and 10,000m2 - per m2 of GFA 2.23 4.39 plus: ICI buildings portion of GFA beyond 10,000m2 - per m2 of GFA 1.12 2.21 Major Site Plan (each) 1,255 8,217 Minor Site Plan (each) 1,255 4,413 Site Plan Review (Stable Neighbourhood)each 1,046 1,046 base fee 629 1,046 request for site plan exemption beyond 2nd submission 261 261 Radio Communication Tower/Antenna Facilities base fee 8,519 8,519 Minor and Amending Plans (see Note 6: per m2 fee applicable only if there is an increase in GFA) Recirculation/Revisions (where the applicant fails to revise drawings as requested by the Town beyond the third submission or the Applicant changes the plans/proposal) Site Plan Exemption (All Types) Part Lot Controls Block Plans Block Plans Site Plan Approval Major Draft Plan of Condominium General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 43 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 3-9 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Table 3-5 Recommended Fee Structure (cont’d) The following subsections summarize the recommended changes to the fee structure by application type. Description of Service for Fee or Service Charge Unit of Measure (i.e. per hour, page, document, etc.) 2020 (Including H.S.T. where applicable) Recommended Fees base fee 3,550 5,195 plus: per new lot created 1,783 2,609 change of conditions (only before a final consent is granted) 938 938 recirculation fee (see Note 7) 2,669 2,669 Ground Related Residential Zoned Lands base fee 2,038 2,870 Oak Ridges Moraine Residential base fee 1,702 2,397 base fee 2,038 2,870 plus: per lot or unit 1,068 1,504 All Other Uses, including ICI base fee 2,498 3,517 Recirculation/Revisions (see Note 7) each 1,415 1,415 Deeming By-law base fee n/a 4,158 Additional Public Meeting base fee n/a 1,086 Owner's Request to Cancel Public Planning Meeting base fee 3,555 3,555 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Referral Fee (for all types of development applications) base fee 619 619 Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Referral Fee (Minor Variances and Consent) base fee 320 320 File Maintenance Fee per year 732 732 Cash in Lieu of Parking Agreement base fee 5,228 5,228 Section 37 (Bonusing Agreement) base fee 5,228 5,228 Municipal Street Name Change each 1,681 1,681 Municipal Addressing Change each 1,093 1,093 Minor Variances or Permission More than one Variance related to a Draft Approved Plan of General Fees Notes Committee of Adjustment Consent Lot Creation, Lot Addition, Establishment of Easements, Mortgage change over, Lease over 21 years General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 44 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 3-10 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx 3.3.1 Official Plan Amendment It is proposed that there would only be one fee charge for Official Plan Amendment applications vs. the current approach of imposing Major and Minor Official Plan Amendment fees. The fee is recommended to increase to $43,927 to recover the full costs of service (increase from current major fee of $27,051 (base fee and processing fee) and from $17,713 for current minor applications). 3.3.2 Zoning By-Law Amendment Major Zoning By-law Amendment fees are recommended to increase from $18,398 (base fee and processing fee) to $25497. Minor Zoning By-law Amendment fees are recommended to increase from $12,465 (base fee and processing fee) to $13,806, the full costs of service. Fees for Temporary Use are recommended to increase from $11,945 to $16,555 for full applications and from $6,485 to $8,988 for extension of the temporary by-law. 3.3.3 Draft Plan of Subdivision The current fee for Plan of Subdivision applications is a $16,007 base fee plus $657 per residential unit, $8,636 per hectare for all other residential lands, and $8,458 per hectare for non-residential lands. In addition, the Town charges a fee for the registration of a Subdivision agreement ($4,401). The Town also imposes separate fees for Revisions requiring re-circulations and Revisions and Extensions to Draft Approvals. The fee structure recommendations for Subdivision applications have been designed to have consideration for applicant affordability, fee structures imposed in other neighbouring municipalities, and the decreasing marginal costs of processing applications as they increase in size. The recommended fees are anticipated to recover the full costs of Subdivision review. Fee Recommendations x Impose base application fee of $45,574 plus o A decreasing block per unit/lot fee to recognize the decreasing marginal costs of processing as applications increase in size: 0-25 Units/Lots - $796 per unit General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 45 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 3-11 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx 26-100 Units/Lots - $677 per unit 101-200 Units/Lots - $575 per unit 200+ Units/Lots - $489 per unit x Revision fee (where applicant makes revisions to plans requiring recirculation) - $2,602 x Revisions to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision, or Conditions of Draft Approval - $6,238 x Extension of Draft Approval - $3,267 3.3.4 Draft Plan of Condominium The recommended fees for Condominium applications would see the total fee (including registration fees) to increase from $25,307 to $30,166. Revisions to Approved Draft Plan of Condominium would increase from $3,682 to $4,398 while fees for the Extension of Draft Approval would remain unchanged. 3.3.5 Site Plan Approval The current fee for Major Site Plan review consists of a base fee plus a per unit fee for residential development (disaggregated by multi-residential units and low/medium density), and a decreasing block fee per sq.m. of non-residential gross floor area The fee structure recommendations for Major Site Plan review have been altered with consideration for applicant affordability and the decreasing marginal costs of processing applications as they increase in size. The following fee recommendations across all Site Plan Review application types are anticipated to recover the full annual costs of processing Site Plan applications. Fee Recommendations x Major Site Plan Approval o Impose base application fee of $15,300 plus A decreasing block per residential unit fee: x 0-25 Units/Lots - $662 per unit/lot x 26-100 Units/Lots - $397 per unit/lot x 101-200 Units/Lots - $238 per unit/lot x 200+ Units/Lots - $143 per unit/lot General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 46 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 3-12 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx A decreasing block per non-residential sq.m. of gross floor area fee: x 0-2,000 sq.m. - $6.76 per sq.m. x 2,000 – 10,000 sq.m. $4.39 per sq.m. x 10,000 sq.m. plus - $2.21 per sq.m. x Minor and Amending Plans o Impose base application fee of $8,217 plus non-residential per sq.m. fee where there is an increase in gross floor area x Recirculation/Revision fee - $8,217 for Major applications and $4,413 for Minor applications x Site Plan Review (Stable Neighborhood) - $1,046 x Site Plan Exemption - $1,046, plus o $261 for request for site plan exemption beyond second submission 3.3.6 Committee of Adjustment The Town currently charges fees for Consent application, change of conditions and recirculation. Fee increases have been recommended to recover the full cost of Consent application review, including increasing the base fee from $3,550 to $5,195 and the per lot fee from $1,783 to $2,609. Minor Variance fees have been increased to levels consistent with the average Minor Variance fees within York Region. Staff has recommended this approach as opposed to full cost recovery fees to give consideration to the affordability of the fees as Minor Variance applications are typically sought by existing residents Fee Recommendations x Minor Variance o Ground Related Residential Zoned Lands - $2,870 o Oak Ridges Moraine Residential - $2,397 o More than one Variance related to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision - $2,870 base fee plus $1,504 per lot or unit o All Other Uses, including ICI - $3,517 o Recirculation/Revisions - $1,415 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 47 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 3-13 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx 3.3.7 Other Fees 3.3.7.1 Part Lot Control Part Lot Control By-law applications are recovering 61% of the full costs of service and as such per unit/lot fees have been increased by 64% to recover the anticipated costs of processing. Fee Recommendations x Base fee - $4,158 3.3.7.2 Deeming By-law The Town is anticipating an increase in requests for Deeming By-laws and as such a new fee for this review process has been recommended based on the anticipated costs of processing ($4,158) 3.3.7.3 Additional Public Meetings The Town is considering the imposition of a fee for additional public meetings required prior to the approval of a planning applications. Based on the average costs related to the public meeting process within the overall process steps, the fee per additional public meeting is $1,086. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 48 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Chapter 4 Impact Analysis of Recommended Fee Structure General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 49 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 4-1 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx 4. Impact Analysis of Recommended Fee Structure Impact Analysis In order to understand the impacts of the recommended planning application fee structure, an impact analysis for sample developments has been prepared. Six development types have been considered, including x 50 single detached dwelling units proceeding though Zoning By-Law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision applications; x 50-unit townhouse development proceeding though Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment, and Plan of Subdivision applications; x 100-unit multi-residential apartment requiring an Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Plan of Condominium, and Site Plan Approval; x 1,000 sq.m. retail development proceeding through Zoning By-Law Amendment and Site Plan Approval; x 6,968 sq.m. (75,000 sq.ft.) office development proceeding through Site Plan Approval; and x 10,000 sq.m. industrial development proceeding through Site Plan Approval; In addition to providing the fee impacts for the Town of Aurora,development fee comparisons are provided for other GTAH municipalities as well. The development fee comparisons in Tables 4-1 through 4-6 include planning application fees, building permit fees and development charges for each of the six development types. The comparison illustrates the impacts of the planning application fee structure recommendations in the context of the total development fees payable to provide a broader context for the fee considerations. Figures 4-1 through 4-6 provide a comparison of only the lower tier planning application fees. 4.1.1 50 Single Detached Dwelling Units - Zoning By-Law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision Applications A 50 single detached residential unit subdivision in the Town of Aurora would pay $1,282 per unit in Subdivision fees and $368 per unit for Zoning By-law Amendment fees under the Town’s current fee structure. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 50 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 4-2 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Under the recommended fee structure, Subdivision fees would increase to $1,864 per unit or a 45% increase. Zoning By-Law Amendment fees would increase by 39% per unit to $510. In aggregate, planning application fees for this development type in the Town would increase by 44%. Including building permit fees and development charges, total development fees for this type of applicant would increase by 0.7%. The changes in planning application fees would not change the Town’s position within the overall ranking of the municipalities surveyed (Table 4-1). Figure 4-2 displays this comparison graphically for the lower tier planning application fees only with the black and red arrows indicating the ranking of the Town for the current and proposed fees . Table 4-1 Development Fee Impacts Survey for a Residential Subdivision (50 Single Detached Units) Rank Municipality Plan of Subdivision Zoning By-Law Amendment Building Permit Fees Development Charges Total Planning Fees - % of Total % Increase 1 Vaughan, City of 97,248$ 32,472$ 133,687$ 6,095,300$ 6,358,707$ 2.0% 2 Markham, City of 343,675$ 48,795$ 154,591$ 5,715,505$ 6,262,565$ 6.3% 3 East Gwillimbury, Town of 84,900$ 21,342$ 145,000$ 5,153,100$ 5,404,342$ 2.0% 4 Mississauga, City of 50,038$ 88,275$ 157,378$ 5,033,684$ 5,329,374$ 2.6% 5 King, Township of 47,963$ 11,088$ 64,010$ 5,124,300$ 5,247,361$ 1.1% 6 New Market, Town of 134,379$ 25,275$ 136,103$ 4,903,950$ 5,199,707$ 3.1% 7 Oakville, Town of 54,512$ 19,888$ 159,329$ 4,899,650$ 5,133,379$ 1.4% 8 Brampton, City of 60,319$ 42,880$ 109,904$ 4,892,200$ 5,105,303$ 2.0% 9 Aurora, Town of - Proposed 101,124$ 26,497$ 152,361$ 4,671,250$ 4,951,232$ 2.6% 0.7% 10 Aurora, Town of 71,980$ 19,398$ 152,361$ 4,671,250$ 4,914,989$ 1.9% 11 Whitchurch Stouffville, Town of 75,363$ 23,060$ 153,000$ 4,595,000$ 4,846,422$ 2.0% 12 Caledon, Town of 88,646$ 17,087$ 117,058$ 4,525,000$ 4,747,791$ 2.2% 13 Richmond Hill, Town of 38,785$ 14,445$ 144,464$ 4,428,200$ 4,625,894$ 1.2% 14 Milton, Town of 72,253$ 14,310$ 145,951$ 4,105,250$ 4,337,764$ 2.0% 15 Toronto, City of 152,362$ 77,706$ 162,026$ 3,931,150$ 4,323,244$ 5.3% 16 Georgina, Town of 55,364$ 19,889$ 135,000$ 4,037,400$ 4,247,652$ 1.8% 17 Halton Hills, Town of 58,775$ 40,715$ 162,673$ 3,914,700$ 4,176,863$ 2.4% 18 Burlington, City of 83,066$ 15,183$ 122,260$ 3,692,100$ 3,912,609$ 2.5% 19 Ajax, Town of 42,645$ 25,705$ 102,193$ 3,117,700$ 3,288,243$ 2.1% 20 Whitby, Town of 90,368$ 27,400$ 176,237$ 2,959,050$ 3,253,055$ 3.6% 21 Oshawa, City of 32,282$ 10,777$ 124,676$ 3,016,350$ 3,184,085$ 1.4% 22 Hamilton, City of 35,933$ 17,509$ 144,000$ 2,621,700$ 2,819,141$ 1.9% 23 Pickering, City of 56,760$ 34,530$ 120,774$ 2,569,150$ 2,781,214$ 3.3% General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 51 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 4-3 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Figure 4-1 4.1.2 Residential Medium Density (Townhouse) Development Detached (50 units) – Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision Applications A 50-unit medium density townhouse development proceeding through Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment and Subdivision applications in the Town of Aurora would pay $2,191 per unit in lower tier planning application fees. Under the fee recommendations, the total fee per unit would increase by $1,062 per unit or 48%. This increase comprises a $338 increase in Official Plan Amendment fees (+62%), a $583 increase in Zoning By-Law Amendment fees (+45%), and a $142 increase in Subdivision fees (+39%). Including building permit fees and development charges, total development fees for this type of applicant would increase by $53,119 or 1.3%. Again, the changes in planning application fees would not materially change the Town’s position within the overall ranking of the municipalities surveyed in Table 4-2 (increasing from 9th to 8th out of 22 municipalities). $- $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 $450,000 Survey of Lower/Single Tier Planning Fees Related to a Residential Subdivision Development (50 Single Dwelling Units, 186 m² GFA each) Plan of Subdivision Zoning By-Law Amendment General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 52 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 4-4 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Table 4-2 Development Fee Impacts Survey for a Residential Subdivision (50 Medium Density Townhouse Units) Figure 4-2 Rank Municipality Official Plan Amendment Plan of Subdivision Zoning By-Law Amendment Building Permit Fees Development Charges Total Planning Fees - % of Total % Increase 1 Vaughan, City of 115,970$ 97,020$ 32,244$ 100,266$ 5,026,950$ 5,372,451$ 4.6% 2 Markham, City of 136,070$ 343,675$ 48,795$ 115,943$ 4,571,366$ 5,215,849$ 10.1% 3 East Gwillimbury, Town of 112,017$ 84,900$ 21,342$ 108,750$ 4,219,300$ 4,546,309$ 4.8% 4 King, Township of 89,683$ 47,963$ 11,088$ 48,008$ 4,291,700$ 4,488,441$ 3.3% 5 Mississauga, City of 58,512$ 50,038$ 74,866$ 118,033$ 4,080,338$ 4,381,788$ 4.2% 6 New Market, Town of 95,884$ 134,379$ 25,275$ 102,077$ 3,985,850$ 4,343,465$ 5.9% 7 Brampton, City of 35,651$ 60,260$ 42,821$ 82,428$ 3,902,050$ 4,123,209$ 3.4% 8 Aurora, Town of - Proposed 111,962$ 101,124$ 26,497$ 114,271$ 3,753,600$ 4,107,453$ 5.8% 1.3% 9 Whitchurch Stouffville, Town of 97,627$ 75,363$ 23,060$ 114,750$ 3,756,650$ 4,067,449$ 4.8% 10 Aurora, Town of 95,086$ 71,980$ 19,398$ 114,271$ 3,753,600$ 4,054,335$ 4.6% 11 Oakville, Town of 48,071$ 54,512$ 19,888$ 119,497$ 3,694,225$ 3,936,193$ 3.1% 12 Richmond Hill, Town of 120,964$ 38,785$ 14,445$ 108,348$ 3,589,250$ 3,871,792$ 4.5% 13 Caledon, Town of 46,011$ 88,646$ 17,087$ 87,793$ 3,385,850$ 3,625,387$ 4.2% 14 Georgina, Town of 91,735$ 55,308$ 19,833$ 101,250$ 3,318,350$ 3,586,475$ 4.7% 15 Milton, Town of 41,481$ 72,253$ 14,310$ 109,463$ 3,102,425$ 3,339,932$ 3.8% 16 Halton Hills, Town of 51,192$ 58,775$ 40,715$ 122,005$ 2,949,900$ 3,222,587$ 4.7% 17 Burlington, City of 37,924$ 83,066$ 15,183$ 91,695$ 2,762,575$ 2,990,443$ 4.6% 18 Toronto, City of 56,843$ 152,362$ 34,900$ 122,170$ 2,518,025$ 2,884,300$ 8.5% 19 Ajax, Town of 85,738$ 42,603$ 25,663$ 76,645$ 2,522,800$ 2,753,450$ 5.6% 20 Whitby, Town of 77,313$ 90,274$ 13,493$ 132,178$ 2,407,750$ 2,721,008$ 6.7% 21 Oshawa, City of 57,332$ 30,192$ 5,176$ 93,507$ 2,462,000$ 2,648,207$ 3.5% 22 Pickering, City of 84,347$ 56,717$ 34,487$ 90,580$ 2,103,250$ 2,369,380$ 7.4% 23 Hamilton, City of 19,040$ 35,933$ 17,509$ 108,000$ 1,911,050$ 2,091,531$ 3.5% $- $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 $450,000 $500,000 Survey of Lower/Single Tier Planning Fees Related to a Residential Townhouse Development (50 Units, 139 m² GFA each) Official Plan Amendment Plan of Subdivision Zoning By-Law Amendment General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 53 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 4-5 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx 4.1.3 100-Unit Multi-Residential Apartment Development – Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment, Site Plan, and Plan of Condominium Applications The current lower tier planning application fees for this development type would total $119,262 across the four planning applications. The recommended fees would increase this fee by 42% or $50,221. This fee increase would be comprised of a $16,876 increase in Official Plan Amendment fees (+62%), a $7,099 increase in Zoning By-Law Amendment fees (+39%), a $21,387 increase in Site Plan fees (+51%) and a $4,859 increase in condominium application fees (+15%). Measuring the impact including building permit fees and development charges, the total input development application costs would increase by 1.0% in the Town. Moreover, planning application fees as a percentage of total development fees payable would increase from 4.1% to 5.0% Under this recommendation the Town’s position relative to the comparator municipalities would remain unchanged (Table 4-3). Table 4-3 Development Fee Impacts for a 100-Unit Multi-Residential Apartment Development Rank Municipality Official Plan Amendment Plan of Condominium Site Plan Zoning By-Law Amendment Building Permit Fees Development Charges Total Planning Fees - % of Total % Increase 1 Vaughan, City of 115,857$ 28,937$ 69,220$ 44,181$ 155,018$ 6,613,400$ 7,026,611$ 3.7% 2 Markham, City of 136,070$ 43,695$ 440,050$ 48,795$ 172,828$ 5,833,999$ 6,675,437$ 10.0% 3 East Gwillimbury, Town of 112,017$ 117,742$ 42,326$ 21,342$ 130,500$ 5,587,350$ 6,011,277$ 4.9% 4 Mississauga, City of 58,512$ 29,556$ 51,096$ 121,112$ 153,095$ 5,411,265$ 5,824,636$ 4.5% 5 King, Township of 89,683$ 18,753$ 17,336$ 11,088$ 49,248$ 5,511,800$ 5,697,908$ 2.4% 6 New Market, Town of 95,884$ 44,581$ 77,547$ 25,275$ 122,493$ 5,317,250$ 5,683,030$ 4.3% 7 Whitchurch Stouffville, Town of 97,627$ 31,911$ 46,639$ 23,060$ 163,800$ 5,092,850$ 5,455,887$ 3.7% 8 Oakville, Town of 48,071$ 42,300$ 39,400$ 36,094$ 143,396$ 5,060,000$ 5,369,261$ 3.1% 9 Richmond Hill, Town of 120,964$ 144,585$ 32,207$ 14,445$ 170,570$ 4,855,500$ 5,338,271$ 5.8% 10 Brampton, City of 35,621$ 7,761$ 33,516$ 9,541$ 141,138$ 5,068,650$ 5,296,227$ 1.6% 11 Caledon, Town of 46,011$ 29,870$ 27,172$ 17,087$ 96,155$ 4,956,100$ 5,172,395$ 2.3% 12 Aurora, Town of - Proposed 111,962$ 40,300$ 72,539$ 26,497$ 128,764$ 4,630,650$ 5,010,712$ 5.0% 1.0% 13 Aurora, Town of 95,086$ 35,441$ 51,152$ 19,398$ 128,764$ 4,630,650$ 4,960,491$ 4.1% 14 Georgina, Town of 91,710$ 71,494$ 41,674$ 19,804$ 140,400$ 4,533,350$ 4,898,432$ 4.6% 15 Milton, Town of 41,481$ 16,905$ 15,342$ 14,310$ 131,356$ 4,412,950$ 4,632,344$ 1.9% 16 Halton Hills, Town of 56,192$ 55,862$ 38,279$ 55,715$ 146,071$ 4,154,750$ 4,506,870$ 4.6% 17 Burlington, City of 37,924$ 7,373$ 26,370$ 68,058$ 104,683$ 4,033,350$ 4,277,758$ 3.3% 18 Toronto, City of 56,843$ 12,303$ 71,165$ 45,964$ 148,687$ 3,928,900$ 4,263,863$ 4.4% 19 Whitby, Town of 77,266$ 56,301$ 42,760$ 13,446$ 158,613$ 3,029,750$ 3,378,136$ 5.6% 20 Oshawa, City of 57,332$ 16,623$ 37,132$ 5,176$ 109,616$ 3,137,550$ 3,363,429$ 3.5% 21 Ajax, Town of 85,718$ 14,833$ 75,123$ 25,643$ 91,974$ 2,935,150$ 3,228,439$ 6.2% 22 Pickering, City of 84,325$ 17,195$ 96,499$ 49,465$ 108,697$ 2,587,600$ 2,943,780$ 8.4% 23 Hamilton, City of 19,040$ 30,910$ 11,515$ 17,509$ 129,600$ 2,708,750$ 2,917,323$ 2.7% General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 54 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 4-6 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Figure 4-3 4.1.4 Retail Site Plan Development (1,000 sq.m) – Zoning By-Law Amendment and Site Plan Applications The current planning fees for this retail development charged by the Town would be $30,110 ($18,398 Zoning By-law Amendment and $11,712 Site Plan). Imposing the recommended fee structure would result in a charge of $49,281 ($25,497 Zoning By-law Amendment and $23,784 Site Plan) or an increase of $19,171 (+64%). The impact of the recommended fee structure on total development fees payable, including development charges and building permit fees would result in a 2.7% increase in total fees. Planning fees currently comprise 5.7% of total development fees and would increase to 8.2% based on the recommended fee structure. Compared to other GTAH municipalities, the Town’s position in the ranking would remain unchanged at 8th out of the 22 municipalities surveyed. $- $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 Survey of Lower/Single Tier Planning Fees Related to a Multi-Residential Apartment Development (100 Units, 84 m² GFA each) Official Plan Amendment Plan of Condominium Site Plan Zoning By-Law Amendment General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 55 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 4-7 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Table 4-4 Development Fee Impacts for a 1,000 sq.m. Retail Development Figure 4-4 Rank Municipality Site Plan Zoning By-Law Amendment Building Permit Fees Development Charges Total Planning Fees - % of Total % Increase 1 Markham, City of 47,390$ 48,795$ 15,620$ 802,760$ 914,565$ 10.5% 2 Vaughan, City of 20,358$ 10,842$ 16,150$ 759,583$ 806,933$ 3.9% 3 East Gwillimbury, Town of 18,934$ 21,342$ 11,840$ 719,340$ 771,456$ 5.2% 4 New Market, Town of 40,298$ 25,275$ 12,390$ 675,473$ 753,436$ 8.7% 5 Richmond Hill, Town of 18,849$ 14,445$ 16,650$ 694,163$ 744,107$ 4.5% 6 King, Township of 14,501$ 11,088$ 11,840$ 703,302$ 740,731$ 3.5% 7 Whitchurch Stouffville, Town of 25,339$ 23,060$ 13,132$ 675,531$ 737,062$ 6.6% 8 Aurora, Town of - Proposed 32,964$ 26,497$ 15,400$ 653,513$ 728,374$ 8.2% 2.7% 9 Aurora, Town of 20,892$ 19,398$ 15,400$ 653,513$ 709,203$ 5.7% 10 Georgina, Town of 41,768$ 19,889$ 13,670$ 614,713$ 690,040$ 8.9% 11 Burlington, City of 8,845$ 65,200$ 23,590$ 589,865$ 687,500$ 10.8% 12 Oakville, Town of 19,240$ 26,804$ 23,850$ 567,945$ 637,839$ 7.2% 13 Halton Hills, Town of 27,279$ 28,590$ 16,580$ 512,555$ 585,004$ 9.6% 14 Milton, Town of 9,567$ 15,600$ 13,390$ 530,595$ 569,152$ 4.4% 15 Toronto, City of 25,286$ 46,175$ 19,200$ 402,876$ 493,536$ 14.5% 16 Mississauga, City of 29,369$ 53,340$ 17,750$ 355,377$ 455,836$ 18.1% 17 Brampton, City of 6,080$ 10,297$ 16,320$ 354,588$ 387,284$ 4.2% 18 Whitby, Town of 17,536$ 27,400$ 23,580$ 313,273$ 381,788$ 11.8% 19 Oshawa, City of 6,031$ 10,777$ 15,520$ 338,743$ 371,071$ 4.5% 20 Caledon, Town of 18,486$ 17,087$ 16,000$ 293,668$ 345,241$ 10.3% 21 Ajax, Town of 9,410$ 25,705$ 13,000$ 281,907$ 330,022$ 10.6% 22 Pickering, City of 9,455$ 17,273$ 13,250$ 243,372$ 283,350$ 9.4% 23 Hamilton, City of 11,515$ 23,345$ 16,980$ 225,400$ 277,240$ 12.6% $- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 $100,000 Survey of Lower/Single Tier Planning Fees Related to Retail Dev elopment (1,000 m² GFA) Site Plan Zoning By-Law Amendment General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 56 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 4-8 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx 4.1.5 6,968 sq.m. (75,000 sq.ft.) Office Development – Site Plan Application Table 4-5 includes the development fee comparison for a 6,968 sq.m.(75,000 sq.ft.) office building submitting a Site Plan application. For this application type, Site Plan Fees would increase by 100% (+$19,712) from $19,606 to $39,318. Including development charges and building permit fees, the proposed increase of $38,685 would produce an increase in total development fees of 0.9%. Relative to the municipal comparators, the Town’s position would increase from 13th to 12th based on the 0.9% total development fee increase (Table 4-5) Table 4-5 Development Fee Impacts for a 6,968 sq.m. Office Development Rank Municipality Site Plan Building Permit Fees Development Charges Total Planning Fees - % of Total % Increase 1 Markham, City of 132,967$ 127,579$ 2,980,377$ 3,240,924$ 4.1% 2 Toronto, City of 68,194$ 157,610$ 2,807,127$ 3,032,931$ 2.2% 3 Vaughan, City of 21,114$ 112,529$ 2,873,932$ 3,007,574$ 0.7% 4 Mississauga, City of 50,852$ 148,204$ 2,476,170$ 2,675,226$ 1.9% 5 Brampton, City of 6,258$ 113,713$ 2,470,669$ 2,590,641$ 0.2% 6 King, Township of 18,076$ 82,498$ 2,481,778$ 2,582,352$ 0.7% 7 Oshawa, City of 6,031$ 115,873$ 2,360,266$ 2,482,170$ 0.2% 8 Oakville, Town of 57,076$ 177,677$ 2,230,954$ 2,465,706$ 2.3% 9 New Market, Town of 81,360$ 93,228$ 2,287,876$ 2,462,464$ 3.3% 10 Richmond Hill, Town of 18,849$ 148,413$ 2,251,156$ 2,418,418$ 0.8% 11 Whitchurch Stouffville, Town of 37,274$ 91,500$ 2,288,278$ 2,417,052$ 1.5% 12 Aurora, Town of - Proposed 48,498$ 107,303$ 2,134,865$ 2,290,666$ 2.1% 0.9% 13 East Gwillimbury, Town of 33,436$ 82,500$ 2,170,528$ 2,286,464$ 1.5% 14 Aurora, Town of 28,786$ 107,303$ 2,134,865$ 2,270,953$ 1.3% 15 Caledon, Town of 25,528$ 111,484$ 2,046,195$ 2,183,207$ 1.2% 16 Burlington, City of 16,902$ 163,951$ 1,934,407$ 2,115,260$ 0.8% 17 Ajax, Town of 14,608$ 97,548$ 1,964,248$ 2,076,404$ 0.7% 18 Whitby, Town of 46,820$ 150,015$ 1,838,174$ 2,035,010$ 2.3% 19 Georgina, Town of 41,955$ 95,250$ 1,864,517$ 2,001,722$ 2.1% 20 Pickering, City of 11,026$ 114,968$ 1,695,749$ 1,821,742$ 0.6% 21 Milton, Town of 9,567$ 114,410$ 1,658,137$ 1,782,114$ 0.5% 22 Halton Hills, Town of 96,489$ 140,121$ 1,540,731$ 1,777,340$ 5.4% 23 Hamilton, City of 11,515$ 142,281$ 1,570,526$ 1,724,322$ 0.7% General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 57 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 4-9 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Figure 4-5 4.1.6 10,000 sq.m. Industrial Development – Site Plan Application The current planning fees for an industrial Site Plan application of 10,000 sq.m. would be $23,002. Imposing the recommended fee structure would result in a fee of $46,009 (+100%). Measuring the impact including development charges and building permit fees, the total input cost would increase by 0.7%. Under this recommendation, the Town’s position relative to the comparator municipalities in the GTAH would remain unchanged at 8th out of 22 municipalities (Table 4-6). $- $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 Survey of Lower/Single Tier Planning Fees Related to Office Dev elopment (6,968 m² GFA) Site Plan General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 58 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 4-10 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Table 4-6 Development Fee Impacts for a 10,000 sq.m. Industrial Development Rank Municipality Site Plan Building Permit Fees Development Charges Total Planning Fees - % of Total % Increase 1 Markham, City of 176,450$ 127,700$ 4,277,402$ 4,581,552$ 3.9% 2 Vaughan, City of 21,160$ 103,200$ 4,124,632$ 4,248,992$ 0.5% 3 King, Township of 19,592$ 118,400$ 3,561,818$ 3,699,810$ 0.5% 4 Whitchurch Stouffville, Town of 43,339$ 119,479$ 3,284,109$ 3,446,928$ 1.3% 5 New Market, Town of 54,647$ 100,600$ 3,283,532$ 3,438,779$ 1.6% 6 Richmond Hill, Town of 18,849$ 152,500$ 3,230,832$ 3,402,181$ 0.6% 7 East Gwillimbury, Town of 40,804$ 102,257$ 3,115,116$ 3,258,177$ 1.3% 8 Aurora, Town of - Proposed 55,189$ 103,000$ 3,063,932$ 3,222,121$ 1.7% 0.7% 9 Aurora, Town of 32,182$ 103,000$ 3,063,932$ 3,199,114$ 1.0% 10 Oakville, Town of 76,300$ 161,800$ 2,765,128$ 3,003,229$ 2.5% 11 Georgina, Town of 41,955$ 113,021$ 2,675,932$ 2,830,908$ 1.5% 12 Mississauga, City of 55,385$ 132,700$ 2,592,370$ 2,780,455$ 2.0% 13 Burlington, City of 20,995$ 81,215$ 2,339,528$ 2,441,739$ 0.9% 14 Hamilton, City of 11,515$ 119,100$ 2,254,000$ 2,384,615$ 0.5% 15 Brampton, City of 6,258$ 107,100$ 2,220,575$ 2,333,933$ 0.3% 16 Caledon, Town of 29,106$ 72,740$ 2,191,775$ 2,293,621$ 1.3% 17 Milton, Town of 9,567$ 93,500$ 1,943,028$ 2,046,096$ 0.5% 18 Halton Hills, Town of 123,779$ 107,920$ 1,774,528$ 2,006,228$ 6.2% 19 Ajax, Town of 17,185$ 90,000$ 1,855,696$ 1,962,881$ 0.9% 20 Whitby, Town of 61,557$ 147,600$ 1,674,757$ 1,883,914$ 3.3% 21 Pickering, City of 11,860$ 97,500$ 1,470,349$ 1,579,709$ 0.8% 22 Oshawa, City of 6,031$ 130,200$ 1,128,057$ 1,264,288$ 0.5% 23 Toronto, City of 89,996$ 152,700$ 120,556$ 363,252$ 24.8% General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 59 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 4-11 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Figure 4-6 Impact Analysis Summary Based on the survey results, the recommended fees produce development fees greater than those provided under the current fee structure. However, the ranking of Town amongst the municipal GTAH comparators remains unchanged when assessing the total cost of municipal development fees (Planning, Building, and Development Charges). Furthermore, when assessing the position of the Town relative to the other York Region municipalities for lower tier planning application fees only, the Town is on average 4th out of the nine municipalities. Finally, while the isolated planning impacts are significant in some cases, when measured on a total development cost basis, including building permits and development charges, the overall cost impacts are nominal (0.7% to 2.7% increase), maintaining the Town’s relative position compared to its GTAH comparators at 10th out of the 22 municipalities surveyed. $- $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 Survey of Lower/Single Tier Planning Fees Related to Industrial Development (10,000 m² GFA) Site Plan Total General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 60 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx Chapter 5 Conclusion General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 61 of 68 Watson & Associates Economists Ltd.PAGE 5-1 H:\Aurora\2019 Planning Fees\Report\Final Report.docx 5. Conclusion Summarized in this technical report is the legislative context for the planning application fees review, the methodology undertaken, A.B.C. results and full cost of service, and fee structure recommendations. In developing the recommended fee structure, careful consideration was given affordability, market competitiveness, and to the recent trends pertaining to planning fees, including recent comments of the L.P.A.T. concerning planning application fees. The recommendations of the planning application fees review have been designed to provide the Town with a recommended fee structure for Council’s consideration to increase the planning application cost recovery levels by recovering the full costs of service (except for Minor Variance fees) from benefiting parties. Based on the recommended fees, the modelled level of cost recovery will increase from 64% to 95%, increasing planning application fee revenue and therefore decreasing required tax support by $462,000 annually. The Town will ultimately determine the level of cost recovery and phasing strategy that is suitable for their objectives. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 62 of 68 Table 3-3 Planning Fees Modelled Impacts by Application Type (2019$) Summarized in Table 3-4 are the per application processing costs compared with the Town’s current application fees by application sub-type. Description Direct Costs (S,W & B) Direct Costs (non-S,W & B)Indirect Costs Capital Replacement Cost Total Costs Revenue Cost Recovery % Committee of Adjustment 144,817 12,975 76,075 1,578 235,445 116,668 50% Official Plan 113,875 9,802 51,655 1,237 176,569 107,821 61% Zoning By-law Amendment 146,345 11,168 66,007 1,575 225,096 166,265 74% Site Plan 262,821 24,128 124,246 2,869 414,064 237,892 57% Subdivision 183,787 14,689 79,858 1,985 280,318 201,900 72% Condominium 69,722 6,992 35,494 767 112,975 94,814 84% Part Lot Control 19,168 1,673 8,846 208 29,895 18,231 61% Deeming By-Law 261 23 121 3 408 - 0% Additional Public Meetings 79 3 23 1 106 - 0% Total 940,875 81,454 442,325 10,223 1,474,878 943,592 64% General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 63 of 68 Table 3-4 Planning Fees Modelled Impacts by Application Sub-Type (2019$) Cost per Application Revenue per Application Cost Recovery % Committee of Adjustment C.O.A. - Consent 5,306 3,626 68% C.O.A. - Minor Variance 4,488 2,039 45% Official Plan Minor Official Plan Amendment 24,919 17,366 70% Major Official Plan Amendment 43,519 26,521 61% Zoning By-law Amendment Minor Zoning By-law Amendment 22,076 12,221 55% Major Zoning By-law Amendment 25,187 18,037 72% Zoning By-Law Amendment - Temporary Use 25,187 11,711 46% Zoning By-Law Amendment - Temporary Use - Extension 20,051 6,358 32% Removal of H Holding 6,356 9,696 153% Site Plan Site Plan 29,397 21,580 73% Minor Site Plan 16,083 3,448 21% Site Plan Amendment 19,439 3,448 18% Site Plan Exemption 5,139 617 12% Site Plan - Review 1,470 1,025 70% Site Plan - Recirculation/Revisions 9,422 1,230 13% Subdivision Subdivision 100,526 75,392 75% Subdivision - Recirculation 51,095 1,837 4% Subdivision - Revision to Draft Approved Plan 68,971 4,405 6% Subdivision - Extension of Draft Approval 2,416 2,307 95% Condominium Condominium 25,941 24,811 96% Condominium - Revision to Draft Approved Plan 17,798 3,610 20% Condominium - Extension of Draft Approval 624 2,307 370% Part Lot Control 4,077 2,486 61% Deeming By-Law 4,077 - 0% Additional Public Meetings 1,065 - 0% Total Description Per Application Impact General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 64 of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eneral Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 65 of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eneral Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 66 of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eneral Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 67 of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eneral Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R4 Page 68 of 68 Town of Aurora General Committee Report No. PDS20-008 Subject: Application for Site Plan Approval Dormer Hill Inc. 14029 Yonge Street File Number: SP-2018-01 Related File Numbers: OPA-2017-02, ZBA-2017-01, SUB-2017-01 & CDM-2017-01 Prepared by: Sean Lapenna, Planner Department: Planning and Development Services Date: January 14, 2020 Recommendation 1. That Report No. PDS20-008 be received; 2. That Site Plan Application File SP-2018-01 (Dormer Hill Inc.) to permit the development of 27 Single-Detached Dwellings on 27 Single-Detached Lots, be approved in principle, subject to the following conditions: a. Execution of the outstanding subdivision agreement for 19T-17A071 (SUB-2017-01); b. Resolution of all outstanding comments from internal departments and divisions as described herein, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development Services; c. Resolution of all outstanding comments from external agencies including the Region of York and the LSRCA, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development Services; and, d. Execution of a site plan agreement 3. That in accordance with By-law 6212-19, the Town’s Director of Planning & Development Services be authorized to execute the Site Plan Agreement, including any and all documents and ancillary agreements required to give effect to same. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R5 Page 1 of 21 January 14, 2020 Page 2 of 13 Report No. PDS20-008 Executive Summary • The proposed Site Plan conforms to the Official Plan (OPA 18); • The proposed Site Plan conforms to the Zoning By-law; • The proposed Site Plan conforms to the approved Plan of Subdivision; • The proposed Site Plan conforms to the approved Plan of Condominium; • The proposed Site Plan meets the Architectural and Urban Design Guidelines; • Planning Staff recommend that the Site Plan application be approved in principle, subject to conditions. Final technical matters will be addressed prior to execution of the site plan agreement and final site plan approval. Background Application History The Site Plan Application was submitted to the Town on February 23, 2018. The applicant made a resubmission on April 3, 2019 and then again on October 1, 2019 in order to address and respond to comments made by staff and external agencies. The associated Zoning By-law amendment (ZBA-2017-01) and Official Plan amendment (OPA-2017-02) applications were both approved on June 19, 2018 and enacted on July 24, 2018. The Draft Plan of Subdivision (SUB-2017-01) and the Draft Plan of condominium applications (CDM-2017-01) were approved on July 17, 2018. Servicing allocation was also granted through the subdivision approval and the associated Subdivision agreement still requires execution. The Site Plan application is the final Planning application requiring approval. Location / Land Use The subject property, municipally known as 14029 Yonge Street, is located on the east side of Yonge Street and north of Hunters Glen Road (Figure 1). The property has a lot area of 7.14 ha (17.64 acres) and a frontage of 117.8 m (386 ft). Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding land uses are as follows: North: Open space (golf course) South: Residential East: Residential West: Yonge Street and residential General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R5 Page 2 of 21 January 14, 2020 Page 3 of 13 Report No. PDS20-008 Policy Context Provincial Policies All Planning Act development applications are subject to provincial policies. The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest. These policies support the development of strong communities through the promotion of efficient land use and development patterns. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe is a guiding document for growth management within the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) Area to 2041. The Growth Plan provides a framework which guide decisions on how land will be planned, designated, zoned and designed. The Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) is a provincial document that provides policies which addresses aquatic life, water quality, water quantity, shorelines and natural heritage, other threats and activities (including invasive species, climate change and recreational activities) and implementation. York Region Official Plan The subject lands are designated as ‘Urban Area’ within the York Region Official Plan. York Region’s vision for the Urban Area is to strategically focus growth while conserving resources and to create sustainable, lively communities. Under the York Region’s Official Plan, one regional urbanization goal is to enhance the Region’s urban structure through city building, intensification and compact, complete communities. Town of Aurora Official Plan (OPA18) As illustrated on Figure 2, three separate Official Plan designations apply to the subject lands (Cluster Residential Site Specific Policy No. 49, Environmental Function Area and Environmental Protection Area). As noted earlier in this report, a site specific Official Plan amendment was previously adopted by Council (OPA 18) on June 19, 2018 which applies to the subject lands. The intent of the ‘Environmental Protection Area’ designation is to protect ecological structure and function and significant landforms representative of the Oak Ridges Moraine. The intent of the ‘Environmental Function Area’ designation is to protect ecological function. New development in an ‘Environmental Function Area’ may be permitted provided that it can be justified through an Environmental Impact Study, Vegetation Protection Plan, and Landform Conservation Plan. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R5 Page 3 of 21 January 14, 2020 Page 4 of 13 Report No. PDS20-008 The intent of the ‘Cluster Residential Site Specific Policy No. 49’ designation is to permit the development of twenty-seven (27) single-detached dwellings, on 27 single-detached lots along a private condominium road. This designation also includes additional site specific policies such as a reduced minimum setback from the centerline of Yonge Street from 60 m to 40 m as well as a reduced minimum separation from an ‘Estate Residential’ designation from 35 m to 20 m. OPA 18 outlines that the proposed development is intended to accommodate 27 Single-Detached units at a density of 3.77 units per hectare. The submitted Site Plan reflects that the proposed development does not exceed what was approved through the Official Plan amendment in terms of both number of units as well as density. Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended The subject lands are zoned ‘Detached Fourth Density Residential R4 (501) Exception Zone’,’ Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection EP-ORM Zone’ and ‘Private Open Space O2 Zone’ under Town of Aurora Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended (Figure 3). The zoning by-law amendment adopted by Town Council on June 18, 2018 permits the development of the subject lands for 27 single detached dwelling units along a private condominium road at the subject property. The proposed Site Plan reflects that the Single-Detached Dwelling lots will only be developed on the portion of the lands designated ‘Detached Fourth Density Residential R4 (501) Exception Zone’. Reports and Studies The Owner submitted the following documents as part of a complete Site Plan Application: Report/Drawing Name Report/Drawing Author Site Plan UrbanScape Architects Building Elevations UrbanScape Architects Landscaping Plan UrbanScape Architects Street Lighting Layout LEA Consulting Ltd. Tree Inventory & Preservation Plan Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report SCS Consulting Group Ltd. Hydrogeologic Study & Water Balance Terraprobe General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R5 Page 4 of 21 January 14, 2020 Page 5 of 13 Report No. PDS20-008 Proposed Application Proposed Site Plan As illustrated on Figure 4, the proposed site plan will accommodate 27 Single-Detached lots serviced by a private condominium road. Seven of the proposed Single-Detached Dwellings will be oriented along Yonge Street to the west, with each dwelling setback a minimum of 40 m from the centreline of Yonge Street. These dwellings are directly adjacent to and are setback from Block 29 (the future Town trail). The property will be accessed via a private road from Yonge Street along the southerly portion of the site. Sidewalks are proposed throughout the site and along the private roads. A central green space (open space block) is proposed surrounding an existing Butternut tree onsite. The open space block is a common element feature intended to provide a shared outdoor amenity space for all residents. In accordance with OPA 18, a 20 m wide buffer is proposed adjacent to the existing Estate Residential community fronting Hunters Glen Road to the south. The woodlands located in the eastern portion of the subject lands as well as a 10 m buffer surrounding the buffer will remain undeveloped and are zoned accordingly through the implementing by-law (see Figure 3). The proposed Site Plan has been designed in a manner that conforms to the previously approved draft Plan of Subdivision (SUB-2017-01) and Plan of Condominium (CDM- 2017-01). As reflected in Figure 3, portions of the site to the south and east site were re- designated through the associated Zoning By-law and Official Plan amendments in order to provide open space and environmentally protected land use designations to protect areas of the site containing natural features, specifically the woodlot. Buffers have also been incorporated into the site plan, which provide appropriate setbacks between environmentally protected land and the dwellings. Lot frontages range from 12.2 m (40 ft ) to 29.51 m (97 ft) and lot depths range from 26.07 m (85 ft) to 37.01 m (121 ft). Lot areas per individual lot range from 329.5 m² (3.547 ft²) to 776.6 m² (8,359 ft²). Lot coverage for the Single-Detached Dwellings range between 31.1% and 43.8%. Each detached dwelling includes an attached two (2) car garage and a two (2) car driveway, for a total of four (4) parking spaces per dwelling unit. A total of eight (8) General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R5 Page 5 of 21 January 14, 2020 Page 6 of 13 Report No. PDS20-008 dedicated visitor parking spaces are proposed in two separate locations, including one (1) barrier free parking space. All dwelling types are two-storey, with building heights ranging from 10 m (32.8 ft) to 11 m (36 ft). The approved Zoning By-law amendment permits a maximum building height of 12 m. A total of 62 parking spaces will be provided (which as previously mentioned, includes 8 visitor parking spaces). Analysis Town of Aurora’s Official Plan – OPA 18 The proposed Site Plan conforms to the Official Plan. On June 19, 2018 Council adopted a site specific Official Plan Amendment for the subject lands. The proposed Site Plan reflects the pattern of development as prescribed through the approved Official Plan amendment. Specifically, all buildings are setback a minimum of 40 m from the centreline of Yonge Street and are also sited in a manner that provides a minimum separation of 20 m between any Estate Residential designation. Finally, the residential component of this project will only be accommodated on the ‘Cluster Residential’ designation of the site which permits the development of twenty-seven (27) single-detached dwellings to be developed along a private condominium road. Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended The proposed Site Plan conforms to the Zoning By-law. The subject lands are zoned ‘Detached Fourth Density Residential R4 (501) Exception Zone’, ‘Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection EP-ORM Zone’ and ‘Private Open Space O2 Zone’ under Town of Aurora Zoning By-law 6000-17, as amended (Figure 3). As noted earlier in this report, the zoning by-law amendment adopted by Town Council on June 18, 2018 permits the development of the subject lands for 27 single detached dwelling units. Zoning staff have confirmed that the applicable by-law requirements for each lot is being met and that the no minor variances are required. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R5 Page 6 of 21 January 14, 2020 Page 7 of 13 Report No. PDS20-008 Site Design The proposed Site Plan conforms to the approved Plan of Subdivision. The Draft Plan of Subdivision Application was submitted to the Town for consideration on March 15, 2017 and draft approved by Council on July 24, 2018. The draft approved Plan of Subdivision consists of 27 lots for single detached residential dwellings. Servicing allocation for the proposed residential units was granted at the same time the subdivision was draft plan approved by Council on July 24, 2018. Block 28 consists of an existing woodlot that will be maintained in private ownership and zoned EP-ORM (Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection). A future trail block to be conveyed to the Town (0.15 ha) is located on Block 29 along the Yonge Street frontage (Figure 6). The following is a breakdown of the major land uses within the Plan of Subdivision: Table 2: Lots and Blocks Proposed Land Use Blocks Area (Ha) Single Detached Residential 1-27 1.19 Common Element Condominium Block (woodlands, private road system, green space around the Butternut tree, and buffers) 28 29 5.79 12 m Town Trail Conveyance 29 0.15 0.3 m Reserve 30-31 0.01 Totals 7.14 Town Staff have confirmed that the proposed Site Plan conforms with the approved Plan of Subdivision. The proposed Site Plan conforms to the approved Plan of Condominium. As illustrated in Figure 5, the Plan of Condominium proposes 27 Parcels of Tied Land (POTLs). Block 29 will be conveyed to the Town as a future trail block. The balance of the subject lands would be a common element condominium block, which includes private roads, eight (8) visitor parking spaces and a buffer block around the Butternut tree as well as the existing woodlands on the easterly portion of the subject lands. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R5 Page 7 of 21 January 14, 2020 Page 8 of 13 Report No. PDS20-008 Building Elevations Staff as well as the project’s Controlling Architect have reviewed the building elevations for urban design and building materials conformity and are of the opinion that the proposed Site Plan meets the Architectural and Urban Design Guidelines. The project’s Controlling Architect (John G. Williams Architecture) has reviewed the site plan application with respect to the Architectural and Urban Design guidelines (Dormer Hill Inc. Architectural and Urban Design Guidelines). Upon completion of this review, they issued preliminary approval of the proposed building elevations and overall urban design aspects as it relates to the proposal. At the time of the writing of this report, the applicant was in the process of preparing a fourth submission in order to address comments from the Controlling Architect that staff consider to be minor in nature (i.e. matters relating to updating floor plans as well as minor modifications to final model types, etc.). See Figure 8 for a typical building elevation. Building materials to be used consist of Mondrian Stone, Lexa Stone, Brick Veneer, Stucco with stone texture as well as both aluminum and metal siding. Colours include Newport Grey (Mondrian Stone), Alpine Grey (Lexa Stone), White (Brick Veneer) and different variations of brown for the aluminum and metal siding. Planning staff are satisfied with the articulation, massing and variation provided with the proposed architectural style and are of the opinion that the intent of the design guidelines in place have been satisfied. Prior to execution of the site plan agreement and final site plan approval, all site plan and elevation permit drawings will require the approval of the controlling architect at the building permit stage. Department / Agency Comments Planning Staff recommend that the subject Site Plan application be approved in principle, subject to conditions. Final technical matters will be addressed prior to execution of the site plan agreement and final site plan approval. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R5 Page 8 of 21 January 14, 2020 Page 9 of 13 Report No. PDS20-008 Planning and Development Services – Development Engineer The Development Engineer has no objections to the approval in principle of the Site Plan Approval application. All comments on previous technical submissions have been addressed. Building Division One technical comment needs to be addressed regarding a minor modification that needs to be made as it pertains to the width of the barrier free parking stall provided in one of the visitor parking areas onsite. Town staff will ensure that the site plan is revised in order to reflect this change, prior to execution of the site plan agreement. Outside of that issue, the Town’s Building Division has expressed no objection to approval of the site plan application. Operational Services – Parks Division The applicant is proposing a variety of plantings to the west of the site fronting Yonge Street as well as along the south and north property lines, along with an open space Block consisting of green space. Parks staff have confirmed that some minor revisions are required to the landscaping plans but overall support the proposed landscaping plan. Prior to execution of the site plan agreement, all landscaping plans will require the approval of the Town’s Parks Division. Traffic/Transportation A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) was submitted as part of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications. The Town’s Transportation Analyst has no concerns with the findings and conclusions. The Town’s Traffic Analyst has also reviewed the site plan submission and has no additional comments to be satisfied prior to final approval. Regional Municipality of York The Regional Municipality of York has reviewed the application and advises that they have no objection to approval of the site plan in principle, subject to the owner obtaining the Region’s full sign off on the site plan application prior to execution of the site plan agreement. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R5 Page 9 of 21 January 14, 2020 Page 10 of 13 Report No. PDS20-008 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) Through their review of the latest site plan submission, the LSRCA have noted that an approved stormwater management outlet has not been secured to date as part of the stormwater design for this site. While the LSRCA’s conditions of approval issued require the stormwater management report to be prepared to the satisfaction of the LSRCA and town prior to the execution of the site plan agreement, if the outlet cannot be secured, significant modifications to the plan may be required to address the capture and infiltration of the 100 year post development storm event on site. As such, the owner will be required to satisfy these requirements prior to the execution of the Site Plan Agreement. Central York Fire Services Central York Fire Services (CYFS) has reviewed the application and indicated no objection to site plan approval in principle subject to the owner satisfying technical requirements prior to the execution of the Site Plan Agreement. Public Comments Planning Staff have not received public comments with respect to the subject Site Plan application. Advisory Committee Review Accessibility Advisory Committee The Town’s Accessibility Advisor has reviewed the site plan on behalf of the Accessibility Advisory Committee in accordance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act in order to encourage barrier free access. Upon review of the latest site plan, the Accessibility Advisor requested that a minimum of one (1) barrier free parking space be added to the visitor parking area. Town staff had worked with the applicant to determine the best suitable location and the Site Plan has since been revised to now include this requirement. Town Staff also acknowledge that each dwelling unit onsite will accommodate a two car garage and driveway for a total of 4 spaces per unit. On this basis, Town Staff are satisfied with the barrier free needs provided for this site and as such, the Town’s Accessibility Advisor has no further comments at this time. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R5 Page 10 of 21 January 14, 2020 Page 11 of 13 Report No. PDS20-008 Legal Considerations This planning application file has been submitted to the Town pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Act, and as such may be subject to future appeal and litigation, which may require Legal Services review and comments for Council consideration. Should Council approve the proposed planning application, Legal Services will also review any agreements required to implement final approval of this application. This includes the associated site plan agreement as well as the subdivision agreement. Financial Implications At the time of execution of the Site Plan agreement, fees and securities will be applied to the development. The development of the lands will also generate development charges and yearly tax assessment. Communications Considerations Given that the proposed Site Plan Application SP-2018-01 is associated with Zoning By- law Amendment Application ZBA-2017-01, another notice sign was not required to be posted for the Site Plan Application since the Zoning By-law Amendment notice sign was previously posted. No interested parties were listed in the Town’s records, therefore no parties were required to be notified by mail that the proposed Site Plan Application would be heard at the January 14, 2020 General Committee Meeting. Servicing Allocation Staff’s recommendation report to General Committee for the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Draft Plan of Condominium applications (Report No. PDS18-086 dated July 17, 2018) recommended that a total of 27 units of water and sewage capacity be allocated to the Draft Plan of Subdivision and the motion was approved. Link to Strategic Plan The proposed Site Plan Application supports the Strategic Plan goal of supporting an exceptional quality of life for all through its accomplishment in satisfying requirements in the following key objective within this goal statement: General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R5 Page 11 of 21 January 14, 2020 Page 12 of 13 Report No. PDS20-008 Strengthening the fabric of our community: Through the proposed Site Plan Application on the subject lands, this development will assist in creating housing to ensure future growth that includes housing opportunities for everyone. Alternative(s) to the Recommendation That Council provide direction. Conclusion Planning and Development Services have reviewed the Dormer Hill Site Plan Application in accordance with the provisions of the Provincial Policies and Plans; Regional and Town’s Official Plan, Zoning By-law and municipal development standards respecting the subject lands. Overall, Staff are satisfied with the proposed Site Plan. The majority of comments to date have been addressed by the applicant and all required technical revisions to the proposed plans will be reviewed by Town Staff through conditions of approval, prior to execution of both the Site Plan and Subdivision agreements. Staff therefore recommend approval in principle of Site Plan Application SP-2018-01. Attachments Figure 1: Location Map Figure 2: Official Plan Designation Figure 3: Existing Zoning Figure 4: Approved Plan of Subdivision Figure 5: Approved Plan of Condominium Figure 6: Proposed Site Plan Figure 7: Proposed Landscaping Plan Figure 8: Typical Building Elevation PREVIOUS REPORTS Public Planning Meeting Report No. PBS17-035 dated May 24, 2017, Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision; General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R5 Page 12 of 21 January 14, 2020 Page 13 of 13 Report No. PDS20-008 General Committee Report No. PDS18-075 dated June 19, 2018, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications; Recommendation Report No. PDS18-086 dated July 17, 2018, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Draft Plan of Condominium Applications. Pre-submission Review Agenda Management Team review on December 18, 2019. Departmental Approval Approved for Agenda ,42-# David Waters, MCIP, RPP, PLE Director Planning and Devefopment Services General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R5 Page 13 of 21 Elderberry Trail Gl enstee ple Trail Yonge StreetHunters Glen Road LOCATION MAP Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning & Building Services Department, September 12, 2019. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora. Air Photos taken Spring 2018, © First Base Solutions Inc., 2018 Orthophotography. ¯ FIGURE 1 St John's Sdrd Wellington St E Vandorf SdrdHenderson Drive ^ Wellington St W UV404 UV404Leslie StYonge StBathurst StBayview AveBloomington Rd 0 25 50 75 100 MetresAPPLICANT: Dormer Hill Inc.FILE: SUB-2017-01 SUBJECT LANDS General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020Item R5 Page 14 of 21 Hunters Glen RoadYONGE STREETMap created by the Town of Aurora Planning and Building Services Department, December 6, 2019. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora. ¯0 25 50 75 100 MetresAPPLICANT: Dormer Hill Inc.FILE: SUB-2017-01 FIGURE 2 St John's Sdrd Wellington St E Vandorf SdrdHenderson Drive ^ Wellington St W UV404 UV404Leslie StYonge StBathurst StBayview AveBloomington Rd EXISTING OFFICIAL PLAN DESIGNATION SUBJECT LANDS Schedule A OPA 18 Private Open Space Environmental Function Area Estate Residential Cluster Residential Environmental Protection Area General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020Item R5 Page 15 of 21 O2 EP(277) O2 EP-ORM ER I R3(435) R2(276)O1 RU-ORM O2(63) O1 O1 R4(501) EXISTING ZONING Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning & Building Services Department, December 6, 2019. Base data provided by York Region & the Town of Aurora. ¯0 25 50 75 100 MetresAPPLICANT: DORMER HILL INC.FILE: SUB-2017-01 FIGURE 3 SUBJECT LANDS Institutional INSTITUTIONAL ZONES I Detached DwellingThird DensityR3 Zoning Legend RESIDENTIAL ZONES Public Open Space OPEN SPACES ZONES O1 Environmental ProtectionEP Oak Ridges MoraineEnvironmental Protection RU-ORM RURAL ZONES Detached DwellingFourth DensityR4 EstateER Oak Ridges MoraineRural EP-ORM Private Open SpaceO2 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020Item R5 Page 16 of 21 Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning & Building Services Department, December 11, 2019. Drawing provided by Soscia Professional Engineers Inc. APPROVED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: Dormer Hill Inc.FILES: SUB-2017-01 & CDM-2017-01 FIGURE 4 Block 29 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020Item R5 Page 17 of 21 Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning & Building Services Department, December 11, 2019. Drawing provided by Soscia Professional Engineers Inc. APPROVED PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM APPLICANT: Dormer Hill Inc.FILES: SUB-2017-01 & CDM-2017-01 FIGURE 5 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020Item R5 Page 18 of 21 Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning & Building Services Department, December 6, 2019. Drawing provided by Urbanscape Architects. PROPOSED SITE PLAN APPLICANT: Dormer Hill Inc.FILES: SUB-2017-01 FIGURE 6 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020Item R5 Page 19 of 21 Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning & Building Services Department, December 6, 2019. Drawing provided by Soscia Professional Engineers Inc. PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLAN APPLICANT: Dormer Hill Inc.FILES: SUB-2017-01 FIGURE 7 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020Item R5 Page 20 of 21 Map created by the Town of Aurora Planning & Building Services Department, December 6, 2019. Drawing provided by Soscia Professional Engineers Inc. TYPICAL BUILDING ELEVATION APPLICANT: Dormer Hill Inc.FILES: SUB-2017-01 FIGURE 8 General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020Item R5 Page 21 of 21 Memorandum Date: January 14, 2020 To: Members of Council From: Mayor Tom Mrakas Re: Appointment to the Community Advisory Committee Recommendation 1. That the memorandum regarding Appointment to the Community Advisory Committee be received; and 2. That the Terms of Reference for the Community Advisory Committee be amended to include two representatives from Council; and 3. That Councillor Harold Kim be appointed to the Community Advisory Committee. Background Councillor Kim has expressed an interest in rejoining the Community Advisory Committee. This recommendation would restore Council’s representation on the Town’s advisory committees and local boards to what was approved by Council at the start of this term. 100 John West Way Box 1000 Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 Phone: 905-727-3123 ext. 4746 Email: tmrakas@aurora.ca www.aurora.ca Town of Aurora Office of the Mayor General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item R6 Page 1 of 1 Notice of Motion Councillor Harold Kim Date: January 14, 2020 To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Councillor Kim Re: Workplace Diversity and Inclusion Strategy Whereas diversity has always been an important characteristic in Canada’s history and today Canada is one of the most diverse countries of the world; and Whereas one-fifth of Canada’s population was born outside Canada and represents the highest foreign-born proportion of the population in the G7 countries; and Whereas immigration accounts for two-thirds of Canada’s population growth and by 2031 one-third of the population are expected to be visible minorities, and in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) itself more than 50% are currently considered in this group; and Whereas, depending on which source is referenced, 5%-13% of the population identifies themselves as LGBTQ; and Whereas the indigenous population is growing naturally at a rate four times that of the non-indigenous population; and Whereas one in seven people consider themselves as having a disability and approximately 26% of these people classify themselves as having a severe disability; and Whereas women are still challenged in equitable representation in the senior ranks and on public company boards; and Whereas the most successful organizations in the world recognize that diversity and inclusion: 1) spur innovation; 2) increase productivity; and 3) create a healthy, respectful workplace; and General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Notice of Motion (a) Page 1 of 2 Notice of Motion Workplace Diversity and Inclusion Strategy January 14, 2020 Page 2 of 2 Whereas public organizations embrace opportunities to foster a more inclusive organizational culture that engage, develop and celebrate its people, and attract a diverse workforce; and Whereas employees of the Town of Aurora and indeed other York Region municipalities come from all over the GTA and not just from the home community; and Whereas, based on the 2016 Census, 22.3% of the Canadian population are visible minorities and the federal government employment of visible minorities makes up 15.7%; and 29.3% of Ontarians are visible minorities and the provincial government employment of visible minorities makes up 22.6%; 1. Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That staff investigate municipal Workplace Diversity and Inclusion Strategies and Work Plans as well as other similar strategies across Ontario (public, private and non-for-profit organizations) and report to Council on the state of diversity and inclusion in the Town of Aurora and any current initiatives underway; and 2. Be It Further Resolved That staff in its report provide recommendations on how to enhance the Town’s current workplace diversity and inclusion strategy; and 3. Be It Further Resolved That this motion be forwarded to the Premier of Ontario and all York Region municipalities for their consideration. General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Notice of Motion (a) Page 2 of 2 Public Release January 13, 2020 Town of Aurora Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 7 p.m., Council Chambers • Revised General Committee Meeting Agenda Index • Delegation (a) Klaus Wehrenberg, Resident Re: Climate Emergency Action • Delegation (b) Shaun McGuire, Aurora King Baseball Association Re: Item R2 – OPS19-019 – Hallmark Baseball Diamonds – Additional Funding • Item A3 – Mayor’s Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2019 • Notice of Motion (b) Councillor Kim Re: Tennis Court Permitting Public Release January 13, 2020 Town of Aurora General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised) Tuesday, January 14, 2020 7 p.m., Council Chambers Councillor Thompson in the Chair 1. Approval of the Agenda 2. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof 3. Community Presentations (a) Bruce Gorman, Chief Executive Officer, Aurora Public Library Re: Aurora Public Library – Telling Our Stories 4. Delegations (a) Klaus Wehrenberg, Resident Re: Climate Emergency Action (Added Item) (b) Shaun McGuire, Aurora King Baseball Association Re: Item R2 – OPS19-019 – Hallmark Baseball Diamonds – Additional Funding (Added Item) 5. Consent Agenda General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised) Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Page 2 of 5 6. Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Recommended: That the following Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes items, A1 to A3 inclusive, be received: A1. Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of December 9, 2019 1. That the Heritage Advisory Committee meeting minutes of December 9, 2019, be received for information. A2. Finance Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes of December 18, 2019 1. That the Finance Advisory Committee meeting minutes of December 18, 2019, be received for information. A3. Mayor’s Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2019 (Added Item) 1. That the Mayor’s Golf Classic Funds Committee meeting minutes of December 5, 2019, be received for information. 7. Consideration of Items Requiring Discussion (Regular Agenda) R1. CMS20-001 – Outdoor Field Development Strategy Presentation to be provided by Steve Langlois, Principal Planner, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants. Recommended: 1. That Report No. CMS20-001 be received; and 2. That the recommendations from Monteith Brown Planning Consultants’ Sports Field Development Strategy be endorsed in principle, subject to Council approval of budgetary implications. General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised) Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Page 3 of 5 R2. OPS19-019 – Hallmark Baseball Diamonds – Additional Funding (Deferred from General Committee meeting of December 3, 2019) Recommended: 1. That Report No. OPS19-019 be received; and 2. That the total approved budget for Capital Project No. 73287 – Hallmark Lands Baseball Diamonds be increased to $3,942,000, representing an increase of $942,200 to be funded from the Parks Development Charges reserve. R3. PDS20-002 – Stream Management Master Plan and Flood Relief Study Presentation to be provided by consultant Robert Amos, MASc, P.Eng., Fluvial Geomorphologist, Aquafor Beech Limited. Recommended: 1. That Report No. PDS20-002 be received; and 2. That the Stream Management Master Plan and Flood Relief Study dated September 30, 2019, be endorsed in principle, subject to budget approval for the erosion and flood mitigation projects listed herein. R4. PDS20-001 – Development Planning Fees and Charges Update Recommended: 1. That Report No. PDS20-001 be received; and 2. That the recommended updates to the Town’s Development Planning Fees and Charges be endorsed in principle, subject to consultation with the development industry and the public; and 3. That staff be authorized to proceed with consultation with the development industry and the public to obtain input on proposed updates to the Town’s Development Planning Fees and Charges. General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised) Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Page 4 of 5 R5. PDS20-008 – Application for Site Plan Approval Dormer Hill Inc. 14029 Yonge Street File Number: SP-2018-01 Related File Numbers: OPA-2017-02, ZBA-2017-01, SUB- 2017-01 and CDM-2017-01 Recommended: 1. That Report No. PDS20-008 be received; and 2. That Site Plan Application File SP-2018-01 (Dormer Hill Inc.) to permit the development of 27 single-detached dwellings on 27 single-detached lots be approved in principle, subject to the following conditions: (a) Execution of the outstanding subdivision agreement for 19T-17A071 (SUB-2017-01); and (b) Resolution of all outstanding comments from internal department and divisions as described herein, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services; and (c) Resolution of all outstanding comments from external agencies including The Regional Municipality of York and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services; and (d) Execution of a site plan agreement; and 3. That, in accordance with By-law No. 6212-19, the Town’s Director of Planning and Development Services be authorized to execute the Site Plan Agreement, including any and all documents and ancillary agreements required to give effect to same. R6. Memorandum from Mayor Mrakas Re: Appointment to the Community Advisory Committee Recommended: 1. That the memorandum regarding Appointment to the Community Advisory Committee be received; and General Committee Meeting Agenda (Revised) Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Page 5 of 5 2. That the Terms of Reference for the Community Advisory Committee be amended to include two representatives from Council; and 3. That Councillor Harold Kim be appointed to the Community Advisory Committee. 8. Notices of Motion (a) Councillor Kim Re: Workplace Diversity and Inclusion Strategy (b) Councillor Kim Re: Tennis Court Permitting (Added Item) 9. New Business 10. Closed Session 11. Adjournment Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Delegation (a) Page 1 of 1 :y'ov>.sb ix Qbbd (:x'vyy Legislative Services 905-727-3123 Clerks@aurora.ca Town of Aurora 100 John West Way, Box 1000 Aurora, ON L4G 6J1 Delegation Request This Delegation Request form and any written submissions or background information for consideration by either Council or Committees of Council must be submitted to the Clerk's office by the following deadline: 9 a.m. One (1) Business Day Prior to the Requested Meeting Date Council/Committee Meeting and Date: General council meeting January 14, 2020 Subject: Hallmark Land dome option proposal Name of Spokesperson: Shaun McGuire Name of Group or Person(s) being Represented (if applicable): Shaun McGuire/AKBA Brief Summary of Issue or Purpose of Delegation: Option to erect a year round baseball dome to house winter training. The ability to house youth baseball games indoor in lieu of one outdoor field. The home of Aurora King Baseball Association. Please complete the following: Have you been in contact with a Town staff or Council member regarding your matter of interest? YeS a' No a If yes, with whom? AI Downey and Harold Kim Date: December 18 2019 m I acknowledge that the Procedure By-law permits five (5) minutes for Delegations. Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Delegation (b) Page 1 of 1 Town of Aurora Mayor’s Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting Minutes Date: Thursday, December 5, 2019 Time and Location: 10 a.m., Leksand Room, Aurora Town Hall Committee Members: Barb Allan, Wendy Browne, Rosalyn Gonsalves, Nancy Harrison, Koula Koliviras, and Beverley Wood Member(s) Absent: Heidi Schellhorn Other Attendees: Jason Gaertner, Manager of Financial Management Services, and Michael de Rond, Town Clerk The Appointment of the Chair and Vice Chair was considered following Delegation (a). Appointment of Chair and Vice Chair Moved by Beverley Wood Seconded by Rosalyn Gonsalves That Nancy Harrison be appointed as Chair of the Mayor’s Golf Classic Funds Committee; and That Koula Koliviras be appointed as Vice Chair of the Mayor’s Golf Classic Funds Committee. Carried 1. Approval of the Agenda Moved by Rosalyn Gonsalves Seconded by Koula Koliviras That the agenda as circulated by Legislative Services be approved. Carried Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item A3 Page 1 of 4 Mayor’s Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, December 5, 2019 Page 2 of 4 2. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest and General Nature Thereof There were no declarations of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.50. 3. Receipt of the Minutes None 4. Delegations (a) Michael de Rond, Town Clerk Re: Committee Orientation The Town Clerk presented an overview of the roles and responsibilities of an advisory committee, committee members, the chair, and staff. He noted the importance of an advisory committee as a tool for civic engagement and highlighted various aspects of procedure, including the Town’s Procedure By- law and the new Code of Conduct for Local Boards. Moved by Beverley Wood Seconded by Barb Allan That the comments of the delegation be received for information. Carried 5. Matters for Consideration 1. Round Table Discussion 2019 Mayor’s Charity Golf Classic Funds – Funding Application and Disbursement Process The Committee discussed whether there would be a cheque presentation to organizations who receive funding, and a process for reporting how the funds were spent. The Town Clerk agreed to report back regarding this at the next meeting. Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item A3 Page 2 of 4 Mayor’s Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, December 5, 2019 Page 3 of 4 There was further discussion regarding whether there is a need for a yearly deadline for applications. The Committee agreed to not impose a deadline and see how that works for the current year. Moved by Wendy Browne Seconded by Barb Allan 1. That the Round Table Discussion regarding 2019 Mayor’s Charity Golf Classic Funds – Funding Application and Disbursement Process be received and the comments of the Committee be referred to staff for consideration and action as appropriate. Carried 2. Applications for Review a) All Kids Can Play The Committee reviewed the application in detail. There was discussion regarding various aspects of the program and its importance to the community. The Committee agreed that the application meets the criteria to receive funding from the Mayor’s Charity Golf Tournament. Moved by Wendy Browne Seconded by Beverley Wood 1. That Application (a) be received; and 2. That the Committee grant funding to All Kids Can Play in the amount of $5,000. Carried b) Youthspeak The Committee reviewed the application in detail, and discussed the program and the experiences of the participants. The Committee agreed that the application meets the criteria to receive funding from the Mayor’s Charity Golf Tournament. Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item A3 Page 3 of 4 Mayor’s Golf Classic Funds Committee Meeting Minutes Thursday, December 5, 2019 Page 4 of 4 Moved by Beverley Wood Seconded by Wendy Browne 1. That Application (b) be received; and 2. That the Committee grant funding to Youthspeak in the amount of $4,400. Carried 6. Adjournment Moved by Rosalyn Gonsalves Seconded by Beverley Wood That the meeting be adjourned at 11:05 a.m. Carried Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Item A3 Page 4 of 4 Notice of Motion Councillor Harold Kim Date: January 14, 2020 To: Mayor and Members of Council From: Councillor Kim Re: Tennis Court Permitting Whereas tennis is a fast-growing sport; and Whereas the last Parks and Recreation Master Plan called for 14 courts by 2021 and we currently have 15 courts, and staff believe that we will likely need to update the numbers to update the projected population; and Whereas the Town has generated minimum permit revenues over the last three years: $334 in 2019, $943 in 2018, and $936 in 2017; and Whereas residents have experienced going to our public courts and being denied by “tennis instructors” who claim they have a permit but are unwilling to disclose the permit (as no permit was in fact issued in those instances) and creating an adversarial environment, and many of these instructors and students are not from Aurora; and Whereas, based on Town permit records, there have not been any individual permit requests from residents for recreational play in the past three years; all permit requests have come from various tennis instructors, the Aurora Tennis Club, and public schools; 1. Now Therefore Be It Hereby Resolved That staff investigate a tennis usage strategy not limited to: (a) Allowing no permits; (b) Limited permits to certain entities; (c) Limiting permits to certain tennis facility; (d) Limiting permits to certain times; (e) Creating signs on every Town tennis court facility that will create clarity on order of play and overall fairness to the public; and 2. Be It Further Resolved That staff recommendations come back to Council by the February cycle in order to implement for the 2020 tennis season. Additional Items to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 Notice of Motion (b) Page 1 of 1 Public Release January 14, 2020 Town of Aurora Additional Items No. 2 to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020 7 p.m., Council Chambers • Delegation (c) Trevor Hall and Krista Hall, Residents Re: 94 Connaught Avenue (Exemption from Interim Control By-law) Additional Items No. 2 to General Committee Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 14, 2020Delegation (c) Page 1 of 1