Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-18-2025 AGENDA City Council Meeting 2:00 PM - Tuesday, March 18, 2025 Council Chambers/Zoom App. All Council Meetings are open to the public in person, in Council Chambers or watched virtually. All electronic meetings can be viewed on this page, the City of Niagara Falls YouTube channel, the City of Niagara Falls Facebook page, along with YourTV Niagara. Page 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. IN CAMERA SESSION OF COUNCIL / RESOLUTION TO APPOINT COUNCILLOR KERRIO 2.1. In-Camera Resolution (Added) March 18, 2025 - Resolution to go In-Camera 12 2.2. Resolution to Appoint Councillor Kerrio No. 10 - Resolution - Appointment of Councillor Kerrio 13 3. CALL TO ORDER O Canada: Yeva Shust Land Acknowledgement and Traditional Indigenous Meeting Opening 3.1. Swearing in of Councillor Vince Kerrio Bill Matson, City Clerk, to swear in Councillor Vince Kerrio as a Niagara Falls' City Councillor for the remainder of the current Council term. 4. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 4.1. Council Minutes of February 25, 2025 City Council - 25 Feb 2025 - Minutes - Pdf 14 - 22 Page 1 of 1679 5. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST Disclosures of pecuniary interest and a brief explanation thereof will be made for the current Council Meeting at this time. 6. MAYOR'S REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS 7. DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS All speakers are reminded that they have a maximum of 5 minutes to make their presentation. 7.1. Civic Recognition - Niagara Taekwondo Mayor Diodati, on behalf of City Council, to recognize Adele Carvers, a high performance Taekwondo Athlete from Niagara Taekwondo. Adele recently achieved a gold medal in the Cadet Division for Taekwondo Sparring. This achievement has earned her a wild card spot on Team Canada for the upcoming Pan Am Championships in Mexico this April. 8. PLANNING MATTERS 8.1. PBD-2025-16 (Public Meeting) (Presentation and additional comments added) AM-2025-001, City Initiated Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in Residential Areas Kailen Goerz, Senior Manager of Long-Range Planning Initiatives, and Shannon McKie, from Landwise,to provide an update regarding PBD-2025-16. PBD-2025-16 - Pdf Public Comments - AM-2025-001 - Redacted Presentation - OOSTR_PBD_2025_16 Additional comments added - AM-2025-001 on OOSTR for Addendum - Redacted - March 14 23 - 236 9. REPORTS 9.1. PBD-2025-17 (Presentation added) Garner West Secondary Plan Update Chris Millar, Senior Project Manager - Secondary Plans, to provide a presentation regarding PBD-2025-17 and PBD-2025- 18. 237 - 623 Page 2 of 1679 PBD-2025-17 - Pdf Presentation - PBD-2025-17 and PBD-2025-18_GW-NW - March 18-2025 9.2. PBD-2025-18 Northwest Secondary Plan Update PBD-2025-18 - Pdf 624 - 977 9.3. CLK-2025-05 Fee Waiver Applications - March 2025 Submissions CLK-2025 - 05 - Fee Waiver Applications - - Pdf 978 - 1082 9.4. CS-2025-13 - Finance - (Presentation added) Deferral of Taxes for Low-Income Seniors or Low-Income Disabled Persons Policy CS-2025-13 (Finance) Deferral of Taxes for Low-Income Seniors or Low-Income Disabled Persons Policy - Pdf Presentation- Low Income Seniors Property Tax Relief Program - March 18 1083 - 1106 9.5. CS-2025-19 - Finance 2024 Parking Fund Budget to Actual Variance (Unaudited) CS-2025-19 (Finance) 2024 Parking Fund Budget to Actual Variance (Unaudited) - Pdf 1107 - 1111 9.6. CS-2025-24 - Finance Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy CS-2025-24 (Finance) Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy - Pdf 1112 - 1129 9.7. MW-2025-06 Drinking Water System Summary Report and Overview MW-2025-06 - Pdf 1130 - 1240 9.8. MW-2025-07 Reconstruction and Widening of McLeod Road from Kalar 1241 - 1246 Page 3 of 1679 Road to Beechwood Road Capital Budget Amendment MW-2025-07 - Pdf 9.9. CS-2025-23 (Report added) Statement of 2024 Remuneration and Expenses for Members of Council and Commissions CS-2025-23 (Finance) Statement of 2024 Remuneration and Expenses for Members of Council and Commissions - Pdf 1247 - 1251 10. CONSENT AGENDA The consent agenda is a set of reports that could be approved in one motion of council. The approval endorses all of the recommendations contained in each of the reports within the set. The single motion will save time. Prior to the motion being taken, a councillor may request that one or more of the reports be moved out of the consent agenda to be considered separately. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council APPROVE Item #10.1 through to and including Item #10.5. 10.1. CS-2025-21 - Finance Final Tax Notice Due Dates CS-2025-21 (Finance) Final Tax Notice Due Dates - Pdf 1252 - 1253 10.2. CS-2025-22 2025 Property Tax Rates CS-2025-22 (Finance) 2025 Property Tax Rates - Pdf 1254 - 1261 10.3. PBD-2025-20 Annual Report - Delegated Authority Process PBD-2025-20 - Pdf 1262 - 1269 10.4. RCF-2025-02 2024 Annual Update from the Culture Section RCF-2025-02 - Pdf 1270 - 1299 Page 4 of 1679 10.5. PBD-2025-19 (Report added) 2024 Development & Housing Monitoring Report - Year in Review PBD-2025-19 - Pdf 1300 - 1325 11. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK The Communications section of the agenda is a set of items listed as correspondence to Council that could be approved in one motion of Council. If Staff feel that more than one recommendation is required, the listed communications items will be grouped accordingly. The single motion per recommendation, if required, will save time. Prior to any motion being taken, a Councillor may request that one or more of the items be lifted for discussion and considered separately. RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council approve/support Item #11.1 through to and including Item #11.8. 11.1. Proclamation Request - Apraxia Awareness Day Attached is a request for the City of Niagara Falls Council to proclaim Wednesday, May 14, 2025 as "Apraxia Awareness Day." Childhood Apraxia of Speech is a misunderstood and challenging speech disorder. Recommendation: THAT Council PROCLAIM Wednesday, May 14, 2025 as "Apraxia Awareness Day." Proclamation Request - Apraxia Awareness Day - 2025 Proclamation-Template-2025 copy - Apraxia Awareness Day - May 14, 2025 1326 - 1328 11.2. Proclamation and Flag-Raising Request - UN World Press Freedom Day Attached is a request for the City of Niagara Falls to issue a proclamation to recognize UN World Press Freedom Day (WPFD) 2025 which takes place Saturday, May 3rd, 2025. Other cities who have participated in previous years have also lit up their respective City Hall buildings or raised a UN flag as well. Recommendation: THAT Council PROCLAIM Saturday, May 3, 2025 as UN World Press Freedom Day. 1329 - 1330 Page 5 of 1679 Proclamation and Flag-Raising Request - UN World Press Freedom Day 11.3. Flag-Raising Request - Nicola Tesla Day Attached is a request for Council to approve a flag-raising ceremony in support of TESLA FEST 2025 on Thursday, July 10, 2025 at City Hall. Recommendation: THAT Council APPROVE a flag-raising ceremony in support of TESLA FEST 2025 on Thursday, July 10, 2025 at City Hall. Flag-Raising Request - Nicola Tesla Day 1331 - 1332 11.4. Flag-Raising Ceremony - Philippine Independence Day Attached is a flag-raising request for Council to approve a flag- raising ceremony on Thursday, June 12, 2025 to celebrate "Philippine Independence Day." Recommendation: THAT Council APPROVE a flag-raising ceremony on Thursday, June 12, 2025 to celebrate "Philippine Independence Day." Flag-Raising Ceremony - Philippine Independence Day 1333 11.5. Resolution - City of Sarnia - Carbon Tax Attached is a resolution passed by the City Council of Sarnia addressing carbon tax. Recommendation: THAT Council SUPPORT the resolution. Resolution - City of Sarnia - Federal Government (Prime Minister) - Carbon Tax 1334 11.6. Resolution - City of Thorold - Actions to Address Mental Health, Addiction and Homelessness Attached is a resolution, passed by Thorold City Council on February 25, 2025, concerning Actions to Address Mental Health, Addiction and Homelessness. Recommendation: THAT Council SUPPORT the City of Thorold's resolution. Resolution - City of Thorold - CC 5-2025 - Mental Health, 1335 - 1337 Page 6 of 1679 Addiction and Homelessness Resolution 11.7. Resolution - City of Kingston - High Speed Rail Project Attached is a resolution from the City of Kingston, approved by its Council on March 4, 2025, with respect to the High Speed Rail Project. Recommendation: THAT Council SUPPORT the resolution. Resolution - City of Kingston - Number 2025-116 - High Speed Rail - Niagara Falls 1338 - 1339 11.8. Resolution - Town of Fort Erie - Great Lakes St. Lawrence Cities Initiative Resolution (ADDED) Attached is the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Cities Initiative correspondence passed by the Town of Fort Erie Council at its meeting of February 24, 2025. Recommendation: THAT Council SUPPORT the resolution. Resolution - Town of Fort Erie - GLSLCI -Strong Response to Trade War Response 1340 - 1344 12. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council receive for information Item #12.1 through to and including Item #12.6. 12.1. Resolution - City of Toronto - Buy Local, Buy Canadian Campaign Attached is a resolution from the City of Toronto pertaining to the "Buy Local, Buy Canadian Campaign." Recommendation: THAT Council RECEIVE for information. Resolution - City of Toronto MM26.7 MM26.7 - All Ontario Municipalities 1345 - 1347 12.2. Correspondence from the Niagara Region Attached is correspondence sent from the Niagara Region pertaining to the following matters: 1. CLK-C 2025-013 - Motion - Supporting Niagara Business Community 2. CLK-C 2025-012 CSD 6-2025 Respecting 2025 Property Tax Policy, Ratios and Rates 1348 - 1541 Page 7 of 1679 Recommendation: THAT Council RECEIVE for information. CLK-C 2025-013 Motion - Supporting Niagara's Business Community CLK-C 2025-012 CSD 6-2025 - Respecting 2025 Property Tax Policy, Ratios and Rates 12.3. Anti-Racism Committee - Lecture Series The Anti-Racism Committee is hosting a lecture series on March 27th, 2025 at the Exchange. Recommendation: THAT Council RECEIVE for information. Listen Learn Lead series - March event pdf 1542 12.4. Correspondence from the Director General of "United Against Hate Canada" Attached is correspondence sent from the group, "United Against Hate Canada." Recommendation: THAT Council RECEIVE for information. We Call on Canadian Cities to Adopt Bubble Legislation - Message from Mr. Rotrand - 2025-02-26 - photo MR (2) UAHC - Brief to the Quebec Regional Meeting - Nat'l Forum to Combat Antisemitism - Tabled by Gemma Raeburn (1) 250216 - INTL COMMUNITY - RESTOR PEACE IN HAITI 1543 - 1562 12.5. Resolution - Town of Lincoln - U.S. Tariffs Attached is a resolution passed by the Town of Lincoln Council on March 3, 2025 regarding support for 'Team Canada' response to proposed U.S. tariffs. Recommendation: THAT Council RECEIVE for information. Resolution - Town of Lincoln - Resolution re U.S. Tariffs 1563 - 1565 12.6. Memo - from Planning - Supplemental Information Regarding By-law No. 2025-029 Attached is a memo providing an explanation of the inclusion of By-law 2025-029 on this agenda. 1566 - 1568 Page 8 of 1679 Recommendation: THAT Council RECEIVE for information. Memo to Council - March 18th 13. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK 13.1. Special Occasion Permit Request - The Hope Gala - Fallsview Casino Resort Organizers of the event are looking to Council for a letter of Municipal Significance for the Hope Gala taking place at the Fallsview Casino Resort on June 14, 2025. With Council declaring the event as "municipally significant," this will assist the organizers with obtaining a Special Occasion permit from the AGCO. Recommendation: THAT Council DECLARE the Hope Gala as an event of municipal significance in the City of Niagara Falls in order to assist with a Special Occasion Permit from the AGCO. Special Occasion Permit Request - The Hope Gala Application for Municipal Significance 1569 - 1571 13.2. Main & Ferry BIA - 2025 Proposed Budget Attached is the Main & Ferry BIA 2025 proposed budget for Council's approval. Recommendation: THAT Council APPROVE the Main & Ferry BIA's proposed budget for 2025. Main & Ferry BIA 2025 Budget & Council Letter 1572 - 1574 14. RATIFICATION OF IN-CAMERA 15. NOTICE OF MOTION/NEW BUSINESS Except as otherwise provided in the Procedural By-law, all Notices of Motion shall be presented, in writing, at a Meeting of Council, but shall not be debated until the next regular Meeting of Council. A Motion may be introduced without notice, if Council, without debate, dispenses with the requirement for notice on the affirmative vote of two- thirds of the Members present. 16. BY-LAWS The City Clerk will advise of any additional by-laws or amendments to Page 9 of 1679 the by-law listed for Council consideration. 2025- 029. A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200 to permit the use of the Lands for an 18-storey mixed-use building with a hotel and tourist attractions, subject to a 4-year sunset clause and the removal of a Holding (H) symbol (AM-2024-005).(Added) By-law No. 2025-029 - AM-2024-005 - ZBA 1575 - 1579 2025- 031. A by-law to provide for the adoption of Amendment No. 180 to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan (AM-2025-001). By-law 2025-031 - AM-2025-001 - OPA 180 - Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals 1580 - 1582 2025- 032. A by-law to amend Zoning By-law No. 79-200 to introduce new definitions and regulatory provisions respecting Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations in residential zones (AM-2024- 001). By-law 2025-032 - AM-2025-001 - ZBA - Owner Occupied Short- Term Rentals 1583 - 1589 2025- 033. A by-law to amend the City’s Vacation Rental Unit and Bed and Breakfast Establishment Licensing By-law No. 2021-57 to include Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals.(Updated) By-law 2025-033 Licencing By-law Amendment 03.17.2025 COMBINED with SCHEDULE B 1590 - 1595 2025- 034. A by-law to fees and charges for various services, licences and publications for the City of Niagara Falls. By-law 2025-034 - 2025 Schedule of Fees By-law Amended Sched A - 3.18.25 2025 Schedule of Fees (Schedule A) amended with short term rental fees 3.18.25 1596 - 1638 2025- 035. A by-law to amend By-law No. 2024-045 as amended by By-law 2025-018 to establish Administrative Penalties (Non-Parking) for By-law No. 2004-105 (as amended by By-law No. 2005-73, By- law No. 2007-28 and By-law No. 204-155); By-law No. 2007-41; By-law No. 2001-31 (as amended by By-law No. 2021-57 and By- law No. 2021-99). (Added) 1639 - 1659 Page 10 of 1679 By-law 2025-035 - AM-2025-001 - AMPS By-law Amendment - Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals 2025- 036. A By-law to amend By-law 2025-009 to establish a Municipal Accommodation Tax. By-law 2025-036 - AM-2025-001 - MAT By-law Amendment - Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals 1660 2025- 037. A by-law to amend By-law No. 2002-081, being a by-law to appoint City employees, agents and third parties for the enforcement of provincial or municipal by-laws. By-law 2025-037 - 2025 MAR 18 By-law Enforcement Officers 1661 - 1662 2025- 038. A by-law to set and levy the rates of taxation for City purposes, for Regional purposes, and for Education purposes for the year 2025. By-law 2025-038 - 2025 Levy Bylaw 1663 - 1666 2025- 040. A by-law to delegate Budget Spending and Signing Authority to Officers and Employees of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls. By-law 2025-040 - Budget Spending and Signing Authority By- law 1667 - 1678 2025- 041. A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of the City Council at its meeting held on the 18th day of March, 2025. By-law 2025-041 03 18 25 Confirming By-law 1679 17. ADJOURNMENT Page 11 of 1679 The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Resolution March 18, 2025 Moved by: Seconded by: WHEREAS all meetings of Council are to be open to the public; and WHEREAS the only time a meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public is if the subject matter falls under one of the exceptions under s. 239(2) of the Municipal Act. WHEREAS on March 18, 2025, Niagara Falls City Council will be holding Closed Meetings as permitted under s. 239 (2) of the Municipal Act, namely; (c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board (e) litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board (f) advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that on March 18, 2025 Niagara Falls City Council will go into a closed meeting to consider matters that fall under 239 (2) (c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality, regarding an potential land transaction; (e) litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, pertaining to a matter before the Ontario Land Tribunal as well as a matter regarding the collection of taxes; (f) advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, relating to the potential property tax deferral program(s), as well as a trademark matter. AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. WILLIAM G. MATSON JAMES M. DIODATI CITY CLERK MAYOR Page 12 of 1679 The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Resolution March 18, 2025 No. 10 Moved by: Seconded by: WHEREAS, At the February 25, 2025 meeting, Council passed a motion under Section 262 of the Municipal Act, to declare the office of one City Councillor position to be vacant after the resignation of Councillor Campbell, and; WHEREAS, Council chose to fill the vacancy by way of ‘appointment’ for the remainder of the term, and; WHEREAS, Council directed staff to contact the next runner up in the last election to confirm if they were agreeable to fill the vacancy, and; WHEREAS, Section 263 (5) of the Municipal Act states that within 60 days after the day a declaration of vacancy is made with respect to the vacancy under Section 262, the municipality shall appoint a person to fill the vacancy. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Niagara Falls appoints VINCE KERRIO to the office of City Councillor for the remainder of the term. AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. ........................................................... ............................................................. WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 13 of 1679 MINUTES City Council Meeting 4:00 PM - Tuesday, February 25th, 2025 Council Chambers/Zoom App. The City Council Meeting of the City of Niagara Falls was called to order on Tuesday, February 25, 2025, at 2:00 PM, in the Council Chambers, with the following members present: COUNCIL PRESENT: Councillor Tony Baldinelli, Councillor Chris Dabrowski, Councillor Lori Lococo, Councillor Mona Patel, Councillor Victor Pietrangelo COUNCIL ABSENT: Councillor Ruth-Ann Nieuwesteeg, Councillor Mike Strange STAFF PRESENT: Jason Burgess, Bill Matson, Erik Nickel, Tiffany Clark, Chief Jo Zambito, Signe Hansen, Nidhi Punyarthi Trent Dark, Heather Ruzylo, Shelley Darlington (attending via Zoom) 1. IN CAMERA SESSION OF COUNCIL 1.1. In-Camera Resolution (Councillor Patel was not present for this vote) Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski THAT Council ENTER into an In-Camera session on February 25, 2025. Carried Unanimously - Councillor Patel was not present for this vote 2. CALL TO ORDER The City Council Meeting was called to order at 4:09 PM. 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 3.1. Council Minutes of February 4, 2025 Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Tony Baldinelli THAT Council APPROVE the minutes of February 4, 2025 meeting as presented. Carried Unanimously 4. DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST None reported. Page 1 of 9 Page 14 of 1679 5. MAYOR'S REPORTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Mayor Diodati discussed the following events and announcements: The Keystone Awards with Arlene Dickinson  Attended by Mayor Diodati Coldest Night of the Year Event  Attended by Mayor Diodati as well as CouncillorsPatel, Nieuwesteeg, Pietrangelo and Lococo Caps, Corks and Forks Event  Attended by Mayor Diodati Grand Openings  Trinity Massage Therapy & Wellness - Attended by Councillor Patel  Niagara Sweet & Spicy, Trinidad & Caribbean Restaurant - Attended by Mayor Diodati as well as Councillors Baldinelli and Patel Cippy's Place Farewell  Attended by Mayor Diodati Flag Raisings  Serbian Statehood Day - Attended by Mayor Diodati as well as Councillors Nieuwesteeg, Patel and Baldinelli  Kosovo's Independence Day - Attended by Mayor Diodati Coming Up  Niagara Health Gala - Saturday, March 1st at the Fallsview Casino  Next City Council meeting Tuesday, March 18, 2025 b) Councillor Wayne Campbell - Notice of vacancy Staff notification was received that Councillor Wayne Campbell expressed his wish to vacate his seat at Council for medical reasons, and as per the Municipal Act. Council received information and advice from staff during the In- Camera session on this matter. The City Clerk informed Council that they have 60 days to fill the seat in one of two ways: 1. Appointing a person 2. Require a by-election Staff recommend the following: THAT Council WAIVE the procedural by-law to pass a motion to allow for this matter to be added to the agenda; AND THAT Council DECLARES the seat vacant; AND THAT Council APPROVE the filling of the vacancy by appointment for the remainder of the term; AND THAT Council DIRECT staff to contact the next runner-up in the last election, to confirm if they are agreeable Page 2 of 9 Page 15 of 1679 to fill the vacancy. Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski THAT Council WAIVE the procedural by-law to pass a motion to allow for this matter to be added to the agenda; AND THAT Council DECLARES the seat vacant; AND THAT Council APPROVE the filling of the vacancy by appointment for the remainder of the term; AND THAT Council DIRECT staff to contact the next runner-up in the last election, to confirm if they are agreeable to fill the vacancy. Carried Unanimously 6. DEPUTATIONS / PRESENTATIONS 6.1. Niagara Transit Niagara Transit attended the Niagara Falls Council meeting to address questions raised by Council. Chair, Mat Siscoe, Chief of Staff, Jordan Hambleton and General Manager, Carla Stout, of the the Niagara Transit Commission were all in attendance. Councillor Lococo made a motion THAT Staff and the Transit Commission PREPARE a summary report regarding finances involving Transit Moved by Councillor Lori Lococo THAT Staff and the Transit Commission PREPARE a summary report regarding finances involving Transit Not put. (No seconder) 7. PLANNING MATTERS 7.1. PBD-2025-13 AM-2024-007, Zoning By-Law Amendment Application 26CD-11-2024-002, Plan of Vacant Land Condominium 8168 McLeod Road PART TWP LOT 179 STAMFORD, PART 1 59R18167; CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Applicant: Lotus Land Development Corp. (Aman Gandhi) Agent: Nicholas Godfrey (Upper Canada Planning & Engineering Ltd.) Jason Burgess, CAO, left Council Chambers at 5:16PM and returned at 5:21PM The Public Meeting commenced at 5:16 PM. Page 3 of 9 Page 16 of 1679 Nick DeBenedetti, Planner 2, provided an overview of the report PBD-2025-13. Nicholas Godfrey addressed Council in person. The Public Meeting closed at 5:31 PM. Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski It is recommended: 1. THAT Council APPROVE the Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone the property to a site-specific Residential Low Density, Group Multiple Dwelling (R4) to allow for the development of 3 blocks of 18 townhouse dwelling units with the permission for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and the Environmental Protection Area (EPA) located at the rear of the property subject to the regulations outlined in this report; 2. THAT the Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium be draft APPROVED subject to the conditions in Appendix 1; 3. THAT the Mayor or designate be AUTHORIZED to sign the Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium as "approved" 20 days after notice of Council’s decision has been given as required by the Planning Act, provided no appeals of the decision have been lodged; 4. THAT Draft APPROVAL be given for 3 years, after which approval will lapse unless an extension is requested by the developer and granted by Council; and, 5. THAT the Mayor and City Clerk be AUTHORIZED to execute the Condominium Agreement and any required documents to allow for the future registration of the condominium when all matters are addressed to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. Carried Unanimously 7.2. PBD-2025-14 AM-2024-026, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application 7737 Lundy’s Lane Part Township Lot 133, Stamford as in RO521749; City of Niagara Falls Proposal: To increase the density permitted and rezone the subject lands to facilitate the conversion of an existing motel to 118 dwelling units with various commercial uses. Applicant:1000977112 Ontario Inc. (Santiago Rioja) Agent: Miles Weekes (Fotenn Planning + Design) The Public Meeting commenced at 5:32 PM. Nick DeBenedetti, provided an overview of the report PBD-2025-14. Leslie Laan , of 5520 Reixinger Rd addressed Council with asking about the Page 4 of 9 Page 17 of 1679 permanency of the units remaining as affordable units. Joedy Burdette, of 4480 Bridge St, addressed Council with his input on this matter. Councillor Dabrowski left Council Chambers at 6:00PM and returned at 6:03PM Miles Weekes the Agent, attended via Zoom and offered to answer any questions on behalf of the Applicant. The Public Meeting closed at 6:09 PM. Moved by Councillor Lori Lococo Seconded by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo It is recommended: 1. THAT Council APPROVE the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By- law Amendment to increase the permitted density and rezone the subject lands for the conversion of an existing motel to 118 bachelor dwelling units and various commercial uses, subject to the regulations detailed in this report. 2. THAT Council APPROVE Official Plan Amendment No. 178 and pass the related Zoning By-law included on tonight’s agenda. 3. THAT Council AUTHORIZE the amending by-law which includes a sunset clause to require the execution of a Site Plan Agreement within three years of the amending by-law coming into effect, with the possibility of a one-year extension at the discretion of the General Manager of Planning, Building and Development. 4. THAT Council APPROVE that any planning application being considered, within the boundaries of a Business Improvement Area, be circulated to the respective BIA for comments. (Added) Carried Unanimously 8. REPORTS 8.1. PBD-2025-15 Our Niagara Falls Plan- Phase 3 - Policy Directions Report and Discussion Paper 7 -Conformity and Implementation Donna Hinde, of The Planning Partnership and Joe Nethery of Nethery Planning both attended in person and provided an overview of PBD-2025-15. Moved by Councillor Chris Dabrowski Seconded by Councillor Lori Lococo It is recommended: THAT Council RECEIVE PBD-2025-15 for information. Carried Unanimously Page 5 of 9 Page 18 of 1679 8.2. Housing Target Progress – Verbal Update Brian Dick, Senior Manager of Policy Planning, provided Council with an update on the progress of housing targets. Mayor Diodati left Council Chambers at 6:43PM and Councillor Pietrangelo stepped in to chair the meeting in the Mayor's absence. Mayor Diodati returned at 6:54PM and Councillor Pietrangelo returned to his seat. Moved by Councillor Lori Lococo Seconded by Councillor Tony Baldinelli THAT Council RECEIVE the presentation for information. Carried Unanimously 9. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK 9.1. Proclamation and Flag-Raising Request - World Autism Day Attached is a request for Council to proclaim Wednesday, April 2, 2025 as "World Autism Day" and to "fly the flag" on the same day at City Hall in Niagara Falls. Recommendation: THAT Council proclaim Wednesday, April 2, 2025 as "World Autism Day" and to "fly the flag" on the same day at the City Hall in Niagara Falls. 9.2. Flag-Raising Request - Pride Niagara - Niagara Pride Week Attached is an annual request for Council to approve a flag-raising ceremony on Monday, June 2nd, 2025 at 2:00 PM at City Hall to recognize June as "Pride month." Recommendation: For Council to APPROVE a flag-raising ceremony on Monday, June 2nd, 2025 to recognize Niagara Pride week (Saturday, May 31st - Sunday, June 8, 2025) and to recognize the month of June as "Pride month." 9.3. Resolution - Eastern Ontario Warden's Caucus - Support of Canadian and Ontario Governments' Negotiations with the United States Government on Trade Tarriffs On behalf of the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus (EOWC), please see the attached resolution “EOWC Support of Canadian and Ontario Governments Negotiations with the United States Government on Trade Tariffs.” Recommendation: THAT Council SUPPORT the resolution. 9.4. Resolution – City of St. Catharines – Calls to the Provincial and Federal Governments to protect businesses impacted by potential Tariffs Attached is a resolution from the City of St. Catharines pertaining to "Calls to the Provincial and Federal Governments to protect businesses impacted by potential Tarrifs." Recommendation THAT Council SUPPORT the resolution. Page 6 of 9 Page 19 of 1679 Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski THAT Council APPROVE/SUPPORT Items #9.1 through to and including #9.4. Carried - (Councillor Lococo opposed to #9.3 and #9.4). 10. COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CITY CLERK 10.1. Correspondence from Community Services - Homelessness Update Attached is a memo from Jeffrey Sinclair, Manager, Homelessness Services at Niagara Region, describing the progress that has been made to address homelessness in the Niagara Region. Recommendation: THAT Council RECEIVE for information. 10.2. Resolution - Town of Fort Erie - Provincial Election Health Care Advocacy Attached is a resolution from the Town of Fort Erie adopted at its Special Council meeting of February 11, 2025 pertaining to "Provincial Election Health Care Advocacy." Moved by Councillor Lori Lococo Seconded by Councillor Mona Patel THAT Council SUPPORT the resolution from the Town of Fort Erie pertaining to "Provincial Election Health Care Advocacy." Carried Unanimously 10.3. Notification of Application Launch for DEI Committee Attached is a memo to notify Council to the request for applications to an advisory committee of council. Recommendation: THAT Council RECEIVE for information. 10.4. Memo from Planning - Attached is a memo from the Planning Department to provide further information pertaining to the addition of By-law 2025-028. Recommendation: THAT Council RECEIVE for information. Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski THAT Council RECEIVE FOR INFORMATION Item #10.1 #10.3 and #10.4. Carried Unanimously 11. RATIFICATION OF IN-CAMERA Nothing to Ratify. Page 7 of 9 Page 20 of 1679 12. NOTICE OF MOTION/NEW BUSINESS a) Threat of Proposed US Tariffs Councillor Patel presented a motion THAT Mayor Diodati work WITH the Mayor of Niagara Falls, New York to come up with a guiding document or information sheet regarding what is affected or not affected, by the tariffs being proposed. Moved by Councillor Mona Patel Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski THAT Mayor Diodati collaborate WITH the Mayor of Niagara Falls, New York to come up with a guiding document or information sheet regarding what is affected or not affected, by the tariffs being proposed. Carried Unanimously b) Watermain Cost-Sharing Agreement Councillor Pietrangelo addressed Council with questions pertaining to the watermain cost-sharing agreement the City has with The Niagara Parks Commission. Councillor Pietrangelo requested a report that includes information about any applicable charges, permit fees and taxes that may be required as part of this agreement. Direction to Staff for the CAO to report back to Council regarding the watermain cost-sharing agreement the City has with the Niagara Parks Commission. 13. BY-LAWS 2025- 024. A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200, to permit the use of the Lands for the development of a mixed-use building consisting of 118 residential dwelling units with various commercial uses. (AM-2024-026). 2025- 025. A by-law to provide for the adoption of Amendment No. 178 to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan (AM-2024-026). 2025- 026. A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200, to permit the use of the Lands for the purpose of a boarding or rooming house (AM-2024-002). 2025- 028. A by-law to provide for the adoption of Amendment No. 175 to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan (AM-2024-005). (Added) 2025- 029. A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200 to permit the use of the Lands for an 18- storey mixed-use building with a hotel and tourist attractions, subject to a 4- year sunset clause and the removal of a Holding (H) symbol (AM-2024-005). (Added) 2025- 030. A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of the City Council at its meeting held on the 25th day of February, 2025. (By-Law Number Revised) Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Chris Dabrowski Page 8 of 9 Page 21 of 1679 THAT the by-laws be read a first, second and third time and passed. Carried Unanimously 14. ADJOURNMENT a) Adjournment Moved by Councillor Victor Pietrangelo Seconded by Councillor Tony Baldinelli THAT the City Council Meeting be ADJOURNED at 7:42 PM. Carried Unanimously Mayor City Clerk Page 9 of 9 Page 22 of 1679 PBD-2025-16 Planning Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: March 18, 2025 Title: AM-2025-001, City Initiated Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in Residential Areas Recommendation(s) 1. That Council APPROVE amendments to the Official Plan to permit Owner Occupied Short-Terms Rentals in residential areas subject to the provisions of Zoning By-law No. 79-200; 2. That Council APPROVE amendments to Zoning By-law No. 79-200 to define and permit Owner Occupied Short-Terms Rentals in residential areas subject to specific criteria; 3. That Council APPROVE amendments to Licensing By-law No. 2021-57 to include licensing requirements for Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals; 4. That Council APPROVE amendments to the Administrative Penalties (Non- Parking) By-law No. 2024-045 as amended by By-law No. 2025-018 to include fines for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals, consistent with Bed and Breakfast establishments; 5. That Council APPROVE amendments to By-law No. 2024-113 to fees and charges for various services, licenses and publications for the City of Niagara Falls to include licensing fees for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals; and 6. That Council APPROVE amendments to the Municipal Accommodation Tax By- law No. 2025-009 to include reference to Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals. Executive Summary Travel preferences have changed in recent years for various reasons. Many people who travel with family or in larger groups prefer the flexibility of kitchens and larger spaces to spend time during their vacation. In 2017 through to 2019 staff undertook research and public consultation related to Vacation Rental Units. Through this consultation process, the community indicated that they would have more comfort with short term rentals in residential areas if the owner was present for the duration of the rental period. In 2023, by way of Report CAO-2023-02 dated May 30, 2023, Council directed staff to consider Page 1 of 134 Page 23 of 1679 and report back on by-law and licensing changes to permit Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental units in residential areas of the City, with the intention of expanding upon the already in place Bed and Breakfast (B&B) permissions. In response, Landwise (planning consultants) was retained to prepare Official Plan and Zoning-By-law amendments and undertake a public consultation process. The Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments proposed in this report aim to permit Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals (OOSTR) in a manner similar to Bed and Breakfast establishments (B&B), The proposed Official Plan Amendment includes permissions for OOSTRs where permissions exist for B&B establishments, as a home occupation in residential areas. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment will allow OOSTRs within or accessory to permitted detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, duplex dwellings or townhouse dwellings that are the principal residence of the owner, in residential areas within the urban area. The key provisions associated with these permission include:  The owner must have their principle residence on the property and must be present for the duration of the rental period;  Defining the following terms: “Owner Occupied”, “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation”, “Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental” and “Principal Residence”;  Amending the following definitions: “Boarding or Rooming House” and “Home Occupation”;  Parking requirements would be 1 for the owner and 1 for the OOSTR with a 2nd OOSTR space required if there are 3 rooms (2-3 spaces required based on size);  The rental must be within a separate contained dwelling unit;  The dwelling unit must contain kitchen and bathroom facilities;  Only one OOSTR is permitted per property;  The owner must obtain a licence from the City and keep it current and maintained in good standing;  The number of bedrooms would be limited to 3;  The number of guests permitted would be in accordance with occupant loads in the building code, to a maximum of 6;  OOSTR could be rented for a period of 28 consecutive days or less; and  Would be rented to a single group (not renting bedrooms to different groups of people). The proposed amendments are intended to help ensure there is minimal or no impact on the character of the existing residential neighbourhood and that OOSTRs are not a nuisance a as function to intended neighbourhood. are OOSTRs full the to not commercial use (like Vacation Rental Units) and the zoning requirements help to ensure they would be appropriate within residential neighbourhoods throughout the City. Where someone would like exemptions from these requirements they would be required to apply for a zoning by-law amendment or a minor variance. Page 2 of 134 Page 24 of 1679 Fundamentally, OOSTRs could be located in Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs), effectively allowing ADUs to be used for either long or short-term rental. While it is recognized that OOSTR may remove stock from the long-term rental market, they do provide an opportunity to supplement mortgage costs, maintenance costs, and the increased cost of living, in some cases allowing owners to stay in their homes. In addition, allowing opportunities for people to have legal OOSTR’s will help to ensure they are safe for the travelling public by requiring them to go through a licensing process which would include building and fire code compliance. A and 4th November between was conducted Falls Niagara Talk Let’s survey November 25th, 2024. This was followed by a public open house on December 9, 2024, to present the survey findings, along with the recommended OOSTR permissions, to the community. Approximately 30 people attended. Most were generally supportive of OOSTRs in residential areas and several sought expanded permissions related to the definition of owner, removal of the ‘owner on site’ provision, expand the number of permitted rooms, and allow the owner to reside in the ADU and rent the primary residence. The results of the survey and summary of the public open house are further detailed in this report and included in the consultation summary document attached as Appendix C to this report. Amendments to the Licencing, Fee, Administrative Monetary Penalty System By-law (AMPS) and Municipal Accommodate Tax (MAT) By-laws will be required, should Council approve the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments. Background In 2017 through to 2019, City staff undertook background research and extensive public consultation to consider how to best incorporate VRU’s and B&B’s within the City, including where they would be most appropriate. Through this process, the consultation indicated that people had a greater level of comfort where the owner is present on the site, as it was noted that the presence of an owner reduces the potential disruptions to neighbours. Currently, VRU’s are permitted in Tourist Commercial (TC), General Commercial (GC) and Central Business Commercial (CB) Zones in the City, with a limit of 3 rooms in a dwelling unit. VRUs are not permitted in residential areas, however such permissions could be sought on a case-by-case basis through an OPA and ZBA application. B&B’s are permitted in Residential (R1A, R1B, R1,C, R1D, R1E, R1F, R2, R3), Transition Residential Multiple Zone (TRM), Deferred Commercial (DC), Deferred Tourist Commercial Zone (DTC), Agricultural (A), Rural (R) and Development Holding (DH) zones. All must be licensed with the City. In 2023, Report CAO-2023-02 was brought to Council to clarify B&B permissions and short-term rental use. A direction from this report was that staff consider and report back on necessary by-law and licensing changes to the Bed and Breakfast by-law to permit Page 3 of 134 Page 25 of 1679 owner occupied short-term rental units in residential areas of the City. It was initially thought that OOSTR could fit within the definition of B&B’s, given that the owner would be required on site for both. While permissions are generally aligned, there are key differences that are important to recognize.  A B&B can rent bedrooms to separate parties, where an OOSTR would rent one self-contained unit with kitchen and washroom facilities to one party.  The licensing process related to fire and building code regulations for B&B’s differ from OOSTR’s relative to fire breaks between guest rooms, parking requirements, etc. As a result, this report highlights the need to recognize permissions that would support OOSTR’s. Based on data from AirDNA, a website that tracks Short Term Rental (STR) listings from AirBNB and VRBO, STR listings in Niagara Falls range between 700 and 2000 based on the season. It is important to consider opportunities where licensing would be appropriate to ensure that By-law Enforcement is focused on those that are operating illegally. It is also recognized that By-law Enforcement will be key to the success of the proposed amendments, and that the new Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPS) by-law will support these amendments. Analysis With a change in preferences from travelling public, and the ongoing challenge of by- law enforcement to monitor and enforce illegal short-term rental units, there is a need to consider respects and appropriate is that a in rentals short-term allowing way Rental (VRU) Unit Vacation the Through character. neighbourhood 2017-2019 consultation process, Council and staff heard that while property owners were not supportive of VRUs in residential areas, they would be comfortable if the owner was present on the property, as the presence of an owner would reduce the potential disruptions to neighbours. To this end, this report explores and offers recommendations for permitting OOSTRs in residential benefits residential in OOSTRs permitting are areas There areas. to including the following:  Safety of residents and guests – requiring OOSTRs to go through a licensing process will help to ensure that units being rented meet the standards of the building code, fire code and the property standards bylaw.  Allows opportunities for additional income – allowing OOSTRs will provide opportunities for owners to make additional income and potentially offset the cost of a mortgage, property maintenance and the rising cost of living. It may allow Page 4 of 134 Page 26 of 1679 residents to stay in their home or purchase a home that they otherwise might not be able to afford.  OOSTRs could be considered less intensive than a B&B as they would only be renting out to one party versus a potential of three.  OOSTR owners have an incentive to maintain their property as they are likely to receive a review from those that rent. Best Practice Review A high-level jurisdictional scan of municipalities in Ontario found that most permit short- term rentals in residential areas, with rules and regulations to address safe operation and management of nuisances. Many municipalities such as Hamilton, St. Catharines, Ottawa, and Burlington, have adopted a “principal residence requirement”, meaning that the property must operate first and foremost as the owners full-time residence but can be rented out in its entirety without the owner present on site at time of rental, but only as a secondary use. An alternative method that Fort-Erie has adopted is to permit Dedicated Short-Term Rentals (i.e. Owner is not a full-time resident) in their commercial, mixed-use, and residential zones where cottage rentals are common such as in Crystal Beach. Further, Owner-Occupied Short-Term Rentals (i.e. Owner must be present on site) are permitted in the remaining residential zones. Fort-Erie’s method is similar to the proposed City of Niagara Falls approach to managing the use. Some municipalities have been monitoring their short-term rental programs to ensure they are functioning as intended. For instance, as of December 10, 2024, Niagara-on- the-Lake has paused accepting applications for short-term rental permits to conduct a review of how many short-term rentals are in the community and if there should be a maximum limit imposed. Overall, the best practice for short-term rentals in residential areas is to require a licence to operate and restrictions by ownership status (e.g. who can rent out the unit and if the owner is required to be on site), which provides municipalities with an avenue for enforcement. Provincial Policy Section 2 of the Planning Act identifies Provincial Interests including the orderly development of safe and healthy communities. Allowing OOSTR’s in residential areas provides an opportunity to address the market demand for short-term rentals in Niagara Falls in an enforceable manner that is respectful of the surrounding neighbourhoods, while ensuring rental units are up to code and are safer for those staying in them. Page 5 of 134 Page 27 of 1679 The the to authorities planning support Statement Planning Provincial directs achievement of complete communities by accommodating an appropriate range and mix of land uses, housing options, transportation options with multimodal access, employment, public service facilities and other institutional uses, recreation, parks and open space and other uses to meet long-term needs. Allowing OOSTRs will support the accommodation of a range and mix of land uses including opportunities for home occupations. Niagara Official Plan The Niagara Official Plan policy 2.2.1.1 states that development in urban areas will integrate planning manage responsibly infrastructure to planning use land and forecasted growth and to support:  a compact built form, a vibrant public realm, and a mix of land uses, including residential uses, employment uses, recreational uses, and public service facilities to support the creation of complete communities; and  opportunities for the integration of gentle density, and a mix and range of housing options that considers the character of established residential neighbourhoods; Allowing OOSTRs provides a mix of use and alternative housing options that are intended to be supportive of the established residential neighbourhoods in the City. Niagara Falls Official Plan The City’s Official Plan under Part 1, Plan Overview and Strategic Directions, Part 4, Housing includes a Goal to ensure housing is available throughout the City to meet the varying financial needs of existing and future residents. Policy 4.3 of the Housing section states that opportunities for choice of housing including type, tenure, cost and location shall be provided to meet the changing needs of households throughout the built-up area. The Official Plan also includes policies that allow for additional dwelling units, with up to 3 units per property. The Niagara Falls Official Plan currently includes Vacation Rental Units under the term “accommodation”, which is a permitted use in certain commercial areas. VRU’s do not require the owner to be on site and are generally considered a commercial use. As such, they are not permitted in residential areas and would be required to go through an Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment to be permitted, subject to the criteria included in Part 2, 1.12. includes 1.3 policy Residential 1, 2 Policies, Use Land Part a Section general permission for bed and breakfasts as a permitted home occupation and directs the Page 6 of 134 Page 28 of 1679 implementation details to the Zoning By-law. This same approach is also included in 2.1 for parkway residential. B&B’s are also permitted in Good General Agriculture as a Secondary use that allows for farm diversification and are subject to certain criteria such as: limited to a maximum of 6 bedrooms, must be carried out entirely within the residence and remain secondary, be operated by a permanent resident of the existing dwelling and that the private sewage system can accommodate the increased sewage loading along with general direction to comply with zoning provisions. Proposed Changes to the Official Plan The intent of the OOSTR Official Plan Amendment (OPA) is to take a similar approach to the permissions for bed and breakfast accommodations within residential neighbourhoods. The proposed OPA includes the following changes, as further outlined in ‘Appendix A’: 1. Adds in references to Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals as home occupations where there are permissions for B&B’s in residential areas. 2. The existing policy states that B&B’s would be permitted through an implementing zoning by-law where they are limited in number of guest rooms. A reference to bedrooms is added as the term “guest rooms” would not be applicable for OOSTRs. 3. Adds policy language that allows Council to consider limiting the location and number of OOSTR’s as a result of monitoring the number of licenses issued annually. This is intended to ensure that there is not an undue concentration of OOSTRs that could impact the character of a neighbourhood and to ensure that lands designated for residential use are serving the primary purpose of providing dwellings for a range of households. 4. Adds two new definitions. One is for “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations” which is intended to encompass both OOSTRs and B&Bs, and is defined as follows: “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation” – means an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental or a Bed and Breakfast but shall not include a Vacation Rental Unit. A second definition is added for “Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental” is proposed as outlined below: “Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental” – means a home occupation in a dwelling unit within or accessory to a Principal Residence that is rented out by the Owner to a single group of the travelling public for a period of 28 consecutive days or less and is licensed by the City of Niagara Falls to carry out a business. Page 7 of 134 Page 29 of 1679 OOSTR permissions are not contemplated in commercial or agricultural areas at this time, as Council directed to staff through Report CAO-2023-02 to assess permissions in residential areas. Staff believe that this in an appropriate approach to considering the expansion of short-term rental permissions. Zoning By-law 79-200 Zoning By-law 79-200 currently provides direction and specific criteria related to Vacation Rental Units, as a permitted use in the General Commercial Zone (GC), Central Business Commercial Zone (CB), and Tourist Commercial Zone (TC). The proposed zoning by-law amendment does not make any changes to existing VRU permissions. Zoning By-law 79-200 currently provides direction and specific criteria for B&Bs, as permitted in residential, commercial, agricultural and rural zones. The OOSTR permissions would be a similar approach taken for the Bed and Breakfasts with a few differences. Aside from a section renumbering, the proposed zoning by-law amendment does not make any changes to existing bed and breakfast permissions. Proposed Changes to Zoning By-law 79-200 The proposed amendments to Zoning By-law 79-200 for OOSTRs include the following, as further outlined in ‘Appendix B’: 1. Including new definitions for “Owner Occupied” to clearly identify who would be considered the owner; “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation” to identify an encompassing umbrella term for both B&Bs and OOSTRs; “Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental” to specify that this is a home occupation that is within or accessory to a principal residence and that can only be rented out to a single group of the travelling public for a period of 28 consecutive days or less and is licensed by the City of Niagara Falls; and “Principal Residence” to indicate it is the owners permanent place of residence. 2. Amendments are proposed to the definitions for “Boarding or Rooming House” to specify that B&Bs and OOSTRs are not considered to be boarding or rooming houses; and “Home Occupation” to note that owner occupied short-term accommodations (both B&B’s and OOSTR’s) are considered to be home occupations. 3. Parking requirements are proposed to be 1 space for up to 2 bedrooms and 1 additional space for 3 bedrooms, recognizing that 1 space would already be required for the principal residence. Required parking spaces are permitted to be in tandem. This is to help ensure that OOSTRs do not cause parking concerns for the neighbourhood. Page 8 of 134 Page 30 of 1679 4. Section 4.37 is renamed to be “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation” to provide a section that includes both B&Bs and OOSTRs. B&B provisions would be renumbered 4.37.1 and OOSTR provisions would be numbered 4.37.2 5. New permissions for OOSTRs would include the following: a. A maximum of one OOSTR is permitted within or accessory to a permitted detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, duplex dwelling or townhouse dwelling that is the principal residence of the owner. b. OOSTRs would be permitted in R1A, R1B, R1C, R1D, R1E, R1F, R2, R3, R4 and TRM zones. c. The maximum number of bedrooms permitted in an OOSTR are 3. d. The number of guests permitted would be in accordance with the occupant load per bedroom in the building code up to a maximum of 6. e. All OOSTRs would require a licence from the City. f. The owner must be present on site for the duration of the rental period. 6. Clarification is added to Section 5.5 to specify that Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations are considered home occupations and would be implemented in accordance with Section 4.37. 7. There is a technical update to include a cross section reference to Section 19 – Exceptions and Special Provisions to recognize these existing permissions. 8. The amendment proposes to add OOSTRs as a permitted use within the respective zone sections (R1A, R1B, R1C, R1D, R1E, R1F, R2, R3, R4 and TRM). If an applicant would like to establish an OOSTR that does not fit within the zoning regulations provided, then a Zoning By-law amendment or minor variance would be required. For example, a ZBA or Minor Variance would be required if they would like a reduction in parking requirements, have an additional bedroom, wish to change the definition of owner or have additional bedrooms. The following table provides a brief comparison of some of the key differences between the proposed OOSTRs, VRUs and B&Bs. Proposed Owner Occupied Short- Term Rental (OOSTR) Vacation Rental Unit (VRU) Bed and Breakfast (B&B) Allowed in residential area Yes No Yes Owner occupied Yes No Yes Building Code compliance Yes Yes Yes, but code requirements are stricter due to Page 9 of 134 Page 31 of 1679 required multiple rooms being rented similar to a hotel Limits on total travelling public 3 bedrooms with a maximum of 6 people permitted, pursuant to the building code 3 bedroom limit with occupants determined by the building code 3 guest rooms permitted in residential zones and 6 guest rooms permitted in commercial zones. Occupant load determined by the building code Annual licence Yes Yes Yes Number of parking spaces required 1 space for the owner and 1 for the OOSTR with an additional space required if there are 3 bedrooms. The parking spaces can be provided in tandem 2 spaces which may be provided in tandem 1 parking space for each guest room in addition to the space required for the owner Consultation Community Engagement In an effort to gather community feedback, a OOSTR Lets Talk Niagara Falls page was created to share information with and gather feedback from the community. A survey was posted that sought feedback relative to existing experiences with short-term rentals in neighbourhoods, what the primary concerns are, what the positives are and if people would be more comfortable if the owner lived on the property. A public open house was held relative to the proposed permissions for OOSTR and the proposed Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendments. In addition, the consultant team met with the Niagara Falls Canada Hotel Association, that had previously expressed concerns relative to the proposed permissions. The following outlines the results of the community engagement undertaken. A full detailed consultation summary report is included in Appendix C. Survey A Let’s Talk page was created to share information regarding the proposed permissions for OOSTRs in residential areas throughout the City. A survey sought feedback relative to the proposed OOSTR considerations from November 4th to 25th, 2024. The survey asked 8 questions and collected a total of 289 responses, which are detailed and Page 10 of 134 Page 32 of 1679 summarized in Appendix C. Overall, the survey indicated a divided response in terms of permissions for OOSTRs in residential areas. Some of the highlights from the survey include the following: 1. The survey found that people have encountered challenges with short-term accommodations in their neighbourhood such as parking infractions, mess and garbage, excessive noise, and a perceived impact on housing prices due to the aforementioned issues. 2. The survey asked if respondents believed that the presence of a property owner at a short-term accommodation could help to manage unwanted behaviors and challenges. Responses were 45% no, 45% yes, and 10% answered I don’t know. 3. The survey asked if respondents support permitting Owner Occupied Short- Term Rentals in residential areas. The responses were 42% yes, 56% no, and 2% answered I don’t know. 4. Reasons that people support permitting Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas are summarized in the following table: The “Other” response included the following responses: Page 11 of 134 Page 33 of 1679 5. Reasons that people do not support permitting Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas are outlined in the following table: The “Other” responses included the following: Page 12 of 134 Page 34 of 1679 Open House A Public Open House was held on December 9th, 2024 at the MacBain Community Centre. The Public Open House was advertised on the Let's Talk page, social media and the newspaper. In addition to a power point presentation by the consultant team (attached in Appendix C) that provided an overview of the project, 8 information boards were displayed that provided an overview of the project to date including survey results and the proposed amendments. The consultant team and staff were available to answer questions of attendees before and after the presentation. Approximately 30 people attended this session. Overall, the feedback at the Open House was positive and supportive, with some requests as outlined below:  to consider expanding the definition of an owner to include children, extended family members or unrelated appointed persons;  eliminate the requirement for the owner to be on site during the rental timeframe;  allow opportunities for the rental to be in the principle residence rather than an accessory unit; and  increase the number of rooms and people that could be accommodated. There were several questions related to by-law enforcement with concerns raised about the fairness of enforcement for people who go through the legal process versus those that don’t, and how by-law enforcement will ensure illegal operations are penalized. Written and Email Submissions Members of the community provided written comments through email in advance of the Open House. At the Open House, a comment sheet was made available as an additional mechanism to collect feedback. Written comments were submitted at the Open House and for one week following. Following the notice for the statutory public meeting, additional comments were provided. In total, 22 written comments were received. Those that were supportive of permitting OOSTRs provided the following comments:  Importance of having short-term rentals legalized and effectively monitored by the City to ensure everyone adheres to the rules.  Owners would be present and would not tolerate damage, noise or bad behaviour.  Visitors to the City would have the opportunity to stay in a space that could provide the comfort of home.  Visitors spending their time in OOSTR’s would support local businesses including grocery markets and other retail.  Renting out an additional unit would provide income opportunities that could assist with the cost of living and mortgage etc.  Provides an opportunity for families to stay together in one unit. Page 13 of 134 Page 35 of 1679  Owners of OOSTRs have an incentive to maintain the rental and property if they would like people to continue coming.  This support’s the Provincial governments “Niagara Strategy” to attract more tourists.  The City would be prepared for tourists with different expectations (travelling with pets, travelling in a group/multi-generational family, accommodations with kitchen facilities, private swimming pools, hot tubs etc.).  Supports income for the City through the licencing fee and MAT tax.  Supports new businesses with current infrastructure assets (no need to invest in infrastructure).  Reduces the number of illegal short-term rentals.  The licenced short-term rentals would be safer.  Property owners should not be restricted on what they would like to do with their property if they maintain it and do not impact the surrounding neighbourhood. For those in support of OOSTRs, the following suggestions were also provided:  Suggest clarifying that the owner’s partner, children, parents, in-laws or siblings who live at the property could be responsible owners that could take care of the OOSTR.  Suggestion to allow an owner to operate within a certain radius of their property, therefore not needed to be on site.  Consideration should be given to a grandfather clause that would recognize when updates were made to a building.  Supportive of the project, but do not want this to become a financial burden to implement.  Should be able to rent two residences per property/more than one dwelling unit per property.  Allow the owner to live in the secondary residence and rent out the primary residence.  Suggest allowing a garage as a parking space.  Suggestion to increase the maximum number of rooms and guests from 6 people to 8 per OOSTR.  Suggestion to link the number of parking spaces required to the number of guests. The comments that did not support OOSTRs noted the following concerns:  Resident safety.  It will impact residents’ ability for quiet and peaceful enjoyment of property.  Challenges with enforcing rule (a number of illegal short-term rentals exist and are not being penalized).  Parking and snow removal with cars parked on the street.  Residential neighbourhoods were not developed to accommodate temporary visitors. Page 14 of 134 Page 36 of 1679  Residents don’t have the resources and training to manage temporary visitors.  Additional units should be used for long term renters.  This could impact the affordability of rental properties.  Don’t want tourists in residential areas.  There are empty hotels that could be used instead.  Permissions should be located closer to the tourist district.  Short term rentals should be considered commercial activity.  Concerns that the owner would not be present. Comments were also received after circulation of the Notice for the Statutory Public Meeting. While there was general support for the planning requirements in the proposed OPA and ZBA, there were still concerns related to enforcement and how the City would ensure that the Owner would be on site. As the Licensing By-law is updated, the requirement for the Owner (defined as the owner of a lot as recorded in the records of the Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Niagara South maintained in that Office for that lot) would be the only person permitted to be the licensee and would be the contact who By-law Enforcement would expect on the property if there is a complaint or if there is a proactive check. Planning staff have been working closely with municipal enforcement and legal staff in this regard and understand that through the new AMPS process, fines would be easier to apply without having to go through a lengthy Provincial court process. Niagara Falls Canada Hotel Association The Niagara Falls Canada Hotel Association had expressed an interest in addressing Council, when staff reported back relative to Report CAO-2023-03. As such, the Niagara Falls Canada Hotel Association was identified as a stakeholder and Landwise met with Executive Director, Doug Birrell on December 11th, 2024. The discussion with Mr. Birrell focused on challenges around enforcement of existing regulations for Vacation Rental Units and the effectiveness and enforceability of the new regulations for OOSTRs, particularly the regulation for an owner to be on-site. Key Comments with Responses The following Table provides a brief summary of some of the key comments received and how staff has considered these comments as part of the recommendation. Comment Response The requirement for the owner to be on site during the entire duration of the rental period. The consultation undertaken through the VRU amendment process indicated that the community had more comfort when the owner was on site for short term rentals, as it is perceived that owners would not tolerate excessive noise, garbage, parking issues, poor behaviour Page 15 of 134 Page 37 of 1679 Comment Response etc. and would respond to any complaints from neighbours. While there will be some understanding that people need to leave their house, they should be able to respond to a by-law enforcement inquiries/visits within an hour. This helps to ensure there is clear accountability and that these OOSTRs are not being operated as Vacation Rental Units (owners not required to be present on site), which are more appropriate in commercial areas. Owner should not be required on site and there should be permissions allowing other designated responsible people or family members to respond if there is a by-law infraction. This could take accountability away from the owner and would make enforcement more difficult when not dealing directly with the owner. This could also create more of a VRU situation in residential areas. Takes away from affordable housing options and increases the prices of housing. There is recognition that these units could otherwise be used for long term rentals, however having an OOSTR would provide opportunities to make home ownership more affordable and achievable. More than 3 bedrooms should be permitted. This amendment provides as of right permissions. As such, it’s important that these permissions fit within the character of the neighbourhood setting. B&B’s have a limit of 3 guest rooms within residential neighbourhoods and this is a consistent approach. An application to permit more units can be made through a planning process. People should be able to rent out the principal residence and stay within the additional dwelling unit. The definition for OOSTR does not specify where the owner must live on the property, but only that they must have their principal residence on the property. Concerns about noise, property maintenance, garbage, parking, partying etc. It has been By-law Enforcement's experience that there are less complaints associated with B&B’s than there are with VRU’s. With the owner living on the property, it is anticipated that these concerns will be mitigated, due to increased accountability and responsiveness of the owner on site. The Page 16 of 134 Page 38 of 1679 Comment Response City will also continue to enforce the property standards by-law. A reduction in parking spaces should be considered or a parking space in the garage should be considered. As the number of guests could vary between each rental period, it is important to consistently apply parking requirements based on the licensing process. The draft ZBA does allow for a third space, if required, to be in tandem with one of the other required spaces and the garage would be considered a parking space. The parking requirements would be identified through the licensing application. There will still be challenges with enforcement. The enforcement of OOSTRs falls with By-law Enforcement. By-law Enforcement is implementing a new AMPS By-law that will create a more efficient process for issuing fines related to violations. It is the hope that allowing for OOSTRs in residential areas would legalize more short-term accommodations in the City so that the focus of enforcement would be on those unlicensed and problematic short-term rentals. General safety concerns: residential neighbourhoods weren’t built to accommodate short-term visitors, owners are not necessarily equipped to manage problematic guests, strangers in neighbourhoods, etc. Owners would be responsible for screening their guests and it would be in their own best interest to do this to ensure their own safety as well as their neighbours. The licensing bylaw law will include provisions that an annual licence will not be renewed if past infractions have occurred. There are empty hotel rooms that could be used instead. While hotels are still very popular, there are a variety of reasons why some people may prefer to stay in a short-term rental instead, including having a kitchen, having a separate living space, and staying in one place as a travelling group. This is a global change in the travel accommodation model, and not unique to Niagara Falls. Permissions should be located closer to the tourist district Vacation Rental Unit permissions are in place closer to the tourist district, and within commercial zones. Currently illegal short-term rentals are occurring Page 17 of 134 Page 39 of 1679 Comment Response throughout the City. As such, the opportunities to legalize as OOSTRs in residential areas are being considered broadly within the urban area. Short-term rentals should be considered commercial activity It is generally agreed that Vacation Rental Units are considered to be commercial as they are often operated as a business and the restrictions on these reflect that. OOSTRs are viewed as a home occupation, being an occupation operated as a secondary use by an owner in their home. Internal/Agency Comments Information about the proposed OPA and ZBA was circulated to City departments, the Region and agencies for comment. The following summarizes the comments received. Internal Comments  No internal comments were received that resulted in any change to the proposed OPA or ZBA. Niagara Region  Niagara Region staff noted that within the urban area, permissions for OOSTRs generally comply with Provincial and Regional policy as they support a range and mix of uses that help to build complete communities.  OOSTRs were initially proposed in the parkway residential area, which is technically considered prime agriculture with site specific policy recognition in the Niagara Official Plan. Given that these properties are in the prime agricultural area, the Region’s comments noted that they would need to be permitted as on- farm diversified uses or as legal non-conforming uses. o In response, staff have made changes to the amendment to focus on residential lands within the urban area boundary at this time. o City staff have also noted that By-law 79-200 does not include Parkway Residential, so there would be a misalignment between the Official Plan and zoning permissions.  Comments were provided to ensure there is consistency between the OPA and ZBA definitions for OOSTRs o In response staff have ensured there is consistency between the two amendments  A request was made to update a reference made to the Regional Public Health Department that should now be Regional Public Works Department. o Given that the this was in reference to parkway residential private services, changes to this policy are no longer being considered and no Page 18 of 134 Page 40 of 1679 change has been made. Through the new Official Plan, updates can be made to ensure policies make the correct references. Metrolinx  Metrolinx has proposed a policy that would require the inclusion of the standard Metrolinx Noise Warning clause and the registration of an environmental/ operational easement in favour of Metrolinx, over subject lands within 300m of a rail corridor with Metrolinx services and/or operations. o The Official Plan includes Part 5 Secondary Plans, Section 2 Transit Station Secondary Plan, policy 1.8 which requires development within 300m of an active rail to be subject to further study including air quality, noise and other sensitivity studies. o Development applications that are within the circulation radius of the rail line would continue to be circulated to Metrolinx and the appropriate provisions would be applied at that time. o Permitting an OOSTR would not likely trigger any planning application unless it is beyond the proposed permissions, as such, a policy such as this would not have any mechanism to implement. It is staff’s opinion that including this policy would be more appropriate through the new Official Plan process and no changes have been made at this time. Enbridge  Enbridge noted that they do not object to the proposed applications, however reserve the right to amend or remove development conditions. o No changes are required in response. Municipal Enforcement Throughout the consultation process, it has been made clear that enforcement will be a key part of the successful implementation of the proposed OPA and ZBA. Planning staff have been working closely with Municipal Enforcement staff to understand what the primary complaints are and how to make the proposed approach effective. From January 2024 to January 2025 there were 275 complaints related to short-term rentals. Municipal Enforcement staff has indicated that a significant portion of these calls are related to people inquiring about whether or not a short-term rental is licensed. Where there are complaints, the majority related to short term rentals that were not licensed. Further, it is important to understand that of the number provided, not all of the complaints received would be considered valid upon inspection. As Council is aware, staff have been working to implement the Administrative Monetary Penalty system (AMPS) that will allow By-law officers to better enforce short-term rental matters throughout the City. The penalties for illegal operations will increase and there will no longer be a lengthy legal process that would go through the Provincial Offenses Court System. With this change, staff are expecting a shift in compliance along with a financial incentive to legalize OOSTRs and VRUs throughout the City. Council has also Page 19 of 134 Page 41 of 1679 approved the addition of 3 more By-law officers which would help to address the volume of by-law infractions throughout the City, which would include Short Term Rentals. By-Law Updates Should Council approve the proposed OPA and ZBA, further changes are required to associated City By-laws. These amendments are included on the Council Agenda under the By-law section. These changes include the following: Licensing By-law The Licensing By-law would need to be modified to provide permissions for OOSTRs, including what would be required in order to obtain a license from the City. The changes to the Licensing By-law are primarily to update and add definitions that are consistent with the ZBA and to replace “bed and breakfast” with the more encompassing umbrella term “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation” (to include both B&B’s and OOSTR’s) throughout the by-law. There are no changes proposed for existing B&B or VRU licensing provisions. Fee By-law The Fee-By-law will require updates to ensure that the cost of licensing an OOSTR is provided. The proposed cost will be consistent with the cost of licensing a B&B ($500 first year and $250 annually after). Municipal Accommodation Tax By-law The Municipal Accommodation Tax By-law will require updates to ensure that OOSTRs are included along with all other types of accommodations that are captured within this By-law. Administrative Monetary Penalty System By-law (AMPS) The AMPS By-law will require updates to add a definition for “Owner Occupied Short- Term Accommodations” and “Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals”. References to bed and breakfasts are proposed to be updated to the more encompassing term of “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations” to be consistent with the Licensing By-law changes, as there is a cross over between the two By-laws. The penalties would be consistent with what has previously been approved for B&B's. All of these by-law amendments include an effective date of April 10th to allow time for the legislated appeal period for the OPA and ZBA. If the recommendations of Report PBD-2025-16 are not approved, Council would not approve the above noted bylaw amendments on tonight’s agenda. Conclusion and Next Steps Overall, staff feel that OOSTRs, if regulated and licensed, would be appropriate within residential neighbourhoods throughout the City and would allow By-law Enforcement to Page 20 of 134 Page 42 of 1679 focus residential for appropriate respectful not or that operations illegal on are neighbourhoods. It is noted that a list of licensed OOSTRs will be posted on the City’s website, complaints to directed be can so similar and B&Bs licensed to VRUs, unlicensed STRs. Should Council proceed with the approval of the OPA and ZBA as proposed and the supporting by-laws are approved, staff will provide statutory notice. Following notice, a 20-day appeal period will occur. If no appeals are received, then further implementation can occur including the preparation of a OOSTR information webpage, implementation of a licensing application form, and an education campaign (social media, newspaper, website and mailings) to inform the community. Once the education campaign has occurred and systems are in place to accept license applications, an enforcement campaign will be undertaken. Appeal Provision – Sections 17 and 34 of the Planning Act In accordance with Bill 185, which received Royal Assent on June 6th, 2024, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH), the applicant, or a specified person, public body, or registered owner of any land to which the Official Plan amendment or zoning by-law will apply, who made oral submissions at a Public Meeting or written submissions to City Council prior to the adoption of the amendment and/or passage of the by-law, may appeal the amendment and/or by-law to the Ontario Land Tribunal by filing Notices of Appeal to the Clerk. Third party appeals are no longer permitted. Operational Implications and Risk Analysis Should Council approve the proposed amendments there will be revenue generated from the licensing fee associated with OOSTRs. Financial Implications/Budget Impact Should Council approve the proposed amendments there will be revenue generated from the licencing fee associated with OOSTRs. Strategic/Departmental Alignment The proposed amendments align with the Economic Diversification and Growth pillar of the 2023-2027 Strategic Plan by recognizing a change in market demand for short-term accommodations and providing opportunities for residents to earn additional income by hosting visitors to the City. Strategic Plan Pillars Economic Diversification & Growth Page 21 of 134 Page 43 of 1679 Fostering a balanced and sustainable local economy achieved by expanding and diversifying the types of industries and businesses operating within the community. Contributor(s) Gerald Spencer, Manager of Municipal Enforcement Services Jana Mills, Municipal Enforcement Officer List of Attachments Appendix A - Official Plan Amendment No. 180 Appendix B - Zoning By-law Amendment AM-2025-001 Appendix C - OOSTR Public Consultation Summary Written by: Kailen Goerz, Senior Manager of Long Range Planning Initiatives Submitted by: Status: Signe Hansen, Director of Planning Approved - 10 Mar 2025 Kira Dolch, General Manager, Planning, Building & Development Approved - 11 Mar 2025 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 11 Mar 2025 Page 22 of 134 Page 44 of 1679 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2025-031 A by-law to provide for the adoption of Amendment No. 180 to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan (AM-2025-001). THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANNING ACT, 1990, AND THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA ACT, HEREBY ENACT AS FOLLOWS: 1. The attached text constituting Amendment No. 180 to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan is hereby adopted. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council Passed this 18th day of March, 2025. ……………………………………………….. ………………………………………… WILLIAM G. MATSON, ACTING CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 23 of 134 Page 45 of 1679 PART 1 – PREAMBLE (i) Purpose of the Amendment The purpose of the amendment is to establish Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals as a home occupation that may be permitted on Residential lands through an implementing zoning by-law. (ii) Location of the Amendment The amendment applies to lands designated “Residential”, as shown on Schedule “A” to the Official Plan – Future Land Use. (iii) Details of the Amendment Text Change PART 2 – LAND USE POLICIES is amended by amending Subsection 1.3. Definitions for “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation” and “Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental” are added to APPENDIX 1 – DEFINITIONS. (iv) Basis of the Amendment Bed and Breakfasts are a home occupation that may be permitted on Residential lands through an implementing zoning by-law where they are limited in number of guest rooms to be compatible with the residential neighbourhood. The amendment will facilitate the compatible incorporation of Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals as a similar land use and home occupation as Bed and Breakfasts within residential areas within the urban area boundary. PART 2 – BODY OF THE AMENDMENT All of this part of the document entitled PART 2 – BODY OF THE AMENDMENT consisting of the following text and attached map, constitute Amendment No. 180 to the Official Plan of the City of Niagara Falls. DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT The Official Plan of the City of Niagara Falls is hereby amended as follows: 1. Part 2, Section 1.3 is amended by adding the words: i. “and Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals” after “Bed and Breakfasts” and before “, may be permitted”; and ii. “/bedrooms” after “guest rooms” and before “to be compatible” so that it reads: Page 24 of 134 Page 46 of 1679 “1.3 Home occupations, including owner occupied Bed and Breakfasts and Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals, may be permitted through an implementing zoning by-law where they are limited in number of guest rooms/bedrooms to be compatible with the residential neighbourhood. Zoning by-law amendment applications to increase the size of such uses will be carefully considered to minimize potential disturbances to adjacent properties and to protect the character and identity of the overall neighbourhood.” 2. Part 2, Section 1.3 is amended by adding the following subsection: “1.3.1 An undue concentration of Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals is to be avoided to reduce the impacts on the character of the residential nature of the area and residential enjoyment of permanent residents. To ensure lands designated Residential meet the primary purpose of providing dwellings for a range of households, Council may consider limiting the location and number of Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals as a result of monitoring the number of licences issued annually. 3. The following definitions are hereby added alphabetically to APPENDIX 1 – DEFINITIONS: “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation” – means an Owner Occupied Short- Term Rental or a Bed and Breakfast but shall not include a Vacation Rental Unit. “Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental” – means a home occupation in a dwelling unit within or accessory to a Principal Residence that is rented out by the Owner to a single group of the travelling public for a period of 28 consecutive days or less and is licensed by the City of Niagara Falls to carry out a business. Page 25 of 134 Page 47 of 1679 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2025-032 A by-law to amend Zoning By-law No. 79-200 to introduce new definitions and regulatory provisions respecting Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations in residential zones (AM-2024-001); WHEREAS it is the express intention of the Council of the City of Niagara Falls to amend By-law No. 79-200 to add “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation” as a permitted use in residential zones within the City of Niagara Falls; AND WHEREAS it is the express intention of the Council of the City of Niagara Falls that the permitted use “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations” in residential zones shall be conditional upon the owner of the property, obtaining a license from the City of Niagara Falls and maintaining that license in good standing and that no property, other than a property that has been zoned by a site specific by-law enacted by this Council as of the date of the passing of this by-law, shall be found to have the permitted use “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations” as of right; AND WHEREAS the Council of the City of Niagara Falls is aware of the presence of permitted uses within residential zones that may fall within the ambit of the definition of “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation” set out in this by-law that are in operation as of the date of the passing of this by-law; AND WHEREAS it is the express intention of the Council of the City of Niagara Falls that this by-law shall have no impact of any nature or kind upon the rights of operators of permitted uses that may fall within the ambit of the definition of “Bed and Breakfast” as set out in By-law No. 79-200 existing as of the date of the passing of this by-law. AND WHEREAS permitted uses in residential zones that may fall within the ambit of the definition of “Bed and Breakfast” as set out in By-law No. 79-200 do not, and never have, included the right to operate a “Bed and Breakfast” in the absence of a license for that operation issued by the City of Niagara Falls that is, and has been, maintained in good standing; THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by adding the following definitions alphabetically: “OWNER OCCUPIED” means a Principal Residence occupied, on a full-time basis, by the registered Owner of the property on which the Principal Residence is located as recorded and maintained in the records of the Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Niagara South; Page 26 of 134 Page 48 of 1679 "OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION" means an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental or a Bed and Breakfast but shall not include a Vacation Rental Unit; “OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTAL” means a home occupation in a dwelling unit within or accessory to a Principal Residence that is rented out by the Owner to a single group of the travelling public for a period of 28 consecutive days or less and is licensed by the City of Niagara Falls to carry out a business. “PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE” means an Owner’s permanent place of residence, pursuant to the Income Tax Act. 2. That SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by amending the following definitions: a) “BOARDING OR ROOMING HOUSE” is amended by adding the words “Bed and Breakfast, Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental” between the words “home for the aged” and “or other establishment”, so that it reads: "BOARDING OR ROOMING HOUSE" means a building in which the proprietor supplies for gain, directly or indirectly, lodging with or without meals to three or more persons other than the proprietor but does not include a tourist establishment, hotel, hospital, home for the aged, Bed and Breakfast, Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental or other establishment otherwise classified or defined in this By-law; b) “HOME OCCUPATION” is amended by adding the words “, including but not limited to Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations” after the words “private residence”, so that it reads: "HOME OCCUPATION" means any occupation, except the keeping of boarders or roomers, which is carried on within a dwelling or dwelling unit in compliance with the provisions of this Bylaw, and which is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of such dwelling or dwelling unit as a private residence, including but not limited to Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations. 3. That Table 1 of clause (a) of Section 4.19.1 of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by adding the following Class of Use and Minimum Parking Space Requirements: Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental 1 parking space for up to 2 bedrooms, and 1 additional parking space for 3 bedrooms, which may be provided in tandem. Page 27 of 134 Page 49 of 1679 4. That SECTION 4 – GENERAL PROVISIONS of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by amending Section 4.37 as follows: a) That Section 4.37 be renamed to “OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION” and the following preamble be added: “An Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation shall comply with the following provisions:” b) That the following subsection 4.37.1 Bed and Breakfast be added immediately following the preamble with all applicable regulations for a Bed and Breakfast to be renumbered under Section 4.37.1 so that it reads: “4.37.1 Bed and Breakfast (a) A bed and breakfast must be located in the dwelling or dwelling unit that is the primary residence of the owner; (b) The maximum number of guest rooms permitted in a bed and breakfast in a dwelling or dwelling unit in a R1A, R1B, R1C, R1D, R1E, R1F, R2, R3, TRM, DC, DTC, A, R and DH zone shall be 3; (c) The maximum number of guest rooms permitted in a bed and breakfast in a dwelling or dwelling unit in a GC, CB and TC zone shall be 6; (d) A bed and breakfast shall require a licence issued by the City of Niagara Falls and the municipal licence of a bed and breakfast must be kept current and maintained in good standing; (e) The maximum number of guests permitted to stay in a guest room shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, and the regulations promulgated thereunder; (f) Subject to clause (g) of section 4.37, every reference to a zone in clauses (b) and (c) of section 4.37 shall be deemed to include any zone described in section 19 of the by-law that is derived from the zones listed in clauses (b) and (c) of section 4.37; (g) Existing tourist homes and any other permitted uses that fall within the ambit of the definition of a bed and breakfast as set out in this by-law shall henceforth be referred to as a bed and breakfast, but in all other respects shall continue to be governed by the site specific regulations that govern their permitted use on the effective date of this amendment to the by-law; Page 28 of 134 Page 50 of 1679 (h) Parking and access requirements shall be in accordance with section 4.19.1.” c) That the following subsection be added: “4.37.2 Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental (a) A maximum of one Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental shall be permitted within or accessory to a permitted detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, duplex dwelling or townhouse dwelling that is the principal residence of the owner. (b) Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals are permitted within the R1A, R1B, R1C, R1D, R1E, R1F, R2, R3, R4, and TRM Zone in accordance with subsection 4.37.2 (a), above. (c) The maximum number of bedrooms permitted in an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental shall be 3; (c) The number of guests permitted to stay in an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, and the regulations promulgated thereunder to a maximum of 6 guests; (d) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental shall require a license issued by the City of Niagara Falls, that must be kept current and maintained in good standing; (e) The Owner must be present on the property for the entire duration of the rental period; (f) Every reference to a Zone in clause (b) of section 4.37.2 shall be deemed to include any zone described in Section 19 of the by-law that is derived from the zones listed in clause (b) of section 4.37.2. (h) Parking and access requirements shall be in accordance with section 4.19.1.” 5. That SECTION 5.5 HOME OCCUPATIONS of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by adding the following subsection: “5.5.1 Notwithstanding Section 5.5, Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations are considered home occupations and shall be permitted in accordance with Section 4.37.” 6. That SECTION 7.1.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended as follows: a) That section (e) is amended by adding “.1” after “4.37” so that it reads: “(e) A bed and breakfast in a detached dwelling, that complies with the Page 29 of 134 Page 51 of 1679 provisions set out in section 4.37.1” b) That the following subsection be added: “(g) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” 7. That SECTION 7.2.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended as follows: a) That section (e) is amended by adding “.1” after “4.37” so that it reads: “(e) A bed and breakfast in a detached dwelling, that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.1” b) That the following subsection be added: “(g) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” 8. That SECTION 7.3.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended as follows: a) That section (e) is amended by adding “.1” after “4.37” so that it reads: “(e) A bed and breakfast in a detached dwelling, that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.1” b) That the following subsection be added: “(g) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” 9. That SECTION 7.4.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended as follows: a) That section (e) is amended by adding “.1” after “4.37” so that it reads: “(e) A bed and breakfast in a detached dwelling, that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.1” b) That the following subsection be added: “(g) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” 10. That SECTION 7.5.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended as follows: a) That section (e) is amended by adding “.1” after “4.37” so that it reads: “(e) A bed and breakfast in a detached dwelling, that complies with the Page 30 of 134 Page 52 of 1679 provisions set out in section 4.37.1” b) That the following subsection be added: “(g) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” 11. That SECTION 7.5A.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended as follows: a) That section (e) is amended by adding “.1” after “4.37” so that it reads: “(e) A bed and breakfast in a detached dwelling, that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.1” b) That the following subsection be added: “(g) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” 12. That SECTION 7.7.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended as follows: a) That section (g) is amended by adding “.1” after “4.37” so that it reads: “(g) A bed and breakfast in a detached dwelling, that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.1” b) That the following subsection be added: “(i) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” 13. That SECTION 7.8.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended as follows: a) That section (i) is amended by adding “.1” after “4.37” so that it reads: “(i) A bed and breakfast in a detached dwelling, that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.1” b) That the following subsection be added: “(k) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” 14. That SECTION 7.9.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by adding the following subsection: “(i) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” Page 31 of 134 Page 53 of 1679 15. That SECTION 7.16.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by adding the following subsection: a) That section (g) is amended by adding “.1” after “4.37” so that it reads: “(g) A bed and breakfast in a detached dwelling, that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.1” b) That the following subsection be added: “(i) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 18th day of March, 2025. ....................................................................... .................................................................. WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 32 of 134 Page 54 of 1679 Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Public Consultation Summary January 2025 Page 33 of 134 Page 55 of 1679 Page 1 of 8 PROJECT SUMMARY Between 2019 to 2021, the City of Niagara Falls conducted public engagement and implemented by-laws to limit Vacation Rental Units to commercial areas of the City. In 2023, City Council directed Staff to explore the potential for allowing Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas of the City. The impetus of this Council direction was the need to regulate the large number of illegal short-term rentals operating in residential areas. Bed and Breakfasts are already permitted in residential areas. Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals would be a similar land use with the requirement for the Owner to be on-site, which can help to manage typical nuisances associated with Vacation Rental Units. Landwise was retained in Fall 2024 to assist Staff with public engagement and drafting the implementing Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment required to permit and regulate Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas. A high-level jurisdictional scan of municipalities in Ontario found that most permit short-term rentals in residential areas, with rules and regulations to address safe operation and management of nuisances. Many municipalities such as Hamilton, St. Catharines, Ottawa, and Burlington, have adopted a “principal residence requirement”, meaning that a dwelling unit can be rented out in its entirety (i.e. no owner present on site at time of rental), but only as a secondary use (i.e. the property must operate first and foremost as a full-time residence). An alternative method that Fort-Erie has adopted is to permit Dedicated Short-Term Rentals (i.e. Owner is not a full-time resident) in their commercial, mixed-use, and residential zones where cottage rentals are common such as Crystal Beach, and Owner-Occupied Short-Term Rentals (i.e. Owner must be present on site) in their remaining residential zones. Fort-Erie’s method is similar to the City of Niagara Falls proposed approach to managing the use. Some municipalities have been monitoring their short-term rental programs to ensure they are functioning as intended. For example, Ottawa’s short-term rental program is a pilot program that is set to expire in February of 2027, at which time a review of the program will be conducted. As of December 10, 2024, Niagara-on-the-Lake has paused accepting applications for short-term rental permits to conduct a review of how many short-term rentals are in the community and if there should be a maximum limit imposed. Overall, best practice for short-term rentals in residential areas seems to be requiring a licence to operate and restrictions by ownership status, which provides municipalities with an avenue for enforcement. Page 34 of 134 Page 56 of 1679 Page 2 of 8 CONSULTATION SUMMARY The City of Niagara Falls retained Landwise to assist with exploring the potential permissions and regulations for allowing Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals (OOSTR) in residential areas throughout the City’s urban area. Public consultation was conducted as part of this process, with the following goals: • Provide background on the changes that are being considered to potentially allow Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas throughout the City. • Answer questions and clarify the conditions that would be required to operate these uses. • Hear ideas and opinions prior to making changes to the City’s Official Plan and By-laws. PUBLIC SURVEY A survey was posted on the City of Niagara Falls “Let’s Talk” webpage between November 4th – 25th, 2024. The survey included eight questions and collected a total of 289 contributions. The survey results can be found in Appendix A to this report. STAKEHOLDER CONSULATION Previous consultation for Vacation Rental Units identified potential impacts on traditional accommodations such as hotels as a result of increased short-term rentals. Question 8 of the survey sought to address potential impacts on traditional accommodations with regard to OOSTRs. One third of respondents felt that OOSTRs would offer a different experience for the travelling public. Just under one third of respondents felt that OOSTRs would have minimal or no impact on traditional accommodations. Approximately one third of respondents felt that OOSTRs would increase competition and have negative impacts on traditional accommodations. A small number of respondents answered that they did not know how OOSTRs might impact traditional accommodations. The Niagara Falls Canada Hotel Association was identified as a stakeholder and Landwise met with Executive Director, Doug Birrell on December 11th, 2024. One of Mr. Birrell’s primary concerns was regarding the challenges associated with the enforcement of existing regulations for Vacation Rental Units and the effectiveness and enforceability of the new regulations for OOSTRs, particularly Page 35 of 134 Page 57 of 1679 Page 3 of 8 the regulation for an owner to be on-site. Landwise provided an overview of the draft regulatory framework and mechanisms that will allow enforcement staff to issue orders, as well as the proposed changes to the Administrative Monetary Penalty System. Mr. Birrell also expressed the desire to have data specifically regarding nuisances related to short-term rentals. PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE A Public Open House was held between 5:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. on December 9th, 2024, at the MacBain Community Centre. Sue Cumming, Independent Facilitator at Cumming+Company, facilitated the Public Open House which included an opportunity to review eight information panels (refer to Appendix B) between 5:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. where staff and the consultant team were available to answer questions and receive feedback. A presentation (refer to Appendix B) was provided by Shannon McKie, Associate/Principal Planner, Landwise at 6:00 p.m. followed by a question and answer period. Sue Cummings recorded comments and questions which are included in the summary provided below. Approximately 30 people attended the Public Open House. Participants were encouraged to fill out comment sheets and were provided with an infographic (refer to Appendix B) that included a summary of the information presented and instructions on how to submit comments after the Public Open House. The comment period was open until December 16th, 2024. Two comment sheets were received at the Public Open House and twelve comments were sent via email, which can be found in Appendix C to this report. The following table summarizes the feedback collected from the various public consultation methods: Topic What We Heard Location of OOSTRs Question 7 of the survey asked whether respondents support permitting OOSTRs in residential areas. There were slightly more respondents that answered "No" (56%) than "Yes" (42%) and 2% answering "I don't know”. If survey respondents answered “No” to Question 7, they were asked about their primary concerns with allowing OOSTRs in residential areas. Several respondents expressed that short-term rentals are more appropriate in commercial areas and that they are unnecessary in residential areas due Page 36 of 134 Page 58 of 1679 Page 4 of 8 Topic What We Heard to existing accommodation options available to tourists in commercial areas. Conversely, several respondents indicated support for OOSTRs in residential areas, noting that people travel for a multitude of reasons besides tourism and may appreciate accommodation options outside of tourist areas. Open House participants were generally supportive of permitting OOSTRs in residential areas. One Open House participant expressed that OOSTRs should be permitted in both urban and rural areas of the City. Housing impacts If survey respondents answered “No” when asked if they support permitting OOSTRs in residential areas, they were asked about their primary concerns. 128 respondents selected “It will affect property values and/or rental costs”. Several respondents that selected “Other” provided additional written feedback, expressing concerns about OOSTRs will remove long-term rental stock (e.g. landlords may “renovict” tenants and convert units to OOSTRs) and that would-be OOSTRs are better suited for more permanent housing opportunities. Conversely, if survey respondents answered “Yes” when asked if they support permitting OOSTRs in residential areas, they were asked why they are supportive. 111 respondents selected “It will allow property owners to generate rental income”. Several Open House participants also expressed that OOSTRs may allow residents to stay in their homes by offsetting housing costs and that the potential for OOSTRs may help with obtaining financing when purchasing a home. Several members of the public expressed that OOSTRs may provide short-term housing options for travelers besides tourists, such as students participating in short-term classes, employees on work trips, or family members providing care to a nearby resident with an illness. Page 37 of 134 Page 59 of 1679 Page 5 of 8 Topic What We Heard Several survey respondents brought forth the idea that fees collected from OOSTRs could be used towards addressing housing and homelessness challenges. Nuisances A primary concern with allowing OOSTRs in residential areas is the potential for nuisances that have been experienced with Vacation Rental Units, such as: • Excessive noise. • Poor property maintenance such as not tending to the lawn and garden or not cleaning up garbage. • Overflow parking on the street. • Safety concerns due to parties, alcohol and drug use, accidental fires, speeding etc. Several survey respondents expressed that long-term tenants are more appropriate in residential areas and cause fewer nuisances than short-term renters, as they are more invested in establishing a sense of community and maintaining their homes. Conversely, some members of the public noted that they experience these issues more frequently with long-term tenants than short-term renters. It was noted that allowing OOSTRs in residential areas may improve neighbourhoods, since owners will take better care of their properties in order to receive positive reviews from their renters. Additionally, 43 respondents reported that they have experienced no challenges or have had positive experiences with short-term rentals in their neighbourhoods. Several members of the public expressed a desire for the City to publish data specifically regarding nuisances associated with short-term rentals. Requirement for owner to be on site Question 6 of the survey asked whether respondents believe that the presence of an owner can help to manage unwanted behaviours. The responses were balanced, with 45% answering “Yes” and 45% answering “No”. 10% of respondents selected “I don’t know”. Page 38 of 134 Page 60 of 1679 Page 6 of 8 Topic What We Heard Open House participants generally expressed that the presence of an owner can help to manage unwanted behaviours. Several participants expressed that the owner should be allowed to designate someone who is not on the property to be responsible for the OOSTR, should they be away for any reason (this is already permitted for B&B and VRUs as Responsible Person). Participants explained that the inability to have a designate is too restrictive and could be prohibitive as this would negate any flexibility should they be away on a work trip or other trip. A designate associated with the owner (i.e. adult child, family member, friend, or other individual) who would be present and living on the property was viewed as providing the assurance that the OOSTR would be monitored and managed to minimize impacts. Maximum rooms/guests Open House participants expressed the desire for more flexibility on the maximum number of rooms/guests to recognize the size of families, which often include adult children, grandparents, multiple singles etc. It was also noted that there may be existing dwelling units with more than three rooms that owners wish to use for OOSTRs and suggested that the permitted number of rooms should be based on the existing conditions. Clarification was sought on what is considered a room (i.e. would a living room with a pull-out bed count as one of the three permitted rooms). Primary vs ADU Open House participants questioned why the primary dwelling unit could not be used for an OOSTR and the additional dwelling unit lived in by the owner. Participants identified circumstances where the owner is a single occupant and may wish to rent out the primary dwelling unit instead of the additional dwelling unit. Requiring the owner to live in the primary dwelling unit was seen as overly restrictive and that allowing the owner to live in the additional dwelling unit would not change how the OOSTR Page 39 of 134 Page 61 of 1679 Page 7 of 8 Topic What We Heard would be managed. Participants felt that the unit in which the OOSTR occurs should be at the discretion of the owner. One participant at the Open House questioned the requirement for the OOSTR to be within a self-contained unit and wondered why homeowners would not be permitted to rent rooms within the dwelling unit in which they reside. Enforcement Open House participants and survey respondents expressed concern about enforceability of requiring the owner to be present throughout the rental. Concerns were also raised about the challenges associated with the enforcement of existing regulations for Vacation Rental Units. Several participants noted the importance of fairness and consistency with enforcement. Should OOSTRs be approved in residential areas, there will be added expenses for those who come forward to legalize their operations. It will be important to ensure that enforcement measures are effective to address bad actors. Several participants also noted the importance of a transition period and process for encouraging existing operators to obtain a licence without fear of being fined. Conclusion The public and stakeholder consultation provided a variety of valuable perspectives. Feedback was received in numerous ways including the public survey, Open House, individual meetings and written comments. The consultation determined that the primary concerns associated with OOSTRs are: • Potential for noise, poor property maintenance, and safety issues sometimes experienced with VRUs. • Enforceability of proposed regulations, particularly the requirement for the owner to be on site. Page 40 of 134 Page 62 of 1679 Page 8 of 8 • Impacts on housing such as displacement of long-term tenants and increased costs. Support for OOSTRs was also expressed for the following primary reasons: • Short-term rentals are easier to manage than long-term rentals. • Potential to generate rental income and offset housing costs. • The presence of an owner will effectively mitigate potential nuisances and reduce conflict between neighbours. Suggestions for changes to the regulations were as follows: • Allow Owner to designate a Responsible Person. • Allow Owner to rent the primary dwelling unit and live in the accessory dwelling unit. • More flexibility regarding the maximum number of rooms. LANDWISE Shannon McKie, MCIP, RPP Chloe Simpson, MPlan Associate/Principal Planner Junior Planner The results of the consultation have been considered in Staff’s recommendations outlined in PBD-2025-16 and can be considered by Council in their decision on if and how to proceed with an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental program in Niagara Falls. Respectfully Submitted, Page 41 of 134 Page 63 of 1679 Appendix A Survey Results Page 42 of 134 Page 64 of 1679 Let’s Talk Niagara Falls Report Type: Project Project Name: Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Date Range: 04-11-2024 - 26-11-2024 Exported: 26-11-2024 08:56:19 Performance Summary Information regarding key visitation and utilisation metrics for your Site or projects. 1,261 Views 1,040 Visits 815 Visitors 290 Contributions 261 Contributors 0 Followers Views - The number of times a Visitor views any page on a Site. Visits - The number of end-user sessions associated with a single Visitor. Visitors - The number of unique public or end-users to a Site. A Visitor is only counted once, even if they visit a Site several times in one day. Contributions - The total number of responses or feedback collected through the participation tools. Contributors - The unique number of Visitors who have left feedback or Contributions on a Site through the participation tools.Followers - The number of Visitors who have ‘subscribed’ to a project using the ‘Follow’ button. Conversions Information regarding how well your engagement websites converted Visitors to perform defined key actions. Feedback Percentage of visits where at least 1contribution was made. Attention Percentage of visits that lasted at least 1active minute. Actions Percentage of visits where at least 2 actionswere performed. Let’s Talk Niagara Falls - Project Report (04 Nov 2024 to 26 Nov 2024)Page 1 of 5Page 43 of 134 Page 65 of 1679 Participation Information regarding how people have participated in your projects and activities. Contributions by ActivityContributions by Activity is a breakdown of contributions across each tool Activity Contributions % Form 290 100% Top ActivitiesTop Activities is the top 5 tools that received the highest contributions Activity Page Name Contributions Contributors Form Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals 289 260 Form Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Open House 1 1 Projects The current number and status of your Site's projects (e.g. engagement websites) Engagement Time 1 8 50 Days Hours Minutes Nov 7th 2024 Peak Visitation Date Thursday Peak Visitation Day Top Visited PagesSummary information for the top five most visited Pages. Page Name Visitation %Visits Visitors Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals 98.36%1,017 801 Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Open House 3.97%41 35 Let’s Talk Niagara Falls - Project Report (04 Nov 2024 to 26 Nov 2024)Page 2 of 5Page 44 of 134 Page 66 of 1679 People Information regarding who has participated in your projects and activities. Follower ActivityInformation regarding the activity of registered Members who have 'followed' or subscribed to one or more projects. 0 Total Followers 0 New Followers 0 Total Follows 0 New Follows Total Followers - The number of unique Members who have 'followed' at least one project. New Followers - The number of new unique Members who have 'followed' at least one project within the specified reporting date range. Total Follows - The number of total 'follows' performed by all Followers across all projects. Each Follower may record multiple Follows. New Follows - The number of new total 'follows' performed by all Members across all projects within the specified reporting date range. Visitor ProfileVisitor Profile is a comparison between new visitor and returning over the selected period First Time - The number of Visitors that are visiting a Site for the first time within the reporting date range.Returning - The number of Visitors that have made more than one Visit to a Site within the reporting date range. •1st Time: 708 - 86.87%•Returning: 107 - 13.13% Let’s Talk Niagara Falls - Project Report (04 Nov 2024 to 26 Nov 2024)Page 3 of 5Page 45 of 134 Page 67 of 1679 Acquisition Information regarding the method by which Visitors arrived to your Site or projects. Referral TypesReferral traffic is the segment of traffic that arrives on your website through another source, like through a link on another domain. Direct - Visitors who have arrived at a Site by entering the exact web address or URL of the page. Search Engine - Visitors who have arrived at a Site via a search engine. Such as Google, Yahoo, etc. Websites - Visitors who have arrived at the Site after clicking a link located on an external website. Social Media - Visitors who have arrived at a Site by clicking a link from a known social media site such as Facebook, X, LinkedIn, etc. Campaigns - Visitors who have arrived through a campaign (using a UTM). See your email campaign report for more details on campaigns sent from thisplatform. •Social Media: 495 - 59.21%•Direct: 280 - 33.49%•Search Engine: 50 - 5.98%•Websites: 11 - 1.32%•Campaigns: 0 - 0.00% Let’s Talk Niagara Falls - Project Report (04 Nov 2024 to 26 Nov 2024)Page 4 of 5Page 46 of 134 Page 68 of 1679 Downloads Information regarding your downloads, the total set of unique documents downloaded, total downloads of all files, and your top downloads. 0Total Downloads No Data Available Email Campaigns Information regarding your email campaigns, your total campaigns, the total number of recipients, and your top campaigns by click-through rate (clicks as a percentage of total recipients). 0Email Campaigns Sent 0Total Recipients 0%Click-through Rate No Data Available Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Let’s Talk Niagara Falls - Project Report (04 Nov 2024 to 26 Nov 2024)Page 5 of 5Page 47 of 134 Page 69 of 1679 Let’s Talk Niagara Falls Report Type: Form Results Summary Date Range: 04-11-2024 - 26-11-2024 Exported: 26-11-2024 08:51:57 Open Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Survey Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals 260 Contributors 289 Contributions Contribution Summary 1. 1. Is your primary residence in the City of Niagara Falls?Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 289 (100%) Answer choices Percent Count Yes 95.50%276 No 4.50%13 Total 100.00%289 Let’s Talk Niagara Falls - Form Results Summary (04 Nov 2024 to 26 Nov 2024)Page 1 of 10Page 48 of 134 Page 70 of 1679 2. 2. Do you own or rent your primary residence? Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 289 (100%) Answer choices Percent Count Own 88.93%257 Rent 10.38%30 Other 0.69%2 Total 100.00%289 Let’s Talk Niagara Falls - Form Results Summary (04 Nov 2024 to 26 Nov 2024)Page 2 of 10Page 49 of 134 Page 71 of 1679 3. 3. Do you currently live, or have you previously lived in a neighbourhood containing short-term accommodations?Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 289 (100%) Answer choices Percent Count Yes 72.66%210 No 13.84%40 I don't know.13.49%39 Total 100.00%289 Let’s Talk Niagara Falls - Form Results Summary (04 Nov 2024 to 26 Nov 2024)Page 3 of 10Page 50 of 134 Page 72 of 1679 4. 4. Do you currently operate, or have you previously operated a business providing short-term accommodations? Please note that your responses to this survey are anonymous.Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 289 (100%) Answer choices Percent Count Yes 19.38%56 No 80.62%233 Total 100.00%289 Let’s Talk Niagara Falls - Form Results Summary (04 Nov 2024 to 26 Nov 2024)Page 4 of 10Page 51 of 134 Page 73 of 1679 5. 5. What challenges, if any, have you encountered with short-term accommodations in your neighbourhood? (Select all that apply)Multi Choice | Skipped: 56 | Answered: 233 (80.6%) Answer choices Percent Count Excessive noise 57.08%133 Parking by-law infractions 55.36%129 Mess/garbage 59.23%138 Property damage 30.47%71 Housing prices 40.34%94 Unwanted behaviour 58.80%137 Other 30.04%70 Let’s Talk Niagara Falls - Form Results Summary (04 Nov 2024 to 26 Nov 2024)Page 5 of 10Page 52 of 134 Page 74 of 1679 6. 6. Do you believe that the presence of a property owner at a short-term accommodation can help to manage unwanted behaviours and challenges?Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 289 (100%) Answer choices Percent Count Yes 45.33%131 No 44.64%129 I don't know 10.03%29 Total 100.00%289 Let’s Talk Niagara Falls - Form Results Summary (04 Nov 2024 to 26 Nov 2024)Page 6 of 10Page 53 of 134 Page 75 of 1679 7. 7. Bed and Breakfasts are permitted in various residential areas in the City of Niagara Falls. Do you support permitting Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas?Multi Choice | Skipped: 1 | Answered: 288 (99.7%) Answer choices Percent Count Yes 42.01%121 No 55.90%161 I don't know 2.08%6 Total 100.00%288 Let’s Talk Niagara Falls - Form Results Summary (04 Nov 2024 to 26 Nov 2024)Page 7 of 10Page 54 of 134 Page 76 of 1679 8. If yes, why are you supportive? (Select all that apply) Multi Choice | Skipped: 169 | Answered: 120 (41.5%) Answer choices Percent Count It will allow property owners to generate rental income.92.50%111 It will reduce conflict between neighbours.40.00%48 It will not affect the enjoyment of my property.58.33%70 It will encourage the addition of legal rental options to the market.74.17%89 Other 25.83%31 Let’s Talk Niagara Falls - Form Results Summary (04 Nov 2024 to 26 Nov 2024)Page 8 of 10Page 55 of 134 Page 77 of 1679 9. If no, what are your primary concerns? (Select all that apply) Multi Choice | Skipped: 129 | Answered: 160 (55.4%) Answer choices Percent Count It will not reduce conflict between neighbours.53.13%85 It will create challenges in residential areas like those in Question 4.88.75%142 It will affect property values and/or rental costs.80.00%128 Other 30.63%49 Let’s Talk Niagara Falls - Form Results Summary (04 Nov 2024 to 26 Nov 2024)Page 9 of 10Page 56 of 134 Page 78 of 1679 10. 8. How do you think Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals might affect other types of short-term accommodations such as hotels, motels, or Vacation Rental Units in the City of Niagara Falls?Multi Choice | Skipped: 0 | Answered: 289 (100%) Answer choices Percent Count Increased competition and negative impacts on traditional accommodations.32.87%95 Some increased competition but with minimal impact.15.92%46 No impact.12.80%37 Offers a different experience for the travelling public.32.53%94 I don’t know.5.88%17 Total 100.00%289 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Let’s Talk Niagara Falls - Form Results Summary (04 Nov 2024 to 26 Nov 2024)Page 10 of 10Page 57 of 134 Page 79 of 1679 Appendix B Information boards, slideshow presentation, and infographic Page 58 of 134 Page 80 of 1679 Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals December 9, 2024 City of Niagara Falls Page 59 of 134Page 81 of 1679 With the aim of educating our community and acknowledging the many land treaties that overlay the City of Niagara Falls and Niagara Region, we acknowledge and thank the Indigenous peoples who were stewards of this land for a millennia before us. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Page 60 of 134Page 82 of 1679 Thank you for attending this Public Open House Facilitator: Sue Cumming, RPP, MCIP, Cumming+Company Presenter: Shannon McKie, RPP, MCIP, Associate/Principal Planner, Landwise Who is Listening and Available for Questions: Signe Hansen, Director of Planning, City of Niagara Falls Kailen Goerz, Senior Manager, Long Range Planning Initiatives, City of Niagara Falls Gerald Spencer, Manager of Municipal Law Enforcement, City of Niagara Falls Chloe Simpson, Junior Planner, Landwise INTRODUCTIONS Page 61 of 134Page 83 of 1679 The City of Niagara Falls is currently exploring the potential to allow Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas throughout the City, as an extension of current owner occupied Bed and Breakfast permissions. The City wants to hear about your ideas and opinions prior to considering possible changes to the Cityʼs Official Plan, Zoning By-law No. 79-200 and Licensing By-law No. 2001-031. WHY ARE WE HERE?Page 62 of 134Page 84 of 1679 To hear your ideas and opinions. The purpose of the Public Open House is: PURPOSE OF OPEN HOUSE To provide background on the changes that are being considered to potentiallyallow Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas throughout the City. To answer questions and to clarify the conditions that would be required to operate these uses.Page 63 of 134Page 85 of 1679 Sharing your ideas and opinions using the microphone. We will hear from one person at a time. Please hold your comments to the end of the presentation. Filling out a comment form with your ideas. Visiting the information displays and informally discussing this with City Staff and Landwise. HOW TO PROVIDE INPUT AT TODAYʼS OPEN HOUSE Questions for you to think about: What is important to you that you feel needs to be considered by the City? What are your opinions on the proposedconditions for operating an OwnerOccupied Short-Term Rental? What other ideas and opinions do youhave about these potential uses? There will be a short presentation followed by discussion. You can provide your input by:Page 64 of 134Page 86 of 1679 PUBLIC MEETING DECORUM Persons in the audience shall refrain from behaviour which will disrupt the meeting (e.g. making loud noises, clapping, shouting, booing, hissing etc.) No one may speak out from the gallery (audience area) without first being recognized by the chair of the meeting and when recognized, will not use disrespectful language, gestures or offensive words. Public meetings are to be conducted in an open and orderly manner and in an environment safe for all persons in attendance and in conformity with the Cityʼs corporatevalues of Respect, Leadership, Teamwork and Accountability Page 65 of 134Page 87 of 1679 HOW TO PROVIDE INPUT AFTER TODAYʼS OPEN HOUSE Written comments can be sent by e-mail to oostr@niagarafalls.ca or dropped off by Dec 16, 2024 to: City of Niagara Falls ATTN: Kailen Goerz, Senior Manager, Long Range Planning Initiatives City Hall, 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, Ontario, L2E 6X5 Sign up with your email to stay informed! Scan the QR code or visit letstalk.niagarafalls.ca/oostrfor more information.Page 66 of 134Page 88 of 1679 PRESENTATION OUTLINE & KEY TOPICS What are Short-Term Accommodations?1. History of Short-Term Accommodations in Niagara Falls2. Why consider permitting Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas?3. Public survey results4. Proposed regulations and enforcement of Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals5. Next steps6. Q&A7.Page 67 of 134Page 89 of 1679 Owner OccupiedShort-Term Rental VacationRental Unit S H O R T -T E R M A C C O M M O D A T I O N S O W N E R O C C U P I E D S H O R T -T E R M A C C O M M O D A T I O N S Bed andBreakfast OWNER OWNERMULTIPLEPARTIES ONE PARTY WHAT ARE SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATIONS? ONEPARTY Page 68 of 134Page 90 of 1679 Owner OccupiedShort-Term Rental VacationRental Unit S H O R T -T E R M A C C O M M O D A T I O N S O W N E R O C C U P I E D S H O R T -T E R M A C C O M M O D A T I O N S Bed andBreakfast OWNER OWNERMULTIPLEPARTIES ONE PARTYONEPARTY WHAT ARE SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATIONS?Page 69 of 134Page 91 of 1679 Owner OccupiedShort-Term Rental VacationRental Unit S H O R T -T E R M A C C O M M O D A T I O N S O W N E R O C C U P I E D S H O R T -T E R M A C C O M M O D A T I O N S Bed andBreakfast OWNER OWNERMULTIPLEPARTIES ONE PARTYONEPARTY WHAT ARE SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATIONS?Page 70 of 134Page 92 of 1679 Owner OccupiedShort-Term Rental VacationRental Unit S H O R T -T E R M A C C O M M O D A T I O N S O W N E R O C C U P I E D S H O R T -T E R M A C C O M M O D A T I O N S Bed andBreakfast OWNER OWNERMULTIPLEPARTIES ONE PARTYONEPARTY WHAT ARE SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATIONS?Page 71 of 134Page 93 of 1679 Owner OccupiedShort-Term Rental VacationRental Unit S H O R T -T E R M A C C O M M O D A T I O N S O W N E R O C C U P I E D S H O R T -T E R M A C C O M M O D A T I O N S Bed andBreakfast OWNER OWNERMULTIPLEPARTIES ONE PARTYONEPARTY WHAT ARE SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATIONS?Page 72 of 134Page 94 of 1679 Bed and Breakfasts permitted through zoning. Province confirms municipalities have right to regulate Short-Term Accommodations as separate land use. City regulates home rentals to tourists as separate land use. 1979 2002 2011 2019 - 2021 2023 - Now Consideration of Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas. HISTORY OF SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATIONS IN NIAGARA FALLS Public Engagement on VacationRental Units. City limits Vacation Rental Unitsto commercial areas. Licensing By-law for VacationRental Units.Page 73 of 134Page 95 of 1679 Bed and Breakfasts permitted through zoning. Province confirms municipalities have right to regulate Short-Term Accommodations as separate land use. City regulates home rentals to tourists as separate land use. 1979 2002 2011 2019 - 2021 2023 - Now Consideration of Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas. HISTORY OF SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATIONS IN NIAGARA FALLS Public Engagement on VacationRental Units. City limits Vacation Rental Unitsto commercial areas. Licensing By-law for VacationRental Units.Page 74 of 134Page 96 of 1679 Bed and Breakfasts permitted through zoning. Province confirms municipalities have right to regulate Short-Term Accommodations as separate land use. City regulates home rentals to tourists as separate land use. 1979 2002 2011 2019 - 2021 2023 - Now Consideration of Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas. HISTORY OF SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATIONS IN NIAGARA FALLS Public Engagement on VacationRental Units. City limits Vacation Rental Unitsto commercial areas. Licensing By-law for VacationRental Units.Page 75 of 134Page 97 of 1679 Bed and Breakfasts permitted through zoning. Province confirms municipalities have right to regulate Short-Term Accommodations as separate land use. City regulates home rentals to tourists as separate land use. 1979 2002 2011 2019 - 2021 2023 - Now Consideration of Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas. HISTORY OF SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATIONS IN NIAGARA FALLS Public Engagement on VacationRental Units. City limits Vacation Rental Unitsto commercial areas. Licensing By-law for VacationRental Units.Page 76 of 134Page 98 of 1679 Bed and Breakfasts permitted through zoning. Province confirms municipalities have right to regulate Short-Term Accommodations as separate land use. City regulates home rentals to tourists as separate land use. 1979 2002 2011 2019 - 2021 2023 - Now Consideration of Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas. HISTORY OF SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATIONS IN NIAGARA FALLS Public Engagement on VacationRental Units. City limits Vacation Rental Unitsto commercial areas. Licensing By-law for VacationRental Units.Page 77 of 134Page 99 of 1679 CONSIDERATION IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS? Tourist accommodations have evolved over time. Similar land use to Bed and Breakfasts. Requirement for the Owner to be present on site. >1000 unlicensed short-term rentals exist in Niagara Falls.Page 78 of 134Page 100 of 1679 SURVEY RESULTS 89% own their primary residence 72% have lived in a area containing short-term accommodations 19% have, or currently operate a short-term accommodation 95% Niagara Falls residents 289total surveycontributions Public Survey conductedfrom Nov 4 - 25, 2024 8survey questions Page 79 of 134Page 101 of 1679 Mess/Garbage Unwanted Behaviour Excessive Noise Parking InfractionsHousing Prices Property Dama… Other HousingPricesQuestion 5 What challenges, if any, have you encountered with short-term accommodations in your neighbourhood? SURVEY RESULTS ParkingInfractions PropertyDamage UnwantedBehaviour ExcessiveNoise Mess/Garbage Page 80 of 134Page 102 of 1679 Question 6 Do you believe that the presence of a property owner at a short-term accommodation can help to manage unwanted behaviours and challenges? SURVEY RESULTS No Yes I donʼt know Page 81 of 134Page 103 of 1679 Question 7 Bed and Breakfasts are permitted in various residential areas in the City of Niagara Falls. Do you support permitting Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas? SURVEY RESULTS No Yes I donʼt know Page 82 of 134Page 104 of 1679 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 SURVEY RESULTS If yes, why are you supportive?It will allow propertyowners to generaterental income. It will reduceconflict betweenneighbours. It will not affectthe enjoyment ofmy property. It will encourage theaddition of legal rentaloptions to the market. Other Question 7 Do you support permitting Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas?Page 83 of 134Page 105 of 1679 SURVEY RESULTS Alternativeaccommodationoptions Supports otherbusinesses Easier to managethan long-termrentals Provides anavenue forenforcement Improvesneighbourhood Is a reasonableuse of privateproperty Fees collected could beused for addressinghomelessness Page 84 of 134Page 106 of 1679 SURVEY RESULTS Question 7 If no, what are your primary concerns?0 50 100 150 200 It will not reduceconflict betweenneighbours. It will createchallenges inresidential areaslike those inQuestion 4. It will affectpropertyvalues and/orrental costs. Other Do you support permitting Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas?Page 85 of 134Page 107 of 1679 SURVEY RESULTS Difficult toenforce Displacementof residents Neighbourhooddisruptions SafetyconcernsOther accommodationoptions already exist Page 86 of 134Page 108 of 1679 Permitted in Residential Zones Owner is required to bepresent on the property forthe duration of the rental Maximum of 1per property PROPOSED REGULATIONS Rental must be withina self-contained unit Page 87 of 134Page 109 of 1679 Owner is required to bepresent on the property forthe duration of the rental Maximum of 1per property PROPOSED REGULATIONS Permitted in Residential Zones Rental must be withina self-contained unit Page 88 of 134Page 110 of 1679 Owner is required to bepresent on the property forthe duration of the rental Maximum of 1per property PROPOSED REGULATIONS Permitted in Residential Zones Rental must be withina self-contained unit Page 89 of 134Page 111 of 1679 Owner is required to bepresent on the property forthe duration of the rental Maximum of 1per property PROPOSED REGULATIONS Permitted in Residential Zones Rental must be withina self-contained unit Page 90 of 134Page 112 of 1679 PROPOSED REGULATIONS Maximum occupancy of3 rooms and 6 guests Annual license requiredMaximum stayof 28 days Minimum Parking Space Requirements1 for Owner+1 if rental has 1 or 2 rooms+2 if rental has 3 rooms Page 91 of 134Page 113 of 1679 PROPOSED REGULATIONS Maximum occupancy of3 rooms and 6 guests Annual license requiredMaximum stayof 28 days Minimum Parking Space Requirements1 for Owner+1 if rental has 1 or 2 rooms+2 if rental has 3 rooms Page 92 of 134Page 114 of 1679 PROPOSED REGULATIONS Annual license requiredMaximum stayof 28 days Maximum occupancy of3 rooms and 6 guests Minimum Parking Space Requirements1 for Owner+1 if rental has 1 or 2 rooms+2 if rental has 3 rooms Page 93 of 134Page 115 of 1679 PROPOSED REGULATIONS Annual license requiredMaximum stayof 28 days Minimum Parking Space Requirements1 for Owner+1 if rental has 1 or 2 rooms+2 if rental has 3 rooms Maximum occupancy of3 rooms and 6 guests Page 94 of 134Page 116 of 1679 $1,000 daily fine for advertising without a license (enforced throughAdministrative Monetary Penalty System or “AMPS”) Additional fines for operating outside of permitted zones, operatingwithout a license, noise offences, and property maintenance offences. By-law Enforcement Officers have found that at Bed and Breakfasts, thepresence of an owner helps to manage unwanted behaviour and keepproperty well-maintained. ENFORCEMENT Page 95 of 134Page 117 of 1679 NEXT STEPS Recommendation Report to Council and Statutory Public Meeting Draft amendments to: City of Niagara Falls Official Plan Zoning By-law 79-200 Licensing By-law 2001-31 Municipal Accommodation Tax By-law 2018-104 Summarize what we heard from Public Consultation Public notice for Statutory Public Meeting Implementation, enforcement, and monitoring Page 96 of 134Page 118 of 1679 Sharing your ideas and opinions using the microphone. We will hear from one person at a time. Please hold your comments to the end of the presentation. Filling out a comment form with your ideas. Visiting the information displays and informally discussing this with City Staff and Landwise. HOW TO PROVIDE INPUT AT TODAYʼS OPEN HOUSE Questions for you to think about: What is important to you that you feel needs to be considered by the City? What are your opinions on the proposedconditions for operating an OwnerOccupied Short-Term Rental? What other ideas and opinions do youhave about these potential uses? There will be a short presentation followed by discussion. You can provide your input by:Page 97 of 134Page 119 of 1679 THANK YOU! Written comments can be sent by e-mail to oostr@niagarafalls.ca or dropped off by Dec 16, 2024 to: City of Niagara Falls ATTN: Kailen Goerz, Senior Manager, Long Range Planning InitiativesCity Hall, 4310 Queen StreetNiagara Falls, Ontario, L2E 6X5 Sign up with your email to stay informed! Scan the QR code or visit letstalk.niagarafalls.ca/oostr for more information.Page 98 of 134Page 120 of 1679 OWNER ONE PARTY What is an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental? ONE PARTYOWNERMULTIPLEPARTIES An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental is a short-term accommodation that rentsa self-contained unit* to a single group of travellers at the principal residence of an Owner. A Vacation Rental Unit is a short-term accommodation that is availablein its entirety (i.e. no owner on site) torent to a single group of travellers. Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals are not the same as Vacation Rental Units or Bed and Breakfasts. A Bed and Breakfast is a short-term accommodation thatprovides rooms and breakfastto multiple groups of travellers. * Self-contained unit can be detachedor within the primary dwelling.Page 99 of 134Page 121 of 1679 History of Short-Term Accommodations in Niagara Falls Bed and Breakfasts permitted through zoning. Province confirms municipalities have right to regulate Short-Term Accommodations as separate land use. Public Engagement on Vacation Rental Units. City limits Vacation RentalUnits to commercial areas. Licensing By-law for Vacation Rental Units. City regulates home rentals to tourists as separate land use. 1979 2002 2011 2019 - 2021 2023 - Now Consideration of Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas.Page 100 of 134Page 122 of 1679 Why is the City considering Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas? Tourist accommodations have evolved over time. Tourists haveincreasing interest in accommodations with kitchen facilities, such as those offered through Vrbo and Airbnb. Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals are a similar land use to Bed and Breakfasts, which are already permitted in residential areas. There would be a requirement for the Owner to be present duringthe rental, which would help to manage unwanted behaviours. Over 1000 unlicensed short-term rentals exist in Niagara Falls. This would provide additional regulations and oversight for short-term rentals in residential areas.Page 101 of 134Page 123 of 1679 Public Survey on Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals 89% 72% 19% own their primary residence have lived in a area containing short-term accommodations have, or currently operate a short-term accommodation 95%Niagara Falls residents What challenges, if any, have youencountered with short-termaccommodations in yourneighbourhood? 289 total survey contributions Survey Details The City of Niagara Falls conducted a Public Survey from November 4 to 26, 2024, to collectinput on the potential for introducing Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas. Question 5 Excessive late night/earlymorning activity Traffic increase Lack of lawn andgarden maintenance Security concerns Responses under “other”: Do you believe that thepresence of a property ownerat a short-term accommodationcan help to manage unwantedbehaviours and challenges? No Yes Question 6 I donʼt know M e s s /G a r b a g e U n w a n t e d B e h a v i o u r E x c e s s iv e N o is e P a r k in g In f r a c t io n s H o u s in g P r ic e s P r o p e r ty D a m a … O t h e rHousingPrices ParkingInfractions PropertyDamage UnwantedBehaviour Excessive Noise Mess/Garbage Other Page 102 of 134Page 124 of 1679 Public Survey on Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 0 50 100 150 200 It will allowproperty ownersto generaterental income. It will reduceconflict betweenneighbours. It will not affectthe enjoymentof my property. It will encourage theaddition of legal rentaloptions to the market. Other It will not reduceconflict betweenneighbours. It will createchallenges inresidential areas. It will affectproperty valuesand rental costs. Other Do you support permittingOwner Occupied Short-TermRentals in residential areas? If yes, why are you supportive? If no, what are your primary concerns? No YesI donʼt know Question 7 Alternativeaccommodationoptions Supports otherbusinesses Easier to managethan long-termrentals Provides anavenue forenforcement Improvesneighbourhood Is a reasonableuse of privateproperty Fees collected could beused for addressinghomelessness Difficult toenforce Displacementof residents Neighbourhooddisruptions SafetyconcernsOther accommodationoptions already exist Responses under “other” included:Responses under “other” included:Page 103 of 134Page 125 of 1679 Proposed Regulations for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Maximum occupancy of3 rooms and 6 guests Annual license requiredMaximum stayof 28 days Minimum Parking Space Requirements1 for Owner+1 if rental has 1 or 2 rooms+2 if rental has 3 rooms Page 104 of 134Page 126 of 1679 Proposed Regulations for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Permitted in Residential Zones Owner is required to bepresent on the property forduration of the rental Rental must be within aself-contained unit*Maximum of 1per property Self-containedunit can be detached orwithin the primary dwelling. * Page 105 of 134Page 127 of 1679 Next Steps Enforcement: Enforced through the Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPS) $1,000 daily fine for advertising without a license Various fines for other infractions Recommendation Report to Council and Statutory Public Meeting Draft amendments to: City of Niagara Falls Official Plan Zoning By-law 79-200 Licensing By-law 2001-31 Municipal Accommodation Tax By-law 2018-104 Summarize what we heard from Public Consultation Public notice for Statutory Public Meeting Page 106 of 134Page 128 of 1679 What is an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental? An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental is a short-termaccommodation that rents a self-contained unit to a single group oftravellers at the principal residence of an Owner. OOSTRs are not the same thing as Vacation Rental Units or Bed andBreakfasts. Stay informed about this project Scan the QR code or visit letstalk.niagarafalls.ca/oostr Permitted in Residential Zones Maximum occupancy of 3 rooms and 6 guests Annual license required Maximum stay of 28 days Owner required to be present throughout rental period 1 parking space for Owner + 1 for OOSTR with 1 or 2rooms, +2 for OOSTR with 3 rooms What is being proposed? The City of Niagara Falls is exploring the potential to allow Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas throughout the City. Amendments to the Cityʼs Official Plan, Zoning By-law, Licensing By-law,and Municipal Accommodation Tax By-law are being considered topermit OOSTRs in some residential areas, similar to Bed and Breakfasts. How would OOSTRs be regulated? Kailen Goerz Senior Manager, LongRange Planning Initiatives oostr@niagarafalls.ca905-356-7521 x 4252 1 OOSTR per property Rental must be within a self-contained unit What have we heard so far? The presence of an owner may help to reduce conflictbetween neighbours Would provide an alternative accommodation option Will allow property owners to generate rental income In support of OOSTRs... Concerns about OOSTRs... Displacement of long-term tenants and effect on propertyvalues/rental costs May be difficult to enforce Neighbourhood disruptions Safety concerns May support other local businesses Shannon McKie Associate/PrincipalPlanner, Landwise shannon.mckie@landwise.ca905-574-1993 x 209Page 107 of 134Page 129 of 1679 Appendix C Public Comments Page 108 of 134 Page 130 of 1679 1 Chloe Simpson From:Cynthia Adams <cynthesis2@gmail.com> Sent:December 16, 2024 11:13 PM To:oostr@niagarafalls.ca Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hi Kailen, Here are some comments for consideration on the topic of owner occupied short term rentals. 1. Regarding the proposed requirement of the owner being required to be present throughout the rental period. Consider revising this to be owner present or adult designate. Owners should be allowed to rent out their property and still be able to travel for work (which can be required for both employees or as a business owner) or go on vacation. The adult designate could either be a family member or a friend/company/person responsible for maintenance and upkeep during the owner's absence. 2. Renting out the primary dwelling or the outbuilding. Consider loosening the restrictions so the owner can make the choice which building on the property is rented. The owner would still be responsible for care and upkeep of the property. Consider the following scenario's: a) An elderly grandmother or an adult child are living in the outbuilding. If the family in the primary residence goes away for 10 days on vacation, it would be a great opportunity to rent out the primary residence during that period. In this case, the adult designate responsible for the house would be the grandmother or adult child. b) If all the kids are off at University, the adults (empty-nesters) may choose to move into the outbuilding to rent out the primary residence. I think the owners should be able to choose if they want to do this as a permanent scenario or a temporary scenario. 3. Maximum occupancy of 3 rooms and 6 guests. Consider increasing the number of rooms and guests to take into account that more families are travelling with elderly parents and/or a sibling and family or cousin and family. This would easily increase the number of travelling people to 8 guests. Consider increasing the number of rooms accordingly. If the room doesn't have a bed, suggest that it shouldn't be counted towards the total number of rooms. It seems the only reason to limit the number of rooms is to limit the size of the outbuilding for rent. 4. Number of parking spaces Niagara is tight on residential parking. It is understood that the drive is to reduce/eliminate the likelihood of renters parking on the road. If the unit is being rented out as one unit, a 3 room unit (livingroom, kitchen/dining area, bedroom) only requires one additional parking space. Perhaps instead of linking the number of parking spaces required to the number of rooms, my suggestion is to link it to the number of guests staying in the unit. If 2 - 6 people are staying in the unit, only 1 parking Page 109 of 134 Page 131 of 1679 2 spot is required. If 6 people are staying in the unit, 1 minivan still only requires 1 parking spot. Some minivans can hold 8 people with 2 seats in the front, 3 in the second row and 3 in the third row. Suggest if you want a breaking point for a second parking space, use 6 - 8 people. Thanks for hosting us all at the open house. It's great to have this option open for consideration and I hope it is passed by council. It will bring more business into Niagara. People travelling often want the flexibility of a full kitchen in the unit, especially with such high inflation. Owners may consider hiring a business to manage the rental aspect and a cleaning company. Cynthia CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 110 of 134 Page 132 of 1679 1 Chloe Simpson From:Chloe Simpson Sent:December 11, 2024 4:20 PM To:Chloe Simpson Subject:FW: OOSTR suggestion From: Stefan Avdjiyski <dj_stevie_a@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 10:17 PM To: oostr@niagarafalls.ca; Shannon McKie <shannon.mckie@landwise.ca> Subject: OOSTR suggestion Hi, Thank you for doing the open house at McBain centre. I support 100% the owner occupied short term rentals in Niagara Falls. The practice proved already that if the owner lives on the property he controls it and there are way less complains from neighbors. I would like to bring something to your attention about the number of self contained units in residential areas. Keep in mind there are quite a few legal triplexes with 3 self contained units. I Believe in that case if the owner lives on the property in 1 of the units he should be allowed to do 2 OOSTRs in the other 2 units. I don't see a reason why only 1 OOSTR if an owner has 2 more units in a LEGAL triplex and he lives on the property. After all he is paying the property tax and that would be taxable income. So my proposal is 1 OOSTR unit in a house, 2 OOSTRs in a legal triplex and why not 3 OOSTRs in a fourplex (not too many of them) if the owner lives in one unit on the property. Owners of triplexes and fourplexes are business oriented mostly and they should be given that option. Please consider it! Thanks a lot for your attention! STEFAN Page 111 of 134 Page 133 of 1679 1 Chloe Simpson From:Dave Barber <dbarberaeba903@hotmail.com> Sent:November 8, 2024 1:00 PM To:kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Fw: Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hello, Someone from the City of NF mentioned that I could send this to you as the email originally provided was not working. Please see below. Are you able to make sure this is sent to the appropriate place? Thanks very much. Dave Barber From: Dave Barber <dbarberaeba903@hotmail.com> Sent: November 7, 2024 7:38 PM To: oostr@niagarafalls.ca <oostr@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Fw: Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals Hi, I think my email is not going through as I received an alert after I sent it. Please see my note below. I am hoping it will work this time. I appreciate very much. From: Dave Barber <dbarberaeba903@hotmail.com> Sent: November 7, 2024 7:36 PM To: oostr@niagarafalls.ca <oostr@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals Hi, I live at 4291 Marisa Cres., in Niagara Falls. My family does not support Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals in residential areas of the city. These types of businesses are meant for hotels and other types of commercial accommodations. Lets leave the short term stays in these areas but not in our residential spaces. Please do not allow this in our city. Thank you, Dave Barber CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 112 of 134 Page 134 of 1679 Page 113 of 134Page 135 of 1679 1 Chloe Simpson From:Behnam <behnam_e@yahoo.com> Sent:December 16, 2024 11:09 PM To:oostr@niagarafalls.ca Subject:RE: Owner Occupied short-term Rental open house Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged Dear Ms. Kailen Goerz, I hope this message finds you well. First and foremost, I would like to thank you and your colleagues for organizing the recent event. I attended the meeting organized by the City of Niagara Falls on December 9th. However, I have been unable to find any updates regarding this meeting online, as was instructed during the session. I am reaching out to request further information on the annual charges and financial matters related to the short-term rental applications submitted by residents. Additionally, I would like to know if there is any direct tax imposed on property owners by the city for occupied short-term rentals. I believe it is essential for short-term rentals to be legalized and effectively monitored by the City of Niagara Falls to ensure that both property owners and temporary tenants adhere to the rules and policies enforced by city officials. Thank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your response. Behnam Page 114 of 134 Page 136 of 1679 1 Chloe Simpson From:Jason Coxon <jaydcoxon@gmail.com> Sent:December 18, 2024 9:34 AM To:oostr@niagarafalls.ca Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Fwd: Owner Occupied short term rental ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jason Coxon <jaydcoxon@gmail.com> Date: Mon., Dec. 16, 2024, 8:20 p.m. Subject: Owner Occupied short term rental To: <oostr@niagarafall.ca> Hello, I attended the information meeting on Dec 9th at the MacBain Center. Question #1 (Important to consider) The term homeowner needs to be a selection of approved people by the owner of the property. Too many families can't afford a home and have their children and or parents / adults living with them. The owner of the property selects and determines who can represent them not decided by the City of Niagara Falls. Family dynamics have changed and lots of owners have adults living. Could be their own parents or their own children that have full time jobs paying taxes and living at home trying to save up enough to make the next big step in life. The City of Niagara Falls needs to allow 4-6 adults that need to be placed on a delegate contact secondary to the official owner of the property. What is the expectation as most of these buildings have already passed a basic building inspection and may have electrical service, sewer and water hook up that comes off the main supply of the primary resistance. Are there plans for there to be a "Grandfather clause" that was allowed during that age of construction. It would be a financial undue hardship if the entire secondary resistance needs to be updated to the newest building codes to be HVAC, Insulation, fire protection as it relates to apartments sharing the same wall. Most of these structures were built with a permit with the City many years ago and were classified as "extended dwelling" on the property. I am so glad the City is looking into this as an option to allow property owners the ability to do this, but making this into a City tax and fee money grab for the ones that follow the rules and the process if wrong. It needs to be easy, efficient, makes financial sense for all parties. Question #2 (Proposed Conditions) I think this is an issue, but student housing is a major issue that is not being addressed and anyone can buy a home and rent it out for a criminal amount of money. It must be up to the homeowner if there are (2) resistance on the property; both could be rented at the same time at different times, as the owner sees fit to the situation. The owner has the right to rent out the Page 115 of 134 Page 137 of 1679 2 primary resistance to a family during the summer months to enjoy the pool and backyard vacation spot and the owner could live in the secondary dwelling. The flip side could be that a tragic or other family setback happens and the owner wants to only rent out the secondary resistance. The building department / bylaw office needs to take everything into consideration as it costs a huge amount of upfront costs to get all the permits and licences and homeowners need to know these estimated costs to determine if it makes financial sense. Rental and housing is at an all time high and home inspections are completed if you purchase a home but only using it as a bargaining chip in the bidding process. Ask yourself why would anyone go through all these issues if they can rent the property by word of mouth and rentals to friends and family. You don't have the resources on the ground to manage this, you only have the resources to react to the bad actors and worst cases. Why would anyone report an issue if it meant them losing out of a home / rental place in this market. What benefits would the owner have other than the threat of not being fined if they are caught, because I was raised that if you treat everyone like you want to be treated fairly and honestly with respect. There is never a problem. As long as the owner has a great selection process and does their due diligence there is never a problem. If a landowner can make some extra money by doing a rental property they have that right. Everyone has a different standard of living and the City does not have the right to determine that standard with the amount of homeless in the City. The criminal part comes with the cost that some people are charging because it is simple supply and demand. Students will pay 800 per month for a 8' x10' room and share everything else. Thank you for your consideration Jason CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 116 of 134 Page 138 of 1679 Page 117 of 134Page 139 of 1679 1 Chloe Simpson From:Let’s Talk Niagara Falls <letstalk@niagarafalls.ca> Sent:December 13, 2024 3:24 PM To:oostr@niagarafalls.ca Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Comment Form Form Submission Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Comment Form Form Submission There has been a submission of the form Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Comment Form through your Let’s Talk Niagara Falls website. What is important to you about an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that you feel needs to be considered by the City? We don't want tourists in residential areas. What are your opinions on the proposed conditions for operating an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental? I think it should be limited to certain parts of town if it is passed at all. There are a ton of empty hotel rooms any given day. I dont really see the need and think it could cause issues. What other ideas and opinions do you have about these potential uses? If it is going to pass (which I dont really think it should) please limit where they can be (closer to the tourist core is better). Page 118 of 134 Page 140 of 1679 2 Name: Ellen Duffus-Salvatore Email: duffus.ellen@gmail.com To view all of this form's submissions, visit https://letstalk.niagarafalls.ca/index.php/dashboard/reports/forms_new/data/112 This is not SPAM. You are receiving this message because you have submitted feedback or signed up to Let’s Talk Niagara Falls. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 119 of 134 Page 141 of 1679 1 Chloe Simpson From:Evgeni Lyach <evgeni.lyach@gmail.com> Sent:November 14, 2024 12:54 PM To:kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Owner occupied STR survey Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged Good afternoon, My devises are old and don’t show the survey on the website, but I’d like to contribute by emailing you. I’m in favour of owner occupied STR. I believe that property owners should not be restricted on what they want to do with their property as long as they take care of the property and it’s not causing problems for the neighbours. This extra income helps people with paying bills, etc. Hope this helps to legalize owner occupied strs. Thank you, Evgeni L Sent from my iPhone CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 120 of 134 Page 142 of 1679 1 Chloe Simpson From:Steve McGivney <smcgivney@hotmail.com> Sent:December 2, 2024 11:24 AM To:oostr@niagarafalls.ca Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Written Submission to Public Notice of Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals proposal Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged We are against increasing short term rentals in Niagara Falls residential areas as proposed. Over the past few years there has been a decrease in resident’s safety and quiet enjoyment of their homes due to the increase in temporary visitors. This has occurred for a number of reasons of which the main causes are: -In our neighbourhood there are a number of illegal short term vacation rentals that City administration allow to flourish. -The City of Niagara Falls in conjunction with Niagara Region administrators have converted the former Coronation Senior Citizen facility into a homeless center. This has resulted in an influx of people who have brought violence and public drug use into our neighbourhoods. - The city administrators in conjunction with the Federal government brought hundreds of “refugees” to local hotels. The result has been hundreds of people roaming our neighborhoods as they have nothing else to do. Neighbours feel a sense of unease. And now the City administrators are proposing to further erode resident’s safety and peace. Residents have over the years invested in their homes hoping for a safe and peaceful living environment. This has been undermined through the actions of various public administrators. Enough is enough. Do not facilitate an additional increase to neighbourhood transients. Niagara Falls has a robust hotel sector. That was developed to accommodate and serve temporary visitors. Residential areas were not developed to serve temporary visitors. The hotel sector has enhanced police presence along with trained hotel staff including Security personnel to manage mass temporary visitors. Residents do not have the resources nor training to manage mass temporary visitors. If there is a group of residents (investors?) who wish to generate an income from their properties then let them rent to long term residents. Long term residents have an interest in creating a safe and quiet home environment that temporary visitors do not. Long term rentals also help the lack of housing and affordability issues. Regards, Page 121 of 134 Page 143 of 1679 2 Stephen McGivney 5835 Murray Street, Niagara Falls CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 122 of 134 Page 144 of 1679 Page 123 of 134 Page 145 of 1679 1 Chloe Simpson From:Mary Anne Seppala <seppala@vaxxine.com> Sent:November 16, 2024 6:29 AM To:kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Short term rentals Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged Response to Short term rentals The enforcement of Short term rentals, with or without owners living in, is impossible to enforce. The residents on Corwin Ave. are still having major problems with rentals in areas that are “single family zoning”. Absent owners and live in owners have the response, “it is my property, I can do what I want”. Having owners live on the site of short term rentals does not solve the problem. Mary Anne Seppala CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 124 of 134 Page 146 of 1679 1 Chloe Simpson From:Let’s Talk Niagara Falls <letstalk@niagarafalls.ca> Sent:December 12, 2024 5:50 PM To:oostr@niagarafalls.ca Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Comment Form Form Submission Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Comment Form Form Submission There has been a submission of the form Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Comment Form through your Let’s Talk Niagara Falls website. What is important to you about an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that you feel needs to be considered by the City? It is important to me that the City consider OOSTR, because it is in alignment with the government’s “Niagara Strategy” that recently announced by Premier Doug Ford. There will be new developments and changes in Niagara Region to attract more tourists. The city should be prepared and ready for new tourists with different expectations (traveling with pets, traveling in group/ multi- generational, accommodation with kitchen facilities, private swimming pool/hot tubes, etc.) What are your opinions on the proposed conditions for operating an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental? I would suggest the followings: 1-Clarifying the owner and to include owner’s partner, kids, in-laws or siblings who live in the property. Nowadays we have houses with multi-generational Page 125 of 134 Page 147 of 1679 2 occupants. They all are as responsible as the owner to take care of the STR. 2-Allowing a garage as a Parking Space. If a house has a garage and 2 parking spaces on the driveway (parallel), approve it as the parking space requirement for a 3-bedroom house. What other ideas and opinions do you have about these potential uses? In my onion, there are so many potentials and benefits of STR for the City, local businesses, tourists, neighborhood and home owners: The City: 1- A new and steady income due to annual license fee/renewal and MAT tax. 2- As STR are small businesses, the City can help to create new businesses with it’s current assets (no need for infrastructural investment in new roads/hydro lines/ sewer system and etc.) 3- Less calls for the by law officers to deal with unlicensed STR 4- As the STR should meet the SAFETY AND PREPAREDNESS requirements, so they are safer than regular houses Local businesses: 1- Bars, restaurants, grocery stores, etc. in Local streets can serve the tourists (the customers of the businesses in Victoria Ave are mostly local not tourists, even though they are between Clifton Hill and Queen St. 2- Accountants, insurance brokers, etc. to take care of business side of STR (highly paid jobs) 3- Interior designers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc. to maintain and upgrade the SRT properties (highly paid jobs) Tourists: 1- They have more option for accommodation to chose from 2- Tourists with pets, in a group or the ones who want more privacy have more options 3- Tourists may prefer to rent a licensed STR rather than an unlicensed STR Neighborhood: Page 126 of 134 Page 148 of 1679 3 STR owners try to make their houses nice and appealing to their guests by: 1- Making sure their front yards have a nice landscape with followers, lights and other decorations 2- Their lawns are well maintained 3- Their driveways are neat and free from any garbage / leaves 4- Their driveways are free of snow and salted in the winter time These help to beatify and improve the neighborhoods STR home owners: It helps them to generate more income to pay for 1- Their kid’s higher education tuition 2- Their medications costs 3- Their ever increasing cost of living 4- Their mortgages, etc Name: Mohammad Sheikholeslami Email: sheikhi786@yahoo.ca To view all of this form's submissions, visit https://letstalk.niagarafalls.ca/index.php/dashboard/reports/forms_new/data/112 This is not SPAM. You are receiving this message because you have submitted feedback or signed up to Let’s Talk Niagara Falls. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 127 of 134 Page 149 of 1679 1 Chloe Simpson From:Randy West <randywest@cogeco.ca> Sent:December 9, 2024 3:27 PM To:oostr@niagarafalls.ca Cc:Lori Lococo Subject:[EXTERNAL]-Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged To whom this may concern, Please consider this my input towards your exploring of Short term Rentals. My name is Randy West and I am a resident living on Main St in Chippawa. I am in favour of allowing Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals in residential areas spread throughout the city. I fully realize that the overall concept of temporarily “renting” is off-putting to many. The biggest reason likely for this is the fact that people rent elsewhere to have fun away from their normal residences, and “fun” usually means letting their hair down and being louder than they may be in their own residences. What is appealing to the idea of “Owner Occupied” is the fact that the owners will likely remain present during much of, if not all, of the time their are renting their property. Nobody who lives in the residence they are renting are likely to want to put up with damages or outlandish actions or noise that could be far more possible in an unsupervised type of rental. The upsides to this type of occupancy are very clear and obvious. Visitors and tourists will have more opportunity to find vacationing spaces very much similar to all of the comforts of home, which in itself may open tourist spending and savings to our local grocery markets and other retail opportunities. Secondly, in this economy and with our aging residency, NOBODY can deny that a few dollars a few times per year could easily help with adding to the income of retirees and others who could use the boost to their budgets. With property taxes and utility expenses forever on the rise, the looming threat of some homeowners nearing having to sell to survive becomes a true reality. Todays economy and housing shortages mixed upon the fact that even if housing is available, new home buyers can hardly afford the property taxes of a first home, let alone trying to find as much as a 20% downpayment for homes averaging a million dollars. Our industry is long gone and not looking to return…. We are a tourist town where tourists are looking to find what they can afford as they are tested in finding enough beds in one affordable room, as the family they travel in. A short term rental can offer those choices that a high rise hotel simply can’t, which in turn can open doors to new levels of expanded affordable tourism to those who may otherwise find hotels out of reach. There is nothing wrong with shrinking your property with others. Page 128 of 134 Page 150 of 1679 2 There are far fewer “partiers” making such noise and destruction in Short Term Rentals than there ever will be longer term tenants who either can’t, or refuse to, pay their rent responsibilities on time. Short Term is cash-in-hand and as reliable as the rental unit you are advertising to rent. You rent crap…. People will stop coming. And you will be out of business. You rent a part of your home and your neighbourhood will be a reflection of the best you can do with the presentation of your rental itself. Best regards Randy West 3956 Main St., Niagara Falls, ON, L2G 6B6 905-687-0977 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 129 of 134 Page 151 of 1679 Appendix D Open House Attendance Page 130 of 134 Page 152 of 1679 Page 131 of 134Page 153 of 1679 Page 132 of 134Page 154 of 1679 Page 133 of 134Page 155 of 1679 Page 134 of 134Page 156 of 1679 Outlook [EXTERNAL]-Fw: Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals From Dave Barber < > Date Fri 11/8/2024 12:59 PM To kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> Hello, Someone from the City of NF menoned that I could send this to you as the email originally provided was not working. Please see below. Are you able to make sure this is sent to the appropriate place? Thanks very much. Dave Barber From: Dave Barber Sent: November 7, 2024 7:38 PM To: oostr@niagarafalls.ca <oostr@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Fw: Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals   Hi, I think my email is not going through as I received an alert aer I sent it. Please see my note below. I am hoping it will work this me. I appreciate very much. From: Dave Barber Sent: November 7, 2024 7:36 PM To: oostr@niagarafalls.ca <oostr@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals   Hi, I live at , in Niagara Falls. My family does not support Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals in residenal areas of the city. These types of businesses are meant for hotels and other types of commercial accommodaons. Lets leave the short term stays in these areas but not in our residenal spaces. Please do not allow this in our city. Thank you, Dave Barber CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. E> Page 157 of 1679 Outlook [EXTERNAL]-Fwd: Owner Occupied short term rental From Jason Coxon < > Date Wed 12/18/2024 9:34 AM To oostr@niagarafalls.ca <oostr@niagarafalls.ca> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jason Coxon > Date: Mon., Dec. 16, 2024, 8:20 p.m. Subject: Owner Occupied short term rental To: <oostr@niagarafall.ca> Hello, I attended the information meeting on Dec 9th at the MacBain Center. Question #1 (Important to consider)     The term homeowner needs to be a selection of approved people by the owner of the property. Too many families can't afford a home and have their children and or parents / adults living with them. The owner of the property selects and determines who can represent them not decided by the City of Niagara Falls. Family dynamics have changed and lots of owners have adults living. Could be their own parents or their own children that have full time jobs paying taxes and living at home trying to save up enough to make the next big step in life. The City of Niagara Falls needs to allow 4-6 adults that need to be placed on a delegate contact secondary to the official owner of the property.    What is the expectation as most of these buildings have already passed a basic building inspection and may have electrical service, sewer and water hook up that comes off the main supply of the primary resistance. Are there plans for there to be a "Grandfather clause" that was allowed during that age of construction. It would be a financial undue hardship if the entire secondary resistance needs to be updated to the newest building codes to be HVAC, Insulation, fire protection as it relates to apartments sharing the same wall. Most of these structures were built with a permit with the City many years ago and were classified as "extended dwelling" on the property.   I am so glad the City is looking into this as an option to allow property owners the ability to do this, but making this into a City tax and fee money grab for the ones that follow the rules and the process if wrong. It needs to be easy, efficient, makes financial sense for all parties.    Question #2 (Proposed Conditions) I think this is an issue, but student housing is a major issue that is not being addressed and anyone can buy a home and rent it out for a criminal amount of money.  E> Page 158 of 1679 It must be up to the homeowner if there are (2) resistance on the property; both could be rented at the same time at different times, as the owner sees fit to the situation. The owner has the right to rent out the primary resistance to a family during the summer months to enjoy the pool and backyard vacation spot and the owner could live in the secondary dwelling.  The  flip side could be that a tragic or other family setback happens and the owner wants to only rent out the secondary resistance.  The building department / bylaw office needs to take everything into consideration as it costs a huge amount of upfront costs to get all the permits and licences and homeowners need to know these estimated costs to determine if it makes financial sense.  Rental and housing is at an all time high and home inspections are completed if you purchase a home but only using it as a bargaining chip in the bidding process. Ask yourself why would anyone go through all these issues if they can rent the property by word of mouth and rentals to friends and family.  You don't have  the resources on the ground to manage this, you only have the resources to react to the bad actors and worst cases. Why would anyone report an issue if it meant them losing out of a home / rental place in this market. What benefits would the owner have other than the threat of not being fined if they are caught, because I was raised that if you treat everyone like you want to be treated fairly and honestly with respect. There is never a problem. As long as the owner has a great selection process and does their due diligence there is never a problem. If a landowner can make some extra money by doing a rental property they have that right. Everyone has a different standard of living and the City does not have the right to determine that standard with the amount of homeless in the City. The criminal part comes with the cost that some people are charging because it is simple supply and demand. Students will pay 800 per month for a 8' x10' room and share everything else.  Thank you for your consideration Jason CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 159 of 1679 Outlook [EXTERNAL]-In support of allowing owner occupied short term rental From Teresa < > Date Tue 2/11/2025 2:48 PM To Kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca <Kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> Hello, I support the decision to allow owner occupied short rental units. It will allow owners to rent out a portion of their home in these trying economic times. Thank you, Tereza Safarian CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. E> Page 160 of 1679 Outlook [EXTERNAL]-OOSTR suggestion From Stefan Avdjiyski < > Date Mon 12/9/2024 10:16 PM To oostr@niagarafalls.ca <oostr@niagarafalls.ca>; Hi, Thank you for doing the open house at McBain centre. I support 100% the owner occupied short term rentals in Niagara Falls. The pracce proved already that if the owner lives on the property he controls it and there are way less complains from neighbors. I would like to bring something to your aenon about the number of self contained units in residenal areas. Keep in mind there are quite a few legal triplexes with 3 self contained units. I Believe in that case if the owner lives on the property in 1 of the units he should be allowed to do 2 OOSTRs in the other 2 units. I don't see a reason why only 1 OOSTR if an owner has 2 more units in a LEGAL triplex and he lives on the property. Aer all he is paying the property tax and that would be taxable income. So my proposal is 1 OOSTR unit in a house, 2 OOSTRs in a legal triplex and why not 3 OOSTRs in a fourplex (not too many of them) if the owner lives in one unit on the property. Owners of triplexes and fourplexes are business oriented mostly and they should be given that opon. Please consider it! Thanks a lot for your aenon! STEFAN CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. E> Page 161 of 1679 Outlook [EXTERNAL]-Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals From Cynthia Adams < > Date Mon 12/16/2024 11:12 PM To oostr@niagarafalls.ca <oostr@niagarafalls.ca> Hi Kailen, Here are some comments for consideration on the topic of owner occupied short term rentals. 1. Regarding the proposed requirement of the owner being required to be present throughout the rental period.   Consider revising this to be owner present or adult designate.  Owners should be allowed to rent out their property and still be able to travel for work (which can be required for both employees or as a business owner) or go on vacation.  The adult designate could either be a family member or a friend/company/person responsible for maintenance and upkeep during the owner's absence.   2.  Renting out the primary dwelling or the outbuilding.   Consider loosening the restrictions so the owner can make the choice which building on the property is rented.  The owner would still be responsible for care and upkeep of the property.  Consider the following scenario's: a) An elderly grandmother or an adult child are living in the outbuilding.  If the family in the primary residence goes away for 10 days on vacation, it would be a great opportunity to rent out the primary residence during that period.  In this case, the adult designate responsible for the house would be the grandmother or adult child.   b) If all the kids are off at University, the adults (empty-nesters) may choose to move into the outbuilding to rent out the primary residence.  I think the owners should be able to choose if they want to do this as a permanent scenario or a temporary scenario.   3.  Maximum occupancy of 3 rooms and 6 guests.   Consider increasing the number of rooms and guests to take into account that more families are travelling with elderly parents and/or a sibling and family or cousin and family.  This would easily increase the number of travelling people to 8 guests.  Consider increasing the number of rooms accordingly.  If the room doesn't have a bed, suggest that it shouldn't be counted towards the total number of rooms.  It seems the only reason to limit the number of rooms is to limit the size of the outbuilding for rent. 4.  Number of parking spaces Niagara is tight on residential parking.  It is understood that the drive is to reduce/eliminate the likelihood of renters parking on the road.  If the unit is being rented out as one unit, a 3 room unit (livingroom, kitchen/dining area, bedroom) only requires one additional parking space. Perhaps instead of linking the number of parking spaces required to the number of rooms, my suggestion is to link it to the number of guests staying in the unit.  If 2 - 6 people are staying in the unit, only 1 parking spot is required.  If 6 people are staying in the unit, 1 minivan still only requires 1 E> Page 162 of 1679 parking spot.  Some minivans can hold 8 people with 2 seats in the front, 3 in the second row and 3 in the third row.  Suggest if you want a breaking point for a second parking space, use 6 - 8 people.         Thanks for hosting us all at the open house.  It's great to have this option open for consideration and I hope it is passed by council.  It will bring more business into Niagara.  People travelling often want the flexibility of a full kitchen in the unit, especially with such high inflation.  Owners may consider hiring a business to manage the rental aspect and a cleaning company.   Cynthia    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 163 of 1679 Outlook [EXTERNAL]-Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals From Randy West < > Date Mon 12/9/2024 3:26 PM To oostr@niagarafalls.ca <oostr@niagarafalls.ca> Cc Lori Lococo <llococo@niagarafalls.ca> To whom this may concern, Please consider this my input towards your exploring of Short term Rentals. My name is Randy West and I am a resident living on Main St in Chippawa. I am in favour of allowing Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals in residential areas spread throughout the city. I fully realize that the overall concept of temporarily “renting” is off-putting to many.  The biggest reason likely for this is the fact that people rent elsewhere to have fun away from their normal residences, and “fun” usually means letting their hair down and being louder than they may be in their own residences. What is appealing to the idea of “Owner Occupied” is the fact that the owners will likely remain present during much of, if not all, of the time their are renting their property.  Nobody who lives in the residence they are renting are likely to want to put up with damages or outlandish actions or noise that could be far more possible in an unsupervised type of rental. The upsides to this type of occupancy are very clear and obvious.  Visitors and tourists will have more opportunity to find vacationing spaces very much similar to all of the comforts of home, which in itself may open tourist spending and savings to our local grocery markets and other retail opportunities.  Secondly, in this economy and with our aging residency, NOBODY can deny that a few dollars a few times per year could easily help with adding to the income of retirees and others who could use the boost to their budgets.  With property taxes and utility expenses forever on the rise, the looming threat of some homeowners nearing having to sell to survive becomes a true reality. Todays economy and housing shortages mixed upon the fact that even if housing is available, new home buyers can hardly afford the property taxes of a first home, let alone trying to find as much as a 20% downpayment for homes averaging a million dollars. Our industry is long gone and not looking to return…. We are a tourist town where tourists are looking to find what they can afford as they are tested in finding enough beds in one affordable room, as the family they travel in.  A short term rental can offer those choices that a high rise hotel simply can’t, which in turn can open doors to new levels of expanded affordable tourism to those who may otherwise find hotels out of reach. There is nothing wrong with shrinking your property with others. E> Page 164 of 1679 There are far fewer “partiers” making such noise and destruction in Short Term Rentals than there ever will be longer term tenants who either can’t, or refuse to, pay their rent responsibilities on time.  Short Term is cash-in-hand and as reliable as the rental unit you are advertising to rent.  You rent crap…. People will stop coming. And you will be out of business.  You rent a part of your home and your neighbourhood will be a reflection of the best you can do with the presentation of your rental itself. Best regards Randy West , Niagara Falls, ON, CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 165 of 1679 Outlook [EXTERNAL]-Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals- Comment From Mohammad Sheikholeslami < > Date Thu 12/12/2024 5:47 PM To oostr@niagarafalls.ca <oostr@niagarafalls.ca> Cc Hi Kailen, It was nice meeting you on the Public Open House on Dec 9th, 2024. Referring to the questions on the comment form, here are my comments Question 1: It is important to me that the City consider OOSTR, because it is in alignment with the government’s “Niagara Strategy” that recently announced by Premier Doug Ford. There will be new developments and changes in Niagara Region to attract more tourists. The city should be prepared and ready for new tourists with different expectations (traveling with pets, traveling in group/ multi-generational, accommodation with kitchen facilities, private swimming pool/hot tubes, etc.) Question 2: Regarding to the conditions of the proposal, I would suggest the followings: 1-Clarifying the owner and to include owner’s partner, kids, in-laws or siblings who live in the property. Nowadays we have houses with multi-generational occupants. They all are as responsible as the owner to take care of the STR. 2-Allowing a garage as a Parking Space. If a house has a garage and 2 parking spaces on the driveway (parallel), approve it as the parking space requirement for a 3-bedroom house. Question 3: In my onion, there are so many potentials and benefits of STR for the City, local businesses, tourists, neighborhood and home owners: The City: 1- A new and steady income due to annual license fee/renewal and MAT tax. 2- As STR are small businesses, the City can help to create new businesses with it’s current assets (no need for infrastructural investment in new roads/hydro lines/ sewer system and etc.) 3- Less calls for the by law officers to deal with unlicensed STR 4- As the STR should meet the SAFETY AND PREPAREDNESS requirements, so they are safer than regular houses Local businesses: 1- Bars, restaurants, grocery stores, etc. in Local streets can serve the tourists (the customers of the businesses in Victoria Ave are mostly local not tourists, even though they are between Clifton Hill and Queen St. 2- Accountants, insurance brokers, etc. to take care of business side of STR (highly paid jobs) 3- Interior designers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc. to maintain and upgrade the SRT properties (highly paid jobs) E> Page 166 of 1679 Tourists: 1- They have more option for accommodation to chose from 2- Tourists with pets, in a group or the ones who want more privacy have more options 3- Tourists may prefer to rent a licensed STR rather than an unlicensed STR Neighborhood: STR owners try to make their houses nice and appealing to their guests by: 1- Making sure their front yards have a nice landscape with followers, lights and other decorations 2- Their lawns are well maintained 3- Their driveways are neat and free from any garbage / leaves 4- Their driveways are free of snow and salted in the winter time These help to beatify and improve the neighborhoods STR home owners: It helps them to generate more income to pay for 1- Their kid’s higher education tuition 2- Their medications costs 3- Their ever increasing cost of living 4- Their mortgages, etc Regards Mohammad Sheikholeslami CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 167 of 1679   Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Comment Form Form Submission There has been a submission of the form Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Comment Form through your Let’s Talk Niagara Falls website. What is important to you about an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that you feel needs to be considered by the City? We don't want tourists in residential areas. What are your opinions on the proposed conditions for operating an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental? I think it should be limited to certain parts of town if it is passed at all. There are a ton of empty hotel rooms any given day. I dont really see the need and think it could cause issues. What other ideas and opinions do you have about these potential uses? If it is going to pass (which I dont really think it should) please limit where they can be (closer to the tourist core is better). Name: Ellen Duffus-Salvatore Outlook [EXTERNAL]-Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Comment Form Form Submission FromLet’s Talk Niagara Falls <letstalk@niagarafalls.ca> Date Fri 12/13/2024 3:24 PM To oostr@niagarafalls.ca <oostr@niagarafalls.ca> E> lets tafkNIAGARAFALLS* Page 168 of 1679 Email: To view all of this form's submissions, visit https://letstalk.niagarafalls.ca/index.php/dashboard/reports/forms_new/data/112 This is not SPAM. You are receiving this message because you have submitted feedback or signed up to Let’s Talk Niagara Falls. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 169 of 1679   Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Comment Form Form Submission There has been a submission of the form Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Comment Form through your Let’s Talk Niagara Falls website. What is important to you about an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that you feel needs to be considered by the City? It is important to me that the City consider OOSTR, because it is in alignment with the government’s “Niagara Strategy” that recently announced by Premier Doug Ford. There will be new developments and changes in Niagara Region to attract more tourists. The city should be prepared and ready for new tourists with different expectations (traveling with pets, traveling in group/ multi- generational, accommodation with kitchen facilities, private swimming pool/hot tubes, etc.) What are your opinions on the proposed conditions for operating an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental? I would suggest the followings: 1-Clarifying the owner and to include owner’s partner, kids, in-laws or siblings who live in the property. Nowadays we have houses with multi-generational occupants. They all are as responsible as the owner to take care of the STR. 2-Allowing a garage as a Parking Space. If a house has a garage and 2 parking Outlook [EXTERNAL]-Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Comment Form Form Submission FromLet’s Talk Niagara Falls <letstalk@niagarafalls.ca> Date Thu 12/12/2024 5:49 PM To oostr@niagarafalls.ca <oostr@niagarafalls.ca> E> lets tafkNIAGARAFALLS* Page 170 of 1679 spaces on the driveway (parallel), approve it as the parking space requirement for a 3-bedroom house. What other ideas and opinions do you have about these potential uses? In my onion, there are so many potentials and benefits of STR for the City, local businesses, tourists, neighborhood and home owners: The City: 1- A new and steady income due to annual license fee/renewal and MAT tax. 2- As STR are small businesses, the City can help to create new businesses with it’s current assets (no need for infrastructural investment in new roads/hydro lines/ sewer system and etc.) 3- Less calls for the by law officers to deal with unlicensed STR 4- As the STR should meet the SAFETY AND PREPAREDNESS requirements, so they are safer than regular houses Local businesses: 1- Bars, restaurants, grocery stores, etc. in Local streets can serve the tourists (the customers of the businesses in Victoria Ave are mostly local not tourists, even though they are between Clifton Hill and Queen St. 2- Accountants, insurance brokers, etc. to take care of business side of STR (highly paid jobs) 3- Interior designers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc. to maintain and upgrade the SRT properties (highly paid jobs) Tourists: 1- They have more option for accommodation to chose from 2- Tourists with pets, in a group or the ones who want more privacy have more options 3- Tourists may prefer to rent a licensed STR rather than an unlicensed STR Neighborhood: STR owners try to make their houses nice and appealing to their guests by: 1- Making sure their front yards have a nice landscape with followers, lights and other decorations 2- Their lawns are well maintained 3- Their driveways are neat and free from any garbage / leaves 4- Their driveways are free of snow and salted in the winter time These help to beatify and improve the neighborhoods STR home owners: It helps them to generate more income to pay for 1- Their kid’s higher education tuition 2- Their medications costs Page 171 of 1679 3- Their ever increasing cost of living 4- Their mortgages, etc Name: Mohammad Sheikholeslami Email: To view all of this form's submissions, visit https://letstalk.niagarafalls.ca/index.php/dashboard/reports/forms_new/data/112 This is not SPAM. You are receiving this message because you have submitted feedback or signed up to Let’s Talk Niagara Falls. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 172 of 1679 Outlook [EXTERNAL]-Owner occupied STR survey From Evgeni Lyach < > Date Thu 11/14/2024 12:54 PM To kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> Good afternoon, My devises are old and don’t show the survey on the website, but I’d like to contribute by emailing you. I’m in favour of owner occupied STR. I believe that property owners should not be restricted on what they want to do with their property as long as they take care of the property and it’s not causing problems for the neighbours. This extra income helps people with paying bills, etc. Hope this helps to legalize owner occupied strs. Thank you, Evgeni L Sent from my iPhone CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. E> Page 173 of 1679 Outlook [EXTERNAL]-Proposed OPA and ZBLA for Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals in Residential Areas From Date Sun 3/9/2025 7:29 PM To kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> Cc 'Kira Dolch' <kdolch@niagarafalls.ca> E> Page 174 of 1679 Hi Kailen, As discussed, I have some serious concerns with the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for “owner occupied short term rentals”. The City has already spentconsiderable me and costs reviewing land use planning conflicts and soluons resulng in this type of commercial use (defined as “vacaon rental units” VRUs) being restricted to locaons in commercial zones. Under the previous planning changes for VRUs, ownership was not idenfied, most likely since there is no difference in the commercial nature of the use and they are now appropriately restricted to commercial areas. In my opinion, the current proposal for “owner occupied short term rentals” in residenal areas is inappropriate for a number of reasons. Exisng VRUs in residenal zones are illegal uses since they are commercial operaons. Bed and breakfasts (B& Bs) are allowed in the owner’s primary residence as an ancillary home occupaon. From my previous planning experience, this has always been intended to allow the owner to rent extra rooms/bedrooms in their home that could generate some extra income. In all cases the residenal dwelling unit was expected to be retained as the primaryuse to protect the residenal character of the neighbourhood and to prevent the potenal loss of rental housing in a second unit, consistent with planning policies. The Province hasrecently been promong objecves for “Building More Homes Faster”. One example is the introducon of regulaons making it mandatory to allow up to two “addional dwelling units” (ADUs) on a property intended for residenal purposes and for more affordable rental housing. The City’s proposal to allow the conversion of independent dwelling units for “commercial use” as short term rentals in residenal areas is contrary to these Provincial objecves and other related policies. The current proposal will complicate exisng regulaons for VRUs and will result in further challenges for enforcement (i.e. verifying the owner is home/principal residence; private companies leasing potenal rental units for VRUs; parking challenges since 6 individuals could be renng; enlargement/conversion of residenal dwellings etc.). The real soluon is to enforce exisng by-laws affecng residenal neighbourhoods since all short term rentals within independent dwellings are currently illegal “commercial” uses. There is no need for addional forms of visitor accommodaons in the City. In fact the City has, to its credit, approved the conversion of some vacant motels to residenal units. An expanded “mixed use” designaon and policies in the new Official Plan could be a helpfuloverall soluon for all types of accommodaons. However, no changes should be made to allow these “commercial” uses in residenal areas given the need to meet Provincial housing objecves and to provide more affordable rental housing in the City. I hope you will find these comments helpful and give them serious consideraon. Please contact me if you have any quesons and let me know when the staff report will be available. Best regards, Peter Colosimo Page 175 of 1679 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 176 of 1679 Outlook [EXTERNAL]-Proposed short term rentals From Mary Anne Seppala < > Date Mon 2/24/2025 5:57 AM To kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> My neighbour hood has been adversely affected by short term rentals and I am pleased to see that the problem is finally being addressed. The proposals sound adequate however if they are not strictly enforced then they are useless. The penalties need to be severe in order to stop this practice. There was not a mention of what the penalties were going to be. The bylaw officer was absolutely useless in our case. What you need is police enforcement. Mary Anne Seppala Niagara Falls CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. E> Page 177 of 1679 Outlook [EXTERNAL]-Short term rentals From Mary Anne Seppala < > Date Sat 11/16/2024 6:29 AM To kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> Response to Short term rentals The enforcement of Short term rentals, with or without owners living in, is impossible to enforce. The residents on Corwin Ave. are still having major problems with rentals in areas that are “single family zoning”. Absent owners and live in owners have the response, “it is my property, I can do what I want”. Having owners live on the site of short term rentals does not solve the problem. Mary Anne Seppala CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. E> Page 178 of 1679 Outlook [EXTERNAL]-Written Submission to Public Notice of Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals proposal From Steve McGivney < Date Mon 12/2/2024 11:24 AM To oostr@niagarafalls.ca <oostr@niagarafalls.ca> We are against increasing short term rentals in Niagara Falls residenal areas as proposed. Over the past few years there has been a decrease in resident’s safety and quiet enjoyment of their homes due to the increase in temporary visitors. This has occurred for a number of reasons of which the main causes are: -In our neighbourhood there are a number of illegal short term vacaon rentals that City administraon allow to flourish. -The City of Niagara Falls in conjuncon with Niagara Region administrators have converted the former Coronaon Senior Cizen facility into a homeless center. This has resulted in an influx of people who have brought violence and public drug use into our neighbourhoods. - The city administrators in conjuncon with the Federal government brought hundreds of “refugees” to local hotels. The result has been hundreds of people roaming our neighborhoods as they have nothing else to do. Neighbours feel a sense of unease. And now the City administrators are proposing to further erode resident’s safety and peace. Residents have over the years invested in their homes hoping for a safe and peaceful living environment. This has been undermined through the acons of various public administrators. Enough is enough. Do not facilitate an addional increase to neighbourhood transients. Niagara Falls has a robust hotel sector. That was developed to accommodate and serve temporary visitors. Residenal areas were not developed to serve temporary visitors. The hotel sector has enhanced police presence along with trained hotel staff including Security personnel to manage mass temporary visitors. Residents do not have the resources nor training to manage mass temporary visitors. If there is a group of residents (investors?) who wish to generate an income from their properes then let them rent to long term residents. Long term residents have an interest in creang a safe and quiet home environment that temporary visitors do not. Long term rentals also help the lack of housing and affordability issues. Regards, Stephen McGivney E> Page 179 of 1679 Niagara Falls CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 180 of 1679 Outlook [EXTERNAL]-Current status of proposed Owner occupied short-term rental From Abbasi, Saima < > Date Thu 1/30/2025 9:33 AM To oostr@niagarafalls.ca <oostr@niagarafalls.ca> Hi Kailen, I am a resident of Niagara falls. Interested in operating short term rental on my principal residence.  Please can you provide me information on status of proposed OOSTRs. Also basic information on requirements.  I have city paper with basic requirements,  struggling to understand what self- contained unit means? I will highly appreciate your help. Thank you, Syed wasif CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. E> Page 181 of 1679 PI (0W ^ oosrr^.—Nfcfe*.jhvolw frtc^nu oi owy^tr Co hCicUr ctfov>*K*M 4U Sfc*w*owntr Cko^cC \w #JU#ft>O^i-r ^tku U/l4 k*K K Ctr 4 t.ii '-rddiU.f -W otdd ^cs ftu/iuw\ce usucr .?u\4<r.Page 182 of 1679 let’s tafc ||landwiseNIAGARAFALLS*PLAN'DESIGN•MANAGf December 9,2024 Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Comment Form 1.What is important to you about an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that you feelneedstobeconsideredbytheCity? jfeLA. n^'no—y^4 -kr^\r >b r,h^CJkoUu5-taD-i *- CorVyXL OUJ L API Q/Li r/Qr (r\s< /jpvu VJ <^~1 ery^XA fi/vto r-et\jiX^y{,t?<ns/l<ov^«A.f>rC [oy <?re*C * o J |/V\ 2.What are your opinions on the proposed conditions for operating an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental? <^Aod -(erwi ^rl-^r (r>£lfMsaL*B Vw 0^0 .9uQ^lflJo lcr\£_P^t<s^4VYOGLQ^ A 3.What other ideas and opinions do you have about these potential uses? QvvD^f1-(;L/4 Jerwi ro^'yLJ)c —WLSCL /-£Afw ^// -fily C L_ C/^\r&n^A HA&TC v 7" Name: Email: Written comments can also be sent by email to oostr@niagarafalls.ca by December 16,2024. THANK YOU! Please note that information will be collected in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.With the exception of personal information,please note all comments will become part of the public record. Page 183 of 1679 let’s tafc |landwiseNIAGARAFALLS*PLAN -DESIGN -MANAGE December 9,2024 Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Comment Form 1.What is important to you about an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that you feel needs to be considered by the City? pqa^grr fh?.AND ft TR*U6£/fiJ6 >fVw'T 2.What are your opinions on the proposed conditions for operating an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental? --AVfrd/#§-©e-S4J-«J /JSH—£y^ri^J2L.Q.w5—SdC^SjeZIZ <* 3.What other ideas and opinions do you have about these potential uses? fiee/mrrrm:s Fsiz. 5^T7ZT/)~^?r-7^7~^V^g^7^7TV^p~A/<^fe^ pV-lV&L—T- v»5 Name: Email: Written comments can also be sent by email to oostr@niagarafalls.ca by December 16,2024. THANK YOU! Please note that information will be collected in accordance with the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.With the exception of personal information,pleasenoteallcommentswillbecomepartofthepublicrecord. Page 184 of 1679 Outlook Re: [EXTERNAL]-Garden Suite Owners' Occupied Short Term Rental Inquiry From Gabriella Guo < > Date Tue 2/11/2025 10:43 AM To Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> Cc Liviu Cojocaru Ok, great! Please add me to the circulation list. I'm definitely interested to follow up on this.  Also do you have more info about the March 18th public meeting? How can I participate? Is there a link to this meeting online? Kind regards, Gabriella Guo  Project Manager | Max Suites Solutions 📞 📧 On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:36 AM Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> wrote: Hi Gabriella, I apologize for the delay in geng back to you. We are currently planning to hold the public meeng March 18th related to the Official Plan and Zoning by-law amendments that would permit this use. If that is approved by Council, then our licensing by-law would be updated to allow for owner occupied short-term rentals. Unfortunately, you wouldn't be able to obtain a license unl this is all approved by Council. I can add you to our circulaon list so that you have the details of the meeng once the noce goes out. Thank you, Kailen From: Gabriella Guo Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 4:28 PM To: oostr <oostr@niagarafalls.ca> Cc: Liviu Cojocaru Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Garden Suite Owners' Occupied Short Term Rental Inquiry E> Page 185 of 1679   Hello Kailen,  I discussed with Debra about my inquiry and she referred me to you.  We recently completed a 2 storey, 3 bd garden suite in Niagara Falls. We'd like to know what kind of license we need to operate it as a short term rental property. Please advise how we can start with the application process. Thank you.  Kind regards, Gabriella Guo  Project Manager | Max Suites Solutions 📞 📧 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 186 of 1679 Outlook RE: City of Niagara Falls Notice of Statutory Public Meeting for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals From Doug Birrell < > Date Mon 2/24/2025 6:45 PM To Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> Q Page 187 of 1679 Thank you for inviting me to this. Also, do we know how many complaints there has been about short term rental guest behavior in the last couple of years, thanks From: Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2025 8:00 AM Cc: Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca>; Signe Hansen <shansen@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: City of Niagara Falls Noce of Statutory Public Meeng for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals Hello, This e-mail is to advise of the upcoming Statutory Public Meeting related to the City of Niagara Falls initiated Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to allow for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals within residential areas. Please find attached the Notice for the Statutory Public Meeting scheduled for March 18, 2025. Please note, you are being notified because you have previously expressed interest in this initiative. If you no longer wish to receive updates related to these amendments, please let me know. Sincerely, Kailen Kailen Goerz, MCIP, RPP | Senior Manager of Long Range Planning Initiatives | Planning, Building, and Development | City of Niagara Falls Mailing Address: 4310 Queen Street | Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 | Office: Wayne Thomson Building | 4343 Morrison Street Office (905) 356-7521 ext 4252 | Cell (289) 241-7503 | Fax 905-356-2354 | kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca Our new online portal can be found at: https://niagarafalls.ca/services/cityview.aspx niagarafalls.caNiagara/ialls Page 188 of 1679 The City of Niagara Falls Confidentiality Notice The information contained in this communication including any attachments may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, disclosure or copying of this communication, or any of its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy from your computer system. Thank you PROUD TO BERECOGNIZED AS ONEOFHAMILTON-NIAGARA’STOPEMPLOYERS!TopEmployersV Page 189 of 1679 Outlook Re: City of Niagara Falls Notice of Statutory Public Meeting for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals From Hansley Pais < > Date Mon 2/24/2025 5:15 PM To Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> Hi Kailen, Thank you for the email.  Quick question on enforcement of the bylaws.  1. Is there a way for the city to enforce whether the owner is actually staying on the property? I have seen cases in other cities where entire houses are given for rent but one owner having their licence registered at the rental property to deem it "owner-occupied". Would the city be actively monitoring Airbnb listings? 2. The city of Toronto has a partnership with Airbnb and Vrbo for bylaw enforcement. Under that arrangement, all hosts have to register with the city to have an active listing. Given the high number of properties in Niagara Falls, can the city have a similar arrangement that assists in bylaw enforcement? On Sat, Feb 22, 2025, 08:00 Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> wrote: Hello, This e-mail is to advise of the upcoming Statutory Public Meeng related to the City of Niagara Falls iniated Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to allow for Owner Occupied Short- Term Rentals within residenal areas. Please find aached the Noce for the Statutory Public Meeng scheduled for March 18, 2025. Please note, you are being nofied because you have previously expressed interest in this iniave. If you no longer wish to receive updates related to these amendments, please let me know. Sincerely, Kailen Kailen Goerz, MCIP, RPP | Senior Manager of Long Range Planning Initiatives | Planning, Building, and Development | City of Niagara Falls Mailing Address: 4310 Queen Street | Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 | Office: Wayne Thomson Building | 4343 Morrison Street Office (905) 356-7521 ext 4252 | Cell (289) 241-7503 | Fax 905-356-2354 | kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca Our new online portal can be found at: https://niagarafalls.ca/services/cityview.aspx E> Page 190 of 1679 niagarafalls.ca The City of Niagara Falls Confidentiality Notice The information contained in this communication including any attachments may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, disclosure or copying of this communication, or any of its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy from your computer system. Thank you PROUD TO BERECOGNIZED AS ONEOFHAMILTON-NIAGARA’STOPEMPLOYERS!Vr Page 191 of 1679 Outlook Re: City of Niagara Falls Notice of Statutory Public Meeting for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals From Mark Bodogh < Date Sat 2/22/2025 8:53 AM To Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> Thank you Kailen. I think this is a fantastic idea and fully support this. It’s a long time coming and a positive step for the City. We will be in attendance. Mark Bodogh.  Sent from my iPhone On Feb 22, 2025, at 8:28 AM, Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> wrote: Hello, This e-mail is to advise of the upcoming Statutory Public Meeng related to the City of Niagara Falls iniated Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to allow for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals within residenal areas. Please find aached the Noce for the Statutory Public Meeng scheduled for March 18, 2025. Please note, you are being nofied because you have previously expressed interest in this iniave. If you no longer wish to receive updates related to these amendments, please let me know. Sincerely, Kailen Kailen Goerz, MCIP, RPP | Senior Manager of Long Range Planning Initiatives | Planning, Building, and Development | City of Niagara Falls Mailing Address: 4310 Queen Street | Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 | Office: Wayne Thomson Building | 4343 Morrison Street Office (905) 356-7521 ext 4252 | Cell (289) 241-7503 | Fax 905-356-2354 | kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca Our new online portal can be found at: https://niagarafalls.ca/services/cityview.aspx E> Page 192 of 1679 niagarafalls.ca The City of Niagara Falls Confidentiality Notice The information contained in this communication including any attachments may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, disclosure or copying of this communication, or any of its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy from your computer system. Thank you <NOTICE OF STATUTORY PUBLIC MEETING FOR OPA 180 AND ZBA AM-2025-001 RE OOSTR.pdf> PROUD TO BERECOGNIZED AS ONEOFHAMILTON-NIAGARA’STOPEMPLOYERS! _ Page 193 of 1679 Outlook RE: Owner Occupied short-term Rental open house From Behnam < Date Mon 12/16/2024 11:09 PM To oostr@niagarafalls.ca <oostr@niagarafalls.ca> Dear Ms. Kailen Goerz, I hope this message finds you well. First and foremost, I would like to thank you and your colleagues for organizing the recent event. I attended the meeting organized by the City of Niagara Falls on December 9th. However, I have been unable to find any updates regarding this meeting online, as was instructed during the session. I am reaching out to request further information on the annual charges and financial matters related to the short-term rental applications submitted by residents. Additionally, I would like to know if there is any direct tax imposed on property owners by the city for occupied short-term rentals. I believe it is essential for short-term rentals to be legalized and effectively monitored by the City of Niagara Falls to ensure that both property owners and temporary tenants adhere to the rules and policies enforced by city officials. Thank you for your time and assistance. I look forward to your response. Behnam E> Page 194 of 1679 Outlook [EXTERNAL]-Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in Residential Areas From Mohammad Sheikholeslami <sheikhi786@yahoo.ca> Date Wed 3/12/2025 11:45 AM To Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> Good Day Ms. Goerz, I am writing this email to support Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in Residential Areas, because: The new Amendment is in alignment with the government’s “Niagara Strategy” that announced last year by Premier Doug Ford. There will be new developments and changes in Niagara Region to attract more tourists. The city should be prepared and ready for new tourists with different expectations (traveling with pets, traveling in group/ multi- generational, accommodation with kitchen facilities, private swimming pool/hot tubes, etc.) There are so many potentials and benefits of OOSTR for the City, local businesses, tourists, neighborhood and home owners: The City: 1- A new and steady income due to annual license fee/renewal and MAT tax. 2- As OOSTR are small businesses, the City can help to create new businesses with it’s current assets (no need for infrastructural investment in new roads/hydro lines/ sewer system and etc.) 3- As the tariff is threatening our economy, the city will help these new small businesses to weather the storm 4- Less calls for the by law officers to deal with unlicensed STR 5- As the STR should meet the SAFETY AND PREPAREDNESS requirements, so they are safer than regular houses Local businesses: 1- Bars, restaurants, grocery stores, etc. in Local streets can serve the tourists (the customers of the businesses in Victoria Ave are mostly local not tourists, even though they are between Clifton Hill and Queen St. 2- Accountants, insurance brokers, etc. to take care of business side of STR (highly paid jobs) 3- Interior designers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc. to maintain and upgrade the SRT properties (highly paid jobs) 4- As the tariff is threatening our economy, the city will help local businesses to weather the storm Tourists: As the exchange rate is in favour of $US, there might be more American tourists coming to Niagara Falls and as the Canadian decided to not going to the US, there might be more Canadian tourists in Niagara Falls. So the tourists: 1- They have more option for accommodation to chose from 2- Tourists with pets, in a group or the ones who want more privacy have more options 3- Tourists may prefer to rent a licensed STR rather than an unlicensed STR 3/12/25, 2:15 PM Mail - Kailen Goerz - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADdlODEzNDNkLWYwYTQtNGM4OS04YjNlLWQ3MzkzZDc3ZjExZABGAAAAAAB7lUYVLHoISp0H9lwd…1/2 Page 195 of 1679 Neighborhood: OOSTR owners try to make their houses nice and appealing to their guests by: 1- Making sure their front yards have a nice landscape with followers, lights and other decorations 2- Their lawns are well maintained 3- Their driveways are neat and free from any garbage / leaves 4- Their driveways are free of snow and salted in the winter time These help to beatify and improve the neighborhoods OOSTR home owners: As the tariff is threatening our economy and there might be unemployment, it helps OOSTR home owners to weather the storm and to generate income to pay for 1- Their kid’s higher education tuition 2- Their medications costs 3- Their ever increasing cost of living 4- Their mortgages, etc Regarding The key provisions associated with the zoning permissions, I would suggest the followings: 1-Clarifying the owner and to include owner’s partner, kids, in-laws or siblings who live in the property. The closed family members who live in the property are as responsible as the owner to take care of the OOSTR. 2-Allowing a garage as a Parking Space. If a house has a garage and 2 parking spaces on the driveway (parallel), approve it as the parking space requirement for a 3-bedroom house. Regards Mohammad Sheikholeslami CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 3/12/25, 2:15 PM Mail - Kailen Goerz - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADdlODEzNDNkLWYwYTQtNGM4OS04YjNlLWQ3MzkzZDc3ZjExZABGAAAAAAB7lUYVLHoISp0H9lwd…2/2 Page 196 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALS P R E S E N TAT I O N TO C O U N C I L | M a r c h 1 8 , 2 0 2 5 PLANNING, BUILDING, AND DEVELOPMENTPage 197 of 1679 Introduction Landwise was retained by the City of Niagara Falls to assist with exploring the potential permissions and regulations for allowing Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas throughout the City’s urban area. 2OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALSShannon McKie, RPP, MCIP Associate / Principal Planner Page 198 of 1679 Proposed Amendments To implement Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in the urban residential area, amendments are needed to: •Official Plan •Zoning By-law •Licensing By-law •Municipal Accommodation Tax •Administrative Monetary Penalty System By-law •Fee By-law 3OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALSPage 199 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALSBACKGROUND 4Page 200 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALSHistory of Short-Term Accommodations in Niagara Falls 5Page 201 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALSWhat are Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals? 6Page 202 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALS7 Proposed Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental (OOSTR) Vacation Rental Unit (VRU)Bed and Breakfast (B&B) Allowed in residential area Yes No Yes Owner occupied Yes No Yes Building Code compliance required Yes Yes Yes (Building Code similar to a Hotel) Limits on total travelling public 3 bedrooms with a maximum of 6 people permitted. 3 bedrooms 3 guest rooms permitted in residential zones and 6 guest rooms permitted in commercial zones. Annual licence Yes Yes Yes Number of parking spaces required 1 space for the owner 1 for the OOSTR +1 for 3 bedrooms (tandem parking permitted) 2 spaces (tandem parking permitted) 1 parking space for each guest room in addition to the space required for the owner.Page 203 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALSPUBLIC CONSULTATION 8Page 204 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALSPublic Consultation 9 Public Survey | November 4th – 25th, 2024 •8 questions •289 contributions Public Open House | December 9, 2024 •Presentation and information boards •Approximately 30 attendees Stakeholder Consultation | December 11, 2024 Written Submissions | 22 submissionsPage 205 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALSWhat We Heard 10 Reasons for Support Page 206 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALSWhat We Heard 11 Reasons for Concerns Page 207 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALSWhat We Heard 12 Comment Response Owner present for the duration of the rental period The regulations maintain that an Owner be present on site to mitigate any nuisance issue and to maintain the primary residential use. Designated Responsible Person The regulation has been maintained to reinforce the Owners accountability for the rental unit. Affordable Housing Impacts An OOSTR could remove a potential long term rental unit. The use is also recognized as providing additional opportunities for home ownership. Maximum Bedroom Limitations The regulation is intended to ensure that the OOSTR remains an accessory use, continues to fit within the neighbourhood and aligns with B&B permissions.Page 208 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALSWhat We Heard 13 Comment Response Enforcement Challenges New By-laws will create more efficiency for enforcement. Recognizing the use will allow enforcement to focus on illegal uses and problematic short-term rentals. Empty Hotel Rooms Short Term Rentals offer a different form of accommodation. The rental economy has evolved and the travelling public expect to have options that include full kitchens, living space and washrooms. Restrict Short Term Rentals to tourist areas/consider a commercial use VRUs, B&Bs and Hotels are permitted within the Tourist Areas. Residents expressed interest in Short Term Rentals where the Owner is on site within the urban residential areas.Page 209 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALSWhat We Heard 14 Comment Response Permission to Rent out Principal Residence The regulations have been revised and do not stipulate where the Owner resides on the property, only that their principal residence must be on the property. Nuisance and Safety Concerns Owners on site will help mitigate nuisances. Establishing regulations and license requirements ensures accountability for the OOSTR. Parking Impacts Parking requirements have been added for an OOSTR in addition to the principal residence to reduce impacts on neighbourhood parking.Page 210 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALSIMPLEMENTATION 15Page 211 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALSOfficial Plan & Zoning By-law Amendments 16 The Official Plan Amendment will define and establish Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals as a home occupation that may be permitted on Residential lands through an implementing Zoning By-law. The Zoning By-law Amendment will introduce new definitions and regulatory provisions respecting Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations in most Residential Zones. Page 212 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALS17 Official Plan •Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations and Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals are proposed to be defined •Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals are recognized as a Home Occupation and permitted on residential lands in the urban area •An additional policy requires that Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals be compatible with the surrounding area and must avoid over- concentration Page 213 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALS18 Residential Zones •Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals are proposed to be permitted in most residential zones in the urban area •Bed and Breakfasts are permitted within the same zones but are also permitted in some commercial zones •Vacation Rental Units are only permitted within some commercial zones Page 214 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALS19 Regulations Page 215 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALS20 Regulations Page 216 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALS21 Implementation Issuance of Statutory Notice of Decision 20 Day Appeal Period Implementation of other Administrative By-law Amendments Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation Education Campaign Licensing Application and Administration Process Initiation Enforcement Campaign Page 217 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALS22 Enforcement •Zoning By-law 79-200 •Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals permitted in most urban residential zones •Applicable regulations are enforced by Municipal Enforcement •Licensing By-law •Terms and Conditions of operating an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental •Municipal Accommodation Tax By-law •Implementation of a per night tax for an unrated property •Administrative Monetary Penalty System By-law •New $1,000 per day fines for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals that: •Operate without a license •Operate outside of the terms and conditions of a license •Advertise without a valid license •Fee By-law •$500.00 for initial application for a new license •$250.00 for license renewal Page 218 of 1679 OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALS23 Summary The proposed amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to allow Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in most urban residential areas, are appropriate and represent good planning for the following reasons: •A regulatory framework enables the use within most residential areas in a safe and enforceable manner that meets the requirements of the Zoning By-law, Ontario Building Code and Fire Code; •The permissions recognize the market demand for short term rentals while prioritizing compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhoods; •Residents will have an opportunity to supplement mortgage and maintenance costs, in some cases allowing owners to stay in their homes or re-enter the housing market; •The amendments are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, meet the intent of the Niagara Official Plan and City of Niagara Falls Official Plan.Page 219 of 1679 THANK YOU 24OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTALSPage 220 of 1679 Outlook [EXTERNAL]-Support for Expanding Short-Term Rental Availability in Niagara Falls From Jake Tymczak <j.tymczak@gmail.com> Date Fri 3/14/2025 11:59 AM To Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> Dear Councillors, I am writing to express my strong support for increasing the number of permitted short-term rental (STR) units in Niagara Falls. A thoughtful expansion of STR regulations can benefit our city in multiple ways—economically, socially, and in terms of housing availability. By embracing STR, we can create a more balanced and sustainable approach to housing and tourism. Encouraging the Development of New Living Spaces When Niagara homeowners see an opportunity to generate income through STR, they are more likely to invest in building secondary suites, basement apartments, and additional living spaces. This ultimately increases the city’s total housing stock, benefiting long-term renters as well as short-term visitors.Requiring a long-term, local resident at the property as a condition for acquiring a STR peremit will discourage outside investors from purchasing of multiple properties for the purpose of income via STR, and will not decrease the number of available properties overall. Avoiding the Loss of Current Tourism Capital Hotels alone cannot accommodate the influx of tourism seen in Niagara Falls, particularly in the summer months. By enforcing the current bylaws and forcing unregistered short-term rental owners to cease and desist, the city and local businesses could see the loss of income gained from a new kind of tourist, one whose accommodation wants and needs cannot be met by hotels or those who cannot afford hotels. We could see losses in tax dollars and in the profits of local businesses who thrive precisely because these rental units allow for such large volumes of tourists. Increased City Revenue to Fund City Projects 3/14/25, 12:05 PM Mail - Kailen Goerz - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADdlODEzNDNkLWYwYTQtNGM4OS04YjNlLWQ3MzkzZDc3ZjExZABGAAAAAAB7lUYVLHoISp0H9lwd…1/3 Page 221 of 1679 Passing this bylaw will substantially increase revenue to the city of Niagara by means of Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT). Rather than restricting STR, we can use the increased tax revenue they generate to directly support necessary initiatives like affordable housing. Other Canadian cities – for example, Victoria, BC – have successfully reinvested STR-related taxes into housing programs, creating long-term solutions for residents in need. Supporting Our Students Expanding STR regulations could benefit students attending school in Niagara by providing additional affordable housing options for a demographic who are often acquiring large amounts of educational debt. Allowing homeowners to offer lucrative vacation rentals in the summer months encourages the creation of additional living spaces, which can then be rented to students during the school year when tourism decreases. This flexibility ensures that additional residential units remain occupied year-round, addressing both student housing demands and seasonal tourism opportunities. Effective City Resource Allocation Currently, significant city resources are spent uncovering and enforcing penalties against unauthorized short-term rentals. By allowing more STR within a fair regulatory framework, these resources could be reallocated to more pressing community needs, reducing administrative burdens and enforcement costs. Bringing Tourism to Under-Visited Neighborhoods STR units in residential neighbourhoods encourage visitors to explore different parts of the city, benefiting small businesses in areas that may not typically attract tourism. This helps local restaurants, shops, and service providers thrive, creating a more balanced distribution of tourism dollars. Distributing Wealth More Equitably Wealth disparity is one of the greatest economic issues we face globally. If the status quo is maintained and this new bylaw is not passed, the vast majority of accommodation revenue will continue to be concentrated into the hands of large hotel chains and a few already wealthy investors. By expanding STR, we allow local homeowners to share in this economic prosperity, spreading tourism wealth more equitably and supporting local residents and families. Meeting a Growing Demand That Can’t Be Ignored 3/14/25, 12:05 PM Mail - Kailen Goerz - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADdlODEzNDNkLWYwYTQtNGM4OS04YjNlLWQ3MzkzZDc3ZjExZABGAAAAAAB7lUYVLHoISp0H9lwd…2/3 Page 222 of 1679 A growing number of short-term rental hosts are using alternative platforms beyond the city’s primary regulated STR company, platforms like Google Vacation Rentals. This makes enforcement of the current bylaws increasingly difficult . The demand for STR is clear—if the city does not adapt, homeowners will simply turn to less-regulated alternatives, making oversight and taxation even more challenging and resource-consuming. We find ourselves at a crossroads. We can decide to work together with the tide of online vacation rentals and, in doing so, share in the gains that are offered, or we can deny them and lose out on an enormous opportunity – in other words, we can go the way of Netflix, or we can go the way of Blockbuster. I urge you to consider the above points and support an expansion of short-term rental availability in Niagara Falls. A well-regulated but inclusive STR market will benefit our city and its residents economically, create new housing opportunities, and ensure a fairer, more equitable distribution of tourism revenue. Thank you for your time and consideration. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further and provide insights from my experience in short-term rental management. Best regards, Jake T. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 3/14/25, 12:05 PM Mail - Kailen Goerz - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADdlODEzNDNkLWYwYTQtNGM4OS04YjNlLWQ3MzkzZDc3ZjExZABGAAAAAAB7lUYVLHoISp0H9lwd…3/3 Page 223 of 1679 Outlook [EXTERNAL]-Owner Occupied Short Term Rental (OOSTR) From R AWAN <raziaawan2002@hotmail.com> Date Fri 3/14/2025 10:56 AM To Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> Hi, I am writing this email to support city by law amendment to allow OOSTR in residential area. I am property owner in Niagara falls. Senior citizen, to afford my principal residence this change will help me to afford my house financially. City can make by laws to ensure respect of neighbourhood. Thank you, Mrs Nadeem Get Outlook for Android CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 3/14/25, 10:57 AM Mail - Kailen Goerz - Outlook https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADdlODEzNDNkLWYwYTQtNGM4OS04YjNlLWQ3MzkzZDc3ZjExZABGAAAAAAB7lUYVLHoISp0H9lwd…1/1 Page 224 of 1679 Outlook [EXTERNAL]-Fw: Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals (OOSTR) From Abid Hussein <aabee_pirzada@hotmail.com> Date Thu 3/13/2025 8:52 PM To Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> From: Abid Hussein <aabee_pirzada@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2025 12:46 AM To: kgoertz@niagarafalls.ca <kgoertz@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals (OOSTR)   Hi Kalien, I am resident of Niagara falls. I am wring this email to support the OOSTR permission in Niagara. I am single mother own a duplex, my two adult kids went to universies out of the town. I am a care giver for my youngest special need kid. So cannot work full me to manage my financials. At the same me cannot rent my property to long term tenants. My dorm kids come back regularly for their breaks and vacaon. City by law changes will provide me opon to rent out on short term basis. I totally respect neighborhood rights. City of Niagara Falls can develop demerits points like city of St Catharines. If OOSTR is trouble for neighbors, they can be penalized and license suspension based on well documented demerits points. Allowing OOSTR will be beneficial for many residents. Thanks, Aabee Pirzada aabee_pirzada@hotmail.com CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 3/14/25, 10:13 AM [EXTERNAL]-Fw: Owner Occupied Short Term Rentals (OOSTR) - Kailen Goerz - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane9 1/1 Page 225 of 1679 Outlook [Draft]Re: FW: POSSIBLE SPAM [EXTERNAL]-Air BNB council letter From Draft saved Fri 3/14/2025 10:15 AM From: S Orr <sandraorr88@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 12:16:21 PM To: DL-CouncilMembers <councilmembers@niagarafalls.ca> Cc: Jason Burgess <jburgess@niagarafalls.ca>; Ma Orr <amorr@gmail.com> Subject: POSSIBLE SPAM [EXTERNAL]-Air BNB council leer March 13, 2025 Mayor and Council, My name is Sandra Orr, born and raised in Niagara Falls. I am a licensed Airbnb owner and a proud mother of three boys, all of whom are actively involved in competitive sports. One of my sons attends Niagara College, while my other two sons play on travel hockey and basketball teams. Raising my children in Niagara Falls, I have a deep connection to this city and a vested interest in its growth and economic stability. I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on the use of Airbnb and Vacation Rental Units (VRUs) in our city. Instead of restricting them unnecessarily, the City should focus on fostering RESPONSIBLE VRU ownership. I encourage an open dialogue between Council and VRU owners to find practical solutions that benefit both the City and the residents of Niagara Falls who rely on this income. Many homeowners I represent are afraid to speak up, worried that their much-needed extra income could be taken away. For many, renting out a portion of their home isn’t about getting rich—it’s about survival. It helps fund children’s education, support elderly parents, pay the mortgage, and keep local service providers like cleaners and handymen employed. Many of us sacrifice our personal comfort and lifestyle just to make ends meet, whether that means giving up privacy, constantly managing guests, or handling the never-ending tasks that come with maintaining a rental. Running a VRU isn’t easy—it’s hard work juggling bookings, keeping guests happy, and dealing with unexpected challenges. But for many homeowners, it’s the only way to stay afloat financially. The argument that VRUs take away housing from long-term rentals doesn’t hold up. Most hosts only rent for a few weeks per year and wouldn’t enter long-term rental agreements due to privacy concerns and tenant-landlord law imbalances. A 2024 study by Professor Belsey Stevenson of the University of Michigan also found that banning Airbnbs won’t solve the housing crisis. The study highlights that short-term rentals account for only a small fraction of the overall housing market and that the real issue lies in housing supply shortages and restrictive zoning laws. It further suggests that rather than banning VRUs, cities should focus on policies that encourage the development of more affordable housing options while allowing responsible home-sharing. Additionally, the study found that cities that banned short-term rentals did not see a significant increase in long-term rental availability, proving that restricting VRUs is not a viable solution to the housing crisis. Additionally, VRUs boost the local economy. Visitors staying in VRUs frequent local shops, restaurants, and attractions outside the tourist core, helping spread economic benefits citywide. They 3/14/25, 10:16 AM Re: FW: POSSIBLE SPAM [EXTERNAL]-Air BNB council letter about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane10 1/3 Page 226 of 1679 don’t compete with hotels—VRUs cater to different travelers, like multi-generational families of six guests, pet owners, and outdoor enthusiasts bringing bicycles or kayaks—guests who wouldn’t otherwise visit. Without VRUs, these travelers simply wouldn’t come, meaning lost tourism dollars for local businesses. I acknowledge that VRUs once had a less-than-stellar reputation, but the landscape has evolved. Today, platforms like Airbnb have instituted rigorous rules and safety measures, ensuring a level of oversight that often surpasses that of traditional rental properties, including some of the outdated hotels in the city. With guest reviews, strict verification processes, AI risk detection, noise-monitoring technology, and financial accountability measures, VRU owners face more checks and balances than many long-term landlords, making them highly incentivized to maintain order and compliance. Guest reviews—poorly maintained properties won’t get booked. Every guest rates their stay, and properties that don’t meet high cleanliness and hospitality standards quickly fall out of favor. Unlike traditional rental properties, VRU owners must maintain excellence to stay competitive. Host control—owners have full authority over who stays in their homes. Most hosts only accept bookings from verified by Airbnb guests who have provided government-issued identification, have a strong history of positive reviews, and maintain detailed profiles. This screening process ensures responsible renters and minimizes risks. Furthermore, Airbnb’s dual-rating system keeps both hosts and guests accountable—guests are rated based on cleanliness, communication, adherence to house rules, and most importantly, noise levels. Guests with low ratings, particularly for noise violations or property damage, often find themselves unable to book future stays, effectively weeding out problematic renters. Many hosts even set a minimum guest rating threshold, ensuring only responsible guests are accepted. Additionally, Airbnb’s AI-driven risk analysis system proactively flags suspicious bookings, such as those with a history of party-related incidents. This level of control and transparency far surpasses that of traditional long-term rentals, where landlords often have limited recourse for noisy or disruptive tenants. AI technology—risky bookings are blocked automatically. Platforms like Airbnb use advanced algorithms to detect and prevent high-risk reservations, such as those linked to potential party events or fraudulent activity. Noise monitors—party prevention tools help ensure peaceful stays. Airbnb provides access to noise- monitoring technology that alerts owners if sound levels exceed acceptable limits, discouraging disruptive behavior. Additionally, hosts install video cameras on the exterior of properties to ensure compliance with house rules. Financial accountability—Airbnb can charge guests for damages. Hosts have recourse if a guest causes damage, as Airbnb holds security deposits and can charge a guest’s payment method for violations. This is a level of accountability that traditional rental agreements often lack. Garbage management—Responsible hosts provide clear waste disposal guidelines, often including locked bins and strict trash schedules. Guests who fail to comply can be penalized or blocked from booking future stays. Unlike long-term rentals, where tenants may ignore waste management rules for months, VRU guests are held to immediate accountability. Security measures—hosts install exterior cameras, noise sensors, and/or personally greet guests to enforce house rules. Many hosts take proactive steps to ensure responsible stays, including guest check-ins and on-site visits to verify adherence to house rules. I appreciate that the City is considering allowing owner-occupied VRUs, but I urge you to address a few critical issues: The current licensing requirements are excessively costly, unrealistic, and set homeowners up for failure. After spending thousands on architectural drawings, an ESA certificate, and various applications, I discovered that meeting the requirements would mean practically rebuilding my house. Fire-rated insulation in walls, sprinkler systems, and rigid parking rules make licensing unattainable, particularly for homeowners who rent for only 40 or 50 nights a year. The financial burden simply isn’t justified for those of us who rent occasionally, yet we are being subjected to the same demands as full-time operators. Niagara-on-the-Lake and Toronto have more reasonable policies—let’s take notes! Licensing costs should reflect the minimal profit that owner-occupied VRUs generate. It’s unreasonable to impose the same fees on a homeowner renting for 40 nights a year as on an investor renting a full-time vacation property. 3/14/25, 10:16 AM Re: FW: POSSIBLE SPAM [EXTERNAL]-Air BNB council letter about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane10 2/3 Page 227 of 1679 Globally, cities like Paris, London, and Vancouver have implemented sensible rules that limit the number of rental days per year instead of banning VRUs outright. This approach allows homeowners to earn income while minimizing community impacts. With the 2025 tourism season approaching fast, homeowners will continue operating despite the looming threat of heavy fines. If the City proceeds with fines against local homeowners without first resolving the unnecessarily complicated and burdensome registration process, it would be deeply unfair to residents who are simply trying to survive in this challenging economic climate. Perhaps general fines for operating owner-occupied VRUs should be put on hold until a resolution is in place— unless, of course, there is a legitimate noise complaint or another valid violation. I’m encouraged that Council is open to allowing responsible homeowners to rent out their spaces. I urge you to refine these regulations so that the benefits aren’t drowned in unnecessary red tape. Let’s work together to create fair, balanced policies that protect both residents and the local economy. Looking forward to your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Sandra Orr Sent from my Bell Samsung device over Canada’s largest network. Sent from my Bell Samsung device over Canada’s largest network. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 3/14/25, 10:16 AM Re: FW: POSSIBLE SPAM [EXTERNAL]-Air BNB council letter about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane10 3/3 Page 228 of 1679 Outlook [Draft]Re: [EXTERNAL]-A note on owner occupied short term rentals. From Draft saved Fri 3/14/2025 10:17 AM From: Rachel Stempski <rachelstempski@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 10:56:30 AM To: Jason Burgess <jburgess@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-A note on owner occupied short term rentals. Dear City Councillors and CAO, First and foremost let me please give my condolences to you for losing such a great colleague. Wayne was a friend of yours and of the community and he will be dearly missed. I hope this message finds you well. My name is Rachel Stempski and I have lived in the region my entire life, I have been a realtor out of the Niagara Falls Remax office for over 20 years and I am invested locally in our community within the real estate sector. I am giving my outlook to you based on what I am hearing from our local community. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the concerns many residents have raised about Airbnb and short-term accommodations. However, it's essential to recognize that there is also a significant demand for these services, which often goes unheard. Over the past two years, many homeowners have faced immense economical challenges. Some individuals running illegal Airbnb accommodations do so primarily when their children are away or during the summer months when their billets are home for the season, hosting less than 50 guests a year. Many even relocate to different areas of their homes during these times in order to make some additional income. The fear of losing this extra income is palpable; for many, it directly impacts their ability to meet mortgage payments and manage daily living expenses. The rising costs of mortgages and bills have made this additional income a lifeline for numerous families. I believe a lot of voices who would love to reach out to express the want and need for short term accommodations in our community are genuinely scared to do so. I believe the above mentioned people are the exact people you want to hear from and I hope you understand their reason for silence. Our community has had legal bed-and-breakfast establishments for decades, and these have consistently received minimal complaints. The tourism landscape has transformed dramatically in the last ten years, yet Niagara Falls has not adapted to these changes. If a bed-and-breakfast can host up to six guests in three separate rooms, how would allowing an owner-occupied short-term accommodation to host one group of six guests be any different in terms of potential complaints? I understand that complaints often center around noise, garbage, and parking issues. However, these concerns are rarely, almost never, associated with owner-occupied bed-and-breakfasts. Allowing homeowners to rent a small suite instead of multiple rooms would likely reduce the need for parking, as it limits the number of different groups arriving. It's worth noting that Niagara Falls has not seen a new hotel built in 16 years. Many local motels have transitioned to long-term residences, reducing the number of available accommodations for tourists. 3/14/25, 10:17 AM Re: [EXTERNAL]-A note on owner occupied short term rentals. about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane13 1/2 Page 229 of 1679 Consequently, while tourism jobs across Canada have increased by 20%, Niagara Falls has seen a 7% decrease in tourism-related employment. This situation not only affects our local job market but also drives tourists to seek accommodations in nearby towns, diminishing their spending in Niagara Falls. Airbnb alone contributed an estimated $350 million to our community last year, benefiting not just the tourist areas but the local economy as well. Many Airbnb guests prefer to stay outside the tourist zones, engaging with local businesses. There is room for both traditional hotels and short-term rentals in our city; families looking for a home-like atmosphere will seek out alternatives if we fail to provide them. The need for additional dwelling units is becoming increasingly evident, and while Niagara Falls has recently permitted two additional units per property, many homeowners hesitate to invest in long-term rentals due to fears of tenant issues and concerns about privacy. By allowing owner-occupied short- term accommodations, homeowners could rent to students during the school year or accommodate family visits without long-term commitments. This approach not only increases housing availability but also alleviates some of the anxiety associated with full-time rentals. Lastly, I want to address the regulations established in 2021, which made it nearly impossible to license new bed-and-breakfasts in Niagara Falls. Since those changes, no new licensed establishments have emerged. Other communities have successfully implemented fair and accessible licensing processes, and I believe Niagara Falls can do the same by adjusting its regulations. I am going to attach the licensing requirements for Fort Erie and Port Colborne as examples of how simple other municipalities are making it but there are many. In conclusion, legalizing owner-occupied short-term accommodations can yield numerous benefits for our community without negative repercussions. I urge you to consider this perspective as you deliberate on the upcoming proposal. Thank you for taking the time, Rachel Stempski (905) 327-5656 https://forms.portcolborne.ca/Legislative-Services/Business-Licence-Lodging-House https://www.forterie.ca/en/build-and-invest/resources/documents/EDTS/Schedule-4-BedBreakfast--- (By-law-No.-217-05).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 3/14/25, 10:17 AM Re: [EXTERNAL]-A note on owner occupied short term rentals. about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane13 2/2 Page 230 of 1679 Outlook Re: City of Niagara Falls Notice of Statutory Public Meeting for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals From Behnam <behnam_e@yahoo.com> Date Thu 3/13/2025 7:01 AM To Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Support for Owner-Occupied Short-Term Rentals in Residential Areas Hi Kailen, I am writing to express my support for Owner-Occupied Short-Term Rentals (OOSTRs) in residential areas. The new amendment aligns with the government’s Niagara Strategy, announced last year by Premier Doug Ford, which aims to attract more tourists through new developments and regional enhancements. The City should proactively prepare for an increase in visitors with diverse accommodation needs, such as pet-friendly stays, group or multi-generational travel, kitchen facilities, and private amenities like swimming pools and hot tubs. OOSTRs offer significant potential benefits for the City, local businesses, tourists, neighborhoods, and homeowners: Benefits to the City: 1. A steady new revenue stream from annual licensing fees, renewals, and the Municipal Accommodation Tax (MAT). 2. Support for small businesses without requiring costly infrastructure investments (e.g., new roads, hydro lines, or sewer systems). 3. Economic resilience—by fostering small businesses, the City can help mitigate economic challenges posed by tariffs and inflation. 4. Reduced enforcement burden, as licensed STRs will reduce the need for bylaw officers to address illegal rentals. 5. Improved safety—licensed STRs must meet safety and preparedness requirements, making them safer than regular residential homes. Benefits to Local Businesses: 1. Increased foot traffic for local bars, restaurants, and grocery stores, particularly in areas beyond tourist hotspots like Clifton Hill and Queen Street. 2. Job creation for accountants, insurance brokers, and other professionals managing the business side of STRs. 3. Demand for tradespeople (e.g., interior designers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters) to maintain and upgrade properties, supporting well-paying jobs. 3/13/25, 1:51 PM Re: City of Niagara Falls Notice of Statutory Public Meeting for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals - Kailen Goerz - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane4 1/3 Page 231 of 1679 4. Strengthened local businesses—by sustaining STR operations, the City helps protect businesses from economic downturns caused by tariffs and other financial pressures. Benefits to Tourists: With a favorable exchange rate attracting more American tourists and fewer Canadians traveling abroad, Niagara Falls may see an increase in domestic and international visitors. OOSTRs provide: 1. More accommodation choices, catering to different needs and preferences. 2. Options for travelers with pets, large groups, or those seeking more privacy. 3. The assurance of renting a licensed STR over an unregulated alternative. Benefits to Neighborhoods: OOSTR owners take pride in their properties, ensuring that: 1. Front yards are well-landscaped with flowers, lighting, and decorative elements. 2. Lawns are properly maintained. 3. Driveways are clean, free of debris, and well-kept. 4. Snow removal and salting are consistently managed in winter months. These improvements enhance neighborhood aesthetics and overall property values. Benefits to Homeowners: With economic uncertainty and potential job losses, OOSTRs provide homeowners with an opportunity to generate supplemental income to cover: 1. Tuition fees for their children’s higher education. 2. Medical expenses. 3. Rising living costs. 4. Mortgage payments and other essential expenses. Key Zoning Provisions to Consider: 1. Definition of Ownership – Clarify the term "owner" to include the homeowner’s partner, children, in- laws, or siblings living on the property. These family members are equally invested in maintaining a responsible and well-managed OOSTR. 2. Parking Requirements – Allow garages to count as parking spaces. If a home has a garage and two parallel driveway spaces, this should meet the parking requirement for a three-bedroom house. I appreciate your time and consideration in supporting OOSTRs as a valuable asset to the community. Regards, Behnam On Saturday, February 22, 2025 at 08:01:00 a.m. EST, Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> wrote: 3/13/25, 1:51 PM Re: City of Niagara Falls Notice of Statutory Public Meeting for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals - Kailen Goerz - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane4 2/3 Page 232 of 1679 Hello, This e-mail is to advise of the upcoming Statutory Public Meeng related to the City of Niagara Falls iniated Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to allow for Owner Occupied Short- Term Rentals within residenal areas. Please find aached the Noce for the Statutory Public Meeng scheduled for March 18, 2025. Please note, you are being nofied because you have previously expressed interest in this iniave. If you no longer wish to receive updates related to these amendments, please let me know. Sincerely, Kailen Kailen Goerz, MCIP, RPP | Senior Manager of Long Range Planning Initiatives | Planning, Building, and Development | City of Niagara Falls Mailing Address: 4310 Queen Street | Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 | Office: Wayne Thomson Building | 4343 Morrison Street Office (905) 356-7521 ext 4252 | Cell (289) 241-7503 | Fax 905-356-2354 |kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca Ournew online portal can be found at: https://niagarafalls.ca/services/cityview.aspx City of Niagara Falls Logo niagarafalls.ca Hamilton-Niagara's TOP EMPLOYER 2025 The City of Niagara Falls Confidentiality Notice The information contained in this communication including any attachments may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, disclosure or copying of this communication, or any of its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy from your computer system. Thank you 3/13/25, 1:51 PM Re: City of Niagara Falls Notice of Statutory Public Meeting for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals - Kailen Goerz - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane4 3/3 Page 233 of 1679 Outlook Re: City of Niagara Falls Notice of Statutory Public Meeting for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals From Hansley Pais <hansley.pais@gmail.com> Date Wed 3/12/2025 8:02 PM To Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> Hi Kailen, Thank you the response to my previous email. Another question - Is there any insurance liability requirement for OOSTR? Currently, VRUs and B&Bs are required to have commercial insurance liability. On Wed, Feb 26, 2025, 09:42 Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> wrote: Hi Hansley, I apologize for the delay in geng back to you. I wanted to touch base with By-law enforcement regarding your quesons. In response to your first queson, the City generally addresses concerns on a complaint basis, however when a license is issued, we can complete impromptu inspecons to ensure that the licensee is on the premises in accordance with the relevant by-laws. If the owner is not present, we would expect them to be there within a reasonable amount of me (recognizing that people work and need to leave the house as part of their daily lives - to get groceries, go to the doctor etc.). In response to your second queson, the City has had prior communicaons with various plaorms, but it is premature to suggest what the relaonship would be and how they would be ulized through the enforcement process at this point. Hopefully this helps. Please let me know if you have any addional quesons. Thank you, Kailen From: Hansley Pais <hansley.pais@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 5:15 PM To: Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Re: City of Niagara Falls Noce of Statutory Public Meeng for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals   Hi Kailen, Thank you for the email.  Quick question on enforcement of the bylaws.  3/13/25, 2:04 PM Re: City of Niagara Falls Notice of Statutory Public Meeting for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals - Kailen Goerz - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane11 1/2 Page 234 of 1679 1. Is there a way for the city to enforce whether the owner is actually staying on the property? I have seen cases in other cities where entire houses are given for rent but one owner having their licence registered at the rental property to deem it "owner-occupied". Would the city be actively monitoring Airbnb listings? 2. The city of Toronto has a partnership with Airbnb and Vrbo for bylaw enforcement. Under that arrangement, all hosts have to register with the city to have an active listing. Given the high number of properties in Niagara Falls, can the city have a similar arrangement that assists in bylaw enforcement? On Sat, Feb 22, 2025, 08:00 Kailen Goerz <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> wrote: Hello, This e-mail is to advise of the upcoming Statutory Public Meeng related to the City of Niagara Falls iniated Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to allow for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals within residenal areas. Please find aached the Noce for the Statutory Public Meeng scheduled for March 18, 2025. Please note, you are being nofied because you have previously expressed interest in this iniave. If you no longer wish to receive updates related to these amendments, please let me know. Sincerely, Kailen Kailen Goerz, MCIP, RPP | Senior Manager of Long Range Planning Initiatives | Planning, Building, and Development | City of Niagara Falls Mailing Address: 4310 Queen Street | Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 | Office: Wayne Thomson Building | 4343 Morrison Street Office (905) 356-7521 ext 4252 | Cell (289) 241-7503 | Fax 905-356-2354 | kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca Our new online portal can be found at: https://niagarafalls.ca/services/cityview.aspx City of Niagara Falls Logo niagarafalls.ca Hamilton-Niagara's TOP EMPLOYER 2025 The City of Niagara Falls Confidentiality Notice The information contained in this communication including any attachments may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, disclosure or copying of this communication, or any of its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy from your computer system. Thank you 3/13/25, 2:04 PM Re: City of Niagara Falls Notice of Statutory Public Meeting for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals - Kailen Goerz - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane11 2/2 Page 235 of 1679 Outlook [EXTERNAL]-Owner Occupied Short Term Rental From Spencer Kirkness <spencerkirkness@gmail.com> Date Fri 2/7/2025 7:12 PM To kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca <kgoerz@niagarafalls.ca> Hi, I hope this email finds you well. I was looking to find out more info about the recent public open house in regards to the potential allowance of owner occupied short term rental, as well as to see if there was/is a date set for the report to council/public meeting. Unfortunately, I didn't make it to the public open house, but I have been keeping an eye on the letstalk.niagarafalls page to see if there were any updates as to when the public meeting would be held as I see it's just noted as "February 2025". I would be extremely grateful if you could fill me in on any updates as I am highly interested in the matter. I made an attempt to reach out to oostr@niagarafalls.ca to no avail, so I thought I would give your direct email a try. Thanks for any help or guidance you can provide! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaon. Do not click links or open aachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 3/14/25, 10:21 AM [EXTERNAL]-Owner Occupied Short Term Rental - Kailen Goerz - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane15 1/1 Page 236 of 1679 PBD-2025-17 Planning Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: March 18, 2025 Title: Garner West Secondary Plan Update Recommendation(s) 1. That Council RECEIVE report PBD-2025-17 for information purposes respecting progress on the Garner West Secondary Plan project. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the Garner West Secondary Plan and provide a summary of the work that has been completed to date including:  The completion and delivery of four Phase 1 Existing Conditions reports, related to transportation, servicing, land use compatibility and fiscal impact;  The completion and delivery of a Phase 1 Interim Subwatershed Study report, related to the work that has been undertaken to date on this four-season study;  The completion and delivery of a report summarizing the Community Focus Group visioning exercise; and  A summary of “what we heard” from attendees at the February 11, 2025 Public Information Meeting that provided information and explanation on the findings of the Existing Conditions reports. This report provides next steps and anticipated timing to complete Phase 2 and 3, leading to the draft Secondary Plan being presented to Council for consideration of approval. Background Accommodating future growth will be shared across the City’s remaining vacant development lands (previously called “Greenfield” lands) and through intensification in strategic locations throughout the City. The Garner West Secondary Plan Area represents and is being planned on largely vacant development lands added to the urban area boundary by Niagara Region in 2022 following extensive examination and assessment at the regional level, and through approval by the Province of the New Regional Official Plan. The Secondary Plan process follows a three-phase approach to developing a land use plan and policies that will require Council approval and be integrated through Official Plan amendment into the City’s Official Plan at the conclusion of the process. Page 1 of 369 Page 237 of 1679 In July 2023, Council authorized City staff to commence work on the Garner West Secondary Plan. The City retained qualified consultants to undertake the required background studies including transportation, functional servicing, land use compatibility, fiscal impact, and subwatershed, that will inform future planning of this urban expansion area. This report provides summary comments on the Phase 1 reporting, generally referred to as “Existing Conditions” reports. These Existing Conditions Reports document the general characteristics, existing conditions investigations/observations and findings, as it relates to the physical and financial status of the study area at this point in time, serving as a benchmark for measure against future community development. Staff also assembled a Community Focus Group (CFG) following an Expression of Interest advertising campaign. The Community Focus Group is comprised of 7 members with varied interests including residents within and outside of the Plan Area, and those of owner/developer interest. To date two meetings have been held with additional meetings expected in subsequent phases of the process. The CFG members act in a voluntary capacity, offering their views and perspectives for staff consideration during the Plan’s development. Copies of Existing Conditions background studies are appended to this report and can also be accessed through the Let’s Talk Niagara Falls webpage for the Garner West Secondary Plan for review by any interested person or party. Analysis Plan Area Page 2 of 369 Page 238 of 1679 The Plan Area is bounded by Lundy’s Lane (Regional Rd 20) to the north, Garner Road along the east, McLeod Road forming the southerly limit and Beechwood Road along the west. The total site area is approximately 180 ha. (444.8 ac.) as shown on Figure 1. These lands were added to the urban area boundary by Niagara Region in November 2022 through the Province’s approval of its new Official Plan. These lands are identified for “Community” use, meaning for the planning and development of a residential community and the various supporting land uses (such as parks and open space, schools, environmental protection areas, and mixed-use commercial, as examples). Figure 1 below shows the location of the Plan Area. Figure 1 - Location Map Page 3 of 369 Page 239 of 1679 Community Focus Group – Visioning Exercise (Appendix “1”) Following the establishment of the CFG, a facilitated workshop was held on December 20, 2023. Several exercises were undertaken with the group including a strengths, weakness, opportunity and constraints (SWOC) analysis aimed at gathering views and opinions of the members. Additional information gathered included some objectives for the City to consider when planning the community. The CFG worked with the facilitator in generating an aspirational vision statement for consideration, to guide the remaining planning steps of preparing a Secondary Plan. The facilitator, Claire Basinski, President of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, and working for CIMA Canada Inc. at that time, captured the participants contributions in a report that summarizes the exercises, which is provided as Appendix “1”. The Visioning Workshop Summary Report will serve to remind staff throughout the secondary plan process of what the various community members had offered in the way of opinion and perspectives. A second CFG meeting was held on August 28, 2024 to start the discussion on the types of land uses that may be appropriate to consider, as staff moves into the second phase of the program to develop and consult on conceptual land use options. Staff anticipate 2 additional meetings with the CFG, one to discuss the staff refined land use options, and again when a preferred land use plan and policies have been drafted. Background Studies A series of background studies are being undertaken to inform the secondary planning process. The studies are required under policies of the Niagara Region’s Official Plan to ensure appropriate study and investigations are being performed that will inform the entirety of the area and not just a parcel by parcel approach. This helps in the coordinated and comprehensive infrastructure, transportation and environmental systems planning, as well as capital budget planning of major infrastructure (water and wastewater trunk and transmission) and other community and soft service need. These studies include a clear scope and terms of reference that were developed in consultation with Regional and Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority staff as required and where appropriate. The City has retained qualified consultants to undertake and complete the required studies. Not all lands within the Secondary Plan Area will be developed. Lands that require environmental protection (significant woodlands and/or wetlands) or hydro corridor lands are examples of lands that will remain undeveloped. The background study work will identify constraints at the secondary planning scale, such as those mentioned, or less obvious potential constraints (topographic constraint or drainage feature limitation) to inform land use designation and layout through the next phases of the process. Page 4 of 369 Page 240 of 1679 Almost all landowners within the Secondary Plan Area have agreed to allow the City’s consultants to enter onto their lands for the purposes of field investigations and observations, which is appreciated. This will reduce future study costs when the time comes for private applications to be made, having the ability to refine any additional detailed study scope based on outcome of the background reports. A brief description of each study is provided in the body of this report, and the Phase 1 background studies are provided as Appendices. The Phase 1 reports are characterized as “Existing Conditions”, which effectively aim to document the present-day conditions found on or having influence on the lands, to serve as benchmarks when assessing future land use options. 1. Transportation Impact Assessment – Existing Conditions(Appendix “2”) The Phase 1 Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) documents the area traffic patterns using the most recent intersection counting available or undertaken to provide an accurate picture on the existing volumes and movements around the perimeter of the Secondary Plan Area. This enables a base year to be established in modeling software that will be used to project conditions into the future at varied intervals. The study documents current level of service ratings for the study area intersections that will be useful in determining timing for roadway improvements to accommodate future demand (for example, timing for additional lanes or when changes to intersection control would be warranted). It can be noted that the TIA study area extends beyond the Secondary Plan Area boundary, as it looks at impacts this future community will have on key intersections that will experience increased volumes as a result of future residents traveling to and from the new community. Additionally, the study maps active transportation in the area that will be useful in determining options for future pedestrian connection that can serve to provide alternate means of travel. The study also notes transit services presently servicing the vicinity. Since there is no major development on the subject lands currently contributing to demand, existing services are limited. A future land use plan and projected population would be used in forecasting future demands on the transit services. City staff will consult the Niagara Transit Commission as part of the future phases of work. 2. Functional Servicing – Existing Conditions (Appendix “3”) This study provides a comprehensive collection of servicing information that is useful in understanding certain aspects of water and wastewater infrastructure planning. The Page 5 of 369 Page 241 of 1679 report identifies a series of contextual and technical characteristics, in addition to potential constraints to infrastructure planning. The report also identifies potential routing for servicing based on Regional Master Servicing Plan and subsequently, the City’s Master Servicing Plan presently being completed. The Report makes use of a variety of mapping to help illustrate and locate the existing infrastructure networks within the vicinity of the Plan Area for easy visual reference. In addition, and for general awareness, the report identifies the technical guidance and parameters that are typically applied to identify when certain infrastructure may require upgrade. Once a preferred land use plan is identified, the modeling and measures can make use of these benchmarks to identify and forecast when capital infrastructure projects would likely be needed. The report provides early indication and identifies alignment with Niagara Region major infrastructure planning and capital projects identified through the Region’s Master Servicing Plan, allowing local master planning work to proceed concurrently. Lastly, the report provides recommendations for staff respecting Phase 2 work that can be used to guide conceptual land use planning from a servicing perspective. Alternative servicing solutions may be considered once a preferred land use plan has been established. There may be potential to gain access to services in existing systems for some smaller portions of this Plan Area with such alternatives will requiring further study (by others). Until the City has a preferred land use plan identified, it would be premature to entertain alternatives to the current Master Servicing study work aimed at servicing the entirety of the Secondary Plan Area with capital projects already identified in the Development Charges Background Study. 3. Land Use Compatibility – Existing Conditions (Appendix “4”) The Land Use Compatibility study was conducted to identify and assess existing uses surrounding the Secondary Plan Area that could represent conflicts when introducing more sensitive uses (such as residential use). Findings of the initial assessment indicate that the planned use of the Garner West Secondary Plan for community residential use is not expected to be impacted by any industry uses identified in the Phase 1 study. The study does identify three uses within proximity to the Plan Area, by industry class, that staff will need to be aware of for subsequent phases of the project. The three locations that had been identified include Walker Brothers proposed quarry northwest of the Plan Area (should approval be granted by the OLT), BV Glazing Systems northeast of the Plan Area, and Dan’s Produce adjacent to the southwest corner of the Plan Area (Beechwood Road and McLeod Road). Page 6 of 369 Page 242 of 1679 It can be noted that Ministry D-6 guidelines do not apply to quarrying and the potential of that future land use is only raised for awareness (should it be approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal). The report suggests that studies may be required for lands proximate to the three identified uses. Staff will make use of the information when considering land use concepts and options, in addition to policy development. Ultimately, the Secondary Plan will identify any additional studies required once planning applications are submitted depending on the types of use and built form being proposed. If mitigation is required, it would be based on the site-specific proposals and be scoped to any recommendations of the consultant carried forward into policies of the Secondary Plan. 4. Fiscal Impact Study – Existing Conditions (Appendix “5”) The Fiscal Impact Study was undertaken to establish a financial benchmark of the current conditions of the Plan Area. The report identifies items such as current population and jobs, length of road and current road conditions, any sewer or water services being provided to the Plan Area presently, the related costs versus the revenues generated. Establishing this benchmark will allow for the measure against new capital investment need, ongoing lifespan operating/maintenance cost, and projected revenue from municipal taxes or other sources, once a preferred land use plan has been identified. The report calculates the costs to maintain these roads and services on a per person approach (per capita) to determine net operating cost and provides current assessment revenue collected for the properties involved. Once a preferred land use plan has been determined, the consultant will undertake and complete a comprehensive financial impact assessment. The analysis will include a summary of the new anticipated capital and operating costs, and assessment revenue projection based on that preferred plan. Capital costs will be informed from the Cityʼs 2024 Development Charges (DC) Background Study, as well as the ongoing Master Servicing Plan and Master Transportation Plan updates and supporting analysis. This detailed analysis will occur in Phase 3 of the secondary plan process. 5. Subwatershed Interim Reporting – Existing Characterization (Appendix “6”) A Subwatershed Study is a year-long process intended to identify and evaluate the location, extent, significance and sensitivity of the existing natural features of the Page 7 of 369 Page 243 of 1679 Secondary Plan Area, together with potential interrelationship with other components of a natural environment system. All four seasons are monitored and site visits conducted to document findings and observations for a period of one year. It is only after this period of time that an Existing Characterization report can be completed in a final format. This Interim Report aims to provide information about the consultant’s observations to date, what has been identified, and will be continually monitored over the remaining seasonal scheduled visits. A summary of some of the early findings to date were shared at the Public Information Meeting. It must be noted that the Interim Report will maintain its draft status until the remainder of seasonal fieldwork, mapping, and analysis is completed in summer of 2025. The Interim Report outlines initial findings from surveys conducted in summer and fall 2024, covering various ecological aspects such as aquatic and terrestrial ecology, surface water quality, hydrology, and vegetation. It notes the identification of 96 plant species, 74 of which are non-native to Ontario, some invasive. The report also notes incidental bird and amphibian sightings, as well as species recorded in local databases. A list of potential mammal, reptile, and invertebrate species has been compiled, with further field investigations planned in spring and early summer. The report also includes a preliminary species-at-risk list, with further evaluation occurring during the remaining seasonal surveys. There is still much field and observational study to be undertaken over the coming Spring and Summer seasons, prior to the Subwatershed Study Existing Characterization Report being completed. The anticipated completion of the final Subwatershed Study will follow summer 2025 observations. Public Engagement and Consultation City staff conducted a Public Information Meeting on February 11, 2025 at the McBain Centre. Approximately 14 persons attended the meeting where planning staff were on hand to give a presentation, answer questions about the Secondary Plan project, including information about the process and the background studies completed to date. Additionally, staff outlined next steps and anticipated timing of the subsequent phases leading up to a formal Planning Act amendment process. Page 8 of 369 Page 244 of 1679 Staff highlighted options for the public to stay informed, how they could provide comments to the City and where they could access key documents to inform themselves (Let’s Talk page). Staff encourages the public to sign up for updates and notifications through the Let’s Talk platform. Respecting the Public Information Meeting presentation and discussion, the following summarizes “What We Heard” from those in attendance:  Staff were asked to check the Transit Routing displayed in the report mapping. An attendee felt there may be an existing route on Garner Road. Staff will discuss with Consultant and Niagara Transit to confirm current day routing and the presence of a new route, and update mapping if a new route is confirmed.  Staff were asked about the Subwatersheds found within the Plan Area. Staff advised portions / headwaters of three Subwatersheds are found within the Plan Area (Beaverdams Creek, Thompson Creek, and Powel Canal Subwatersheds).  Staff were asked to expand notification effort for future meetings such as making use of electronic billboards and posting notices at city venues. Staff noted the comment and will discuss internally on additional options for future meetings.  Attendee would like the Niagara Falls Nature Club to be advised of the authorization of a future Secondary Plan south of the new Niagara Falls Hospital in light of environmental features in that area.  Attendee inquired about stormwater management (SWM) and if such facilities could be enhanced for habitat. Staff advised details of SWM with come in the future. Work being conducted by the Subwatershed consultant, in conjunction with the Functional Servicing consultant will provide direction relative to SWM provisions. Options will be discussed later in the project once a preferred land use plan is developed.  Attendee inquired about the future of the golf course; would it remain? Staff advised that it would be redeveloped as part of the Secondary Plan for housing and related land uses.  Attendee inquired about implementing wildlife crossings on major roadways (small mammal and reptiles). Staff advised it would pass the inquiry along to consultant team on whether such a feature would be feasible with an urban road cross section.  Attendee would like improvements for active transportation (AT) along Garner Road as the development progresses. Conditions are unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists currently. Staff advised the Transportation Impact Study will include an Page 9 of 369 Page 245 of 1679 AT component for future planning considerations during road improvements that support AT.  Public School Board staff in attendance look forward to additional consultation as the project continues in the next phases. Staff thanked those who attended for their interest and comments and look forward to future meetings. Respecting agency, partner and prescribed bodies, with background studies complete, staff will embark on a series of agency and partner consultations and provide access to the background reports that may help in consultations. The Regional Official Plan required staff to consult with the NPCA and the Region on Terms of Reference for the background studies conducted. In this respect, these two authorities are already aware of the planning activity and will become circulated agencies once the Region’s planning responsibilities have been revoked on March 31, 2025. The NPCA will still maintain regulatory authority in respect of Conservation Authority Act regulations relating to watercourse and drainage. Staff will schedule Indigenous consultation, consultation with school boards, key internal departments such as Parks and Engineering staff and circulations to all other prescribed agencies and bodies in advance of any formal amendment processing, to ensure early awareness and thorough consultation is being achieved. As indicated earlier, staff have met with the CFG and will hold additional meetings in subsequent phases. Staff have also met with landowners on their request at the outset of this project. Additional meetings with landowners may be arise from time to time when relevant matters dictate. Next Steps Planning staff are using this opportunity to report to Council on the status of the Secondary Plan, which effectively draws conclusion to the Phase 1 work plan. Phase 2 will see the preparation of conceptual land use plans that will be distilled into two concepts. Those concepts will be reviewed by our technical experts and brought to the public and the CFG for additional comment and feedback prior to staff developing a single, preferred land use plan to take forward into the final phase (the formal processing phase). A report on the concepts and identification of a preferred land use plan will be the focus of Phase 2 reporting to Council, prior to preparation and initiation of Phase 3 work. Page 10 of 369 Page 246 of 1679 The Phase 3 studies would make use of the preferred land use plan to detail recommendations of the various disciplines, provide routing and sizing of expected core services, project anticipated capital cost and phasing of such items relating to transportation, water and sewer timing. It will also provide delineation of the natural features and environmental protections (at the secondary plan level – with recommendations of EIS studies at the time of individual applications). Planning staff will also prepare edge planning policy (for agricultural interface) and urban design goals for the community during the Phase 2 efforts and will refine as needed once a preferred land use plan is identified for Phase 3. Staff will be monitoring progress of the City’s new Official Plan in respect of new policy framework, in effort to avoid any duplication and ensure alignment and consistency of policy that may be shared between the Secondary Plan and that of parent policy. Financial Implications/Budget Impact There is no financial implication to the preparation of this information report for Council. The project remains within previously approved 2023 capital budget for the background studies to be completed. While background studies are being prepared by subject experts, the Secondary Plan land use plan and policy are being prepared in-house. Strategic/Departmental Alignment The development of the Garner West Secondary Plan is consistent with the City of Niagara Falls Sustainability and Economic Diversity and Growth Strategic Pillars. Elements of the Financial, Environmental, and Social Sustainability priorities are being achieved with a staff led and managed secondary planning program including respecting and maintaining budgetary restraint, detailed study of area environmental conditions, and seeking a complete and healthy community design and housing for future residents of Niagara Falls. Elements of the Economic Diversity and Growth priorities are reflected in the planned investments for infrastructure to service the new community and the spin-off construction industry jobs that will be required to build this community over the coming years. Strategic Plan Pillars Economic Diversification & Growth Fostering a balanced and sustainable local economy achieved by expanding and diversifying the types of industries and businesses operating within the community. Page 11 of 369 Page 247 of 1679 Sustainability - Financial Effectively managing the City’s financial resources to meet our current and future obligations without relying on external funding sources or sacrificing our ability to deliver essential services to our residents . Sustainability - Environmental Implementing practices and policies to ensure the health and well-being of the environment for current and future generations. Sustainability - Social Working in partnership with the Niagara Region to ensure residents have access to basic needs, ensuring that Niagara Falls is a livable, inclusive and supportive community for all. List of Attachments Appendix 1 – CFG Facilitation Report GWSP Appendix 2 – Transportation Impact Existing Conditions GWSP Appendix 3 – Functional Servicing Existing Conditions GWSP Appendix 4 – Land Use Compatibility Existing Conditions GWSP Appendix 5 – Fiscal Impact Existing Conditions GWSP Appendix 6 – Interim Subwatershed Study GWSP Written by: Chris Millar, Senior Project Manager - Secondary Plans Submitted by: Status: Signe Hansen, Director of Planning Approved - 09 Mar 2025 Kira Dolch, General Manager, Planning, Building & Development Approved - 09 Mar 2025 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 09 Mar 2025 Page 12 of 369 Page 248 of 1679 CIMA+ Project No. B001730 January 5, 2024 City of Niagara Falls Final Report Submitted by CIMA CANADA INC. 900–101 Frederick Street, Kitchener, ON N2H 6R2 T 519-772-2299 F 519-772-2298 cima.ca Contact Claire Basinski E: claire.basinski@cima.ca T: 519-772-2299 C : 647-680-4894 City of Niagara Falls Garner West Secondary Plan Working Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report Page 13 of 369 Page 249 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Garner West Secondary Plan . pg. ii Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ....................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................. ii 1.0 Purpose & Objectives ............................................................................ 1 2.0 Approach & Attendees .......................................................................... 2 3.0 Summary of Input .................................................................................. 4 3.1 SWOC Assessment .......................................................................................... 4 3.2 Community Vision ............................................................................................ 8 3.3 Community Objectives ................................................................................... 11 4.0 Next Steps & Engagement ................................................................... 13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 . Secondary Plan Area Map ........................................................................................ 1 LIST OF APPENDICIES Appendix 1 . Garner West Secondary Plan Area Context Page 14 of 369 Page 250 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Garner West Secondary Plan . pg. 1 Garner West Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 1.0 PURPOSE & OBJECTIVES The City of Niagara Falls is one of Niagara Regions’ targeted growth municipalities and is preparing to meet the challenges of growth in a proactive and inclusive manner. The Niagara Region’s allocation of residential growth to the 2051 horizon is highest amongst all local municipalities in the Region. As part of its planning responsibilities and with the planning tools at its disposal, the City has introduced a Secondary Planning Program to assist in its long-term allocation of local growth. At this time, the City is undertaking secondary planning exercises for greenfield lands recently added to the City’s settlement area boundary through Niagara Region’s Municipal Comprehensive Review and new Official Plan process. In the immediate term, two of the three newly assigned greenfield expansions are proceeding with secondary planning including the Northwest Secondary Plan Area and the Garner West Secondary Plan Area. A key map of the two secondary plan areas are illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1 . Secondary Plan Area Map Page 15 of 369 Page 251 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Garner West Secondary Plan . pg. 2 Garner West Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 As part of the City’s secondary planning program, City staff have established separate Community Focus Groups (“CFG”) for each of the plan areas. The Community Focus Groups are made up of individuals who have responded to an Expression of Interest issued by the City for participation and contribution to an inclusive and engaging secondary planning process. Each group is comprised of a cross section of community members and representatives with varying profiles, sharing some degree of vested interest in the future development of the secondary plan area. The Garner West CFG is comprised of seven members who met with the profile criteria as set out in the notice issued by the City. While there will be a number of opportunities for engagement throughout the secondary planning process, City staff sought input from the CFG early in the process through a facilitated visioning workshop session specific to the Garner West Secondary Plan area. The workshop was held on December 20th, 2023, at City Hall and was facilitated by a third-party facilitator, Claire Basinski, MCIP, RPP, CP3 who supported staff in the design and execution of the workshop. The workshop objectives were defined, documented, and communicated to all invitees in the form of a meeting agenda which was distributed on Monday December 18th, 2023, between 10:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. The objectives were as follows: •Establish an understanding of the current planning context and work being undertaken by the City of Niagara Falls in the context of future strategic secondary plan development areas., •Undertake community-based visioning exercises to foster a sense of involvement and interest in the development of the pending secondary plan area concepts and explore vested and community interests and opinions be considered in the development of the future secondary plan, and •Create a forum and format that allows for honest and transparent communication and engagement, builds productive relationships for all parties, and gathers of a wider range of input to inform future planning work related to the Garner West secondary plan area. A more detailed overview of the workshop approach, input received and major themes that emerged are provided in the following sections. 2.0 APPROACH & ATTENDEES An effective working session or workshop is typically designed around objectives set by the project “owners” i.e. the City of Niagara Falls, to be interpreted and exercised with those in attendance i.e. the CFG, as their input serves to inform the outcome. The City’s objectives established in Section 1.0 were used to frame the workshop agenda and framework which started with a presentation providing geographic or physical focus for project context, followed by three interactive, facilitated activities. The attendees included those who were available to participate from the CFG including individuals with a range of backgrounds and interests. For the Garner West Secondary Plan Area CFG, there were seven individuals in attendance, including two who participated virtually with the remaining five participating in person. Page 16 of 369 Page 252 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Garner West Secondary Plan . pg. 3 Garner West Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 The following are some highlights and considerations regarding the CFG members: •Members demonstrated a wide range of understanding on the project and planning process. •All attendees have either a personal or professional interest in the study area. •Some have a higher degree of understanding of municipal process due to existing or past work experience. •Other members are directly impacted by the future planning of the neighbourhood and have a vested interest in the outcomes of the process. The format of the agenda and activities identified have been used for other Secondary Plan Area studies within Niagara Region and is an appropriate starting point to establish project foundations. Upon reviewing the approach, City staff and the third-party facilitator confirmed the activity details and format. City staff were responsible for coordinating all logistics related to the CFG session including provision of materials and AV set-up. The facilitator provided additional set-up support reflecting the anticipated attendees, room layout and the unfolding of the three activities. The following is a copy of the agenda that was provided to attendees and used to guide the workshop session. A copy of the presentation given in agenda item #3 is provided in Appendix 1. The times allocated to the various workshop components acted as a general framework which was adapted to ensure that the workshop objectives were met and all those in attendance had an opportunity to contribute. Item Scheduled Time 1.Greetings / Welcome 9:45 – 10:00 a.m. 2.Welcome, General Manager’s Message & Introductions 10:00 – 10:15 a.m. 3.Project Context Presentation 10:15 – 10:30 a.m. 4.Activity #1: Setting the Stage 10:30 – 11:30 a.m. 5.Lunch 11:30 – 12:00 p.m. 6.Activity #2: Establishing a Vision 12:00 – 1:00 p.m. 7.Activity #3: Articulating the Future 1:00 – 2:15 p.m. 8.Closing Remarks 2:15 – 2:30 p.m. As part of the greetings and welcome, each attendee was asked to provide their name and background and note either why they were interested in the project or why they wanted to participate in the Secondary Plan process. The highlights from this discussion include: •The majority of the group included representatives of local landowners who were interested in the future of the area relative to specific land holdings and ongoing / future potential Page 17 of 369 Page 253 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Garner West Secondary Plan . pg. 4 Garner West Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 work. For those individuals the goal was to learn more about the process and represent the interests of the landowners/developers, •Residents with a long history living within the City and area with a strong interest in how these properties are going to be developed and the impact that it would have on their individual lands as well as the City in general, •Shared interest in being part of the future vision of the City of Niagara Falls for this new neighbourhood, and •Shared understanding that there is a significant need for the swift development of housing based on regional and provincial growth directions. Due to the fact that there were two attendees participating virtually, a more virtual approach to facilitation was used including Word / PowerPoint templates that were shared on the screen and updated as input was provided. Attendees participated via Teams and were encouraged to ask questions of City staff and the group. Where needed the approach was adapted to ensure that individuals were able to participate effectively. Section 3.0 provides a detailed summary of the intent and purpose of each of the activities undertaken, the input that was received, and how it is intended to be used in the next steps and stages of the Garner West Secondary Plan project. 3.0 SUMMARY OF INPUT The input received through the Garner West Secondary Plan Visioning Workshop will form part of the project consultation record with original and detailed notes provided to City staff for project reference. The following is a summary of input received through the three facilitated activities undertaken. 3.1 SWOC ASSESSMENT Activity #1 of the workshop was formatted as “setting the stage”. It followed the contextual presentation given by Chris Millar from the City of Niagara Falls. The intent of the first activity was to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and constraints associated with the Garner West Secondary Plan area also referred to as a SWOC analysis. These analyses are typically used to establish a better understanding of the context within which the project is being undertaken. For the purposes of effective facilitation, the definitions of each of these considerations were provided to the working group and were defined as follows: •Strength – an existing condition that should continue to be supported or encouraged. •Weakness – an existing condition that should be remediated. •Opportunity – a future condition that should be elevated or incorporated into the study. •Constraint - a future condition that should be avoided or mitigated or avoided where possible. Page 18 of 369 Page 254 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Garner West Secondary Plan . pg. 5 Garner West Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 To better understand the range of considerations for each, a category has been identified which demonstrates the breadth of impact and the frequency of the consideration type. For the purposes of this assessment the following categories were identified: •Economic – elements that have an impact on individual or community economic prosperity or performance •Socio-demographic – elements that pertain to the human impacts or aspects •Planning – elements that pertain to the planning structure or framework •Environment – elements that pertain to the natural environment •Collaboration – elements that pertain to the various partners or partnerships •Infrastructure – elements that pertain to the servicing of the area Strengths •Area as an entryway of the City (Economic) •Market demand within the Niagara Falls areas e.g. new university and economic growth (Economic) •High degree of developer impact and development involvement (Planning) •Hydro corridor and other green spaces (Environment) •Well-positioned community relative to future areas of growth and intensification areas (Planning) •City is undertaking concurrent projects related to planning for servicing and infrastructure (Infrastructure) •Wider transportation connectivity and support for alternate modes of transportation (Infrastructure) •City undertaking environmental assessment projects that prioritize challenging roadway corridors (Infrastructure) •High demand for seasonal recreation (Socio-demographic) •Situated within an area that has a lot of infrastructure and servicing provision (Infrastructure) •Several large lots with owners who are invested in the outcomes of the process (Planning) •Opportunity to leverage the intensification along Lundy’s Lane (Planning) •Assessments previously completed by the City and Region to provide direction on future uses (Planning) •Existing relationships between key stakeholders (Collaboration) •Prior work completed by developers and landowners taking into consideration infrastructure and servicing (Planning) •City signed Housing Pledge to the Province with identification of infrastructure considerations and impacts (Planning) •Shifting demographics and demographic needs (Socio-demographic) •Evolving economic needs (Economic) Opportunities •Community gateway potential (Economic) Page 19 of 369 Page 255 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Garner West Secondary Plan . pg. 6 Garner West Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 •Interconnectivity with wider transportation network expansion (Infrastructure) •Transit-oriented development and connectivity (Infrastructure) •Leveraging the ongoing planning projects and ensuring that there is coordination between the various assumptions and outcomes (Planning) •Using the secondary planning process as the guide for the area as opposed to the higher- level processes (Planning) •High demand and shortage of accommodations which we can be addressed through various development areas (Economic) •Coordination between business sector and municipal priorities (Collaboration) •Leveraging the future potential of funding from development re: infrastructure and servicing planning (Economic) •Engaging and working with school boards for future school development (Collaboration) •Providing community amenities through some of the natural / utility areas (Environment) •Integrating box culverts into the DC bylaw to address some of the floodplain issues (Infrastructure) •Proactive planning for the way in which people need to move i.e. transportation (Planning) •Look to the future potential of transportation to plan for evolving transportation needs (Infrastructure) •Consider resident movement not just within the community but to surrounding areas (Socio- demographic) •First and last mile opportunities within and outside of the community (Planning) •Hydro corridor used for pedestrian access with connectivity to wider community facilities and services (Environment) •Realignment and relocation of infrastructure for improved developability (where possible) (Infrastructure) •Tying into Lundy’s Lane and the future potential of growth and development north of the golf course (Planning) •Build in density considerations into the various land use options reflective of targets as well as land use needs (Planning) •Edge planning between the urban edge and the farms – transition of boundary and the interface and transition of uses (Planning) •Community expansion – more people within Niagara Falls to support future growth (Socio- demographic) •Fulfill strategic growth area vision and opportunity (Planning) •Acquisition of funding from external sources and development charges (Economic) •Tailor the density targets relative to the need for funding for the various municipal infrastructure and servicing needs e.g. area specific DC charge (Planning) •Leveraging the future studies being undertaken by the City e.g. the fiscal impact study (Economic) Weaknesses •Undersized box culverts which result in flood plains (Environment) Page 20 of 369 Page 256 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Garner West Secondary Plan . pg. 7 Garner West Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 •Increasing traffic impacts such as delays and congestion due to a greater number of individuals within the area e.g. Cloud Road with the new schools and other intensification (Infrastructure) •Individual and community up-take to alternate modes of transportation as opposed to single occupant vehicle (Socio-demographic) •Limited pedestrian facilities or access in surrounding areas (Infrastructure) •Infrastructure not yet reflecting the changes to community socio-demographics (Infrastructure) •Limited inter-regional connectivity (Infrastructure) •Approvals and coordination between internal and external stakeholders (Collaboration) •Safety concerns due to an increased volume of vehicular traffic and various roadway and recreational uses (Infrastructure) •Water flow on the site will need to be managed (Environment) •The need to generate momentum to continue the provision of services and infrastructure from surrounding areas into the new development areas (Infrastructure) •Relationship between and alignment of various priorities between different agencies (Collaboration) •Interface with the agricultural lands to the west with the appropriate transitions between the land uses (Planning) •Impact of future growth and expansion is not necessarily considered to the fullest extent (Planning) •Current funding model is not considered to be sufficient to accommodate the needed upgrades – as determined by the unit targets (Economic) Constraints •Need for consideration of environmental and servicing constraints e.g. woodlands and subwatershed areas (Environment) •Provincial and Regional targets relative to the future opportunities for growth (Planning) •Potential to miss the opportunity for alignment with the various planning projects being undertaken by the City and its partners (Planning) •Market drivers and other forces of change that influence the City but are outside its control (Economic) •Timing of service provision and construction potential (Collaboration) •Hazard lands, wooded areas etc. as a removal from potential developable lands which may have an impact on what is possible (Planning) •Only so many roadways with restricted potential for road widening in some locations to provide access to the future development (Infrastructure) •Water features within select developments e.g. Empire Lands and the potential for impacts on other community infrastructure (Infrastructure) •Disruption and impact on individuals and surrounding areas in terms of water flow (Infrastructure) •Sensitivity of City boundary expansion on the agricultural community (Planning) Page 21 of 369 Page 257 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Garner West Secondary Plan . pg. 8 Garner West Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 •Sanitary capacity – WWTP and sanitary sewer updates – cost of infrastructure upgrades throughout the municipality and the funding needs / partnership details (Economic) •Significant investment and funding needed (Economic) Based of the review of the strengths, opportunities, weaknesses and constraints and the categories in which they fall, the following table has been prepared to summarize the degree of reference for the various categories of consideration. Total Economic Socio- Demographic Planning Environment Collaboration Infrastructure Strength 16 3 2 7 1 1 4 Opportunity 25 5 2 9 2 2 5 Weakness 13 1 1 2 2 1 6 Constraint 12 3 0 4 1 1 3 Total 66 12 5 22 6 5 18 It is important to note that in many cases strengths can also be weaknesses and opportunities can be constraints. When reviewing each consideration, the City is encouraged to consider how they could be addressed in multiple contexts. To complete this activity and to help inform the future activities facilitated throughout the day attendees were asked to identify their top consideration from the SWOC analysis. The following is a summary of those results. Please note that the inputs are not presented in order of importance. 1.Minimum density thresholds relative to the infrastructure and servicing needs 2.Wholistic community as a nice place to live – doesn’t “all look the same” – wider community area 3.High density area with expediting infrastructure and servicing planning – leverage all ongoing planning efforts 4.Ensure good mix of housing typologies – diversity in housing types 5.Sweet spot between density and having an inclusive community where people can live, work and play – can’t just focus on building homes quickly – love to come to the area and raise a family, modal options 6.Create complete community – land use, servicing, density, etc. – within the context of attainable and affordable housing 7.Infrastructure – fix what’s there and plan for what’s coming 3.2 COMMUNITY VISION Page 22 of 369 Page 258 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Garner West Secondary Plan . pg. 9 Garner West Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 Activity #2 of the workshop was used to create a vision statement for the Garner West Secondary Plan Area. The goal was to use a facilitated discussion to create a statement that represents the future aspirations of the Secondary Plan area once planned, designed, constructed, and lived in. The vision statement is an early building block to which future stages, particularly that of land use arrangement, can be tested and reflected. It can also inform the public to give reference on their commenting submissions with respect to the planning direction being taken by the City. A vision statement can take many forms but typically is around 3-5 sentences and is very high level, articulating the aspirations for the community. The benefit of the chosen approach to develop this vision statement is that it has been developed based on input from the CFG i.e. individuals who have a vested interest in the positive impact and outcomes of the planning process and a unique knowledge of the study area. Activity #2 was a three (3) part facilitated activity including: •Part 1 – “one word” – each attendee was asked to identify words that come to mind when thinking of an ideal community of what they would like to see the future of the secondary plan area to look like / feel like / function like. All of the words were documented on a slide in the form of a word cloud. •Part 2 – “top words” – each attendee was asked to identify three of the words on the screen that they considered to be the most important to them. The facilitator tallied the responses and highlighted the words / statements that were selected on numerous occasions by attendees, indicating the greatest degree of support. •Part 3 – “vision statement creation” – the facilitator used the words and developed the vision statement which was placed on the screen and discussed with the working group. Edits were made based on input received and a series of statement iterations were generated with the final result being the preferred vision statement. The activity was considered complete when consensus regarding the vision statement was established (through a unanimous vote). The following is a summary of the results of the three Parts, with the final “approved” vision statement for the Garner West Secondary Plan area at the end. Part 1 & 2 – Vision Statement Words The items on the left-hand side of the table represent the words / statements that were identified by the working group members in Part 1 of the activity. The numbers included on the right-hand side of the table are the number of times the words / statements were selected when the working group was asked to each identify their top three words / statements of importance. The responses which received the highest number of “votes” are highlighted in red, representing those with three or more votes, and in green for those with less than three votes. Total Times Selected Heavily treed 1 Attainable and affordable 3 Page 23 of 369 Page 259 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Garner West Secondary Plan . pg. 10 Garner West Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 Progressive 0 Retrofitting 0 Streetscape 1 Anchor and gateway 2 Desirable 0 Inclusive 0 Sustainable / Green Technology 2 Localized Servicing – Self Sufficient 0 Green Space and Design 3 Connecting to Major Corridors 3 Amenities 0 Access to Major Corridors 2 Feature retention 0 A nice place for people to live 0 Part of wider municipal growth and opportunity 0 Infrastructure reflective of future growth 3 Aesthetics 0 Appropriate density 4 Showcase Niagara Falls 0 Complete 0 Major corridors as public place / space 0 Resilient 0 Convenience to day-to-day needs 2 Balance of development and other community amenities / services 1 Access to trails and recreation 0 Good development and appropriate land uses 2 Serviced appropriately 4 Technology / electrification 1 Green / treen provision and preservation 0 Activation and mobility / movement 0 Page 24 of 369 Page 260 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Garner West Secondary Plan . pg. 11 Garner West Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 Part 3 – Vision Statement Creation Itteration #1 Garner West is a green community that serves is an anchor and gateway to the City of Niagara Falls. is one It has a diversity of built and natural environmental features. Garner West prioritizes connectivity, that has appropriate density, a green approach and technological advancement. It optimizes services and infrastructure within the neighbourhood to accommodate people of all ages, and abilities the lifestyles of those who experience the community and achieves appropriate integration with the surrounding areas. to accommodate the lifestyles of current and future residents. The community prioritizes attainability, access to green space, recreation, and technology. Itteration #2 Garner West community is an anchor and gateway to the City of Niagara Falls. It has a diversity of built and environmental natural features. It is a primarily residential community that prioritizes connectivity, appropriate and viable density, a green approach, and technological advancement. It optimizes services and infrastructure within the neighbourhood to accommodate people of all ages, and abilities and achieves appropriate integration with the surrounding areas. Final Vision Statement The Garner West community is an anchor and gateway to the City of Niagara Falls. It has a diversity of built and natural features. It is a primarily residential community that prioritizes connectivity, appropriate and viable density, a green approach, and technological advancement. It optimizes services and infrastructure within the neighbourhood to accommodate people of all ages, and abilities and achieves appropriate integration with the surrounding areas. 3.3 COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES Activity #3 of the workshop built upon the vision statement with the intent of highlighting specific objectives that the CFG would like the City to work towards achieving through the Secondary Plan project. The activity was positioned as “articulating the future” and was used to further define the future vision of the secondary plan areas by identifying goals and objectives for the future or more detailed aspects of how the vision statement will be achieved. The question was posed by the facilitator “what needs to be done / should be done in order to achieve the vision” for the secondary plan area. The group was encouraged to consider policy Page 25 of 369 Page 261 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Garner West Secondary Plan . pg. 12 Garner West Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 changes, municipal priorities, design considerations, etc. The following is a list of objectives which have been organized into five categories: 1.Policies – that will require changes to the City’s existing Official Plan or the development of policies to support future goals. 2.Guidelines and standards – municipal directions on how features are to be designed. 3.Programs – initiatives or strategies that would encourage changes to behaviour or municipal practice. 4.Implementation – timing, coordination, studies or other steps and stages needed to support next steps. 5.Coordination – collaboration between City staff, agencies, key stakeholders, and interest groups Objectives Highlighted Policies •Appropriate form and function •Integrate necessary and new policies •Transition of public, semi-private and private space •Creating a greater degree of connection and consideration for the integration of land uses and transportation corridors •Hierarchies of densities •Access to transit and appropriate servicing •Neighbourhood commercial nodes – service level commercial for the south end •Mixed land uses •Walkability and accessibility within and through the community •Take the direction from the OP but provide SP specific policies •Consider an implementing ZBL •Introduce policy regarding POPS (privately owned public spaces) – as part of park land dedication •Flexibility in the green space options and alternatives Guidelines & Standards •Streetscaping features •Roadway classifications and typologies •Urban design standards •Forward facing residential on arterial roadways •Implementation of green infrastructure •Heavily treed •Maintenance and management of public spaces and services •Consideration of requirements and direction on access to public / open space Programs •Bringing people to the corridors •First and last mile transportation policies and programs Page 26 of 369 Page 262 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Garner West Secondary Plan . pg. 13 Garner West Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 •Public input and involvement Implementation •Massing studies •Ability to Implement •Clarifying the process to address conflicting OP and SP policies to avoid delays in the planning process •Mitigation of future amendments where possible •Consideration for community benefits – bonusing relative to parkland and green space •Consider new or innovative planning ideas to address planning and implementation challenges •Phasing plan – servicing and capacity – development •Include direction on cost sharing and developer agreements •Exploring external funding options and leverage alternatives Coordination •Coordination of services and infrastructure •District energy planning and alignment with other infrastructure planning •Coordination between the various secondary plan areas re: servicing •Tackle the overarching provincial and federal directions and priorities •Buy-in from decision makers to proceed with the necessary work 4.0 NEXT STEPS & ENGAGEMENT The required background study work for the Garner West Secondary Plan project is anticipated to be awarded to a successful consultant in early 2024. The various studies will commence as soon as possible following award and are expected to take up to one year to complete (some requiring four seasons of study). The studies will be phased in order to provide relevant information that will allow for conceptual land use planning and policy development to occur with the vision statement serving as a compass of City efforts and be refined at the time of the study conclusions. The intent is for the CFG to continue to be engaged through the project process. It is anticipated the next meeting of the CFG would take place in-person in Spring/Summer 2024, following the first phases of study completion and would focus on identifying specific planning and design opportunities for the Garner West Secondary Plan area. Page 27 of 369 Page 263 of 1679 Appendix 1. Workshop Presentation Page 28 of 369 Page 264 of 1679                                                                                                                             1 1/9/2024 Welcome to the Garner West Secondary Plan Community Focus Group Meeting No.1 Vision Exercise Introductions and Housekeeping •Chris Millar •Who is Chris? •Respect of Membership •Respect of Member time •Agenda •Claire Basinski •Who is Claire? •What is Claire’s role? •Membership Introductions •Who are you? •Why did you seek participation? December 20, 2023 1 Overview Why are we undertaking a Secondary Plan? •Regional OP Policy now requires; •Favoured practice of more and more LAMs; •Provide more detail for Master and Capital Planning benefit; •Provide more assurance to residents and vested interests; •Provide more assurance to project lenders December 20, 2023 2 1 2 Page 29 of 369 Page 265 of 1679                                                                                                           3 1/9/2024 Overview City’s Secondary Plan Process •Provincial Conformity •Meeting with Niagara Region (Approval Authority) requirements Undertake background studies •Transparent and open consultation •Exhaustive engagement list December 20, 2023 3 Overview Studies •Subwatershed Study (or equivalent); •Functional Servicing Study* (incl. water, wastewater and stormwater management) •Transportation Impact Study* •Land Use Compatibility Study •Fiscal Impact Study * Will have regard for Regional and City MSP/TMP December 20, 2023 4 2 4 Page 30 of 369 Page 266 of 1679                                                                                                                                  5 1/9/2024 Overview City Role •Public and stakeholder consultation process •Land Use Plan •Planning justification; •Land use policies (including those that will result from background study outcomes and recommendations); •Urban Design policies/guidelines; •Administrative Reporting to Council; and •Final Amendments and Schedules. December 20, 2023 5 Overview CFG Role • The Visioning Exercise • Understanding and working within the parameters • SWOC Analysis • Goals and Objectives • Land Use Concepts • Informed Land Use arrangement • Consensus building • Policy Review and Input • Review and Commenting on Policies developed by staff following all party consult December 20, 2023 6 3 6 Page 31 of 369 Page 267 of 1679         7 1/9/2024 Planning Policy Structure Provincial Provincial Policy / Provincial Acts Planning Statement Plans Niagara RegionOfficial Plan Official Plan Zoning By-laws December 20, 2023 7 Topography & Zoning 8 December 20, 2023 8 4Page 32 of 369 Page 268 of 1679         9 1/9/2024 Niagara Region Natural Environment System Mapping December 20, 2023 9 City OP Natural Heritage Plan 10 December 20, 2023 10 5 Page 33 of 369 Page 269 of 1679                                                                    by Type Pop U 5%1058 %3154 %6465 160 160 0 1/9/2024 11 Subwatersheds BDSC Beaver Dams Creek, LWR Thompson Creek & Chippawa Power Canal December 20, 2023 11 12 50 35 1 Mix @ 60 pjh Mix nit Mix Apartment @ 1.8ppu 588 Town/Med @ 2.3ppu 1371 Low/SFD and Semi @ 3.3ppu 1959 Mix Total 100% 9600 3918 20 Pre 2051 Net Developable (ha) Minus Post 2051 Estimate (ha) Net Developable (ha) Expansion Area Garner West Non‐developable Net‐outs (ha) Gross Expansion Area (ha) 180 December 20, 2023 Targets 12 6 Page 34 of 369 Page 270 of 1679 cima.ca Page 35 of 369 Page 271 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls Garner West Secondary Plan Transportation Impact Study Existing ConditionsReport November 14, 2024 Page 36 of 369 Page 272 of 1679 Garner West Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Transportation Impact Study ExistingConditions Report City of Niagara Falls FINAL Project No.: CA0033840.1949 Date: November 14, 2024 WSP 150 Commerce Valley Drive West Thornhill, Ontario L3T 7Z3 Canada wsp.com Page 37 of 369 Page 273 of 1679 ............................................................................................................. Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Study Approach 3 2 Existing Conditions 5 2.1 Road Network 5 2.2 Study Area Intersections 5 2.3 Traffic Volumes 9 . 2.4 Transit 12 2.5 Active Transportation 12 2.6 Existing Condition Capacity Analysis 15 2.6.1 Methodology 15 2.7 Next Steps 17 List of Tables Table 2-1 Turning Movement Count Summary 9 Table 2-2 LOS Criteria for Intersections 15 Table 2-3 Intersection Capacity Analysis Results – Existing (2024) Traffic 16 List of Figures Figure 1-1 Study Area 2 Figure 2-1 Study Intersections 7 Figure 2-2 Existing Lane Configuration at Study Intersections 8 Figure 2-3 Available Existing Traffic Volumes 10 Figure 2-4 Year 2024 Traffic Volumes 11 Figure 2-5 Garner West Secondary Plan Area & Existing Transit Routes 13 Figure 2-6 Existing Active Transportation Network 14 Garner West Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page I Project No. CA0033840.1949 WSP .......................................................................................................... ................................................................................................ ................................................................................................ ................................................................................................... .................................................................................. ................................................................................................ ............................................................................................................ ...................................................................................... .............................................................. ........................................................................................ ...................................................................................................... ......................................................... .................................................................. ............. ................................................................................................ ................................................................................... ................................... .......................................................... ...................................................................... ................ .................................................. Page 38 of 369 Page 274 of 1679 List of Appendices A Synchro Output Garner West Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page II Project No. CA0033840.1949 WSP Page 39 of 369 Page 275 of 1679 1 Introduction 1.1 Overview The City of Niagara Falls is preparing a Secondary Plan for lands recently added to the City’s serviced urban area by Niagara Region, following their Municipal Comprehensive Review and Land Needs Assessment work prepared as part of their new Official Plan. The City is required to undertake secondary planning for greenfield lands added through the expansion process. Background studies are required to be completed as part of the secondary planning process. WSP was commissioned to undertake the analysis of the potential transportation needs of the Secondary Plan. The Garner West Secondary Plan Area is located along the central-west edge of the City’s current serviced urban area. It is bounded by Lundy’s Lane (Regional Road 20) at the north, Garner Road at the east, McLeod Road along the south and Beechwood Road along the west. The CN rail line runs to the northwest of the Plan Area. The existing land use is primarily agricultural land but also includes a place of worship, the Niagara Falls Golf Club, the Kingsway Motel, and limited rural residential dwellings. The total gross Plan Area is approximately 183.5 ha. Figure 1-1 shows the extents of the Study Area. Garner West Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 1 Project No. CA0033840.1949 WSP Page 40 of 369 Page 276 of 1679 Figure 1-1 Study Area Garner West Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 2 Project No. CA0033840.1949 WSP Page 41 of 369 Page 277 of 1679 1.2 Study Approach This Transportation Impact Study (TIS) follows a three (3) phase methodology agreed to between the City of Niagara Falls and WSP. This Report represents the outcome of the Phase 1 component of the overall study approach. The City was required to consult with Niagara Region on the Terms of Reference prior to commencing this study. The TIS approach will include the following: Existing Conditions (This Phase 1 Reporting) A comprehensive review of the existing conditions will be undertaken. This will include an analysis of the existing road network, transit routes, and active transportation infrastructure. This section will provide the 2024 existing lane configuration of the Study Area intersections, the available existing traffic volumes, and the existing capacity analysis of the intersections. Niagara Region Activity Based Model The Niagara Region Activity Based Model (NRABM) will be a key tool used to identify the roadway infrastructure requirements for the growth scenarios. This section will include the 2024 existing lane configuration of the Study Area intersections, the available existing traffic volumes, and the existing capacity analysis of the intersections. Land Use Options Assessment (Phase 2) Land Use Options Assessment are part of the second phase of this study and will be subject of Phase 2 reporting at a later date, following the City’s required agency consultations, public and stakeholder/partner engagement, and the preparation of options for further assessment. This section will include the information on the assessment criteria, and evaluation of two land use options. Future Background Conditions (Phase 3) Phase 3 of the TIS (once a preferred land use option has been determined) will consider the three planning horizons of 2031, 2041, and 2051. This section will focus on planned roadway improvements and background traffic conditions and background intersection performance for all three planning horizons. This section will conclude with the findings of the future background analysis. Study Area Generated Traffic (Phase 3) The Phase 3 analysis will focus on the Study Area generated traffic by focusing on the preferred land use, trip generation, the preferred land use plan roadway network and finally the trip distribution and assignment. Future Travel Conditions (Phase 3) The Phase 3 analysis will focus on the future travel conditions taking into account the three planning horizons of 2031, 2041, and 2051. The future total traffic conditions and future total intersection performance for all three horizons will be reported in this section, concluding with the findings of the future total analysis that will inform on improvements required over the horizon. Garner West Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 3 Project No. CA0033840.1949 WSP Page 42 of 369 Page 278 of 1679 Transit & Active Transportation (Phase 3) The Phase 3 analysis will take into account the future transit and active transportation potential and identify opportunities for improved pedestrian connectivity internally and with the broader area, supporting multi-modal options with anticipated transit needs to serve the new community. This section will include the suggested transit and active transportation improvements in the Study Area. Transportation Improvements (Phase 3) The Phase 3 section will detail transportation improvements needed to support the new community, including roadway and intersection improvements, transit and active transportation improvements, policy recommendations, and an implementation plan that will provide cost estimates. Conclusions (Phase 3) On completing all three phases of this assignment, the Conclusions section will provide a comprehensive summary of the noted transportation observations and proposed improvements as part of the Northwest Secondary Plan TIS serving to guide the capital planning and development process over the course of the planned future community implementation. Garner West Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 4 Project No. CA0033840.1949 WSP Page 43 of 369 Page 279 of 1679 2 Existing Conditions 2.1 Road Network There are six main roads in the Study Area: - Lundy’s Lane is a Regional two lane east-west road that forms the northern boundary of the Study Area. The posted speed is 60km/h east of the rail tracks, and 80 km/h west of the rail tracks - Beechwood Road is a City two lane north-south road that forms the western boundary of the Study Area. The posted speed i s 80km/h. - Garner Road is a City two lane north-south arterial road that forms the eastern boundary of the Study Area. The posted speed i s 60km/h. - Forestview Boulevard is a City two lane east-west minor residential collector road that connects to Garner Road, which is on the eastern boundary of the Study Area. The posted speed is 50 km/h. - McGarry Drive is a City two lane east-west minor residential collector road that connects to Garner Road, which is on the eastern boundary of the Study Area. The posted speed is 50 km/h. - McLeod Road is a City two lane east-west arterial road that forms the southern boundary of the Study Area. The posted speed limit is 50km/h, west of Garner Road. Figure 2-1 shows the road network in the vicinity of the Study Area. 2.2 Study Area Intersections The six intersections included in the intersection capacity analysis are: 1. Lundy’s Lane & Beechwood Road 2. Lundy’s Lane & Garner Road 3. Garner Road & Forestview Boulevard 4. Garner Road & McGarry Drive 5. Beechwood Road & McLeod Road 6. Garner Road & McLeod Road The Study Area intersections are shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the existing lane configuration at these study intersections. Garner West Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 5 Project No. CA0033840.1949 WSP Page 44 of 369 Page 280 of 1679 1 Kalar Road & Montrose Road 2 Kalar Road & Thorold Stone Road 3 Montrose Road & Thorold Stone Road The Study Area intersections are shown in Figure 2-1. Figure 2-2 shows the existing lane configuration at these study intersections. Garner West Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 6 Project No. CA0033840.1949 WSP Page 45 of 369 Page 281 of 1679 Figure 2-1 Study Intersections Garner West Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 7 Project No. CA0033840.1949 WSP Page 46 of 369 Page 282 of 1679 Figure 2-2 Existing Lane Configuration at Study Intersections Garner West Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 8 Project No. CA0033840.1949 WSP Page 47 of 369 Page 283 of 1679 2.3 Traffic Volumes Turning Movement Counts (TMC) for the Study Area intersections were provided by the City of Niagara Falls and Niagara Region and were completed between October 2022 and August 2023. TMCs were not available at the Lundy’s Lane and Beechwood Road intersection. The count dates and the peak hours of traffic for each surveyed intersection has been included in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 Turning Movement Count Summary Intersection Traffic Control Type Count Date Weekday Peak Hours AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Lundy's Lane & Beechwood Road TWSC Count Not Available Lundy's Lane & Garner Road Signal 8/8/2023 8:00 -9:00 AM 4:30 -5:30 PM Garner Road & Forestview Boulevard SSSC 7/12/2023 8:00 -9:00 AM 4:00 -5:00 PM Garner Road & McGarry Drive SSSC 7/12/2023 8:00 -9:00 AM 4:00 -5:00 PM Beechwood Road & McLeod Road TWSC 10/4/2022 8:00 -9:00 AM 4:30 -5:30 PM Garner Road & McLeod Road AWSC 7/12/2023 9:00 - 10:00 AM 4:15 -5:15 PM Note: TWSC – Two Way Stop Control (stop controlled on minor street approaches), SSSC – Side Street Stop Control (stop controlled on minor street, typically at a T-intersection), AWSC – All Way Stop Control (stop controlled on all approaches) Figure 2-3 shows the traffic counts available at the study intersections. For calibration to existing conditions, the growth factor was calculated using the year 2018 and 2023 peak hour counts at the intersection of Garner Road and McLeod Road. The 2023 counts were done in the summer and would not take into account normal school traffic. An annual growth rate of 8.7% and 11.2% were applied to the AM and PM peak hour volumes, respectively, to develop the year 2024 volumes. Figure 2-4 shows the balanced year 2024 traffic volumes used to conduct the existing conditions traffic analysis. Garner West Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 9 Project No. CA0033840.1949 WSP Page 48 of 369 Page 284 of 1679 Figure 2-3 Available Existing Traffic Volumes Garner West Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 10 Project No. CA0033840.1949 WSP Page 49 of 369 Page 285 of 1679 Figure 2-4 Year 2024 Traffic Volumes Garner West Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 11 Project No. CA0033840.1949 WSP Page 50 of 369 Page 286 of 1679 2.4 Transit The Study Area lies approximately 10km southwest of the Niagara Falls Bus Terminal and GO Train Station. This transit terminal connects Niagara Falls to Union Station, Toronto on the Lakeshore West GO Line running between Toronto and Niagara Falls and Burlington on the GO bus network. The Bus Terminal is also served by the Niagara Region Transit (NRT). Transit in the City is served primarily by NRT and GO Transit as well as WEGO (operated by Niagara Parks Commission). On January 1, 2023, City-operated transit services were consolidated to be part of the NRT network as part of the Region’s vision for a single transit system and operator across the Region. Figure 2-5 shows the Study Area in relation to the existing transit route and coverage. The figure also shows a 400m buffer zone which equates to a 5-minute walk for potential users. At the northern boundary of the site at Lundy’s Lane / Campark Turnaround there is a bus loop which is served by the RED and REDX routes operated by WEGO. To the southeastern boundary of the Study Area at the Garner Road and McLeod Road there is a bus stop which is served by the 113 and 105 routes operated by NRT. 2.5 Active Transportation No major trails exist in the Study Area. The closest trails are to the east of the Study Area at Garner Trail which runs southwards through Garner Park. On road bike lanes are present in both directions on Garner Road between McLeod Road and Warren Woods Avenue. Otherwise, there are no dedicated cycle lanes adjacent to the Study Area. A sidewalk is present on the east side of Garner Road, a short section on the south side of McLeod Road, both sides of Forestview Boulevard, and both sides of McGarry Drive within the Study Area. Figure 2-6 shows the existing active transportation network. Garner West Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 12 Project No. CA0033840.1949 WSP Page 51 of 369 Page 287 of 1679 Figure 2-5 Garner West Secondary Plan Area & Existing Transit Routes Garner West Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 13 Project No. CA0033840.1949 WSP Page 52 of 369Page 288 of 1679 Figure 2-6 Existing Active Transportation Network Garner West Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 14 Project No. CA0033840.1949 WSP Page 53 of 369Page 289 of 1679 2.6 Existing Condition Capacity Analysis 2.6.1 Methodology The intersection capacity analysis was completed using the traffic modeling software program Synchro (Version 11), a traffic analysis software based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. The traffic analysis is based on the busiest hour at each intersection assessed to reflect the worst-case scenario. The results of the analysis presented are based on HCM 2000 reports from Synchro. The Level of Service (LOS) of a transportation facility is a performance measure that represents quality of service from the vehicle user’s perspective. The HCM defines six levels of services, ranging from ‘A’ to ‘F’ where ‘A’ represents the best operating conditions and ‘F’ represents the worst. The assigned LOS is based on the ranges of delay identified in Table 2-2. Table 2-2 LOS Criteria for Intersections Level of service Signalized IntersectionDelay (S) Stop Controlled Intersection Delay (s) A ≤10 ≤10 B >10-20 >10-15 C >20-35 >15-25 D >35-55 >25-35 E >55-80 >35-50 F >80 >50 The existing conditions operational analysis is summarized in Table 2-3 and include the delays at the intersection and Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratios. Critical movements are identified when the V/C ratios are greater than 0.85. The detailed analysis outputs are provided in Appendix A. The existing traffic assessment serves as a benchmark for all assessments of future scenarios. GARNER WEST SECONDARY PLAN WSP Transportation Impact Study – Existing Conditions October 2024 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Page 15 Page 54 of 369 Page 290 of 1679 Table 2-3 Intersection Capacity Analysis Results – Existing (2024) Traffic Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (s) LOS Critical Movement v/c* 95%le Queue Length (m) Delay (s) LOS Critical Movement v/c* 95%le Queue Length (m) Lundy's Lane & Beechwood Road TWSC Intersection has not been analyzed due to lack of data. New data will be collected and this intersection performance will be reported in the final overall report on transportation for this Secondary Plan. Lundy's Lane & Garner Road Signal 9.6 A -0.49 EBL -2.6 WBL -4.5 NBL -6.4 SBL -8 10.6 B -0.53 EBL -4.3 WBL -13.6 NBL -10.4 SBL -14.6 Garner Road & Forestview Boulevard SSSC 9.6 A -0.14 WB -3.9 10.3 B -0.13 WB -3.5 Garner Road & McGarryDrive SSSC 9.1 A -0.04 WB -1.0 9.5 A -0.04 WB -1.1 Beechwood Road & McLeod Road TWSC 13.1 B -0.09 NB -0.8 SB -2.4 18.3 C -0.14 NB -0.8 SB -0.14 Garner Road & McLeod Road AWSC 12.3 B -0.47 -26.2 D WB 0.87 - * v/c reported for the overall intersection for signalized intersections and worst stop-controlled movement at stop-controlled intersections. Note: TWSC – Two Way Stop Control, SSSC – Side Street Stop Control, AWSC – All Way Stop Control, NB – Northbound, SB – Southbound, EB – Eastbound, WB – Westbound, L - Left Garner West Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 16 Project No. CA0033840.1949 WSP Page 55 of 369Page 291 of 1679 As shown in Table 2-3, all of the study intersections are operating at an acceptable LOS of ‘D’ or better under existing weekday peak hour conditions. The V/C ratio of the westbound approach at the Garner Road and McLeod Road intersection is slightly greater than the typically acceptable threshold of 0.85. As already mentioned, there was no data available for the Lundy’s Lane and Beechwood Road intersection. Taking into account both peak hour LOS ratings for Beechwood Road / McLeod Road and Lundy’s Lane / Garner Road, an assumption can be made that the Lundy’s Lane / Beechwood Road LOS would be between ‘A’ and ‘C’. If data for this intersection becomes available over the course of this project, this intersection can be analyzed and the report updated to provide a more precise picture of existing intersection performance. 2.7 Next Steps The completion of the Phase 1 Existing Conditions will move the project into Phase 2 which will focus on the Lane Use Options which will include the City’s required agency consultation, public and stakeholder/partner engagement and the preparation of options for further assessment. Garner West Secondary Plan WSP Transportation Impact Study – Existing Conditions October 2024 City Of Niagara Falls Page 17 Page 56 of 369 Page 292 of 1679 APPENDIX A Synchro Output Page 57 of 369 Page 293 of 1679 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Kalar Rd & Mountain Rd 10/08/2024 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 138 23 126 152 23 225 Future Volume (Veh/h) 138 23 126 152 23 225 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 153 26 140 169 26 250 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) 319 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 179 615 166 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 179 615 166 tC, single (s) 4.2 *5.2 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.3 3.6 3.3 p0 queue free % 90 95 71 cM capacity (veh/h) 1373 492 873 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 Volume Total 179 140 169 26 250 Volume Left 0 140 0 26 0 Volume Right 26 0 0 0 250 cSH 1700 1373 1700 492 873 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.29 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.3 9.5 Control Delay (s) 0.0 7.9 0.0 12.7 10.8 Lane LOS A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 3.6 11.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value Existing AM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 1 Page 58 of 369 Page 294 of 1679 Queues 10/08/20242: Mountain Rd & Queen Elizabeth Wy SB off ramp Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 361 236 85 80 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.68 0.40 0.16 0.19 Control Delay 12.2 22.3 14.7 13.5 5.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 12.2 22.3 14.7 13.5 5.3 Queue Length 50th (m) 1.9 33.0 18.4 5.4 0.0 Queue Length 95th (m) 6.1 58.0 33.4 16.8 8.2 Internal Link Dist (m) 294.7 130.1 123.2 Turn Bay Length (m) 60.0 Base Capacity (vph) 527 1027 1121 541 416 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.05 0.35 0.21 0.16 0.19 Intersection Summary Existing AM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 2 Page 59 of 369 Page 295 of 1679 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/08/20242: Mountain Rd & Queen Elizabeth Wy SB off ramp Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 25 332 217 0 78 74 Future Volume (vph) 25 332 217 0 78 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1454 1579 1579 1900 1454 1301 Total Lost time (s) 6.5 6.5 5.5 5.9 5.9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1114 1397 1490 1328 906 Flt Permitted 0.61 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 717 1397 1490 1328 906 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 361 236 0 85 80 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 47 Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 361 236 0 85 33 Heavy Vehicles (%) 24% 13% 6% 0% 4% 22% Turn Type Perm NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.8 22.8 23.8 24.2 24.2 Effective Green, g (s) 22.8 22.8 23.8 24.2 24.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 6.5 6.5 5.5 5.9 5.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 275 536 597 541 369 v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 0.16 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.67 0.40 0.16 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 11.7 15.2 12.7 11.1 10.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 3.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 Delay (s) 11.9 18.8 13.3 11.8 11.3 Level of Service B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 18.4 13.3 11.5 Approach LOS B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing AM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 3 Page 60 of 369 Page 296 of 1679 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/08/20243: Queen Elizabeth Wy NB off ramp & Mountain Rd Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 286 123 0 371 22 203 Future Volume (Veh/h) 286 123 0 371 22 203 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 311 134 0 403 24 221 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 445 781 378 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 445 781 378 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.7 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.8 3.4 p0 queue free % 100 93 67 cM capacity (veh/h) 1126 329 660 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 Volume Total 445 403 24 221 Volume Left 0 0 24 0 Volume Right 134 0 0 221 cSH 1700 1700 329 660 Volume to Capacity 0.26 0.24 0.07 0.33 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 1.9 11.8 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 16.8 13.2 Lane LOS C B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 13.5 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing AM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 4 Page 61 of 369 Page 297 of 1679 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 101 [Mewburn & Mountain_Exst AM Peak (Site Folder: General)] Mewburn & Mountain Roundabout Analysis Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Mov ID Turn INPUT VOLUMES DEMAND FLOWS Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service 95% BACK OF QUEUE Prop. Que Effective Stop Rate Aver. No. Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total veh/h HV ] % [ Total veh/h HV ] % v/c sec [ Veh. veh Dist ] m km/h South: Mewburn Rd 1 L2 57 0.0 61 0.0 0.076 9.7 LOS A 0.4 3.1 0.58 0.63 0.58 48.1 2 T1 4 0.0 4 0.0 0.076 3.5 LOS A 0.4 3.1 0.58 0.63 0.58 47.1 3 R2 16 19.0 17 19.0 0.076 4.5 LOS A 0.4 3.1 0.58 0.63 0.58 45.5 Approach 77 3.9 82 3.9 0.076 8.3 LOS A 0.4 3.1 0.58 0.63 0.58 47.5 East: Mountain Rd 4 L2 4 50.0 4 50.0 0.510 11.2 LOS B 4.1 30.3 0.45 0.38 0.45 54.0 5 T1 662 5.0 704 5.0 0.510 3.8 LOS A 4.1 30.3 0.45 0.38 0.45 53.3 6 R2 32 29.0 34 29.0 0.510 4.3 LOS A 4.1 30.3 0.45 0.38 0.45 51.2 Approach 698 6.4 743 6.4 0.510 3.9 LOS A 4.1 30.3 0.45 0.38 0.45 53.2 North: Mewburn Rd 7 L2 24 34.0 26 34.0 0.154 14.8 LOS B 1.0 8.4 0.77 0.75 0.77 51.9 8 T1 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.154 7.0 LOS A 1.0 8.4 0.77 0.75 0.77 51.0 9 R2 83 20.0 88 20.0 0.154 7.8 LOS A 1.0 8.4 0.77 0.75 0.77 49.1 Approach 108 22.9 115 22.9 0.154 9.3 LOS A 1.0 8.4 0.77 0.75 0.77 49.7 West: Mountain Rd 10 L2 71 22.0 76 22.0 0.326 7.8 LOS A 2.5 19.3 0.19 0.24 0.19 51.4 11 T1 395 11.0 420 11.0 0.326 1.4 LOS A 2.5 19.3 0.19 0.24 0.19 50.5 12 R2 23 9.0 24 9.0 0.326 2.0 LOS A 2.5 19.3 0.19 0.24 0.19 48.7 Approach 489 12.5 520 12.5 0.326 2.4 LOS A 2.5 19.3 0.19 0.24 0.19 50.5 All Vehicles 1372 9.7 1460 9.7 0.510 4.0 LOS A 4.1 30.3 0.39 0.37 0.39 51.6 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: SIDRA Roundabout LOS. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA Standard. Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0 | Copyright © 2000-2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: WSP CANADA INC. || Licence: NETWORK / 1PC Processed: August 9, 2024 3:01:37 PM Project: C:\Users\inpc02141\WSP O365\CA0034270.2246 CA-Northwest Secondary Plan Transportation Impact Assessment - Project Folders \05. Technical\Sidra\Mewburn Roundabout Analysis.sip9 Page 62 of 369 Page 298 of 1679 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Kalar Rd & Montrose Rd 10/08/2024 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 24 227 5 6 143 Future Volume (Veh/h) 6 24 227 5 6 143 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 26 249 5 7 157 Pedestrians 4 Lane Width (m) 3.6 Walking Speed (m/s) 1.2 Percent Blockage 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 426 256 258 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 426 256 258 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 97 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 584 785 1314 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 33 254 164 Volume Left 7 0 7 Volume Right 26 5 0 cSH 732 1700 1314 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.15 0.01 Queue Length 95th (m) 1.1 0.0 0.1 Control Delay (s) 10.2 0.0 0.4 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.2 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing AM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 6 Page 63 of 369 Page 299 of 1679 Queues 10/08/20246: Kalar Rd & Thorold Stone Rd Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 784 37 573 91 152 52 83 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.47 0.09 0.31 0.30 0.41 0.18 0.21 Control Delay 12.0 11.9 6.0 6.3 23.1 21.2 21.7 15.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 12.0 11.9 6.0 6.3 23.1 21.2 21.7 15.4 Queue Length 50th (m) 1.1 19.2 1.3 12.8 6.0 8.5 3.3 3.3 Queue Length 95th (m) 8.1 66.2 5.6 29.2 25.4 35.0 16.1 18.0 Internal Link Dist (m) 418.0 1022.4 246.1 2088.7 Turn Bay Length (m) 30.0 37.0 25.0 95.0 Base Capacity (vph) 457 2394 457 2617 703 827 660 876 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.33 0.08 0.22 0.13 0.18 0.08 0.09 Intersection Summary Existing AM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 7 Page 64 of 369 Page 300 of 1679 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/08/20246: Kalar Rd & Thorold Stone Rd Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 27 673 32 33 505 11 82 92 45 47 47 28 Future Volume (vph) 27 673 32 33 505 11 82 92 45 47 47 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1454 1579 1338 1454 1579 1338 1454 1338 1338 1454 1338 1338 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1201 2884 1222 2840 1381 1188 1380 1257 Flt Permitted 0.44 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.66 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 552 2884 340 2840 1022 1188 959 1257 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 30 748 36 37 561 12 91 102 50 52 52 31 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 21 0 0 25 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 781 0 37 572 0 91 131 0 52 58 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 1 2 2 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 3% 7% 13% 5% 19% 0% 4% 12% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 25.7 25.7 32.5 32.5 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 Effective Green, g (s) 25.7 25.7 32.5 32.5 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.63 0.63 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 274 1436 253 1788 200 232 187 246 v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 0.01 c0.20 c0.11 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.54 0.15 0.32 0.46 0.57 0.28 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 6.9 8.9 4.3 4.4 18.3 18.8 17.6 17.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.2 1.8 3.2 0.9 0.5 Delay (s) 7.2 9.6 4.7 4.6 20.1 22.0 18.5 18.0 Level of Service A A A A C C B B Approach Delay (s) 9.5 4.6 21.3 18.2 Approach LOS A A C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 51.6 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing AM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 8 Page 65 of 369 Page 301 of 1679 Queues 10/08/20247: Montrose Rd & Thorold Stone Rd Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 832 222 680 85 136 251 210 169 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.83 0.71 0.55 0.31 0.38 0.72 0.60 0.29 Control Delay 11.4 34.8 25.8 20.0 25.5 40.8 17.6 31.7 24.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11.4 34.8 25.8 20.0 25.5 40.8 17.6 31.7 24.7 Queue Length 50th (m) 4.6 68.4 18.3 44.0 10.7 12.4 0.0 29.5 9.4 Queue Length 95th (m) 12.9 #114.8 #54.3 77.3 23.9 23.0 25.5 55.3 21.1 Internal Link Dist (m) 1022.4 138.4 313.7 260.6 Turn Bay Length (m) 27.0 85.0 50.0 35.0 55.0 Base Capacity (vph) 445 1268 362 1339 369 924 506 368 879 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.66 0.61 0.51 0.23 0.15 0.50 0.57 0.19 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Existing AM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 9 Page 66 of 369 Page 302 of 1679 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/08/20247: Montrose Rd & Thorold Stone Rd Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 59 680 86 204 496 130 78 125 231 193 105 51 Future Volume (vph) 59 680 86 204 496 130 78 125 231 193 105 51 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1454 1579 1338 1454 1579 1338 1454 1579 1301 1454 1579 1338 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.6 3.0 5.6 3.0 5.4 5.4 3.0 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1267 2799 1315 2719 1288 2885 1047 1314 2630 Flt Permitted 0.39 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.65 1.00 1.00 0.53 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 524 2799 259 2719 875 2885 1047 734 2630 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 64 739 93 222 539 141 85 136 251 210 114 55 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 17 0 0 0 217 0 44 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 824 0 222 663 0 85 136 34 210 125 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 4 4 2 4 3 3 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 9% 5% 7% 5% 7% 5% 7% 4% 4% 5% 6% 12% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 37.7 31.8 48.4 39.5 19.7 11.8 11.8 29.0 18.1 Effective Green, g (s) 37.7 31.8 48.4 39.5 19.7 11.8 11.8 29.0 18.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.36 0.55 0.45 0.22 0.13 0.13 0.33 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 3.0 5.6 3.0 5.6 3.0 5.4 5.4 3.0 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 273 1006 304 1214 231 385 139 333 538 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.29 c0.11 0.24 0.03 0.05 c0.10 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.29 0.05 0.03 c0.11 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.82 0.73 0.55 0.37 0.35 0.24 0.63 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 15.3 25.7 13.5 17.9 28.6 34.8 34.3 23.8 29.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 5.2 8.2 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.7 3.4 0.2 Delay (s) 15.6 30.8 21.7 18.3 29.3 35.2 34.9 27.2 29.5 Level of Service B C C B C D C C C Approach Delay (s) 29.8 19.1 34.0 28.2 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.4 Sum of lost time (s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing AM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 10 Page 67 of 369 Page 303 of 1679 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Kalar Rd & Mountain Rd 10/08/2024 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 306 63 380 204 27 228 Future Volume (Veh/h) 306 63 380 204 27 228 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 333 68 413 222 29 248 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) 319 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 401 1415 367 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 401 1415 367 tC, single (s) 4.1 *5.2 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.4 p0 queue free % 64 82 63 cM capacity (veh/h) 1147 157 669 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 Volume Total 401 413 222 29 248 Volume Left 0 413 0 29 0 Volume Right 68 0 0 0 248 cSH 1700 1147 1700 157 669 Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.36 0.13 0.18 0.37 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 13.3 0.0 5.2 13.7 Control Delay (s) 0.0 9.9 0.0 33.1 13.5 Lane LOS A D B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 6.4 15.6 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 6.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value Existing PM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 1 Page 68 of 369 Page 304 of 1679 Queues 10/08/20242: Mountain Rd & Queen Elizabeth Wy SB off ramp Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 84 522 350 324 279 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.77 0.51 0.62 0.48 Control Delay 14.1 23.9 15.4 25.9 6.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.1 23.9 15.4 25.9 6.0 Queue Length 50th (m) 6.5 53.0 29.8 31.1 0.0 Queue Length 95th (m) 15.0 85.1 48.9 #86.5 18.6 Internal Link Dist (m) 294.7 130.1 123.2 Turn Bay Length (m) 60.0 Base Capacity (vph) 465 1073 1066 520 582 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.49 0.33 0.62 0.48 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Existing PM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 2 Page 69 of 369 Page 305 of 1679 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/08/20242: Mountain Rd & Queen Elizabeth Wy SB off ramp Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 77 480 322 0 298 257 Future Volume (vph) 77 480 322 0 298 257 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1454 1579 1579 1900 1454 1301 Total Lost time (s) 6.5 6.5 5.5 5.9 5.9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1328 1579 1533 1381 1084 Flt Permitted 0.49 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 684 1579 1533 1381 1084 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 84 522 350 0 324 279 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 174 Lane Group Flow (vph) 84 522 350 0 324 105 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 0% 3% 0% 0% 2% Turn Type Perm NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.9 27.9 28.9 24.4 24.4 Effective Green, g (s) 27.9 27.9 28.9 24.4 24.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.45 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 6.5 6.5 5.5 5.9 5.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 294 680 684 520 408 v/s Ratio Prot c0.33 0.23 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.77 0.51 0.62 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 11.9 15.6 12.8 16.4 13.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 5.5 0.9 5.5 1.5 Delay (s) 12.7 21.2 13.7 21.9 15.4 Level of Service B C B C B Approach Delay (s) 20.0 13.7 18.9 Approach LOS B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 64.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing PM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 3 Page 70 of 369 Page 306 of 1679 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/08/20243: Queen Elizabeth Wy NB off ramp & Mountain Rd Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 681 97 0 566 24 233 Future Volume (Veh/h) 681 97 0 566 24 233 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 740 105 0 615 26 253 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 845 1408 792 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 845 1408 792 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 82 34 cM capacity (veh/h) 800 145 386 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 Volume Total 845 615 26 253 Volume Left 0 0 26 0 Volume Right 105 0 0 253 cSH 1700 1700 145 386 Volume to Capacity 0.50 0.36 0.18 0.66 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 5.0 36.0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 35.2 30.5 Lane LOS E D Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 30.9 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing PM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 4 Page 71 of 369 Page 307 of 1679 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 101 [Mewburn & Mountain_Exst PM Peak (Site Folder: General)] Mewburn & Mountain Roundabout Analysis Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Mov ID Turn INPUT VOLUMES DEMAND FLOWS Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service 95% BACK OF QUEUE Prop. Que Effective Stop Rate Aver. No. Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total veh/h HV ] % [ Total veh/h HV ] % v/c sec [ Veh. veh Dist ] m km/h South: Mewburn Rd 1 L2 60 4.0 68 4.0 0.125 14.4 LOS B 0.9 6.7 0.87 0.80 0.87 45.4 2 T1 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.125 8.0 LOS A 0.9 6.7 0.87 0.80 0.87 44.5 3 R2 12 25.0 14 25.0 0.125 9.6 LOS A 0.9 6.7 0.87 0.80 0.87 43.1 Approach 73 7.4 83 7.4 0.125 13.5 LOS B 0.9 6.7 0.87 0.80 0.87 45.0 East: Mountain Rd 4 L2 4 0.0 5 0.0 0.553 10.5 LOS B 4.8 34.2 0.52 0.41 0.52 54.2 5 T1 662 3.0 752 3.0 0.553 4.0 LOS A 4.8 34.2 0.52 0.41 0.52 52.9 6 R2 32 8.0 36 8.0 0.553 4.3 LOS A 4.8 34.2 0.52 0.41 0.52 50.9 Approach 698 3.2 793 3.2 0.553 4.1 LOS A 4.8 34.2 0.52 0.41 0.52 52.8 North: Mewburn Rd 7 L2 29 0.0 33 0.0 0.190 14.1 LOS B 1.4 9.8 0.82 0.78 0.82 52.0 8 T1 8 0.0 9 0.0 0.190 7.6 LOS A 1.4 9.8 0.82 0.78 0.82 50.8 9 R2 95 4.0 108 4.0 0.190 7.9 LOS A 1.4 9.8 0.82 0.78 0.82 49.0 Approach 132 2.9 150 2.9 0.190 9.2 LOS A 1.4 9.8 0.82 0.78 0.82 49.7 West: Mountain Rd 10 L2 95 4.0 108 4.0 0.634 7.8 LOS A 7.8 57.9 0.34 0.24 0.34 51.0 11 T1 744 8.0 845 8.0 0.634 1.6 LOS A 7.8 57.9 0.34 0.24 0.34 49.9 12 R2 75 3.0 85 3.0 0.634 2.1 LOS A 7.8 57.9 0.34 0.24 0.34 48.2 Approach 914 7.2 1039 7.2 0.634 2.3 LOS A 7.8 57.9 0.34 0.24 0.34 49.9 All Vehicles 1817 5.3 2065 5.3 0.634 3.9 LOS A 7.8 57.9 0.47 0.37 0.47 50.7 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: SIDRA Roundabout LOS. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA Standard. Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0 Copyright © 2000-2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd sidrasolutions.com || Organisation: WSP CANADA INC. | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC | Processed: August 9, 2024 3:02:08 PM Project: C:\Users\inpc02141\WSP O365\CA0034270.2246 CA-Northwest Secondary Plan Transportation Impact Assessment - Project Folders \05. Technical\Sidra\Mewburn Roundabout Analysis.sip9 Page 72 of 369 Page 308 of 1679 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Kalar Rd & Montrose Rd 10/08/2024 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 12 18 240 16 36 405 Future Volume (Veh/h) 12 18 240 16 36 405 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 18 245 16 37 413 Pedestrians 3 Lane Width (m) 3.6 Walking Speed (m/s) 1.2 Percent Blockage 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 743 256 264 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 743 256 264 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 98 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 374 786 1309 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 30 261 450 Volume Left 12 0 37 Volume Right 18 16 0 cSH 545 1700 1309 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.15 0.03 Queue Length 95th (m) 1.4 0.0 0.7 Control Delay (s) 12.0 0.0 0.9 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 12.0 0.0 0.9 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing PM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 6 Page 73 of 369 Page 309 of 1679 Queues 10/08/20246: Kalar Rd & Thorold Stone Rd Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 1002 139 801 68 196 25 239 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.78 0.50 0.44 0.39 0.58 0.14 0.71 Control Delay 18.2 24.1 14.3 9.1 33.5 28.4 26.5 39.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 18.2 24.1 14.3 9.1 33.5 28.4 26.5 39.5 Queue Length 50th (m) 4.0 67.0 8.1 30.1 9.1 21.4 3.1 33.6 Queue Length 95th (m) 13.2 113.0 22.4 57.9 22.9 46.4 10.2 64.4 Internal Link Dist (m) 418.0 1022.4 246.1 2088.7 Turn Bay Length (m) 30.0 37.0 25.0 95.0 Base Capacity (vph) 281 1691 294 2235 286 527 304 542 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.59 0.47 0.36 0.24 0.37 0.08 0.44 Intersection Summary Existing PM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 7 Page 74 of 369 Page 310 of 1679 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/08/20246: Kalar Rd & Thorold Stone Rd Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 41 840 112 132 752 9 65 104 83 24 189 38 Future Volume (vph) 41 840 112 132 752 9 65 104 83 24 189 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1454 1579 1338 1454 1579 1338 1454 1338 1338 1454 1338 1338 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1316 2896 1341 2930 1381 1212 1266 1291 Flt Permitted 0.35 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.55 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 483 2896 219 2930 690 1212 734 1291 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 884 118 139 792 9 68 109 87 25 199 40 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 32 0 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 991 0 139 800 0 68 164 0 25 231 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 2% 0% 3% 2% 23% 0% 2% 3% 9% 0% 6% Turn Type Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.8 34.8 49.2 49.2 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 Effective Green, g (s) 34.8 34.8 49.2 49.2 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.63 0.63 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 215 1290 280 1845 175 308 187 328 v/s Ratio Prot c0.34 0.06 c0.27 0.14 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.25 0.10 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.77 0.50 0.43 0.39 0.53 0.13 0.70 Uniform Delay, d1 13.2 18.3 9.1 7.4 24.1 25.1 22.5 26.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 3.2 2.4 0.3 1.5 1.9 0.4 6.8 Delay (s) 14.0 21.4 11.5 7.6 25.6 26.9 22.8 33.2 Level of Service B C B A C C C C Approach Delay (s) 21.1 8.2 26.6 32.2 Approach LOS C A C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.1 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing PM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 8 Page 75 of 369 Page 311 of 1679 Queues 10/08/20247: Montrose Rd & Thorold Stone Rd Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 880 284 1031 193 238 376 229 285 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.88 0.87 0.77 0.61 0.54 0.79 0.67 0.61 Control Delay 14.7 42.0 48.0 27.9 33.4 43.6 17.7 35.5 41.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.7 42.0 48.0 27.9 33.4 43.6 17.7 35.5 41.1 Queue Length 50th (m) 4.4 85.0 36.3 87.6 30.3 24.6 1.3 36.9 27.1 Queue Length 95th (m) 12.7 #144.1 #104.8 #160.8 50.0 37.2 35.4 59.3 40.9 Internal Link Dist (m) 1022.4 138.4 313.7 260.6 Turn Bay Length (m) 27.0 85.0 50.0 35.0 55.0 Base Capacity (vph) 348 1141 326 1340 338 814 564 356 804 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.77 0.87 0.77 0.57 0.29 0.67 0.64 0.35 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Existing PM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 9 Page 76 of 369 Page 312 of 1679 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/08/20247: Montrose Rd & Thorold Stone Rd Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 51 764 89 275 767 233 187 231 365 222 219 57 Future Volume (vph) 51 764 89 275 767 233 187 231 365 222 219 57 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1454 1579 1338 1454 1579 1338 1454 1579 1301 1454 1579 1338 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.6 3.0 5.6 3.0 5.4 5.4 3.0 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1303 2884 1354 2808 1302 2913 1069 1340 2807 Flt Permitted 0.23 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.52 1.00 1.00 0.54 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 321 2884 220 2808 714 2913 1069 767 2807 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 53 788 92 284 791 240 193 238 376 229 226 59 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 20 0 0 0 313 0 23 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 872 0 284 1011 0 193 238 63 229 262 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 6% 3% 2% 3% 2% 8% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 40.3 34.6 54.9 46.2 29.2 15.0 15.0 30.6 15.7 Effective Green, g (s) 40.3 34.6 54.9 46.2 29.2 15.0 15.0 30.6 15.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 0.35 0.56 0.47 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.31 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 3.0 5.6 3.0 5.6 3.0 5.4 5.4 3.0 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 187 1009 320 1313 295 442 162 323 446 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.30 c0.16 0.36 0.09 0.08 c0.11 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 c0.34 0.10 0.06 c0.11 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.86 0.89 0.77 0.65 0.54 0.39 0.71 0.59 Uniform Delay, d1 18.2 29.9 21.7 21.9 28.8 38.7 37.8 28.4 38.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 7.8 24.2 2.7 4.6 1.0 1.1 6.5 1.6 Delay (s) 18.8 37.7 45.9 24.6 33.4 39.7 38.9 34.9 40.2 Level of Service B D D C C D D C D Approach Delay (s) 36.6 29.2 37.8 37.8 Approach LOS D C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 98.8 Sum of lost time (s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing PM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 10 Page 77 of 369 Page 313 of 1679 Matthew Fisher, P.Eng. Senior Project Manager, Infrastructure Planning Benjamin Peachman, P.Eng. Project Manager, Infrastructure Planning Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Submitted to: Chris Millar, MCIP, RPP, CNU-A Senior Project Manager – Secondary Plans Planning, Building & Development City of Niagara Falls 4310 Niagara Street, Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Submitted by: Matthew Fisher, P.Eng. Senior Project Manager, Infrastructure Planning 1266 South Service Road, Unit C31, Hamilton, ON L8E 5R9 November 25th, 2024 Project No. 2402620 Page 78 of 369 Page 314 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls i Table of Contents 1.Introduction 1 1.1. Study Area 1 1.2. Report Objectives 3 2.Physical Constraints to Study Area 4 2.1. Topography 4 2.2. Subwatershed Analysis 6 2.3. Stormwater Management Facilities 7 2.4. Easements or Linkages 7 2.5. Transportation (Road and Rail) Networks 8 2.6. Wellhead Protection Areas, Highly Vulnerable Aquifers, and Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas 8 2.7. Areas of Environmental Sensitivity 8 2.8. Regulated Areas 9 2.9. Geotechnical Considerations 9 2.10. Summary of Physical Constraints to Servicing 13 3.Servicing Design Criteria 15 3.1. Water 15 3.1.1. Treatment Plant 15 3.1.2. Pumping Station 15 3.1.3. Storage 15 3.1.4. Watermains 15 3.1.5. Flow Criteria, Performance, and Sizing Methodology (Region MSP) 16 3.2. Wastewater 17 3.2.1. Wastewater Treatment Plant 17 3.2.2. Pumping Station 17 3.2.2.1. Sewage Pumping Station and Forcemain Policy Amendments 17 3.2.3. Forcemain 18 3.2.4. Trunk Sewers 18 3.2.5. Flow Criteria, Performance, and Sizing Methodology (Region MSP) 19 3.3. Stormwater 20 3.3.1. Quantity 20 3.3.2. Quality 20 Page 79 of 369 Page 315 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls ii 4.Planning & Growth Projections 21 4.1. Growth Projections 21 4.2. Flow Projection Methodology 21 4.2.1. Water Demand Projection Methodology 21 4.2.2. Wastewater Flow Projection Methodology 22 4.3. Projected Water Demand 22 4.4. Projected Wastewater Flows 22 5.Water Infrastructure 23 5.1. Existing Infrastructure 23 5.1.1. Water Treatment 23 5.1.2. Booster Stations 23 5.1.3. Storage 24 5.1.4. Trunk Distribution Network 24 5.2. Planned Capital Projects 27 5.3. Potential Connection Points 29 6.Wastewater Infrastructure 30 6.1. Existing Infrastructure 30 6.1.1. Wastewater Treatment 30 6.1.1.1. South Niagara Falls Wastewater Solutions Class EA 30 6.1.2. Sewage Pumping Stations 31 6.1.2.1. Private Sewage Pumping Station 32 6.1.3. Trunk Collection Network 33 6.2. Planned Capital Projects 37 6.3. Potential Connection Points 40 7.Hydraulic Modelling 42 7.1. Water Model 42 7.2. Wastewater Model 46 8.Recommendations for Phase 2 48 Page 80 of 369 Page 316 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls iii List of Tables Table 2-1: Borehole Log Summary ............................................................................................................................... 10 Table 3-1: Flow Criteria, Performance, and Sizing Methodology (Region MSP) .......................................................... 16 Table 3-2: Flow Criteria, Scenarios, System Performance, and Sizing Methodology ................................................... 19 Table 4-1: Growth Projections for Study Area ............................................................................................................. 21 Table 4-2: Projected Water Demand and Storage Requirements ................................................................................ 22 Table 4-3: Projected Wastewater Flows ....................................................................................................................... 22 Table 5-1: Summary of Booster Pumping Stations ...................................................................................................... 23 Table 5-2: Summary of Storage Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 24 Table 5-3: Planned Water Capital Projects ................................................................................................................... 27 Table 6-1: Summary of Relevant SPS Details................................................................................................................ 31 Table 6-2: Planned Wastewater Capital Projects ......................................................................................................... 37 Table 6-3: Summary of Potential Connection Points for GWSPA Wastewater System................................................. 40 Table 7-1: Water Treatment Plant Demands to Build-out ............................................................................................ 42 Table 7-2: Summary of Water Booster Station Performance Details ........................................................................... 42 Table 7-3: Summary of Water Storage Rated Capacity (2021 to Buildout) .................................................................. 43 Table 7-4: Summary of the Water Storage Performance Details ................................................................................. 43 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Study Area ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2-1: Local Topography ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2-2: Historic Borehole Logs in Study Area ......................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2-3: Historic Borehole Log Profile in Study Area ............................................................................................... 12 Figure 2-4: Constraints Map ........................................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 5-1: Existing Water Infrastructure in Niagara Falls ............................................................................................ 25 Figure 5-2: Existing Water Infrastructure in Study Area .............................................................................................. 26 Figure 5-3: Planned Water Capital Projects in Niagara Falls ........................................................................................ 28 Figure 6-1: Projected Future ADF at Niagara Falls WWTP (2021 Region MSP) ............................................................ 31 Figure 6-2: Existing Wastewater Infrastructure in Niagara Falls .................................................................................. 34 Figure 6-3: Existing Wastewater Catchments by Sewage Pumping Station ................................................................. 35 Figure 6-4: Existing Wastewater Infrastructure in Study Area ..................................................................................... 36 Figure 6-5: Planned Wastewater Capital Projects in Niagara Falls ............................................................................... 39 Figure 7-1: Modelling Recommendations and Potential Connection Points for Water Infrastructure ........................ 45 Figure 7-2: Modelling Recommendations and Potential Connection Points for Wastewater Infrastructure .............. 47 Page 81 of 369 Page 317 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls iv Record of Revisions Version Date Author(s) Reviewed by Description 1 August 23, 2024 Benjamin Peachman, P.Eng. Matthew Fisher, P.Eng. Issued in Draft 2 September 27, 2024 Benjamin Peachman, P.Eng. Matthew Fisher, P.Eng. Issued for Review 3 November 25, 2024 Benjamin Peachman, P.Eng. Matthew Fisher, P.Eng. Revised per Region comments Page 82 of 369 Page 318 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls v Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronym / Abbreviation Definition ADD Average Daily Demand ADF Average Daily Flow BDSC Beaver Dam Schiner’s Creek CNF City of Niagara Falls DC Development Charge EA Environmental Assessment ECA Environmental Conservation Area ET Elevated Tank FF Fire Flow FSS Functional Servicing Study GGH Greater Golden Horseshoe ha hectare km kilometre l/c/d Litres per Capita per Day L/s Litres per Second m/s Metre per Second masl meters above sea level MCR Municipal Comprehensive Review MDD Maximum Day Demand MSP Master Servicing Plan MSPU Master Servicing Plan Update NPCA Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority NOTL Niagara-on-the-Lake NWSPA Northwest Secondary Plan Area OP Official Plan PDWF Peak Dry Weather Flow PHD Peak Hour Demand PPH Persons per Hectare PSI Pounds per Square Inch PSW Provincially Significant Wetland PWWF Peak Wet Weather Flow SNFWWS South Niagara Falls Wastewater Solutions SPS Sanitary Pumping Station SWM Stormwater Management WTP Water Treatment Plant WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant Page 83 of 369 Page 319 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 1 1. Introduction The City of Niagara Falls (CNF) is a lower-tier municipality located in southwestern Ontario within Niagara Region. The CNF is located on the Canadian border with the state of New York and is located north of Stevensville, east of Welland and Thorold, southeast of St. Catherines, and south of Niagara-on-the-Lake (NOTL). The CNF is located in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) which is one of the fastest growing regions in North America. The CNF is anticipated to experience population growth over the next 30 years and the Garner West Secondary Plan Area (GWSPA) was identified as an urban expansion area through the completion of a Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) and new Official Plan (OP) by the CNF. GEI Consultants Canada Ltd. has been retained to complete the Functional Servicing Study (FSS) in support of the Garner West Secondary Plan. The FSS will include the following components: • Phase 1: Existing Conditions Report • Phase 2: Land Use Options Assessment • Phase 3: Preferred Land Use Plan (Functional Servicing Study) The Existing Conditions Report is being completed to summarize the existing conditions within and adjacent to the Study Area; specifically physical constraints to servicing, relevant design criteria, existing water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure, hydraulic modelling of the existing system, and recommendations for Phase 2. The goal of Phase 1 is to gain an understanding of the current infrastructure’s capacity and identify any physical constraints that could pose an issue with providing servicing to the proposed population growth within the GWSPA. 1.1. Study Area The GWSPA is approximately 184 hectares (ha) with an estimated 160 ha of net developable land, generally bound by Lundy’s Lane to the north, Garner Road to the east, McLeod Road to the south, and Beechwood Road to the west. The Study Area is located entirely within the CNF’s urban boundary and currently contains agricultural, commercial, and rural residential uses, along with several environmental features. The Study Area is show in Figure 1-1. Page 84 of 369 Page 320 of 1679 Page 85 of 369Page 321 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 3 1.2. Report Objectives The following objectives have been defined to guide the completion of the Existing Conditions Report: 1. Summarize existing water and wastewater systems, including key network topology, major facilities and any currently known constraints. 2. Review both the City and Region of Niagara’s policies and standards associated with water and wastewater services to identify key requirements for future development within the GWSPA. 3. Summarize planned improvements to the existing systems, triggered by existing constraints or by future growth demands. 4. Provide high-level commentary on opportunities and constraints that may impact overall development as well as opportunities for phased development. Page 86 of 369 Page 322 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 4 2. Physical Constraints to Study Area Identifying physical constraints to servicing the Study Area is a key component of Phase 1. These physical constraints can include topographical challenges, sensitive environmental areas, geotechnical conditions, and/or factors that could limit access to servicing. The following sub-sections will identify various physical and natural environmental constraints specific to the GWSPA, along with the assumptions carried for each constraint. 2.1. Topography Topography refers to the physical features of the Earth’s surface, including its elevation, slope, and landforms such as depressions or mounds. It dictates drainage patterns within the Study Area and is an important factor to consider for infrastructure development. A review of the topography within and adjacent to the Garner West Study Area was completed and it was found that the land surface elevations within the Study Area range from 181 meters above sea level (masl) to 188 masl. The GWSPA contains four (4) tributaries to Beaversdam Creek, which convey stormwater flows from approximately 117 ha of the Study Area to west of Beechwood Road. Three of the four tributaries are generally defined swales through the existing agricultural fields or existing properties, however the fourth tributary that flows through the Niagara Falls Golf Club has been channelized. The remaining 67 ha drains south to a tributary of Thompson Creek which conveys stormwater flows south of McLeod Road. Generally, the topography within the GWSPA was observed to include gradual variations in elevation with a ridge located east-west through the GWSPA at an elevation of 188 masl which defines the split in drainage towards the Beaversdam Creek and Thompson Creek. The Beaversdam Creek tributaries flow east to west and exit the Study Area along Beechwood Road at elevations ranging from 181 – 183 masl. The tributary to Thompson Creek flows north to south and exits the Study Area at McLeod Road at an approximate elevation of 182 masl. The topography of the GWSPA is shown in Figure 2-1. Page 87 of 369 Page 323 of 1679 Page 88 of 369Page 324 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 6 2.2. Subwatershed Analysis A watershed, also referred to as a catchment basin, is an area of land from which surface runoff (water, sediments, nutrients, and contaminants) drain into a common water body or watercourse. Watersheds include all of the water and water-dependent features such as wetlands, forests, urban areas, and agricultural areas. The CNF lies within the South Niagara Falls watershed. It is an important watershed on the Niagara Peninsula because it is primarily agricultural and is not located within the Greenbelt Plan area. This watershed is also located in the Niagara River Area of Concern, meaning it has been determined that the aquatic environment has been severely affected. A subwatershed refers to a smaller geographical area within a larger watershed, delineated by natural drainage patterns where runoff converges to a common outlet, such as a stream or river. By analyzing and incorporating the subwatershed data into the Secondary Plan process, the CNF can minimize environmental impacts and promote responsible land use practices within the GWSPA. A subwatershed analysis is being completed by Aquafor Beech in support of the Secondary Plan, in parallel with the Functional Servicing Study (FSS). The subwatershed analysis will complete in-depth investigations of the terrestrial habitat, fish habitat, water resources, fluvial geomorphology, and hydrogeology of the GWSPA and surrounding areas. Four seasons of monitoring and field surveys must be completed to support the recommendations of the subwatershed study so information from the subwatershed study will be incorporated into the FSS as it becomes available. For the purposes of the FSS, the results of the subwatershed study will refine the high-level desktop analysis completed within this report to identify constraints related to terrestrial habitat, fish habitat, water resources, fluvial geomorphology, and hydrogeology. For example, The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) has mapped the location of known Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) within its jurisdiction which will be overlaid onto the GWSPA mapping. These areas will be identified as a constraint to development and/or servicing and therefore water, wastewater, and stormwater servicing will not be proposed within these areas. The subwatershed study will refine the limits of these constraining features through the monitoring and field surveys and any updates to the location or sizing of constraining features will be reflected in the location of proposed servicing infrastructure. Approximately 62% (~114 hectares) of the northern portion of the GWSPA is located in the Beaver Dam Schiner’s Creek (BDSC) Beaver Dams Creek subwatershed. This area drains to the four tributaries of the Beaversdam Creek. The southwest portion of the GWSPA (approximately 50 hectares, or ~27% of the GWSPA) is located in the Thompson Creek subwatershed and drains via the tributary to Thompson Creek. The southeast portion of the GWSPA (approximately 20 hectares, or ~11% of the GWSPA) is located in the Chippawa Power Canal subwatershed which drains towards the east, and Garner Road. As shown in Figure 2-4, there are several key environmental features that must be considered for infrastructure planning purposes. The GWSPA includes five (5) NPCA-regulated watercourses; four of which are tributaries to Beaversdam Creek and the fifth being a tributary to Thompson Creek. Three of the Beaversdam Creek tributaries are also identified as Potential Natural Heritage Corridors and have Page 89 of 369 Page 325 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 7 regulated floodplains associated with them. The receiving watercourse (tributary of Beaverdam’s creek) has also been classified as an Important Fish Habitat (Type 2) by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The properties fronting Lundy’s Lane have several environmental constraints including Environmental Conservation Areas (ECAs), Locally Significant Wetlands, and Non-Significant Woodlands. A woodland and ECA are also located mid-block along Garner Road. These environmental features will be further investigated as part of the subwatershed study by Aquafor Beech but for the purposes of the FSS, they will be considered constraints to servicing. 2.3. Stormwater Management Facilities A desktop review of storm water management (SWM) facilities was completed by examining maps and data pertaining to the Study Area, along with several background reports provided by the CNF. An existing SWM facility is located north of the GWSPA, immediately south of Hendershot Boulevard. This facility appears to discharge to the tributary of Beaversdam Creek that flows through the GWSPA. An existing municipally-owned stormwater management (SWM) facility, designed and constructed as part of the Edgewood Estates development, is located east to Garner Road, immediately north of Forestview Boulevard. The SWM facility collects and treats stormwater from the subdivisions to the east (Edgewood and Deerfield Estates developments) and discharges to an outlet sewer that crosses under Garner Road and through the GWSPA via municipal easement to discharge to the channelized tributary of Beaverdams Creek within the Niagara Falls Golf Course. Refer to Figure 1-1 for the approximate location of the storm easement. A review of the Forestview Estates Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan/Scoped Watershed Study (2018) was also completed. This development, bounded by Mcleod Road to the north and Garner Road to the east, is just south of the GWSPA and could not use infiltration techniques for stormwater management due the low soil infiltration rates. The proposed development was recently constructed and includes a constructed wet pond that treats collected stormwater from the subject lands prior to releasing storm flows to the downstream receiving watercourse (a tributary of Thompson Creek). Immediately to the west of the Forestview Estates development, a residential development known as McLeod Meadows was proposed in 2023. This project extended from the Forestview Estates property west to Beechwood Road. Similar to the Forestview Estates property, the project has proposed a wet pond at the south limits of the property to treat collected stormwater from the subject lands prior to releasing storm flows to the downstream receiving watercourse (a tributary of Thompson Creek) which is to be maintained in-situ. The findings from these reports should be considered during the stormwater infrastructure analysis for the Study Area. 2.4. Easements or Linkages The middle portion of the Study Area, approximately 800m north of McLeod Road, features a Hydro One easement extending approximately 1.0km in length and spanning about 60m in width. This easement runs along the entire middle portion of the Study Area. Page 90 of 369 Page 326 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 8 In addition, a 4.0 metre width storm sewer easement is located within 6051 Garner Road and the adjoining property fronting Lundy’s Lane (refer to Figure 1-1) and extends from Garner Road to the channelized tributary of Beaverdams Creek within the Niagara Falls Golf Course. This storm sewer easement allows the conveyance of storm flows from the SWM pond east of Garner Road to its receiving watercourse. As shown in Figure 2-4, several of the tributaries to Beaverdams Creek are identified as potential natural heritage corridors thereby potentially functioning as environmental linkages. 2.5. Transportation (Road and Rail) Networks Beechwood Road is located on the west limits of the GWSPA. This road is under the ownership of the CNF and has a right of way (ROW) width of 20 metres. Garner Road is located on the east limits of the GWSPA and is owned by the CNF. Garner Road has a ROW width of 26 metres. McLeod Road is located on the south limits of the GWSPA and is owned by the CNF. McLeod Road has a ROW width of 20 metres. Lundy’s Lane is located on the north limits of the GWSPA. This road is owned by Niagara Region and has a varying ROW width along the frontage of the GWSPA albeit generally with a width of 36 metres. In addition to the existing road network, there is a CN railway crossing through the GWSPA at the northwest corner. It crosses Beechwood Road and Lundy’s Lane. The location of the railway is not anticipated to be a constraint for servicing however it will be avoided if possible to minimize construction and/or approval challenges. 2.6. Wellhead Protection Areas, Highly Vulnerable Aquifers, and Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas A desktop review was completed to identify Wellhead Protection Areas, Highly Vulnerable Aquifers, and Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas with respect to potential impacts on the proposed servicing layout. It was found that the GWSPA is not located within these areas. Per Figure 3.6 from the CNF Master Drainage Plan Update Study, the GWSPA is not located within an area classified as a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer or a Surface Water Intake Protection Zone. 2.7. Areas of Environmental Sensitivity A high level desktop review was completed to identify Areas of Environmental Sensitivity within the GWSPA. As shown in Figure 2-4, the GWSPA includes five (5) NPCA-regulated watercourses; four of which are tributaries to Beaversdam Creek and the fifth being a tributary to Thompson Creek. Three of the Beaversdam Creek tributaries are also identified as Potential Natural Heritage Corridors and have regulated floodplains associated with them. The receiving watercourse (tributary of Beaverdam’s creek) Page 91 of 369 Page 327 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 9 has been classified as an Important Fish Habitat (Type 2) by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Per Figure 3.4 from the CNF Master Drainage Plan Update Study, portions of the tributaries extending through the GWSPA are deemed Important to fish habitat. The properties fronting Lundy’s Lane have several environmental constraints including Environmental Conservation Areas (ECAs), Locally Significant Wetlands, and Non-Significant Woodlands. A woodland and ECA are also located mid-block along Garner Road. These Areas of Environmental Sensitivity will be avoided during the design of the proposed servicing layout and will be investigated in-depth and refined by the subwatershed Consultant, Aquafor Beech. These Areas of Environmental Sensitivity will be avoided during the design of the proposed servicing layout and will be investigated in-depth and refined by the sub watershed consultant, Aquafor Beech. 2.8. Regulated Areas (NPCA, Provincial NHS or Greenbelt, Niagara Escarpment, and Oak Midges Moraine Conservation Plan) A desktop review was completed to identify areas within the GWSPA that were regulated by the following: • Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) • Provincial Natural Heritage System (NHS) or Greenbelt • Niagara Escarpment • Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan The GWSPA is not located within the Greenbelt, Niagara Escarpment, or the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Several areas of environmental sensitivity are located within the regulation limits of the NPCA as detailed in Section 2.7. The NPCA-regulated areas will be avoided during the design of the proposed servicing layout and will be investigated in-depth and refined by the subwatershed consultant, Aquafor Beech. 2.9. Geotechnical Considerations Borehole logs were reviewed from the Ontario Well Records and ten (10) monitoring wells were identified within the GWSPA. The locations of the MWs is shown in Figure 2-2 with a summary of geotechnical information related to the ten MWs provided in a table included on the figure. Three (3) of the MWs (Well IDs 6603343, 6604085, and 6602455) were chosen within the GWSPA to create a historic geotechnical profile as shown in Figure 2-3 which illustrates the surface elevations, depth of overburden and bedrock, and groundwater levels. The geotechnical information from these MWs is summarized in Table 2-1. Page 92 of 369 Page 328 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 10 Table 2-1 Borehole Log Summary The borehole information is fairly consistent throughout the Study Area and indicates that silty clay is the predominant native soil condition, with bedrock being typically encountered between 12 to 14 metres below grade. The groundwater levels within the boreholes generally ranged from 4 to 7 metres below grade. This geotechnical information will be considered during the infrastructure planning stage as it can impact the practicality of constructing deep sewers or using certain infiltration practices for stormwater management. In addition, the CNF provided a geotechnical investigation for the German Village Estates Subdivision development application which provided an overview of the geotechnical conditions identified on-site when boreholes were drilled in 2014. The subdivision has been constructed and is located on Black Forest Crescent which is approximately 600 metres north of McLeod Road, east of Garner Road. The borehole information identified the native subsurface soil conditions in the area to consist of stratified clay, silt, and sand with silty clay being the predominant native overburden soil at the site. Refusal of borehole advancement was encountered at one of the boreholes at 7.7 metres below ground surface (m bps) which was assumed to be the bedrock depth. Groundwater seepage was not encountered in the boreholes during drilling and the boreholes were dry on completion of drilling. Well ID Top of Grade (masl) Groundwater Level (masl) Soil Conditions by Depth (m) Bedrock Level (masl) 6603343 185.6 180.7 Grey Clay: 0 – 12.2 Niagara Rock: 12.2 – 22.0 173.4 6604085 186.1 180.6 Brown Clay: 0 – 1.2 Grey Clay: 1.2 – 9.8 Grey Gravel: 9.8 – 13.7 Limestone: 13.7 – 18.3 172.4 6602455 184.2 170.8 Brown Clay: 0 – 6.7 Blue Clay: 6.7 – 13.4 Brown Shale Rock: 13.4 – 14.6 Grey Limestone: 14.6 – 17.4 171.0 Page 93 of 369 Page 329 of 1679 Page 94 of 369Page 330 of 1679 Page 95 of 369Page 331 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 13 2.10. Summary of Physical Constraints to Servicing Through the desktop review completed of the potential physical constraints to servicing, several constraints were identified and are as follows: • Five (5) NPCA-regulated watercourses; four of which are tributaries to Beaversdam Creek and the fifth being a tributary to Thompson Creek. Three of the Beaversdam Creek tributaries are also identified as Potential Natural Heritage Corridors and have regulated floodplains associated with them. The receiving watercourse (tributary of Beaverdam’s creek) has been classified as an Important Fish Habitat (Type 2) by the Ministry of Natural Resources. • Several wooded area have been identified fronting McLeod Road, Garner Road, and Lundy’s Lane. Some of the wooded areas fronting Garner Road and Lundy’s Lane include an Environmental Conservation Area (ECA) designation; • The properties fronting Lundy’s Lane have several environmental constraints including Environmental Conservation Areas (ECAs), Locally Significant Wetlands, and Non-Significant Woodlands. • A Hydro One easement spanning 60 metres in width and 1 kilometre in length that runs east to west through the GWSPA, approximately 800 metres north of McLeod Road. • A 4.0 metre width storm sewer easement is located within 6051 Garner Road and the adjoining property fronting Lundy’s Lane (refer to Figure 1-1) and extends from Garner Road to the channelized tributary of Beaverdams Creek within the Niagara Falls Golf Course. This storm sewer easement allows the conveyance of storm flows from the SWM pond east of Garner Road to its receiving watercourse. • A CN railway crosses Beechwood Road and Lundy’s Lane at the northwest corner of the GWSPA. • Historic geotechnical records identify typical bedrock at 12 to 14 metres in depth, groundwater at 4 to 7 metres in depth, and silty clay as the predominant native soil condition. The proposed servicing layout will avoid these constraints by minimizing crossings, maintaining appropriate setbacks per regulating bodies, and maintaining suitable depth of cover. This will ensure compliance with regulatory standards and preserve ecological integrity. Figure 2-4 illustrates the identified physical constraints to servicing within the GWSPA. Page 96 of 369 Page 332 of 1679 Page 97 of 369Page 333 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 15 3. Servicing Design Criteria 3.1. Water 3.1.1. Treatment Plant Treatment plants are designed to treat the maximum day demand. The following criteria were confirmed through the Region’s Master Servicing Plan (MSP) to assess when water treatment plants require expansion, as agreed upon with the Region: • When flows reach 80% of plant capacity, the planning process for plant expansion will be flagged; and, • When 90% of plant capacity has been reached, expansion should be completed. 3.1.2. Pumping Station Per the Region MSP, water pumping stations are sized to provide maximum day demands, assuming there is sufficient storage in the pressure zone. When sufficient storage in the pressure zone is not provided, the pumping requirement is: • Peak hour demands when there is insufficient balancing storage; or, • Maximum day demand plus equivalent fire storage deficit flow transfer. The following criteria is used to assess when a pumping station requires expansion: • When flows reach 80% of the facility’s firm capacity, the planning process for station expansion should be flagged; and, • When 90% of facility firm capacity has been reached, expansion should be completed. 3.1.3. Storage The required water storage capacity for a pressure zone was estimated in the Region MSP using the standard MECP criteria (A + B + C): • Fire storage volume (A) is calculated based on equivalent population in accordance with the MECP Guideline for the Design of Water Distribution System; • Equalization storage volume (B) is 25% of the maximum day demand; and, • Emergency storage volume (C) is 25% of the equalization volume plus fire storage (C = 25% of A+B). 3.1.4. Watermains Per the Region’s MSP, watermains are sized based on flow demands and pressure requirements, which include the following: Page 98 of 369 Page 334 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 16 • Maintain local system pressure between 40 and 100 psi; o Preferred pressure range of 50 to 80 psi for Regional transmission mains (exceptions being watermains that feed at-grade facilities, such as in-ground reservoirs, where low- pressures are expected and cannot be increased). • Pipe velocity and headloss in the system, including: o Target headloss of 2.5 m/km or less to reduce pumping costs; and, o Target velocity less than 2.0 m/s under normal operating conditions. • Minimum fire flow target of 250 L/s at a residual pressure of 30 psi within Regional transmission mains which service local distribution watermains. 3.1.5. Flow Criteria, Performance, and Sizing Methodology (Region MSP) Per the Region’s MSP, Table 3-1 presents a summary of the flow criteria, performance, and sizing methodology that was utilized. Table 3-1: Flow Criteria, Performance, and Sizing Methodology (Region MSP) Description Criteria Flow Criteria Water Demand Residential 240 L/capita/day Employment 270 L/employee/day Peaking Factor Maximum Day Based on historic average of maximum day peaking factors from 2016 - 2020 Peak Hour Factor Based on system mass balance using hourly SCADA data from 2018 - 2020 Existing System Demands Starting Point Methodology • Based on local billing meter records and production records to establish existing system demands • Growth demands are added to the existing system baseline using design criteria System Performance Criteria System Pressures Acceptable pressure range of 40 – 100 psi • Regional objective of maximizing areas within the preferred range of 50 – 80 psi on Regional watermains Fire Flow 250 L/s on Regional watermains at residual pressure of 30 psi Velocity Average Day Flag areas less than 0.6 m/s minimum velocity MDD+FF or PHD Flag areas greater than 1.5 m/s Trigger upgrades when greater than 2 m/s Sizing and Triggers Plant and Facility Upgrade Triggers • 80% trigger for plant and facility planning process (time-based trigger on a case-by-case basis) • Complete plant and facility expansions before 90% capacity is reached Treatment Plant Sizing Maximum day demand Pumping Station Sizing Various potential demand scenarios: • Maximum day demand (MDD) • MDD + fire flow (250 L/s or MECP) • Peak Hour Demand (PHD) Page 99 of 369 Page 335 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 17 Description Criteria Watermain Sizing Regional transmission main system for PHD and MDD + fire flow demands Storage Sizing MECP methodology (A+B+C) 3.2. Wastewater 3.2.1. Wastewater Treatment Plant Treatment plants are designed to treat the average daily flows. The following criteria were confirmed through the Region MSP to assess when wastewater treatment facilities require expansion. • When flows reach 80% of plant capacity, the planning process for plant expansion will be flagged • When 90% of plant capacity has been reached, expansion should be completed. 3.2.2. Pumping Station The Region’s design philosophy is to size sanitary pumping stations (SPS) in line with the Region’s extraneous flow design criteria, but as per the Region MSP a hybrid evaluation approach is to be undertaken in an effort to acknowledge that SPSs are a major contributor to local wastewater system performance and that many legacy system’s existing wet weather flows exceed the extraneous flow design allowance. Two flow scenarios and evaluation criterions were agreed upon in the Region MSP to measure performance and/or flag triggers for a SPS: • System Performance - Two flow scenarios considered o Design Allowance: Peak wet weather flow (PWWF) using the peaked dry weather flow (PDWF) plus the extraneous flow design allowance o 5-Year Storm: Modelled PWWF using the 5-year design storm • Trigger Sizing - Two criterions considered o Peak flow capacity to meet the design PWWF using the extraneous flow design allowance o Wet well and system storage considerations under 5-year storm to minimize basement flooding and overflow risks. 3.2.2.1. Sewage Pumping Station and Forcemain Policy Amendments Niagara Region council has adopted a Sewage Pumping Stations and Forcemains Policy regarding upper- tier and lower-tier ownership and responsibilities. The Proposed Policy Amendments require the following key considerations for the recommendation of pumping station and forcemain infrastructure as part of a Functional Servicing Plan for a Secondary Plan: • Need for any new pumping station recommendations to be documented for approval by Niagara Region; • Funding of new pumping stations to be identified for inclusion as part of the respective Region and/or Town Development Charges Background Studies, if Regional DC criteria are met; and, Page 100 of 369 Page 336 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 18 • Documentation of evaluation of pumping station recommendations compared against the option of servicing by gravity sewer (including life-cycle cost analysis for both options). Region policy maintains that: • Gravity sewers are the most reliable method of transferring sewage from the sanitary collection system to wastewater treatment facilities; • There are limitations to the practical depth of gravity sewers such that new pumping stations will only be allowed where it can be shown that pumping is a more cost effective and feasible option than gravity sewers; • The need for a new pumping station, as well as an assessment of capacity of the downstream infrastructure, must be documented in engineering and/or planning studies (including Functional Servicing Plans); and, • The cost for a new pumping station required to accommodate growth is to be included in the applicable Region/Town Development Charges (DC) by-law if Regional DC criteria are met. 3.2.3. Forcemain As per the Region MSP, forcemain capacity is sized based on the firm capacity of the pumping station. The following criterion is used to assess when a forcemain for a pumping station requires expansion: • Flag velocities less than 0.6 m/s for operational issues • Flag velocities greater than 2 m/s • Capacity expansion will be triggered once the forcemain design velocity exceeds 2.5 m/s and considering condition and age Sizing of new forcemain will target the following criteria: • Design velocity between 1.0 m/s and 2.0 m/s • Where presently feasible, capacity requirements will be achieved by twinning of an existing forcemain with the same size as existing. 3.2.4. Trunk Sewers As per the Region MSP, trunk sewers are sized to manage peak wet weather flows, using the extraneous flow design allowance (hybrid: 0.4 L/s/ha for existing areas and 0.286 L/s/ha for new areas), within the sewer obvert. The following criterion is used to assess when a sewer requires expansion: • Capacity expansion will be triggered once the sewer peak hydraulic grade line exceeds the pipe obvert from the design allowance peak wet weather flows. • Freeboard (depth between hydraulic grade line and ground surface) greater than 1.8m below ground surface during a 5-year design storm. • Flag velocities less than 0.6 m/s for operational uses. • Flag velocities greater than 3.0 m/s. Sizing of new sewer will have the following criterion: Page 101 of 369 Page 337 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 19 • Sized for full flow under post-2051 design allowance peak wet weather flow. • Assess 5-year design storm performance to minimize basement flooding risk and overflows. 3.2.5. Flow Criteria, Scenarios, System Performance, and Sizing Methodology (Region MSP) Per the Region MSP, Table 3-2 presents a summary of the flow criteria, scenarios, performance, and sizing methodology that was utilized. Table 3-2: Flow Criteria, Scenarios, System Performance, and Sizing Methodology Description Criteria Flow Criteria Existing System Flows Starting Point Methodology • Based on local billing meter records and flow monitoring data to establish existing dry and wet weather flows • Growth flows are added to the existing system baseline using design criteria Flow Generation Residential 255 L/c/d Employment 310 L/e/d Peaking Factor Peak Dry Weather Flow Harmon’s Peaking Factor Extraneous Flow Design Criteria • 0.4 L/s/ha for existing areas • 0.286 L/s/ha for new developments Wastewater Treatment Plant System Performance and Triggers • MECP Procedure F-5-1 • Trigger upgrade planning at 80% capacity • Trigger upgrade construction at 90% capacity Upgrade Sizing Average daily flow plus growth based on population design flows Pump Station System Performance Triggers and Sizing • Two flow scenarios considered o Design Allowance: Peak wet weather flow using the peak dry weather flow plus the extraneous flow design allowance o 5-Year Storm: Modelled peak wet weather flow using the 5-year design storm • Peak flow capacity to meet design peak wet weather flow using the extraneous flow design allowance. • Wet well and system storage considerations under 5-year storm to minimize basement flooding and overflow risks. Forcemain System Performance and Triggers • Flag velocities less than 0.6 m/s • Flag velocities greater than 2.0 m/s • Upgrade when velocities exceed 2.5 m/s and considering condition and age Upgrade Sizing • Design velocity target between 1 m/s and 2 m/s • Forcemain twinning to increase capacity where feasible Page 102 of 369 Page 338 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 20 Description Criteria Trunk System Performance and Triggers • Design allowance peak wet weather flows, using the extraneous flow design allowance, to be managed within pipe • Freeboard (depth between hydraulic grade line and ground surface) greater than 1.8 m below ground surface in 5-year design storm • Flag pipes velocities less than 0.6 m/s • Flag pipes velocities greater than 3.0 m/s Upgrade Sizing • Sized for full flow under post-2051 design peak wet weather flow • Assess 5-year design storm performance to minimize basement flooding risks and overflows 3.3. Stormwater 3.3.1. Quantity The Subwatershed Study will include hydrologic analysis of the Study Area to establish stormwater management criteria for quantity controls required of future development within the Study Area. Sizing of the conceptual stormwater management (SWM) facilities will be completed during Phase 3 of the FSS with recommendations provided on the required level of quantity and erosion controls for the entire Study Area, on-site quantity controls, and required conveyance (storm sewer) measures. 3.3.2. Quality The Subwatershed Study will provide stormwater management (SWM) criteria for quality controls required of future development within the Study Area based on constraints identified in the receiving watercourses and any applicable SWM criteria and guidelines. Sizing of the conceptual stormwater management (SWM) facilities will be completed during Phase 3 of the FSS with recommendations provided on the required level of quality control for the entire Study Area and potential on-site quality controls that can be further defined at the development application stage. Page 103 of 369 Page 339 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 21 4. Planning and Growth Projections 4.1. Growth Projections Population and employment growth projections were identified for the City of Niagara Falls in the ‘City Traffic Zone ID, Intensification Polygon ID, and Prorated Yield to 2051’ (November, 2023) figure. The Garner West Secondary Plan area is identified as an urban expansion area with a targeted growth density of 60 persons per hectare (pph). The Region OP identified several ‘Strategic Growth Areas’ where a target density of 100 to 150 pph was identified however the Garner West Secondary Plan area was not identified as one of these areas. Table 4-1 provides a summary of the projected population and employment growth for the Garner West Secondary Plan area. Table 4-1: Growth Projections for Study Area Study Area Gross Expansion Area (ha) Net Developable (ha) Population Estimate (persons) Employment Estimate (employees) Total Growth Estimate Garner West Secondary Plan 180 160 9,600 - 9,600 4.2. Flow Projection Methodology 4.2.1. Water Demand Projection Methodology Per the Region’s MSP, the future water system’s average daily demand (ADD) was developed using a starting point methodology (5-year rolling average of average daily demands and maximum day demands) incorporating a 25% reduction for non-revenue water for systems that are currently over 25% non-revenue water. Expected flows due to growth were added to the starting point flows to establish future flows. For this secondary plan the total growth estimate (persons) was strictly residential, and no 25% reduction was accounted for non-revenue water. A sample calculation for the ADD is provided below. Page 104 of 369 Page 340 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 22 4.2.2. Wastewater Flow Projection Flow Methodology Per the Region’s MSP, the future wastewater system’s average daily flow (ADF) was developed using a starting point methodology (5-year rolling average of average daily flows) incorporating a 25% reduction for non-revenue water. Expected flows due to growth were added to the starting point flows to establish future flows. For this secondary plan the total growth estimate (persons) was strictly residential, and no 25% reduction was accounted for non-revenue water. A sample calculation for the ADF is provided below. 4.3. Projected Water Demand Projected water demands and storage requirements using the flow criteria and storage sizing methodology from the Region MSP are summarized below in Table 4-2. The maximum daily demand (MDD) and peak hourly flow (PHF) factors were 1.6 and 2.1, respectively. Table 4-2: Projected Water Demand Study Area Average Day Flow (L/s) Maximum Daily Demand (L/s) Peak Hourly Flow (L/s) Total Storage Required (m3) Garner West Secondary Plan 26.7 42.7 56.0 3,663 4.4. Projected Wastewater Flows Projected wastewater flows and extraneous flows using the flow criteria and methodology from the Region MSP are summarized below in Table 4-3. The calculated Harmon peaking factor was 2.97 based on the anticipated population growth. Table 4-3: Projected Wastewater Flows Study Area Total Average Dry Weather Flow (L/s) Peak Dry Weather Flow (L/s) Total Extraneous Flow (L/s) Total Peak Wet Weather Flow (L/s) Garner West Secondary Plan 28.3 84.2 45.8 130.0 Page 105 of 369 Page 341 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 23 5. Water Infrastructure 5.1. Existing Infrastructure The Niagara Falls water system servicing the City of Niagara Falls is interconnected with the DeCew water system to provide additional supply and storage capacity to the City of Thorold and the Town of Niagara- on-the-Lake (NOTL). The following sections describe the existing water infrastructure associated with treatment, pumping, storage, and transmission. 5.1.1. Water Treatment The Niagara Falls water system is supplied by the Niagara Falls Water Treatment Plant (WTP), which is located on 3599 Macklem Street in the City of Niagara Falls. The plant is a conventional surface water treatment plant with zebra mussel control, travelling screens, coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection. The plant’s intake is 5.5 metres deep and located on the west bank of the Welland River, just south of the Niagara River. Although located in the Welland River, the intake actually receives raw water from the Niagara River as the Chippawa/Queenston power canal draws water from the Welland River to fill its reservoirs thereby reversing flow in the Welland River. The plant has a rated capacity of 145.5 MLD (1,684 L/s). As outlined in the Region’s 2023 Summary Report, the average treated water ranged from 37.4 MLD (26% of rated capacity) to 50.9 MLD (35% of rated capacity) in 2023. The maximum treated water ranged from 42.0 MLD (29% of rated capacity) to 60.6 MLD (42% of rated capacity) in 2023. The Region’s 2021 MP identified that the Niagara Falls WTP had sufficient existing capacity to provided treated water to support population growth to 2051, based on the population growth estimates carried within that study. The location of the Niagara Falls WTP is shown in Figure 5-1. 5.1.2. Booster Stations The City of Niagara Falls operates within a single pressure zone with a hydraulic grade line (HGL) of 250 metres above sea level (masl). As previously stated, there is interconnectivity with the Thorold system (HGL = 227 masl) and the St. Davids and Queenston systems (HGL = 168 masl). Water pressure is maintained throughout the Niagara Falls system via a series of booster pumping stations (BPS) and storage reservoirs. Details related to the BPSs within the Niagara Falls water system are provided in Table 5-1. Table 5-1: Summary of Booster Pumping Stations Facility Information Niagara Falls WTP High Lift Station Kent Avenue BPS Address 3599 Macklem Street, Niagara Falls 4281 Kent Avenue, Niagara Falls Inlet Source (Pressure Zone and Facility) Water Treatment Plant (WTP) 250 (via Kent Avenue Reservoir) Discharge (Pressure Zone) 250 250 Pressure Zones Supplied 168, 189 (NOTL), 227 (Thorold), 250 168, 189 (NOTL), 227 (Thorold), 250 Page 106 of 369 Page 342 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 24 Facility Information Niagara Falls WTP High Lift Station Kent Avenue BPS Number of Pumps (Total/Firm) 5/4 3/2 Installed Capacity (MLD) 200.5 91.0 Firm Capacity (MLD) 146.0 46.0 Total Dynamic Head (m) 83.2 57.9 5.1.3. Storage Details related to the water storage facilities within the Niagara Falls WTP service area are provided in Table 5-2. The Region’s 2021 MP identified that the Lundy’s Lane Elevated Tank (ET) will be decommissioned with a new tank location to be determined through a separate study. Table 5-2: Summary of Storage Facilities Story Facility Information Niagara Falls WTP Reservoir Kent Avenue Reservoir Lundy’s Lane Elevated Tank Address 3599 Macklem Street, Niagara Falls 4281 Kent Avenue, Niagara Falls 6280 Lundy’s Lane, Niagara Falls Storage Type Pumped Reservoir Pumped Reservoir Elevated Tank Volume (ML) 141 20.9 2.5 Top Water Level (m) 174.3 196.9 249.6 Fire Supply Zones 250 Pumped 250 Pumped 250 Floating Maximum Day Demand Supply Zones All 168 Pumped 227 Pumped 250 Pumped 168 Pumped 227 Pumped 250 Pumped Note 1: Total WTP storage volume is 14 ML however due to MECP contact time requirements, the actual useable volume at the Niagara Falls WTP is 5.7 ML under 2051 MDD. 5.1.4. Trunk Distribution Network The Regional trunk water distribution system, along with the local watermain networks, are shown in Figure 5-1. The transmission mains consist of 400mmø – 1050mmø watermains which distribute treated water throughout the Niagara Falls water system. The local watermain networks consist of 150mmø – 350mmø watermains which conveys treated water from the transmission mains to local residents and businesses. The boundary road network around the GWSPA contains the following water distribution network: • 200mmø watermain on a 750m length section of Lundy’s Lane • 300mmø watermain on Garner Road • 500mmø watermain on McLeod Road Refer to Figure 5-2 for the location of the water distribution network adjacent to the Study Area. Page 107 of 369 Page 343 of 1679 Page 108 of 369Page 344 of 1679 Page 109 of 369Page 345 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 27 5.2. Planned Capital Projects The Region’s 2021 MSP identified several capital projects to support the planned growth within the DeCew WTP and Niagara Falls WTP system service areas to 2051, which includes the GWSPA. Table 5-3 and Figure 5-3 identify and describe the planned water capital projects potentially impacting growth in the GWSPA. Water projects included within the City of Niagara Falls’ 10-year capital program are also identified in Figure 5-3. Table 5-3: Planned Regional Water Capital Projects Master Plan ID Name Description Size / Capacity Estimated Year in Service Project Type W-S-004 New South Niagara Falls ET New South Niagara Falls ET to replace the Lundy’s Lane ET and provide additional storage 12.0 ML 2022 – 2026 Storage W-S-014 In-ground reservoir expansion at Niagara Falls WTP In-ground reservoir expansion at Niagara Falls WTP to support buildout growth and CT volume requirements 10.0 ML Post 2051 Storage W-D-004 Decommissioning of Lundy’s Lane Elevated Tank (ET) Lundy’s Lane ET to be decommissioned and replaced by New South Niagara Falls ET. N/A 2027- 2031 Decom W-M-007 New transmission main in South Niagara Falls New transmission main from Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) to Port Robinson Chlorine BPS in Niagara Falls 450 mm 2022 – 2026 Watermain W-M-009 New Niagara Falls South transmission main to New ET New Niagara Falls South transmission main to provide additional supply to new growth areas. 750 mm 2022 -2026 Watermain W-M-019 New Niagara Falls South feedermain from Dorchester Road to Lyon’s Creek Road New Niagara Falls South feedermain to provide additional supply to new growth areas. 600 mm 2032 - 2051 Watermain W-M-020 New Niagara Falls South feedermain along Lyon’s Creek Road New Niagara Falls South feedermain to provide additional supply to new growth areas. 600 mm 2042 – 2051 Watermain W-M-021 New Niagara Falls South Feedermain along Stanely Avenue New Niagara Falls South feedermain to provide additional supply to new growth areas N/A 2032 - 2051 Watermain Page 110 of 369 Page 346 of 1679 Page 111 of 369Page 347 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 29 5.3. Potential Connection Points As previously noted, the GWSPA has existing watermains located along the majority of the boundary roads surrounding the Study Area. Lundy’s Lane has a 200mmø watermain (from Garner Road to the CN railway tracks), Garner Road has a 300mmø watermain, and McLeod Road has a 500mmø watermain. Beechwood Road does not currently contain a local watermain and the portion of Lundy’s Lane from the CN railway tracks west to Beechwood Road also does not contain a local watermain. Refer to Figure 5-2 for the location of the existing watermains. Potential connection points for the GWSPA could involve extending local watermains throughout the Study Area off of these existing watermains. Connecting the existing 200mmø watermain on Lundy’s Lane to the 500mmø watermain on McLeod Road by extending a watermain along Lundy’s Lane and Beechwood Road for approximately 2.2 kilometres could improve water quality, system resiliency, and redundancy of supply. Looping the existing watermains could also be accomplished through watermain installed within internal subdivision roads. Section 7 will review the hydraulic modelling completed as part of Phase 1, specifically looking at how the existing water system will respond to the increased demand from the GWSPA and potential system improvements to facilitate the growth. Page 112 of 369 Page 348 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 30 6. Wastewater Infrastructure 6.1. Existing Infrastructure The Niagara Falls wastewater system services the CNF and the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake (NOTL). A map of the existing wastewater system in the CNF is provided in Figure 6-2. The following sections describe the existing wastewater infrastructure associated with treatment, pumping, and collection. 6.1.1. Wastewater Treatment Wastewater treatment within the system is provided by the Niagara Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), which is located at 3450 Stanley Avenue in the City of Niagara Falls. The plant is a rotating biological contacting plant with a current rated capacity of 68.3 MLD, a peak dry weather flow capacity of 136.3 MLD, and a peak wet weather flow capacity of 205.0 MLD. The plant uses ferric chloride addition for phosphorus removal. Five (5) years of recent flow data was used by the 2021 Niagara Region Water and Wastewater Master Servicing Plan Update (MSPU) to calculate an average daily flow at the plant of 39.9 Megalitres per day (MLD). It was projected that by 2051 the average daily flow will be 61.6 MLD which exceeds the 90% of the existing wastewater treatment plant capacity (which is a trigger for expansion). The projected post- 2051 average daily flow is 71.2 MLD, which exceeds the plant’s rated capacity. Based on these anticipated capacity limitations at the Niagara Falls WWTP, Niagara Falls completed the South Niagara Falls Wastewater Solutions Schedule ‘C’ Class EA; the recommendations of which are detailed below in Section 6.1.1.1. 6.1.1.1. South Niagara Falls Wastewater Solutions Class EA Niagara Region undertook the South Niagara Falls Wastewater Solutions (SNFWWS) study to identify, develop, and implement a wastewater servicing strategy and conceptual design of a new WWTP and associated collection and conveyance infrastructure in South Niagara Falls. The study identified a preferred location for the future WWTP at 6811 and 7047 Reixinger Road with an outfall into Chippawa Creek. The collection and conveyance system identified within the preferred strategy included a trunk sewer along Reixinger Road and Montrose Road; potentially involving the decommissioning of several existing sewage pumping stations (Grassy Brook SPS, Oakwood Drive SPS, Garner Road South West SPS, and South Side High Lift SPS). In addition, it included a trunk sewer along Brown Road, Beechwood Road, McLeod Road, and Barron Road to provide wastewater servicing to Thorold via a New Black Horse SPS with a forcemain along Allanport Road to discharge flows to the new trunk sewer terminating at the intersection of Barron Road and Allanport Road. Page 113 of 369 Page 349 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 31 Figure 6-1: Projected Future ADF at Niagara Falls WWTP (2021 Region MSP) With the implementation of the South Niagara Falls WWTP, the 2051 flows to the Niagara Falls WWTP will be reduced to 33.0 MLD and the post-2051 flow to 34.6 MLD. As such, the Niagara Falls WWTP has surplus capacity and will not reach 80% capacity within the 2051 planning period. The South Niagara Falls WWTP is anticipated to be online by 2027 per the projected flows graphed in Figure 6-2 which was extracted from the Region’s 2021 MSPU. The timeline identified for the implementation of the South Niagara Falls WWTP is subject to Provincial and Federal funding and requires Regional Council approval. 6.1.2. Pumping Stations The Region operates 21 sewage pumping stations throughout the CNF; the locations of which, along with their respective sewersheds, are shown in Figure 6-3. The Lundy’s Lane SPS and South Side High Lift SPS service areas are in close proximity to the GWSPA and their details are provided in Table 6-1. The Dorchester SPS is also relevant as it pumps flows received from the Lundy’s Lane SPS so its details are also provided in Table 6-1. Table 6-1: Summary of Relevant SPS Details Facility Details Lundy’s Lane SPS 8971 Lundy’s Lane South Side High Lift SPS 7606 Oakwood Drive Dorchester SPS 5149 Pettit Avenue Pump Station Details ECA Firm Capacity (L/s) 98.4 760.0 235.0 Operational Firm Capacity (L/s) 56.3 609.0 185.0 Number of Pumps 3 5 3 Forcemain Details No. of Forcemains Single Single Single Forcemain Diameter (mm) 250 750 350 Forcemain Length (m) 1,349 3,983 48 Page 114 of 369 Page 350 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 32 Facility Details Lundy’s Lane SPS 8971 Lundy’s Lane South Side High Lift SPS 7606 Oakwood Drive Dorchester SPS 5149 Pettit Avenue Catchment Details Sewershed (ha) 97.1 1,175.1 360.3 Sewershed Inclusive of Upstream Catchments (ha) 97.1 2,077.7 577.1 Peak Dry Weather Flow (L/s) 2021 Flows 10.8 271.5 73.4 2051 Flows 27.1 486.3 98.0 Post-2051 Flows 29.8 582.8 110.8 Design Allowance - Peak Wet Weather Flow (L/s) 2021 Flows 49.7 1,102.6 304.2 2051 Flows 66.3 1,390.8 329.2 Post-2051 Flows 69.1 1,532.8 342.1 5-Year Storm – Peak Wet Weather Flow (L/s) 2021 Flows 149.8 1,531.8 445.2 2051 Flows 166.4 1,820.0 470.2 Post-2051 Flows 169.1 1,962.0 483.0 As shown in Figure 6-3, the Lundy’s Lane SPS is located approximately 150 metres north of the northern limits of the GWSPA. Its’ service area is approximately 97 hectares and abuts the north and northeast limits of the Study Area. The Lundy’s Lane SPS pumps flows via a 250mmø forcemain east to a 450mmø gravity trunk sewer on Lundy’s Lane, just east of Kalar Road. This trunk sewer conveys flows to the Dorchester Road SPS which is approximately 3.4 kilometres from the northern limits of the GWSPA. The service area for the Dorchester Road SPS is approximately 360 hectares, however it conveys an additional 217 hectares of upstream sewersheds, which includes the Lundy’s Lane SPS sewershed. The Dorchester SPS pumps flows via a 350mmø forcemain to a 1200mmø gravity trunk sewer that conveys flows directly to the Niagara Falls WWTP. There are several potential connection points to the local sewers draining to the Lundy’s Lane SPS that will be explored further in Section 6.3. The South Side High Lift SPS is located approximately 2.6 kilometres from the southeastern limits of the GWSPA. Its’ service area is approximately 1,175 hectares however it also conveys sewage from an additional 903 hectares of upstream service area. This station pumps flows via a 750mmø forcemain that extends approximately 4 kilometers north to the same 1200mmø gravity trunk sewer that the Dorchester SPS discharges to. There are several potential connection points to the local sewers that drain to the South Side High Lift SPS that will be explored further in Section 6.3. The anticipated flows experienced at the Lundy’s Lane SPS, Dorchester SPS, and South Side High Lift SPS were extracted from the 2021 Region MSP and indicate that all three stations operate within their firm capacity for peak dry weather flow (PDWF) events however all of the facilities exceed their respective firm capacities’ for the design and 5-year peak wet weather flow (PWWF) events for 2021, 2051, and post-2051 flows with the exception of Lundy’s Lane SPS during the PWWF (design) event for the 2021 scenario. As the GWSPA is anticipated to contribute approximately 130 L/s of PWWF, all of the existing facilities are undersized to convey the PWWF however some interim capacity may be available at the Lundy’s Lane SPS prior to the capital projects outlined in Section 6.1.3 coming on-line. Page 115 of 369 Page 351 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 33 6.1.3. Trunk Collection Network As previously noted, sewage flows from urban areas surrounding the GWSPA are conveyed to the Niagara Falls WWTP via a network of local and Regionally owned sewers, and Regionally owned sewage pumping stations and forcemains. The sewersheds immediately adjacent to the Study Area use the Lundy’s Lane SPS and South Side High Lift SPS to convey these flows to downstream receiving trunk sewers that discharge to the Niagara Falls WWTP. As shown in Figure 6-4, the majority of the sewers in close proximity to the Study Area are local sewers which are typically designed to convey flows from the neighbourhoods they were installed within. The closest trunk sewer is a 600mmø trunk sewer located approximately 1,050 metres east of the Study Area which is tributary to the South Side High Lift SPS. The viability of using this sewer as a connection point will be explored further in Section 6.3. 6.1.3.1. Trunk Sewers and South Niagara Falls WWTP As detailed in Section 6.1.1, the Region undertook a Schedule ‘C’ Class Environmental Assessment to identify, develop, and implement a wastewater servicing strategy and conceptual design of a new WWTP and associated collection and conveyance infrastructure in South Niagara Falls. The study identified the conceptual location and sizing for a new WWTP and associated trunk conveyance system. The projects associated with these recommendations are listed as WW-TP-002, WW-TP-003, WW-TP-004, WW-SS-06, and WW-SS-07 in Table 6-2. The recommended conveyance system includes a trunk sewer that extends from the new WWTP west on Reixinger Road, north on Montrose Road, west on Brown Road, north on Beechwood Road, west on McLeod Road, north on Thorold Townline Road, and west on Barron Road to Allanport Road (WW-SS-06 and WW-SS-07). This trunk sewer is proposed at the southwest corner of the Study Area at the corner of Beechwood Road and McLeod Road and is sized to convey sewage flows from the Study Area. Accordingly, the new South Niagara WWTP is sized to treat sewage flows from the Study Area to 2051 (WW-TP-002, WW-TP-003, and WW-TP-004). In line with the Region’s 2021 MSP, discharging sewage flows from the Study Area to this new trunk sewer will be the ultimate sewage conveyance strategy for the Study Area however if the new WWTP and tributary trunk sewers are not commissioned ahead of the development of the Secondary Plan Area, interim servicing strategies will need to be considered, as discussed further in Section 6.3. Page 116 of 369 Page 352 of 1679 Page 117 of 369Page 353 of 1679 Page 118 of 369Page 354 of 1679 Page 119 of 369Page 355 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 37 6.2. Planned Capital Projects The Region’s 2021 Master Plan identified several capital projects to support the planned growth within the DeCew WTP and Niagara Falls WTP system service areas to 2051, which includes the GWSPA. Table 6-2 and Figure 6-5 identify and describe the planned Regional wastewater capital projects potentially impacting growth in the GWSPA. Wastewater projects included within the City of Niagara Falls’ 10-year capital program are also identified in Figure 6-5. Table 6-2: Planned Wastewater Capital Projects Master Plan ID Name Description Size / Capacity Estimated Year in Service Project Type WW- TP-002 South Niagara Falls WWTP – Phase 1 New South Niagara Falls WWTP Phase 1 with 30 MLD capacity 30 MLD 2022- 2026 Treatment WW- TP-003 South Niagara Falls WWTP New South Niagara Falls WWTP upgrade from 30 MLD to 60 MLD 30 MLD 2037- 2041 Treatment WW-TP-004 South Niagara Falls WWTP Outfall Structure New South Niagara Falls WWTP Outfall Structure 1800 mm 2022-2026 Treatment WW- SPS-026 Dorchester SPS Pump Replacement Increase station capacity from 185 L/s to 345 L/s by replacing the existing three pumps 345 L/s 2027 - 2031 Pumping WW- SPS- 028 Black Horse SPS Upgrade New SPS location with increased capacity from 67 L/s to 180 L/s 180 L/s 2027 - 2031 Pumping WW-SPS- 031 St. David’s #2 SPS Upgrade Increase station capacity from 42 L/s to 202 L/s with a full reconstruction 202 L/s 2027 -2031 Pumping WW- SPS-032 St. David’s #1 SPS Upgrade Increase station capacity from 29 L/s to 174 L/s with a full station reconstruction 174 L/s 2032 - 2051 Pumping WW- SPS- 050 Bender Hill SPS Pump Replacement Full station replacement at new location from 237 L/s to re- establish 330 L/s ECA capacity 330 L/s 2022- 2026 Pumping WW-SPS- 051 Central SPS Pump Replacement Increase station capacity from 800 L/s to re-establish 1,000 L/s ECA capacity by replacing the existing five pumps 1,000 L/s 2037-2041 Pumping WW-SPS- 052 Lundy’s Lane SPS Pump Replacement Increase station capacity from 56 L/s to re-establish 98 L/s ECA capacity by replacing the existing three pumps 98 L/s 2037 -2041 Pumping WW- SPS- 053 Royal Manor SPS Pump Replacement Increase station capacity from 9 L/s to 16 L/s by replacing the existing two pumps 16 L/s 2022 – 2026 Pumping Page 120 of 369 Page 356 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 38 Master Plan ID Name Description Size / Capacity Estimated Year in Service Project Type WW- FM- 006 New Black Horse Forcemain to Niagara Falls New Black Horse Forcemain to New South Niagara Falls Trunk on Barron Road to Montrose 400 mm 2027 – 2031 Forcemain WW- FM- 009 Dorchester Forcemain Upgrade Replace ex. 350mm Dorchester SPS Forcemain with new single 500mm forcemain in Niagara Falls 500 mm 2027- 2031 Forcemain WW- FM- 010 St David’s #1 Forcemain Upgrade Replace ex. 200mm St. Davids #1 Forcemain with new single 400mm in Niagara-on-the-Lake (NOTL) 400 mm 2027- 2031 Forcemain WW- FM- 024 St. David’s #2 Forcemain Upgrade Replace ex. 250mm St. David’s #2 SPS forcemain with new single 400mm in Niagara Falls 400 mm 2027- 2031 Forcemain WW-D-003 Decommissioning of South Side High Lift (SSHL) SPS Decommissioning of SSHL SPS, to be replaced by gravity trunk sewer to SNF WWTP N/A 2037-2041 Decom WW-D- 004 Decommissioning of Garner SPS Decommissioning of Garner SPS to be replaced by gravity trunk sewer to SNF WWTP N/A 2032- 2036 Decom WW-D- 006 Decommissioning of Grassy Brook SPS Decommissioning of Grassy Brook SPS to be replaced by gravity trunk sewer to SNF WWTP N/A 2032- 2037 Decom WW- SS-06 New Montrose Trunk Sewer New tunneled trunk sewer on Montrose conveying flows from SSHL SPS to new SNF WWTP 1500mm 2027- 2031 Sewer WW-SS-07 New Brown Road Trunk Sewer Shallow trunk sewer from South Thorold to Garner SPS-South Niagara Falls trunk connection 600mm 2027-2031 Sewer WW- SS-008 Chippawa Trunk Sewer Phase 1 New tunneled 1200mm trunk sewer from west of Lyon’s Creek to South Niagara Falls WWTP 1200 mm 2032 – 2036 Sewer WW- SS-014 South Niagara Falls SSO Trunk New sewer to eliminate overflows upstream of South Side High Lift SPS 1050 mm 2022- 2026 Sewer WW-SS-015 Chippawa Trunk Sewer Phase 2 New tunneled 1200mm trunk sewer from South Side Low Lift to west of Lyon’s creek 1200 mm 2037 -2041 Sewer Page 121 of 369 Page 357 of 1679 Page 122 of 369Page 358 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 40 6.3. Potential Connection Points As shown in Figure 7-2, there are several potential connection points for future sewers within the GWSPA which are detailed in Table 6-3. Section 7.2 will review the hydraulic modelling completed as part of Phase 1, specifically looking at how the existing wastewater system will respond to the increased demand from the GWSPA and potential system improvements to facilitate the growth. Table 6-3: Summary of Potential Connection Points for GWSPA Wastewater System Potential Connection Point No. Location / Description Comments 1 Connect to inlet of Lundy’s Lane SPS • Inlet sewer invert is ~181.6 masl (Study Area would require local SPS to convey flows to this SPS). • Lundy’s Lane SPS has firm capacity of 56.3 L/s; Study Area will generate 130 L/s of PWWF meaning station expansion would be required. • Expansion at Dorchester SPS may also be required. • Drains to the Niagara Falls WWTP which is not planned to accommodate flows from the Study Area. 2 Connect to 300mmø local sewer at 5972 Garner Road • Sewer invert is ~183.0 masl (Study Area would require local SPS to convey flows to this SPS). • Potential for capacity constraints and required local upgrades as downstream sewers are small diameter. • Drains to Lundy’s Lane SPS which would require expansion per comment under Potential Connection Point No.1. • Expansion at Dorchester SPS may also be required. • Drains to the Niagara Falls WWTP which is not planned to accommodate flows from the Study Area. 3 Connect to 200mmø local sewer at 9132 Kudlac Road • Sewer invert is ~185.3 masl (Study Area would require local SPS to convey flows to this SPS). • Potential for capacity constraints and required local upgrades as downstream sewers are small diameter. • Drains to the SSHL SPS which has a firm capacity of 609 L/s and a 2051 anticipated PWWF of 1,391 L/s (design) and 1,820 L/s (5-year). As Study Area is anticipated to generate a PWWF of 130 L/s, the existing station may require expansion to accommodate flows. • Currently drains to the Niagara Falls WWTP which is not planned to accommodate flows from the Study Area, however flows will be re-routed to the SNF WWTP once the SSHL SPS is decommissioned. 4 Connect to 300mmø local sewer at McGarry Drive and Garner Road • Sewer invert is ~180.6 masl (Study Area would require local SPS to convey flows to this SPS). • Potential for capacity constraints and required local upgrades as downstream sewers are small diameter. • Drains to the SSHL SPS which has a firm capacity of 609 L/s and a 2051 anticipated PWWF of 1,391 L/s (design) and Page 123 of 369 Page 359 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 41 Potential Connection Point No. Location / Description Comments 1,820 L/s (5-year). As Study Area is anticipated to generate a PWWF of 130 L/s, the existing station may require expansion to accommodate flows. • Drains to the Niagara Falls WWTP which is not planned to accommodate flows from the Study Area, however flows will be re-routed to the SNF WWTP once the SSHL SPS is decommissioned. 5 Connect to 600mmø trunk sewer at McLeod Road and Kalar Road • Sewer invert is ~177.2 masl (Study Area would require local SPS to convey flows to this SPS). • Drains to the SSHL SPS which has a firm capacity of 609 L/s and a 2051 anticipated PWWF of 1,391 L/s (design) and 1,820 L/s (5-year). As Study Area is anticipated to generate a PWWF of 130 L/s, the existing station may require expansion to accommodate flows. • Drains to the Niagara Falls WWTP which is not planned to accommodate flows from the Study Area, however flows will be re-routed to the SNF WWTP once the SSHL SPS is decommissioned. 6 Connect to future planned trunk sewer at McLeod Road and Beechwood Road • Sewer invert is ~175.7 masl (Study Area can drain by gravity to trunk sewer). • No downstream pumping stations or conveyance constraints to the new South Niagara WWTP which has been designed to accommodate the treatment flows from the Study Area. Page 124 of 369 Page 360 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 42 7. Hydraulic Modelling The hydraulic modelling for this study was completed using the Region’s water and wastewater models. The goal was to review the impact of the increased water demand and wastewater flows on the existing systems in order to identify constraints within the existing networks. These constraints, along with the potential servicing strategies available for the GWSPA, will guide the development of potential servicing strategies for the GWSPA that will be further refined in Phases 2 and 3 of the study. 7.1. Water Model Water modelling was completed for the GWSPA to identify deficiencies and/or required upgrades within the existing water system to facilitate the development of the Study Area. The various components of the Regional water system relevant to development of the Study Area are detailed below: Treatment: As noted in Section 5.1.1, the Study Area will be supplied treated drinking water by the Niagara Falls WTP which has a rated capacity of 145.5 MLD (1,684 L/s). The Region’s 2021 MP identified that the Niagara Falls WTP had sufficient existing capacity to provide treated water to support population growth to 2051, based on the population growth estimates carried within that study. As shown in Table 7-2, the growth estimates for the GWSPA were updated and it was confirmed that the Niagara Falls WTP will have sufficient treatment capacity for the build-out of the GWSPA. Table 7-1: Water Treatment Plant Demands to Build-out Demand Details Region MSP Region MSP (including GWSPA) Population Identified for Study Area 3,833 9,600 Existing (MLD) Average Day Demand (ADD) 43.0 43.0 Maximum Day Demand (MDD) 64.5 64.5 2051 (MLD) Average Day Demand (ADD) 59.5 60.8 Maximum Day Demand (MDD) 90.9 93.1 Build-out (MLD) Average Day Demand (ADD) 66.1 67.5 Maximum Day Demand (MDD) 101.4 103.6 Pumping: As detailed in Section 5.1.2, water pressure is maintained throughout the Niagara Falls water system via a series of booster pumping stations (BPS) and storage facilities. The pumping stations include the Niagara Falls WTP High Lift Station and the Kent Avenue Booster Station. A summary of the pumping stations’ performance as outlined in the 2021 Region MSP, along with a scenario considering the addition of the GWSPA, is outlined in Table 7-2. Table 7-2: Summary of Water Booster Station Performance Details Performance Details Region MSP Region MSP (including GWSPA) Pump Station Firm Capacity (MLD) Niagara Falls WTP / High Lift PS 146.0 Kent Avenue BPS 46.0 Pressure Zone Supplied 250 Total Effective Capacity (MLD) 146.0 Page 125 of 369 Page 361 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 43 Performance Details Region MSP Region MSP (including GWSPA) Existing (MLD) Maximum Day Demand 64.5 64.5 Surplus / Deficit 81.5 81.5 2051 (MLD) Maximum Day Demand 90.9 93.1 Surplus / Deficit 55.1 52.9 Build-out (MLD) Maximum Day Demand 101.4 103.6 Surplus / Deficit 44.6 42.4 As shown in Table 7-2, there is sufficient pumping capacity at the Region’s existing water pumping stations to provide adequate water conveyance throughout the GWSPA. Storage: As detailed in Section 5.1.3, there are three water storage facilities within the Niagara Falls WTP service area which are the Niagara Falls Reservoir, the Kent Avenue Reservoir, and Lundy’s Lane Elevated Tank (ET). A summary of the storage facilities’ performance details as outlined in the 2021 Region MSP, along with a scenario considering the addition of the GWSPA, is outlined in Table 7-3 and Table 7-4. Table 7-3: Summary of Water Storage Rated Capacity (2021 to Buildout) Facility 2021 Rated Capacity (ML) 2051 Rated Capacity (ML) Buildout Rated Capacity (ML) Niagara Falls WTP Reservoir (250 Pumped) 6.27 6.27 5.37 Kent Avenue Reservoir (250 Pumped) 20.91 20.91 20.91 Lundy’s Lane ET (250 Floating) 2.46 12.00 12.00 Table 7-4 Summary of the Water Storage Performance Details Projection Year Storage Region MSP Region MSP (including GWPSA) 2021 Available Storage (ML) 29.64 29.64 Required Storage (ML) 31.33 31.33 Surplus / Deficit (ML) -1.69 -1.69 2051 Available Storage (ML) 39.18 39.18 Required Storage (ML) 40.23 40.91 Surplus / Deficit (ML) -1.05 -1.73 Build-Out Available Storage (ML) 38.29 38.29 Required Storage (ML) 44.06 44.76 Surplus / Deficit (ML) -5.77 -6.47 As shown in Table 7-4, there is a deficit in storage within the Region’s water system during the existing, 2051, and build-out scenarios with the addition of growth within the GWSPA having a minor impact. System Improvements: As shown in Figure 7-1, a potential servicing strategy for the GWSPA includes the extension of local 300mmø watermain along Beechwood Road and McLeod Road, as well as through the GWSPA via a future subdivision road. Local service extensions to the development parcels can be made from these watermains. This scenario will ensure that water pressure within the GWSPA is maintained Page 126 of 369 Page 362 of 1679 Page 127 of 369Page 363 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 44 between 40-100 psi and available fire flow above 250 L/s under the 2051 and build-out conditions. As demonstrated in Section 7.1, treatment and pumping are not constraints to development of the GWSPA however there is a storage deficit within the Region (refer to Table 7-3 for details) that will need to be reviewed and addressed in future MSP updates. Page 128 of 369 Page 364 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 46 7.2. Wastewater Model Wastewater hydraulic modelling was completed to identify constraints within the existing system to development of the Secondary Plan Area. The constraints were considered within the context of developing a potential wastewater servicing strategy to discharge sewage flows from the GWSPA to the existing and/or future planned system with minimal impacts. The various components of the Regional and local wastewater system relevant to development of the Study Area are detailed below: Treatment: Based on the location of the GWSPA, the South Niagara Falls WWTP is the ultimate receiving treatment facility for flows from the Study Area. As detailed in Table 6-2, this future plant is currently undergoing design and construction is planned to be completed by 2026. Conveyance: As detailed in the Region’s 2021 MSP, the recommended conveyance system for the GWSPA includes a future trunk sewer that will extend from the new WWTP west on Reixinger Road, north on Montrose Road, west on Brown Road, north on Beechwood Road, west on McLeod Road, north on Thorold Townline Road, and west on Barron Road to Allanport Road (WW-SS-06 and WW-SS-07). This trunk sewer passes the southwest corner of the Study Area at the corner of Beechwood Road and McLeod Road and will be sized to convey sewage flows from the Study Area. In line with the Region’s 2021 MSP, discharging sewage flows from the Study Area to this new trunk sewer will be the sewage strategy for the Study Area. As detailed in Table 6-2, the construction of the new trunk sewer is planned to be completed by 2031. System Improvements: As shown in Figure 7-2, the wastewater servicing strategy for the GWSPA includes extending a local 525mmø sewer on Beechwood Road which will discharge to the future planned trunk sewer at the intersection of Beechwood Road and McLeod Road. Local sewers can extend along subdivision roads within the GWSPA and convey sewage flows to this 525mmø sewer and ultimately to the future planned trunk sewer. A local 300mmø sewer is also proposed along Garner Road which will discharge to existing sewers on Garner Road. The conceptual location and sizing of the local sewers for the GWSPA will be further explored in Phases 2 and 3 of the FSS. Page 129 of 369 Page 365 of 1679 Page 130 of 369Page 366 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Garner West Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 48 8. Recommendations for Phase 2 Phase 2 of the Functional Servicing Study will build upon the information within the Existing Conditions Report to evaluate servicing alternatives for alternative land use options for the GWSPA. The goal will be to evaluate the land use options from a servicing perspective, given the potential impacts to scheduling, phasing, ease of construction, and infrastructure costs. The following recommendations for Phase 2 are provided based on the information gathered during Phase 1: • The preferred land use option should allow an infrastructure layout that protects or avoids the physical constraints identified in Section 2 of the Existing Conditions Report; • The servicing design criteria identified in Section 3 of the Existing Conditions Report should be considered during Phase 2 and implemented into the recommended servicing layout identified in Phase 3; • The timing identified in Sections 5.2 and 6.2 of the Existing Conditions Report for the planned water and wastewater capital projects should be considered when reviewing potential servicing and phasing strategies during Phases 2 and 3; and, • The water and wastewater system constraints, along with the potential servicing strategies for the GWSPA, as identified in Section 7 of the Existing Conditions Report, should be considered when evaluating the alternative land use options in Phase 2. GEI will continue to work closely with the project team, City, Region, and stakeholders throughout Phases 2 and 3 to develop a detailed and effective servicing plan for the Garner West Secondary Plan Area. Page 131 of 369 Page 367 of 1679 SSWA INC. 15 Wertheim Court, Suite 211, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4B 3H7 Tel: (905) 707-5800 E-mail: engineering@sswilsonassociates.com www.sswilsonassociates.com & www.noisetraining.com REPORT NO. WA24-018 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ASSESSMENT PROPOSED GARNER WEST SECONDARY PLAN AREA NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO SUBMITTED TO: MR. CHRIS MILLAR, MCIP, RPP, CNU-A SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER – SECONDARY PLANS PLANNING, BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS PREPARED BY: OMAR RAHAL, B.ENG., P.ENG. PROJECT ENGINEER SEPTEMBER 26, 2024 Page 132 of 369 Page 368 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ASSESSMENT PROPOSED GARNER WEST SECONDARY PLAN AREA NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO INDEX PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2 AND SURROUNDING AREA 3.0 ASSESMENT CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY 3 4.0 SURVEY OF SURROUNDING INDUSTRIES 7 5.0 CONCLUSIONS 11 FIGURES APPENDIX A: NIAGARA REGION OFFICIAL PLAN – REGIONAL STRUCTURE APPENDIX B: CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS OFFICIAL PLAN – SCHEDULE A – LAND USE PLAN Page 133 of 369 Page 369 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SS Wilson Associates (SSWA) was retained by the City of Niagara Falls to prepare a Land Use Compatibility Study for the proposed Secondary Plan Area referred to as the Garner West Secondary Plan Area. This compatibility study considers air quality, odour, dust, noise, and vibration emissions from neighboring industries as per the Government of Ontario document D-6: “Compatibility between Industrial Facilities.” The results of the survey and review confirm that the proposed Secondary Plan Area is expected to be compatible with the existing neighboring industries without any adverse impacts. This is to say that no disruptive impacts as a result of air quality, odour, dust emissions, noise, and vibration are anticipated. Independent noise, dust, and odour studies are to be conducted as it pertains to BV Glazing Systems as a result of its proximity and the nature of its operations. An independent noise study is to be conducted as it pertains to Dans Produce should the Plan Area propose a noise sensitive land use in proximity to the existing facility. With regard to the proposed Walker Brothers Quarry to the north-west, SSWA recommends that independent noise/vibration, odour, and dust studies be undertaken to address the impact on the limited number of properties within the Plan Area, that may be impacted from the proximate limits of the proposed Quarry, should that project come to fruition. Page 134 of 369 Page 370 of 1679 1 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SS Wilson Associates (SSWA) was retained by the City of Niagara Falls to prepare a Land Use Compatibility Study as outlined in the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) D-1 and D-6 guidelines for the proposed Garner West Secondary plan areas in the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario. 1.2 As per “Attachment 2” in a document received by SSWA on April 22, 2024, prepared by the City staff, a compatibility assessment is required to identify all potential sources of incompatibility from outside sources on sensitive land uses within the Plan Areas (primarily residential) in accordance with the MECP D-6 guidelines; and to identify existing areas of influence and typical setbacks that will need consideration during land use planning exercises together with any typical mitigation practices that could be explored as well. 1.3 The objective of this report is to review the surrounding land uses for the potential to cause adverse effects in terms of noise, dust, odour, vibration, and other contaminants to support City initiated Official Plan Amendments and any subsequent Zoning By-law Amendments to provide for the future development of lands within the Plan Area. It is to be noted that a quantitative assessment of adverse effects has not been undertaken as part of this land use compatibility assessment, which has been performed based on the MECP D-6 guideline distance setbacks and industrial classifications; in such a case where a potential incompatibility has been identified by this study which warrants the need for additional analysis and studies, such detailed studies will undertake the necessary quantitative analyses in the form of measurements, predictions, calculations, etc. 1.4 The subject site is known as the Garner West Secondary Plan Area, in the City of Niagara Falls. The Plan Area is bounded on the north side by Lundy’s Lane (a Regional Road), to the east by Garner Road, to the south by McLeod Road, and to the west by Beechwood Road. The key plan showing the location of the property is shown in Figure 1. 1.5 This report is based on the features of the proposed site as shown in the Location Map prepared by the City, dated June 7, 2023. The Location Plan is included in Figure 2. Page 135 of 369 Page 371 of 1679 2 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND SURROUNDING AREA 2.1 Proposed Development Concept The Plan Area is proposed to be developed / redeveloped, with the City generating two proposed land use options for the Garner West Secondary Plan Area in their Phase 2 work program for further assessment and consultation at a later date. This Secondary Plan area is comprised of new urban expansion lands, brought into the urban area boundary by Niagara Region for “community use” during their new Official Plan process in 2022. 2.2 Surrounding Area Description Generally, the Plan Area is surrounded on three sides by existing urban uses. To the north, lands are described as a seasonal mobile home park with commercial uses such as laser tag, escape rooms, and similar in conjunction with the mobile home resort operations. This represents an intervening use to BV Glazing, one of the industrial sites described later in this report. To the east, lands are entirely developed as residential subdivisions with a smaller portion of wooded wetland area and a storm detention pond making up part of the Garner Road frontage. These subdivisions have been developed at various stages within the last 20 years and are mostly detached dwellings with, some semi- detached, and some townhomes. Lands to the south are very recent residential developments on lands that were previously vacant industrial (never developed) that have been converted for residential use. A portion of the southern limits are presently under construction and remaining lands on the adjacent south side are approved but not yet developed while the application is being dealt with at the Ontario Lands Tribunal as a result of an appeal. Lands west remain in agricultural production with some rural residential dwellings along the western side of Beechwood Road. The proposed Walker Brother Quarry to the north-west is noted with some interest with respect to compatibility, as the proposed extraction property limits are within the 1000m distance band from the property line of the Secondary Plan Area, as set out by the MECP. However, proposed Quarries are exempt from Land use compatibility assessments under the MECP’s D6 guidelines, which only speak on existing quarries in the absence of other studies. As such, the potential impacts of the proposed quarry (particularly those as a result of blasting) will not be included in this study, given a decision on its permissions remain unresolved and with the Ontario Land Tribunal. SSWA recommends independent noise/vibration, odour, Page 136 of 369 Page 372 of 1679 3 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 and dust analysis/ studies be conducted should the proposed quarry come into fruition. It should be noted that the Garner West Secondary Plan area was added for urban, community use prior to the Quarry applications (Planning Act) having been received by the City. It is known to the proponents of the Quarry that the Garner West Secondary Plan will contain sensitive receptors. 2.3 Official Plan & Zoning Details of Proposed Site and Surrounding Area The Plan Area is designated Greenfield Area as per Niagara Region Official Plan (Schedule B – Regional Structure, May 2024 Consolidation). The City will recognize these Greenfield lands as being added to its urban area boundary as part of the required conformity amendments included in the City’s new Official Plan process underway currently. The City’s new Official Plan will identify the appropriate urban designation for the Plan Area, providing the appropriate accommodation for the secondary planning requirements. The City’s current Official Plan designations are shown in Appendix B. The Plan Area zoning is currently a combination of predominantly agricultural zoning with hazard land (flood plain and environmental features), open space (golf course), and a single tourist commercial site (motel), as per Niagara Falls (Zoning Bylaw 79-200). The lots located immediately to the west of the subject property are zoned as agricultural, and hazard land. The areas to the south are zoned residential and light industrial (however, were approved for residential and remain under appeal). There is also some environmental zoning, hazard lands zoning, and a small development holding zone, as these lands transition to residential use. Lands east comprise of residential, environmental, open space, and some development holding zones. The is some tourist commercial zoning at the corner of Lundy’s Lane and Garner Road. Lands north remain in a camping establishment zone hosting seasonal mobile home operations with ancillary commercial uses occurring as well. A map from the City of Niagara Falls is included in Appendix B. Page 137 of 369 Page 373 of 1679 4 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 3.0 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 General Information The intent of this study is to survey the area surrounding the Plan Area to identify whether any of the existing or proposed future land uses present a potential concern with regard to incompatibility. In the case where the potential for compatibility concerns exists, additional investigation will be warranted to determine the severity of potential impacts and to identify control measures to eliminate or mitigate adverse effects. The assessment has been based on SSWA’s experience with industrial facility emissions within the MECP frameworks in the context of land use planning and applications for Environmental Compliance Approvals. 3.2 D-Series Guidelines The D-series guidelines were developed in 1995 by the MECP with the intent to provide a methodology for reviewing cases where non-sensitive land uses are proposed to be located in proximity to sensitive land uses, or vice versa, to identify the potential for adverse effects related to environmental contaminants. Several D- series guidelines exist for likely sources of potential incompatibility, such as sewage treatments plants (D-2), oil & gas pipelines (D-3), landfills (D-4), and water service (D-5), with the overarching methodology being described in D-1 “Land Use and Compatibility”. The specific document which will apply in the subject case is that for industrial land uses, i.e., D-6 “Compatibility between Industrial Facilities,” which will be the primary reference for this assessment. The D-6 guideline is concerned with adverse effects as a result of “point source and/or fugitive air emissions such as noise, vibration, odour, dust and others, either through normal operations, procedures, maintenance or storage activities, and/or from associated traffic/transportation.” The definition of “adverse effects” is included in the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), and can include one or more of the following: - Impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it - Injury or damage to property or to plant or animal life - Harm or material discomfort to any person - An adverse effect on the health of any person - Impairment of the safety of any person - Rendering any property or plan or animal life unfit for human use - Loss of enjoyment of normal use of property; and - Interference with the normal conduct of business Page 138 of 369 Page 374 of 1679 5 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 3.2.1 D-6 Guideline Classifications and Setback Distances The primary mechanism used within D-6 to identify and to limit the potential for adverse effects is the use of distance setbacks based on the classification of an industry within certain criteria. A given property or land use must be characterized as light, medium, or heavy industrial referred as Class I to Class III, respectively. The table below illustrates the industrial categorization criteria as identified in Appendix A of D-6, referred to as D-6-1 “Industrial Categorization Criteria.” Industrial Categorization Criteria (per D-6-1) Category Outputs Scale Process Operation /Intensity Possible examples Class I – Small Scale Industrial • Noise: Sound not audible off property • Dust and/or Odour: Infrequent and not intense • Vibration: No ground borne vibration on plant property • No outside storage • Small scale plant or scale is irrelevant in relation to all other criteria for this Class • Self-contained plant or building which produces/stores a packaged product. Low probability of fugitive emissions • Daytime operations only • Infrequent movement of products and/or heavy trucks • Electronics manufacturing and repair • Furniture repair and refinishing • Beverages bottling • Auto parts supply • Packaging and crafting services • Distribution of dairy products • Laundry and linen supply Class II – Medium Scale Industrial • Noise: Sound occasionally audible off property • Dust and/or Odour: Frequent and occasionally intense • Vibration: Possible groundborne vibration, but cannot be perceived off property • Outside storage permitted • Medium level of production allowed • Open process • Periodic outputs of minor annoyance • Low probability of fugitive emissions • Shift operations permitted • Frequent movement of products and/or heavy trucks with the majority of movements during daytime hours • Magazine printing • Paint spray booths • Metal command • Electrical production manufacturing • Manufacturing of dairy products • Dry cleaning services • Feed packing plant Class III – Large Scale Industrial • Noise: sound frequently audible off property • Dust and/or Odour: Persistent and/or intense • Vibration: Ground- borne vibration can frequently be perceived off property • Outside storage of raw and finished products • Large production levels • Open process • Frequent outputs of major annoyances • High probability of fugitive emissions • Continuous movement of products and employees • Daily shift operations permitted • Manufacturing of paint and varnish • Organic chemicals manufacturing • Breweries • Solvent recovery plants • Soaps and detergent manufacturing • Manufacturing of resins and costing • Metal manufacturing The notes on the subject table indicate that the categorization of a particular industry can vary with respect to the specific site conditions. It is noted that some of the uses listed in the ‘Possible examples’ column might otherwise be considered a commercial use (i.e., auto parts supply, dry cleaning, etc.) however in the context of D-6, these uses are considered as industrial uses. Page 139 of 369 Page 375 of 1679 6 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 The D-6 guidelines list specific distance setback criteria for Class I to Class III industries to identify the potential for incompatibilities, and to mitigate such adverse effects. The guideline defines “influence areas” for the various classes of industries to identify the potential area of influence within which adverse effects may be experienced, outlined in D6-4.1.1 “Potential influence areas for industrial land uses.” Further to this, the guideline also defines “minimum separation distance” between industrial and sensitive uses to provide buffer space between the uses to mitigate adverse effects, as outlined in D6-4.3. The guideline recommends that “no incompatible development […] should occur [within the minimum separation distances] even if additional mitigation for adverse effects […] is provided.” However, the guideline also states that such development may be permitted to proceed in the case of redevelopment, infilling, and mixed-use areas, as defined in D6-4.10. The table below illustrates the area of influence and minimum separation distance setbacks for each of the industrial classifications. Industry Classification Influence Area (D6-4.1.1) Minimum Separation Distance (D6-4.3) Class I – Light Industrial 70 m 20 m Class II – Medium Industrial 300 m 70 m Class III – Heavy Industrial 1,000 m 300 m The distance setbacks above are measured from the property lines of the source and receiver land uses, to guarantee full use of the property area upon each site. With respect to the proposed Walker Quarry, it is important to note that the future development within the Plan Area, once subdivided, will likely be further seperated by intervening zoning for environmental or hazard lands, in light of current site conditions. This will have the effect of further reducing potential impacts to proposed dwellings from operations. Nevertheless, the subject analysis will consider whether there is the potential for any adverse impacts anywhere upon the subject property. The guideline in Section 4.1.3 also indicates that the influence area may be reduced through the use of industrial controls applied at the industrial source, which may enable an industry to be categorized as a lesser Class, thereby reducing the necessary minimum separation distance requirements set out above. In cases where the distance setback between a sensitive land use is within the influence area for a given industry, additional studies should be conducted to assess impacts based on more detailed designs for respective development proposals. As part of this land use compatibility assessment, SSWA prepared a diagram outlining the various distance setbacks with respect to the Plan Area limits containing the proposed sensitive uses, and identified whether any potential Class I, II, and III industries were within the relevant setbacks based on aerial photography; the setback figure is included in Figure 3. These classifications were Page 140 of 369 Page 376 of 1679 7 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 then considered based on-site visits to observe/ confirm uses in relation to the Plan Area on March 7, 2023. Figure 3 illustrates the distance setbacks surrounding the Plan Area and all of the potential industrial sites which were considered in this assessment. 3.3 MECP Environmental Compliance Approvals In addition to the review of all facilities within the distance setbacks identified in D-6, this land use compatibility assessment included a review of any existing Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECAs) held by the surrounding properties. The MECP requires that industrial facilities obtain and maintain an ECA to ensure compliance with all applicable limits for any potential off-site adverse effects. The presence of an ECA for a subject facility represents an undertaking to measure, monitor, and control emissions and adverse effects at offsite points of reception to avoid or mitigate impacts. SSWA utilized the MECP’s online Access Environment tool in order to collect any and all ECA documentation in the areas of influence surrounding the Plan Area. Where a property was subject to an ECA, reference is made in the analysis below. 3.4 Meteorological Data Weather conditions, in particular wind speed and direction, can cause airborne contaminants, particularly odour, noise, and dust, to propagate further and to increase the potential influence area for a given industry. The wind rose diagram for the area close to the Plan Area was sourced from meteoblue.com, to determine the prevailing wind direction and intensity. The wind rose diagram is included in Figure 4 and shows that typically the wind in the subject area prevails from a south-westerly/ Westerly direction. Although there exists Dans Produce South-west of the Plan Area, it is not expected that there will be adverse effects in the form of wind carrying airborne contaminants toward the Plan Area as a result of wind direction. Page 141 of 369 Page 377 of 1679 8 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 4.0 SURVEY OF SURROUNDING INDUSTRIES 4.1 The influence areas for this project as set out in the D-6 environmental guideline are illustrated in Figure 3. SSWA utilized this figure to identify potential sites for observation, and later conducted onsite investigation to assess the potential for impacts from the subject facilities, where local industries were visited, inventoried, and examined. At the time the site visit, there was no noticeable dust, odour, air quality or vibration impacts observed from any of the surrounding industries on the proposed site. The noise environment around the proposed site was dominated by noise from surrounding road traffic. The potential impacts from each individual site are discussed in detail in the following sections. It is important to note that the proposed uses within the Plan Area itself are not considered to be of concern with respect to impacts upon the neighbouring properties. The proposed undertaking to develop/ redevelop the site is not expected to introduce any permanent sources of noise, vibration, odour, or dust. As such, this analysis has only considered the impacts from external sites upon the Plan Area. The following is a summary and analysis of all neighboring industries of concern as per their respective D-6-1 industrial categorization criteria classification, as well as a determination regarding additional assessment. 4.2 Dan’s Produce Company Name Dan’s Produce Address 7201 Beechwood Rd. Approx. Distance to Plan Area 50 m Figure 3 Reference Number 1 Industry Classification Assessment Class I ECA Number N/A The first land use identified in proximity to the Plan Area is Dan’s Produce, which is a fresh produce storage and distribution facility located approximately 50m west of the Plan Area. The facility contains at least 6 garage overhead doors to facilitate the shipping and receiving of produce through use of both refrigerated and non- refrigerated delivery trucks. During SSWA’s site inspection, no noise, dust, or odour was realized from Dan’s produce. As per the D-6 guideline and as Dan’s produce is considered a Class I industry, this industry does not require independent study. SSWA does not expect Page 142 of 369 Page 378 of 1679 9 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 adverse effects as far as odour and dust, however, due to the nature of this facility, the undertaking of an independent noise study is required to address proximity to future noise sensitive spaces at the time of more detailed planning applications for localized site development proposals. 4.3 Garlund Properties Inc. (Tenant BV Glazing Systems) Company Name BV Glazing Address 4855 Garner Rd. Approx. Distance to Plan Area 140 m Figure 3 Reference Number 2 Industry Classification Assessment Class II ECA Number N/A The second land use identified in proximity to the subject development site is operating as BV Glazing Systems and offers manufacturing of residential railing and commercial glazing products. This includes but is not limited to curtain wall systems, skylights, canopies, metal panels, commercial terrace domes, and custom stainless-steel fittings. The subject facility was visited by SSWA staff to observe the potential for emissions from the facility. Based on the observations/ operations of the facility, as well as the equipment present, it appears to bear most characteristics of a Class II industry. The facility is located approximately 140m from the Plan Area boundary, which places it within the influence area for a Class II industry (300m). It should be noted however that residential land uses exist in very close proximity to the subject industry (as close as 30m to the west). As such, although SSWA does not expect adverse effects on the Plan Area, as per the D-6 guideline this industry will require further investigation and independent studies as it pertains to noise, dust, and odour at the time of more detail planning application submissions for specific sites within the Plan Area. Page 143 of 369 Page 379 of 1679 10 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 5.0 CONCLUSIONS A Land Use Compatibility assessment has been conducted in order to assess the potential for adverse impacts in terms air quality, dust, odour, noise, and vibration as perceived on the Plan Area (i.e. Garner West Secondary Plan Area) as a result of nearby industries. A site visit was conducted to assess the actual perceived effects of fugitive dust, odour, noise, and vibration emissions on the Plan Area. Neighboring industries were also researched in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the process taking place at each industry. Further, MECP Environmental Compliance Approvals for these neighboring industries were examined in order to assess the mitigation measures already put into place, as well as to gain further knowledge of the industries. All of the above investigations cumulatively conclude that the neighboring industries are not expected to have any adverse effects on the proposed development as it pertains to dust, odour, vibration, and noise, and that the proposed development is anticipated to be compatible with the surrounding land uses. Independent noise, dust, and odour studies are to be conducted as it pertains to BV Glazing Systems as a result of its proximity and the nature of its operations at the time of detailed applications for development. Additionally, an independent noise study is to be conducted as it pertains to Dan’s Produce should the facility be proposed in proximity to a noise sensitive land use at the time of detailed application for development. With regard to the proposed Walker Brothers Quarry to the north-west, SSWA recommends that independent noise/vibration, odour, and dust studies be undertaken to address the impact of the proposed Quarry on the Plan Area, should the project gain approval and come into fruition. Walker Brothers are aware and have acknowledged the planned use of the Garner West Secondary Plan for sensitive land use. Page 144 of 369 Page 380 of 1679 11 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 FIGURES Page 145 of 369 Page 381 of 1679 OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSED SECONDARY PLAN AREA N SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 FIGURE 1 KEY PLAN Page 146 of 369 Page 382 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 FIGURE 2 PROPOSED LOCATION MAP GARNER WEST SECONDARY PLAN AREA Page 147 of 369 Page 383 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 FIGURE 3 D-6 DISTANCE SETBACKS LEGEND Subject Property Class I Influence Area (70m) Class II Influence Area (300m) Class III Influence Area (1,000m) 1 2 Industry Number Company Name Distance (m) Industry Classification 1 Dans Produce 50 Class I 2 BV Glazing 140 Class II N Page 148 of 369Page 384 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 FIGURE 4 WIND ROSE DIAGRAM Page 149 of 369Page 385 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 APPENDIX A NIAGARA REGION OFFICIAL PLAN REGIONAL STRUCTURE Page 150 of 369 Page 386 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 Page 151 of 369Page 387 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 Appendix B CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS OFFICIAL PLAN – SCHEDULE A – LAND USE PLAN Page 152 of 369 Page 388 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 Page 153 of 369 Page 389 of 1679 Final Report Prepared by Hemson for City of Niagara Falls Existing Conditions Report ‒ Garner West Secondary Plan September 30, 2024 1000 - 30 St. Patrick Street, Toronto ON M5T 3A3 416 593 5090 | hemson@hemson.com | www.hemson.com Page 154 of 369 Page 390 of 1679 Contents 1. Introduction 1 A. Secondary Plan Area Context 1 B. Purpose of Report 3 2. Existing Conditions 4 A. Population, Dwelling Units and Employment 4 B. Current Infrastructure Conditions 5 C. Net Operating Costs of Existing Infrastructure 6 D. Assessment Generated From Existing Development 10 3. Conclusions & Next Steps 12 A. Next Steps 12 Page 155 of 369 Page 391 of 1679 Introduction | 1 1. Introduction The City of Niagara Falls is currently completing a Secondary Plan for the Garner West Secondary Plan Area. As part of this work, Hemson Consulting has been retained to complete a Fiscal Impact Study (FIS) to assess the overall financial contribution and cost implications of development that would occur through implementation of the preferred land use concept. The work for the assignment will be completed in two phases. The first being an assessment of existing conditions and the second being a FIS of the Preferred Land Use Scenario. The primary objective of the FIS will be to analyze the estimated capital and operating costs and available revenue to determine the financial viability of the Preferred Land Use Scenario. The Cityʼs operating and capital budgets, including infrastructure needs identified as part of the ongoing Master Servicing Plan (MSP) and Transportation Master Plan (TMP) updates, as well as the 2024/2025 capital budgets, will inform the analysis. Anticipated growth within the Secondary Plan Area will also inform the FIS. A. Secondary Plan Area Context The Garner West Secondary Plan Area is located along the western area of the City encompassing 183.5 gross hectares, with an estimated 160 hectares of developable land area. As stated on Cityʼs website: The overall objective of secondary planning is to create or contribute to the complete community concept, one that considers future neighbourhood structure that is well designed and developed to be vibrant, walkable, transit-supportive and respectful of the natural environment while contributing to help achieve the Cityʼs 2051 housing and employment targets. Page 156 of 369 Page 392 of 1679 Introduction | 2 The goal for this project will see City staff work with Niagara Region, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, Council, residents, partner agencies and stakeholders as part of a continual and transparent land use planning process to create a land use vision and policies to guide future development of the Garner West Secondary Plan Area. The following map (Figure 1) provides an overview of the Garner West Secondary Plan Area boundary. Figure 1: Secondary Plan Boundary Page 157 of 369 Page 393 of 1679 Introduction | 3 B. Purpose of Report The purpose of report is to provide a review of existing conditions within the Secondary Plan Area. This includes an overview of existing land uses, the assessment revenue generated from existing residential and non-residential uses as well as the baseline operating impacts associated. The second phase of the FIS is anticipated to be completed in in Q3 of 2025 and will provide a detailed assessment of the preferred land use scenario for the Secondary Plan Area. Page 158 of 369 Page 394 of 1679 Existing Conditions | 4 2. Existing Conditions The following summarizes the existing land uses, infrastructure and associated revenues and operating costs of these uses. Future capital costs have not been identified as these will be assessed as part of the Preferred Land Use scenario used in the Phase 2 FIS. Existing uses within the Garner West Secondary Plan Area include the following: ▪ Environmental/natural features ▪ Cash crops ▪ Place of worship ▪ Niagara Falls Golf Club ▪ Kingsway Motel ▪ Limited Rural Residential A. Population, Dwelling Units and Employment Bounded by Lundyʼs Lane to the north, McLeod Road to the south, Garner Road to the east and Beechwood Road to the west, the Garner West Secondary Plan Area is comprised of largely agricultural lands, along with the Niagara Falls Golf Club, a place of worship, the Kingsway Motel and scattered rural residential properties. There are just over 51 hectares occupied by existing uses within the Secondary Plan area (see Table 1). It is estimated that there are currently 10 single-detached units in the Secondary Plan Area accommodating a population of about 30. Current employment in Garner West is estimated at approximately 35 associated with 3,810 m2 of non-residential gross floor area in existing buildings. Page 159 of 369 Page 395 of 1679 Existing Conditions | 5 Table 1: Existing Conditions in Garner West Garner West Land Area Total Area 183.5 ha Area Occupied by Use or Structure 51.2 ha Hydro Corridor 31.4 ha Remaining Area 100.9 ha Existing Development Housing Units 10 Population 30 Employment 35 Non-Residential GFA 3,810 m2 B. Current Infrastructure Conditions There is limited city and regional infrastructure within the Secondary Plan Area as it is largely undeveloped or is being used for non-urban type uses such as a golf course, cash crops and a place of worship. In this respect, the following comments are made regarding existing infrastructure within the area: ▪ The area is serviced by approximately 5.9 kilometers of existing road which runs along the exterior boundary of the Secondary Plan Area. ▪ There is limited water/wastewater servicing within the Secondary Plan Area. Some land uses have accessed urban services provided for development immediately surrounding the Secondary Plan Area. This includes existing water and wastewater linear infrastructure (the Kingsway Motel), with some existing land uses being serviced by water only (two properties on Lundyʼs Lane). There is also a storm sewer which connects into an existing storm pond on the east side of Garner Road and outfalls into the open drainage ditch located within the golf course. Page 160 of 369 Page 396 of 1679 Existing Conditions | 6 ▪ No other city or regional infrastructure exists in the area (e.g. libraries, parks, fire stations, police services etc.) C. Net Operating Costs of Existing Infrastructure Tax-supported operating costs from existing infrastructure in the Secondary Plan Area were estimated based on data from the Cityʼs 2022 Financial Information Returns (FIR) (the most recently available FIR). Only costs which are a responsibility of the City of Niagara Falls have been included in the analysis. i. Operating Costs Table 2 provides a summary of the current operating costs per capita (person) throughout the City based on the 2022 FIR data (indexed to $2024) and existing 2024 population (based on population estimates included in the 2023 DC Background Study). In total, city-wide operating expenditures amounts to $1,984 per capita. This amount is used to determine the base operating costs for the existing uses within the Secondary Plan Area. Page 161 of 369 Page 397 of 1679 Existing Conditions | 7 Table 2 ‒ Summary of City-wide Operating Costs per Capita Table 3 provides an estimate of the 2024 annual operating costs per person within the Secondary Plan Area. In total, roughly $42,100 in operating costs is expected to be generated from existing development in the Secondary Plan Area in 2024. Table 3 ‒ Existing Operating Costs of Garner West Secondary Plan Area Garner West Quantity Measure Existing Population (2024) 30 People Operating Cost per Capita $1,984 $/person Total $59,530 Service 2022 FIR Total Operating Costs (Indexed to $2024) 2024 Quantity Unit of Measure General Government $11,941,044 $121 per capita Fire $34,877,794 $353 per capita Police $4,177,004 $42 per capita Protective Inspection and Control $2,276,818 $23 per capita Building Permit and Inspection Services $2,586,999 $26 per capita Emergency Measures $9,464 $0 per capita Roads and Related $32,149,462 $325 per capita Air Transportation $817,476 $8 per capita Transit $0 $0 per capita Parking $1,834,979 $19 per capita Wastewater $25,559,470 $259 per capita Storm - Urban $5,360,717 $54 per capita Storm - Rural $93,090 $1 per capita Water $26,355,061 $267 per capita Public Health $93,902 $1 per capita Cemeteries $2,840,930 $29 per capita Social Services $906,264 $9 per capita Parks $6,791,294 $69 per capita Recreation $15,211,174 $154 per capita Libraries $6,308,443 $64 per capita Museums & Cultural Services $2,345,150 $24 per capita Niagara Convention and Civic Centre Inc. $6,041,975 $61 per capita Planning and Development $7,499,661 $76 per capita Total $1,984 per capita Page 162 of 369 Page 398 of 1679 Existing Conditions | 8 ii. Grants, Service Fees and Charges Table 4 provides a summary of the Cityʼs grants, frees and service charges (as provided in the 2022 FIR), expressed as a dollar per capita (person) for 2024. In total, city-wide grants, fees and service charges amount to $293 per capita. Table 4 ‒ Summary of City-wide Grants, Fees and Service Charges Per Capita Table 5 provides an estimate of the 2024 annual grant revenues per person within the Secondary Plan Area. In total, roughly $8,800 in grants is expected to be generated from existing development in the Secondary Plan Area in 2024. Service Grants, User Fees, and Service Charges (Indexed to $2024) 2024 Quantity Unit of Measure General Government $957,477 $10 per capita Fire $69,226 $1 per capita Police $0 $0 per capita Protective Inspection and Control $176,036 $2 per capita Building Permit and Inspection Services $10,380 $0 per capita Emergency Measures $0 $0 per capita Roads and Related $1,902,195 $19 per capita Air Transportation $14,878,321 $151 per capita Transit $6,067,695 $61 per capita Parking $749,242 $8 per capita Wastewater $0 $0 per capita Storm - Urban $0 $0 per capita Storm - Rural $0 $0 per capita Water $0 $0 per capita Public Health $0 $0 per capita Cemeteries $700,592 $7 per capita Social Services $242,705 $2 per capita Parks $72,088 $1 per capita Recreation $2,033,442 $21 per capita Libraries $307,391 $3 per capita Museums & Cultural Services $107,199 $1 per capita Niagara Convention and Civic Centre Inc. Planning and Development $682,072 $7 per capita Total $28,956,061 $293 per capita Page 163 of 369 Page 399 of 1679 Existing Conditions | 9 Table 5 ‒ Existing Grant Revenues within Garner West Secondary Plan Area Garner West Quantity Measure Existing Population (2024) 30 People Grants, Fees and Service Charges per Capita $293 $/person Total $8,791 iii. Net Operating Cost The net operating costs of city-wide development for 2024 is summarized in Table 6. After accounting for anticipated grants, fees and service charges the total net operating impact per capita is $1,691 per capita. In total, the net operating impact estimated for existing development within the Secondary Plan Area totals approximately $50,740 in 2024 ($59,530 in operating cost less $8,791 in grants). Page 164 of 369 Page 400 of 1679 Existing Conditions | 10 Table 6 ‒ City-wide Net Operating Impact per Capita D. Assessment Generated From Existing Development Assessed values for existing residential units and non-residential gross floor area were determined with reference to the current value assessment (CVA) of homes that are of similar quality and size to those that currently exist in the Secondary Plan Area. Similarly, the non-residential assessment was Service Net Operating Cost Existing Conditions Unit of Measure General Government $111 per capita Fire $352 per capita Police $42 per capita Protective Inspection and Control $21 per capita Building Permit and Inspection Services $26 per capita Emergency Measures $0 per capita Roads and Related $306 per capita Air Transportation ($142) per capita Transit ($61) per capita Parking $11 per capita Wastewater $259 per capita Storm - Urban $54 per capita Storm - Rural $1 per capita Water $267 per capita Public Health $1 per capita Cemeteries $22 per capita Social Services $7 per capita Parks $68 per capita Recreation $133 per capita Libraries $61 per capita Museums & Cultural Services $23 per capita Niagara Convention and Civic Centre Inc. $61 per capita Planning and Development $69 per capita Total $1,691 per capita Page 165 of 369 Page 401 of 1679 Existing Conditions | 11 based on values per square metre of gross floor area of existing buildings in Niagara Falls. The CVAs used in the analysis are as follows: ▪ Low Density Residential Units $450,000 per unit ▪ Local Commercial Buildings $2,000 per square metre Table 7 summarizes the anticipated 2024 annual assessment revenues generated by existing residential and non-residential uses within the Secondary Plan Area. Several uses within the Secondary Plan Area generate no or very little assessment (e.g. churches are exempt and agricultural uses have nominal assessment generated). The existing non-residential gross floor area (square metres) has been adjusted to account for uses which do not generate tax revenue. Assessment generated by the existing golf course has been provided by City staff. Table 7 ‒ Assessment Revenue Generated by Existing Uses Unit Type Value per Unit or per GFA Measure Existing Units / Square Metres Assessment Value Niagara Falls Tax Rate Annual Tax Revenue Low Density 450,000$ per unit 10 4,500,000$ 0.005717320 25,728$ Non-Residential 2,000$ per square metre 2,610 5,220,000$ 0.009918980 51,777$ Golf Course 27,848$ Total 77,505$ Page 166 of 369 Page 402 of 1679 Conclusions & Next Steps | 12 3. Conclusions & Next Steps There is nominal existing operating costs and assessment revenue generated from existing uses within the Secondary Plan Area. This is attributable to the fact that the area is largely undeveloped and/or is being used by non land intensive uses (e.g. cash crops and golf courses). A. Next Steps The next phase in the process will be to complete a comprehensive financial impact assessment of a preferred plan use plan once the City has received results from various technical studies currently underway. The analysis will include a summary of anticipated capital costs, operating costs and assessment revenue associated with the Preferred Land Use plan for the area. Capital costs will be informed from the Cityʼs 2024 Development Charges (DC) Background Study as well as the ongoing MSP and TMP updates and supporting analysis being completed as part of the Secondary Plan Area process. The detailed fiscal impact assessment will determine the impact of the Preferred Land Use Scenario on the Cityʼs overall financial position. Page 167 of 369 Page 403 of 1679 Prepared by: Aquafor Beech Ltd. 2600 Skymark Avenue Building 6, Suite 202 Mississauga, ON Reference #: 67511 February 2025 Final Report Prepared for: City of Niagara Falls Garner West Subwatershed Study Phase 1: Existing Conditions Final Report (Interim) Page 168 of 369 Page 404 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 i Table of Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 5 2 Study Area and Land Uses ............................................................................................ 6 2.1 Existing Policy Framework ................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Subwatershed Study Goals, Objectives, and Phasing ........................................................ 8 2.2.1 Scope of Investigations ................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Garner West Secondary Plan ........................................................................................... 10 3 Existing Subwatershed Conditions ............................................................................. 11 3.1 Hydrogeology ................................................................................................................... 11 3.1.1 Background and Review of Existing Information ......................................................... 11 3.1.2 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology ........................................................................... 11 3.1.3 Local Geology and Hydrogeology ................................................................................. 12 3.1.4 Hydraulic Conductivity ................................................................................................. 13 3.1.5 Water Balance .............................................................................................................. 14 3.1.6 Implications and Opportunities for Site Development ................................................ 15 3.2 Surface Water Resources ................................................................................................. 16 3.2.1 Headwater Drainage Feature Assessment ................................................................... 16 3.2.2 Fluvial Geomorphology ................................................................................................ 19 3.2.3 Hydrology & Hydraulics ................................................................................................ 33 3.2.4 Surface Water Quality Monitoring ............................................................................... 42 3.3 Natural Heritage .............................................................................................................. 49 3.3.1 Background Information Sources ................................................................................. 50 3.3.2 Ecological Field Studies Timing and Methodology ....................................................... 50 3.3.3 Aquatic Resources ........................................................................................................ 52 3.3.4 Terrestrial Resources .................................................................................................... 61 3.3.5 Species at Risk .............................................................................................................. 76 3.3.6 Significant Wildlife Habitat ........................................................................................... 80 4 Opportunities and Constraints ................................................................................... 81 4.1 Natural Hazards ............................................................................................................... 81 4.1.1 NPCA Flood Hazards ..................................................................................................... 82 4.1.2 Erosion and Migration Rates ........................................................................................ 83 4.1.3 In-Stream Geomorphic Restoration Opportunities ...................................................... 86 4.2 Natural Heritage .............................................................................................................. 86 4.2.1 Natural Heritage System .............................................................................................. 86 4.2.2 Buffers .......................................................................................................................... 92 4.2.3 Linkages ........................................................................................................................ 93 4.2.4 Natural Heritage Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities ................................. 95 4.3 Consolidation of Constraints ........................................................................................... 97 5 Recommendations for Further Study ........................................................................ 101 5.1 Groundwater Recommendations .................................................................................. 101 5.2 Surface Water Recommendations ................................................................................. 101 5.2.1 Headwater Drainage Features ................................................................................... 101 5.2.2 Watercourses ............................................................................................................. 104 Page 169 of 369 Page 405 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 ii 5.2.3 Erosion Hazard ............................................................................................................ 104 5.3 Natural Heritage Recommendations ............................................................................. 105 5.3.1 Site-Specific Studies .................................................................................................... 105 5.3.2 Development of Opportunities .................................................................................. 106 6 References ............................................................................................................... 108 Appendices Appendix A – Summary of Policies, Guidelines and Legislation Appendix B – Hydrologic Modeling Appendix C – Water Quality Lab Reports Appendix D – Aquatic Ecology Field Sheets Appendix E – Aquafor Beech 2024 ELC Overview (Interim) Appendix F – Botanical Species List Appendix G – Niagara Regional Natural Heritage System Criteria Tables Table 2.1: Reviewed Policies ................................................................................................................ 7 Table 3.1: Pre-Development Water Balance (Table 2 Approach) ...................................................... 14 Table 3.2: Guidelines for the Interpretation of RGA Results and SI Values. ...................................... 27 Table 3.3: RGA Field Score for Reach BdCTb1 .................................................................................... 28 Table 3.4: Flows at Study Area Boundary upstream of Kalar Road ................................................... 40 Table 3.5 Water Quality Parameters & Sampling Procedure ............................................................ 47 Table 3.6: FM1 Water Quality Results ............................................................................................... 48 Table 3.7: Field Measurement Results ............................................................................................... 49 Table 3.8: Summary of Ecological Field Surveys ................................................................................ 51 Table 3.9: Representative Aquatic Habitat Photographs ................................................................... 57 Table 3.10: Summary of Vegetation Communities Delineated by Aquafor, 2024 ............................. 63 Table 3.11: Coefficient of Conservatism by Category ........................................................................ 67 Table 3.12: 2024 Incidental Bird Observations and Background Records ......................................... 70 Table 3.13: Mammal Species List ....................................................................................................... 75 Table 3.14: Reptile Species List .......................................................................................................... 75 Table 3.15: Invertebrate Species List ................................................................................................. 75 Table 3.16: Preliminary Species at Risk Screening Results ................................................................ 77 Table 4.1: Erosion Hazard Limits by Bank Material (MNRF, 2001) .................................................... 84 Table 4.2: City of Niagara Falls NHS Components and Defining Criteria ........................................... 89 Table 4.3: Description of Constraints ................................................................................................. 98 Table 5.1: Summary of HDF Management Implications .................................................................. 103 Page 170 of 369 Page 406 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 iii Figures Figure 2-1: Garner West Secondary Plan Area ..................................................................................... 6 Figure 3-1: Candidate HDFs (Overview) ............................................................................................. 18 Figure 3-2: Identified Watercourses within the Garner West Subwatershed Study Area ................ 21 Figure 3-3: Representative photograph of the downstream portion of Reach BdCtb1 facing upstream ............................................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 3-4: Representative photograph of the downstream portion of Reach BdCtb1 facing downstream ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 3-5: Looking upstream at the 6 – 8 m wide pool downstream of 1600 mm concrete culvert located halfway through the Reach ................................................................................................... 23 Figure 3-6: Looking downstream at the severely obstructed triple pipe culvert crossing at the upstream portion of the Reach .......................................................................................................... 23 Figure 3-7: Looking upstream at the Potential HDF contributing to the Thompson Creek Tributary (BRE-05) .............................................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 3-8: Looking downstream at the McLeod Road culvert for the Potential HDF 1 (BRE-05) ..... 23 Figure 3-9: Looking upstream at Potential HDF 2 consisting of a grass-lined channel ...................... 24 Figure 3-10: Looking downstream towards McLeod Road at Potential HDF 2 consisting of a grass- lined channel ...................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 3-11: Looking upstream at Potential HDF 3 consisting of drainage ditch .............................. 24 Figure 3-12: Looking downstream at the 400 mm CSP culvert at Potential HDF 3 consisting of drainage ditch ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 3-13: Looking upstream at Potential HDF 4 consisting of grass-lined swale .......................... 25 Figure 3-14: Looking downstream at the culvert crossing Beechwood Road at Potential HDF 4 ..... 25 Figure 3-15: Looking upstream at Potential HDF 5 from Beechwood Road ...................................... 25 Figure 3-16: Looking upstream at the 450 mm CSP culvert at Potential HDF 5 upstream of Beechwood Road................................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 3-17: Looking upstream at Potential HDF 6 adjacent to Lundy’s Lane ................................... 26 Figure 3-18: ~ 900 mm CSP culvert at Potential HDF 6 downstream of Lundy’s Lane ...................... 26 Figure 3-19: 2 m (H) x 1.7 m (W) concrete box culvert at the downstream extent at Beechwood Road, looking upstream ..................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 3-20: Concrete box culvert beginning to outflank .................................................................. 29 Figure 3-21: Excess rip-rap washed-out into channel ........................................................................ 29 Figure 3-22: Bank slumping and fracture, and undermined toe of bank upstream of the culvert ... 29 Figure 3-23: Deteriorated 1600 mm concrete culvert downstream of the crossing at the signage for ‘Hole 13’ in the Golf Club ................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 3-24: Large crack visible at the top of 1600 mm concrete culvert upstream of the crossing at the signage for ‘Hole 13’ in the Golf Club .......................................................................................... 30 Figure 3-25: Concrete outfall conveying flow from north of Lundy’s Lane out-letting into Reach BdCtb1 ................................................................................................................................................ 31 Figure 3-26: Confluence of outfall channel with Reach BdCtb1, looking upstream .......................... 31 Figure 3-27: Cross-sections cut through 2015 Lidar data (ODTM, 2015) at Reach BdCtb1 ............... 31 Figure 3-28: Cross-section through Reach BdCtb1 from Northwest to Southeast showing Distance (m) and Elevation (masl) .................................................................................................................... 32 Page 171 of 369 Page 407 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 iv Figure 3-29: Profile of Reach BdCtb1 from Southwest to Northeast showing Chainage (m) and Elevation (masl) .................................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 3-30: Local Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 36 Figure 3-31: Local Soil Classification .................................................................................................. 37 Figure 3-32: Hydrologic Model Catchments and Flow Nodes ........................................................... 39 Figure 3-33: Local Floodplain Mapping .............................................................................................. 41 Figure 3-34: Water Quality Monitoring Station Locations ................................................................. 45 Figure 3-35: Aquatic Monitoring Locations ........................................................................................ 54 Figure 3-36: Fish Habitat in Beaverdams and Shriners Creek Watershed (Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, 2011) ........................................................................................................... 59 Figure 4-1: One Zone Floodplain Concept, MNR - River & Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit, 2002. ................................................................................................................................................... 82 Figure 4-2: Erosion hazard limit for an unconfined system (MNRF, 2001) ........................................ 85 Figure 4-3: Land Cover Ratio using Preliminary ELC (2024) ............................................................... 95 Figure 4-4: Interim Constraints to Development ............................................................................... 99 Figure 4-5: Limitations of this Study ................................................................................................ 100 Page 172 of 369 Page 408 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 5 1 Introduction The City of Niagara Falls is a rapidly growing population centre located along the Niagara River, overlooking the Horseshoe and American Falls. With a 2021 population of 94,415 (Statistics Canada, 2023), growth is expected to push the population beyond the Region’s minimum of 141,000 people to more recently forecasted 177,500 people by 2051. This represents growth between 46,500 and 83,100 people, or an increase in the population between 49% to 88%. While this growth represents an opportunity, it also has the potential to cause significant impact to the local environment which has already been greatly influenced by agricultural cultivation and expanding urban development. The Garner West Subwatershed Study Area has been identified for "Community" development (non-industrial). A Secondary Plan is therefore being developed, along with other environmental and technical studies to guide development and growth in the Garner West Area. This Subwatershed Study (SWS) is being completed to provide direction to the Secondary Plan. This document constitutes Phase 1 of the Garner West SWS, which investigates and inventories the natural resources which could potentially be impacted by future urban development. Along with characterization of natural resources, this document identifies preliminary constraints and opportunities which will be considered as the Secondary Plan is developed. The findings documented in this report will be used to develop a comprehensive Subwatershed Management Plan, including stormwater management and natural heritage strategies which will protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environment within the study area limits. The SWS will fulfill the requirements of the Niagara Falls Official Plan (OP) and Niagara Region OP. Page 173 of 369 Page 409 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 6 2 Study Area and Land Uses The Garner West SWS Area, shown in Figure 2-1, covers an area of approximately 185 ha. It is located along the westerly built edge of the City, and is mostly bounded by Lundy’s Lake (Regional Road 20) at the north, Garner Road at the east, McLeod Road along the south, and Beechwood Road along the west. The CN Rail line bisects the northwest corner. The Garner West SWS Area is located along a significant subwatershed break point between Beaverdams Creek and Thompsons Creek. Approximately 110 ha of the Study Area (northern and middle portions) is within the Beaverdams Creek subwatershed and drains towards the west. Three (3) watercourses that are tributary to Beaverdams Creek cross the Study Area. Approximately 80 ha of the Study Area (southern portions) is within the Thompsons Creek subwatershed and drains towards McLeod Road to the south. Two (2) tributaries to Thompsons Creek cross the Study Area. Land uses in this area include environmental features, agriculture, places of worship, a golf club, a motel, and limited rural residential areas. 8.1 ha of the Study Area is within the Chippawa Power Canal, or Power Canal, subwatershed, though no watercourses are found within the Garner West SWS. Figure 2-1: Garner West Secondary Plan Area N Page 174 of 369 Page 410 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 7 2.1 Existing Policy Framework Predominantly regulated through a multi-level legislative framework. Under the legislative framework for stormwater planning and management, there are several jurisdiction levels that interact and apply based on many factors including geographical scale, and administration role. These jurisdiction levels include: • Local, Regional, Watershed, or Municipal • Provincial • Federal The full list of reviewed documents is provided in Table 2.1, with summaries in Appendix A. Appendix A summarizes the multi-level legislative framework that will guide and direct future environmental and stormwater management activities within the Garner West Subwatershed Study area. It is also intended to inform this SWS to ensure future municipal policy development is in full compliance with the necessary policies, statutes, regulations, plans, and guidelines. Table 2.1: Reviewed Policies Federal Legislation • Fisheries Act (1985, Amended 2019) • Canada Water Act (1985, Amended 2014) • Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999, Amended 2023) • Impact Assessment Act (2019) • Migratory Convention Birds Act (1994, Amended 2017) • Species at Risk Act (2002, Amended 2024) • Canadian Navigable Waters Act (1985, Amended 2019) Provincial Legislation, Policies and Guidelines Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) • Water Management – Guidelines and Procedures of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (“The Blue Book”) (1994, Reprinted 1999) • Ontario Water Resources Act (1990, Amended 2021) • Clean Water Act (2006, Amended 2021) • Consolidated Linear Infrastructure Environmental Compliance Approval (2023) • Environmental Protection Act (1990, Amended 2021) • Environmental Assessment Act (1990, Amended 2024) • Water Opportunities Act (2010, Amended 2021) • Endangered Species Act (2007, Amended 2020) • Environmental Bill of Rights (1993, Amended 2023) • Great Lakes Protection Act (2015, Amended 2021) • Management of Excess Soil – A Guide for Best Management Practices (2018, Amended 2021) Page 175 of 369 Page 411 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 8 • Policy Review of Municipal Stormwater Management in the Light of Climate Change (2011) • Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (2003) Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) • Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (1990, Amended 2019) • Conservation Authorities Act, Ontario Regulation 41/24 Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) • Drainage Act (1990, Amended 2021) • Nutrient Management Act (2002, Amended 2021) Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) • Planning Act (2010, Amended 2024) • Provincial Planning Statement (2024) • The Municipal Act (2001, Amended 2024) • Greenbelt Plan (2004, Amended 2017) Ministry of Infrastructure • The Places to Grow Act (2005, Amended 2021) Local Legislation, Plans, Policies, and Guidelines • Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Area – Assessment Report (2011, Amended 2013) • Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Area – Source Protection Plan (2013) • NPCA Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (2022, Amended 2024) • NPCA Beaverdams and Shriners Creek Watershed Plan Phase One (2011) • NPCA Stormwater Management Guidelines (2017) • NPCA Strategic Plan (2021) • NPCA Erosion & Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction (2006) • Niagara Region Stormwater Management Guidelines (2022) • Niagara Region Official Plan (2022) • Niagara Region Transportation Master Plan (2017) • City of Niagara Falls Official Plan (1993, Amended 2024) • City of Niagara Falls Sustainable Transportation Master Plan (2011) 2.2 Subwatershed Study Goals, Objectives, and Phasing The overall goal of this SWS may be defined as follows: “Development of a management plan that allows sustainable urban growth, while ensuring maximum benefits to the natural and human environments on a watershed basis.” – Watershed Planning in Ontario The SWS is undertaken in three (3) phases. The objectives of this study are summarized below, according to the three study phases. This report has been prepared to present the results for Phase 1 of the process. Page 176 of 369 Page 412 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 9 Phase 1: Subwatershed Characterization • Identify and evaluate the location, extent, significance, and sensitivity of the existing natural features of the study area, together with their potential interrelationship with other natural features; • Identify sensitive areas and natural hazard lands, together with recommended buffers, and select preliminary management practices for these lands; and • Develop preliminary constraints and opportunities mapping to identify developable and non-developable lands which will inform the development and update of Secondary Plans within the Urban Boundary study area. Phase 2: Subwatershed Management Strategies • Identify potential land use impacts to natural features and functions (Impact Assessment); • Identify protective measures (best management practices, or BMPs) that, when implemented, will protect, enhance or restore environmental features and functions; • Identify actions and strategies to build resiliency to climate change into the community; • Formulate alternative subwatershed management strategies; • Evaluate each strategy, based on a range of environmental, social and cost considerations together with stakeholder input; and • Select from among the alternatives a recommended subwatershed strategy (or plan). Phase 3: Implementation and Monitoring Plans • Develop an Implementation Plan to ensure the long-term integrity of the Recommended Plan, including the identification of issues and areas where further detailed studies may be required at the draft plan of subdivision, condominium and/ or Site Planning stages of the planning process; • Identify any future recommended monitoring studies or contingency plans; and • Integrate the Subwatershed Study findings with Municipal Official Plan Policy and ongoing Secondary Plans. 2.2.1 Scope of Investigations Detailed investigations are a part of a Subwatershed Study, and the results of those investigations completed in 2024 are presented in the following sections of this report. During the City’s scoping of this Study, several investigations were deferred to be completed by the development community. As such, these investigations were not part of the Subwatershed Study scope, including: • In situ hydrogeological and geotechnical investigations; • Floodplain mapping; • Erosion hazards; and • Environmental Impact Studies. Recommendations for what should be considered in these future investigations have been provided in Section 5 of this report. Page 177 of 369 Page 413 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 10 Headwater Drainage Feature Assessments are to be completed at a later stage following the timing window guidelines such that features are identified and management recommendations are accurately applied in subsequent phases of this study. Further details are provided hereafter. 2.3 Garner West Secondary Plan Secondary Plans are land use planning tools that formally address specific opportunities and constraints related to land use in certain defined geographic areas. They are typically undertaken in areas where detailed direction is needed for matters beyond the general framework provided by the Official Plan. The preparation or amendment of a Secondary Plan follows the same procedures as an Official Plan Amendment under the Planning Act. This includes the preparation of supporting technical studies, public engagement, notice and holding of public meetings and adoption/approval procedures. The preparation of any Secondary Plan requires input from supporting technical studies. The collective recommendations (opportunities and constraints) from these technical studies will influence the developable area of the Secondary Plan, influence the mix and location for the various land uses, as well as recommend design and development parameters. Subwatershed studies are important supporting technical documents to the Secondary Planning process because they establish the base environmental parameters for neighbourhood planning, including not only the natural heritage and hydrological systems but also establish high-level drainage planning for the Secondary Plan Areas. Subwatershed studies include strategies to support the City’s Official Plan and identify the responsible management strategies for subwatershed areas with the primary focus of protecting natural ecosystem functions, flooding and erosion. Subwatershed studies analyse the cumulative effects of changes in land use, identify areas of risk, and make recommendations on areas for enhancement to allow for a protected and connected Natural Heritage System. The Garner West Secondary Plan is being completed concurrently with the Garner West Subwatershed Study, and includes the same study area. The results of the SWS will inform the completion of the Secondary Plan. Page 178 of 369 Page 414 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 11 3 Existing Subwatershed Conditions 3.1 Hydrogeology 3.1.1 Background and Review of Existing Information The Garner West Secondary Area is in the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario directly south of Lundy’s Lane between Garner Road and Beechwood Road. The site has an area of approximately 1.85 km2 and is rectangular in shape. The site is located at an elevation of approximately 185 masl and is generally flat with a slight slope to the south. The site is located along the boundary between the Beaverdams Creek, Chippewa Power Canal and Thompson Creek subwatersheds. No previous geotechnical, hydrogeological, or surface water studies have been conducted on the site and were available for review. However, multiple geotechnical, a Headwater Drainage Feature Assessment, and Wetland Catchment Assessment for properties in the surrounding area of the site have been reviewed. The northern portion of the site is occupied by commercial and residential properties with a railway bisecting the northwestern corner of the site. South of these properties lies the Niagara Falls Golf Club and vacant agricultural fields. The following sections will describe the regional and local geology and hydrogeology including specific observations made from the site visit conducted in October 2024. 3.1.2 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology The Niagara Peninsula watershed is bounded by Lake Ontario to the north, Lake Erie to the south, Niagara River to the east and Grand River, as well as Hamilton watersheds to the west. The Niagara Peninsula watershed area spans approximately 2,430 km2 and includes areas within the Region of Niagara, and portions of the City of Hamilton as well as the County of Haldimand. This area includes many features, such as the Niagara Escarpment, Wainfleet Bog, Balls Falls, Lake Niapenco and Willoughby Marsh, along with many other significant landforms (e.g. the Fonthill Kame ice contact-delta complex). Approximately 64% of the Niagara Peninsula watershed is used for agricultural purposes, while approximately 21% is forested/undeveloped land, and 15% is urban/developed. (NPCA, 2018). The Niagara Peninsula is underlain by units of sedimentary rock of Silurian to Ordovician age (485.4 – 419.3 Ma). These units are dipping towards the south and outcrop along the Niagara Escarpment to the north of the site along the southwestern to western shores of Lake Ontario. From north (along the shoreline of Lake Ontario) to south (shoreline of Lake Erie), these include: the Queenston Formation, Lockport Formation, Guelph Formation, Salina Formation, Bertie Formation, Bois Blanc Formation and Onondaga Formation. Broadly speaking, the Niagara Region is underlain by a sequence of shales, limestones, sandstones and dolostones representing sea level fluctuations over millions of years. During the last ice age, termed the Wisconsin Glaciation (130,000 – 25,000 years before present) the Niagara Peninsula was covered by an ice sheet over 2 km in thickness. The ice began to retreat approximately 25,000 years before present (ybp) causing substantial releases of meltwater in the Page 179 of 369 Page 415 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 12 proglacial areas. This meltwater occupied basins and other low-lying areas forming glacial lakes along the retreating ice margin. One such lake, Lake Warren, formed between the Niagara and Onnondaga Escarpments running north to south. Rivers flowing off the retreating glacier carried sediment into this basin where the coarser grained material settled out closest to the river mouth forming a kame-delta complex of sands and gravels. As the ice continued to retreat the north face of the delta complex eventually collapsed and this deposit is today called the Fonthill Kame Complex. Further from the river mouth into the basin more fine-grained material was able to settle out of suspension resulting in the Haldimand Clay Plain that underlies the majority of the Niagara Peninsula. The Watershed Plan prepared by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) identifies the Fonthill Kame Complex as the most critical recharge area for the Niagara Peninsula. The Fonthill Kame is located approximately 8 km to the west of the site and is separated from the site by the Haldimand Clay, which would be considered a regional aquitard. The mapping from the NPCA identifies no significant area of recharge within the Beaverdams Creek, Chippewa Power Canal, and Thompson Creek subwatersheds. It is expected that regionally, groundwater will flow east toward the Niagara River and from there the river flows north to Lake Ontario. 3.1.3 Local Geology and Hydrogeology Grounded Engineering reviewed two previous geotechnical reports conducted on areas directly surrounding the site. The first, prepared by Landtek in 2014, was conducted for a private residential development directly east, across Garner Road from the site. The second, conducted by EXP in 2019, was for utility infrastructure work along Garner Road directly south from the site. The borehole logs in both reports show that the area surrounding the site is underlain by a silty clay unit (Haldimand Clay Plain) extending to bedrock in all boreholes with the exception of boreholes BH-1 and BH-02 by EXP where a thin layer of sandy silt or sand and gravel was found underlying the clay directly on top of bedrock at depths of 6.1 -6.2 mbgs. Bedrock (Lockport Formation) was encountered from depths ranging from 6.8-12.6 mbgs, increasing in depth away from the site, south down Garner Road. It was noted that the silty clay became grey and moist to wet below depths of 4.1 to 6.1 mbgs. No static water level measurements were reported by EXP. The MECP Well Records Database borehole and monitoring well information was reviewed for the area directly surrounding the site. The data reviewed found groundwater within the bedrock during drilling, however in wells where pumping tests were completed, the static water level was found to be within the overlying clay deposits at approximate elevations ranging from 173.5 to 171 masl. The information reviewed is consistent between the geotechnical reports and the MECP well database. It is noted that no borehole logs, well records, water levels, or past reports for the site were available for review. On October 9, 2024 a representative of Grounded Engineering conducted a site reconnaissance visit to observe any Headwater Drainage Features (HDF) on the site (see Section 3.2.1 for additional details regarding HDF investigations). In general, the site was observed to be relatively flat with a slight dip towards the south. The majority of the site is open agricultural fields with the presence of the golf course on the northern portion of the site. What appears to be a wetland Page 180 of 369 Page 416 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 13 feature was found in the northwest corner of the site in the area where the CN railway tracks run through the northwest section of the site (see Section 3.3.4.1 for Ecological Land Classification details). A tributary to Beaverdams Creek was observed to run through this area where it crosses Beechwood Road to the west of the site. Another tributary of Beaverdams Creek flows from the developed subdivision on the northern site boundary, across Lundy’s Lane, through the Niagara Falls Golf Club. It appears this tributary has been engineered to flow straight through the golf course. This tributary exits the site to the west across Beechwood Road. It was noted that a drainage stream runs along the southern boundary between the golf course and adjacent agricultural lands. No outflow across either Garner Road to the east or Beechwood Road to the west was observed. This is likely a drainage ditch associated with the activity at the golf course. Multiple irrigation ponds were observed on the golf course and did not appear to be connected to the tributary bisecting the site. In the agricultural fields in the southern portion of the site, multiple agricultural drainage features and overland flow drainage features were observed running north to south and intersecting with the ditches along McLeod Road (refer to Figure 3-2). Vegetation that is indicative of possible surface or shallow groundwater (cattails and bullrush) was found in limited locations generally in the northwest corner of the site within the assumed wetland area (refer to Figure 3-3) and along some of the agricultural drainage ditches in the southern portion of the site, which were mentioned above (refer to Figure 3-2). Aerial imagery indicates the potential for a third tributary from Beaverdams Creek bisecting the central portion of the site, however no feature was observed during the site visit. Based on the observations of several HDFs, including the two tributaries running through the northern portion of the site the overall site grade, and the observation of deeper bedrock encountered south along Garner Road by EXP, it is likely that locally groundwater is flowing towards the southwest/south in the general direction of Thompson Creek. As no site-specific groundwater level data was available a definitive conclusion cannot be made at this time. 3.1.4 Hydraulic Conductivity As previously stated, no site-specific data was collected or provided including borehole/monitoring well logs or water levels. As such, a site-specific hydraulic conductivity was unable to be calculated at this time. The final conclusions of this study will determine whether any intrusive investigation is required. Based on the grain sizes presented in the geotechnical report prepared by EXP in 2019 with boreholes along Garner Road to the southeast of the Property the predominant grain size is silt to silt and clay. Based on the assumption that soil on the Property is of a similar grain size profile the assumed hydraulic conductivity would be 1.0 x 10-9 m/s. Freeze and Cherry (1979) noted that the expected hydraulic conductivity of a silty clay would range from 1.0x10-9 m/s to 1.0x10-12 m/s. These flows would likely result minimal groundwater volumes to be discharged to surface water features. Page 181 of 369 Page 417 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 14 3.1.5 Water Balance A high-level water balance model was prepared for the Property to assess the distribution of rainfall run-off and infiltration for existing (pre-development) conditions. The model is based on Environment Canada’s climate data for Niagara Falls. The Thornthwaite method was used to evaluate the relative balance between rainfall, evaporation and evapotranspiration in the shallow soil zones. The Table 2 approach was selected and takes into consideration the topography, soil type and ground cover of the site. The water balance for pre-development conditions is summarized in Table 3.1 below. It is noted that the existing soil type (clay) is of very low permeability which currently results in very limited infiltration and recharge to the shallow groundwater system. Table 3.1: Pre-Development Water Balance (Table 2 Approach) Area (m2) Precipitation (m3) Evapo- transpiration (m3) Infiltration (m3) Run-Off (m3) Existing Building Area 8,389 7,949 0 0 7,949 Hard Surface Paving 27,902 26,437 0 0 26,437 Landscaped / Vegetated Area 1,913,709 1,813,239 1,205,637 303,801 303,801 Total 1,950,000 1,847,625 1,205,637 303,801 338,187 At the time of this report no development plans have been made available. As such a detailed site- specific post-development water balance can not be conducted. However, it can be assumed that the plans will involve typical development scenario with building, hard surface areas, pavements, and some open space areas. The relative distribution of these areas will govern the resulting post development water balance. Typically, the post development water balance will result in the following: • A decrease in open space or greenspace which will result in a decrease in evapotranspiration and infiltration. • An increase in hard surface areas, including pavement and rooftops. This will result in an increase in the runoff post development. Mitigation measures in a post-development scenario, may include but are not limited to: • Clean water from the rooftops can be harvested and used to promote infiltration; however, based on the low permeability soil, any infiltration measure at this site would be limited. Page 182 of 369 Page 418 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 15 • Low impact development (LID) strategies can be implemented to offset the reduction in evapotranspiration and infiltration and mitigate the increase in runoff. The percolation rates of the soil will be very low and, as such, the site will generally not be conducive to engineered infiltration measures (infiltration galleries, soakaways pits, etc.). Consideration will need to be given to partial infiltration design LIDs, filtration LIDs and more passive LIDs. This would include bioretention, green roofs, permeable pavements, enhanced swales, etc. Once preliminary development plans have been completed a detailed post development water balance can be provided along with specific recommendations regarding appropriate LIDs. 3.1.6 Implications and Opportunities for Site Development Based on the background review, the site would be low sensitivity to development from a hydrogeological perspective. This is based on the following: • Several HDFs were observed during the site visit including a wetland in the northwest corner of the site, two tributaries of Beaverdams Creek, and several agricultural drainage ditches. The drainage ditch network is not anticipated to have any major effect on development as these are not active recharge areas and were only used to drain the fields after irrigation was conducted and may be removed as part of construction. These features occupy a very limited area of the site and are not expected to have a large impact on potential overall development due to the below factors. • The clayey silt to silty clay overburden soil is of low permeability (an aquitard) and is regionally extensive. As such, there will be limited groundwater recharge occurring in the area. • The groundwater flow velocity will be very slow and there will be limited groundwater flow volumes within the overburden. This results in minimal, if any, groundwater discharge or baseflow to local ecological receptors. • There appears to be no aquifers present within the overburden. Water supply is obtained from the bedrock (Guelph and Lockport Formations). The overburden thickness in the area is about 6m to 15 m. This low permeability overburden layer provides significant protection to the bedrock aquifer. • Given the relatively thick overburden, it is anticipated that construction activities would be within the low permeability soils. It is not likely that groundwater control (short or long term) would be required. Given this, the zone of influence of any construction activities will be very small. • Development of the site will result in a decrease in evapotranspiration and infiltration and an increase in runoff. Mitigation measures can be implemented; however, the low percolation rates at the site will not be conducive to engineered LID measures that utilize infiltration as the main mechanism. Partial infiltration LIDs, filtration LIDs and more passive LIDs are recommended to mitigate the reduction in infiltration post development. This would include bioretention, green roofs, permeable pavements, enhanced swales etc. Page 183 of 369 Page 419 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 16 3.2 Surface Water Resources The surface water component of this study inventories the network of existing drainage channels through the study area. Further field analyses and modeling is completed to determine the environmental function of these drainage features and to establish any associated flooding and erosion hazards. The resulting environmental features and natural hazards are then used to identify constraints to future development, as well as restoration opportunities. Constraints to future development related to surface water resources are defined in the subsequent report sections under the following topics: • Headwater Drainage Features – defines management recommendations for the small headwater drainage channels throughout the study area; • Fluvial geomorphologic resources – defines erosion hazard considerations for the streams as well as restoration opportunities; and • Hydrology/hydraulics and flooding – defines the estimated flood flows, flood levels, and associated floodplain hazard lands. 3.2.1 Headwater Drainage Feature Assessment Headwater Drainage Features (HDFs), as defined in the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP), are depressions in the land that convey surface flow (Stanfield, 2017). Examples of HDFs include small streams, springs, wetlands, swales, and ditches (natural or human-modified). OSAP and the Evaluation, Classification, and Management of Headwater Drainage Features Guidelines (CVC & TRCA, 2014) note that HDFs vary in both form and function, and may provide direct (both permanent and seasonal) habitat for fish and/or indirect habitat for fish by transporting food and sediment to downstream waters. Examples of aquatic habitat types present in HDFs include refuge pools, seasonal spawning and nursery areas, and thermal refugia in areas of groundwater discharge. These features are also important sources, conveyors, or sinks of sediment, nutrients, and flow. Some HDFs may function as important habitat for terrestrial and wetland species as breeding areas or corridors for travel. HDFs have not traditionally been a part of most aquatic monitoring efforts. However, understanding of the importance of such features has been growing, and HDFs are now protected features under certain local and provincial regulations. HDFs providing direct or indirect fish habitat would qualify for protection as fish habitat under municipal NHS policy. Additionally, and following the update to the Ontario Regulation 41/24 under the Conservation Authorities Act, features which were once managed as HDFs and not historically mapped as a watercourse, may now be managed as a watercourse under the updated regulation. Following the HDF assessment protocol may further identify features that fall under the new definition of a watercourse, that is, “a defined channel, having a bed and banks or sides, in which a flow of water regularly or continuously occurs” (Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2024). Watercourse definitions are in the jurisdiction of the NPCA and HDF/watercourse mapping should be updated under NPCA consultation to account for these changes. Alterations to such features Page 184 of 369 Page 420 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 17 would require NPCA approval. All features which were historically mapped as watercourses were maintained through this exercise. This study included a preliminary assessment of potential HDFs to identify features and determine the appropriate level of future investigations, as detailed in Section 5.2.1. 3.2.1.1 Methodology The Evaluation, Classification, and Management of Headwater Drainage Features Guidelines (CVC & TRCA, 2014), hereafter “the Guidelines”, were used to classify HDFs within the study area. The Guidelines were developed to provide direction to practitioners for aquatic features that are not clearly covered by existing policy and legislation as being important eco-hydrological features (e.g., perennial streams and provincially significant wetlands) but still may contribute to the overall health of a subwatershed. The Guidelines attempt to evaluate, in a consistent way, the contribution of sediment, food, and flow transport to downstream reaches, as well as the use of these features by biota (CVC & TRCA, 2014). To distinguish HDFs from watercourses, the following definitions were specified per OSAP and the CVC & TRCA Guidelines document: • HDFs are non-permanently flowing drainage features that may not have defined bed or banks; they are first-order and zero-order intermittent and ephemeral channels, swales, and connected headwater wetlands, but do not include rills or furrows. • Features within a valley are typically not considered HDFs. • A HDF has a catchment of at least 2.5 ha in size. In order to identify candidate HDFs, a drainage network for the Garner West study area was created using Arc Hydro in ESRI’s ArcMap 10.1. First, a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) was obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). The DTM with a spatial resolution of 0.5 m x 0.5 m was derived from a classified lidar point cloud. Using Arc Hydro Tools in ESRI’s ArcGIS 10.5, the regulatory watercourse drainage pattern was ‘burned’ into the DTM and depressions were filled to correct potential raster processing problems. Flow direction and flow accumulation rasters were then processed from the reconditioned DTM. Utilizing the flow accumulation raster, a stream network raster was defined such that any streams with a catchment area of 2.5 ha would be accounted for. After the stream network was defined, the stream raster was then converted to vector feature layer. Lastly, maps were prepared for Aquafor biologists by overlaying the stream layer on aerial imagery to be assessed during field investigations. These maps, outlining Candidate HDFs within the study area are shown below in Figure 3-1. Page 185 of 369 Page 421 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 19 3.2.1.2 Conclusions Figure 3-1 displays the Candidate HDFs within the study area. As noted above, Headwater Drainage Feature Assessments are to be completed at a later stage following the timing window guidelines such that features are identified and management recommendations are accurately applied in subsequent phases of this study. Management Recommendations are to be determined following these assessments and used to inform the developmental constraints and opportunities following the details in Section 5.2.1. 3.2.2 Fluvial Geomorphology The river drainage network and channel landforms that make up the watershed develop over long timescales as the integrated product of hydrological and biological stream processes interacting on the geological template of the landscape. Fluvial geomorphology is the study of the processes and landforms that shape stream and river channels, including flow hydraulics and sediment transport. Land use changes within a watershed can alter the amount of surface runoff and the amount of sediment reaching a river. Historic alterations and aged river engineering structures may also have unintended consequences and deteriorate if left unmaintained for decades. Cumulatively, these historic changes to the river channel and environmental controls can result in erosion and flooding problems, as well as degraded aquatic and riparian habitat. Recent advances in river engineering and stream restoration practices can help mitigate the impacts of historic land-use change (through natural channel design and other environmentally sensitive river engineering approaches), balancing self-sustaining natural processes with long-term maintenance requirements for engineering controls. Within the overall study goal of responsible environmental and economic management of water resources, the objective of the fluvial geomorphology component is to characterize stream and river channels, particularly with respect to erosion and channel stability. As such, detailed geomorphic assessment of the watercourse(s) within the study area has been completed. The geomorphic assessments provide a basis for recommendations with respect to development constraints and mitigation of any existing erosion problems, and highlights opportunities for stream restoration that will improve future channel stability, protect infrastructure and property, and enhance ecological habitat. The drainage features within the study area consisted of the Beaverdams Creek Tributary, the Thompsons Creek Tributary, and several potential HDFs. The Beaverdams Creek Tributary through the study area consists of a clearly defined watercourse to which a geomorphic assessment is applicable. The portion of the Thompsons Creek Tributary, however, consists of potential HDFs and therefore, a fluvial geomorphic assessment is not applicable. As noted previously, a detailed assessment of HDFs is to be completed at a later stage following the appropriate timing windows and methodology. The following subsections present reach delineations and characterizations for the applicable watercourse(s) within the study area consisting of the Beaverdams Creek Tributary. This will include classification of geomorphic stability through use of a Rapid Geomorphic Assessment (RGA) tool. Page 186 of 369 Page 422 of 1679 3-1 Candidate HDFs (Overview)Page 187 of 369 Page 423 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 20 3.2.2.1 Reach Delineation Geomorphic stream reaches are relatively uniform lengths of channel in terms of surface geology, hydrology, channel slope, boundary materials, and vegetation that control dominant geomorphic processes and sediment transport dynamics. In other words, the physical channel processes and resulting river morphology are relatively consistent over the length of the reach as compared to the differences between adjacent reaches. Several drainage features were observed within the study area including several potential HDFs and one watercourse consisting of the Beaverdams Creek Tributary. The watercourse, subject to a fluvial geomorphic assessment, was assessed for geomorphic stability and erosion hazard analysis. The headwaters of Thompsons Creek Tributary were also observed and noted to be potential HDFs. These are located on the southern extent of the study area approximately 430 m west of Garner Road and are referred to as Catchment 7 in Section 3.2.3.1, the subsequent section. The portion of the Thompson Creek Tributary within the study area which is denoted as a potential HDFs drains northwest to southeast within the study area and is referred to as BRE-05 as per the Headwater Drainage Feature Assessment (Region, 2022). Whereas, the tributary of Beaverdams Creek is referred to as Reach BdCTb1 where the reach name is adapted from the NPCA’s Reach Numbering Structure (Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, 2011). The identified watercourses including the assessed reaches with their geomorphic stability index is presented in Figure 3-2. During field investigations, all potential channels identified as a drainage pathway in the initial desktop investigation (Figure 3-1) were walked. This confirmed those pathways that are channels and other non drainage pathways that are not a channel, however that may be potential HDFs. A reach description for all confirmed channels and potential HDFs has been included. This section serves to confirm reach conditions and to offer evidence that those drainage pathways denoted as Potential HDFs are not channels, subject to Rapid Geomorphic Assessments, nor show evidence of channel incision or erosion. Page 188 of 369 Page 424 of 1679 3-2 Identified Watercourses within the Garner West Subwatershed Study Area Page 189 of 369 Page 425 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 22 3.2.2.1.1 Reach BdCTb1 Beaverdams Creek Tributary Reach BdCTb1 in the study area begins immediately downstream of the Lundy’s Lane culvert and extends approximately 1 km downstream through the Niagara Falls Golf Club to Beechwood Road. The average bankfull width of the Reach is approximately 4.5 m, and average bankfull depth is approximately 0.5 m. Bank material throughout the reach consisted of sandy clay and the average grain size of the bed material ranged from small to medium gravel and medium cobble, with silt. Bank slumping and bank fracture are prevalent throughout the reach. Representative photographs of the Reach can be seen in Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4 which show the downstream and upstream views of the channel where Cattails are lining the banks of the channel and grass is being landscaped to the edge of the channel-top-of-bank throughout the reach. Pool- riffle sequences with slightly wider pools, and numerous local bridge crossings (approximately 13 crossings) are present within the reach. An approximately 6 – 8 m wide pool downstream of a 1600 mm concrete culvert located around halfway between the downstream and upstream extents of the reach can be seen in Figure 3-5. A severely obstructed triple pipe culvert crossing can be seen towards the upstream portion of the Reach in Figure 3-6. Figure 3-3: Representative photograph of the downstream portion of Reach BdCtb1 facing upstream Figure 3-4: Representative photograph of the downstream portion of Reach BdCtb1 facing downstream Page 190 of 369 Page 426 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 23 3.2.2.2 Potential HDFs Potential HDF 1 – BRE-05 Potential HDF 1 drains the agriculture field at the southern extent of the study area to the culvert crossing McLead Road. This potential HDF is observed to be providing headwater drainage to the Thompson Creek Tributary and has been named BRE-05 (Niagara Region, 2022). The upstream and downstream views can be seen in Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8, showing the agriculture drainage area and the downstream McLead Road culvert, respectively. Potential HDF 2 – Grass Lined Potential HDF 2 is located adjacent to the Faith Factor Church property and consists of a grass- lined swale (Figure 3-9). It provides potential drainage to the agriculture field from north to south towards McLeod Road at the southern extent of the study area (Figure 3-10). Figure 3-5: Looking upstream at the 6 – 8 m wide pool downstream of 1600 mm concrete culvert located halfway through the Reach Figure 3-6: Looking downstream at the severely obstructed triple pipe culvert crossing at the upstream portion of the Reach Figure 3-7: Looking upstream at the Potential HDF contributing to the Thompson Creek Tributary (BRE-05) Figure 3-8: Looking downstream at the McLeod Road culvert for the Potential HDF 1 (BRE-05) Page 191 of 369 Page 427 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 24 Potential HDF 3 – Drainage Ditch Potential HDF 3 consists of a drainage ditch which likely runs west to east towards Potential HDF 2. The well-vegetated drainage ditch can be seen in Figure 3-11 looking upstream. Figure 3-12 shows a 400 mm CSP culvert crossing under the path intersecting the drainage ditch. Potential HDF 4 – Grass Lined The downstream end of the potential HDF 4 is located approximately 300 m south of the Niagara Falls Golf Club along Beechwood Road. It likely drains the agriculture fields from east to west towards the road. The upstream and downstream views from Beechwood Road can be seen in Figure 3-13 and Figure 3-14. Figure 3-9: Looking upstream at Potential HDF 2 consisting of a grass-lined channel Figure 3-10: Looking downstream towards McLeod Road at Potential HDF 2 consisting of a grass-lined channel Figure 3-11: Looking upstream at Potential HDF 3 consisting of drainage ditch Figure 3-12: Looking downstream at the 400 mm CSP culvert at Potential HDF 3 consisting of drainage ditch Page 192 of 369 Page 428 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 25 Potential HDF 5 – Grass Lined Similar to the potential HDF 4, the downstream end of the potential HDF 5 is located along Beechwood Road approximately 70 m south of the Niagara Falls Golf Club. It likely drains the agriculture fields from east to west towards the road. The upstream and downstream views from Beechwood Road can be seen in Figure 3-15 and Figure 3-16. Potential HDF 6 – Grass Lined Potential HDF 6 is located adjacent to Lundy’s Lane at the northern extent of the study area and it runs west to east towards Reach TMt1. Figure 3-17 shows the upstream view of the grass lined drainage swale running adjacent to Lundy’s Lane and Figure 3-18 is looking at the ~ 900 mm CSP culvert downstream of Lundy’s Lane out-letting into the Potential HDF 6. Figure 3-13: Looking upstream at Potential HDF 4 consisting of grass-lined swale Figure 3-14: Looking downstream at the culvert crossing Beechwood Road at Potential HDF 4 Figure 3-15: Looking upstream at Potential HDF 5 from Beechwood Road Figure 3-16: Looking upstream at the 450 mm CSP culvert at Potential HDF 5 upstream of Beechwood Road Page 193 of 369 Page 429 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 26 3.2.2.3 Rapid Geomorphic Assessment As a tool to help evaluate the existing geomorphic conditions within the channel, Rapid Geomorphic Assessments (RGA) (MOE, 1999) were completed for relevant reaches. The RGA protocol uses a series of visual indicators to determine whether a given stream reach is stable or in adjustment based on a percentage score. The RGA procedure is comprised of four (4) different factors that are used to assess channel sensitivity and stability: 1. Evidence of Aggradation (A) 2. Evidence of Degradation (D); 3. Evidence of Channel Widening (W); and 4. Evidence of Planimetric Form Adjustment (P). Table 3.2 summarizes the stability classifications associated with the RGA index scores. The RGA method is most appropriate for systems with natural or semi-natural alluvial boundaries that are capable of adjusting to flow changes in water and sediment. Therefore, reaches where the channel was characterized as a drainage ditch or agricultural swale were omitted from the assessment because these types of systems are not capable of adjusting to flow changes in water and sediment. Figure 3-17: Looking upstream at Potential HDF 6 adjacent to Lundy’s Lane Figure 3-18: ~ 900 mm CSP culvert at Potential HDF 6 downstream of Lundy’s Lane Page 194 of 369 Page 430 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 27 Table 3.2: Guidelines for the Interpretation of RGA Results and SI Values. Stability Index (SI) Value Interpretation Comment 0 ≤ SI ≤ 0.25 Stable The morphological features do not show evidence of the progressive alterations. Variance in the dimensions of the morphological features is within acceptable levels 0.25 ≤ SI ≤ 0.4 Transitional The type and variance of observed morphological features indicates that the stream channel is in, or about to begin, the initial stages of adjustment. 0.4 ≤ SI ≤ 1.0 In Adjustment The type of morphological features suggests that the channel system has been de-stabilized and is in adjustment. The result of the RGA is summarized in Table 3.3. The assessed reach, Reach BdCTb1, in the study area has a stability index of 0.40 and is classified as being In Transition. Aggradation and planimetric form adjustment are the dominant processes in this reach as observations of siltation in pools, deposition in overbank zone, coarse material in riffle embedded, evolution from single threaded to multi threaded, transition of pool-riffle morphology to low bed relief, and island formation were found. This reveals that the reach is relatively unstable and is likely to adjust. Page 195 of 369 Page 431 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 28 Table 3.3: RGA Field Score for Reach BdCTb1 FactorValue No.Description No Yes 1 Lobate bar √ 2 Coarse material in riffle embedded √ 3 Siltation in pools √ 4 Medial bars √ 5 Accretion on point bars √ 6 Poor longitudinal sorting of bed materials √ 7 Deposition in overbank zone √ 1 Exposed bridge footings √ 2 Exposed sanitary/storm sewer/pipeline etc √ 3 Elevated stormsewer outfall √ 4 undermined gabion basket/concrete apron/etc √ 5 Scour pools d/s of culverts/stormsewers √ 6 Cut face on bar forms √ 7 Head cutting due to knick point migration √ 8 Terrace cut through older bar material √ 9 Suspended armor layer visible in bank √ 10 Channel worn into undisturbed overburden/bedrock √ 1 Fallen/leaning trees/fence posts/etc √ 2 Occurrence of large organic debris √ 3 Exposed tree roots √ 4 Basal scour on inside meander bends √ 5 Basal scour on both sides of channel through riffle √ 6 Gabion baskets/concrete walls/armour stone etc. out flanked √ 7 Length of basal scour > 50% through subject reach √ 8 Exposed length of previously buried pipe/cable etc.√ 9 Fracture lines along top of bank √ 1 Formation of chute(s)√ 2 Evolution of single thread channel to multiple channel √ 3 Evolution of pool-riffle form to low bed relief form √ 4 Cutoff channel(s)√ 5 Formation of island(s)√ 6 Thalweg alignment out of phase with meander geometry √ 7 Bar forms poorly formed/reworked/removed √ Stability Index (SI) = (AI+DI+WI+PI)/m SI = 0.395 0.57 0 0.44 0.57 PresentGeomorphic Indicator Evidence of Planimetric Form Adjustment (PI)Form/ Process Evidence of Aggradation (AI)Evidence of Degradation (DI)Evidence of Widening (WI)Page 196 of 369 Page 432 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 29 3.2.2.4 Geomorphic Characterization of Erosion Sites 3.2.2.4.1 Erosion Site 1 Erosion site 1 (Figure 3-19) is located at the downstream extent of Reach BdCtb1 at the upstream end of the Beechwood Road concrete box culvert. The concrete box culvert is beginning to outflank on either side (Figure 3-20) and posing future risk to Beechwood Road embankment. The bed material consists of medium to large angular cobblestone within the site as erosion protection, however it is being washed out into the channel (Figure 3-21). The toe of bank at the erosion site is being undermined leading to bank slumping and fracture lines along the top of bank (Figure 3-22). Additional bank slumping is also noted upstream of the erosion site, and throughout parts of the reach. Figure 3-19: 2 m (H) x 1.7 m (W) concrete box culvert at the downstream extent at Beechwood Road, looking upstream Figure 3-20: Concrete box culvert beginning to outflank Figure 3-21: Excess rip-rap washed-out into channel Figure 3-22: Bank slumping and fracture, and undermined toe of bank upstream of the culvert Page 197 of 369 Page 433 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 30 3.2.2.4.2 Erosion Site 2 Erosion site 2 is located partway through the reach at the culvert crossing adjacent to the signage for ‘Hole 13’ in the Golf Course where the 1600 mm concrete culvert has started to deteriorate and large cracks have formed at the top of the pipe. Large cracks are visible at the top of the culvert close to the edge of the bank on the downstream extent in Figure 3-23 and on the upstream extent in Figure 3-24. 3.2.2.4.3 Erosion Site 3 Erosion site 3 is located towards the upstream most extent of Reach BdCtb1 and consists of a submerged outfall which is approximately 1000 mm in diameter. The concrete outfall is partially submerged where sediment and debris material are infilling the outfall (Figure 3-25). The confluence of the short outfall channel can be seen in Figure 3-26. Figure 3-23: Deteriorated 1600 mm concrete culvert downstream of the crossing at the signage for ‘Hole 13’ in the Golf Club Figure 3-24: Large crack visible at the top of 1600 mm concrete culvert upstream of the crossing at the signage for ‘Hole 13’ in the Golf Club Page 198 of 369 Page 434 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 31 3.2.2.5 Cross-Section and Longitudinal Profile Cross-section and longitudinal profile were obtained for the Beaverdams Creek Tributary (Reach BdCtb1) which runs through the Niagara Falls Golf Course. The upstream extent of the reach is at Lundy’s Lane culvert and the downstream extent is at the Beechwood Road culvert. The cross- section was cut from Lidar data (ODTM, 2015) within the study area and is shown perpendicular to the channel trend. Cross Section and longitudinal profile obtained for Reach BdCtb1 where the location of the cross section cut upstream of the trail crossing is shown in Figure 3-27. Figure 3-27: Cross-sections cut through 2015 Lidar data (ODTM, 2015) at Reach BdCtb1 Figure 3-25: Concrete outfall conveying flow from north of Lundy’s Lane out-letting into Reach BdCtb1 Figure 3-26: Confluence of outfall channel with Reach BdCtb1, looking upstream Page 199 of 369 Page 435 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 32 Figure 3-28 shows the cross-section cut perpendicularly to the flow within the channel, spanning from the northwest (left) to the southeast (right). The channel is shown relative to the top of banks on either side and is seen to be unconfined. Relatively flat and well-landscaped grounds can be seen on either side of the channel as it cuts through the Golf Course. The bankfull channel width within this cross-section is noted to be approximately 4 m and the observed bankfull depth is approximately 0.3 m. This cross-section is well-representative of the reach, as although the field investigations observed variation in bankfull channel width to range from 3 – 7 m, the average bankfull channel width was observed to be around 4.5 m. Figure 3-28: Cross-section through Reach BdCtb1 from Northwest to Southeast showing Distance (m) and Elevation (masl) The channel profile as seen in Figure 3-29 was obtained from the upstream end at Lundy’s Lane (left) to the downstream extent at Beechwood Road (right). The profile is of the channel bed which trends northeast to southwest through the Niagara Falls Golf Course. The overall channel gradient is observed to be 0.003 or 0.3% with the upstream channel bed elevation being 183.4 masl and the downstream channel elevation being 181.8 masl. Several large peaks can be seen within the profile which represent the several bridge and culvert crossing present throughout the reach. Pool and riffle morphology can also be seen within the reach where the average riffle gradient is observed to be 0.009 or 0.9% and the pools are observed to be relatively flat. Figure 3-29: Profile of Reach BdCtb1 from Southwest to Northeast showing Chainage (m) and Elevation (masl) Channel Page 200 of 369 Page 436 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 33 3.2.3 Hydrology & Hydraulics Hydrology is the science which deals with the interaction of water and land. Hydrology focuses on the processes by which precipitation is transformed into runoff to the receiving watercourses, returned to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration, or infiltrated into the shallow and deep groundwater systems. One of the most dramatic changes brought about by urbanization is the change in hydrology. For example, the replacement of vegetation and undisturbed terrain with impermeable surfaces (e.g., pavement and roof tops), landscapes graded for rapid drainage, and the construction of an underground storm drainage network all result in the greater interception of water that would have naturally infiltrated into the ground, or evapotranspirated and that instead is directly and rapidly transported as surface runoff to streams. As a result, groundwater recharge diminishes, which in turn could potentially affect baseflows within streams which rely on groundwater discharge. A more rapid rate of stormwater runoff from rainfall and melt events can result in an increase in the total volume, peak flow, and frequency of runoff occurrences. Uncontrolled, these hydrologic changes can result in increases in flooding, channel erosion, sediment transport, and pollutant loadings. These changes can also cause deterioration in natural channel morphology, fish and wildlife habitats, recreational opportunity, and aesthetics. River hydraulics is the science of flow conveyance through a channel system. Hydraulic analysis uses the stream flow (runoff output) from hydrologic models along with channel and floodplain characteristics including river crossing details to establish flood elevations for specific return period events. The primary function of a floodplain is the conveyance of flood waters during extreme runoff events resulting from intense precipitation events and extreme spring melts. The results of a hydraulic analysis are dependent upon the shape, slope, material and the land-use of the channel and associated floodplain, the flow rate, and the location of structures (buildings, roads, etc.). NPCA regulates development applications within flood-susceptible areas such as the floodplains of watercourse systems. It is important that the existing hydrologic characteristics of the study area and its watercourses be established. This information is critical in defining existing flood characteristics, defining regulatory floodplain limits, and providing key information on the selection and design of stormwater management facilities for future urban development lands. 3.2.3.1 Study Area Hydrology The Garner West Subwatershed Study Area is located along a significant subwatershed break point between Beaverdams Creek flowing west, and Thompsons Creek / the Power Canal tributaries flowing south. A 2020 Digital Terrain Model (contour interval no less than 1.0m) received through the City of Niagara Falls was used map catchment areas in the vicinity of the Study Area. Figure 3-30 shows all local catchment areas as delineated from the Beechwood Road and McLeod Road crossings downstream of the Study Area. Watercourse layer mapping shown on this figure was provided by the City of Niagara Falls. Local soil composition plays a significant role in determining how much precipitation is infiltrated and how much follows local surface water features as runoff into local creeks. Soil survey mapping available for the study area shows local soils primarily consist of loamy textured soils over clay- Page 201 of 369 Page 437 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 34 loam till. Soil classification is shown on Figure 3-31. No soil data were available on the Golf Course property. 3.2.3.1.1 Beaverdams Creek Subwatershed Approximately 110 ha of the Study Area is within the Beaverdams Creek subwatershed. This area consists of the northern and middle portions of the Study Area and drains towards the west. Three (3) watercourses which are tributary to Beaverdams Creek cross the site. The most northerly of these tributaries (Catchment 1 on Figure 3-30) flows along Fernwood Park Trail to the north of the Study Area before crossing Lundy’s Lane. Between Lundy’s Lane and Beechwood Road, the tributary flows through a wetland feature before crossing Beechwood Road approximately 40 m south of the rail crossing. At this crossing, the catchment measures 72.3 ha including 9.2 ha within the Study Area and 63.1 ha upstream of the Study Area. The central Beaverdams Creek tributary (Catchment 2 on Figure 3-30) flows through the central portion of the Niagara Falls Golf Club course and includes a smaller tributary flowing from a water feature to the south of the main channel. Between Lundy’s Lane and Beechwood Road, the main channel of catchment 2 has been straightened and no longer follows a natural fluvial plan. At Beechwood Road, the catchment measures 118.8 ha including 48.5 ha within the Study Area and 70.3 ha upstream of the Study Area. Catchment boundaries identified via the Digital Terrain Model and shown on Figure 3-30 indicate a significant major system drainage contribution from the subdivision area east of Garner Road. Storm sewer layers within this catchment boundary indicate some minor system flows are conveyed east and do not contribute to the Study Area. A review of engineered floodplain mapping available on the NPCA’s Watershed Explorer shows flood hazards extending along this reach within the Study Area. The floodplain varies between approximately 70 m and 105 m in width. The most southerly of the Beaverdams Creek tributaries (Catchment 4 on Figure 3-30) extends east to approximately Garner Road. This catchment may be refined in future project phases with additional information from the City. The channel flows in a sinuous pattern through the Study Area and is conveyed under Beechwood Road approximately 230 m south of Nichols Lane. At this crossing, the catchment measures 35.9 ha, all within the Study Area. A review of engineered floodplain mapping available on the NPCA’s Watershed Explorer shows flood hazards extending approximately 450 m upstream of Beechwood Road. The floodplain is approximately 160 m at the widest section. A catchment north of Catchment 4 but south of Catchment 2 drains across Beechwood Road at a culvert located approximately 65 m south of Nichols Road. This catchment (Catchment 3) is not associated with a permanent watercourse but an intermittent channel is observed on recent imagery. This catchment is approximately 16.6 ha and completely contained within the Study Area. 3.2.3.1.2 Thompsons Creek Subwatershed Approximately 42 ha of the Study Area is within the Thompsons Creek subwatershed. This area consists of the southwestern most catchments of the Study Area and drains towards McLeod Road to the south. This area has been broken down into two (2) catchment areas. Catchment 7 contains Page 202 of 369 Page 438 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 35 two (2) tributaries that converge upstream of a culvert along the southern limit of the Study Area approximately 430 m west of Garner Road. This catchment is 25.2 ha and completely contained within the Study Area. Catchment 6 is located in the southwest corner of the Study Area and is 16.8 ha and is completely contained within the Study Area. Catchment 6 drains to roadside ditching flowing south along Beechwood Road then East along McLeod Road. Soil survey mapping available for the Study Area shows local soils primarily consist of loamy textured soils over lacustrine silty clay. Soil classification is shown in Figure 3-31. 3.2.3.1.3 Chippawa Power Canal Subwatershed 38.1 ha of the Study Area is within the Chippawa Power Canal, or Power Canal, subwatershed. Within the Study Area, this catchment (Catchment 5 on Figure 3-30) does not contain any permanent watercourses but several HDFs flow in a southernly direction to the Study Area perimeter along McLeod Road. Page 203 of 369 Page 439 of 1679 3-30 Local Hydrology Page 204 of 369 Page 440 of 1679 CITY OFNIAGARA FALLS Thomp s on'S Cre ek BeaverdamsCreek W-6-5 Garner RdLundys Lane Beechwood RdMcleod Rd Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS UTM Zone 17NData Source: City of Niagara Falls Figure 4 - 4 Date: 11/12/2024 1:6,500 Local Soil ClassificationGarner West Secondary Plan Area Copyright 2024 – The Regional Municipality of Niagara and its Suppliers. All Rights Reserved. ® Niagara River FORTERIE ST.CATHARINES NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE THOROLD NIAGARAFALLS WELLAND ¯ 1:400,000 0 160 32080 Meters Legend Garner West Area Creeks Road Centerlines Soil Survey Complex: ALLUVIUM BEVERLY BEVERLY - LOAMY PHASE CHINGUACOUSY - LOAMY RED PHASE CHINGUACOUSY - RED PHASE HALDIMAND - LOAMY PHASE MALTON - LOAMY RED PHASE NOT MAPPED PEEL PEEL - LOAMY RED PHASE TOLEDO WELLAND 3-31 Local Soil Classification Page 205 of 369 Page 441 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 38 3.2.3.2 Hydrologic Model A hydrologic model was developed to simulate the predevelopment hydrology of the study area. During Phase 2 of this study, the hydrologic model will be updated to evaluate the hydrologic impacts of development, and how proposed stormwater infrastructure solutions can mitigate the impacts of urbanization. Appendix B provides the technical inputs/details of the hydrologic model setup for the Garner West Subwatershed Study area. 3.2.3.2.1 Design Storm The design storm is a critical precipitation event, used for assessing the flood hydrology for a certain return period (occurrence frequency). Design storms are created based on statistical analysis of historical storm data and are region specific. The 24-hour SCS storm distribution was provided by NPCA for use in the PCSWMM model for this study area. The 24-hour rainfall depths for the 2, 5, 10, 25, and 100-year return period storms, that have been applied in the PCSWMM model for the Garner West Subwatershed Study Area Tributaries are 49.5, 62.6, 71.3, 82.3, 90.4, and 98.5-mm respectively. Hyetograph tables are provided in Appendix B. 3.2.3.2.2 Hydrologic Modelling Results The PCSWMM Model was used to estimate peak flow rates at seven (7) locations where drainage is conveyed from the Garner West Subwatershed Study Area to external properties. These locations correspond to the six (6) catchment areas discussed in Section 3.2.3.1, with an additional flow node assessed where the two (2) Thompson Creek tributaries converge. With a design storm approach, a rainfall input (i.e. duration, return period depth, and temporal distribution) is selected and corresponding flows are determined. Factors that contribute to runoff response that are utilized by the hydrologic models include antecedent moisture conditions, topography and land use characteristics such as imperviousness. These model inputs are identified in Appendix B. With this approach, a key assumption is that the generated peak flows are of the same return period as the applied design storm. Table 3.4 summarizes the estimated peak flow rates from each catchment during specific storm events. These locations are shown as flow nodes on Figure 3-32. The area within the Beaverdam Creek Subwatershed that is shaded pink is provided with stormwater detention via the Edgewood Estates SWM facility. Stormwater release rates at the outlet of this facility corresponding with rainfall return period events have been built into the hydrologic model. Release rates from this SWM facility are provided in Appendix B. Page 206 of 369 Page 442 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 39 Figure 3-32: Hydrologic Model Catchments and Flow Nodes Legend Catchment Boundary Catchment Discharge Surface Water Feature Flow Node Culvert Crossing Page 207 of 369 Page 443 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 40 Table 3.4: Flows at Study Area Boundary upstream of Kalar Road Flow Node Catchment (#) 2-year (m3/s) 5-year (m3/s) 10-year (m3/s) 25-year (m3/s) 50-year (m3/s) 100-year (m3/s) Hurricane Hazel Event (m3/s) BD1 Beaverdams Creek (1) 0.28 0.417 0.517 0.654 0.763 0.875 2.955 BD2 Beaverdams Creek (2) 0.751 1.120 1.388 1.748 2.047 2.357 7.117 BD3 Beaverdams Creek (3&4) 0.063 0.100 0.127 0.164 0.194 0.225 0.915 T1 Thompson Creek (6) 0.028 0.049 0.066 0.089 0.108 0.136 0.494 T2 Thompson Creek (7) 0.067 0.11 0.149 0.205 0.252 0.293 1.099 T Thompson Creek (6&7) 0.064 0.106 0.140 0.191 0.23 0.255 2.143 HC Hydro Canal (5) 0.093 0.137 0.169 2.59 0.246 0.281 0.697 3.2.3.2.3 Existing Flood Lines NPCA regulates Flood Hazard Limits within the Study Area. A review of engineered floodplain mapping available on the NPCA’s Watershed Explorer shows flood hazards extending into the Garner West Subwatershed Study along the three (3) Beaverdams Creek tributaries. Within Beaverdams Creek Catchment 1 the floodplain extends upstream from Beechwood Road to Lundy’s Lane and is between approximately 100 m in width. Within Beaverdams Creek Catchment 2 the floodplain extends approximately 600m upstream from Beechwood Road and is between approximately 70 m and 105 m in width. Within Beaverdams Creek Catchment 3 the floodplain extends approximately 450 m upstream from Beechwood Road and is between approximately 70 m and 180 m in width. Flood hazard mapping for Thompsons Creek terminates approximately 115 m south of the Study Area limits (McLeod Road). Local floodplain mapping is shown in Figure 3-33. Floodplain delineation was not included within the project scope and may be required as part of future development applications. Page 208 of 369 Page 444 of 1679 3-33 Local Floodplain Mapping Page 209 of 369 Page 445 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 42 3.2.3.3 Stormwater Management Stormwater conveyance features within the Garner West Study Area are limited. Ditching and culverts along perimeter roads discharge to local Creeks at several formal outlet locations. There are storm sewers identified within the Study Area. No stormwater detention or treatment measures are currently present within the study area. External catchment areas draining through the study area include major and minor stormwater conveyance systems. The Edgewood Estates SWM Facility provides water quality and water quantity control up to the 100-year return period event for a catchment area of 31.6 ha. 3.2.4 Surface Water Quality Monitoring Water quality, including the pollutant levels found in surface runoff, can impact both human and ecological well-being. The modification of natural environments to agricultural and urban land uses can impact the landscape, vegetation, and ecological functions within a subwatershed, which in turn can contribute to increases in the levels of pollutants in the receiving watercourses. There are a variety of pollutants as well as other physical, chemical and biological characteristics used to measure water quality. Some of the most common categories include: • Solids (e.g., suspended solids, volatile solids, turbidity); • Nutrients (e.g. phosphorus, nitrogen); • Bacteria (e.g., coliforms); • Metals (e.g., copper, zinc); • Temperature; • Chlorides; and • Dissolved oxygen. Provided below is an overview of these water quality parameters, their importance and influence in terms of aquatic and ecosystem health, and the potential impacts of urban development. Solids and Turbidity Suspended solids concentrations and turbidity both indicate the amount of solids suspended in the water, whether mineral (soil particles) or organic (algae). High concentrations of particulate matter can cause increased sedimentation and siltation in a stream, which in turn can degrade/impact important habitat areas for fish and other aquatic life. Elevated levels of suspended solids can also negatively affect water quality by absorbing light, thereby warming the water. Warm water holds less dissolved oxygen than cool water. The suspended particles also provide attachment places for other pollutants, such as metals and bacteria. High suspended solids or turbidity readings thus can be used as indicators of other potential pollutants. Land use is probably the greatest factor influencing changes in TSS or turbidity in streams. Agricultural and urban land use results in an increase in disturbed areas, a decrease in vegetation, and an increase in the rate of runoff. These cause increases in erosion, particulate matter, and nutrients, which promote increased algal growth. For example, loss of vegetation due to urbanization exposes more soil to erosion, allowing more runoff to form, and simultaneously reduces the subwatershed’s ability to filter runoff before it reaches the stream. Page 210 of 369 Page 446 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 43 Nutrients Instream nutrients are essential for growth. The additional algae and other plant growth supported by nutrients may be beneficial up to a point but may easily become a nuisance or negatively impact aquatic species/habitat. The main nutrients of concern are phosphorus and nitrogen. Nutrient loading can result in increased algae growth. Excessive growth of attached algae can cause low dissolved oxygen (DO), unsightly conditions, odors, and poor habitat conditions for aquatic organisms. Pollution from urban development can impact instream nutrient concentrations in a number of ways. Municipal and industrial discharges usually contain nutrients, and overland flow from developed watersheds contains nutrients from lawn and garden fertilizers as well as the additional organic debris, which is washed from urban surfaces. Increased runoff from urban surfaces may result in increased rates of erosion, which can also be a significant source of nutrients to receiving streams, as nutrients are also naturally present in many soils in Ontario. Agricultural areas also contribute to nutrient increases through manure and fertilizing practices and increased erosion from plowed surfaces. Pathogens (Bacteria) Fecal coliform bacteria are microscopic organisms that live in the intestines of warm-blooded animals, as well as in the waste material, or feces, excreted from the intestinal tract. When fecal coliform bacteria are present in high numbers in a water sample, it means that the water has received fecal matter from one source or another. Although not necessarily agents of disease, fecal coliform bacteria may indicate the presence of disease-carrying organisms, which live in the same environment as the fecal coliform bacteria. Bacteria levels do not necessarily decrease as a subwatershed develops from rural to urban. Instead, urbanization usually generates new sources of bacteria. Farm animal manure and septic systems are replaced by domestic pets and leaking sanitary sewers. Metals Urban transportation systems (i.e. roads) are a primary source of metals in stormwater runoff to urban streams and groundwater. All cars, even the cleanest vehicles, shed small amounts of metals, fluids, and other pollutants. Cadmium, copper, cobalt, iron, nickel, lead and zinc are deposited into the environment by vehicle exhaust, brake linings, and tire and engine wear. They accumulate on road surfaces and are then washed into storm drains with the next rainfall. Galvanized metal rooftops, gutters and downspouts, and moss control products are also a source of zinc in stormwater. Some copper comes from architectural uses and treated wood, and a primary source is brake pads. The erosion of soils can also be a significant natural source of metals within stormwater runoff. Temperature Water temperature is important because it governs the kinds of aquatic life that can live in a stream. Fish, insects, zooplankton, phytoplankton, and other aquatic species all have a preferred temperature range. If temperatures get too far above or below this preferred range, the number of individual species decreases until finally there are none. Page 211 of 369 Page 447 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 44 Additional to point sources of heat pollution such as of heated municipal and industrial discharges, the process of subwatershed development also can affect temperatures in nearby streams. Streambank vegetation is lost when land is cleared, thereby exposing the stream to increased warming by sunlight. A less obvious impact is that runoff water may be warmer, especially during the summer months when it flows over hot rooftops, asphalt or concrete. Chlorides Chloride is a conservative pollutant, in that it is not degraded or removed from water by any natural process. High levels of chlorides can inhibit plant growth and impair reproduction. They also reduce the diversity of fish and other aquatic organisms in streams. Chloride is a general surrogate for development pressures, from road salting and septic systems. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Like terrestrial animals, fish and other aquatic organisms need oxygen to live. As water moves past their gills (or other breathing apparatus), microscopic bubbles of oxygen gas in the water, called dissolved oxygen (DO), are transferred from the water to their blood. In addition to being required by aquatic organisms for respiration, oxygen also is used for decomposition of organic matter and other biological and chemical processes. Unlike other water quality parameters discussed in this section, higher values of DO are typically considered indicative of good water quality. Stormwater runoff delivers oxygen-demanding substances to streams. When a subwatershed becomes developed, greater quantities of pollutants are released and the total volume of runoff increases. Most conventional pollutants (sediments, nutrients, organic matter) require oxygen for decomposition or for chemical reactions. Consequently, instream DO concentrations often decrease in a developed or developing subwatershed. A water quality parameter closely related to DO is Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). BOD5 is a measure of the dissolved oxygen required by microorganisms to oxidize or decompose the organic matter within a water sample over a five-day laboratory test. It is used as a means to describe the amount of organic matter present in the water. The higher the BOD5, the more demand on dissolved oxygen within a water system. 3.2.4.1.1 Scope and Methodology One (1) water quality monitoring station was established downstream of Beachwood Road within the Beaverdams Creek Tributary that flows through the northern end of the study area. The water quality monitoring station is shown in Figure 3-34. Page 212 of 369 Page 448 of 1679 Page 213 of 369 Page 449 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 46 Methodology The following items were used during grab sampling and field measurements: 1. Equipment/Materials: ALS sampling bottles, ice, coolers, sampling device, and sample bottles, thermometer, pH sample kit 2. Reagents and Chemicals: Preservatives (several collection bottles require an additive such as nitric acid (HNO3) to preserve the samples until they are analyzed) Sampling Methodology The sampling program covered one (1) dry weather base flow events (no precipitation within 48 hours of the sampling event) and one (1) wet-weather high flow events (rainfall events greater than 15 mm). As per standard protocols, field staff attempted to collect samples on the rising limb of the hydrograph when pollutant concentrations were greatest following the commencement of a significant storm event (typically cumulative precipitation depths greater than 15 mm). During each sample event one individual grab sample was collected at each monitoring location. Wet weather samples can be highly variable based on the magnitude and distribution of the rainfall event, number of dry days preceding the events, and the timing of the sample collection in comparison to the rising limb of the hydrograph. Grab Sample Collection Individual grab samples were collected by filling a typical sampling device and distributing sample to each of the sampling bottles to be submitted for analysis. The sampling device was filled facing an upstream directly with the sampled waterbody. Prior to sample collection, the use of the “triple rinse” technique, a standard procedure, was used to neutralize the sampling device from one monitoring station to the next. Sampling bottles were filled with sufficient volume to eliminate air bubbles or as directed by the laboratory. Field Measurements Field measurements were conducted during sampling as part of quality control procedures and included pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature and conductivity. A YSI Professional Plus was used to measure each of these parameters. The device was calibrated prior to each use in the field according to the manufacturer’s specifications to ensure accurate results. The meter probes underwent the same “triple rinse” methodology using de-ionized water, to ensure that water from previously sampled sites did not cross-contaminate samples from subsequent sites. Water Quality Monitoring Parameters Table 3.5 lists the parameters that were analyzed and the sampling procedures utilized at the time of sampling. The sampling parameters were chosen to align with the NPCA Regional Monitoring program. Page 214 of 369 Page 450 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 47 Table 3.5 Water Quality Parameters & Sampling Procedure Parameters Sampling Procedure/Type Details Physical Grab Total Suspended Solids Bacterial Grab E. coli Nutrients Grab Chloride, Nitrate, Total Phosphorus Metals Grab Copper, Lead, Zinc Temperature, pH, Conductivity, Dissolved Oxygen Field Measurement YSI Professional Plus 3.2.4.1.2 Water Quality Results The following section summarizes the water quality monitoring results. Lab reports for each sampling event can be found in Appendix C. Water quality results were compared to the following agency where applicable: • PWQO: Provincial Water Quality Objectives • CCME: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment The PWQO are numerical and narrative criteria which serve as chemical and physical indications representing a satisfactory level for surface waters of the Province. The PWQO are set at a level of water quality which is protective to all forms of aquatic life and all aspects of aquatic life cycles during indefinite exposure to the water. These objectives cover a large range of parameters including physical parameters, nutrients, metals, PAHs, and other chemicals. The CCME guidelines provide science-based goals for the quality of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Standards and guidelines from these sources were used on a select few parameters where there no PWQO was available. The CCME provides a narrative guideline for TSS: the maximum increase of TSS should be no more than 25mg/L from background concentrations. To remain consistent with the NPCA Water Quality Monitoring Program, a background TSS concentration of 10 mg/L was assumed and therefore a concentration of 35mg/L was used as the guideline. The CCME provides both a short-term and long-term guideline for Chloride. Due to the nature of the sampling program (limited grab sampling throughout the year), the short-term value was used as a guideline for Chloride in the results tables below, however any exceedances of the long-term guideline were also noted. Grab Sample Results Two (2) water quality samples were taken at the Garner West monitoring station in 2024, one wet- weather sample and one dry weather. The TSS concentration during the wet weather sample was almost 3 times greater than the guideline but fell well under the guideline during the dry weather sample. Total Phosphorus was observed to be in exceedance in both the dry weather sample and wet weather sample with the concentrations observed being approximately 2-4 times greater than Page 215 of 369 Page 451 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 48 the PWQO guideline value. E. Coli was also observed to be in exceedance during both events, with the concentration during the dry event being approximately 3 times greater than the guideline and 30 times greater during the wet weather event. Two metals (Copper and Zinc) were observed to be in exceedance during the wet weather event sampled. The exceedance in Copper was relatively small, while the observed concentration of Zinc during the event was approximately double the PWQO guideline value. Neither of the Chloride concentrations observed exceeded the short-term guideline, however the concentration observed during the dry weather event exceeded the long- term guideline. Table 3.6: FM1 Water Quality Results Parameter Units Standard/ Guideline Dry Weather Samples Wet Weather Samples 06-Sept-24 30-Oct-24 Total Suspended Solids mg/L 351 6.9 98.2 Chloride mg/L 6401 4403 51.4 Nitrate (as N) mg/L 2.91 0.125 0.645 Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.032 0.123 0.0754 Escherichia coli (E. Coli) CFU/100mL 1002 310 3000 Copper mg/L 0.0052 0.00079 0.00551 Lead mg/L 0.0052 0.000456 0.00350 Zinc mg/L 0.022 0.0044 0.0435 1CCME Guideline 2PWQO Guideline 3Chloride value exceeded the long-term CCME guideline of 120mg/L Field Measurement Summary Field measurements were conducted during sampling as part of quality control procedures and included pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO) and conductivity. Table 3.7 display the results of the field measurements taken during water quality sampling. Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations should not fall below the values specified in the PWQO guidelines for cold and warmwater biota. On average, PWQO guidelines for warm and coldwater biota range are 47% Saturation (Sat) and 54% Sat, respectively. Dissolved oxygen levels recorded during the wet weather sample were above both the coldwater and warmwater PWQO guideline, however the dissolved oxygen recorded during the dry weather sample fell below both guidelines. pH values for all stations fell within the PWQO guidelines (6.5-8.5) for both sampling events. The conductivity value recorded for the dry weather sampling event was approximately 4 times greater than the value observed during the wet weather sample. This parameter is typically influenced by dissolved salts and water temperature. It is likely that the higher conductivity is related to the higher chloride concentration that was observed during this sample. Page 216 of 369 Page 452 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 49 Table 3.7: Field Measurement Results Parameter Units Standard/ Guideline Dry Weather Samples Wet Weather Samples 06-Sept-24 30-Oct-24 Temperature °C N/a 17.7 17.4 pH N/a 6.5-8.5 7.59 7.99 Conductivity µS/cm N/a 1869 464 Dissolved Oxygen % Sat 45% (warmwater) 54% (coldwater) 34.3 72.3 3.2.4.2 Surface Water Monitoring Conclusions and Recommendations The Beaver Dams Creek Tributary sampled during this study flows across the study area from east to west, and based on site visits at various points of the study, likely experiences periods of low flow to stagnation during the summer and periods of dry weather. There is no NPCA water quality monitoring stations or background information available for the Beaver Dams Creek subwatershed where the study area lies. The closest tributary with available background information was Shriners Creek, which lies approximately 3.5km to the North-East of the Garner West study area. There is a NPCA water quality monitoring station within Shriners Creek (site ID: SH002). This Shriner’s Creek water quality station observed similar exceedances in Total Phosphorus and E.coli however, rarely saw the exceedances in metals (i.e. Copper and Zinc) that were observed within the Garner West samples. Metal exceedances observed in the Beaver Dams Creek Tributary may be associated with the upstream and adjacent landuse influences, including the golf course, as metals such as Copper and Zinc can be attributed by pesticide application. No such landuse was observed upstream of the Shriners Creek monitoring station. It should be noted that due to the lack of available background information within this Watershed, and the limited number of samples that were included within this program, it is difficult to make any substantive statements or draw any detailed conclusions about the baseline water quality conditions within this Watershed. It is recommended that a more robust water quality monitoring program be developed to inform on the baseline pre-construction conditions within the Watershed and that it be continued through the construction and post-construction phases. 3.3 Natural Heritage Natural heritage features and functions within the study area were characterized primarily from Aquafor Beech’s field investigations in 2024. Background resources (such as high-level vegetation community mapping maintained by NPCA) were reviewed and incorporated where available; however, for much of the study area, there was little existing information available, as such Aquafor relied on first-hand observation, base mapping, and aerial photographs. The results of this characterization exercise are presented in the following subsections, with Section 3.3.3 addressing Aquatic Resources and Section 3.3.4 addressing Terrestrial Resources. The potential for Species at Risk (Section 3.3.5) and Significant Wildlife Habitat (Section 3.3.6) have been discussed in separate subsections as these may encompass both aquatic and terrestrial systems. Page 217 of 369 Page 453 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 50 3.3.1 Background Information Sources A variety of sources were reviewed in an attempt to obtain background information that would provide context of the setting and sensitivity of the study area and surrounding lands. Sources that were reviewed for relevant information as part of the natural heritage characterization exercise include: • Current and historical air photos (2024, 2020, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2010, 2006, 2002, and 1934 - via Google Earth); • Region of Niagara and City of Niagara Falls Official Plans; • The Niagara Natural Areas Inventory, Volumes 1 and 2 (NPCA, 2010); • The Beaverdams and Shriners Creek Watershed Plan (NPCA, 2011); • NPCA ELC mapping layers (Dougan & Associates, North South Environmental, 2022) • The Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) ‘Make A Map’ online mapping and database of significant species and natural areas; • Provincial species atlases (Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas [OBBA], Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas [ORAA], Ontario Butterfly Atlas); and • Flora and fauna occurrence records available via the eBird and iNaturalist community science websites. 3.3.2 Ecological Field Studies Timing and Methodology The work plan for this study included three seasons of field investigations to characterize the existing conditions in the subwatershed study area and confirm existing data where applicable. As of the submission of this interim report, only the summer and fall 2024 field seasons have been completed, with additional work scheduled for spring and early summer 2025. The following sections therefore provide only the results of those investigations plus any related preliminary discussion, with the remainder to be provided in the final report. Table 3.8 summarizes the surveys conducted, provides an overview of the methodologies used, and lists the dates for the natural heritage field investigations completed by Aquafor staff as part of the Garner West SWS. Due to the large size of the study area, field investigations were scoped by necessity. This SWS acknowledges that future site-specific studies (completed as part of development applications or for other purposes) will be able to complete more detailed investigations on individual properties and that, where appropriate, the results of those detailed, site-specific investigations may amend or refine the results shown in this study report. That said, this SWS provides a comprehensive overview of the study area and considers its position and function within the larger landscape, and is expected to form the foundation upon which future site-specific studies are built. Page 218 of 369 Page 454 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 51 Table 3.8: Summary of Ecological Field Surveys Component Methodology Date(s) Completed Aquatic Ecology Aquatic Habitat (Section 3.3.3.1) Aquatic habitat was assessed using OSAP Version 10 (2017): Section 4: Module 1 (Rapid Assessment Methodology for Channel Structure) Sept. 6, 2024 Fish Communities (Section 3.3.3.2) Fish communities were sampled using OSAP Version 10 (2017): Section 3: Module 1 (Fish Community Sampling using Standard, Single Pass Electrofishing Techniques) Sept. 6, 2024 Terrestrial Ecology Vegetation Community Assessment (Section 3.3.4.1) Vegetation community surveys were completed in accordance with the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system for Southern Ontario, First Approximation (Lee, et al., 1998), although supplemental community types from the Draft 2008 Southern Ontario ELC were utilized where no applicable community type was available to accurately represent the attributes of the feature being investigated. NPCA’s existing ELC information and mapping was incorporated and updated as available and appropriate. The overall goal was to map the study area to a minimum of ecosite resolution. Aug. 15, Aug. 22, and Oct. 4, 2024 Spring assessment to be completed in 2025. Botanical Inventories (Section 3.3.4.2) Botanical inventory was conducted over three seasons (spring, summer, fall) concurrently with Ecological Land Classification surveys, using an area search methodology. Aug. 15, Aug. 22, and Oct. 4, 2024 Spring assessment to be completed in 2025. Breeding Bird Surveys (Section 3.3.4.3) Breeding birds will be surveyed over two separate early-morning site visits between the end of May and early July (i.e., within the general peak breeding season identified by the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas). Area search methodology will be used (i.e., slow walking transects within representative habitats on accessible properties and along roadsides) to obtain a fulsome list of the species present in the study area. To be completed in 2025 Page 219 of 369 Page 455 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 52 Component Methodology Date(s) Completed Migrant and Overwintering Birds (Section 3.3.4.3) A single site visit will be completed to review migratory and overwintering habitat characteristics in early spring 2025, with emphasis on species or features that might trigger Significant Wildlife Habitat criteria. To be completed in 2025 Crepuscular Birds (Section 3.3.4.3) One survey will be completed per the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Nightjar Survey Instruction Manual (2022). To be completed in 2025 Marsh Birds (Section 3.3.4.3) A single station for marsh bird survey will be completed along the rail line and watercourse south of Lundy’s Lane, as that was the only area of wetland identified in the study area. Surveys were completed concurrent with breeding bird surveys per the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas’ Marshbird Survey Instruction Manual (2023). To be completed in 2025 Amphibian (Frog and Toad) Calling Surveys (Section 3.3.4.4) Amphibian calling surveys will be conducted at the study site in accordance with the methodology of the Marsh Monitoring Program (Bird Studies Canada, 2009), i.e., three separate surveys beginning half an hour after sunset once the required minimum air temperatures have been met in April (5°C), May (10°C), and June (17°C), respectively. To be completed in 2025 Vernal Pool Review (Section 3.3.4.4) A review of woodlands will be completed following the first warm rain of spring to identify the locations of vernal pools in woodlands and complete a preliminary review for the presence of salamanders or egg masses (non-intrusive visual survey only, no collection of individuals or eggs was completed). To be completed in 2025 Bat Roosting Habitat (Section 3.3.4.5) A review of bat roosting habitat will be completed during the leaf-off period when cavities and similar features were most visible. Larger treed areas will be sampled via a plot method and extrapolated for the overall number of trees per area. To be completed in 2025 Other Wildlife (Section 3.3.4.5) Incidental observations of wildlife were recorded during all other field surveys. All dates listed 3.3.3 Aquatic Resources Aquatic resources play an important role in the natural heritage system, and both human health and ecosystem health are largely dependent on stable aquatic resources. Understanding these resources provides a better idea of overall ecosystem health and aids decision makers when Page 220 of 369 Page 456 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 53 applying the OP to the protection of both aquatic resources and the overall NHS. The following sections discuss these resources in two parts: aquatic habitat and fish communities. Aquatic ecology assessments were completed on September 6, 2024 for the Garner West Subwatershed study area. The aquatic components of the study area and photographs from Aquafor’s site visit are described in the following subsections. Four aquatic ecology monitoring sites were established within the Garner West Subwatershed study area, as demonstrated in Figure 3-35. Sites GW2, GW3, and GW4 were observed to run dry, with some flow from storm events throughout the summer. Although aquatic habitat or fish could not be sampled at these sites due the lack of flow, the tributaries should still be considered habitat despite their intermittent nature. The watercourses were well-defined and would convey sediment and food supply as well as flow during runoff events, indirectly contributing to downstream catchments. The only sampleable site within the subwatershed study area was GW1, which was located ~460 meters south of the intersection of Lundy’s Lane and Beechwood Drive in the City of Niagara Falls. GW1 was located within a tributary to Beaverdams Creek within the Beaverdams and Shriners Creek Watershed within the NPCA jurisdiction. The tributary to Beaverdams Creek flows through a golf course before reaching the sampling site, eventually flowing into Beaverdams Creek, the Welland Canal and Lake Ontario. GW1 was located in Local Management Area 1.9, as indicated within the Beaverdams & Shriners Creek Watershed plan, where land use is characterized primarily by residential with a mix of agriculture and vacant lands (Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, 2011). Natural heritage features within this management area include provincially significant wetlands (Welland Canal Turn Basins and Reservoir) and Lake Gibson, Moodie Lake and Welland Canal wetland complex. In addition, significant remnant wooded areas, numerous unevaluated wetlands and Shriners Creek Conservation Area are also located within the watershed. Page 221 of 369 Page 457 of 1679 3-35 Page 222 of 369 Page 458 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 55 3.3.3.1 Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat characteristics, as described in the following section, are major determinants for biotic composition, which is an indicator of aquatic ecosystem health. Understanding aquatic habitat can therefore determine relationships with biotic composition, providing a better understanding of subwatershed health and integrity. While aquatic habitat changes constantly, anthropogenic disturbance can impact habitat, stressing the relationship with aquatic habitat and biological/chemical indicators. The habitat characteristics investigated within the immediate study sites as well as the adjacent watercourses include: • Bank characteristics; • Stream width (wetted and bankfull); • Instream cover (e.g., woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, vegetation); • Riparian cover (vegetation composition, quality and width); and • Physical barriers to fish movement (e.g., woody or debris jams, knickpoints, etc.) 3.3.3.1.1 Methodology An aquatic habitat assessment was completed on September 6, 2024 for the Garner West Subwatershed study area, using the Rapid Assessment Methodology for Channel Structure of OSAP (Section 4: Module 1) (Stanfield, 2017). 3.3.3.1.2 Results The following section will discuss OSAP findings for the sampleable study site, GW1, with site photographs displayed in Table 3.9. The downstream extent was located ~40 m west of Beechwood Road at a crossover, while the upstream extent was located at the culvert servicing Beechwood Road. The average wetted width was ~1.0 m, while the mean depth at crossovers was ~120 mm. The maximum particle size observed throughout the site was ~110 mm, which was contributed through degraded concrete from the box culvert. Overall, flow and velocity were minimal throughout the site. The tributary crossed under Beechwood Road within a concrete box culvert, with the NF golf Club lands located directly upstream of the study area. The study site likely exhibits intermittent flow, as demonstrated by the low water levels observed at the time of surveying. The watercourse throughout the site did not provide high quality habitat opportunities for fish, as substrate majorly consisted of consolidated clay and silt. Anthropogenic cover provided habitat for fish, but only a result of the degraded concrete from the box culvert. Aquatic habitat was uniform throughout, with little variation in channel structure or instream substrate (Photo 1). Meadow vegetation along the banks provided overhanging cover for the watercourse, while established scrubland vegetation with some deciduous trees provided moderate canopy cover. Water depths throughout the site did not exceed ~150 mm. Instream vegetation such as macrophytes was only noted at a small portion of the downstream extent, as an Arrowhead species emerged from the watercourse and blanketed the banks (Photo 2). Overall, the site lacked instream cover and aquatic vegetation for fish, leaving potential communities exposed to predation. Page 223 of 369 Page 459 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 56 Fine materials such as silt overlayed consolidated clay throughout, suggesting impacts of both erosion and sedimentation from surrounding land uses. Gravel was scattered throughout in low quantities. The instream portions of the concrete box culvert demonstrated degradation, as pieces of concrete were noted downstream of the infrastructure. Banks were unstable throughout, demonstrating active erosion, cutbanks and exposed terrestrial roots. Steep and high banks were especially noted along south/left banks, where heights reached ~1 m (Photo 3). A generous forested buffer extended from the right bank (~40 m) with agriculture beyond. A narrow-forested buffer was present on the left bank, with agriculture beyond. The golf course was located immediately upstream of the study area, where the watercourse was straightened and exposed with limited riparian vegetation. Nutrient contributions from this land use likely contributes to degraded water quality within the tributary. Consolidated clay, which dominated the site, likely prevents the burrowing depth and ability of fish, while the concrete box culvert hardened the tributary (Photo 4). Overall, aquatic habitat within the tributary was poor due to the quality of substrate and instream cover for fish. Page 224 of 369 Page 460 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 57 Table 3.9: Representative Aquatic Habitat Photographs Photo 1: General Aquatic Habitat Photo 2: Riparian vegetation Photo 3: Erosion on left bank Photo 4: Concrete box culvert at U/S Page 225 of 369 Page 461 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 58 3.3.3.2 Fish Communities Fish are effective biological indicators. They occur in a wide variety of habitats which are widely studied. Ontario fishes exhibit a wide range of tolerances to many disturbances and are easy to identify to species level. The following section focuses on the fish communities found within the Garner West subwatershed study area. Within the Niagara region, fish habitat is categorized into one of three categories: Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3. Habitat is based on the sensitivity and significance of current or potential habitats in a waterbody, with Type 1 habitat representing the most sensitive habitat, and Type 3 representing marginal or highly degraded habitat that does not contribute directly to fish productivity. The study area is classified as Type 2 Habitat (important), as demonstrated in Figure 3-36, which represents less sensitive habitat than Type 1 habitat and requires a moderate level of protection. This type of habitat is considered ideal for enhancement or restoration projects and includes feeding areas for adult fish and unspecialized spawning habitat (Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, 2011). Page 226 of 369 Page 462 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 59 Figure 3-36: Fish Habitat in Beaverdams and Shriners Creek Watershed (Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, 2011) Page 227 of 369 Page 463 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 60 3.3.3.2.1 Methodology Fish sampling was conducted at GW1 (Tributary to Beaverdams Creek) on September 6, 2024 by Aquafor Beech Limited trained ecology staff (Science Collection No. AYGU-2024-FWCA-00872). Surveys were conducted according to the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP) Section 3 – Module 1: Fish Community Sampling Using Screening, Standard and Multiple Pass Electrofishing Techniques. Surveys were conducted using a Halltech HT2000 Backpack Electrofisher and involved a standard single pass sampling technique with one netter. Sites were standardized following appropriate OSAP procedure in that each reach is represented by at least 40 m between one crossover and another. OSAP field sheets are presented in Appendix D. 3.3.3.2.2 Results No fish were sampled during the electrofishing survey at GW1, which reflects the poor habitat features described in Section 3.3.3.1.2. Furthermore, Fisheries and Oceans Canada records indicate that no critical habitat for SAR have been recorded within the sampling location. However, this tributary contributed flow and resources to downstream watercourses, such as Beaverdams Creek, which is confirmed to contain fish, according to the MNRF Open Data (MNRF, 2024) and the NPCA (Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority , 2006). Due to the dry characteristics of Site GW2, GW3 and GW4, OSAP surveys could not be evaluated in a manner consistent with the other feature. However, key hydrologic features and fish habitat as key natural heritage features or key hydrologic features also vary in form and function. Fish habitat is defined under the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) and the Fisheries Act (2024) as “water frequented by fish and any other areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly to carry out their life processes, including spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply, and migration areas”” (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2023). While the dry features did not support fish at the time of assessment, these features clearly convey flow in the early season and during high runoff events, suggesting that these features provide habitat on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes at any given time of the year. 3.3.3.2.3 Fisheries Act Regulatory Review The federal Fisheries Act requires that projects avoid causing the death of fish and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat unless authorized by the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). This applies to work being conducted in or near waterbodies that support fish at any time during any given year or are connected to waterbodies that support fish at any time during any given year. As noted above, it is unsure if the study area contains fish at any time during any given year. However, the tributary is connected to Beaverdams Creek which supports fish at any time during any given year. Therefore, the Fisheries Act applies to works conducted in or near water at the site. Prior to completing any in or near water works, the design should be cross-referenced with the DFO “Projects Near Water” online service to determine if a request for regulatory review under the federal Fisheries Act is required (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2019). Based on field investigations conducted by Aquafor staff and background information, the study area is connected to downstream watercourses that contain fish at any time during any given year.. Page 228 of 369 Page 464 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 61 Should any works be proposed in the subwatershed that may result in Fisheries Act implications, it is recommended that the proponent exercise the Measures to protect fish and fish habitat listed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to avoid contravention with the federal Fisheries Act and exercise due diligence by further mitigating accidental death of fish and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2023). It is further recommended that these mitigation measures be included in the detailed designs of any in or near water works, with any and all applicable Codes of Practice (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2022) exercised where feasible. 3.3.3.2.4 In-Water Timing Windows Based on the observations discussed above and on recommendations made by the DFO’s In-water Work Timing Window Guidelines (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2013) for Ontario’s Southern Region, no in-water works should take place between March 1st and July 1st of any given year. This restriction is aimed to protect the species that are likely to occur downstream of the study area in Beaverdams Creek, and potentially in the study area, during their vulnerable life stages of spawning and rearing and should be implemented to avoid contravention to the Federal Fisheries Act, among other mitigation measures. These timing window guidelines are to be confirmed by the DFO during the Regulatory Review, if required. 3.3.4 Terrestrial Resources Terrestrial resources in the study area include the flora and fauna species that are present as well as the habitats that support them. Habitat suitability for various species, including Species at Risk (SAR), is generally determined based on the vegetation communities that are present, as there can be specific correlations between certain community types (which often develop only under certain physiographic conditions) and the species that they are able to support. The surveys and associated results described in the following sections aid in the identification and delineation of features protected under provincial and municipal natural heritage policies. 3.3.4.1 Vegetation Community Classification Vegetation community delineation and assessment focuses on identifying individual habitat features such as forests, wetlands, and meadows, and paints a picture of how these features fit together at the landscape level. Mapping of vegetation communities is an important preliminary step in the delineation of the Natural Heritage System (NHS), as it informs the interpretation of habitat patches and mosaics that may be critical to the survival of particular plants or animals in the local context. The formation of vegetation communities is highly dependent on physical site characteristics such as level of moisture, soil texture, and slope, and so the community types present may also be used to draw conclusions about physical site aspects, such as flooding potential. 3.3.4.1.1 Methodology Vegetation community assessments were conducted in 2024 on the dates listed above in Table 3.8. Spring surveys will be completed in 2025. Vegetation communities were assessed according to Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Southern Ontario (Lee, et al., 1998), a standardized Page 229 of 369 Page 465 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 62 methodology developed by the MNRF, and supplemented with community types from the Draft 2008 Southern Ontario ELC in situations where no applicable community type was available from the First Approximation to accurately represent the attributes of the feature. ELC polygons were evaluated to the community type level wherever possible, although there were sometimes missing or conflicting characteristics that necessitated the use of ecosite or series-level labels being applied instead. Although the smallest polygon size generally assessed under this methodology is 0.5 ha, Aquafor Beech Limited reviewed all distinct features on the landscape to determine their sensitivity/significance, and therefore the resulting ELC mapping produced for this report may include some polygons of less than 0.5 ha size where these were deemed appropriate to include. Soil sampling to ELC protocol standards using a hand auger was carried out in all natural (as opposed to cultural) community types to evaluated soil moisture where wetland status was in question. 3.3.4.1.2 Results Following are the preliminary results of vegetation community assessments completed in the study area during the summer and fall, 2024 study season. Additional information will be obtained in spring of 2025, and the evaluation will be finalized at that time. A total of 51 ELC polygons were defined through the field work conducted by Aquafor Beech biologists in 2024. In-situ field surveys were completed throughout most of the lands within the study area, although some locations were either inaccessible due to lack of land access granted and/or lacking in natural heritage features to be assessed, and these features were evaluated as described above. A complete list of communities and a general description of each community type will be provided in the final report. All but two of the vegetation communities (two polygons) recorded within the study area are considered common and secure; none are rare at a global or national level. Both Fresh – Moist Black Walnut Lowland Deciduous Forest (FOD7-4) and Gray Dogwood Mineral Deciduous Thicket Swamp (SWT2-9) are potentially rare at the provincial level with a classification of S3S4 indicating there is insufficient information exists to accurately assign a single rank at the provincial level, but will be treated as rare. The 51 polygons are composed of a total of 16 unique vegetation types, not including hedgerows and anthropogenic communities which are not recognized by ELC methodologies. Communities found most often within the study area include woodlands (e.g. swamps, lowland forest and cultural woodland), thickets (most often thicket swamp) and some open habitat such as marsh and meadow. Some communities also have ‘inclusions’, defined generally as areas where distinct communities are found within a larger polygon, but are too small to be individually mapped. Polygon 15, was recently cleared. The visit to this community was accompanied by landowner representative, that confirmed a watercourse was also previously present running through the site that has since been infilled. Cultural meadow and marsh vegetation is growing sporadically across cleared areas of the site, but some residual woodland remains west of the disturbance (Polygon 14). Aerial imagery and NPCA’s ELC mapping (2020) show is as a mix of deciduous forest, coniferous forest, and thicket and was cleared between May and August of 2022. During the 2023 Page 230 of 369 Page 466 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 63 field investigations, the community appeared to be recently cleared with a cultural meadow re- establishing. This feature appears as a Significant Woodland in the Region’s NHS but is not depicted in the City’s NHS mapping. In cases where the community codes in the 1998 ELC manual fell short of describing the communities present, updated codes provided by MNRF in 2008 (unpublished), were used (noted in brackets in Table 3.10). Additionally, some communities have not been field verified and are noted with asterisks. 3.3.4.1.3 Conclusions To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025. Table 3.10: Summary of Vegetation Communities Delineated by Aquafor, 2024 Code G Rank S Rank Name Polygon Numbers (Area) Deciduous Forest FOD2-1 G? S5 Dry – Fresh Oak – Red Maple Deciduous Forest 11 (1.23 ha) FOD7-1 GNR S4 S5 Fresh – Moist White Elm Lowland Deciduous Forest 8 (1.13 ha) FOD7-4 G4? S2 S3 Fresh – Moist Black Walnut Lowland Deciduous Forest 6 (0.86 ha) FOD8-1 G5 S5 Fresh – Moist Poplar Deciduous Forest 18 (0.39 ha) FOD9-2 GNR S4 Fresh – Moist Oak – Maple Deciduous Forest 14 (0.77 ha) Mixed Forest FOMM10- 2 (FOD8) -- -- Fresh - Moist White Spruce - Hardwood Mixed Forest (Fresh – Moist Poplar – White Birch Mixed Forest) 17 (1.71 ha) Deciduous Forest Swamp SWD4-2 G? S5 White Elm Mineral Deciduous Swamp 5 (0.65 ha) Thicket Swamp SWT2-9 G5 S3 S4 Gray Dogwood Mineral Deciduous Thicket Swamp 2 (0.71 ha) Marsh Communities MAM2-2 GNR S5 Reed-canary Grass Graminoid Mineral Meadow Marsh 4 (0.33 ha) MAS2-1 G? S5 Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh 7 (1.80 ha) OAO -- -- Open Aquatic 28 (0.10 ha), 29 (0.10 ha), 30 (0.06 ha), 31 (0.06 ha), 32 (0.03 ha), 33 (1.09 ha) Culturally Influenced Communities OAG -- -- Agricultural 38 (114.17 ha) CGL_1 (ANTH) -- -- Golf Course (Anthropogenic) 35 (38.41 ha) Page 231 of 369 Page 467 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 64 Code G Rank S Rank Name Polygon Numbers (Area) CVC (ANTH) -- -- Commercial and Institutional (Anthropogenic) 36 (2.25 ha) CVI_1 (ANTH) -- -- Transportation (Anthropogenic) 37 (2.50 ha) CVR_4 (ANTH) -- -- Rural Property (Anthropogenic) 34 (6.24 ha) CUM1 -- -- Mineral Cultural Meadow 10 (0.09 ha) CUM1-1 -- -- Dry - Moist Old Field Meadow 1 (0.43 ha), 12 (1.03 ha), 15 (2.30 ha), 16 (1.00 ha), 17.1 (0.46 ha), 18.1 (0.13 ha) CUT1-4 -- -- Gray Dogwood Deciduous Shrub Thicket 20 (1.12 ha) CUW1 -- -- Mineral Cultural Woodland 13 (0.30 ha) WODM4- 4 (CUW1) -- -- Dry - Fresh Black Walnut Deciduous Woodland (Mineral Cultural Woodland) 3 (0.63 ha) FOCM5 (HR) -- -- Naturalized Coniferous Hedgerow 19 (0.43 ha), 27 (0.26 ha) FODM11 (HR) -- -- Naturalized Deciduous Hedgerow 21 (1.64 ha), 22* (3.27 ha), 23* (1.53 ha) THDM3 (HR) -- -- Dry - Fresh Deciduous Hedgerow Thicket 24 (0.11 ha), 25 (0.47 ha), 26* (0.71 ha) Page 232 of 369 Page 468 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 65 Page left intentionally blank. Refer to Appendix E for interim mapping. Page 233 of 369 Page 469 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 66 3.3.4.2 Botanical Inventory Botanical inventories are a key component of terrestrial ecological investigations, as these support the classification of vegetation communities (see Section 3.3.4.1) through the identification of dominant species, wetland indicators, etc., and also identify occurrences of noteworthy plant species such as SAR or regionally significant species. 3.3.4.2.1 Methodology Botanical inventories were undertaken concurrently with vegetation community studies in the summer and fall seasons; Spring surveys are to be completed in 2025. The botanical inventory aimed to identify as many species as possible that were present within a given community (recognizing that the large study area of the SWS prohibited the completion of thorough, three- season inventories in any one community; additional inventory is likely to be required during future studies to create a comprehensive species list for a site or property). The inventory was compiled via wandering area searches, conducted by qualified biologists with botanical expertise. Regional rarity was based off of checklist of the Vascular Plants of Niagara Regional Municipality (Oldham, 2010) and List of the Vascular Plants of Ontario’s Carolinian Zone (Oldham, 2017). 3.3.4.2.2 Results Following are the preliminary results of botanical inventories completed in the study area during the summer and fall, 2024 study season. Additional information will be obtained in spring of 2025, and the evaluation will be finalized at that time. A total of 186 species of vascular plants were catalogued during the botanical inventories undertaken in the study area in 2024. Of these, 17 (9.1%) were identified to the genus level due to lack of floristic characteristics for identification at the time of survey. Of those identified to species level, 95 (51.1%) are native to Ontario and 74 (39.8%) are introduced species. An annotated list of flora recorded within the study area is contained within Appendix F; it should be understood that additional species may be added to this list following the completion of field investigations in 2025. Coefficient of Conservatism (CC) values, per the Floristic Quality Assessment System for Southern Ontario (Oldham, Bakowsky, & Sutherland, 1995), are an accepted criterion for assessing botanical quality. The majority of species inventoried have a high range of habitat tolerances, as evidenced by the high proportion of species with low CC values. However, two species were identified that have narrow habitat tolerances (i.e., with CC values ≥7). These were found in a wide variety of communities throughout the study area, but most often associated with mature forest areas. The number of native plant taxa found within each category of CC values, as categorized by Oldham, Bakowsky, & Sutherland (1995) is presented in Table 3.11. Page 234 of 369 Page 470 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 67 Table 3.11: Coefficient of Conservatism by Category Coefficient of Conservatism Categories # of Species Wide variety of sites (CC 0-3) 96 Typically associated with a specific community, but tolerate moderate disturbance (CC 4-6) 37 Associated with a plant community in an advanced successional stage (CC 7-8) 1 High degree of fidelity to a narrow range of parameters (CC 9-10) 1 The majority of the species recorded during surveys are considered to be common and secure in Ontario (S4 or S5). No species are provincially or federally rare. One species was determined to be locally rare, Hemp Dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum) found in polygon 1 and 2. Seventy-four of the species observed in the study area are introduced to Ontario. A number of these species are considered to be invasive. Of these, the most prevalent and potentially problematic species are, Common Reed (Phragmites australis spp. australis), European Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Glossy Buckthorn (Frangula alnus), Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis), Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense), Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris), Autumn Olives (Elaeagnus umbellata), Ground Ivy (Glechoma hederacea), European Privet (Ligustrum vulgare), White Sweet Clover (Melilotus albus), Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), Multiflora Rose (Rosa multiflora), Tatarian Honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica) and Purple Loosetrife (Lythrum salicaria). Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis) is prevalent in southern Ontario, and has caused severe decline of ash (Fraxinus spp.) trees throughout the study area. As ash trees continue to decline, Common Buckthorn (among other invasive species) has become more common, taking advantage of the opening canopy in previously forested and treed swamp habitats. 3.3.4.2.3 Summary and Conclusions To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025. 3.3.4.3 Birds Breeding bird surveys are a standard component of terrestrial ecological investigations since the bird species that breed in an area will reflect the type, quality, and extent of habitat that is present. Certain species of birds will only breed in particular habitat types (e.g., successional thicket, forest interior) or in a minimum habitat patch size (i.e., area-sensitive species). Breeding bird surveys are also completed to support the identification of SAR occurrences (see also Section 3.3.5) and Significant Wildlife Habitat (see also Section 3.3.6). For this assignment, Aquafor’s work plan included “standard” breeding bird surveys which include visual and auditory surveying for migrant songbirds during the nesting season, but also included specialty surveys for nightjars and marsh birds where habitat was suitable for these groups. The results of all of these surveys will be consolidated in this section of the report, once completed. Supplemental review of overwintering and migrant birds will also be completed, both for general information and in support of the assessment of potential for Significant Wildlife Habitat (see Page 235 of 369 Page 471 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 68 Section 3.3.6). Results of migrant and overwintering bird surveys will also be incorporated into the following subsections. 3.3.4.3.1 Methodology Breeding bird surveys and migrant/overwintering bird surveys will be carried out in 2025 via area search methodology (i.e., wandering transects completed over a sufficient time to allow for the identification of the majority of birds inhabiting each section of representative habitat). The primary objective of the surveys will be to identify the species present in the study area, with some emphasis on successional/open habitats and similar areas which may provide Significant Wildlife Habitat but which may not be otherwise captured under natural heritage policy definitions. Breeding bird surveys will be completed during the peak breeding season (i.e., late May through early July) over the course of two separate surveys beginning no earlier than half an hour before sunrise and ending no later than five hours after sunrise, on days with clement weather and low wind. Migrant and overwintering surveys, in comparison, will be completed using similar methods in late winter or early spring. Crepuscular bird surveys will be completed using the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas’ “Ontario Nightjar Survey Instruction Manual” (2021), which specifies surveys to occur between June 15 and July 15, beginning no earlier than 30 minutes before sunset and finishing within three hours after sunset. Surveys are required to occur on calm nights with high visibility, low wind, and little precipitation. Due to the overlap between the required conditions for these surveys and those of the third amphibian calling survey (see Section 3.3.4.4), crepuscular bird surveys are intended to be completed concurrently with the third and final amphibian calling survey in June of 2025. Marsh birds will be surveyed in keeping with the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas’ “Marshbird Survey Instruction Manual” (2023). This protocol specifies surveys are to be completed using tape playback adjacent to wetland areas, between May 24 and July 10 in the morning or evening, when there are calm conditions and good visibility. Due to the overlap between these required conditions and timing and those required for generic breeding bird surveys (as described above), the marsh bird surveys are intended to be completed concurrent with the rest of the breeding bird surveys in the study area in 2025. Background information sources (such as eBird records and the OBBA) were also reviewed with the intention of supplementing the results of the 2025 breeding bird surveys. Where those background sources did not provide precise location data for records, the resulting information was not specifically cited but was used to provide landscape context and as part of the significant species screenings completed in Sections 3.3.5 and 3.3.6. Incidental observations of birds were and will be recorded whenever encountered during all field investigations completed for this assignment. 3.3.4.3.2 Results Full results will not be available until after the completion of surveys in 2025. A list of species that were recorded incidentally through the course of Aquafor’s 2024 vegetation survey field investigations, plus any species reported from background resources, is provided in Page 236 of 369 Page 472 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 69 Table 3.12, below. All of the listed species have the potential to be locally breeding unless otherwise noted. 3.3.4.3.3 Summary and Conclusions To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025. Page 237 of 369 Page 473 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 70 Table 3.12: 2024 Incidental Bird Observations and Background Records Species Status Data Source Comments Common Name Scientific Name S-Rank Niagara (NAI 2009) American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos S5 Common resident eBird American Goldfinch Spinus tristis S5 Common resident Aquafor incidental, eBird American Robin Turdus migratorius S5 Very common resident Aquafor incidental, eBird American Tree Sparrow Spizelloides arborea S5 Common winter resident eBird Winter resident Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula S4B Common resident Aquafor incidental, eBird Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica S4B Very common resident Aquafor incidental, eBird Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus S5 Common resident Aquafor incidental, eBird Blue-headed Vireo Vireo solitarius S5B Extremely rare resident; transient spring and fall eBird Migrant Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata S5 Very common permanent resident Aquafor incidental, eBird Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater S5 Very common resident eBird Canada Goose Branta canadensis S5 Very common permanent resident Aquafor incidental, eBird Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum S5 Common resident Aquafor incidental Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina S5B, S3N Common resident eBird Common Redpoll Acanthis flammea S5 Rare winter transient eBird Winter resident Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis S5 Common winter resident eBird Winter resident Downy Woodpecker Dryobates pubescens S5 Common permanent resident Aquafor incidental, eBird European Starling Sturnus vulgaris SNA Very common permanent resident Aquafor incidental, eBird Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca S5B, S3N Rare transient eBird Migrant Page 238 of 369Page 474 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 71 Species Status Data Source Comments Common Name Scientific Name S-Rank Niagara (NAI 2009) Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis S5B, S3N Common resident Aquafor incidental Hairy Woodpecker Dryobates villosus S5 Uncommon permanent resident eBird Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris S4 Common resident eBird House Finch Haemorhous mexicanus SNA Common permanent resident eBird House Sparrow Passer domesticus SNA Very common permanent resident eBird Killdeer Charadrius vociferus S4B Common resident eBird Mallard Anas platyrhynchos S5 Common resident eBird Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis S5 Common permanent resident eBird Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus S5 Common resident Aquafor incidental Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos S4 Uncommon permanent resident iNaturalist Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus S5 Uncommon permanent resident Aquafor incidental, eBird Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis S5 Rare summer resident, uncommon winter or transient Aquafor incidental Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis S5 Common transient, uncommon resident Aquafor incidental, eBird Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus S5 Very common resident eBird Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis S5 Very common resident eBird Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia S5 Very common resident eBird Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus S5B Common resident Aquafor incidental White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys S5B, S3N Common transient, uncommon winter resident eBird Winter resident or migrant Page 239 of 369Page 475 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 72 Species Status Data Source Comments Common Name Scientific Name S-Rank Niagara (NAI 2009) White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis S5 Very common transient, uncommon winter resident Aquafor incidental Migrant Page 240 of 369Page 476 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 73 3.3.4.4 Amphibians Amphibians (frogs, toads, and salamanders) are highly sensitive to environmental stresses such as air and water pollution. Populations of many amphibian species have been in decline over recent decades, particularly in heavily populated and industrialized areas, due to anthropogenic impacts. Amphibian surveys may therefore be used as an indicator of overall ecosystem health. Locations with high numbers and/or a high diversity of breeding amphibians are considered significant habitats on the provincial level (MNRF, 2015). 3.3.4.4.1 Methodology Frog and toad species are readily identifiable during their breeding periods, when they migrate to breeding sites and give audible calls that can be identified to species (often from a great distance). Roadside survey stations for frogs and toads were chosen throughout the study area based on aerial interpretation of potentially suitable habitat characteristics. In comparison, salamanders do not make any audible calls and must be surveyed visually. For this assignment, Aquafor will take the approach of surveying for suitable breeding habitat features (i.e., woodland vernal pools) and, where found, conducting a visual inspection in and around these features in early spring for evidence of breeding adults or egg masses. Due to the sensitivity of salamanders to disturbance, staff will take care to minimize disturbance to potential habitat and will not conduct any sampling or capture of animals for this study. Calling surveys for frogs and toads will be conducted using the methods of the Marsh Monitoring Protocol (MMP) (Bird Studies Canada, 2009). Three separate calling surveys will be undertaken in April, May, and June, 2025, or when the minimum required air temperatures are met (5˚C, 10˚C, and 17˚C, respectively). Surveys will be conducted on still nights, with preference for evenings during or immediately after rain. Parameters to be recorded during each survey include date, time, air temperature, wind speed, the degree of cloud cover, and level of precipitation. At each call survey station, the intensity and number of calling amphibians will be documented using call level and abundance codes, as outlined in the MMP. Codes are as follows: Level 1: Calls are not simultaneous and calling individuals can be counted; Level 2: Some calls are simultaneous but individual calls are distinguishable and number of individuals can be estimated; and Level 3: Calls are continuous and overlapping, individuals cannot be distinguished. 3.3.4.4.2 Results Results of amphibian surveys will be provided following the completion of surveys in 2025. Aquafor incidentally observed American Toad (Anaxyrus americanus), Green Frog (Lithobates clamitans), and Northern Leopard Frog (Lithobates pipiens) in the study area during the course of vegetation surveys in 2024. Background information from the iNaturalist.org website also confirms the presence of American Toad on the Niagara Falls Golf Club property. Page 241 of 369 Page 477 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 74 3.3.4.4.3 Summary and Conclusions To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025. 3.3.4.5 Bat Habitat Bats and bat habitat have become topics of increasing importance in recent years, triggered in part by the designation of four Ontario species as Endangered due to the spread of a fungal pathogen known as White-nose Syndrome which caused significant mortality in overwintering colonies. The presence of summer and maternity roosting habitat for bats in woodlands can influence the determination of significance and associated setbacks for such features. 3.3.4.5.1 Methodology Aquafor will utilize the MECP’s 2022 guidelines for Maternity Roost Surveys, supplemented by the older 2017 Guelph District MNRF “Survey Protocol for Species at Risk Bats within Treed Habitats, Little Brown Myotis, Northern Myotis & Tri-Colored Bat”, to review potential habitats in the study area. Acknowledging the overall scale of the SWS and to keep the task manageable within the project scope and timeline, a plot-based approach will be used for wooded areas whereby potential habitat trees (e.g., snags) within a fixed plot will be tallied and characterized, and that value will be extrapolated to provide an estimate of habitat density for the entire woodland. Features with a high density of snags (greater or equal to ten per hectare) are considered high quality potential maternity roost habitat and could therefore be recommended for a higher level of protection from adjacent disturbance. 3.3.4.5.2 Results To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025. 3.3.4.5.3 Summary and Conclusions To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025. 3.3.4.6 Other Observations Targeted surveys for mammals, reptiles, and insects were not included in the scope of this study, although incidental observations of these and other taxa were and will be recorded during all terrestrial and aquatic ecology field surveys in order to make the characterization of the study area as comprehensive as possible. Incidental bird and amphibian observations to date have been incorporated into their respective sections, above. Other wildlife groups and organisms are discussed below. 3.3.4.6.1 Methodology Occurrences of wildlife or other organisms which were not actively surveyed (e.g., fungi) were identified by Aquafor staff in the field or via photographic reference. Verifiable background records of species submitted to the community science website iNaturalist were also the discussion below, with data source cited. Page 242 of 369 Page 478 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 75 3.3.4.6.2 Results Two mammals (Table 3.13), one reptile (Table 3.14) and nine invertebrates (Table 3.15) were positively identified by Aquafor Beech staff during the summer and fall 2024 field surveys. These results will be built upon in the 2025 field season. Most of the noted species are considered common both provincially and regionally with the exception of Monarch which is a Species at Risk (Special Concern provincially and Endangered federally) and the White-banded Crab Spider which is provincially rare (ranked S2S3) but is not regulated under any SAR legislation. Table 3.13: Mammal Species List Species Status Data Source Common Name Scientific Name Eastern Cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus S5 Aquafor Eastern Grey Squirrel Sciurus carolinensis S5 Aquafor Table 3.14: Reptile Species List Species Status Data Source Common Name Scientific Name Midland Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta marginata S4, SC (SARA) Aquafor (ponds on golf course) Table 3.15: Invertebrate Species List Species Status Data Source Common Name Scientific Name Butterflies and Moths Cabbage White Pieris rapae SNA Aquafor Least Skipper Ancyloxypha numitor S5 Aquafor Monarch Danaus plexippus SC, S4B Aquafor Orange Sulphur Colias eurytheme S5 Aquafor Yellow-collared Scape Moth Cisseps fulvicollis S5 Aquafor Dragonflies and Damselflies Black Saddlebags Tramea lacerata S5 Aquafor Common Green Darner Anax junius S5 Aquafor Eastern Forktail Ischnura verticalis S5 Aquafor Other Arthropods White-banded Crab Spider Misumenoides formosipes S2S3 Aquafor 3.3.4.6.3 Summary and Conclusions To be provided following the completion of surveys in 2025. Page 243 of 369 Page 479 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 76 3.3.5 Species at Risk For the purpose of this study, Species at Risk (SAR) are defined as species listed as Endangered (END), Threatened (THR), or Special Concern (SC) under the provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA) and/or the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA). Species listed provincially as Endangered and Threatened receive regulatory protection for themselves and their general or specific habitat under the ESA. The habitat of Special Concern species does not receive regulatory protection under the ESA but may be considered significant wildlife habitat (SWH) and thus be protected under municipal policy and the PPS (see Section 3.3.6 for further discussion). 3.3.5.1 Methodology In addition to the results of field surveys conducted for this study, background information sources were consulted to determine if there were existing records of SAR in or near the study area. Information from all background sources was combined to create a comprehensive list of potential SAR associations which was then screened by comparing the habitat needs of each species with the habitat conditions present within the subject property and adjacent lands. Species without any suitable habitat conditions present in the area may be screened out of further review. Species for which potentially suitable habitat conditions are present may be flagged for protection or further studies (e.g., targeted field investigations) as appropriate. 3.3.5.2 Results The results of Aquafor’s preliminary Species at Risk (SAR) screening are provided below in Table 3.16, along with any commentary resulting from the summer and fall site visits in 2024 and associated analysis. The full results of SAR screening and assessment will be provided once the additional field investigations are completed in 2025. Page 244 of 369 Page 480 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 77 Table 3.16: Preliminary Species at Risk Screening Results Species Status Comments Common Name Scientific Name Birds Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens Endangered Pending further evaluation. Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Threatened To be screened out - study area lacks steep eroding stream banks and similar topographic features which would support nesting by this species. Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Special Concern Observed by Aquafor in study area, though only in association with potential foraging habitat. Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Threatened Pending further evaluation. Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Threatened Pending further evaluation. Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Special Concern Pending further evaluation. Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna Threatened Pending further evaluation. Eastern Wood-pewee Contopus virens Special Concern Pending further evaluation. Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Special Concern Pending further evaluation. Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Threatened To be screened out - required habitat (i.e., large patches of open cattail marsh) are absent in the study area. Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus Endangered To be screened out - native habitat range is restricted to the extreme southwest of the province, with occurrences in the Niagara area resulting from escaped captive birds. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Special Concern To be screened out - potential for migration flyovers but the study area lacks tall cliffs and buildings for nesting habitat. Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Endangered Pending further evaluation. Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Special Concern (Ont.), Threatened (Can.) Pending further evaluation. Page 245 of 369Page 481 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 78 Species Status Comments Common Name Scientific Name Reptiles and Amphibians Allegheny Mountain Dusky Salamander Desmognathus ochrophaeus Endangered To be screened out - species is known to only occur in two streams within the Niagara Gorge which are not physically or hydrologically connected to the current study area. Eastern Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum Special Concern (Can. only) Habitat potential is expected to be present in the study area. Five-lined Skink Plestiodon fasciatus Endangered Pending further evaluation. Midland Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta marginata Special Concern (Can. only) Confirmed to be present within golf course ponds by Aquafor staff. Northern Dusky Salamander Desmognathus fuscus Endangered To be screened out - species is known to only occur in one location within the Niagara Gorge which is not physically or hydrologically connected to the current study area. Northern Map Turtle Graptemys geographica Special Concern Pending further evaluation. Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina Special Concern Pending further evaluation. Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus Extirpated To be screened out - this species is known to be extirpated in Ontario. Mammals Eastern Red Bat Lasiurus borealis Endangered (COSEWIC only) Pending further evaluation. Eastern Small-footed Myotis Myotis leibii Endangered Pending further evaluation. Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Endangered (COSEWIC only) Pending further evaluation. Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus Endangered Pending further evaluation. Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis Endangered Pending further evaluation. Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Endangered (COSEWIC only) Pending further evaluation. Page 246 of 369Page 482 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 79 Species Status Comments Common Name Scientific Name Tri-colored Bat Perimyotis subflavus Endangered Pending further evaluation. Invertebrates Monarch Danaus plexippus Special Concern (Ont.), Endangered (Can.) Observed in the study area by Aquafor staff. Mottled Duskywing Erynnis martialis Endangered To be screened out - local records from the Ontario Butterfly Atlas are >100 years old and preliminary site investigations did not identify preferred habitat types (i.e., dry, sparsely vegetated areas with its required larval host plants) Plants Black Ash Fraxinus nigra Endangered (Ont.), Threatened (COSEWIC) Pending further evaluation. Butternut Juglans cinerea Endangered Pending further evaluation. Deerberry Vaccinium stamineum Threatened Pending further evaluation. Round-leaved Greenbriar Smilax rotundifolia Threatened Confirmed records exist for this species immediately adjacent to the study area, and habitat potential therefore exists within the study area. Page 247 of 369Page 483 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 80 3.3.5.3 Summary and Conclusions To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025. 3.3.6 Significant Wildlife Habitat Wildlife habitat is considered to be significant when it is “ecologically important in terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity” of wildlife habitat for a geographic area or portion of the natural heritage system (MMAH, 2024). Specifically, when habitat provides features and functions critical to the survival of an individual, species, or group, it may be considered Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH); for example, specialized vegetation communities, nest/den sites, overwintering sites, and migratory stopovers with particular characteristics may be limited on the landscape and/or provide habitat function during key life stages of the organism, and would therefore be considered significant. 3.3.6.1 Methodology The Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 7E (MNRF, 2015) and the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNRF, 2000) will be used to evaluate the presence of Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) within the study area, based on the available data from background sources and the on-site observations described in the preceding sections. 3.3.6.2 Results To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025. 3.3.6.3 Summary and Conclusions To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025. Page 248 of 369 Page 484 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 81 4 Opportunities and Constraints The term constraints is used here to indicate features or areas which will be subject to some limitation regarding future development (this includes natural heritage features which will be protected as part of the City’s NHS and natural hazard policy as outlined in the Official Plan). Opportunities for restoration and enhancement of existing natural heritage resources were identified based on the results of site investigations and a landscape-level review. It is recognized, however, that the opportunities identified do not represent the only opportunities for improvement that exist within the study area, and that future site-specific studies may refine or revise the noted locations with support from a suitable impact assessment or similar study. 4.1 Natural Hazards The City of Niagara Falls Official Plan (January 2024) outlines policies for Hazard Lands in Part 2, Sections 11.2.18 through 11.2.21. These are presented as reference below: 11.2.18 Natural hazard lands, including floodplains and erosion hazards, are included within the EPA designation because of their inherent risks to life and property. Natural hazard lands where identified by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority or any study required under this Plan, shall be placed within an appropriate zoning category in the City's Zoning By-law. Development and site alteration may be permitted within or adjacent to floodplains or erosion hazards subject to written approval from the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. 11.2.19 Floodplains in the City are based on 100 year floodline mapping have been prepared for most waterways in the City. However a Regional Floodline shall apply to Beaverdams Creek, Shriner's Creek, Ten Mile Creek and Tributary W-6-5. 11.2.20 Where, as a result of a planning application, new Floodline or stream corridor mapping has been generated to the approval of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, amendments to this Plan may not be required. However, where the planning application involves a site specific Zoning Bylaw amendment, it shall be amended accordingly. 11.2.21 A geotechnical investigation may be required for development close or within areas susceptible to erosion. The geotechnical investigation shall evaluate the impact of the proposed development on slope stability on site and off site and shall provide recommendations on how negative impact can be avoided and slope stability improved. Along with the policy in the City’s Official Plan, relevant natural hazards policy includes the Conservation Authorities Act. Until revoked in April 2024, Ontario Regulation 155/06 Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses (O. Reg. 155/06) was administered and enforced by NPCA. Since April 1, 2024, Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits have been regulated under O.Reg. 41/24. NPCA’s regulated areas comprise the following: Page 249 of 369 Page 485 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 82 a) Lands adjacent to or close to the shoreline of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System that may be affected by flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches; b) River or stream valleys; c) hazardous lands; d) watercourses; and e) wetlands. Though O. Reg. 41/24 is administered at the development approval-level as opposed to the planning-level, it is prudent to consider these restrictions at present to avoid additional effort at a later time. 4.1.1 NPCA Flood Hazards Figure 4-6 in the Hydrology and Hydraulics section of this report identifies mapped flood hazard within the Garner West Subwatershed Study Area. O.Reg. 41/24 limits the amount of potential development in floodplains within the jurisdiction of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA). In most cases, NPCA defines the regulatory storm as the 100-year storm event. Three watercourses in the NPCA’s jurisdiction use the Regional Flood to determine the floodplain, these being Shriner’s Creek, Ten Mile Creek and Beaverdams Creek. In most cases, the NPCA implements a one-zone floodplain concept, where the entire floodplain defines the floodway and where new development in the floodplain are prohibited or restricted as illustrated in the Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1: One Zone Floodplain Concept, MNR - River & Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit, 2002. Page 250 of 369 Page 486 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 83 4.1.2 Erosion and Migration Rates The erosion and migration rate assessment consist of vertical degradation and lateral migration erosion assessments, particularly of grade control structures or of erosion of engineered banks, respectively. Within the study area, no grade control features were observed within the reach, hence a vertical degradation assessment has not been conducted. Lateral migration and toe erosion analysis of the channel banks is presented below based on Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF, 2001) guidelines. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF, 2001) offers provincial guidelines for appropriate erosion hazard limits. As shown in Table 4.1, where the bank composition consists of cohesive soil, loose granular, or silty and sandy fill, the applicable erosion limit ranges between 8 to 15 meters depending on the observed conditions throughout the study area. The erosion hazard limit would factor in the site conditions including the RGA score assessed in the field investigation. Based on the noted bank composition of the sandy silty clay material, the toe erosion hazard limit over 100 years for Reach BdCtb1 is 13 meters as the site conditions and the RGA score indicated some evidence of aggradation and planimetric form adjustment. The maximum toe erosion hazard limit of 15 meters, however, is not applied in this case due to the presence of some clay within the banks. Page 251 of 369 Page 487 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 84 Table 4.1: Erosion Hazard Limits by Bank Material (MNRF, 2001) Type of Material Native Soil Structure Evidence of Active Erosion ** OR Bankfull Flow Velocity> Competent Flow Velocity *** No evidence of Active Erosion** OR Bankfull Flow Velocity < Competent Flow Velocity*** RANGE OF SUGGESTED TOE EROSION ALLOWANCES Bankfull Width < 5m 5-30m > 30m 1. Hard Rock (granite) * 0 - 2 m 0 m 0 m 1 m 2. Soft Rock (shale, limestone) Cobbles, Boulders * 2 - 5 m 0 m 1 m 2 m 3. Stiff/Hard Cohesive Soil (clays, clay silt), Coarse Granular (gravels) Tills* 5 - 8 m 1 m 2 m 4 m 4. Soft/Firm Cohesive Soil, loose granular, (sand, silt) Fill* 8 - 15 m 1-2 m 5 m 7 m *Where a combination of different native soil structures occurs, the greater or largest range of applicable toe erosion allowances for the materials found at the site should be applied. **Active Erosion is defined as: bank material is exposed directly to stream flow under normal or flood flow conditions where undercutting, oversteepening, slumping of a bank or down stream sediment loading is occurring. An area may have erosion but there may not be evidence of ‘active erosion’ either as a result of well rooted vegetation or as a result of a condition of net sediment deposition. The area may still suffer erosion at some point in the future as a result of shifting of the channel. The toe erosion allowances presented in the right half of Table 3 are suggested for sites with this condition. ***Competent Flow Velocity is the flow velocity that the bed material in the stream can support without resulting in erosion or scour. Page 252 of 369 Page 488 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 85 4.1.2.1 Erosion Hazard Limits A detailed erosion hazard assessment consisting of a Meander Belt Assessment would be applicable for Reach BdCtb1 as it consists of an unconfined section of the Beaverdams Creek Tributary, and should be done as part of the future studies. An Erosion Hazard Assessment of the Garner West Study Area was not included in the scope of this study. The erosion hazard limit for unconfined systems (MNRF (2001)) consists of a meander belt allowance and Erosion Access Allowance as seen below in Figure 4-2. Erosion Access Allowance (EAA) is applicable to all erosion hazards and differs by conservation authority or regulatory agency. Provincial minimum EAA suggests that at least 6 m is required to offset all hazards associated with fluvial and valley erosion limits however, the NPCA policy states that a minimum setback of 7.5 meters from the NPCA approved physical top of slope or the location of the Stable Top of Slope (whichever is furthest landward) shall be required. Three main principles support the inclusion of the erosion access allowance include: • providing for emergency access to erosion prone areas; • providing for construction access for regular maintenance and access to the site in the event of an erosion event or failure of a structure; and • providing protection against unforeseen or predicted external conditions which could have an adverse effect on the natural conditions or processes acting on or within an erosion prone area of provincial interest. As such, the erosion hazard limit should incorporate a 7.5 m Erosion Access Allowance which would be applied to both sides of the watercourse. Figure 4-2: Erosion hazard limit for an unconfined system (MNRF, 2001) Page 253 of 369 Page 489 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 86 4.1.3 In-Stream Geomorphic Restoration Opportunities Within the Garner West Study Area, the completed geomorphic assessment identified three (3) opportunities to address at-risk infrastructure, mitigate upstream flooding potential and restore a natural channel. Reach BdCtb1 is assessed to be in transition and will continue to widen until it reached geomorphic stability. Within this reach is an outflanked road box culvert that appears to be undersized relative to the width of the channel, a detached concrete culvert within the golf course, and a submerged outfall upstream of the golf course which is connected through a 1050 mm diameter storm sewer pipe, receiving flows from SWMP 2 to the east of Garner Road. Stormwater management infrastructure that may be needed as a result of future development may wish to consider the following strategies in order to maintain the geomorphic stability of the watercourse by considering the following: • Local bank protection works near the downstream road culvert; • Confirming the appropriate span and freeboad of the downstream structure; • Daylighting the channel throughout the golf course and providing open bottom culverts for any proposed road crossings; • Reinstating a meandering planform to Reach BdCtb1; • Reinstating a pool and riffle morphology to Reach BdCtb1 • Maintain adequate riparian corridors and removal of any future invasive species within riparian corridors. 4.2 Natural Heritage The natural heritage component of the Garner West Subwatershed Study utilizes the characterization data detailed in this report and the criteria of the City of Niagara Falls and Niagara Region to identify areas or features that should be considered part of the Natural Heritage System (NHS). The following sections provide details of the analysis that was completed to determine the natural heritage constraints and opportunities within the study area, as well as considerations regarding buffers, linkages, and ecological restoration. 4.2.1 Natural Heritage System 4.2.1.1 Niagara Region The Niagara Official Plan (OP) (2022) states that “the natural heritage system is made up of features such as wetlands, woodlands, valleylands, and wildlife habitat, as well as components such as linkages, buffers, supporting features and areas, and enhancement areas. The intent of the natural heritage system is to preserve and enhance the biodiversity, connectivity, and long-term ecological function of the natural systems in the region”. The NHS, in combination with the Water Resource System, forms the Region’s Natural Environment System. Page 254 of 369 Page 490 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 87 The features and areas included in the Region’s NHS, per Schedule L of the OP, include the following: • Significant wetlands, significant coastal wetlands, and other wetlands; • Fish habitat; • Significant woodlands and other woodlands; • Significant valleylands; • Habitat of endangered species and threatened species; • Significant wildlife habitat; and • Significant areas of natural and scientific interest. Further definitions and criteria for the noted features and areas are summarized in Appendix F. 4.2.1.2 City of Niagara Falls The City’s NHS, as described in the OP (2024 consolidation), includes the Environmental Protection Area (EPA) and Environmental Conservation Area (ECA) designations, plus applicable buffers and linkages. The OP’s aim is to “protect, maintain, and enhance the important ecological and environmental features within the City”, and to this end the OP specifies the following features as being included in the NHS designations: Environmental Protection Area: • Provincially Significant Wetlands • NPCA-regulated wetlands > 2 ha in size • Provincially Significant Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) • Significant habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species • Floodways and erosion hazard areas • Environmentally Sensitive Areas Environmental Conservation Area: • Significant woodlands • Significant valleylands • Significant wildlife habitat • Fish habitat • Significant Life and Earth Science ANSIs • Sensitive ground water areas • Locally significant wetlands or NPCA-regulated wetlands < 2 ha in size Policies pertaining to these areas are provided in section 11.2 of the City’s OP. Generally, new development and site alteration is not permitted in the EPA designation save for approved uses such as passive recreation and environmental conservation or management. Similar restrictions apply to the ECA designation with allowance for additional uses pending the completion of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) or similar assessment to demonstrate that there will be no adverse impact to natural heritage features and their ecological functions. Page 255 of 369 Page 491 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 88 The criteria used for defining the EPA and ECA features above are provided and discussed in terms of their applicability to the study area in Table 4.2, below. It is noted that the City initiated the preparation of a new OP in 2024. As this document is not yet available, the existing OP will be used by this SWS in the review and evaluation of natural heritage features. Should there be changes in how the NHS is defined or approached in the new OP, future studies will need to evaluate natural heritage features in accordance with the new OP. Page 256 of 369 Page 492 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 89 Table 4.2: City of Niagara Falls NHS Components and Defining Criteria Feature Definition/Criteria Application Notes Environmental Protection Area Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) Defined via provincial mapping or through the application of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) protocol. No PSWs are present within the study area. However, a portion of the provincially significant Warren Creek Wetland Complex is present just east of the study area on the far side of Garner Road, and this may have implications for the study area in terms of the associated buffer (see Section 4.2.2). NPCA-regulated wetlands > 2 ha in size As of the enaction of O. Reg. 41/24, all wetlands are regulated by NPCA regardless of their size. Therefore, this category would include all wetlands over 2 ha in size that are not classified as PSW. Polygons 2, 4, 5, and parts of 7 form a wetland patch of approximately 2.28 ha, which is part of the Beaverdams Creek Wetland Complex and evaluated as having “other” significance. Provincially Significant Life Science ANSIs Defined and classified by the MNRF. There are no identified ANSIs in the study area. Significant habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species The habitat, as approved by the province, that is necessary for the maintenance, survival, and/or recovery of naturally-occurring or reintroduced populations of species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Endangered and Threatened species to be evaluated for the study area following the completion of field investigations in 2025. Protected habitat is to be approved by the province prior to inclusion in the NHS, therefore this category will be kept separate from other Environmental Protection Area features. Floodways and erosion hazard areas Identified by NPCA or through applicable study. This has been depicted using NPCA’s Regulated Floodplain extent. Environmentally Sensitive Areas Identified for the region by prior studies. No ESAs were identified in the study area, and therefore this category was not applied. Environmental Conservation Area Page 257 of 369Page 493 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 90 Feature Definition/Criteria Application Notes Significant woodlands Treed areas identified by the City, Region or province as contributing to the health of the environment based on their provision of wildlife habitat, species diversity, hydrological value and identified significant species. Publicly-owned woodlands are also considered significant since they provide an excellent opportunity for the protection of the wooded area and its natural function. Provincial (i.e., size > 4 ha) and regional (per Section 4.2.1.1) criteria were applied to determine woodland significance. No woodland patches are over 4 ha within the study area. City of Niagara Falls OP maps polygon 11 and polygon 15 as Significant Woodlands. Polygon 15 likely no longer meets the criteria has significant site alterations have occurred. Polygon 5, 6, 8, 11, and 14 are considered regionally significant woodlands. Polygon 11 is a provincially significant community type (S3S4) and likely meets the significant woodland classification. The remaining polygons are all connected forming a larger woodland patch of approximately 3.4 ha. Significant valleylands Valleylands are identified through NPCA mapping; significance of valleylands to be identified per PPS and approved studies such as EIS. NPCA provided a Top of Slope mapping layer but no features are present within the study area. Significant wildlife habitat Defined using the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNRF, 2000) and Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 7E (MNRF, 2015). SWH was assessed by this study per provincial criteria as detailed in Section 3.3.6. Fish habitat The spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes, as identified by relevant agencies or through applicable study. Confirmed fish habitat includes all streams, creeks, and rivers. Potential Headwater Drainage Features represent potential fish habitat that require further study (Figure 3-35). Significant Life and Earth Science ANSIs Defined and classified by the MNRF. There are no identified ANSIs in the study area. Sensitive ground water areas NPCA delineated Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas. No sensitive ground water areas are present within the study area. Page 258 of 369Page 494 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 91 Feature Definition/Criteria Application Notes Locally significant wetlands and NPCA- regulated wetlands < 2 ha in size As of the enaction of O. Reg. 41/24, all wetlands are regulated by NPCA regardless of their size. Therefore, this category would include all identified wetlands less than 2 ha in size that are not identified as a PSW. An additional portion of Beaverdams Creek Wetland Complex, which was evaluated as having “other” significance, polygon 7 patches east of polygon 1 and surrounded by polygon 6 are approximately 0.39 ha and 0.11 ha respectively. Additionally, polygon 7 patches along Beaverdams Creek total to 0.5 ha. Page 259 of 369Page 495 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 92 4.2.1.3 Garner West Subwatershed Study Recommendations Features which meet the criteria for inclusion in the NHS will be identified and mapped as part of the final Phase 1 report submission. As data collection for the study area is not yet complete, mapping has not yet been prepared as it would not accurately reflect the site conditions. 4.2.2 Buffers 4.2.2.1 Niagara Region Requirements The study area for this assignment falls within a Settlement Area as defined in the Region’s OP. Within Settlement Areas, the OP states that mandatory buffers from natural heritage features and areas are required. A mandatory buffer is described as a requirement for a buffer for which a minimum width has not been specified in policy as it is to be determined through the completion of an EIS, hydrological evaluation, or subwatershed study. Development and site alteration is not permitted within the mandatory buffer, except as specified in the OP or as supported through the completion of an EIS which demonstrates no negative impact on the buffer’s function. 4.2.2.2 City of Niagara Falls Requirements The City’s OP defines a buffer as “a naturally vegetated protective zone adjacent to a natural heritage feature or area serving to cushion and protect it from the impacts of human activities”. The OP further indicates that minimum vegetated buffers are to be applied to the Natural Heritage System including PSWs and NPCA wetlands > 2 ha (suggested minimum 30 m, with the note that exact specifications may be greater or less than 30 m depending on the results of an Environmental Impact Study). The City’s OP further notes that new development or site alteration within the vegetated buffers is not to be permitted. 4.2.2.3 NPCA Requirements NPCA policies for planning and development (2022, amended April 2024) indicate that where development is proposed adjacent to a wetland, a minimum 30 m buffer shall be provided. All wetlands, regardless of size, are regulated by NPCA, and for any future works within the study area that require site-specific study near or within a wetland, the NPCA staff reserve the right to review wetlands on a case-by-case basis. A reduction in buffer may be allowed if supported by an EIS, but only for non-provincially significant wetlands. For development or site alteration adjacent to a watercourse, the following requirements are specified: • A 30 m buffer shall be provided where the watercourse contains permanent flow. Notwithstanding this requirement, the buffer may be reduced where supported by an EIS in accordance with the NPCA Procedural Manual, but in no case shall the buffer be reduced below 15 m. • A 15 m buffer shall be provided for watercourses containing intermittent flow. Notwithstanding this requirement, the buffer may be reduced where supported by an EIS in accordance with the NPCA Procedural Manual. Page 260 of 369 Page 496 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 93 NPCA defines a buffer as “an area or band of permanent natural self-sustaining vegetation, located adjacent to a regulated feature and area and usually bordering lands that are subject to development or site alteration”. 4.2.2.4 Garner West Subwatershed Study Recommendations Ultimately, the width of a buffer should be informed by the sensitivity of the feature around which it is established, and therefore a blanket approach to buffers is not typically recommended. Instead, individual buffers may be recommended related to specific features or areas based on the ecological features and functions that are present. In keeping with the requirements noted above, it is recommended that a minimum default buffer of 30 m be applied as a starting point around all components of the NHS, and that future site- specific EIS should discuss the applicability of an increased or reduced buffer from that point. Features or areas for which a reduced buffer is proposed should demonstrate that they are of low sensitivity to disturbance overall or that the proposed adjacent land use will be sufficiently low- impact that harmful effects will be negligible. The minimum 30 m buffer will be applied to the NHS features identified in Section 4.2.1. 4.2.3 Linkages 4.2.3.1 Niagara Region Requirements Niagara Region’s OP defines a Linkage as “an area, that may or may not be associated with the presence of existing natural features and areas, that provides and maintains ecological connectivity between core areas consisting of natural features and areas, and supports a range of community and ecosystem processes enabling plants and animals to move among natural heritage features, in some cases over multiple generations, thereby supporting the long-term sustainability of the overall natural environment system”. Schedule L of the Region’s OP indicates that: “Known linkages have been identified between natural heritage features and areas and key natural heritage features consisting of natural areas (e.g., watercourses, valleylands, meadow, thicket, woodland, wetland, and hedgerows, etc.) or rural/agricultural lands without major barriers (i.e., developed areas or major roads greater than 30 m in width) based on the following set of criteria: a. large linkages (outside settlement areas and outside of the Provincial Natural Heritage System) that are: i. 200-400 m in width; and ii. connect core areas (i.e., a group of natural features and areas within 30 m of each other) with a combined area of ≥50 hectares in size; b. medium linkages (outside of settlement areas and outside of the Provincial Natural Heritage System) that are: i. 100-200 m in width; and Page 261 of 369 Page 497 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 94 ii. connect core areas (i.e., a group of natural features and areas within 30 m of each other) with a combined area of ≥20 hectares in size; c. small linkages, both inside and outside of settlement areas and outside of the Provincial Natural Heritage System) that are: i. 60-100 m in width; and ii. connect core areas (i.e., a group of natural features and areas within 30 m of each other) with a combined area of ≥10 hectares in size. The need to address opportunities for additional, ecologically appropriate linkages is flagged for when a subwatershed study is being completed in support of a secondary plan. The current Regional Natural Environment System mapping does not indicate the presence of linkages in the study area. 4.2.3.2 City of Niagara Falls Requirements Policy 11.1.23 of the City’s OP states: “Linkages and natural corridors that provide a connection between natural heritage features can include valleylands, contiguous woodlands and wetlands, creeks, hedgerows, and service corridors. The City shall promote the function of valleylands or stream corridors as natural resource linkages and encourages the protection, naturalization and, wherever possible, the rehabilitation of valleylands or stream corridors in accordance with Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority Regulations. New development should not interfere with the function of these linkages and corridors and all efforts should be made through design for the enhancement or rehabilitation of natural heritage resource connections.” Policy 11.1.25 further states: “Development or site alteration in or near a natural heritage feature should be designed to maintain and, where possible, enhance the ecological functions of existing linkages. If necessary, an alternative corridor may be created through the development process that will function as an ecological link between all natural heritage features in the area (water, wildlife, flora). Alternative corridors must be supported by an EIS that is reviewed by the appropriate authorities and approved by the City or Region.” Conceptual corridors and linkages have been illustrated in the OP with the intention that refinement or adjustment of the indicated locations will occur through the completion of watershed plans, EIS(s), or other studies. City of Niagara Falls does not highlight any linkages within the study area. But several hedgerows span across the study area providing small scale linkages between naturalized features. 4.2.3.3 Garner West Subwatershed Study Recommendations Although no linkages are defined, hedgerows and linear polygons likely act as small-scale linkages throughout the study area. Any future development should consider these local linkages and Page 262 of 369 Page 498 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 95 protect or replicate their function to ensure that connectivity throughout the study area is maintained. 4.2.4 Natural Heritage Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities Environment Canada’s “How Much Habitat Is Enough?” document (2013) provides a general recommendation of 30% woodland cover and 10% wetland cover per subwatershed as a broad- scale goal to maintain ecosystem health. These values are not intended to be prescriptive but are provided as a threshold below which remnant natural areas may not be sustainable in the long- term with regards to ecological function. Currently, study area is primarily agricultural with some successional communities including thickets, hedgerows, and meadows as well as some swamp and wetland communities. Swamp includes both treed swamps and swamp thickets. Therefore, the study area has approximately 2.6 % wetland coverage (swamp and wetland) and between 3.7% (upland forest and woodlands only) and 4.4% (inclusive of treed swamps) wooded coverage. Figure 4-3: Land Cover Ratio using Preliminary ELC (2024) 4.2.4.1 General Principles Restoration opportunities with the potential for improving the existing NHS should be considered in keeping with the following principles: Anthropogenic86% Successional 8% Swamp1%Wetland2% Woodland 3% Page 263 of 369 Page 499 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 96 • Size: Larger patches of habitat are generally more valuable than smaller. Opportunities to increase the size of existing patches of natural cover (e.g., by designating open space or establishing parks adjacent to existing natural areas) should therefore be considered. • Shape: Habitat patches which are compact (i.e., those which have less ‘edge’ per area) are generally more valuable than those which are linear or elongated. Edges are often associated with effects such as greater establishment of introduced and invasive plant species, increased rates of predation, increased noise disturbance, and changes to microclimate. Opportunities to fill in gaps and reduce the edge to interior ratio of natural heritage patches should therefore be considered. • Complexity: Natural areas with a high diversity of vegetation communities, microhabitats, and topographical features often support a wider variety of species (and a greater proportion of rare species) than those which are more uniform. Opportunities to increase the diversity of habitat across the landscape (e.g., by planting restoration areas with a variety of native species, by creating sloughs or pit/mound topography in restoration areas, or by conserving successional meadows and thickets in addition to forests) should therefore be considered. • Connectivity: Fragmentation of natural areas by development can lead to the isolation of habitat patches and the wildlife they support, limiting dispersal of individuals and reducing genetic variability within the population. Opportunities to maintain and improve existing connections between natural areas (e.g., by completing riparian planting along ephemeral watercourses and HDFs, or by widening and enhancing canopy cover along hedgerows) and to create new connections where they are currently lacking should therefore be considered. Restoration or enhancement of a site may occur either actively (i.e., by planting or seeding native vegetation, potentially accompanied by grading to create specific topography or features such as constructed wetlands) or passively (i.e., by ceasing management and allowing vegetation to colonize according to the in-situ seed bank). Active restoration is a more costly and labour- intensive approach, but it offers opportunities for community involvement (e.g., tree planting days) and can “kick-start” a site to a more advanced stage of succession (i.e., promote forest development through tree and shrub planting). It is also more likely to achieve a target vegetation community or species diversity target, since passively allowing succession to occur is more likely to allow colonization of a site by non-native and/or invasive species. Active restoration may form a required component of ecological mitigation, compensation, or offsetting plans related to impacts of proposed development; the need for and scope of such plans would be identified through the development application process (i.e., addressed as a component of a site-specific EIS or equivalent study), and would need to be developed in consultation with the approval authority. Page 264 of 369 Page 500 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 97 4.2.4.2 Niagara Region Enhancement Areas Niagara Region’s OP defines “enhancement areas” as ecologically supporting areas adjacent to natural heritage features and areas, key natural heritage features, and key hydrologic features, which are identified when they: • Connect natural features and areas to create larger contiguous natural areas; • Reduce edge habitat and increase proportion of interior conditions (> 100 m from edge); and • Include critical function zones and important catchment areas critical to sustaining ecological functions. Enhancement areas may be identified in areas composed of natural vegetation communities, currently under agricultural production, or do not contain a permanent form of development. Inside of Settlement Areas, enhancement areas are to be identified as follows: • In ‘bays and inlets’ along the edge of features - < 60 m wide; • Interior gaps in features - < 0.5 ha; • Gaps between features - < 60 m 4.2.4.3 Garner West Subwatershed Study Recommendations Opportunities for natural heritage restoration and enhancement will be identified in the final Phase 1 report for this SWS, based on the completed characterization of the study area and assessment of ecological function. 4.3 Consolidation of Constraints The above sections define the various constraints to development that were assessed for the study area. Figure 4-4 provides an interim visual summary of the preliminary constraints to development posed by Natural Hazards and Natural Heritage. This figure will be updated in the final report in 2025 to account for the spring 2025 field investigations. The constraints included in the interim figure, or to be included in the final figure, are outlined in Table 4.3. Figure 4-4 only depicts the known constraints at the time of this interim report. Additional studies are to be completed in the spring including but not limited to Species at Risk habitat, Significant Wildlife Habitat, Ecological Land Classification (may impact wetlands and woodland boundaries), linkages, and restoration and enhancement areas. This figure should also be viewed in concert with Figure 4-5. It is the intention that future site-specific studies (e.g., Environmental Impact Study) may refine/confirm the boundaries of the illustrated constraints based on updated information (e.g., staking and survey of wetland boundaries or forest driplines, updated geotechnical investigations, etc.). Further, it is acknowledged that future studies related to transportation and utilities/servicing may affect the constraints illustrated in this SWS; if the placement of essential infrastructure results in impacts to constraint areas, it is expected that the Environmental Assessment for that infrastructure will address those impacts and provide any necessary mitigation or compensation. Future Environmental Assessments should consider the constraints Page 265 of 369 Page 501 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 98 and their triggering sensitivity presented within this study to best plan mitigations and compensation actions. In addition, Figure 4-5 presents locations where additional studies are required to confirm the presence or category of a constraint. These indicate potential constraints that were not evaluated as part of the scope of this Subwatershed Study phase, including: • Headwater Drainage Features (HDFs) (to be to be completed at a later stage) • Areas that are identified as Candidate SWH (to be included in the final report). Due to the scale and scope of this study, some features are likely to be flagged for further study as a part of site-specific investigations, including parcels where access was not granted. • Erosion Hazard Limits • Private property where no site access was granted • Watercourses where classification review is recommended under Section 28(25) of the Conservation Authorities Act of Ontario Table 4.3: Description of Constraints Colour on Figure 4-4 Category Included Features Discussion Red Environmental Protection Area Per Section 4.2.1. Development intrusion is generally prohibited. City of Niagara Falls OP policies to apply. Feature boundaries as shown in this document may be refined through future study. Red Natural Hazards Per Section 4.1. Flood and erosion hazards have been obtained from the NPCA but additional areas may require site specific evaluation. A buffer of 7.5 m has been applied to these features. Red - Hatched Preliminary Buffer on applicable EPA features Per Section 4.2.2. Default minimum 30 m buffer has been applied in keeping with approach used by the OP for visualization of constraints, but it is understood that final buffer size and configuration is to be assessed as part of EIS or similar study. Orange Environmental Conservation Area Per Section 4.2.1. City of Niagara Falls OP policies to apply to confirmed SWH, provincially and regionally significant woodlands, Significant Valleylands, and Fish Habitat. Orange - Hatched Preliminary Buffer on applicable ECA features Per Section 4.2.2. Default minimum 30 m buffer has been applied in keeping with approach used by the OP for visualization of constraints, but it is understood that final buffer size and configuration is to be assessed as part of EIS or similar study. Page 266 of 369 Page 502 of 1679 Figure 4-4 0 490245 Metres Date: November 2024Author: KBProjection: UTM_Zone_17NSource: NPCAProject #: 67511 Lundy's Lane Beechwood RdBeechwood RdMcLeod Rd Maxar Legend Study Area Known Environmental ProtectionAreas and Natural Hazards Known Environmental Conservation Area Environmental Protection Area Buffer Environmental Conservation AreaBuffer This figure only depicts the known constraints at the time of this interim report. Additionalstudies are to be completed in the springincluding but not limited to Species at Risk habitat, Significant Wildlife Habitat, Ecological Land Classification (may impact wetlands andwoodland boundaries), linkages, and restoration and enhancement areas. This figure should also be viewed in concert withFigure 5-1: Limitations of this Study. PRELIMINARY Interim Constraints to Development Page 267 of 369Page 503 of 1679 Limitations of This Study 0 490245 Metres Date: November 2024Author: KBProjection: UTM_Zone_17NSource: NPCAProject #: 67511 Lundy's Lane Beechwood RdBeechwood RdMcLeod Rd Maxar, Microsoft This figure depicts potential constraints that have not been evaluated due to the scope ofthis study. These features will require additional investigations by the proponent(s) as a part of future studies prior to anydevelopment applications. PRELIMINARY Figure 4-5 Legend Study Area Parcels No Site Access – Environmental Constraints to be assessment by Proponent(s) as part of a future Watercourses Requiring Classification Review Under Section 28(25) of the Conservation Authorities Act of Ontario (R.S.O. 1990,Cpt.27) – to be completed by Proponent(s) in consultation with NPCA as part of a future study Erosion Hazard Limit Assessment Req Candidate HDFs Requiring In-situ Investigation Required - To becompleted in 2025 Legend Study Area Parcels No Site Access – Environmental Constraints to be assessment by Proponent(s) as part of a future study Page 268 of 369Page 504 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 101 5 Recommendations for Further Study The following section outlines recommendations for further study based on the findings of the work completed to date. The noted recommendations are preliminary and may be updated both during the finalization of this Phase 1 report and during later phases of the SWS. 5.1 Groundwater Recommendations Based on the background research and the details observed during the site visit the following recommendations regarding groundwater are made: • Given the relatively thick overburden, it is anticipated that construction activities would be within the low permeability soils. It is not likely that groundwater control (short or long term) would be required. Given this, the zone of influence of any construction activities will be very small. • Development of the site will result in a decrease in evapotranspiration and infiltration and an increase in runoff. Mitigation measures can be implemented; however, the low percolation rates at the site will not be conducive to engineered LID measures that utilize infiltration as the main mechanism. Partial infiltration LIDs, filtration LIDs and more passive LIDs are recommended to mitigate the reduction in infiltration post development. This would include bioretention, green roofs, permeable pavements, enhanced swales etc. • Seasonal groundwater levels are important to fully evaluate potential impacts on groundwater. To date, no site-specific data evaluating groundwater levels and hydraulic conductivity has been made available. Therefore, it may be required to install several monitoring wells/piezometers across the site once design plans have been identified and proposed at the draft plan stage. • Once development plans have been finalized the post-development portion of the water balance can be completed to fully determine impacts on runoff values. 5.2 Surface Water Recommendations 5.2.1 Headwater Drainage Features HDFs are important in maintaining primary and secondary inputs to surface water, groundwater, and fish habitat as applicable; Candidate HDFs within the study area were previously defined in Section 3.2.1. A summary of the HDF management recommendations and implications, as provided in the TRCA and CVC guide (CVC & TRCA, 2014), as related to the hydrologic and ecologic function of each feature, is presented below in Table 5.1. In order to determine these management recommendations and potential implications to development constraints, Candidate HDFs identified in Section 3.2.1 are to be evaluated at a later stage following the timing window guidelines such that features are identified and management recommendations are accurately applied in subsequent phases of this study. . Page 269 of 369 Page 505 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 102 A. A Standard Survey Type is to be applied, according to the recommendations in the Guidelines. This requires the use of the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP) to assess HDFs. The following modules are to be used by a certified individual: • Section 4: Module 10 (Constrained Headwater Sampling); and • Section 4: Module 11 (Unconstrained Headwater Sampling). Candidate HDFs that were identified in the preliminary field mapping displayed in Figure 3-1 are to be assessed. Per the CVC & TRCA Guidelines, the OSAP Headwater module should be completed three times at each sampling location to assess the HDFs throughout the year: Site Visit #1: • Conducted from March-April, during the spring melt (frost-free conditions) • Intended to confirm Candidate HDF segments in the field Site Visit #2: • Conducted in April-May, when high melt flows have ceased • Ideally occurs before leaf-out, so that features can be easily observed • Includes fish community sampling using OSAP Site Visit #3: • Conducted in July-September, or when temperatures are consistently warm and conditions are dry • Intended to confirm hydrology, fish presence, and groundwater indicators B. Using the Guidelines, the results of the HDF assessments should be integrated with aquatic/terrestrial habitat observations, amphibian surveys, hydrology, and Species at Risk data. Due to the dynamic nature of these features, an extensive photo database should be compiled to ensure proper classification of these features. C. Once field surveys are complete, the HDFs are to be assessed in four steps, based on criteria outlined in the Guidelines, to classify each HDF: Step 1: Hydrology Classification: Flow conditions are classified into hydrology types Step 2: Riparian Classification: The feature is classified with regard to riparian conditions Step 3: Fish and Fish Habitat Classification: Fish and fish habitat is classified based on the presence of fish Step 4: Terrestrial Habitat Classification: Features are classified based on the presence of breeding amphibians and wetlands Page 270 of 369 Page 506 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 103 D. Finally, the results of Steps 1-4 are to be summarized and used in the Flow Chart within the CVC & TRCA Guidelines to assign a Management Recommendation (Table 5.1). The following management recommendations and implications are to be applied to the HDFs, as summarized from the TRCA/CVC Guidelines. Table 5.1: Summary of HDF Management Implications Management Implications HDF Classification Protection Conservation Mitigation No Management Required Must remain open Yes Yes n/a n/a Relocate using Natural Channel Design Not permitted, enhancement only May be considered, not preferred Natural Channel Design not required1 n/a Maintain or replicate groundwater or wetlands Maintain or enhance Maintain or replicate, restore if possible n/a n/a Maintain hydroperiod Yes Yes Yes n/a Direct connection to downstream Yes Yes Yes n/a Replicate function through enhanced lot conveyance control n/a n/a Replicate using bioswales, LID, vegetated swales or constructed wetlands n/a 1Unless the management recommendations call for the restoration of lost function or enhancement and creation of fish habitat. Please note that other considerations (e.g., flood hazard limits, wetland vegetation communities) may also apply to HDFs. Additionally, features which are assessed in the future as HDFs in the study area may be subject to the Conservation Authorities' Section 28 regulations following the update to the Ontario Regulation 41/41 made under the Conservation Authorities Act (February 2024), and should be updated following consultation with and confirmation from the NPCA. Alterations to such features would require NPCA approval. Features observed during the assessments which fit the definition of a watercourse under this regulation, such that "a channel, having a bed and banks or sides, in which a flow of water regularly or continuously occurs", should be reviewed in consultation with the NPCA and updated to reflect their management guidance. Candidate HDFs identified by this study provide indirect fish habitat function. Fish Habitat is a component of the municipal Natural Heritage System and would be classified as Environmental Conservation Area under the City’s Official Plan policies. However, it is recognized that the Evaluation, Classification, and Management of Headwater Drainage Features Guidelines set forth Page 271 of 369 Page 507 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 104 by the CVC and TRCA (CVC & TRCA, 2014) was developed with guidance from multiple stakeholder groups and is recognized by municipalities as a tool to provide direction specifically with regard to HDF management. Additional HDF Assessments shall be undertaken by others as part of future studies on features identified on agricultural properties prior to any development approval in order to accurately assess hydrologic functions of these features. This is especially the case if cultivated lands are allowed to go fallow in the intervening time. 5.2.2 Watercourses To ensure the hydrologic and hydraulic impacts of urban development are fully quantified and development is planned in a manner to best mimic the natural hydrologic and hydraulic regime, the following is recommended. A. That the hydrologic model be updated with proposed future land uses and that these results be used to evaluate the potential impacts to flooding and erosion in local watercourses. B. That climate change scenarios be incorporated into both single event and continuous hydrologic modelling for future scenarios in order to ensure community and infrastructure resiliency. C. That during Phase 2 of the Subwatershed Study, Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Practices consisting of source controls and conveyance be considered along with end-of-pipe SWM facilities to ensure the runoff regime is not significantly altered, natural hazards are not exacerbated, and important ecological features associated with aquatic and riparian habitat are maintained. These practices should be modelled via a continuous hydrologic model simulating average, wet and dry years in order to complete a robust analysis of water balance within the subwatersheds. D. That headwater protection be an ongoing consideration for any OP amendments as they contribute to the maintenance of baseflow and associated water quality, fisheries, ecological, and natural heritage benefits. 5.2.3 Erosion Hazard To ensure the development constraints are fully delineated and development is planned in a manner consistent with the aforementioned policies the following is recommended: • Meander belt assessments are warranted on all unconfined watercourse reaches that have a meandering channel morphology. • Reach BdCTb1 was determined to be an unconfined channel which would be subject to a meander belt assessment to determine development limits; however, the preliminary assessment concluded that the planform of this reach consists of an artificially straightened Page 272 of 369 Page 508 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 105 channel therefore, a meander belt hazard is not applicable. Furthermore, a meander belt delineation was not within the scope of this study. • Future field investigations are required and will be completed at a later stage following the timing window guidelines to determine the existing conditions of the HDFs identified in Section 5.2.1. Should any drainage feature exhibit a channel morphology, then appropriate erosion hazard limits must be determined, consistent with NPCA guidelines and MNRF (2001) Guidelines. The appropriate determination of a confirmed watercourse should also be completed. These reaches that require such confirmations under Section 28(25) of the Conservation Authorities Act are highlighted in Figure 4-5. The MNRF (2001) and TRCA guidelines (2004) provides appropriate delineation procedures for this analysis and should be considered for determining a meander belt for conditions where the hydrologic regime is subject to change, due to the anticipated development within the catchment. Such development will reduce infiltration and divert additional flow to these watercourses. 5.3 Natural Heritage Recommendations 5.3.1 Site-Specific Studies The scope of work for this subwatershed study included a broad array of ecological field surveys within the study area. However, the required scale of studies to address the large subwatershed study area was not necessarily conducive to providing detailed and comprehensive information on individual properties or locations. Further, detailed information concerning future development proposals was obviously not available as part of the current study in order to evaluate the potential impacts of those future developments on natural heritage features and functions. As a result, a site-specific study such as an EIS is anticipated to be required wherever development is proposed adjacent to natural heritage features, not only to confirm the existing conditions (per a scope of work to be determined at that time in consultation with the City, plus the Region and applicable agencies), but to assess the potential impacts of the proposed development and to propose appropriate measures for protection, mitigation, and/or compensation relative to the potential impacts. Regulatory requirements such as SAR permitting and confirmation of appropriate buffers would be completed as part of those site-specific studies. Specific recommendations for site-specific studies will be developed for the final report submission. On a preliminary basis, items that are expected to form a component of an EIS or similar study include the following: • Headwater Drainage Feature Assessments – where assessments are not completed as described above and at a later stage of this study, assessments should occur as described above in Section 5.2.1. • Bat Acoustic Surveys – acoustic surveys may be required where any tree removals are proposed, to satisfy MECP requirements and help determine the presence of SAR bats and SWH associated with bat species (i.e., Bat Maternity Colonies). This requirement should not Page 273 of 369 Page 509 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 106 necessarily be restricted to woodland habitats if cavity trees or other highly-suitable potential roosts will be affected. • Woodland and Wetland Delineation - Formal staking and survey of wetland and/or woodland areas may be required to confirm the boundaries adjacent to proposed development or site alteration, in keeping with the standards of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (2022) and municipal policy. Delineation and staking of wetlands is to be coordinated with NPCA Planning Ecology staff during the growing season to verify the location and extent of wetlands. The identified surveys for site-specific studies may not be applicable or required for all properties or development applications; the presence of habitat as well as the potential impact to that habitat will determine the need for related surveys and the overall scope of the study (e.g., a proposed site plan that requires no tree removals will likely not require detailed surveys to confirm bat habitat). The terms of reference for work to be carried out as part of site-specific assessments should be scoped with the Municipality, NPCA, MECP, and/or any other applicable agencies prior to beginning work. Any change in habitat between the time this SWS is completed and the submission of a development proposal may trigger a need for additional surveys to account for the noted changes. Further, if any natural heritage features currently identified by this study are removed without due assessment, a forensic assessment of the features and their functions may be required and restoration/compensation measures may be assigned. 5.3.2 Development of Opportunities A complete assessment of opportunities for the study area will be completed as part of the final report. The following are preliminary considerations that are expected to be included in that discussion for future planning stages: • Naturalization and Enhancement of Buffers Surrounding Natural Heritage Features - Buffers that are established around natural heritage features should be restored in keeping with the principles described in Section 4.2.4. • Maintain or Improve Connectivity of the NHS through Enhancement of Linkages – Existing and new linkages should be carried forward into land use plans such that they are maintained into the future. Consideration may also be given to improving wildlife passage at road crossings (e.g., through addition of terrestrial benches, increased openness ratios within culverts, etc.), both during rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing roads and the installation of any new roadways. • Plant Native Wildflowers to Support Native Insects – Native wildflowers, especially species known to support Monarch (i.e., Milkweed species), should be included in seeding plans. Construction of ‘Butterfly Gardens’ in landscaped areas (e.g., neighborhood parks) may also be considered, and landowners in new developments could be encouraged to landscape with native wildflower species instead of maintaining a grassed lawn. Page 274 of 369 Page 510 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 107 • Integrate Existing Specimen Trees with Future Landscaping – Existing mature trees in hedgerows, field, and other isolated locations outside of protected woodlots, are recommended to be retained where possible and integrated into planning of future parks and greenspaces. • Riparian Enhancement along Drainage Channels – Many of the potential HDFs in the study area occur on cropped agricultural properties with little to no natural vegetation currently present. Candidate HDFs that are identified to be retained may be enhanced through riparian plantings, as many watercourses within the study area that currently do not have consistent riparian vegetation. Page 275 of 369 Page 511 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 66258 6 References Bird Studies Canada. 2009. Marsh Monitoring Program Participant's Handbook for Surveying Amphibians, 2009 Edition. Bird Studies Canada in cooperation with Environment Canada and the US Environmental Protection Agency. City of Niagara Falls, 2024. Official Plan for the City of Niagara Falls. Dougan & Associates and North South Environmental. 2022. Mapping Methods and Field Verification Summary: NPCA ELC Mapping Update. https://gis-npca- camaps.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/elc-2020-npca Environment Canada. 2013. How Much Habitat Is Enough? Third Edition. Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario. Lee, H., Bakowsky, W., Riley, J., Bowles, J., Puddister, M., Uhlig, P., & S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario, First Approximation and its Application. North Bay, Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2001. Technical Guide River & Stream Systems: Erosion Hazard Limit. Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. 2011. Lower Welland River Characterization Report. Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. 2012. Natural Areas Inventory 2006-2009, Volume 1. Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. 2012. Natural Areas Inventory 2006-2009, Volume 2. Niagara Region, 2022. Niagara Official Plan. Niagara Region, 2022. Summary of Headwater Drainage feature assessment. https://niagarafalls.ca/pdf/planning/applications/45/12-headwater-drainage-feature- assessment.pdf Oldham, Michael J. 2017. List of the Vascular Plants of Ontario’s Carolinian Zone (Ecoregion 7E). Carolinian Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Peterborough, ON. 132 pp. Ontario Digital Terrain Model, Lidar-Derived (ODTM). Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry – Provincial Mapping Unit, (2015). Available: Ontario GeoHub < https://geohub.lio.gov.on.ca/> (Accessed October 26, 2024). Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. 2022. Bat Survey Standards. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Page 276 of 369 Page 512 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 66258 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2015. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedule for Ecoregion 7E. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2017. Survey Protocol for Species at Risk Bats within Treed Habitats Little Brown Myotis, Northern Myotis & Tri-Colored Bat. Guelph: Guelph District Office. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2022. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, Southern Manual, 4th Edition. Stanfield, L. 2017. OSAP Version 10. Page 277 of 369 Page 513 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 66258 Appendix A – Summary of Policies, Guidelines and Legislation Page 278 of 369 Page 514 of 1679 There exists a hierarchy of authority, described as policies, statutes, regulations, plans and guidelines. Legislative terms and principles are described below in order to provide a baseline context and shed light over basic definitions, what is enforceable and how. Relevant fundamental definitions are listed below. A Policy is a statement of intent or a commitment to achieve a goal, for which decision-makers can be held accountable. For example, within a municipality, policies like the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) are enacted through the Official Plan. An Act is a written law to declare a policy, and typically commands or prohibits something. Examples include: • Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) • Bill 6: Great Lake Protection Act (1st Reading) A Regulation is a subordinate legislation, passed pursuant to an Act. Because legislatures are reluctant to become embroiled in technical matters, regulations are delegated to an executive or technical branch, which provides details, measures or procedures for implementing the Act. A regulation is a rule that creates, limits, or constrains a right or a duty. Regulations are enacted to produce outcomes which might not otherwise occur or to prevent outcomes that might otherwise occur, usually with specific time frames. Regulations can impose sanctions if they are disregarded. Examples include: • O. Reg. 41/24 made under the Conservation Authorities Act: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits A Plan (or Strategy) is list of steps (with requirements for timing and resources) that will be taken to achieve a desired objective. It is a set of intended actions through which a goal can be achieved or a policy implemented. For example, a plan (such as an Official Plan) provides direction for land uses within a particular area and for mitigating the corresponding environmental impacts. A plan defines the where and how Regulations or Acts are applied. Examples include: • Municipal Official Plan • Ontario Recovery Strategy Series for Redside Dace (for species at risk under the Endangered Species Act). A Guideline is a statement of intent that determines a desirable course of action, which directs a process according to sound, predictable and high-quality practices or procedures. By definition, guidelines are not mandatory, not binding and are not legally enforceable. However, many regulators consider guidelines (especially numerical guidelines) as de facto minimum standards to be enforced. Examples include: • MECP Stormwater Management Plan and Design Manual (2003) Page 279 of 369 Page 515 of 1679 Federal Level The federal government exercises jurisdiction over a group of environmental issues related to stormwater planning and management including fish and fish habitat, navigable waters, environmental impact assessments, toxic substance releases, and some wildlife issues. More specifically, the main pieces of legislation that deal with stormwater are: • Fisheries Act; • Canada Water Act; • Canadian Environmental Protection Act; • Impact Assessment Act; • Migratory Convention Birds Act; • Species at Risk Act; and • Canadian Navigable Waters Act. Fisheries Act (1985, Amended 2019) Amendments to the Fisheries Act in 2012 and 2019 have each significantly impacted the Act. After the 2019 amendment, the Fisheries Act focuses on the protection of fish and fish habitat. It prohibits the deposit (direct discharging, spraying, releasing, spilling, leaking, seeping, pouring, emitting, emptying, throwing, dumping or placing) of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish or where the deleterious substances can enter waters frequented by fish. A deleterious substance can also be stormwater, wastewater, or other effluent that contains a substance in such quantity or concentration that it would, if deposited to waters frequented by fish, degrade or alter fish or fish habitat (DFO, 2006). This definition remains unchanged by recent amendments. Recent Modifications/ Amendments On August 28, 2019, amendments to the Fisheries Act came into force. The new Fisheries Act: • Protects all fish and fish habitat; • Restores prohibition against “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat” (HADD); • Provides clearer permitting for development projects; • Indigenous traditional knowledge is to be used to inform habitat decisions; • Requires authorization for the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat from the Ministry; • Enables the prohibition of fishing to conserve and protect marine biodiversity; and • Promotes the restoration of degraded fish habitat for the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat. Effective in November 2013, Ontario Conservation Authorities no longer have Review Agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and are no longer undertaking reviews under the Fisheries Act on behalf of DFO. As a result, it is up to the proponent to ensure that their projects meet the DFO requirements under the self-assessment process. Page 280 of 369 Page 516 of 1679 This self-assessment process applies to any on-going projects currently under review with the local CAs, applications where permits have not yet been issued and any future permit applications that would normally have involved CA review under the Fisheries Act. Canada Water Act (1985, Amended 2014) The Canada Water Act (last amended in 2014) is divided into three parts: 1. Comprehensive Water Resource Management; 2. Water Quality Management; and 3. General. Guidelines originally issued under this part of the Act are now listed under Canadian Environmental Protection Act. These include the Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines and the Guidelines for Effluent and Waste Water Treatment at Federal Establishments. The final part focuses on administration and enforcement of the Act. Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999, Amended 2023) The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) is administered by Environment Canada and Health Canada and is "An Act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development." Applicable Provisions Section 64 of CEPA states "a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that: • Have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity; • Constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or • Constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health." Section 95 states that when a toxic substance is released, or may be released, into the environment, the person responsible must report the release, take measures to prevent the release, and mitigate any danger to the environment or public safety. The focus of the CEPA is pollution prevention and the protection of the environment, primarily through the control of toxic substances. The CEPA applies indirectly to SWM through Section 95 which outlines that there are duties to report and take remedial measures in the event of a spill of a listed toxic substance. If stormwater contains a listed toxic substance and is released, it could be considered a reportable offence (Department of Justice Canada, 1999). For example, salt was recommended to be included as a toxic substance in Schedule 1 under CEPA. Impact Assessment Act (2019 The Impact Assessment Act (IAA) created the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The IAA aims to prevent significant adverse environmental effects, and requires: Page 281 of 369 Page 517 of 1679 • Early planning and engagement, including with Indigenous peoples, the public and stakeholders; • Decisions to be based on science, evidence and Indigenous knowledge; • A broad scope that includes positive and negative environmental, economic, social, and health impacts; and • Indigenous engagement and participation throughout the project. Migratory Convention Birds Act (1994, Amended 2017) The Migratory Convention Birds Act deals with the protection of migratory game birds. Its relevance to stormwater is based on the protection of water that may be used by migratory birds. Like the Fisheries Act, it prohibits the direct discharging, spraying, releasing, spilling, leaking, seeping, pouring, emitting, emptying, throwing, dumping or placing of harmful substances in waters or an area frequented by migratory birds. The Act also provides for the protection and conservation of migratory bird habitat. C.R.C., c. 1035 outlines permitting requirements under the Act. Species At Risk (2002, Amended 2024) Environment and Climate Change Canada is the lead federal government department responsible for issues concerning species at risk, however Fisheries and Oceans Canada is responsible for the protection of aquatic species and habitat at risk. The Species at Risk Act is a key federal government commitment to prevent wildlife species from becoming extinct and secure the necessary actions for their recovery. It provides for the legal protection of wildlife species and the conservation of their biological diversity. The Act applies on federal lands, including national parks, and other protected heritage areas administered by Parks Canada, species protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, or aquatic species as defined in the Fisheries Act, SARA applies automatically on provincial and territorial lands and waters as well. Applicable Provisions include Section 58: no person shall destroy any part of the critical habitat of any listed endangered species or of any listed threatened species – or of any listed extirpated species if a recovery strategy has recommended the reintroduction of the species into the wild in Canada – if: a) the critical habitat is on federal land, in the exclusive economic zone of Canada or on the continental shelf of Canada; b) the listed species is an aquatic species; or c) the listed species is a species of migratory birds protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. The relevance to stormwater is founded on surface runoff from different sources and land uses that may carry contaminants, adversely affecting physical habitat and water quality. Page 282 of 369 Page 518 of 1679 Canadian Navigable Waters Act (1985, Amended 2019) The Canadian Navigable Waters Act is administered by Transport Canada and is designed to protect the public right of navigation in Canadian waters. The Act prohibits unauthorized "work" involving construction or placement in, on, over, under, through, or across any navigable water. Applicable Provisions Section 21 states "no person shall throw or deposit or cause, suffer or permit to be thrown or deposited any sawdust, edging, slabs, bark or like rubbish of any description whatever that is liable to interfere with navigation in any water, any part of which is navigable or that flows into any navigable water." In addition, Section 22 states “No person shall throw or deposit or cause, suffer or permit to be thrown or deposited any stone, gravel, earth, cinders, ashes or other material or rubbish that is liable to sink to the bottom in any water, any part of which is navigable or flows into any navigable water, where there is not a minimum depth of 36 metres of water at all times”. The relevance to stormwater is based on the inclusion of sediment under Section 21 of this legislation from stormwater facilities, uncontrolled releases or as a result of excessive stream erosion. In 2019, the Act was amended to include: • A new definition of navigable water; • Distinguishing between major and minor works on navigable waters: o Minor works may be constructed, placed, altered, rebuilt, removed, or decommissioned in, on, over, under, through, or across any navigable water; o Major works, and works other than minor works regarding the waters listed in Schedule 1, requires approval from Transport Canada if the work interferes with navigation; and o Transport Canada must be notified prior to the implementation of major works, and works other than minor works regarding the waters listed in Schedule 1, that don’t interfere with navigation. • A requirement to consider adverse effects on Indigenous peoples when making a decision under the Act; • Indigenous knowledge is to be considered when determining whether to issue an approval; and • Prohibition of dewatering a navigable water to a depth that prevents vessels from navigating the water. Provincial Level In regard to water resources and stormwater related issues, Provincial legislative powers include, but are not limited to: • Flow regulation; • Authorization of water use development; • Water supply; and • Pollution control. Page 283 of 369 Page 519 of 1679 Ontario legislative mechanisms (e.g., policies and guidelines) to regulate water quality and quantity are primarily administered by: • Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP): o The Blue Book o Ontario Water Resources Act; o Clean Water Act; o Consolidated Linear Infrastructure Environmental Compliance Approval; o Environmental Protection Act; o Environmental Assessment Act o Water Opportunities Act; o Endangered Species Act; o Environmental Bill of Rights; o Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits, Ontario Regulation 41/24; o Management of Excess Soil – A Guide for Best Management Practices; o Policy Review of Municipal Stormwater Management in the Light of Climate Change; and, o Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual. • Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) o Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act • Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA): o Drainage Act; and o Nutrient Management Act. • Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) o The Planning Act; o Provincial Planning Statement; o The Municipal Act; and o Greenbelt Plan. • Ministry of Infrastructure o The Places to Grow Act Water Management Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives – The “Blue Book” (MECP, 1994, Reprinted 1999) The “Blue Book” was issued by the MECP under the authority of the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act. It provides direction on how to manage the quality and quantity of both surface water and ground water. It provides a framework but not procedures; for example, how the policy is applied to pollutant discharge limits is a matter of local choice or conditions or other pollutant management strategies. The Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) form an integral part of the policy. The PWQO are set at levels that are protective of aquatic life and aquatic life cycles during indefinite exposure to water, in addition to recreation. The PWQO are guidelines to making rational water quality decisions. In addition to the PWQO, other objectives and guidelines may be used that relate to specific uses. Section 3.5.1 sets out procedures for effluent requirements. Of interest is the determination of effluent requirements are expressed as “waste loadings and/or concentrations”. Meeting the PWQO “should be determined from data that adequately reflect the spatial and Page 284 of 369 Page 520 of 1679 temporal variations of the quality of the waterbody under consideration”. This must be accomplished through stormwater quality analyses of event mean concentration (EMC) values for various representative pollutants. The general policies that relate to Stormwater are listed below: Policy #1: “In areas which have water quality better than the PWQO, water quality shall be maintained at or above the Objectives.” Policy #2: “Water quality which presently does not meet the PWQO shall not be degraded further and all practical measures shall be taken to upgrade that water quality to the Objectives.” Policy #3: To “prevent the release, in any concentration, of hazardous substances that have been banned.” Policy #4: “Ensure that special measures are taken on a case by case basis to minimize the release of hazardous substances that have not been banned.” Policy #5: Refers to a mixing zone as an area of water contiguous to a point source or definable diffuse source where water quality does not comply with one or more PWQO. It states “Mixing zones should be as small as possible and not interfere with beneficial uses. Mixing zones are not to be used as an alternative to reasonable and practical treatment.” Policies of most relevance to this study are Policy #1 and #2. These policies are enforceable when incorporated into control documents, such as Environmental Compliance Approvals issued by the MECP through the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act, which regulate stormwater. The Conservation Authorities Act mandates Conservation Authorities to protect and regenerate natural systems and to maintain the quality, safety and sustainability of water resources. The application of the policy is as follows: 1. The water management policies and guidelines supporting the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) are the basis for establishing acceptable limits for water quality and quantity that protect aquatic ecosystems and groundwater. They are equally applicable to a local site-specific situation, an entire watershed or to the Great Lakes Basin. 2. The policies and guidelines do not have any formal legal status but, by their successful use over the years, are now accepted as a standard code of practice for water resources management. 3. Meeting the policies related to the PWQO is the minimum requirement. Ontario Water Resources Act (MECP, 1990, Amended 2021) The Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) is designed to conserve, protect and manage Ontario's waters and for their efficient and sustainable use. The act focuses on both groundwater and surface water throughout the province. Page 285 of 369 Page 521 of 1679 The Ontario Water Resources Act regulates works related to water supplies, the distribution of water and stormwater management and conveyance infrastructure. The act provides for the protection and conservation of water, and the control of the quality of drinking water supplied to the public. Under the Act, stormwater is included in the definition as sewage and, as such is required to be managed properly. Accordingly, the act regulates sewage disposal and sewage works and prohibits the discharge of polluting materials that may impair water quality. Key stormwater-related issues addressed within the Water Resources Act are: • Prohibiting the discharge of polluting material in or near water; • Prohibiting or regulating the discharge of sewage; • Enabling the issuance of orders requiring measures to prevent, reduce or alleviate impairment of water quality; • Enabling the designation and protection of sources of public water supply; • Imposing a duty on corporate officers and directors to take all reasonable care to prevent the corporation from discharging materials into or near water that may impair water quality. Applicable Provisions Section 30 (1): Offence to discharge any material of any kind into or in any waters or shore or bank thereof or in any place that may impair the quality of the water of any waters Section 30(2): Person who discharged or caused or permitted the discharge to forthwith notify the Minister Section 110: The following are considered Aggravating Factors when imposing Sentencing Considerations: • Offence caused impairment of water quality; • Defendant committed the offence intentionally or recklessly; • Defendant was motivated to increase revenue or decrease costs; • Defendant committed the offence despite having been warned by the Ministry of circumstances that became the subject of the offence; • After the commission of the offence, the defendant: o Attempted to conceal the commission of the offence; o Failed to co-operate with the Ministry or other public authorities; o Failed to take prompt action to mitigate the effects of the offence; or o Failed to take prompt action to reduce the risk of similar offences being committed in the future. Exemptions In general, the need for, and nature of, an approval depends on the site and the activity. However, specific exemptions for certain types of sewage works equipment, system and application have been granted through legislation. The OWRA and Approval Exemption Regulation (O.Reg. 525/98) exempt minor sewage works from the approval requirements of the Act. Additionally, O.Reg. Page 286 of 369 Page 522 of 1679 525/98 states that Subsections 53(1) and (3) of the Act do not apply to the establishment, alteration, extension or replacement of or a change in a stormwater management facility that: a) Is designed to service one lot or parcel of land; b) Discharges into a storm sewer that is not a combined sewer; c) Does not service industrial land or a structure located on industrial land; and d) Is not located on industrial land O. Reg 525/98, s. 3. Industrial lands are defined as lands used for the production, processing, repair, maintenance or storage or goods or materials, or the processing, storage, transfer or disposal of waste, but does not include lands used primarily for the purpose of buying or selling, a) goods or materials other than fuel, or b) services other than vehicle repair services Other approval exemptions under Section 53 include: a) sewage works from which sewage is not to drain or be discharged directly or indirectly into a ditch, drain or storm sewer or a well, lake, river, pond, spring, stream, reservoir or other water or watercourse; b) drainage works under the Drainage Act or a sewage works where the main purpose of the works is to drain land for the purposes of agricultural activity; c) drainage works under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, the Public Transportation and Highways Improvement Act or the Railways Act; d) sewage works that have a designed capacity of 10,000L/day or less and are whole contained within the boundaries of the lot or parcel of land on which is located the facility served by the works. Note: these are approved under the Building Code by municipalities. In all other circumstances beyond the aforementioned exemptions, an ECA from the MECP is required. If unsure about the exemption of your stormwater works, a pre-consultation meeting with the ministry is recommended. Clean Water Act (MECP, 2006, Amended 2021) The Clean Water Act 2006 was enacted to protect existing and future sources of drinking water. The Act specifies that drinking water source protection plans (SPP) be developed as a result of an overall assessment report and that the SPP sets forth policies that prevent activities from becoming a significant drinking water threat to surface and groundwater drinking supplies. Specifically, the regulations define threatened areas to include highly vulnerable aquifers, significant groundwater recharge areas (SGRA), wellhead protection areas (WHPA), and surface water intake protection zones (IPZ). Furthermore, Ontario Regulation 287/07 (as amended), lists 22 prescribed drinking water threats. Several of these prescribed activities relate to stormwater management and may impact where infiltration of water is promoted, specifically: • Activity 2: A system that collects, stores, transmits, treats or disposes of sewage, including stormwater; • Activity 12: The application of road salt, including salt transmitted in stormwater runoff; Page 287 of 369 Page 523 of 1679 • Activity 13: The handling and storage of salt, including salt treated or disposed in stormwater; and, • Activity 14: The storage of snow, including snow stored in or near stormwater management facilities. The City of Niagara Falls is within the Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Area. Consolidated Linear Infrastructure Environmental Compliance Approval (MECP, 2023) The MECP has updated the issuance of Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECAs) for municipalities, into one Consolidated Linear Infrastructure (CLI) ECA that includes all stormwater infrastructure. The CLI-ECA pre-authorizes low-risk routine alterations to the system. These low- risk alterations include the requirement to meet various criteria outlined in Appendix A of the CLI ECA. A key change to the criteria is the requirement to control the 90th percentile storm event to provide water quality treatment if technically possible. Controlling this storm event should proceed in a hierarchical manner, with a top priority on retention through infiltration, reuse, or evapotranspiration. If retention of the full volume isn’t feasible, then the second and third priorities of LID filtration and conventional stormwater management, respectively, should be followed. In addition, the CLI ECA requires the City to prepare and implement an operations and maintenance manual for their stormwater system. Environmental Protection Act (MECP, 1990, Amended 2021) The Environmental Protection Act is Ontario's key legislation for environmental protection. The act grants the MECP broad powers to deal with the discharge of contaminants which cause negative effects. Under this legislation, a contaminant is defined as “any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration, radiation or combination of them resulting directly or indirectly from human activities that causes or may cause an adverse effect.” The Environmental Protection Act was enacted to protect the natural environment and animal and human health from adverse effects of pollution contamination. Applicable Provisions Section 14(1): prohibits the discharge of any contaminants into the environment which cause or are likely to cause adverse effects. In the case of some approved contaminants, the Act requires that they must not exceed approved and regulated limits. Section 92: Requires the controller of a spilled pollutant and/or the person that caused the spill to report the spill if it is abnormal in quality or quantity. Agencies need to report if not certain it has been reported. Section 93: Requires the owner and/or person in control of a spilled pollutant to clean up and restore the natural environment. Key stormwater-related applications include: • Forbidding the discharge of contaminants into the natural environment in an amount, concentration or level in excess of that prescribed by the regulations; Page 288 of 369 Page 524 of 1679 • Allowing the issuance of binding administrative orders to prevent, control, minimize or remediate discharges of contaminants into the natural environment; • Imposing duties to report and clean up pollutant spills and imposes civil liability for loss or damage arising from spills; and • Imposing a duty on corporate officers and directors to take all reasonable care to prevent the corporation from causing or permitting unlawful discharges of contaminants into the natural environment. O.Reg. 255/11 describes the application process and requirements for Environmental Compliance Approvals, which are necessary for stormwater management facilities. O.Reg. 406/19 describes the requirements for on-site and excess soil management, including excess soil that is removed from a stormwater management facility. A sampling and analysis plan will be required when removing this soil. Environmental Assessment Act (MECP, 1990, Amended 2024) The Environmental Assessment Act applies to projects being carried out by the Province, municipalities, or public bodies (for example, Conservation Authorities and the Ontario Realty Commission). The EA Act may also apply to major commercial or business enterprises or activities or proposals, plans or programs, as set out in subsection 3(b) and 3(c) of the EA Act. The EA Act requires that proponents of major projects outline the details of the project and identify how construction, location and ultimate utilization will affect current and future uses of that area. Water quality effects, biological effects, and social and economic factors must be considered. The purpose of this Act is “betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment.” A class environmental assessment must contain the following information: 1. A description of the class of undertakings to which it applies; 1.1 A description of any undertakings within the class that are proposed to be exempt from this Act and the basis for the proposed exemption; 2. A description of the reasons for using a class environmental assessment with respect to undertakings in the class; 3. A description of the similarities and differences to be expected among the undertakings in the class; 4. A description of the expected range of environmental effects that may result from proceeding with undertakings in the class; 5. A description of measures that could be taken to mitigate against adverse environmental effects that may result from proceeding with undertakings in the class; 6. A description of the process to be used by a proponent of a proposed undertaking to consult with the public and with persons who may be affected by the undertaking; 7. A description of the method to be used to evaluate a proposed undertaking with respect to the matters described in paragraphs 4 to 6; and 8. A description of the method to be used to determine the final design of a proposed undertaking based upon the evaluation described in paragraph 7. Page 289 of 369 Page 525 of 1679 Water Opportunities Act (MECP, 2010, Amended 2021) The Water Opportunities Act established in 2010 lays the foundations for new jobs in Ontario and develops new technologies and services for water conservation and treatment. The Act has an overarching objective to improve the efficiency of municipal infrastructure using the following key initiatives: • Identifying innovative, cost effective solutions for drinking water, wastewater and stormwater system challenges; • Optimizing systems and improving water conservation; and • Identifying opportunities to demonstrate and carry out new and emerging Ontario water technologies, services and practices. Endangered Species Act (MECP, 2007, Amended 2023) The Endangered Species Act came into effect in 2007 and provides for broader protection for species at risk and their habitats. In general, the purpose of the act includes the preservation and rehabilitation of habitat and the enhancement of other areas so that they can become habitat. Under the act, habitat may be described by specific boundaries, features or “in any other manner” and may prescribe areas where species live, used to lie or is believed to be capable of living and beyond. Applicable Provisions Section 10: A person shall not damage or destroy the habitat of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List (O.Reg. 230/08) as an endangered or threatened species, or as an extirpated species if the species is prescribed by the regulations. Policies under this legislation have relevance to urban development and stormwater management. As an example, the impacts to habitat can be as a result of: • Alteration to hydrologic regimes (increased runoff, flow regime change, and decreased infiltration) and increased water temperature (through increasing impervious surfaces and end-of-pipe discharges); • Increased sedimentation and erosion through site grading and excavation; • Releases of untreated stormwater which carry pollutants; and • General habitat losses through the loss of riparian vegetation, in-stream habitat features, wetland and groundwater sources. Section 4.4 of the Ministry of Natural Resources Guidance for Development Activities in Redside Dace Protected Habitat, (March 2016) provides the first example of stormwater management direction under this act. The Guidance for Development Activities in Redside Dace Protected Habitat provides the following as it relates to development within or adjacent to Redside Dace streams: • Emphasis on a “treatment train approach” - source, conveyance and end-of-pipe controls; • Maximization of at source infiltration; • Maximum threshold for TSS should not exceed 25mg/L above background levels; Page 290 of 369 Page 526 of 1679 • Stormwater discharges to Redside streams should not exceed 24°C and a minimum dissolved oxygen content of 7mg/l; • Post development water balance should match pre-development water balance (no runoff from rainfall events between 5-15 mm, dependent on subwatershed recommendations and local soils); • Hybrid end-of-pipe stormwater management facilities (extended detention wetlands/wet ponds) are recommended adjacent to Redside habitat; and • Suggests the use of Low Impact Development techniques to prevent habitat degradation. Environmental Bill of Rights (MECP, 1993, Amended 2023) The Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) allows Ontarians the opportunity to participate in decisions that could impact Ontario’s air, water. Land and wildlife by ensuring Provincial ministries develop a Statemen of Environmental Values (SEV) and take reasonable steps to consider their SWVs when making decision that might significantly affect the environment. The purposes of this Act are: 1. to protect, conserve and, where reasonable, restore the integrity of the environment by the means provided in this Act; 2. to provide sustainability of the environment by the means provided in this Act; and 3. to protect the right to a healthful environment by the means provided in this Act. Under the EBR, Ontarians may: • comment on specified environmental government proposals • ask ministries subject to the act for either a new policy, act, or regulation, or to review of an existing policy, act, regulation or instrument • ask certain ministries to investigate an alleged harm to the environment • seek leave (permission) to appeal ministry decisions on certain instruments, such as permits, licenses, approvals or orders • in some cases, sue someone for causing harm to the environment • get whistleblower protection Through the EBR a searchable, online database was created to consult the public on certain provincial government decisions that might affect the environment. The registry is used to let people know about environmental matters in the province and allows for comment on policies, acts, regulations and instruments (for example, approvals, permits, licenses and orders). Great Lakes Protection Act (MECP, 2015, Amended 2021) The purposes of this Act are, a) to protect and restore the ecological health of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin; and; b) to create opportunities for individuals and communities to become involved in the protection and restoration of the ecological health of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin. The Great Lakes Protection Act allows the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, in consultation with other Great Lakes Ministers, establish qualitative or quantitative targets relating Page 291 of 369 Page 527 of 1679 to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin. The act also provides the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry with authority to establish qualitative or quantitative targets for preventing the net loss of wetlands. The ability to set clear targets through this act is essential in helping all partners work towards common restoration and protection outcomes. Setting targets will also help Ontario to manage the cumulative impacts of activities on the Great Lakes, including climate change, and respond to specific areas when needed. Conservation Authorities Act, Ontario Regulation 41/24 This Act provides for the organization and delivery of programs and services that further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources in watersheds in Ontario. In April 2024, all previous Conservation Authority development regulations were replaced by a new regulation, Ontario Regulation 41/24, Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits. Changes in the Act and new regulation include: 1) Prescribing Areas Where Development is Prohibited by Updating Definitions a. Definition of “watercourse” from any identifiable depression to a defined channel with a bed and banks/sides; b. “Other areas” in which the prohibitions on development activities apply have been changed to within 30 m of all wetlands. Previously, Provincially Significant Wetlands in some conservation authorities and wetlands greater than 2 hectares in size required a 120 m regulated area around the wetland. 2) Exempting Low-Risk Activities from Conservation Authority Approval. The following low- risk development activities are exempted from the prohibitions (under certain conditions, such as occurring outside of wetlands and watercourses, or following certain best practices for municipal drain maintenance) and no longer require a conservation authority permit, including: a. A seasonal or floating dock 10 m2 in size or less; b. A rail, chain-link or panelled fence with a minimum of 75 mm of width between panels; c. Agricultural in-field erosion control structures; d. A non-habitable accessory building or structure 15 m2 in size or less; e. An unenclosed detached deck or patio that is 15 m2 in size or less; f. Installation, maintenance, or repair of tile drains; g. Installation, maintenance, or repair of a pond for watering livestock; h. Maintenance or repair of a driveway or private lane; i. Maintenance or repair of municipal drainage; and j. Reconstruction of a garage that does not exceed the same footprint, with no basement or habitable space and that does not allow for change in potential use of the building or structure to habitable space. 3) Limiting the Conditions a Conservation Authority May Attach to a Permit Page 292 of 369 Page 528 of 1679 4) Streamline and Clarify Rules for Development. The new Minister’s regulation includes increased flexibility to issue a permit up to its maximum validity of 60-months, providing additional time to complete activities. New rules are set out for issuing permits including requiring that conservation authorities: a. Create publicly available maps depicting where a permit is required and to update their mapping annually or if new information or analysis becomes available that would result in significant changes to the regulated area; b. Engage in pre-submission consultation at the request of an applicant; c. Develop, make publicly available and consult on permitting policy and procedures documents with respect to permit applications and reviews; d. Notify an applicant within 21-days of receiving an application and payment of the permit fee whether or whether not the application is complete; e. Accept requests for review if an applicant has not received notice of whether or not an application is complete within the 21-day timeframe, or if they disagree with the authority’s decision on a complete application, and complete a review to confirm whether the application is complete or if more information is needed; and, f. Not request additional new studies or technical information after an application is confirmed as complete; g. Issue an annual report on permitting statistics, including reporting on the authority’s level of compliance with new requirements in the minister’s regulation. Management of Excess Soil – A Guide for Best Management Practices (MECP, 2018, Amended 2021) The best management practices in this document provide guidance on how to handle excess soil beginning at the place where the soil is excavated (a “Source Site”), during the transportation of the excess soil, and through to a site where the excess soil can be reused for a beneficial purpose (a “Receiving Site”). This document also includes recommendations for temporary storage of excess soil at an intermediate site, between the Source Site and Receiving Site, where the intermediate site (a “Temporary Storage Soil Site”) is owned or leased by the owner/operator of the Source Site or Receiving Site, for temporary storage of the excess soil. The best management practices are not intended to be applied to small, low-risk construction or maintenance activities that are limited to single-dwelling residential properties, or activities associated with minor municipal road work or sewer/water main construction or repair. However, those involved in these smaller-scale projects and smaller-scale soil management activities are encouraged to consider whether the best practices may be useful, and to consult with any applicable approval authorities and Receiving Site owners/operators on reuse or disposal options before moving excess soil from a Source Site to a Receiving Site or Temporary Soil Storage Site. All those who create, manage, transport, receive or store excess soil are responsible for ensuring that the excess soil is managed in an environmentally sound manner. They must also meet all applicable legal requirements, including current provincial and federal regulatory requirements, such as: site alteration, noise and traffic by-laws and permitting regimes established by municipalities and Conservation Authorities; the soil management provisions in Ontario Regulation Page 293 of 369 Page 529 of 1679 153/04 that relate to the submission and filing of a Record of Site Condition; the requirements for sampling and analysis outlined in Ontario Regulation 406/19; and, when excavated soil and other excavated materials are being managed as a waste, the EPA and waste regulations. Policy Review of Municipal Stormwater Management in the Light of Climate Change (MECP, 2011) The document reviews the need for a new policy, act, or regulation to deal with municipal SWM systems in light of climate change. The key findings of the policy review include: • Adaptation to climate change is best priority; • The Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) and the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) are anticipated to provide a sufficient legislative framework for climate change adaptation; • The 2003 Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual requires updating to include additional best practices for climate change adaptation for municipal stormwater management; • The MECP approvals process requires review to include identifying measures to encourage source control best practices; • Data collection and information management systems are necessary to track the performance of SWM systems in order to assess vulnerability to climate change; • Public education, demonstration projects and incentives are necessary to support SWM resilient systems; and • It is recommended that ministries work together to collaboratively seek solutions. Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (MECP, 2003) The document was developed to expand and improve upon the Ministry of the Environment report released in 1991, entitled Stormwater Quality Best Management Practices. The document provides guidance on: • Impacts of urbanization on the hydrologic cycle and stream ecosystems; • Evolution of the watershed planning process and implications for the design process; • Incorporation of water quantity, erosion control, water quality protection, and water balance principles into the selection and design of Stormwater Management Practices (SWMPs); • SWMPs such as sand filters, bioretention filters, wet swales, and hybrid wet ponds/wetlands; • Planting strategies and the function of plant material in the design of SWMPs; • Operation and maintenance; and • Design of various SWMPs. Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (MNRF, 1990, Amended 2019) Under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, review and approval are required by the MNRF to permit work on watercourses and shore-lands. The purposes of this Act are to provide for, a) the management, protection, preservation and use of the waters of the lakes and rivers of Ontario and the land under them; Page 294 of 369 Page 530 of 1679 b) the protection and equitable exercise of public rights in or over the waters of the lakes and rivers of Ontario; c) the protection of the interests of riparian owners; d) the management, perpetuation and use of the fish, wildlife and other natural resources dependent on the lakes and rivers; e) the protection of the natural amenities of the lakes and rivers and their shores and banks; and f) the protection of persons and of property by ensuring that dams are suitably located, constructed, operated and maintained and are of an appropriate nature with regard to the purposes of clauses (a) to (e). Applicable Provisions Section 36(1): Offence to deposit or discharge any substance or matter into water (including water covered by ice) Section 36(2): Minister may order removal of any substance or matter from lake, river or from the shore or bank, as the case may be In accordance with existing regulatory administration and approval agreements, the Conservation Authority (i.e. GRCA) would conduct reviews of proposed works pertaining to watercourses and shore-lands under this act. O.Reg. 454/96 describes the approvals to make alterations, improvements or repairs to a dam that holds back water in a river, lake, pond or stream. Drainage Act (OMAFRA, 1990, Amended 2021) The Drainage Act regulates the construction and maintenance of municipal drains. More specifically, under Section 74 of the Drainage Act, municipalities are responsible to maintain municipal drainage systems within their jurisdiction. Various jurisdictions are exploring the use of the Drainage Act “as a tool for property aggregation to support wide scale adoption of LID on private property in urban areas” as described by the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program white paper “Making Green Infrastructure Mainstream: Exploring the Use of the Drainage Act for Decentralized Stormwater Management on Private Property.” The white paper states that use of the Drainage Act would: • Enable public and private landowners to design, construct and maintain communal infrastructure together; • Be a cost-effective approach for stormwater management, as it would not require the purchase of land specifically for stormwater works; • Facilitate economies of scale by implementing systems at a neighbourhood-level instead of a site-level; • Allow for local municipal knowledge to be incorporated; and • Protect drainage features and allow for appropriate recourse if works are damaged. Page 295 of 369 Page 531 of 1679 Nutrient Management Act (OMAFRA, 2002, Amended 2021) The purpose of this Nutrient Management Act is to provide for the management of materials containing nutrients in ways that will enhance protection of the natural environment and provide a sustainable future for agricultural operations and rural development. The Nutrient Management Act regulates the use, storage and disposal of fertilizers and farm wastes with the objective of protecting surface water and groundwater quality. The Planning Act (MMAH, 2010, Amended 2024) The Planning Act sets out the ground rules for land use planning in Ontario and describe how land uses may be controlled, and who may control them. Applicable Provisions • Section 24: Zoning By-law, • Section 41: Site Plan Control Areas and • Section 51: Plan of Subdivision Approvals. The relevance to stormwater, is in regards to Site Plan and Subdivision Approvals at the municipal level. Site Plan and Subdivision Approvals are: • Subject to Conditions o Grading and alterations to land, including storm and surface waters o Sediment and erosion control requirements • Criteria for conservation of natural resources and flood control • Requires entry into legal agreements • Requires compliance with imposed conditions • Can impose financial securities • Linked to other regulatory approvals (i.e. Conservation Authorities) Provincial Planning Statement (MMAH, 2024) Issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) is a consolidation of policies on land use planning and sets minimum standards that all decisions affecting planning matters must be consistent with. The PPS came into effect on October 20th, 2024, replacing both the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019). The PPS (2024) acknowledges that Municipal official plans are the most important method of implementation of the PPS and for achieving comprehensive, integrated, and long-term planning. Applicable Provisions of the Provincial Planning Statement • Section 2.3: Settlement Areas and Settlement Area Boundary Expansions • Section 2.9.1d directs planning authorities to promote green infrastructure and low impact development as part of approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of a changing climate • Section 3.6.8 directs that planning for stormwater management shall: Page 296 of 369 Page 532 of 1679 a) be integrated with planning for sewage and water services and ensure that systems are optimized, retrofitted as appropriate, feasible, and financially viable over their full life cycle; b) minimize, or, where possible, prevent or reduce increases in stormwater volumes and contaminant loads; c) minimize erosion and changes in water balance including through the use of green infrastructure; d) mitigate risks to human health, safety, property and the environment; e) maximize the extent and function of vegetative and pervious surfaces; f) promote best practices, including stormwater attenuation and re-use, water conservation and efficiency, and low impact development; and g) align with any comprehensive municipal plans for stormwater management that consider cumulative impacts of stormwater from development on a watershed scale • Section 4.1: Natural Heritage • Section 5.2: Natural Hazards The PPS (2024) defines Green Infrastructure as: natural and human-made elements that provide ecological and hydrological functions and processes. Green infrastructure can include components such as natural heritage features and systems, parklands, stormwater management systems, street trees, urban forests, natural channels, permeable surfaces and green roofs. The Municipal Act (MMAH, 2001, Amended 2024) Ontario's Municipal Act, 2001 is the main statute governing the creation, administration and government of municipalities in the province of Ontario. The Municipal Act empowers municipalities to enact and enforce by-laws on water-related matters including industrial discharges into municipal sewers and water rates. With respect to stormwater planning and management, municipalities have the responsibility to: • Promote current and future economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality; • Manage and preserve the public’s assets of the municipality; • Provide services considered necessary or desirable for the effective management of stormwater; and • Participate and deliver in provincial programs and initiatives. Greenbelt Plan (MMAH, 2004, Amended 2017) In 2005 the Greenbelt region was introduced to shape the future of the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) area, which was home to over two-thirds of Ontario’s population as of 2017. The Greenbelt Plan identifies where urbanization should not occur, so that the agricultural land base, ecological and hydrological features, areas, and functions of the landscape in the GGH area are protected. Applicable Provisions: Page 297 of 369 Page 533 of 1679 • Section 1.2.2.2 outlines what should be promoted within the Protected Countryside in terms of environmental protection: d) Provision of long-term guidance for the management of natural heritage and water resources when contemplating such matters as watershed/subwatershed and stormwater management planning, water and wastewater servicing, development, infrastructure, open space planning and management, aggregate rehabilitation and private or public stewardship programs. • Section 3.2.3 outlines Water Resource System policies that apply throughout the Protected Countryside: 4. Decisions on allocation of growth and planning for water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure shall be informed by applicable watershed planning in accordance with the Growth Plan. • Section 4.2.3: Stormwater Management and Resilient Infrastructure Policies The Places to Grow Act (Ministry of Infrastructure, 2005, Amended 2021) This Act maintains that municipalities that share an inland water source and/or receiving water body should coordinate their planning for potable water, stormwater, and wastewater systems to ensure that water quality and quantity is maintained or improved. In conjunction with conservation authorities, municipalities are encouraged to prepare watershed plans and use these plans to guide development decisions and water and wastewater servicing decisions. Finally, municipalities are encouraged to implement and support innovative SWM actions as part of redevelopment and intensification (Ministry of Public Infrastructure and Renewal, 2006). Local Level Local legislative level is defined here as the level that includes regional and municipal government, and the conservation authority (i.e., NPCA). Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Area – Assessment Report (2011, Amended 2013) The City of Niagara Falls is within the Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Area (NPSPA). The Assessment Report (2013) was prepared to be part of the drinking water source protection process that is outlined in the Clean Water Act (2006), and the report contents are specified by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment Assessment Report Technical Rules (2009). The report outlines the following four (4) study areas: • Watershed Characterization • Water Budget and Water Quantity Threats Analysis • Groundwater Vulnerability and Threats Analysis • Surface Water Vulnerability and Threats Analysis The report assesses the quality and quantity of municipal drinking water supplies across the NPSPA and identifies significant threats that may impact drinking water sources. Page 298 of 369 Page 534 of 1679 Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Area – Source Protection Plan (2013) The Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Area (NPSPA) Source Protection Plan (SPP) was developed under the Clean Water Act (2006, Ontario Regulation 287/07). Under O.Reg. 287/07, the objectives of the SPP are as follows: • Protecting existing and future drinking water sources in the Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Area (NPSPA); and • Ensuring through management or prohibition, that activities identified as drinking water threats either never become a significant threat, or, if the activity is already taking place, the activity ceases to be a significant threat. Policies in the SPP are focused on ensuring that activities that are or would be a significant threat to municipal drinking water sources cease to exist or never become significant. Identified moderate and low drinking water threats to drinking water sources may be considered in the future. The SPP discusses stormwater management in the context of Intake Protection Zones (IPZ), with a focus on preventing stormwater runoff from contaminating drinking water sources. Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (2022, Amended 2024) The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) has outlined policies related to their role and responsibilities for the review of applications under the Planning Act and other legislation. This amendment brings the policies of the previous version into conformity with the April 1, 2024 amendments made to the Conservation Authorities Act and Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits. NPCA defines a subwatershed plan as “a proactive document created cooperatively by government agencies and the community to manage the water, land/water interactions, aquatic life and aquatic resources within a particular watershed to protect the health of the ecosystem as land uses change. Watershed and sub-watershed plans provide specific direction for the overall water and resource management of specific creek systems” (Section 2.2) Planning policies outlined in Section 2 include: • Natural hazards; • Lot creation; • Environmental assessments; • Municipal drains; • Climate change; • Natural heritage; • Stormwater management review; • Minister’s zoning order; and • Land securement. Page 299 of 369 Page 535 of 1679 NPCA Beaverdams and Shriners Creek Watershed Plan Phase One (2011) The Beaverdams and Shriners Creek Watershed Plan Phase One (NPCA, 2011) report provides the watershed characterization and preliminary issues identification within these two watersheds. In addition, it provides proposed watershed objectives related to: • Water Resources • Fish and Aquatic Habitat • Natural Heritage and Resources • Communication, Education, and Recreation • Development The report also discusses various stormwater management measures that are in place throughout the watersheds. NPCA Stormwater Management Guidelines (2017) The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) Stormwater Management Guidelines (2017) was initiated as a Direct Action out of the Niagara Water Quality Protection Strategy and provides a long-term plan to guide the safe and effective management of runoff in urban and urbanizing areas, and maintain the health of rivers and streams in the NPCA jurisdiction. The intention of the document is to be used in relation to, and not supersede, local municipal stormwater criteria. The report includes planning objectives that outline a process to help identify, protect, and preserve natural features and consider their role in Stormwater Management (SWM) planning. The process includes: • At source controls at the lot level to reduce runoff and reduce pollutants entering into the drainage system; • Conveyance controls, such as grassed swales, roadside ditches and pervious pipes to reduce flows and remove pollutants; • End-of-pipe controls to control flows and remove pollutants prior to stormwater entering the receiving system such as streams or other water bodies; • Best available practices while integrating or enhancing existing natural features into the system; • Identification of a review process that ensures all agencies the opportunity to review and comment on SWM reports and planning; and • Reflection and incorporation of the SWM objectives set out in current OPs, existing watershed and subwatershed planning, and Master Drainage Planning, especially regarding flood protection, erosion and protection of the receiving natural environment. Applicable Provisions: • Section 6: SWM Opportunities/Constraints Related to Development Types • Section 7: SWM Policies and Technical Guidelines Page 300 of 369 Page 536 of 1679 NPCA Strategic Plan (2021) The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) Strategic Plan (2021) is a ten-year plan that outlines NPCA’s vision, mission, core values, and guiding principles. The Strategic Plan outlines the following six (6) strategic priorities that will guide their work from 2021 to 2031: 1. Healthy and Climate Resilient Watersheds 2. Supporting Sustainable Growth 3. Connecting People to Nature 4. Partner of Choice 5. Organizational Excellence 6. Financial Sustainability Each of these strategic priorities have multiple associated goals and a plan for achieving each goal outlined in the Strategic Plan. NPCA Erosion & Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction (2006) The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Guidelines for Urban Construction (2006) was developed to improve the practice of erosion and sediment control and outline a process to ensure ESC plans are prepared, implemented, and enforced. The Guidelines are intended to fulfill the following needs: • Provide a consolidated statement of Regulatory requirements and expectation regarding ESC; • Clarify the respective roles and responsibilities for all Regulatory agencies, land owners, developers, builders, contractors, and consultants; • Encourage awareness of and conformance with federal and provincial legislation and with municipal by-laws, permits, and standards related to ESC; • Improve communications among all parties responsible for ESC; • Assist parties in recognizing the causes of environmental damage and the various means of mitigating the risks, thereby reducing the environmental impacts; and, • Promote consistency, quality, and continual improvement in the standard of efforts to protect the environment. Niagara Region Stormwater Management Guidelines (2022) The Niagara Region Stormwater Management Guidelines (2022) was developed to be used by practitioners in the design of storm drainage infrastructure within the Niagara Region. The guidelines are meant to support other relevant and companion documentation, the planning and design process for new land development and re-development (infills/intensification), as well as infrastructure renewal projects, and are not meant to replace the technical guidelines of municipalities.. The guidelines were developed in light of the governing policies and vision outlines in the Niagara Region Official Plan (2022). The document provides hierarchical guidance, direction and consistency for the various stages of development, specifically related to the planning, design, and review of: • Regional Master Servicing Plans (RMSPs); Page 301 of 369 Page 537 of 1679 • Functional Servicing Reports (FSRs); and • Stormwater Management (SWM) Reports. Niagara Region Official Plan (2022) The Niagara Region Official Plan (NROP) (consolidated in November 2022) contains policies and maps which guide the type and location of land uses in the Region to 2051. Subwatershed planning is supported through the NROP through the policies outlined in Section 3.2.3, duplicated below for reference. 3.2.3.2 A subwatershed study should generally include, but is not limited to: a. an inventory of existing ecological and hydrological data and conditions; b. the identification of existing and proposed land uses, and the modelling of potential development impacts; c. water quality targets in accordance with the watershed plan, Provincial guidelines, or other industry standards and best practices; d. procedures for monitoring water quality and quantity before, during, and after development; e. completion of a water balance; f. consideration of all elements of the natural environment system as described in Section 3.1 of this Plan; g. refinement to the boundaries of the natural environment system; h. identification of opportunities for, and constraints to development; i. guidelines and best management practices for development design, environmental design, construction management, etc.; j. the recommendation of appropriate stormwater management techniques in accordance with Provincial, Regional and Local guidelines and industry best practices; k. an analysis the cumulative impact of development; and l. implementation and adaptive monitoring plans. 3.2.3.3 Proposed development in designated greenfield areas, including the associated water, wastewater and stormwater servicing, shall be planned to avoid, or if avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate any potential negative impacts on watershed conditions and the water resource system, including the quality and quantity of water. The NROP also contains policies for the protection of the Natural Environment System (Section 3.1), as well as for Source Water Protection (Section 3.3), and climate change considerations (Section 3.5). Niagara Region Transportation Master Plan (2017) The Niagara Region Transportation Master Plan (TMP) (2017) sets out a strategic vision for transportation and its implications in the Niagara Region over the subsequent twenty-five (25) years. The overall goal of the TMP is to improve existing transportation systems within each of the Region’s 12 municipalities, and develop strategies to enhance the movement of people and goods across all modes. The TMP informed development of transportation policies in the Niagara Region Official Plan. Section 5 of the TMP outlines a Complete Streets approach that is intended to use in urban development. Page 302 of 369 Page 538 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls Official Plan (1993, Amended 2024) The City of Niagara Falls Official Plan (OP), consolidated in April 2019, states that a “subwatershed plan may be required through secondary plans, neighbourhood plans or for large scale developments that require an amendment to this Plan, whether or not a watershed plan exists, to provide specific guidance on the means to protect, restore and rehabilitate natural resources and to provide a framework for integrating environmental concerns into the land use development process in context of the watershed area” (Part 2, Section 11.1.15). The OP also indicates that “the function of the natural heritage system shall be assessed on a watershed scale, exceeding lot boundaries, and in some cases, municipal boundaries. Within each watershed area, subwatershed plans and environmental impact studies will be utilized to identify, assess and protect the City's flora, fauna and water resources not only on a site specific, but also on a cumulative basis” (Part 2, Section 11.1). The OP outlines multiple policies for the protection of water resources. Key policies relevant to this SWS include: Part 2, Section 11.1.27: Development or site alteration shall not have an adverse impact on ground or surface water quality or quantity. The City, in consultation with the appropriate agencies, may require a hydrogeological study or an environmental impact study for development or site alteration for any proposal that may impact, either locally or cross- jurisdictionally, on: a) the quantity and quality of surface and ground water; b) the functions of ground water recharge and discharge areas, aquifers and headwaters; c) the natural hydrologic characteristics of watercourse such as base flow; d) surface and ground water such that other natural heritage features are negatively affected; e) natural drainage systems and stream forms; and f) flooding or erosion. 11.1.31 A stormwater management plan shall demonstrate that the proposal will minimize vegetation removal, grading and soil compaction, erosion and sedimentation, and impervious surfaces. Where a watershed or subwatershed plan exists, the stormwater management plan shall implement the recommendations of such plans. The Stormwater Management Plan shall be prepared and signed by a qualified engineer. 11.1.32 Stormwater management facilities shall not be constructed within any EPA [Environmental Protection Area] or ECA [Environmental Conservation Area] features. A stormwater management facility may be permitted in accordance with Land Use Polices of this Section only where it has been demonstrated through an applicable study, completed to the satisfaction of the City and Region, that there will be no impact on any natural heritage feature or the function of the natural heritage system. 11.1.33 Where a Watershed Study or Aquifer Management Plan or any other related environmental study has identified sensitive surface water features and/or sensitive ground water features, these features and their related hydrologic functions will be protected, improved or restored through a restriction of land uses in the implementing Zoning By-law. Uses that may Page 303 of 369 Page 539 of 1679 be restricted include, but are not limited to: landfills, lagoons or other waste disposal facilities, asphalt and concrete batching plants, the storage or processing of chemical products, gasoline or oil depots and service stations and vehicle salvage, maintenance and services yards. As watershed and ground water studies identify surface and ground water features, hydrologic functions and natural heritage features and areas necessary for the ecological and hydrologic integrity of the City's watersheds, the City shall consider appropriate amendments to this Plan. 11.1.36 Development or site alteration adjacent to any hydrologic feature such as valleylands, stream corridors or Municipal Drains shall be setback from the stable top of slope in accordance with the Regulations of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. The required setback shall be protected through the implementing zoning by-law. City of Niagara Falls Sustainable Transportation Master Plan (2011) The City of Niagara Falls Sustainable Transportation Master Plan (STMP) (2011) provides a strategy of priority improvements and programs required for the City to be able to address its transportation challenges over the next twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) years. The STMP outlines operational, planning, and policy issues for all modes of transportation in the context of tourism, economics, environment, and the community, and also provides a vision for future transportation consistent with community values. The goals and principles of the STMP are as follows: • Optimize the transportation system; • Promote transportation choice; • Foster a strong economy; and • Support sustainable development and growth. Section 6 outlines future travel needs and opportunities, and Section 7.2 outlines recommendations for the future transportation network. Page 304 of 369 Page 540 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 66258 Appendix B – Hydrologic Modeling Page 305 of 369 Page 541 of 1679 Garner West Modeling November, 2024 Aquafor Beech limited 1 Hydrology Hydrology is the science which deals with the interaction of water and land, and the processes by which precipitation is transformed into runoff to the receiving watercourses or infiltrated into the groundwater system. These processes are generally called the hydrologic cycle. One of the most dramatic changes brought about by urbanization is the change in hydrological cycle and stream hydrology. These changes can result in increases in flooding, channel erosion, sediment transport, and pollutant loadings which can cause deterioration in natural channel morphology, fish and wildlife habitats, recreational opportunity and aesthetics. It is important that the existing hydrologic characteristics of the study area and its watercourses be established. This information is critical in defining existing flood characteristics, defining regulatory floodplain limits, and providing key information on the selection and design of stormwater management facilities for future urban development lands. Hydrologic model setup A hydrologic model is used to simulate predevelopment and post development conditions and evaluate the Stormwater Management alternatives. Ultimately, the hydrologic model is a tool to evaluate how proposed stormwater infrastructure solutions can mitigate the impacts of urbanization. The hydrologic model selected for this study is PCSWMM 2023. PCSWMM has the capacity of using a number of versions of SWMM5 for performing the hydrologic and hydraulic calculations. For the existing condition model, SWMM 7.6.3675 was selected, as it is the latest official version of SWMM currently available. Provided below is an overview as to how the model was set up to define flows for existing conditions. Map Coordinate System The model was setup in PCSWMM 2016 using the NAD83 UTM zone 17N coordinates system. All of the GIS files prepared as part of this project used the same coordinate system. Subcatchments Area, Width and Length The area of each of the subcatchments were calculated using the auto-length feature within the SWMM5 model. This method provides an approximate area based on the NAD83 UTM zone 17N coordinate system. The width is a calibration parameter which is not easily measurable in the field. One method for initial estimation of subcatchment width is to calculate it by dividing the area by an assigned flow path length. This parameter may be adjusted significantly during the model calibration. Although it is often suggested that the subcatchment width be treated as a calibration parameter whereby the width is adjusted to best simulated runoff in the receiving system; however, in cases where calibration data is not available, the subcatchment width parameter must be estimated recognizing the impact of assumptions on model output and considering the potential limitations of these assumptions. The flow length for a subcatchment is the length of the overland sheet flow in meters. PCSWMM uses the EPA SWMM5 hydrology and hydraulics engine. Flow length is not a parameter used by EPA SWM5, rather it is used to initially estimate subcatchment width. Measuring the length of the overland flow requires some judgment and approximation as well as use of a DEM to define the major overland flow path. Page 306 of 369 Page 542 of 1679 Garner West Modeling November, 2024 Aquafor Beech limited 2 Infiltration Parameters Subcatchment infiltration is the process of rainfall infiltration into the pervious area of the ground surface into the unsaturated soil zone of pervious subcatchment areas. There are three methods available in SWMM5 for modelling infiltration including Horton’s Equation, Green-Ampt Method and Curve Number Method. The method selected for the Garner West was Horton’s Equation. Horton’s Equation input parameters include; the maximum and minimum infiltration rates, a decay coefficient that describes how fast the rate decreases over time, and the time it takes a fully saturated soil to completely dry (used to compute the recovery of infiltration rate during dry periods). For the Garner West catchment area, the soil type consists mainly of Loam. The infiltration parameters used for Garner West catchment are presented in Table E-1. Table E-1: Soil Characteristics for Garner West Catchment Texture K value (mm/hr) Max Infiltration Diamicton 0.25 25.4 Sand 120 127 Silt, sand, gravel 55 120 Loam 3.6 76.2 Clay, silt 0.51 50 Sand, gravel 5 150 Organic deposits 3.5 90 Clay, silt, sand 1.6 75 Percent Directly Connected Impervious Area (DCIA) The percent of imperviousness land in each subcatchment was calculated using the land use map (Error! Reference source not found.) layer using the general imperviousness values which are presented in 0 E- 2. Once the subcatchments were discretized, the percent of impervious land in each subcatchment was calculated using aerial photographs. A complete description of each land use type and its imperviousness is provided in Table E-2. Page 307 of 369 Page 543 of 1679 Garner West Modeling November, 2024 Aquafor Beech limited 3 Table E-2: Typical Imperviousness for a Defined Land Use Design Storm The design storm is a critical precipitation event which is used for assessing the flood hydrology for a certain return period (frequency). Design storms are created based on statistical analysis of historical storm data and are usually region specific. The 24-hour SCS storm distribution was provided by NPCA for use in the PCSWMM model for this study area. The 24-hour rainfall depths for the 2, 5, 10, 25, and 100-year return period storms, are applied in the PCSWMM model for Garner West Tributaries were 49.5, 62.6, 71.3, 82.3, 90.4- and 98.5-mm. Hurricane Hazel storm with 21-mm of rain was also applied to both study areas to define the regional flows. Figure 1 shows the PCSWM model setup for Garner West catchments. It presents catchment delineation, creeks, junctions and outlets of the catchments including the key flow nodes amongst the Garner West Catchment. Page 308 of 369 Page 544 of 1679 Garner West Modeling November, 2024 Aquafor Beech limited 4 Figure 1: PCSWMM Model Setup for Garner West The catchment area shaded in pink is controlled by Edgewood Estates SWM Facility. Modelling from MTE 2022 indicates the following peak discharge (MTE, 2022). Table E-3 presents the peak discharge rates by Modelling from MTE 2022. Page 309 of 369 Page 545 of 1679 Garner West Modeling November, 2024 Aquafor Beech limited 5 Table E-3: Edgewood Estates SWM Facility flows (MTE, 2022) Design Storm / Return Period Peak Flow (m3/s) 25 mm Event 0.293 2-Year 0.380 5-Year 0.561 100-Year 1.164 Using the flow values of the Edgewood Estates SWM Facility from MTE, the flows for the other return periods (i.e., 10-Year, 25-Year, 50-Year, and Hurricane Hazell Storm) were estimated using PCSWM model. Table E-4: Flow estimation for the Edgewood Estates SWM Facility catchment Design Storm / Return Period Peak Flow (m3/s) 10-Year 0.69 25-Year 0.86 50-Year 1.01 Hurricane Hazel 2.67 Flow Estimation (Events) The Existing Model was used to estimate stormwater flow rates at key areas among (Figure 1) the Beaver dams Creek W and Thompson’s Creek at various return periods. The regulatory flood event in the study area for floodplain management purposes is the regional storm (Hurricane Hazel). A design storm approach was selected to estimate peak flow rates for the 2-year through 100-year return periods on Garner West Tributaries within the study area. With a design storm approach, a rainfall input (i.e. duration, return period depth, and temporal distribution) is selected and design flows are determined using specified antecedent moisture conditions and a computational technique such as hydrologic model. It is assumed with this approach that the peak flows which are generated are of the same return period as the applied design storm Table E-5 summarizes the estimated flow rates from key areas Garner West Tributaries. The flow nodes are presented in Figure 1. Table E-5: Flows at areas of interest Creek Catchment 2-year 5-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year Hurricane Hazel Event BD1 Beaver dams Creek W Garner West 0.28 0.417 0.517 0.654 0.763 0.875 2.955 BD2 Beaver dams Creek W Garner West 0.751 1.120 1.388 1.748 2.047 2.357 7.117 BD3 Beaver dams Creek W Garner West 0.063 0.100 0.127 0.164 0.194 0.225 0.915 Page 310 of 369 Page 546 of 1679 Garner West Modeling November, 2024 Aquafor Beech limited 6 Creek Catchment 2-year 5-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year Hurricane Hazel Event T1 Thompson'sCreek Garner West 0.028 0.049 0.066 0.089 0.108 0.136 0.494 T2 Thompson'sCreek Garner West 0.067 0.11 0.149 0.205 0.252 0.293 1.099 T Thompson'sCreek Garner West 0.064 0.106 0.14 0.191 0.23 0.255 2.143 HC Hydro Canal Garner West 0.093 0.137 0.169 2.59 0.246 0.281 0.697 Page 311 of 369 Page 547 of 1679 Garner West Modeling November, 2024 Aquafor Beech limited 7 Design Storms 2-year 5-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year Time (H:M) Value Time (H:M) Value Time (H:M) Value Time (H:M) Value Time (H:M) Value Time (H:M) Value 0:00 0.54 0:00 0.69 0:00 0.78 0:00 0.91 0:00 0.99 0:00 1.08 0:15 0.54 0:15 0.69 0:15 0.78 0:15 0.91 0:15 0.99 0:15 1.08 0:30 0.54 0:30 0.69 0:30 0.78 0:30 0.91 0:30 0.99 0:30 1.08 0:45 0.54 0:45 0.69 0:45 0.78 0:45 0.91 0:45 0.99 0:45 1.08 1:00 0.54 1:00 0.69 1:00 0.78 1:00 0.91 1:00 0.99 1:00 1.08 1:15 0.54 1:15 0.69 1:15 0.78 1:15 0.91 1:15 0.99 1:15 1.08 1:30 0.54 1:30 0.69 1:30 0.78 1:30 0.91 1:30 0.99 1:30 1.08 1:45 0.54 1:45 0.69 1:45 0.78 1:45 0.91 1:45 0.99 1:45 1.08 2:00 0.64 2:00 0.81 2:00 0.93 2:00 1.07 2:00 1.18 2:00 1.28 2:15 0.64 2:15 0.81 2:15 0.93 2:15 1.07 2:15 1.18 2:15 1.28 2:30 0.64 2:30 0.81 2:30 0.93 2:30 1.07 2:30 1.18 2:30 1.28 2:45 0.64 2:45 0.81 2:45 0.93 2:45 1.07 2:45 1.18 2:45 1.28 3:00 0.64 3:00 0.81 3:00 0.93 3:00 1.07 3:00 1.18 3:00 1.28 3:15 0.64 3:15 0.81 3:15 0.93 3:15 1.07 3:15 1.18 3:15 1.28 3:30 0.64 3:30 0.81 3:30 0.93 3:30 1.07 3:30 1.18 3:30 1.28 3:45 0.64 3:45 0.81 3:45 0.93 3:45 1.07 3:45 1.18 3:45 1.28 4:00 0.79 4:00 1.00 4:00 1.14 4:00 1.32 4:00 1.45 4:00 1.58 4:15 0.79 4:15 1.00 4:15 1.14 4:15 1.32 4:15 1.45 4:15 1.58 4:30 0.79 4:30 1.00 4:30 1.14 4:30 1.32 4:30 1.45 4:30 1.58 4:45 0.79 4:45 1.00 4:45 1.14 4:45 1.32 4:45 1.45 4:45 1.58 5:00 0.79 5:00 1.00 5:00 1.14 5:00 1.32 5:00 1.45 5:00 1.58 5:15 0.79 5:15 1.00 5:15 1.14 5:15 1.32 5:15 1.45 5:15 1.58 5:30 0.79 5:30 1.00 5:30 1.14 5:30 1.32 5:30 1.45 5:30 1.58 5:45 0.79 5:45 1.00 5:45 1.14 5:45 1.32 5:45 1.45 5:45 1.58 6:00 0.89 6:00 1.13 6:00 1.28 6:00 1.48 6:00 1.63 6:00 1.77 6:15 0.89 6:15 1.13 6:15 1.28 6:15 1.48 6:15 1.63 6:15 1.77 6:30 0.89 6:30 1.13 6:30 1.28 6:30 1.48 6:30 1.63 6:30 1.77 6:45 0.89 6:45 1.13 6:45 1.28 6:45 1.48 6:45 1.63 6:45 1.77 7:00 1.09 7:00 1.38 7:00 1.57 7:00 1.81 7:00 1.99 7:00 2.17 7:15 1.09 7:15 1.38 7:15 1.57 7:15 1.81 7:15 1.99 7:15 2.17 7:30 1.09 7:30 1.38 7:30 1.57 7:30 1.81 7:30 1.99 7:30 2.17 7:45 1.09 7:45 1.38 7:45 1.57 7:45 1.81 7:45 1.99 7:45 2.17 8:00 1.29 8:00 1.63 8:00 1.85 8:00 2.14 8:00 2.35 8:00 2.56 8:15 1.29 8:15 1.63 8:15 1.85 8:15 2.14 8:15 2.35 8:15 2.56 8:30 1.39 8:30 1.75 8:30 2.00 8:30 2.30 8:30 2.53 8:30 2.76 8:45 1.39 8:45 1.75 8:45 2.00 8:45 2.30 8:45 2.53 8:45 2.76 9:00 1.58 9:00 2.00 9:00 2.28 9:00 2.63 9:00 2.89 9:00 3.15 9:15 1.58 9:15 2.00 9:15 2.28 9:15 2.63 9:15 2.89 9:15 3.15 Page 312 of 369 Page 548 of 1679 Garner West Modeling November, 2024 Aquafor Beech limited 8 9:30 1.78 9:30 2.25 9:30 2.57 9:30 2.96 9:30 3.25 9:30 3.55 9:45 1.78 9:45 2.25 9:45 2.57 9:45 2.96 9:45 3.25 9:45 3.55 10:00 2.28 10:00 2.88 10:00 3.28 10:00 3.79 10:00 4.16 10:00 4.53 10:15 2.28 10:15 2.88 10:15 3.28 10:15 3.79 10:15 4.16 10:15 4.53 10:30 3.07 10:30 3.88 10:30 4.42 10:30 5.10 10:30 5.60 10:30 6.11 10:45 3.07 10:45 3.88 10:45 4.42 10:45 5.10 10:45 5.60 10:45 6.11 11:00 4.75 11:00 6.01 11:00 6.84 11:00 7.90 11:00 8.68 11:00 9.46 11:15 4.75 11:15 6.01 11:15 6.84 11:15 7.90 11:15 8.68 11:15 9.46 11:30 14.65 11:30 18.53 11:30 21.10 11:30 24.36 11:30 26.76 11:30 29.16 11:45 60.59 11:45 76.62 11:45 87.27 11:45 100.74 11:45 110.65 11:45 120.57 12:00 7.13 12:00 9.01 12:00 10.27 12:00 11.85 12:00 13.02 12:00 14.18 12:15 7.13 12:15 9.01 12:15 10.27 12:15 11.85 12:15 13.02 12:15 14.18 12:30 3.66 12:30 4.63 12:30 5.28 12:30 6.09 12:30 6.69 12:30 7.29 12:45 3.66 12:45 4.63 12:45 5.28 12:45 6.09 12:45 6.69 12:45 7.29 13:00 2.67 13:00 3.38 13:00 3.85 13:00 4.44 13:00 4.88 13:00 5.32 13:15 2.67 13:15 3.38 13:15 3.85 13:15 4.44 13:15 4.88 13:15 5.32 13:30 2.08 13:30 2.63 13:30 2.99 13:30 3.46 13:30 3.80 13:30 4.14 13:45 2.08 13:45 2.63 13:45 2.99 13:45 3.46 13:45 3.80 13:45 4.14 14:00 1.49 14:00 1.88 14:00 2.14 14:00 2.47 14:00 2.71 14:00 2.95 14:15 1.49 14:15 1.88 14:15 2.14 14:15 2.47 14:15 2.71 14:15 2.95 14:30 1.49 14:30 1.88 14:30 2.14 14:30 2.47 14:30 2.71 14:30 2.95 14:45 1.49 14:45 1.88 14:45 2.14 14:45 2.47 14:45 2.71 14:45 2.95 15:00 1.49 15:00 1.88 15:00 2.14 15:00 2.47 15:00 2.71 15:00 2.95 15:15 1.49 15:15 1.88 15:15 2.14 15:15 2.47 15:15 2.71 15:15 2.95 15:30 1.49 15:30 1.88 15:30 2.14 15:30 2.47 15:30 2.71 15:30 2.95 15:45 1.49 15:45 1.88 15:45 2.14 15:45 2.47 15:45 2.71 15:45 2.95 16:00 0.89 16:00 1.13 16:00 1.28 16:00 1.48 16:00 1.63 16:00 1.77 16:15 0.89 16:15 1.13 16:15 1.28 16:15 1.48 16:15 1.63 16:15 1.77 16:30 0.89 16:30 1.13 16:30 1.28 16:30 1.48 16:30 1.63 16:30 1.77 16:45 0.89 16:45 1.13 16:45 1.28 16:45 1.48 16:45 1.63 16:45 1.77 17:00 0.89 17:00 1.13 17:00 1.28 17:00 1.48 17:00 1.63 17:00 1.77 17:15 0.89 17:15 1.13 17:15 1.28 17:15 1.48 17:15 1.63 17:15 1.77 17:30 0.89 17:30 1.13 17:30 1.28 17:30 1.48 17:30 1.63 17:30 1.77 17:45 0.89 17:45 1.13 17:45 1.28 17:45 1.48 17:45 1.63 17:45 1.77 18:00 0.89 18:00 1.13 18:00 1.28 18:00 1.48 18:00 1.63 18:00 1.77 18:15 0.89 18:15 1.13 18:15 1.28 18:15 1.48 18:15 1.63 18:15 1.77 18:30 0.89 18:30 1.13 18:30 1.28 18:30 1.48 18:30 1.63 18:30 1.77 18:45 0.89 18:45 1.13 18:45 1.28 18:45 1.48 18:45 1.63 18:45 1.77 19:00 0.89 19:00 1.13 19:00 1.28 19:00 1.48 19:00 1.63 19:00 1.77 19:15 0.89 19:15 1.13 19:15 1.28 19:15 1.48 19:15 1.63 19:15 1.77 19:30 0.89 19:30 1.13 19:30 1.28 19:30 1.48 19:30 1.63 19:30 1.77 Page 313 of 369 Page 549 of 1679 Garner West Modeling November, 2024 Aquafor Beech limited 9 19:45 0.89 19:45 1.13 19:45 1.28 19:45 1.48 19:45 1.63 19:45 1.77 20:00 0.59 20:00 0.75 20:00 0.86 20:00 0.99 20:00 1.08 20:00 1.18 20:15 0.59 20:15 0.75 20:15 0.86 20:15 0.99 20:15 1.08 20:15 1.18 20:30 0.59 20:30 0.75 20:30 0.86 20:30 0.99 20:30 1.08 20:30 1.18 20:45 0.59 20:45 0.75 20:45 0.86 20:45 0.99 20:45 1.08 20:45 1.18 21:00 0.59 21:00 0.75 21:00 0.86 21:00 0.99 21:00 1.08 21:00 1.18 21:15 0.59 21:15 0.75 21:15 0.86 21:15 0.99 21:15 1.08 21:15 1.18 21:30 0.59 21:30 0.75 21:30 0.86 21:30 0.99 21:30 1.08 21:30 1.18 21:45 0.59 21:45 0.75 21:45 0.86 21:45 0.99 21:45 1.08 21:45 1.18 22:00 0.59 22:00 0.75 22:00 0.86 22:00 0.99 22:00 1.08 22:00 1.18 22:15 0.59 22:15 0.75 22:15 0.86 22:15 0.99 22:15 1.08 22:15 1.18 22:30 0.59 22:30 0.75 22:30 0.86 22:30 0.99 22:30 1.08 22:30 1.18 22:45 0.59 22:45 0.75 22:45 0.86 22:45 0.99 22:45 1.08 22:45 1.18 23:00 0.59 23:00 0.75 23:00 0.86 23:00 0.99 23:00 1.08 23:00 1.18 23:15 0.59 23:15 0.75 23:15 0.86 23:15 0.99 23:15 1.08 23:15 1.18 23:30 0.59 23:30 0.75 23:30 0.86 23:30 0.99 23:30 1.08 23:30 1.18 23:45 0.59 23:45 0.75 23:45 0.86 23:45 0.99 23:45 1.08 23:45 1.18 Page 314 of 369 Page 550 of 1679 Garner West Modeling November, 2024 Aquafor Beech limited 10 subcatchment parameters Name Area (ha) Width (m) Flow Length (m) Slope (%) Imperviousness (%) N Impervious N Pervious Dstore Impervious (mm) Dstore Pervious (mm) Max. Infiltration Rate (mm/hr) Min. Infiltration Rate (mm/hr) Decay Constant (1/hr) Drying Time (days) GW-1 72.3 500.0 1445.6 6.2 41.0 1.5 5.5 0.013 0.23 76.2 3.6 4 7 GW-2_1 85.7 500.0 1715.0 8.0 55.4 1.5 5.5 0.013 0.23 76.2 3.6 4 7 GW-2_2 33.1 826.6 400.0 6.2 55.4 1.5 5.5 0.013 0.23 76.2 3.6 4 7 GW-3 16.6 500.0 332.6 2.5 1.7 1.5 5.5 0.013 0.23 76.2 3.6 4 7 GW-4 35.9 858.7 418.2 2.5 2.9 1.5 5.5 0.013 0.23 76.2 3.6 4 7 GW-5 38.1 500.0 762.9 2.5 3.8 1.5 5.5 0.013 0.23 76.2 3.6 4 7 GW-6 16.9 500.0 337.3 2.5 1.7 1.5 5.5 0.013 0.23 76.2 3.6 4 7 GW-7 25.2 500.0 503.8 2.5 2.4 1.5 5.5 0.013 0.23 76.2 3.6 4 7 Page 315 of 369Page 551 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 66258 Appendix C – Water Quality Lab Reports Page 316 of 369 Page 552 of 1679 4 4.00 True CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Work Order :Page :1 of 3WT2426300 ::LaboratoryClientAquafor Beech Limited ALS Environmental - Waterloo ::Contact Meagan Bordi Andrew MartinAccount Manager ::AddressAddress55 Regal Road Unit 3 Guelph ON Canada N1K 1B6 60 Northland Road, Unit 1 Waterloo ON Canada N2V 2B8 :Telephone ----:Telephone +1 519 886 6910 :Project Northwest Gamer Monitoring Date Samples Received :06-Sep-2024 12:35 :PO ----Date Analysis Commenced :07-Sep-2024 :C-O-C number ----Issue Date :13-Sep-2024 16:29 Sampler :CLIENT Site : Quote number :2024 SOA 2:No. of samples received 2:No. of samples analysed This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. This document shall not be reproduced, except in full. This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information: l General Comments l Analytical Results Additional information pertinent to this report will be found in the following separate attachments: Quality Control Report, QC Interpretive report to assist with Quality Review and Sample Receipt Notification (SRN). Signatories This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is conducted in accordance with US FDA 21 CFR Part 11. Signatories Laboratory DepartmentPosition Nik Perkio Senior Analyst Inorganics, Waterloo, Ontario Nik Perkio Senior Analyst Metals, Waterloo, Ontario Walt Kippenhuck Supervisor - Inorganic Inorganics, Waterloo, Ontario Zeba Patel Analyst Microbiology, Waterloo, Ontario Page 317 of 369Page 553 of 1679 2 of 3:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Aquafor Beech Limited General Comments The analytical methods used by ALS are developed using internationally recognized reference methods (where available), such as those published by US EPA, APHA Standard Methods, ASTM, ISO, Environment Canada, BC MOE, and Ontario MOE. Refer to the ALS Quality Control Interpretive report (QCI) for applicable references and methodology summaries. Reference methods may incorporate modifications to improve performance. Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis. Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference. Please refer to Quality Control Interpretive report (QCI) for information regarding Holding Time compliance. Key :CAS Number: Chemical Abstracts Services number is a unique identifier assigned to discrete substances LOR: Limit of Reporting (detection limit). DescriptionUnit CFU/100mL colony forming units per hundred millilitres mg/L milligrams per litre <: less than. >: greater than. Surrogate: An analyte that is similar in behavior to target analyte(s), but that does not occur naturally in environmental samples. For applicable tests, surrogates are added to samples prior to analysis as a check on recovery. Test results reported relate only to the samples as received by the laboratory. UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED on SRN or QCI Report, ALL SAMPLES WERE RECEIVED IN ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. Qualifiers Qualifier Description Detection Limit Raised: Dilution required due to high Dissolved Solids / Electrical Conductivity. DLDS Detection Limit Adjusted due to sample matrix effects (e.g. chemical interference, colour, turbidity). DLM Page 318 of 369Page 554 of 1679 3 of 3:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Aquafor Beech Limited Analytical Results ------------GW1NW1Client sample IDSub-Matrix: Water (Matrix: Water) ------------06-Sep-2024 09:10 06-Sep-2024 10:05 Client sampling date / time ------------------------WT2426300-002WT2426300-001UnitLORCAS NumberAnalyte Method/Lab Result Result ------------ Physical Tests 6.9 ----mg/L3.0------------6.9E160/WTSolids, total suspended [TSS] Anions and Nutrients 236 ----mg/L0.5016887-00-6 --------440E235.Cl/WTChloride DLDS DLDS <0.100 ----mg/L0.02014797-55-8 --------0.125E235.NO3/WTNitrate (as N)DLDS DLDS 0.137 ----mg/L0.00207723-14-0 --------0.123E372-U/WTPhosphorus, total Microbiological Tests 49 ----CFU/100mL1------------310E012A.EC/WTColiforms, Escherichia coli [E. coli] DLM Total Metals 0.00218 ----mg/L0.000507440-50-8 --------0.00079E420/WTCopper, total 0.000437 ----mg/L0.0000507439-92-1 --------0.000456E420/WTLead, total 0.0047 ----mg/L0.00307440-66-6 --------0.0044E420/WTZinc, total Please refer to the General Comments section for an explanation of any result qualifiers detected. Please refer to the Accreditation section for an explanation of analyte accreditations.Page 319 of 369Page 555 of 1679 QUALITY CONTROL INTERPRETIVE REPORT Work Order :WT2426300 Page :1 of 6 ::LaboratoryClient ALS Environmental - WaterlooAquafor Beech Limited :Meagan Bordi Account Manager :Andrew MartinContact Address :55 Regal Road Unit 3 Guelph ON Canada N1K 1B6 Address :60 Northland Road, Unit 1 Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2V 2B8 Telephone :+1 519 886 6910Telephone:---- :Project Northwest Gamer Monitoring Date Samples Received :06-Sep-2024 12:35 Issue Date :13-Sep-2024 16:29----PO : C-O-C number ----: CLIENT:Sampler :Site Quote number :2024 SOA No. of samples received :2 2:No. of samples analysed This report is automatically generated by the ALS LIMS (Laboratory Information Management System) through evaluation of Quality Control (QC) results and other QA parameters associated with this submission, and is intended to facilitate rapid data validation by auditors or reviewers. The report highlights any exceptions and outliers to ALS Data Quality Objectives, provides holding time details and exceptions, summarizes QC sample frequencies, and lists applicable methodology references and summaries. Key Anonymous: Refers to samples which are not part of this work order, but which formed part of the QC process lot. CAS Number: Chemical Abstracts Service number is a unique identifier assigned to discrete substances. DQO: Data Quality Objective. LOR: Limit of Reporting (detection limit). RPD: Relative Percent Difference. Workorder Comments Holding times are displayed as "---" if no guidance exists from CCME, Canadian provinces, or broadly recognized international references. Summary of Outliers Outliers : Quality Control Samples l No Method Blank value outliers occur. l No Duplicate outliers occur. l No Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) outliers occur l No Matrix Spike outliers occur. l No Test sample Surrogate recovery outliers exist. Outliers: Reference Material (RM) Samples l No Reference Material (RM) Sample outliers occur.Page 320 of 369Page 556 of 1679 Outliers : Analysis Holding Time Compliance (Breaches) l No Analysis Holding Time Outliers exist. Outliers : Frequency of Quality Control Samples l No Quality Control Sample Frequency Outliers occur.Page 321 of 369Page 557 of 1679 3 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Analysis Holding Time Compliance This report summarizes extraction / preparation and analysis times and compares each with ALS recommended holding times, which are selected to meet known provincial and /or federal requirements. In the absence of regulatory hold times, ALS establishes recommendations based on guidelines published by organizations such as CCME, US EPA, APHA Standard Methods, ASTM, or Environment Canada (where available). Dates and holding times reported below represent the first dates of extraction or analysis. If subsequent tests or dilutions exceeded holding times, qualifiers are added (refer to COA). If samples are identified below as having been analyzed or extracted outside of recommended holding times, measurement uncertainties may be increased, and this should be taken into consideration when interpreting results. Where actual sampling date is not provided on the chain of custody, the date of receipt with time at 00:00 is used for calculation purposes. Where only the sample date without time is provided on the chain of custody, the sampling date at 00:00 is used for calculation purposes. Matrix: Water Evaluation: û = Holding time exceedance ; ü = Within Holding Time AnalysisExtraction / Preparation Container / Client Sample ID(s) Sampling Date Analysis DatePreparation Date EvalEval Method Holding Times Holding Times Rec Actual Rec Actual Analyte Group : Analytical Method Anions and Nutrients : Chloride in Water by IC HDPE [ON MECP] GW1 10-Sep-202407-Sep-202406-Sep-2024E235.Cl 28 days 1 days 28 days 4 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Chloride in Water by IC HDPE [ON MECP] NW1 10-Sep-202407-Sep-202406-Sep-2024E235.Cl 28 days 1 days 28 days 4 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Nitrate in Water by IC HDPE [ON MECP] GW1 10-Sep-202407-Sep-202406-Sep-2024E235.NO3 7 days 1 days 7 days 4 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Nitrate in Water by IC HDPE [ON MECP] NW1 10-Sep-202407-Sep-202406-Sep-2024E235.NO3 7 days 1 days 7 days 4 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Total Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L) Amber glass total (sulfuric acid) [ON MECP] GW1 13-Sep-202412-Sep-202406-Sep-2024E372-U 28 days 6 days 28 days 7 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Total Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L) Amber glass total (sulfuric acid) [ON MECP] NW1 13-Sep-202412-Sep-202406-Sep-2024E372-U 28 days 6 days 28 days 7 daysü ü Microbiological Tests : E. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG) Sterile HDPE (Sodium thiosulphate) [ON MECP] NW1 07-Sep-2024----06-Sep-2024E012A.EC --------48 hrs 29 hrs üPage 322 of 369Page 558 of 1679 4 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Matrix: Water Evaluation: û = Holding time exceedance ; ü = Within Holding Time AnalysisExtraction / Preparation Container / Client Sample ID(s) Sampling Date Analysis DatePreparation Date EvalEval Method Holding Times Holding Times Rec Actual Rec Actual Analyte Group : Analytical Method Microbiological Tests : E. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG) Sterile HDPE (Sodium thiosulphate) [ON MECP] GW1 07-Sep-2024----06-Sep-2024E012A.EC --------48 hrs 30 hrs ü Physical Tests : TSS by Gravimetry HDPE [ON MECP] GW1 10-Sep-2024----06-Sep-2024E160 --------7 days 4 days ü Physical Tests : TSS by Gravimetry HDPE [ON MECP] NW1 10-Sep-2024----06-Sep-2024E160 --------7 days 4 days ü Total Metals : Total Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS HDPE total (nitric acid) GW1 09-Sep-202409-Sep-202406-Sep-2024E420 180 days 3 days 180 days 3 daysü ü Total Metals : Total Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS HDPE total (nitric acid) NW1 09-Sep-202409-Sep-202406-Sep-2024E420 180 days 3 days 180 days 3 daysü ü Legend & Qualifier Definitions Rec. HT: ALS recommended hold time (see units).Page 323 of 369Page 559 of 1679 5 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Quality Control Parameter Frequency Compliance The following report summarizes the frequency of laboratory QC samples analyzed within the analytical batches (QC lots) in which the submitted samples were processed. The actual frequency should be greater than or equal to the expected frequency. Matrix: Water Evaluation: û = QC frequency outside specification; ü = QC frequency within specification. Quality Control Sample TypeQuality Control Sample Type EvaluationAnalytical Methods Method Count QC Regular Actual Expected Frequency (%) QC Lot # Laboratory Duplicates (DUP) 1 12 üChloride in Water by IC E235.Cl 1638844 5.08.3 1 6 üE. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG)E012A.EC 1639122 5.016.6 1 9 üNitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 1638842 5.011.1 1 20 üTotal Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 1639766 5.05.0 1 20 üTotal Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L)E372-U 1645559 5.05.0 1 17 üTSS by Gravimetry E160 1639945 4.75.8 Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) 1 12 üChloride in Water by IC E235.Cl 1638844 5.08.3 1 9 üNitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 1638842 5.011.1 1 20 üTotal Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 1639766 5.05.0 1 20 üTotal Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L)E372-U 1645559 5.05.0 1 17 üTSS by Gravimetry E160 1639945 4.75.8 Method Blanks (MB) 1 12 üChloride in Water by IC E235.Cl 1638844 5.08.3 1 6 üE. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG)E012A.EC 1639122 5.016.6 1 9 üNitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 1638842 5.011.1 1 20 üTotal Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 1639766 5.05.0 1 20 üTotal Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L)E372-U 1645559 5.05.0 1 17 üTSS by Gravimetry E160 1639945 4.75.8 Matrix Spikes (MS) 1 12 üChloride in Water by IC E235.Cl 1638844 5.08.3 1 9 üNitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 1638842 5.011.1 1 20 üTotal Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 1639766 5.05.0 1 20 üTotal Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L)E372-U 1645559 5.05.0 Page 324 of 369Page 560 of 1679 6 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Methodology References and Summaries The analytical methods used by ALS are developed using internationally recognized reference methods (where available), such as those published by US EPA, APHA Standard Methods, ASTM, ISO, Environment Canada, BC MOE, and Ontario MOE. Reference methods may incorporate modifications to improve performance (indicated by “mod”). Analytical Methods Method DescriptionsMatrixMethod / Lab Method Reference Following filtration (0.45 µm), and incubation at 44.5±0.2°C for 24 hours, colonies exhibiting characteristic morphology of the target organism are enumerated. E. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG)E012A.EC Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo APHA 9222D (mod) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) are determined by filtering a sample through a glass fibre filter, following by drying of the filter at 104 ± 1°C, with gravimetric measurement of the filtered solids. Samples containing very high dissolved solid content (i.e. seawaters, brackish waters) may produce a positive bias by this method. Alternate analysis methods are available for these types of samples. TSS by Gravimetry E160 Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo APHA 2540 D (mod) Inorganic anions are analyzed by Ion Chromatography with conductivity and /or UV detection. Chloride in Water by IC E235.Cl Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo EPA 300.1 (mod) Inorganic anions are analyzed by Ion Chromatography with conductivity and /or UV detection. Nitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo EPA 300.1 (mod) Total Phosphorus is determined colourimetrically using a discrete analyzer after heated persulfate digestion of the sample. Total Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L) E372-U Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo APHA 4500-P E (mod). Water samples are digested with nitric and hydrochloric acids, and analyzed by Collision/Reaction Cell ICPMS. Method Limitation (re: Sulfur): Sulfide and volatile sulfur species may not be recovered by this method. Total Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo EPA 200.2/6020B (mod) Preparation Methods Method DescriptionsMatrixMethod / Lab Method Reference Samples are heated with a persulfate digestion reagent.Digestion for Total Phosphorus in water EP372 Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo APHA 4500-P E (mod).Page 325 of 369Page 561 of 1679 False QUALITY CONTROL REPORT Work Order :Page :1 of 6WT2426300 ::LaboratoryClient ALS Environmental - WaterlooAquafor Beech Limited :Contact Meagan Bordi :Andrew MartinAccount Manager :Address 55 Regal Road Unit 3 Guelph ON Canada N1K 1B6 Address :60 Northland Road, Unit 1 Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2V 2B8 ::Telephone +1 519 886 6910:Telephone---- :Project Northwest Gamer Monitoring Date Samples Received :06-Sep-2024 12:35 :PO ----Date Analysis Commenced :07-Sep-2024 :C-O-C number ----Issue Date :13-Sep-2024 16:29 Sampler :CLIENT Site : Quote number :2024 SOA No. of samples received 2: No. of samples analysed :2 This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. This document shall not be reproduced, except in full. This Quality Control Report contains the following information: l Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report; Relative Percent Difference (RPD) and Data Quality Objectives l Matrix Spike (MS) Report; Recovery and Data Quality Objectives l Method Blank (MB) Report; Recovery and Data Quality Objectives l Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) Report; Recovery and Data Quality Objectives Signatories This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is conducted in accordance with US FDA 21 CFR Part 11. Signatories Position Laboratory Department Nik Perkio Senior Analyst Waterloo Inorganics, Waterloo, Ontario Nik Perkio Senior Analyst Waterloo Metals, Waterloo, Ontario Walt Kippenhuck Supervisor - Inorganic Waterloo Inorganics, Waterloo, Ontario Zeba Patel Analyst Waterloo Microbiology, Waterloo, Ontario Page 326 of 369Page 562 of 1679 2 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project General Comments The ALS Quality Control (QC) report is optionally provided to ALS clients upon request. ALS test methods include comprehensive QC checks with every analysis to ensure our high standards of quality are met. Each QC result has a known or expected target value, which is compared against predetermined Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) to provide confidence in the accuracy of associated test results. This report contains detailed results for all QC results applicable to this sample submission. Please refer to the ALS Quality Control Interpretation report (QCI) for applicable method references and methodology summaries. Anonymous = Refers to samples which are not part of this work order, but which formed part of the QC process lot. CAS Number = Chemical Abstracts Service number is a unique identifier assigned to discrete substances. DQO = Data Quality Objective. LOR = Limit of Reporting (detection limit). RPD = Relative Percent Difference # = Indicates a QC result that did not meet the ALS DQO. Key : Workorder Comments Holding times are displayed as "---" if no guidance exists from CCME, Canadian provinces, or broadly recognized international references.Page 327 of 369Page 563 of 1679 3 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report A Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) is a randomly selected intralaboratory replicate sample. Laboratory Duplicates provide information regarding method precision and sample heterogeneity. ALS DQOs for Laboratory Duplicates are expressed as test-specific limits for Relative Percent Difference (RPD), or as an absolute difference limit of 2 times the LOR for low concentration duplicates within ~ 4-10 times the LOR (cut-off is test-specific). Sub-Matrix: Water Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report RPD(%) or Difference Laboratory sample ID Client sample ID Analyte CAS Number LOR UnitMethod QualifierOriginal Result Duplicate Result Duplicate Limits Physical Tests (QC Lot: 1639945) Solids, total suspended [TSS]----mg/L 21.9 18.1 3.8 Diff <2x LORAnonymous WT2426172-001 E160 ----3.0 Anions and Nutrients (QC Lot: 1638842) Nitrate (as N)14797-55-8 mg/L <0.020 <0.020 0 Diff <2x LORAnonymous WT2426130-001 E235.NO3 ----0.020 Anions and Nutrients (QC Lot: 1638844) Chloride 16887-00-6 mg/L 3.28 3.25 0.03 Diff <2x LORAnonymous WT2426130-001 E235.Cl ----0.50 Anions and Nutrients (QC Lot: 1645559) Phosphorus, total 7723-14-0 mg/L 0.0110 0.0104 0.0006 Diff <2x LORAnonymous WT2426016-001 E372-U ----0.0020 Microbiological Tests (QC Lot: 1639122) Coliforms, Escherichia coli [E. coli]----CFU/100mL <1 <1 0 Diff <2x LORAnonymous WT2426293-001 E012A.EC ----1 Total Metals (QC Lot: 1639766) Copper, total 7440-50-8 mg/L 0.0401 0.0398 0.717%20%Anonymous WP2421356-001 E420 ----0.00050 Lead, total 7439-92-1 mg/L <0.000050 <0.000050 0 Diff <2x LORE420 ----0.000050 Zinc, total 7440-66-6 mg/L <0.0030 <0.0030 0 Diff <2x LORE420 ----0.0030 Page 328 of 369Page 564 of 1679 4 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Method Blank (MB) Report A Method Blank is an analyte-free matrix that undergoes sample processing identical to that carried out for test samples. Method Blank results are used to monitor and control for potential contamination from the laboratory environment and reagents. For most tests, the DQO for Method Blanks is for the result to be < LOR. Sub-Matrix: Water ResultAnalyteCAS Number LOR UnitMethod Qualifier Physical Tests (QCLot: 1639945) Solids, total suspended [TSS]----E160 3 mg/L <3.0 ---- Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1638842) Nitrate (as N)14797-55-8 E235.NO3 0.02 mg/L <0.020 ---- Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1638844) Chloride 16887-00-6 E235.Cl 0.5 mg/L <0.50 ---- Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1645559) Phosphorus, total 7723-14-0 E372-U 0.002 mg/L <0.0020 ---- Microbiological Tests (QCLot: 1639122) Coliforms, Escherichia coli [E. coli]----E012A.EC 1 CFU/100mL <1 ---- Total Metals (QCLot: 1639766) Copper, total 7440-50-8 E420 0.0005 mg/L <0.00050 ---- Lead, total 7439-92-1 E420 0.00005 mg/L <0.000050 ---- Zinc, total 7440-66-6 E420 0.003 mg/L <0.0030 ----Page 329 of 369Page 565 of 1679 5 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) Report A Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) is an analyte-free matrix that has been fortified (spiked) with test analytes at known concentration and processed in an identical manner to test samples. LCS results are expressed as percent recovery, and are used to monitor and control test method accuracy and precision, independent of test sample matrix. Sub-Matrix: Water Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) Report Recovery Limits (%)Recovery (%)Spike Target Concentration HighLCSAnalyteCAS Number LOR UnitMethod Low Qualifier Physical Tests (QCLot: 1639945) Solids, total suspended [TSS]----E160 3 mg/L 150 mg/L ----11585.094.8 Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1638842) Nitrate (as N)14797-55-8 E235.NO3 0.02 mg/L 2.5 mg/L ----11090.099.5 Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1638844) Chloride 16887-00-6 E235.Cl 0.5 mg/L 100 mg/L ----11090.099.9 Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1645559) Phosphorus, total 7723-14-0 E372-U 0.002 mg/L 0.333 mg/L ----12080.097.1 Total Metals (QCLot: 1639766) Copper, total 7440-50-8 E420 0.0005 mg/L 0.012 mg/L ----12080.0102 Lead, total 7439-92-1 E420 0.00005 mg/L 0.025 mg/L ----12080.098.9 Zinc, total 7440-66-6 E420 0.003 mg/L 0.025 mg/L ----12080.098.0 Matrix Spike (MS) Report A Matrix Spike (MS) is a randomly selected intra-laboratory replicate sample that has been fortified (spiked) with test analytes at known concentration, and processed in an identical manner to test samples. Matrix Spikes provide information regarding analyte recovery and potential matrix effects. MS DQO exceedances due to sample matrix may sometimes be unavoidable; in such cases, test results for the associated sample (or similar samples) may be subject to bias. ND – Recovery not determined, background level >= 1x spike level. Sub-Matrix: Water Matrix Spike (MS) Report Recovery (%)Recovery Limits (%)Spike MethodCAS NumberAnalyteClient sample IDLaboratory sample ID Concentration MS Low High QualifierTarget Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1638842) Anonymous WT2426130-001 14797-55-8 E235.NO3Nitrate (as N)2.5 mg/L 12575.095.5 ----2.39 mg/L Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1638844) Anonymous WT2426130-001 16887-00-6 E235.ClChloride 100 mg/L 12575.099.5 ----99.5 mg/L Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1645559) Anonymous WT2426016-001 7723-14-0 E372-UPhosphorus, total 0.1 mg/L 13070.093.9 ----0.0939 mg/L Total Metals (QCLot: 1639766) Anonymous WP2421356-002 7440-50-8 E420Copper, total ----13070.0ND ----ND mg/L 7439-92-1 E420Lead, total 0.025 mg/L 13070.094.3 ----0.0236 mg/L 7440-66-6 E420Zinc, total 0.025 mg/L 13070.093.5 ----0.0234 mg/LPage 330 of 369Page 566 of 1679 6 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Page 331 of 369Page 567 of 1679 Page 332 of 369 Page 568 of 1679 WT2432418Aquafor Beech Limited Meagan Bordi 55 Regal Road Unit 3 Guelph Ontario Canada N1K 1B6 : : : : Work Order Client Contact Address ----:Telephone Laboratory ALS Environmental - Waterloo: Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project ----:PO ----:C-O-C number CLIENT:Sampler ----:Site 2024 SOA: No. of samples received Account Manager Andrew Martin: Address 60 Northland Road, Unit 1 Waterloo ON Canada N2V 2B8 : Telephone +1 519 886 6910: Date Samples Received 30-Oct-2024 13:05:Date Analysis Commenced 31-Oct-2024:Issue Date 06-Nov-2024 14:08: 2:Quote number No. of samples analysed 2: This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. This document shall not be reproduced, except in full. This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information: General Comments Analytical Results Additional information pertinent to this report will be found in the following separate attachments: Quality Control Report, QC Interpretive report to assist with Quality Review and Sample Receipt Notification (SRN). CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Signatories Signatories Position Laboratory Department Jeminikumari Patel Microbiology, Waterloo, Ontario John Tang Lab Analyst Inorganics, Waterloo, Ontario Kelly Fischer Technical Specialist Metals, Waterloo, Ontario Kelly Fischer Technical Specialist Inorganics, Waterloo, Ontario This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is conducted in accordance with US FDA 21 CFR Part 11. Page: 1 of 3Page 333 of 369Page 569 of 1679 The analytical methods used by ALS are developed using internationally recognized reference methods (where available), such as those published by US EPA, APHA Standard Methods, ASTM, ISO, Environment Canada, BC MOE, and Ontario MOE. Refer to the ALS Quality Control Interpretive report (QCI) for applicable references and methodology summaries. Reference methods may incorporate modifications to improve performance. Test results reported relate only to the samples as received by the laboratory. Surrogate: An analyte that is similar in behavior to target analyte(s), but that does not occur naturally in environmental samples. For applicable tests, surrogates are added to samples prior to analysis as a check on recovery. >: greater than.<: less than. Unit Description mg/L milligrams per litre CFU/100mL colony forming units per hundred millilitres LOR: Limit of Reporting (detection limit).CAS Number: Chemical Abstracts Services number is a unique identifier assigned to discrete substances.Key: Please refer to Quality Control Interpretive report (QCI) for information regarding Holding Time compliance. Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference. Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis. UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED on SRN or QCI Report, ALL SAMPLES WERE RECEIVED IN ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. General Comments Qualifiers Qualifier Description DLDS Detection Limit Raised: Dilution required due to high Dissolved Solids / Electrical Conductivity. DLM Detection Limit Adjusted due to sample matrix effects (e.g. chemical interference, colour, turbidity). Aquafor Beech Limited Work Order : :Client :Project Northwest Gamer Monitoring WT2432418 Page: 2 of 3Page 334 of 369Page 570 of 1679 Analytical Results Sub-Matrix: Surface Water (Matrix: Water)Client sample ID NW WQ GARNER WQ ------------ Client sampling date / time 30-Oct-2024 10:22 30-Oct-2024 10:55 ------------ Analyte CAS Number Method/Lab/Accreditation LOR Unit WT2432418-001 WT2432418-002 ------------ Result Result ------------ Physical Tests Solids, total suspended [TSS]----E160/WT 3.0 mg/L 32.0 98.2 ------------ Anions and Nutrients Chloride 16887-00-6 E235.Cl/WT 0.50 mg/L DLDS635 51.4 ------------ Nitrate (as N)14797-55-8 E235.NO3/WT 0.020 mg/L DLDS0.177 0.645 ------------ Phosphorus, total 7723-14-0 E372-U/WT 0.0020 mg/L 0.0956 0.0754 ------------ Microbiological Tests Coliforms, Escherichia coli [E. coli]----E012A.EC/WT 1 CFU/100mL DLM1600 DLM3000 ------------ Total Metals Copper, total 7440-50-8 E420/WT 0.00050 mg/L 0.00092 0.00551 ------------ Lead, total 7439-92-1 E420/WT 0.000050 mg/L 0.000313 0.00350 ------------ Zinc, total 7440-66-6 E420/WT 0.0030 mg/L <0.0030 0.0435 ------------ Please refer to the General Comments section for an explanation of any result qualifiers detected. Please refer to the Accreditation section for an explanation of analyte accreditations. Aquafor Beech Limited Work Order : :Client :Project Northwest Gamer Monitoring WT2432418 Page: 3 of 3Page 335 of 369Page 571 of 1679 QUALITY CONTROL INTERPRETIVE REPORT Work Order :WT2432418 Page :1 of 6 ::LaboratoryClient ALS Environmental - WaterlooAquafor Beech Limited :Meagan Bordi Account Manager :Andrew MartinContact Address :55 Regal Road Unit 3 Guelph ON Canada N1K 1B6 Address :60 Northland Road, Unit 1 Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2V 2B8 Telephone :+1 519 886 6910Telephone:---- :Project Northwest Gamer Monitoring Date Samples Received :30-Oct-2024 13:05 Issue Date :06-Nov-2024 15:16----PO : C-O-C number ----: CLIENT:Sampler :Site Quote number :2024 SOA No. of samples received :2 2:No. of samples analysed This report is automatically generated by the ALS LIMS (Laboratory Information Management System) through evaluation of Quality Control (QC) results and other QA parameters associated with this submission, and is intended to facilitate rapid data validation by auditors or reviewers. The report highlights any exceptions and outliers to ALS Data Quality Objectives, provides holding time details and exceptions, summarizes QC sample frequencies, and lists applicable methodology references and summaries. Key Anonymous: Refers to samples which are not part of this work order, but which formed part of the QC process lot. CAS Number: Chemical Abstracts Service number is a unique identifier assigned to discrete substances. DQO: Data Quality Objective. LOR: Limit of Reporting (detection limit). RPD: Relative Percent Difference. Workorder Comments Holding times are displayed as "---" if no guidance exists from CCME, Canadian provinces, or broadly recognized international references. Summary of Outliers Outliers : Quality Control Samples l No Method Blank value outliers occur. l No Duplicate outliers occur. l No Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) outliers occur l No Matrix Spike outliers occur. l No Test sample Surrogate recovery outliers exist. Outliers: Reference Material (RM) Samples l No Reference Material (RM) Sample outliers occur.Page 336 of 369Page 572 of 1679 Outliers : Analysis Holding Time Compliance (Breaches) l No Analysis Holding Time Outliers exist. Outliers : Frequency of Quality Control Samples l Quality Control Sample Frequency Outliers occur - please see following pages for full details.Page 337 of 369Page 573 of 1679 3 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2432418 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Analysis Holding Time Compliance This report summarizes extraction / preparation and analysis times and compares each with ALS recommended holding times, which are selected to meet known provincial and /or federal requirements. In the absence of regulatory hold times, ALS establishes recommendations based on guidelines published by organizations such as CCME, US EPA, APHA Standard Methods, ASTM, or Environment Canada (where available). Dates and holding times reported below represent the first dates of extraction or analysis. If subsequent tests or dilutions exceeded holding times, qualifiers are added (refer to COA). If samples are identified below as having been analyzed or extracted outside of recommended holding times, measurement uncertainties may be increased, and this should be taken into consideration when interpreting results. Where actual sampling date is not provided on the chain of custody, the date of receipt with time at 00:00 is used for calculation purposes. Where only the sample date without time is provided on the chain of custody, the sampling date at 00:00 is used for calculation purposes. Matrix: Water Evaluation: û = Holding time exceedance ; ü = Within Holding Time AnalysisExtraction / Preparation Container / Client Sample ID(s) Sampling Date Analysis DatePreparation Date EvalEval Method Holding Times Holding Times Rec Actual Rec Actual Analyte Group : Analytical Method Anions and Nutrients : Chloride in Water by IC HDPE [ON MECP] GARNER WQ 04-Nov-202431-Oct-202430-Oct-2024E235.Cl 28 days 1 days 28 days 5 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Chloride in Water by IC HDPE [ON MECP] NW WQ 04-Nov-202431-Oct-202430-Oct-2024E235.Cl 28 days 1 days 28 days 5 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Nitrate in Water by IC HDPE [ON MECP] GARNER WQ 04-Nov-202431-Oct-202430-Oct-2024E235.NO3 7 days 1 days 7 days 5 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Nitrate in Water by IC HDPE [ON MECP] NW WQ 04-Nov-202431-Oct-202430-Oct-2024E235.NO3 7 days 1 days 7 days 5 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Total Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L) Amber glass total (sulfuric acid) GARNER WQ 04-Nov-202404-Nov-202430-Oct-2024E372-U 28 days 5 days 28 days 5 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Total Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L) Amber glass total (sulfuric acid) NW WQ 04-Nov-202404-Nov-202430-Oct-2024E372-U 28 days 5 days 28 days 5 daysü ü Microbiological Tests : E. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG) Sterile HDPE (Sodium thiosulphate) [ON MECP] GARNER WQ 31-Oct-2024----30-Oct-2024E012A.EC --------48 hrs 25 hrs üPage 338 of 369Page 574 of 1679 4 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2432418 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Matrix: Water Evaluation: û = Holding time exceedance ; ü = Within Holding Time AnalysisExtraction / Preparation Container / Client Sample ID(s) Sampling Date Analysis DatePreparation Date EvalEval Method Holding Times Holding Times Rec Actual Rec Actual Analyte Group : Analytical Method Microbiological Tests : E. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG) Sterile HDPE (Sodium thiosulphate) [ON MECP] NW WQ 31-Oct-2024----30-Oct-2024E012A.EC --------48 hrs 26 hrs ü Physical Tests : TSS by Gravimetry HDPE [ON MECP] GARNER WQ 01-Nov-2024----30-Oct-2024E160 --------7 days 2 days ü Physical Tests : TSS by Gravimetry HDPE [ON MECP] NW WQ 01-Nov-2024----30-Oct-2024E160 --------7 days 2 days ü Total Metals : Total Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS HDPE total (nitric acid) GARNER WQ 31-Oct-202431-Oct-202430-Oct-2024E420 180 days 1 days 180 days 1 daysü ü Total Metals : Total Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS HDPE total (nitric acid) NW WQ 31-Oct-202431-Oct-202430-Oct-2024E420 180 days 1 days 180 days 1 daysü ü Legend & Qualifier Definitions Rec. HT: ALS recommended hold time (see units).Page 339 of 369Page 575 of 1679 5 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2432418 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Quality Control Parameter Frequency Compliance The following report summarizes the frequency of laboratory QC samples analyzed within the analytical batches (QC lots) in which the submitted samples were processed. The actual frequency should be greater than or equal to the expected frequency. Matrix: Water Evaluation: û = QC frequency outside specification; ü = QC frequency within specification. Quality Control Sample TypeQuality Control Sample Type EvaluationAnalytical Methods Method Count QC Regular Actual Expected Frequency (%) QC Lot # Laboratory Duplicates (DUP) 1 10 üChloride in Water by IC E235.Cl 1743104 5.010.0 1 19 üE. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG)E012A.EC 1742845 5.05.2 1 20 üNitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 1743103 5.05.0 1 20 üTotal Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 1741583 5.05.0 0 19 ûTotal Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L)E372-U 1745506 5.00.0 1 17 üTSS by Gravimetry E160 1744583 4.75.8 Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) 1 10 üChloride in Water by IC E235.Cl 1743104 5.010.0 1 20 üNitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 1743103 5.05.0 1 20 üTotal Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 1741583 5.05.0 1 19 üTotal Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L)E372-U 1745506 5.05.2 1 17 üTSS by Gravimetry E160 1744583 4.75.8 Method Blanks (MB) 1 10 üChloride in Water by IC E235.Cl 1743104 5.010.0 1 19 üE. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG)E012A.EC 1742845 5.05.2 1 20 üNitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 1743103 5.05.0 1 20 üTotal Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 1741583 5.05.0 1 19 üTotal Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L)E372-U 1745506 5.05.2 1 17 üTSS by Gravimetry E160 1744583 4.75.8 Matrix Spikes (MS) 1 10 üChloride in Water by IC E235.Cl 1743104 5.010.0 1 20 üNitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 1743103 5.05.0 1 20 üTotal Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 1741583 5.05.0 0 19 ûTotal Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L)E372-U 1745506 5.00.0 Page 340 of 369Page 576 of 1679 6 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2432418 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Methodology References and Summaries The analytical methods used by ALS are developed using internationally recognized reference methods (where available), such as those published by US EPA, APHA Standard Methods, ASTM, ISO, Environment Canada, BC MOE, and Ontario MOE. Reference methods may incorporate modifications to improve performance (indicated by “mod”). Analytical Methods Method DescriptionsMatrixMethod / Lab Method Reference Following filtration (0.45 µm), and incubation at 44.5±0.2°C for 24 hours, colonies exhibiting characteristic morphology of the target organism are enumerated. E. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG)E012A.EC Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo APHA 9222D (mod) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) are determined by filtering a sample through a glass fibre filter, following by drying of the filter at 104 ± 1°C, with gravimetric measurement of the filtered solids. Samples containing very high dissolved solid content (i.e. seawaters, brackish waters) may produce a positive bias by this method. Alternate analysis methods are available for these types of samples. TSS by Gravimetry E160 Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo APHA 2540 D (mod) Inorganic anions are analyzed by Ion Chromatography with conductivity and /or UV detection. Chloride in Water by IC E235.Cl Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo EPA 300.1 (mod) Inorganic anions are analyzed by Ion Chromatography with conductivity and /or UV detection. Nitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo EPA 300.1 (mod) Total Phosphorus is determined colourimetrically using a discrete analyzer after heated persulfate digestion of the sample. Total Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L) E372-U Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo APHA 4500-P E (mod). Water samples are digested with nitric and hydrochloric acids, and analyzed by Collision/Reaction Cell ICPMS. Method Limitation (re: Sulfur): Sulfide and volatile sulfur species may not be recovered by this method. Total Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo EPA 200.2/6020B (mod) Preparation Methods Method DescriptionsMatrixMethod / Lab Method Reference Samples are heated with a persulfate digestion reagent.Digestion for Total Phosphorus in water EP372 Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo APHA 4500-P E (mod).Page 341 of 369Page 577 of 1679 False QUALITY CONTROL REPORT Work Order :Page :1 of 6WT2432418 ::LaboratoryClient ALS Environmental - WaterlooAquafor Beech Limited :Contact Meagan Bordi :Andrew MartinAccount Manager :Address 55 Regal Road Unit 3 Guelph ON Canada N1K 1B6 Address :60 Northland Road, Unit 1 Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2V 2B8 ::Telephone +1 519 886 6910:Telephone---- :Project Northwest Gamer Monitoring Date Samples Received :30-Oct-2024 13:05 :PO ----Date Analysis Commenced :31-Oct-2024 :C-O-C number ----Issue Date :06-Nov-2024 14:06 Sampler :CLIENT Site : Quote number :2024 SOA No. of samples received 2: No. of samples analysed :2 This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. This document shall not be reproduced, except in full. This Quality Control Report contains the following information: l Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report; Relative Percent Difference (RPD) and Data Quality Objectives l Matrix Spike (MS) Report; Recovery and Data Quality Objectives l Method Blank (MB) Report; Recovery and Data Quality Objectives l Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) Report; Recovery and Data Quality Objectives Signatories This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is conducted in accordance with US FDA 21 CFR Part 11. Signatories Position Laboratory Department Jeminikumari Patel Waterloo Microbiology, Waterloo, Ontario John Tang Lab Analyst Waterloo Inorganics, Waterloo, Ontario Kelly Fischer Technical Specialist Waterloo Inorganics, Waterloo, Ontario Kelly Fischer Technical Specialist Waterloo Metals, Waterloo, Ontario Page 342 of 369Page 578 of 1679 2 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2432418 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project General Comments The ALS Quality Control (QC) report is optionally provided to ALS clients upon request. ALS test methods include comprehensive QC checks with every analysis to ensure our high standards of quality are met. Each QC result has a known or expected target value, which is compared against predetermined Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) to provide confidence in the accuracy of associated test results. This report contains detailed results for all QC results applicable to this sample submission. Please refer to the ALS Quality Control Interpretation report (QCI) for applicable method references and methodology summaries. Anonymous = Refers to samples which are not part of this work order, but which formed part of the QC process lot. CAS Number = Chemical Abstracts Service number is a unique identifier assigned to discrete substances. DQO = Data Quality Objective. LOR = Limit of Reporting (detection limit). RPD = Relative Percent Difference # = Indicates a QC result that did not meet the ALS DQO. Key : Workorder Comments Holding times are displayed as "---" if no guidance exists from CCME, Canadian provinces, or broadly recognized international references.Page 343 of 369Page 579 of 1679 3 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2432418 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report A Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) is a randomly selected intralaboratory replicate sample. Laboratory Duplicates provide information regarding method precision and sample heterogeneity. ALS DQOs for Laboratory Duplicates are expressed as test-specific limits for Relative Percent Difference (RPD), or as an absolute difference limit of 2 times the LOR for low concentration duplicates within ~ 4-10 times the LOR (cut-off is test-specific). Sub-Matrix: Water Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report RPD(%) or Difference Laboratory sample ID Client sample ID Analyte CAS Number LOR UnitMethod QualifierOriginal Result Duplicate Result Duplicate Limits Physical Tests (QC Lot: 1744583) Solids, total suspended [TSS]----mg/L 24.0 23.4 0.6 Diff <2x LORAnonymous WT2432402-001 E160 ----3.0 Anions and Nutrients (QC Lot: 1743103) Nitrate (as N)14797-55-8 mg/L 0.956 0.919 0.037 Diff <2x LORAnonymous WT2432370-001 E235.NO3 ----0.100 Anions and Nutrients (QC Lot: 1743104) Chloride 16887-00-6 mg/L 635 637 0.399%20%NW WQ WT2432418-001 E235.Cl ----2.50 Microbiological Tests (QC Lot: 1742845) Coliforms, Escherichia coli [E. coli]----CFU/100mL <1 <1 0 Diff <2x LORAnonymous WT2432363-001 E012A.EC ----1 Total Metals (QC Lot: 1741583) Copper, total 7440-50-8 mg/L 0.00116 0.00118 0.00002 Diff <2x LORAnonymous VA24C8663-001 E420 ----0.00050 Lead, total 7439-92-1 mg/L 0.00206 0.00210 2.05%20%E420 ----0.000050 Zinc, total 7440-66-6 mg/L 0.606 0.628 3.64%20%E420 ----0.0030 Page 344 of 369Page 580 of 1679 4 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2432418 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Method Blank (MB) Report A Method Blank is an analyte-free matrix that undergoes sample processing identical to that carried out for test samples. Method Blank results are used to monitor and control for potential contamination from the laboratory environment and reagents. For most tests, the DQO for Method Blanks is for the result to be < LOR. Sub-Matrix: Water ResultAnalyteCAS Number LOR UnitMethod Qualifier Physical Tests (QCLot: 1744583) Solids, total suspended [TSS]----E160 3 mg/L <3.0 ---- Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1743103) Nitrate (as N)14797-55-8 E235.NO3 0.02 mg/L <0.020 ---- Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1743104) Chloride 16887-00-6 E235.Cl 0.5 mg/L <0.50 ---- Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1745506) Phosphorus, total 7723-14-0 E372-U 0.002 mg/L <0.0020 ---- Microbiological Tests (QCLot: 1742845) Coliforms, Escherichia coli [E. coli]----E012A.EC 1 CFU/100mL <1 ---- Total Metals (QCLot: 1741583) Copper, total 7440-50-8 E420 0.0005 mg/L <0.00050 ---- Lead, total 7439-92-1 E420 0.00005 mg/L <0.000050 ---- Zinc, total 7440-66-6 E420 0.003 mg/L <0.0030 ----Page 345 of 369Page 581 of 1679 5 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2432418 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) Report A Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) is an analyte-free matrix that has been fortified (spiked) with test analytes at known concentration and processed in an identical manner to test samples. LCS results are expressed as percent recovery, and are used to monitor and control test method accuracy and precision, independent of test sample matrix. Sub-Matrix: Water Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) Report Recovery Limits (%)Recovery (%)Spike Target Concentration HighLCSAnalyteCAS Number LOR UnitMethod Low Qualifier Physical Tests (QCLot: 1744583) Solids, total suspended [TSS]----E160 3 mg/L 150 mg/L ----11585.095.3 Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1743103) Nitrate (as N)14797-55-8 E235.NO3 0.02 mg/L 2.5 mg/L ----11090.099.5 Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1743104) Chloride 16887-00-6 E235.Cl 0.5 mg/L 100 mg/L ----11090.099.2 Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1745506) Phosphorus, total 7723-14-0 E372-U 0.002 mg/L 0.333 mg/L ----12080.099.4 Total Metals (QCLot: 1741583) Copper, total 7440-50-8 E420 0.0005 mg/L 0.012 mg/L ----12080.096.5 Lead, total 7439-92-1 E420 0.00005 mg/L 0.025 mg/L ----12080.0104 Zinc, total 7440-66-6 E420 0.003 mg/L 0.025 mg/L ----12080.097.7 Matrix Spike (MS) Report A Matrix Spike (MS) is a randomly selected intra-laboratory replicate sample that has been fortified (spiked) with test analytes at known concentration, and processed in an identical manner to test samples. Matrix Spikes provide information regarding analyte recovery and potential matrix effects. MS DQO exceedances due to sample matrix may sometimes be unavoidable; in such cases, test results for the associated sample (or similar samples) may be subject to bias. ND – Recovery not determined, background level >= 1x spike level. Sub-Matrix: Water Matrix Spike (MS) Report Recovery (%)Recovery Limits (%)Spike MethodCAS NumberAnalyteClient sample IDLaboratory sample ID Concentration MS Low High QualifierTarget Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1743103) Anonymous WT2432370-001 14797-55-8 E235.NO3Nitrate (as N)25 mg/L 12575.095.9 ----24.0 mg/L Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1743104) NW WQ WT2432418-001 16887-00-6 E235.ClChloride ----12575.0ND ----ND mg/L Total Metals (QCLot: 1741583) Anonymous VA24C8663-002 7440-50-8 E420Copper, total 0.012 mg/L 13070.091.6 ----0.0114 mg/L 7439-92-1 E420Lead, total 0.025 mg/L 13070.098.9 ----0.0247 mg/L 7440-66-6 E420Zinc, total ----13070.0ND ----ND mg/LPage 346 of 369Page 582 of 1679 6 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2432418 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Page 347 of 369Page 583 of 1679 Page 348 of 369Page 584 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 66258 Appendix D – Aquatic Ecology Field Sheets Page 349 of 369 Page 585 of 1679 Page 350 of 369Page 586 of 1679 Page 351 of 369Page 587 of 1679 Page 352 of 369Page 588 of 1679 Page 353 of 369Page 589 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 66258 Appendix E – Aquafor Beech 2024 ELC Overview (Interim) Page 354 of 369 Page 590 of 1679 Aquafor Beech 2024 ELC Overview (Interim) 0 240120 Metres Date: November 2024Author: KBProjection: UTM_Zone_17NSource: NPCAProject #: 67511 Lundy's Lane Beechwood Rd21 -FODM11 3 -WODM4-4 7 - MAS2-1 4 - MAM2-2 6 - FOD7-4 7 -MAS2-1 8 - FOD7-1 7 -MAS2-17 -MAS2-1 2 - SWT2-9 1 - CUM1-1 10 - CUM1 14 - FOD9-2 15 - CUM1-1 7 - MAS2-17 - MAS2-17 - MAS2-1 13 -CUW1 12 - CUM1-1 24 - THDM3 34 - CVR_4 37 - CVI_1 11 - FOD2-1 20 - CUT1-4 26 -THDM3 38 - OAG 35 - CGL_1 34 - CVR_4 34 -CVR_4 16 - CUM1-1 5 - SWD4-2 33 - OAO 28 - OAO 29 - OAO 30 -OAO 31 - OAO 32 - OAO 27 - FOCM5 Maxar Legend Study Area Cultural Meadow (CUM) Cultural Thicket (CUT) Hedgerow (HR) Cultural Woodland (CUW) Coniferous Forest (FOC) Deciduous Forest (FOD) Mixed Forest (FOM) Meadow Marsh (MAM) Shallow Marsh (MAS) Open Water (OAO) Deciduous Swamp (SWD) Swamp Thicket (SWT) Agricultural (AGR) Anthropogenic (ANTH) Polygons only reviewed through aerialinterpretation Polygons based on NPCA, 2022 ELC This is preliminary ELC mapping and issubject to change pending spring field studies. Figure 3-37 Page 355 of 369Page 591 of 1679 Aquafor Beech 2024 ELC Overview (Interim) 0 240120 Metres Date: November 2024Author: KBProjection: UTM_Zone_17NSource: NPCAProject #: 67511Beechwood RdMcLeod Rd 38 - OAG 12 - CUM1-1 11 - FOD2-1 25 - THDM3 26 - THDM3 38 - OAG 38 - OAG 17 - FOMM10-2 18 - FODM8-1 18.1 -CUM1-1 22 - FODM11 23 - FODM11 34 - CVR_4 36 - CVC 16 - CUM1-1 17.1 - CUM1-1 19 -FOCM5 Maxar, Microsoft Legend Study Area Cultural Meadow (CUM) Cultural Thicket (CUT) Hedgerow (HR) Cultural Woodland (CUW) Coniferous Forest (FOC) Deciduous Forest (FOD) Mixed Forest (FOM) Meadow Marsh (MAM) Shallow Marsh (MAS) Open Water (OAO) Deciduous Swamp (SWD) Swamp Thicket (SWT) Agricultural (AGR) Anthropogenic (ANTH) Polygons only reviewed through aerialinterpretation Polygons based on NPCA, 2022 ELC This is preliminary ELC mapping and issubject to change pending spring field studies. Figure 3-37 Page 356 of 369Page 592 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 66258 Appendix F – Botanical Species List Page 357 of 369 Page 593 of 1679 APPENDIX E – Botanical Species List Garner West, Niagara ON – Subwatershed Study City of Niagara Falls Page | 1 Scientific Name Common Name CC CW COSEWIC SARA Status SARO Status G-Rank S-Rank Exotic Status Regional Rarity Oldham Niagara (2017) Local Status Niagara Region (2013) Native/Introduced Acer negundo Manitoba Maple 0 0 G5 S5 X C native Acer platanoides Norway Maple 5 GNR SNA SE5 IX IC introduced Acer rubrum Red Maple 4 0 G5 S5 X C native Acer saccharinum Silver Maple 5 -3 G5 S5 X C native Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 4 3 G5 S5 X C native Acer x freemanii (Acer rubrum X Acer saccharinum) 6 -5 GNA SNA hyb hyb native Achillea millefolium Common Yarrow 3 G5 SNA SE5? C introduced Althaea officinalis Common Marsh-mallow 0 GNR SNA SE1 introduced Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common Ragweed 0 3 G5 S5 C C native Ambrosia trifida Great Ragweed 0 0 G5 S5 C C native Apocynum androsaemifolium Spreading Dogbane 3 5 G5 S5 C C native Apocynum cannabinum Hemp Dogbane 3 0 GNR S5 R C native Arctium minus Common Burdock 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Artemisia biennis Biennial Wormwood -3 G5 SNA SE5 IU IU introduced Artemisia vulgaris Common Wormwood 5 GU SNA SE5 IU IU introduced Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed 0 5 G5 S5 C C native Asparagus officinalis Garden Asparagus 3 G5? SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Bidens frondosa Devil's Beggarticks 3 -3 G5 S5 C C native Bromus inermis Smooth Brome 5 G5T5 SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Calamagrostis canadensis Bluejoint Reedgrass 4 -5 G5 S5 C C native Calystegia sepium Hedge False Bindweed 2 0 G5 S5 C C native Caragana arborescens Siberian Pea Shrub 5 GNR SNA SE1 IR IR introduced Carex lupulina Hop Sedge 6 -5 G5 S5 C C native Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge 3 -5 G5 S5 C C native Carpinus caroliniana Blue-beech 6 0 G5 S5 C C native Carya cordiformis Bitternut Hickory 6 0 G5 S5 C C native Carya ovata Shagbark Hickory 6 3 G5 S5 C C native Centaurea stoebe Spotted Knapweed 5 GNR SNA SE5 IU IU introduced Chenopodium album Common Lamb's-quarters 3 G5 SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Cichorium intybus Wild Chicory 5 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Circaea canadensis Broad-leaved Enchanter's Nightshade 2 3 G5 S5 C C native Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle 3 G5 SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Cirsium vulgare Bull Thistle 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Convolvulus arvensis Field Bindweed 5 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Cornus obliqua Silky Dogwood 2 -3 G5 S5 C native Cornus racemosa Grey Dogwood 2 0 G5 S5 C C native Cornus sericea Red-osier Dogwood 2 -3 G5 S5 U U native Cyperus esculentus Perennial Yellow Flatsedge 1 -3 G5 S5 U U native Daucus carota Wild Carrot 5 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Dipsacus fullonum Common Teasel 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Echinochloa crus-galli Large Barnyard Grass -3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Page 358 of 369Page 594 of 1679 APPENDIX E – Botanical Species List Garner West, Niagara ON – Subwatershed Study City of Niagara Falls Page | 2 Scientific Name Common Name CC CW COSEWIC SARA Status SARO Status G-Rank S-Rank Exotic Status Regional Rarity Oldham Niagara (2017) Local Status Niagara Region (2013) Native/Introduced Elaeagnus umbellata Autumn Olive 3 GNR SNA SE3 IU IU introduced Epilobium ciliatum Northern Willowherb 3 -3 G5 S5 C C native Equisetum arvense Field Horsetail 0 0 G5 S5 C C native Erechtites hieraciifolius Eastern Burnweed 2 3 G5 S5 C C native Erigeron annuus Annual Fleabane 0 3 G5 S5 C C native Erigeron canadensis Canada Horseweed 0 3 G5 S5 C C native Eupatorium perfoliatum Common Boneset 2 -3 G5 S5 C C native Euthamia graminifolia Grass-leaved Goldenrod 2 0 G5 S5 C C native Fagus grandifolia American Beech 6 3 G5 S4 C C native Fragaria virginiana Wild Strawberry 2 3 G5 S5 C C native Frangula alnus Glossy Buckthorn 0 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Fraxinus americana White Ash 4 3 G4 S4 C C native Fraxinus pennsylvanica Red Ash 3 -3 G4 S4 C C native Galium aparine Common Bedstraw 4 3 G5 S5 C C native Galium mollugo Smooth Bedstraw 5 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Geum aleppicum Yellow Avens 2 0 G5 S5 C C native Geum urbanum Wood Avens 5 G5 SNA SE3 IR IR introduced Glechoma hederacea Ground-ivy 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis Honey Locust Glyceria striata Fowl Mannagrass 3 -5 G5 S5 C C native Hamamelis virginiana American Witch-hazel 6 3 G5 S4S5 C C native Hypericum perforatum Common St. John's-wort 5 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Impatiens capensis Spotted Jewelweed 4 -3 G5 S5 C C native Inula helenium Elecampane 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Juglans nigra Black Walnut 5 3 G5 S4? C C native Juncus effusus Soft Rush 4 -5 G5 S5 C C native Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar 4 3 G5 S5 C C native Lactuca canadensis Canada Lettuce 3 3 G5 S5 U U native Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Lapsana communis Common Nipplewort 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Lemna minor Small Duckweed 5 -5 G5 S5 C C native Leonurus cardiaca Common Motherwort 5 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Lepidium campestre Field Peppergrass 5 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Ligustrum vulgare European Privet 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Lobelia inflata Indian-tobacco 3 3 G5 S5 C C native Lonicera tatarica Tatarian Honeysuckle 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Lotus corniculatus Garden Bird's-foot Trefoil 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Lycopus uniflorus Northern Water-horehound 5 -5 G5 S5 C C native Lythrum salicaria Purple Loosestrife -5 G5 SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Malus pumila Common Apple 5 G5 SNA SE4 IC IC introduced Melilotus albus White Sweet-clover 3 G5 SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Morus alba White Mulberry 0 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Page 359 of 369Page 595 of 1679 APPENDIX E – Botanical Species List Garner West, Niagara ON – Subwatershed Study City of Niagara Falls Page | 3 Scientific Name Common Name CC CW COSEWIC SARA Status SARO Status G-Rank S-Rank Exotic Status Regional Rarity Oldham Niagara (2017) Local Status Niagara Region (2013) Native/Introduced Nepeta cataria Catnip 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Oenothera biennis Common Evening-primrose 0 3 G5 S5 C C native Panicum capillare Common Panicgrass 0 0 G5 S5 C C native Panicum virgatum Old Switch Panicgrass 6 0 G5 S4 U U native Parthenocissus vitacea Thicket Creeper 4 3 G5 S5 C C native Persicaria maculosa Spotted Lady's-thumb -3 G3G5 SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Persicaria virginiana Virginia Smartweed 6 0 G5 S4 C C native Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canarygrass 0 -3 G5 S5 C C native Phleum pratense Common Timothy 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Phragmites australis ssp. australis European Reed -3 G5T5 SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Phytolacca americana Common Pokeweed 3 3 G5 S4 C C native Picea abies Norway Spruce 5 G5 SNA SE3 IC IC introduced Picea glauca White Spruce 6 3 G5 S5 IU IU native Picea pungens Blue Spruce 3 G5 SNA SE1 introduced Pinus nigra Austrian Pine 5 GNR SNA SE3 IR IR introduced Pinus sylvestris Scots Pine 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Plantago lanceolata English Plantain 3 G5 SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Plantago major Common Plantain 3 G5 SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Poa palustris Fowl Bluegrass 5 -3 G5 S5 C C native Poa pratensis ssp. pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass 3 G5T5 SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 4 0 G5 S5 C native Populus tremuloides Trembling Aspen 2 0 G5 S5 C C native Potentilla recta Sulphur Cinquefoil 5 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Potentilla simplex Old-field Cinquefoil 3 3 G5 S5 C C native Prunella vulgaris Common Self-heal 0 0 G5 S5 native Prunus avium Sweet Cherry 5 GNR SNA SE4 IC IC introduced Prunus serotina Black Cherry 3 3 G5 S5 C C native Prunus virginiana Chokecherry 2 3 G5 S5 C C native Pyrus communis Common Pear 5 G5 SNA SE4 IC IC introduced Quercus bicolor Swamp White Oak 8 -3 G5 S4 C C native Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 5 3 G5 S5 U U native Quercus palustris Swamp Pin Oak 9 -3 G5 S4 C C native Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 6 3 G5 S5 C C native Reynoutria japonica Japanese Knotweed 3 GNR SNA SE5 IU IU introduced Rhamnus cathartica European Buckthorn 0 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Rhus typhina Staghorn Sumac 1 3 G5 S5 C C native Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust 3 G5 SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Rosa canina Dog Rose 5 GNR SNA SE2 IR IR introduced Rosa multiflora Multiflora Rose 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Rubus allegheniensis Allegheny Blackberry 2 3 G5 S5 C C native Rubus idaeus ssp. strigosus North American Red Raspberry 2 3 G5T5 S5 C C native Rubus occidentalis Black Raspberry 2 5 G5 S5 C C native Page 360 of 369Page 596 of 1679 APPENDIX E – Botanical Species List Garner West, Niagara ON – Subwatershed Study City of Niagara Falls Page | 4 Scientific Name Common Name CC CW COSEWIC SARA Status SARO Status G-Rank S-Rank Exotic Status Regional Rarity Oldham Niagara (2017) Local Status Niagara Region (2013) Native/Introduced Rudbeckia hirta Black-eyed Susan 0 3 G5 S5 C C native Rumex crispus Curled Dock 0 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Sagittaria latifolia Broad-leaved Arrowhead 4 -5 G5 S5 C C native Salix bebbiana Bebb's Willow 4 -3 G5 S5 C C native Salix interior Sandbar Willow 1 -3 G5 S5 C C native Salix matsudana Corkscrew Willow GNR SNA SE1 IR introduced Salix x fragilis (Salix alba X Salix euxina) GNA SNA hyb introduced Salix x sepulcralis (Salix alba X Salix babylonica) GNA SNA introduced Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry 5 -3 G5T5 S5 C C native Schoenoplectus tabernaemontani Soft-stemmed Bulrush 5 -5 G5 S5 C C native Scirpus atrovirens Dark-green Bulrush 3 -5 G5 S5 C C native Scirpus cyperinus Common Woolly Bulrush 4 -5 G5 S5 C C native Scirpus pendulus Hanging Bulrush 3 -5 G5 S5 U U native Securigera varia Purple Crown-vetch 5 GNR SNA SE5 IU IU introduced Setaria pumila Yellow Foxtail 0 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Setaria viridis Green Foxtail 5 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Solanum dulcamara Bittersweet Nightshade 0 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Solidago altissima Tall Goldenrod 1 3 G5 S5 C C native Solidago canadensis var. canadensis Canada Goldenrod 1 3 G5T5 S5 C C native Solidago rugosa Rough-stemmed Goldenrod 4 0 G5 S5 C native Sonchus arvensis Field Sow-thistle 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC introduced Symphyotrichum lanceolatum Panicled Aster 3 -3 G5 S5 C C native Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Calico Aster 3 0 G5 S5 C C native Symphyotrichum novae-angliae New England Aster 2 -3 G5 S5 C C native Symphyotrichum pilosum var. pilosum Old Field Aster 1 3 G5T5 S5 C C native Syringa vulgaris Common Lilac 5 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Tanacetum vulgare Common Tansy 5 GNR SNA SE5 IR IR introduced Taraxacum officinale Common Dandelion 3 G5 SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Tilia americana Basswood 4 3 G5 S5 C C native Tilia cordata Little-leaved Linden 5 GNR SNA SE1 IH introduced Toxicodendron radicans var. radicans Eastern Poison Ivy 2 0 G5T5 S5 C native Toxicodendron radicans var. rydbergii Western Poison Ivy 2 0 G5 S5 C C native Trifolium pratense Red Clover 3 GNR SNA SE5 IX IC introduced Trifolium repens White Clover 3 GNR SNA SE5 IX IC introduced Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved Cattail -5 G5 SNA SE5 IC C introduced Typha latifolia Broad-leaved Cattail 1 -5 G5 S5 C C native Ulmus americana White Elm 3 -3 G4 S5 C C native Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm 6 0 G5 S5 U U native Verbascum thapsus Common Mullein 5 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Verbena hastata Blue Vervain 4 -3 G5 S5 C C native Verbena urticifolia White Vervain 4 0 G5 S5 C C native Vicia cracca Tufted Vetch 5 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Page 361 of 369Page 597 of 1679 APPENDIX E – Botanical Species List Garner West, Niagara ON – Subwatershed Study City of Niagara Falls Page | 5 Scientific Name Common Name CC CW COSEWIC SARA Status SARO Status G-Rank S-Rank Exotic Status Regional Rarity Oldham Niagara (2017) Local Status Niagara Region (2013) Native/Introduced Vitis riparia Riverbank Grape 0 0 G5 S5 C C native Xanthium strumarium Rough Cockleburr 2 0 G5 S5 C C native Amaranthu sp. Pigweeds Asclepias sp. Milkweeds Bidens sp. Beggarticks Carex sp. Sedges Carex sect. ovales Sedges Catalpa sp. Catalpas Cirsium sp. Thistles Crataegus sp. Hawthorns Epilobium sp. Willowherbs Geum sp. Avens Glyceria sp. Mannagrasses Lactuca sp. Lettuces Lonicera sp. Honeysuckles Melilotus sp. Clovers Panicum sp. Panicgrass Salix sp. Willows Sambucus sp. Elderberries Gourds Page 362 of 369Page 598 of 1679 APPENDIX E – Botanical Species List Garner West, Niagara ON – Subwatershed Study City of Niagara Falls Page | 6 LEGEND Scientific Name and Common Name (NHIC, 2024) Based on NHIC’s species list for Ontario downloaded in 2024. COSEWIC (NHIC, 2024) Federal Rarity List (does not provide protection under any Act) EXT Extinct - A species that no longer exists. EXP Extirpated - A species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere. END Endangered - A species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. THR Threatened - A species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed. SC Special Concern (formerly vulnerable) - A species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. NAR Not At Risk - A species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances. DD Data Deficient (formerly Indeterminate) - Available information is insufficient to resolve a species' eligibility for assessment or to permit an assessment of the species' risk of extinction. Species on Schedule 1 of Species At Risk Act (SARA) (NHIC, 2024) Federal Rarity List EXP Extirpated - a species that no longer exists in the wild in Canada, but exists elsewhere in the wild. END Endangered - a species that is facing imminent extirpation or extinction. THR Threatened - a species that is likely to become an endangered species if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction. SC Species of Special Concern - a species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. S-Ranks (NHIC, 2024) Provincial Rarity List (does not provide protection under any Act) S1 Critically Imperiled—Critically imperiled in the nation or state/province because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state/province. S2 Imperiled—Imperiled in the nation or state/province because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state/province. S3 Vulnerable—Vulnerable in the nation or state/province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S4 Apparently Secure—Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. S5 Secure—Common, widespread, and abundant in the nation or state/province. S#S# Range Rank —A numeric range rank (e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or community. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank (e.g., SU is used rather than S1S4). SX Apparently extirpated from Ontario, with little likelihood of rediscovery. Typically not seen in the province for many decades, despite searches at known historic sites. SE Exotic; not believed to be a native component of Ontario's flora. Species At Risk Ontario (SARO) (NHIC, 2024) Provincial Rarity List (Species protected under ESA 2007 and listed in O reg. 230/08) EXP Extirpated - A species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere. END Endangered - A species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. THR Threatened - A species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed. SC Special Concern - A species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Exotic Status (NHIC, 2024) If an element is known to occur as an exotic in Ontario, the status value assigned to the element is SE. A ? qualifier added to that value indicates uncertainty about whether it is exotic or native. Numeric ranks of 1 through 5 added to the exotic status indicate the element’s abundance in Ontario, with 1 indicating the least abundance and 5 the most. Coefficient of Conservatism and Coefficient of Wetness (NHIC, 2024) CC = Coefficient of Conservatism. Rank of 0 to 10 based on plants degree of fidelity to a range of synecological parameters: (0-3) Taxa found in a variety of plant communities; (4-6) Taxa typically associated with a specific plant community but tolerate moderate disturbance; (7-8) Taxa associated with a plant community in an advanced successional stage that has undergone minor disturbance; (9-10) Taxa with a high fidelity to a narrow range of synecological parameters. CW = Coefficient of Wetness. -Value between 5 and –5. A value of –5 is assigned to Obligate Wetland (OBL) and 5 to Obligate Upland (UPL), with intermediate values assigned to the remaining categories (Oldham et al., 1995). Regional Rarity Status in Niagara Regional Municipality (Oldham, 2017) I - Introduced; thought to have been present in Niagara or individual area prior to European settlement; believed to be deliberately or inadvertently introduced to by humans (followed by a status, below) C - Common U - uncommon R - rare H - Historic records only (generally >30 years) X - present; status unknown or not specified in source lists ? - unconfirmed report hyb - hybrid Combined Status (Status overall) from Oldham 2017 H - Historic native in all and no known records for at least 30 years in all areas where native and ranked (i.e. not X). Occasionally used for a native species known to be extirpated from its only known location(s) R - Rare native and (a) rare (as defined in source lists; sometimes including "very uncommon") or historic (no records in > 30 years) in more than half of the area (>6) in which it is native and ranked; or (b) if rare or historic in <6 areas it must be uncommon or common in no more than one U - Uncommon native in and (a) listed as common in no more than one area; and (b) not rare or historic in more than half of the areas (>6) in which is it native and ranked C - Common native in the and (a) common in at least two areas; and (b) not rare or historic in more than half of the areas (>6) in which it is native and ranked X - No status. Present and native in but no status assigned because of lack or information, often due to confusion with similar species Niagara Region Status (June, 2013) C - common (native) U - uncommon (native) R - rare (native) RH - rare historic (native) Page 363 of 369 Page 599 of 1679 APPENDIX E – Botanical Species List Garner West, Niagara ON – Subwatershed Study City of Niagara Falls Page | 7 IC - introduced common IU - introduced uncommon IR - introduced rare IH - introduced historic DD - data deficient (status indetermined) Hyb – hybrid - not currently known from this region, but a record from adjacent County within the NPCA (see Data Source for details) Native Status VASCAN database (Brouillet et al. 2010) Native = Native to Ontario Introduced = Introduced to Ontario References Brouillet L, Desmet P, Coursol F, Meades SJ, Favreau M, Anions M, Bélisle P, Gendreau C, Shorthouse D, and contributors (2010+). Database of Vascular Plants of Canada (VASCAN). Online at http://data.canadensys.net/vascan and http://www.gbif.org/dataset/3f8a1297-3259-4700-91fc- acc4170b27ce, released on 2010-12-10. Version [xx]. GBIF key: 3f8a1297-3259-4700-91fc-acc4170b27ce. Data paper ID: doi: http://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.25.3100 [accessed on [07/24/2019]] Oldham, M.J. 2017. Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Niagara Regional Municipality, Ontario. Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 223pp Oldham, M.J. 2017. List of the Vascular Plants of Ontario's Carolinian Zone (Ecoregion 7E). Carolinian Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Peterborough, ON. 132 pp. Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) (2024). All Species. Available at: https://www.ontario.ca/page/get-natural-heritage-information Page 364 of 369 Page 600 of 1679 Garner West Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 66258 Appendix G – Niagara Regional Natural Heritage System Criteria Page 365 of 369 Page 601 of 1679 Niagara Region Natural Heritage System Criteria NHS Components Definitions and Criteria Significant Wetlands Includes those identified as provincially significant by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry using evaluation procedures established by the province, as amended from time to time (i.e., the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System). Other Wetlands Include: • All wetlands that meet an Ecological Land Classification wetland system classification and have not been evaluated as a provincially significant wetland; • Both evaluated non-provincially significant wetlands and wetlands that have not been evaluated. These include wetlands that are regulated, and wetlands that are not regulated by the Conservation Authority; and • Wetlands with ecological and hydrological functions and wetlands that have only have a hydrological function. Woodlands Treed areas that provide environmental and economic benefits to both the private landowner and the general public, such as erosion prevention, hydrological and nutrient cycling, provision of clean air and the long-term storage of carbon, provision of wildlife habitat, outdoor recreational opportunities, and the sustainable harvest of a wide range of woodland products. Woodlands include treed areas, woodlots or forested areas and vary in their level of significance at the local, regional and provincial levels. Woodlands will be delineated according to the province’s Ecological Land Classification system definition for forest (PPS, 2020). For the purposes of this definition, forests include terrestrial vegetation communities as defined in accordance with the Ecological Land Classification system, where the tree cover is greater than 60%. Significant Woodlands A woodland meeting the Ecological Land Classification definition of forest, and also one or more of the following criteria: a. two hectares or greater in size; b. one hectare or greater in size meeting at least one of the following criteria: i. naturally occurring (i.e., not planted) trees (as defined in the species list of Appendix D in the Greenbelt Technical Paper); ii. treed areas planted with the intention of restoring woodland; iii. 10 or more trees per hectare greater than 100 years old or 50 cm or more in diameter; iv. wholly or partially within 30 m of a provincially significant wetland or habitat of an endangered or threatened species; v. overlapping or abutting one or more of the following features: 1. permanent streams or intermittent streams; 2. fish habitat; 3. significant valleylands; Page 366 of 369 Page 602 of 1679 Niagara Region Natural Heritage System Criteria c. 0.5 hectares or greater in size meeting at least one of the following criteria: i. a provincially rare treed vegetation community with an S1, S2 or S3 in its ranking by the MNRF’s NHIC; ii. habitat of a woodland plant species with an S1, S2 or S3 in its ranking or an 8, 9, or 10 in its Southern Ontario Coefficient of Conservatism by the NHIC, consisting of 10 or more individual stems or 100 or more sqm of leaf coverage; iii. any woodland overlapping or abutting one or more of the following features: 1. significant wildlife habitat; 2. habitat of threatened species and endangered species; or 3. non-provincially significant wetlands Other Woodlands A terrestrial treed area with ≥ 25% tree cover and which meets one or more of the following criteria: a. an average minimum width of 40 m and is ≥ 0.3 ha, measured to crown edges; or b. any size abutting a significant woodland, wetland, or permanent stream. Treed areas that “abut” a significant woodland, wetland or permanent stream are considered adjacent when located within 20 m of each other. Other woodlands are identified based on the Ecological Land Classification methodology. Significant Wildlife Habitat Shall be identified in accordance with the Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria schedules for Ecoregion 7E (MNRF, January 2015) and/or the appropriate provincial guidance document(s) as may be developed or amended from time to time. Where any disagreements arise with respect to interpretation of significant wildlife habitat, the Region may confer with the province, however the Region’s interpretation shall prevail if it provides equal or greater protection for wildlife habitat. Significant Valleylands Includes any of the features identified in any of the following three categories: a. all streams with well-defined valley morphology (i.e., floodplains, riparian zones, meander belts and/or valley slopes) of an average width of 25 m or more; the physical boundary is defined by the stable top of bank (as defined by the conservation authority); b. all spillways and ravines with the presence of flowing or standing water for a period of no less than two months in an average year. Such features must be greater than 50 m in length (as defined from the point of valley formation downstream to the confluence of the valley being assessed); 25 m in average width with a well-defined morphology (i.e., two valley walls of 15 per cent slope or greater with a minimum height of 5 m, and valley floor), and having an overall area of 0.5 hectares or greater; or Page 367 of 369 Page 603 of 1679 Niagara Region Natural Heritage System Criteria c. additional features or areas beyond the ones described above that have been identified by the Region, Local Area Municipality, or the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority as providing one or more of the features or functions described in the table contained in Appendix A of the Greenbelt Plan 2005 Technical Definitions and Criteria for Key Natural Heritage Features in the Natural Heritage System of the Protected Countryside Area (MNRF, 2012). Linkages Known linkages have been identified between natural heritage features and areas and key natural heritage features consisting of natural areas (e.g., watercourses, valleylands, meadow, thicket, woodland, wetland, and hedgerows, etc.) or rural/agricultural lands without major barriers (i.e., developed areas or major roads greater than 30 m in width) based on the following set of criteria: a. large linkages (outside settlement areas and outside of the Provincial Natural Heritage System) that are: i. 200-400 m in width; and ii. connect core areas (i.e., a group of natural features and areas within 30 m of each other) with a combined area of ≥50 hectares in size; b. medium linkages (outside of settlement areas and outside of the Provincial Natural Heritage System) that are: i. 100-200 m in width; and ii. connect core areas (i.e., a group of natural features and areas within 30 m of each other) with a combined area of ≥20 hectares in size; c. small linkages, both inside and outside of settlement areas and outside of the Provincial Natural Heritage System) that are: i. 60-100 m in width; and ii. connect core areas (i.e., a group of natural features and areas within 30 m of each other) with a combined area of ≥10 hectares in size. Opportunities for additional, ecologically appropriate linkages shall be screened for when a subwatershed study is being completed in support of a secondary plan Supporting Features and Areas lands that have been restored or have the potential of being restored. Supporting features and areas include grasslands, meadows, and thickets (defined in accordance with Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario); other valleylands; and other wildlife habitat; and enhancement areas where they are determined to contribute to the biodiversity and ecological function of the natural environment system. The identification of supporting features and areas is to be determined through a detailed study, such as an environmental impact study, hydrological evaluation, or subwatershed study which would evaluate the ecological Page 368 of 369 Page 604 of 1679 Niagara Region Natural Heritage System Criteria contribution of the supporting feature and area to other components of the natural environment system Page 369 of 369 Page 605 of 1679 Garner West Secondary PlanNorthwest Secondary Plan Council Update City of Niagara Falls Council Meeting March 18, 2025 Combined presentation for PBD-2025-17 and PBD-2025-18 Page 606 of 1679 2GWSP AND NWSP — COUNCIL UPDATEGarner West Secondary Plan Area Northwest Secondary Plan Area •101 Ha (249.5 ac.) •Rounds out the northwest corner of the urban boundary •183.5 Ha (453 ac.) •Centrally located at western edge •Bordered on three sides by existing urban area Page 607 of 1679 3GWSP AND NWSP — COUNCIL UPDATEGarner West Secondary Plan Area Northwest Secondary Plan Area Page 608 of 1679 4GWSP AND NWSP — COUNCIL UPDATESecondary Plans: Background •Both Secondary Plan Areas are urban expansion areas •Secondary Plans are required where large additions are made to the urban boundary •Terms of Reference for Background Studies required consultation with Region and NPCA Garner West Secondary Plan Area Northwest Secondary Plan AreaPage 609 of 1679 5GWSP AND NWSP — COUNCIL UPDATEParallel Secondary Plan Processes •Are being undertaken concurrently •Are undergoing the same process and background studies •Will have different contextual outcomes •Have separate reports and amendments for administrative purpose Garner West Secondary Plan Area Northwest Secondary Plan AreaPage 610 of 1679 6GWSP AND NWSP — COUNCIL UPDATEBackground Studies •The studies identified through consultation with the Region and NPCA are identified below: •Functional Servicing Study •Transportation Impact Study •Land Use Compatibility Assessment •Fiscal Impact Study •Subwatershed Study Page 611 of 1679 7GWSP AND NWSP — COUNCIL UPDATECommunity Focus Groups (CFG) •Following Secondary Plan initiation, staff published a Request for Expressions of Interest from persons wishing to be participate on a CFG •CFGs established •Initial sessions: Exploring views and perspectives distilled through a SWOC analysis, then forming aspirational vision statements •Meetings were facilitated and the results captured in the Visioning Workshop Summary ReportsPage 612 of 1679 8GWSP AND NWSP — COUNCIL UPDATEGarner West Secondary Plan Vision Statement “The Garner West community is an anchor and gateway to the City of Niagara Falls. It has a diversity of built and natural features. It is a primarily residential community that prioritizes connectivity, appropriate and viable density, a green approach, and technological advancement. It optimizes services and infrastructure within the neighbourhood to accommodate people of all ages and abilities and achieves appropriate integration with the surrounding areas.” Page 613 of 1679 9GWSP AND NWSP — COUNCIL UPDATENorthwest Secondary Plan Vision Statement “The Northwest community accommodates people of all ages and abilities through a mix of land uses and housing types. It has a connected and convenient system of complete streets and pathways with access to natural and recreational areas within and outside of the community. It is planned and designed to anticipate the evolving needs of those who live, work and play within the neighbourhood.”Page 614 of 1679 10GWSP AND NWSP — COUNCIL UPDATETransportation Impact Studies (TIS) •Traffic counts serve as benchmarks to measure potential impacts from the development of the future community. •Recommendations will be provided based on modelled outcomes. Garner West Secondary Plan Area Study Intersections Northwest Secondary Plan Area Study Intersections •The Phase 1 Reports also notes where transit routing and active transportation networks exist in the area, allowing consideration on expanding and connecting these networks. Page 615 of 1679 11GWSP AND NWSP — COUNCIL UPDATEFunctional Servicing Studies (FSS) •Existing conditions reporting identifies infrastructure in proximity to the Secondary Plan Areas •Allows for future planning and modeling to examine how new infrastructure will be sized and located to integrate into the existing networks •City must work cooperatively and coordinate with Niagara Region when it comes to water supply, sanitary trunk provision, and end-of-pipe capacities •Currently, a limited number of properties have access to existing infrastructure Page 616 of 1679 12GWSP AND NWSP — COUNCIL UPDATEFiscal Impact Studies: Existing Conditions •Take per capita measures of current operating costs against the revenues (which includes the current assessment for the properties) •These serve as benchmarks for measure against build-out scenarios. Net Operating Cost (2024)Assessment Revenue (2024) $50,740 $77,505 Net Operating Cost (2024)Assessment Revenue (2024) $75,760 $132,291 Northwest Secondary Plan Area Garner West Secondary Plan Area Page 617 of 1679 13GWSP AND NWSP — COUNCIL UPDATELand Use Compatibility Assessments •Identify existing industrial or similar uses that may present issues to establishing new residential •Findings reported for both Plan Areas indicate there are no uses that are expected to interfere. The uses identified can be mitigated.Page 618 of 1679 14GWSP AND NWSP — COUNCIL UPDATESubwatershed Studies •Existing conditions require four-season observation and investigation, so it is important to treat this “Interim” Report as “Preliminary” or “Draft.” •Spring and Summer will see additional field visits. Garner West Secondary Plan Northwest Secondary Plan Page 619 of 1679 15GWSP AND NWSP — COUNCIL UPDATEWhere We Are •Next steps: Starting on Phase 2 •Staff expects to identify a preferred plan late summer of 2025.Page 620 of 1679 16GWSP AND NWSP — COUNCIL UPDATEWhere We Are Phase 3: •Analyses of the preferred plan being completed by consultant team •Policy preparation with staff closely monitoring Official Plan policy development •Initiate formal amendment process Page 621 of 1679 17GWSP AND NWSP — COUNCIL UPDATEStay Informed A reminder to anyone with interest: Signing up for updates on Let’s Talk will ensure you receive an e-mail notification when the key dates and documents are made available.Page 622 of 1679 Thank you!GWSP AND NWSP — COUNCIL UPDATEPage 623 of 1679 PBD-2025-18 Planning Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: March 18, 2025 Title: Northwest Secondary Plan Update Recommendation(s) 1. Council RECEIVE Report PBD-2025-18 for information purposes respecting progress on the Northwest Secondary Plan project. Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the Northwest Secondary Plan and provide a summary of the work that has been completed to date including:  The completion and delivery of four Phase 1 Existing Conditions reports, related to transportation, servicing, land use compatibility and fiscal impact;  The completion and delivery of a Phase 1 Interim Subwatershed Study report, related to the work that has been undertaken to date on this four-season study;  The completion of a report summarizing the Community Focus Group visioning exercise; and  A summary of “what we heard” from attendees at the February 12, 2025 Public Information Meeting that provided information and explanation on the findings of the Existing Conditions reports. This report provides next steps and anticipated timing to complete Phase 2 and 3, leading to the draft Secondary Plan being presented to Council for consideration of approval. Background Accommodating future growth will be shared across the City’s remaining vacant development lands (previously called “Greenfield” lands) and through intensification in strategic locations throughout the City. The Northwest Secondary Plan Area represents and is being planned on largely vacant development lands added to the urban area boundary by Niagara Region in 2022 following extensive examination and assessment at the regional level and through approval by the Province of the New Regional Official Plan. The Secondary Plan process follows a three-phase approach to developing a land use plan and policies that will require Council approval and be integrated through Official Plan amendment into the City’s Official Plan at the conclusion of the process. Page 1 of 354 Page 624 of 1679 In July 2023, Council authorized City staff to commence work on the Northwest Secondary Plan. The City retained qualified consultants to undertake the required background studies including transportation, functional servicing, land use compatibility, fiscal impact, and subwatershed, that will inform future planning of this urban expansion area. This report provides summary comments on the Phase 1 reporting, generally referred to as “Existing Conditions” reports. These Existing Conditions Reports document the general characteristics, existing conditions investigations/observations and findings, as it relates to the physical and financial status of the study area at this point in time, serving as a benchmark for measure against future community development. Staff also assembled a Community Focus Group (CFG) following an Expression of Interest advertising campaign. The Community Focus Group is comprised of 10 members with varied interests including area residents, business and institutional owner representatives, and property owner / developer interests from within the Plan Area. To date two meetings have been held with additional meetings expected in subsequent phases of the process. The CFG members act in a voluntary capacity, offering their views and perspectives for staff consideration during the Plan’s development. Copies of Existing Conditions background studies are appended to this report and can also be accessed through the Let’s Talk Niagara Falls webpage for the Northwest Secondary Plan for review by any interested person or party. Analysis Plan Area The Plan Area is bounded by Mountain Road (Regional Rd 101) to the north, the QEW and Montrose Road (Regional Rd 98) along the east, the Hydro One transmission corridor forming the southerly limit and Kalar Road (Regional Rd 98 in part) along the west. The total site area is approximately 101 ha. (249.5 ac.), as shown on Figure 1. Page 2 of 354 Page 625 of 1679 These lands were added to the urban area boundary by Niagara Region in November 2022 through the Province’s approval of its new Official Plan. These lands are identified for “Community” use, meaning for the planning and development of a residential community and the various supporting land uses (such as parks and open space, schools, environmental protection areas, and mixed-use commercial, as examples). Figure 1 below shows the location of the Plan Area. Figure 1 – Location Map Community Focus Group – Visioning Exercise (Appendix “1”) Following the establishment of the CFG, a facilitated workshop was held on December 19, 2023. Several exercises were undertaken with the group including a strengths, Page 3 of 354 Page 626 of 1679 weakness, opportunity and constraints (SWOC) analysis aimed at gathering views and opinions of the members. Additional information gathered included some objectives for the City to consider when planning the community. The CFG worked with the facilitator in generating an aspirational vision statement for consideration, to guide the remaining planning steps of preparing a Secondary Plan. The facilitator, Claire Basinski, President of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, and working for CIMA Canada Inc. at that time, captured the participants contributions in a report that summarizes the exercises, which is provided as Appendix “1”. The Visioning Workshop Summary Report will serve to remind staff throughout the secondary plan process of what the various community members had offered in the way of opinion and perspectives. A second CFG meeting was held on August 28, 2024 to start the discussion on the types of land uses that may be appropriate to consider, as staff moves into the second phase of the program to develop and consult on conceptual land use options. Staff anticipate 2 additional meetings with the CFG, one to discuss the staff refined land use options, and again when a preferred land use plan and policies have been drafted. Background Studies A series of background studies are being undertaken to inform the secondary planning process. The studies are required under policies of the Niagara Region’s Official Plan to ensure appropriate study and investigations are being performed that will inform the entirety of the area and not just a parcel by parcel approach. This helps in the coordinated and comprehensive infrastructure, transportation and environmental systems planning, as well as capital budget planning of major infrastructure (water and wastewater trunk and transmission) and other community and soft service need. These studies include a clear scope and terms of reference that were developed in consultation with Regional and Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority staff as required and where appropriate. The City has retained qualified consultants to undertake and complete the required studies. Not all lands within the Secondary Plan Area will be developed. Lands that require environmental protection (significant woodlands and/or wetlands) or hydro corridor lands are examples of lands that will remain undeveloped. The background study work will identify constraints at the secondary planning scale, such as those mentioned, or less obvious potential constraints (topographic constraint or drainage feature limitation) to inform land use designation and layout through the next phases of the process. Almost all landowners within the Secondary Plan Area have agreed to allow the City’s consultants to enter onto their lands for the purposes of field investigations and observations, which is appreciated. This will reduce future study costs when the time Page 4 of 354 Page 627 of 1679 comes for private applications to be made, having the ability to refine any additional detailed study scope based on outcome of the background reports. A brief description of each study is provided in the body of this report, and the Phase 1 background studies are provided as Appendices. The Phase 1 reports are characterized as “Existing Conditions”, which effectively aim to document the present-day conditions found on or having influence on the lands, to serve as benchmarks when assessing future land use options. 1. Transportation Impact Assessment – Existing Conditions (Appendix “2”) The Phase 1 Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) documents the area traffic patterns using the most recent intersection counting available or undertaken to provide an accurate picture on the existing volumes and movements around the perimeter of the Secondary Plan Area. This enables a base year to be established in modeling software that will be used to project conditions into the future at varied intervals. The study documents current level of service ratings for the study area intersections that will be useful in determining timing for roadway improvements to accommodate future demand (for example, timing for additional lanes or when changes to intersection control would be warranted). It can be noted that the TIA study area extends beyond the Secondary Plan Area boundary, as it looks at impacts this future community will have on key intersections that will experience increased volumes as a result of future residents traveling to and from the new community. Additionally, the study maps active transportation in the area that will be useful in determining options for future pedestrian connection that can serve to provide alternate means of travel. The study also notes transit services presently servicing the vicinity. Since there is no major development on the subject lands currently contributing to demand, existing services are effectively absent for the Plan Area. A future land use plan and projected population would be used in forecasting future demands on the transit services. City staff will consult the Niagara Transit Commission as part of the future phases of work. As this Secondary Plan Area is immediately adjacent to the Mountain Road interchange with the QEW, it will be important to ensure the best functional traffic flow is not negatively impacting highway operations or vehicle stacking of off-ramps. Staff have already met with Ministry of Transportation (MTO) staff to raise awareness of the Plan Area and future development. MTO did supply traffic count information that has been incorporated into the traffic modeling of the existing conditions. Additional consultation will be conducted throughout the subsequent phases of the project to ensure the best possible outcome for both the MTO and the City in terms of increased traffic resulting from the new community evolution. Page 5 of 354 Page 628 of 1679 2. Functional Servicing – Existing Conditions (Appendix “3”) This study provides a comprehensive collection of servicing information that is useful in understanding certain aspects of water and wastewater infrastructure planning. The report identifies a series of contextual and technical characteristics, in addition to potential constraints to infrastructure planning. The report also identifies potential routing for servicing based on Regional Master Servicing Plan and subsequently, the City’s Master Servicing Plan presently being completed. The Report makes use of a variety of mapping to help illustrate and locate the existing infrastructure networks within the vicinity of the Plan Area for easy visual reference. In addition, and for general awareness, the report identifies the technical guidance and parameters that are typically applied to identify when certain infrastructure may require upgrade. Once a preferred land use plan is identified, the modeling and measures can make use of these benchmarks to identify and forecast when capital infrastructure projects would likely be needed. The report provides early indication on a couple potential options for servicing the Plan Area with sanitary, which includes a pumping station and force main down to the existing system networks in the vicinity of Kalar and Thorold Stone Road. It also provides indication on water supply and looping and sizing of the system. These potential servicing schematics would align with the City’s Master Servicing Plan work, which is also shared with Niagara Region in terms of coordinated service planning in respect of their own system capacities in Regional trunk infrastructure. Given volume thresholds on pumping stations, the City will be required to construct the pumping station and force main, however these are 100% capital infrastructure projects that would be funded by Development Charges. While Planning responsibilities of Niagara Region will be relieved in March of 2025, (approval of the Secondary Plan), the Region still control the major core servicing and capacities at their treatment facilities. The ability to receive flows at the Stanley Avenue treatment plant will dictate timing. Currently it can be anticipated that once the new treatment facility is constructed and brought online in the south end of the City, there would be no expressed concerns will available capacity being freed up at the existing treatment plant as a result of diverted flows in south Niagara Falls to the new plant. Lastly, the report provides recommendations for staff respecting Phase 2 work that can be used to guide conceptual land use planning from a servicing perspective. Page 6 of 354 Page 629 of 1679 3. Land Use Compatibility – Existing Conditions (Appendix “4”) The Land Use Compatibility study was conducted to identify and assess existing uses surrounding the Secondary Plan Area that could represent conflicts when introducing more sensitive uses (such as residential use). Findings of the initial assessment indicate very limited existing uses that could influence the Northwest Secondary Plan for community residential use. Those identified included Gauld Nurseries on Mountain Road and a larger scale commercial plaza much further south on Montrose Road, proximate to the intersection with Mount Carmel Boulevard. This southerly site identified has in fact been redesignated and rezoned for residential uses with a Draft Plan of Condominium recently approved. This site would no longer be considered for mitigation need based on the residential approvals it has received. The existing use of quarrying and potential future landfill on the Walker Brothers property, falling just outside the Class 3 Area of Influence, is of interest to the City. While existing quarrying is not subject to Ministry D-6 Series Guidelines, any development applications received while the quarry is operational will require site- specific noise, vibration and dust studies. The quarry is estimated to have approximately 5-7 years of extraction remaining, after which blasting operations are expected to cease. The current planning for future use of the exhausted quarry by Walker, as a proposed landfill, is underway. Future Official Plan amendment applications will be required. City staff and consultants have met with representatives of Walker to discuss and gain some initial insight on their proposal, which has seen their Class Environmental Assessment (EA) Terms of Reference reviewed and approved by the Province. Currently they are working on their studies and conducting consultations, including a robust public information campaign. Persons interested in their proposal can find information about their EA on the Walker website. Planning staff can expect ongoing points of contact with Walker over the course of the Secondary Plan process. Walker is aware the Northwest Plan Area will need to be treated as a residential community use in any of their studies being undertaken. Lines of communication are open between Walker and City staff to enable and closely follow each other’s progress. Ultimately, a preferred land use plan and policies will identify any additional studies developers will need to undertake once they advance planning applications that detail types of use and built form being proposed. This being in the context of noise, vibration and dust potential from blasting of existing operations at the quarry and may also include mitigation from noise levels of the QEW as well. Page 7 of 354 Page 630 of 1679 4. Fiscal Impact Study – Existing Conditions (Appendix “5”) The Fiscal Impact Study was undertaken to establish a financial benchmark of the current conditions of the Plan Area. The report identifies items such as current population and jobs, length of road and current road conditions, any sewer or water services being provided to the Plan Area presently, the related costs versus the revenues generated. Establishing this benchmark will allow for the measure against new capital investment need, ongoing lifespan operating/maintenance cost, and projected revenue from municipal taxes or other sources, once a preferred land use plan has been identified. The report calculates the costs to maintain these roads and services on a per person approach (per capita) to determine net operating cost and provides current assessment revenue collected for the properties involved. Once a preferred land use plan has been determined, the consultant will undertake and complete a comprehensive financial impact assessment. The analysis will include a summary of the new anticipated capital and operating costs, and assessment revenue projection based on that preferred plan. Capital costs will be informed from the Cityʼs 2024 Development Charges (DC) Background Study, as well as the ongoing Master Servicing Plan and Master Transportation Plan updates and supporting analysis. This detailed analysis will occur in Phase 3 of the secondary plan process. 5. Subwatershed Interim Reporting (Appendix “6”) A Subwatershed Study is a year-long process intended to identify and evaluate the location, extent, significance and sensitivity of the existing natural features of the Secondary Plan Area, together with potential interrelationship with other components of a natural environment system. All four seasons are monitored and site visits conducted to document findings and observations for a period of one year. It is only after this period of time that an Existing Characterization report can be completed in a final format. This Interim Report aims to provide information about the consultant’s observations to date, what has been identified, and will be continually monitored over the remaining seasonal scheduled visits. A summary of some of the early findings to date were shared at the Public Information Meeting. It must be noted that the Interim Report will maintain its draft status until the remainder of seasonal fieldwork, mapping, and analysis is completed in Summer of 2025. Page 8 of 354 Page 631 of 1679 The Interim Report outlines initial findings from surveys conducted in summer and fall 2024, covering various ecological aspects such as aquatic and terrestrial ecology, water quality, hydrology, soil classifications, and vegetation. A botanical inventory identified 100 species, with 73 being common to Ontario and 22 non-native (mostly invasive). No rare species were found, except one locally rare species. The report also notes incidental sightings of birds and amphibians and references database records, which will support ongoing investigations. Mammal, reptile, and invertebrate species are being recorded, with additional field investigations planned for spring and summer. The Plan Area is classified as containing Type 2 Fish Habitat, though no fish were observed within the Plan Area itself, only in a nearby area scour pool with the remaining drainage features seasonal dry. A preliminary list of species at risk is provided, with further surveys needed to finalize the results. There is still much field and observational study to be undertaken over the coming spring and summer seasons, prior to the Subwatershed Study Existing Characterization Report being completed. The anticipated completion of the final Subwatershed Study will follow summer 2025 observations. Public Engagement and Consultation City staff conducted a Public Information Meeting on February 12, 2025 at the Gale Centre Memorial Room. Approximately 13 persons attended the meeting where planning staff were on hand to give a presentation, answer questions about the Secondary Plan project, including information about the process and the background studies completed to date. Additionally, staff outlined next steps and anticipated timing of the subsequent phases leading up to a formal Planning Act amendment process. Staff highlighted options for the public to stay informed, how they could provide comments to the City and where they could access key documents to inform themselves (Let’s Talk page). Staff encourages the public to sign up for updates and notifications through the Let’s Talk platform. Respecting the Public Information Meeting presentation and discussion, the following summarizes “What We Heard” from those in attendance:  An attendee was interested in the Ecological Land Classification mapping that illustrated some features on their lands and questioned the existence of such feature limits. Staff advised the Consultants had walked the property, however additional site visits will be conducted in spring and summer. Staff noted the mapping is draft (watermarked) and that until such time the final study and mapping is completed, any of the work produced to date will remain draft. Staff advised they would note the comment for the consultant’s awareness. Page 9 of 354 Page 632 of 1679  An attendee was interested in the sanitary servicing map which illustrates a potential location of a sanitary pumping station to service the Plan Area. Staff advised the mapping is draft and needs to be treated as such. The final location will be determined once a preferred land use plan is identified and even then, may vary slightly depending on future applications and engineering approvals after the Secondary Plan is approved. The attendee noted the existence of a private sanitary pumping station in that general location and perhaps there was an opportunity to make use of the same location. Staff indicated they would bring this to the consultant’s attention.  An attendee wanted to know if the future land use plan could provide for wildlife corridors to allow for passage of wildlife through the Plan Area. Staff advised they would make the consulting team aware of the comment.  An attendee inquired about lands outside of the Plan Area, east of the QEW and whether the City knew of any dumping (concrete debris, fill) occurring. Staff were unaware of any activity related to the comment, but note the lands are within the urban boundary and are zoned for development use. It is surmised by the attendee that since drainage from the east side of the QEW drains through the Plan Area, passing underneath the QEW, there would be question on water quality from run-off entering the Plan Area. Further questions about the location of the former municipal dump were asked, to which staff advised the location of the former landfill is much further up and east of Mewburn Road and not in the same subwatershed.  An attendee inquired about the timing of the subwatershed study work needing to be completed. Staff advised it can be expected mid to late summer to have all seasonal study work on the subwatershed completed to enable the Final Characterization Report to be concluded.  An attendee inquired about making changes to the Secondary Plan after it was approved. Staff advised it would be part of the Official Plan once approved and persons can make private applications to amend land use designation or zoning, which would reach Council for decision.  Attendee inquiry about the two concepts being developed in the next phase of the Project. Staff advised their work in developing options is aimed at generating two concepts for discussion with various departments, CFG, Consultants as well as presented to public for their commenting. The aim is to use feedback to generate a preferred land use plan from a refining process. Staff thanked those who attended for their interest and comments and look forward to future meetings. Respecting agency, partner and prescribed bodies, with background studies complete, staff will embark on a series of agency and partner consultations and provide access to the background reports that may help in consultations. The Regional Official Plan required staff to consult with the NPCA and the Region on Terms of Reference for the background studies conducted. In this respect, these two authorities are already aware of the planning activity and will become circulated Page 10 of 354 Page 633 of 1679 agencies once the Region’s planning responsibilities have been revoked on March 31, 2025. The NPCA will still maintain regulatory authority in respect of Conservation Authority Act regulations relating to watercourse and drainage. Staff will schedule Indigenous consultation, consultation with school boards, key internal departments such as Parks and Engineering staff and circulations to all other prescribed agencies and bodies in advance of any formal amendment processing, to ensure early awareness and thorough consultation is being achieved. As indicated earlier, staff have met with the CFG and will hold additional meetings in subsequent phases. Staff have also met with landowners on their request at the outset of this project. Additional meetings with landowners may be arise from time to time when relevant matters dictate. Next Steps Planning staff are using this opportunity to report to Council on the status of the Secondary Plan, which effectively draws conclusion to the Phase 1 work plan. Phase 2 will see the preparation of conceptual land use plans that will be distilled into two concepts. Those concepts will be reviewed by our technical experts and brought to public and the CFG for additional comment and feedback prior to staff developing a single, preferred land use plan to take forward into the final phase (the formal processing phase). A report on the concepts and identification of a preferred land use plan will be the focus of Phase 2 reporting to Council, prior to preparation and initiation of Phase 3 work. The Phase 3 studies would make use of the preferred plan to detail recommendations of the various disciplines, provide routing and sizing of expected core services, project anticipated capital cost and phasing of such items relating to transportation, water and sewer timing. It will also provide delineation of the natural features and environmental protections (at the secondary plan level – with recommendations of EIS studies at the time of individual applications). Planning staff will also prepare edge planning policy (for agricultural interface) and urban design goals for the community during the Phase 2 efforts and will refine as needed once a preferred land use plan is identified for Phase 3. Staff will be monitoring progress of the City’s new Official Plan in respect of new policy framework, in effort to avoid any duplication and ensure alignment and consistency of policy that may be shared between the Secondary Plan and that of parent policy. Financial Implications/Budget Impact Page 11 of 354 Page 634 of 1679 There is no financial implication to the preparation of this information report for Council. The project remains within previously approved 2023 capital budget for the background studies to be completed. While background studies are being prepared by subject experts, the Secondary Plan land use plan and policy are being prepared in-house. Strategic/Departmental Alignment The development of the Northwest Secondary Plan is consistent with the City of Niagara Falls Sustainability and Economic Diversity and Growth Strategic Pillars. Elements of the Financial, Environmental, and Social Sustainability priorities are being achieved with a staff led and managed secondary planning program including respecting and maintaining budgetary restraint, detailed study of area environmental conditions, and seeking a complete and healthy community design and housing for future residents of Niagara Falls. Elements of the Economic Diversity and Growth priorities are reflected in the planned investments for infrastructure to service the new community and the spin-off construction industry jobs that will be required to build this community over the coming years. Strategic Plan Pillars Economic Diversification & Growth Fostering a balanced and sustainable local economy achieved by expanding and diversifying the types of industries and businesses operating within the community. Sustainability - Financial Effectively managing the City’s financial resources to meet our current and future obligations without relying on external funding sources or sacrificing our ability to deliver essential services to our residents . Sustainability - Environmental Implementing practices and policies to ensure the health and well-being of the environment for current and future generations. Sustainability - Social Working in partnership with the Niagara Region to ensure residents have access to basic needs, ensuring that Niagara Falls is a livable, inclusive and supportive community for all. List of Attachments Appendix 1 – CFG Facilitation Report NWSP Appendix 2 – Transportation Impact Existing Conditions NWSP Appendix 3 – Functional Servicing Existing Conditions NWSP Page 12 of 354 Page 635 of 1679 Appendix 4 – Land Use Compatibility Existing Conditions NWSP Appendix 5 – Fiscal Impact Existing Conditions NWSP Appendix 6 – Interim Subwatershed Study NWSP Written by: Chris Millar, Senior Project Manager - Secondary Plans Submitted by: Status: Signe Hansen, Director of Planning Approved - 09 Mar 2025 Kira Dolch, General Manager, Planning, Building & Development Approved - 11 Mar 2025 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 11 Mar 2025 Page 13 of 354 Page 636 of 1679 CIMA+ Project No. B001730 January 5, 2024 City of Niagara Falls Final Report Submitted by CIMA CANADA INC. 900–101 Frederick Street, Kitchener, ON N2H 6R2 T 519-772-2299 F 519-772-2298 cima.ca Contact Claire Basinski E: claire.basinski@cima.ca T: 519-772-2299 C : 647-680-4894 City of Niagara Falls Northwest Secondary Plan Working Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report Page 14 of 354 Page 637 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Northwest Secondary Plan . pg. ii Working Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ....................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................. ii 1.0 Purpose & Objectives ............................................................................ 1 2.0 Approach & Attendees .......................................................................... 2 3.0 Summary of Input .................................................................................. 4 3.1 SWOC Assessment .......................................................................................... 4 3.2 Community Vision ............................................................................................ 7 3.3 Community Objectives ................................................................................... 10 4.0 Next Steps & Engagement ................................................................... 11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 . Secondary Plan Area Map ........................................................................................ 1 LIST OF APPENDICIES Appendix 1 . Northwest Secondary Plan Area Context Page 15 of 354 Page 638 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Northwest Secondary Plan . pg. 1 Northwest Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 1.0 PURPOSE & OBJECTIVES The City of Niagara Falls is one of Niagara Regions’ targeted growth municipalities and is preparing to meet the challenges of growth in a proactive and inclusive manner. The Niagara Region’s allocation of residential growth to the 2051 horizon is highest amongst all local municipalities in the Region. As part of its planning responsibilities and with the planning tools at its disposal, the City has introduced a Secondary Planning Program to assist in its long-term allocation of local growth. At this time, the City is undertaking secondary planning exercises for greenfield lands recently added to the City’s settlement area boundary through Niagara Region’s Municipal Comprehensive Review and new Official Plan process. In the immediate term, two of the three newly assigned greenfield expansions are proceeding with secondary planning including the Northwest Secondary Plan Area and the Garner West Secondary Plan Area. A key map of the two secondary plan areas are illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1 . Secondary Plan Area Map Page 16 of 354 Page 639 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Northwest Secondary Plan . pg. 2 Northwest Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 As part of the City’s secondary planning program, City staff have established separate Community Focus Groups (“CFG”) for each of the plan areas. The Community Focus Groups are made up of individuals who have responded to an Expression of Interest issued by the City for participation and contribution to an inclusive and engaging secondary planning process. Each group is comprised of a cross section of community members and representatives with varying profiles, sharing some degree of vested interest in the future development of the secondary plan area. The Northwest CFG is comprised of ten members who met with the profile criteria as set out in the notice issued by the City. While there will be a number of opportunities for engagement throughout the secondary planning process, City staff sought input from the CFG early in the process through a facilitated visioning workshop session specific to the Northwest Secondary Plan area. The workshop was held on December 19th, 2023, at City Hall and was facilitated by a third-party facilitator, Claire Basinski, MCIP, RPP, CP3 who supported staff in the design and execution of the workshop. The workshop objectives were defined, documented, and communicated to all invitees in the form of a meeting agenda which was distributed on Monday December 18th, 2023 between 10:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. The objectives were as follows: •Establish an understanding of the current planning context and work being undertaken by the City of Niagara Falls in the context of future strategic secondary plan development areas, •Undertake community-based visioning exercises to foster a sense of involvement and interest in the development of the pending secondary plan area concepts and explore vested and community interests and opinions that will be considered in the development of the future secondary plan, and •Create a forum and format that allows for honest and transparent communication and engagement, builds productive relationships for all parties, and gathers of a wider range of input to inform future planning work related to the Northwest secondary plan area. A more detailed overview of the workshop approach, input received and major themes that emerged are provided in the following sections. 2.0 APPROACH & ATTENDEES An effective working session or workshop is typically designed around objectives set by the project “owners” i.e. the City of Niagara Falls, to be interpreted and exercised with those in attendance i.e. the CFG, as their input serves to inform the outcome. The City’s objectives established in Section 1.0 were used to frame the workshop agenda and framework which started with a presentation providing geographic or physical focus for project context, followed by three interactive, facilitated activities. The attendees included those who were available to participate from the CFG including individuals with a range of backgrounds and interests. For the Northwest Secondary Plan Area CFG, there were ten individuals who were invited of which nine attended in-person. The following are some highlights and considerations regarding the CFG members: Page 17 of 354 Page 640 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Northwest Secondary Plan . pg. 3 Northwest Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 •Members demonstrated a wide range of understanding on the project and planning process. •All of the attendees have either a personal or professional interest in the study area. •Some have a higher degree of understanding of municipal process due to existing or past work experience. •Other members are directly impacted by the future planning of the neighbourhood and have a vested interest in the outcomes of the process. The format of the agenda and activities identified have been used for other Secondary Plan Area studies within Niagara Region and is an appropriate starting point to establish project foundations. Upon reviewing the approach, City staff and the third-party facilitator confirmed the activity details and format. City staff were responsible for coordinating all logistics related to the CFG session including provision of materials and AV set-up. The facilitator provided additional set-up support reflecting the anticipated attendees, room layout and the unfolding of the three activities. The following is a copy of the agenda that was developed and provided to attendees and used to guide the workshop session. A copy of the presentation given in agenda item #3 is provided in Appendix 1. The times allocated to the various workshop components was a general framework which was adapted to ensure that the workshop objectives were met and all those in attendance had an opportunity to contribute. Item Scheduled Time 1.Greetings / Welcome 9:45 – 10:00 a.m. 2.Welcome, General Manager’s Message & Introductions 10:00 – 10:15 a.m. 3.Project Context Presentation 10:15 – 10:30 a.m. 4.Activity #1: Setting the Stage 10:30 – 11:30 a.m. 5.Lunch 11:30 – 12:00 p.m. 6.Activity #2: Establishing a Vision 12:00 – 1:00 p.m. 7.Activity #3: Articulating the Future 1:00 – 2:15 p.m. 8.Closing Remarks 2:15 – 2:30 p.m. As part of the greetings and welcome, each attendee was asked to provide their name, background, and either note why they were interested in the project or why they wanted to participate in the Secondary Plan process. The highlights from this discussion include: •Just under half of the group included representatives of local landowners who were interested in the future of the area relative to specific land holdings and ongoing / future Page 18 of 354 Page 641 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Northwest Secondary Plan . pg. 4 Northwest Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 potential work. For those individuals the goal was to learn more about the process and represent the interests of the landowners/developers. •Area residents with a long history living within the City and immediate vicinity with a strong interest in how this property is going to be developed and the impact that it would have on their individual lands as well as the City in general. •Shared interest in being part of the future vision of the City of Niagara Falls for this new community. •Shared understanding that there is a significant need for the swift development of housing based on regional and provincial growth directions. All responses were documented by the facilitator on large “post it” notes and placed throughout the room for the workshop attendees to review and contribute too. The original materials were given back to the City as part of the project record. Section 3.0 provides a detailed summary of the intent and purpose of each of the activities undertaken, the input that was received, and how it is intended to be used in the next steps and stages of the Northwest Secondary Plan project. 3.0 SUMMARY OF INPUT The input received through the Northwest Secondary Plan Visioning Workshop will form part of the project consultation record with original and detailed notes provided to City staff for project reference. The following is a summary of input received through the three facilitated activities undertaken. 3.1 SWOC ASSESSMENT Activity #1 of the workshop was formatted as “setting the stage”. It followed the contextual presentation given by Chris Millar from the City of Niagara Falls. The intent of the first activity was to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and constraints associated with the Northwest Secondary Plan area also referred to as a SWOC analysis. These analyses are typically used to establish a better understanding of the context within which the project is being undertaken. For the purposes of effective facilitation, the definitions of each of these considerations were provided to the working group and were defined as follows: •Strength – an existing condition that should continue to be supported or encouraged. •Weakness – an existing condition that should be remediated. •Opportunity – a future condition that should be elevated or incorporated into the study. •Constraint - a future condition that should be avoided or mitigated or avoided where possible. To better understand the range of considerations for each, a category has been identified which demonstrates the breadth of impact and the frequency of each consideration type. For the purposes of this assessment the following categories were identified: Page 19 of 354 Page 642 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Northwest Secondary Plan . pg. 5 Northwest Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 •Economic – elements that have an impact on individual or community economic prosperity or performance •Socio-demographic – elements that pertain to the human impacts or aspects •Planning – elements that pertain to the planning structure or framework •Environment – elements that pertain to the natural environment •Collaboration – elements that pertain to the various partners or partnerships •Infrastructure – elements that pertain to the servicing of the area Strength •Access to natural corridors and features such as the hydro corridor (Environment) •Leveraging the outcomes of previous studies validating the use of the lands (where appropriate) (Planning) •Plans for future intensification within built-up areas that reduce the impact on the secondary plan area’s infrastructure needs (Infrastructure) •Community support and involvement (Socio-demographic) •Access to the highway (Infrastructure) •A range of implementation precedents in similar communities (Planning) •Economic development potential (Economic) •Increased amount of space with potential for greater density (Planning) •Lack of environmental constraints that limit development (Environment) •Good transportation access and options (Infrastructure) •Natural area access and recreational potential (Environment) Opportunity •Those who are over 55 are looking for active communities with housing and services (Socio- demographic) •Partnerships with the local school boards (Collaboration) •Could be part of the solution to address affordability (Planning) •Potential to consider future mix of unit types and always striving for attainability, where possible (Planning) •There is a market driven opportunity to increase housing supply (Economic) •Flexible land uses to accommodate the evolving community needs (Planning) •Multi-modal transportation options and shorter distance trips (Infrastructure) •Access to the hydro corridor for future trail linkages (Infrastructure) •Strategic zoning considerations relative to the decisions made for surrounding developments (Planning) •Provision of community services (Socio-demographic) •Leveraging partnerships with the resource industry in surrounding areas (Collaboration) •Providing a range of housing types to accommodate community and individual needs (Planning) •Accommodating the future demands of the population (Socio-demographic) •Attracting future businesses (Economic) Page 20 of 354 Page 643 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Northwest Secondary Plan . pg. 6 Northwest Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 •Strong engineering for the expansion of infrastructure (Infrastructure) •Leveraging ongoing municipal projects such as the TMP and MSP with the future Official Plan review / update (Collaboration) •Timing and coordination of land-use and infrastructure planning (Collaboration) •Integration with surrounding development (Planning) •Enhancing the gateway potential of the area (Planning) •Community improvement plan or community incentive programs to offset community costs and services (Collaboration) Weakness •Challenging to keep-in-step with significant shifts in population growth and socio- demographics change, placing pressures on existing land uses and infrastructure (Socio- demographic) •Displacement of agricultural land in place of development (Environment) •Current capacity of the water / wastewater system and transportation network relative to the future needs (Infrastructure) •Topography relative to the access and flow of water (Environment) •Servicing limitations and timelines (Infrastructure) •Accepting a range of recommendations and outcomes from ongoing projects which may not align with the vision (Planning) •Existing traffic challenges and the impact of future transportation needs (Infrastructure) •Regional structure and future roles and responsibilities (Collaboration) •Significant need for coordination (Collaboration) Constraint •Ownership (Collaboration) •Accommodating the growing number of people moving in and out of the City (Socio- demographic) •Surrounding resource land use and future use of the lands (Planning) •Regulatory framework and policy impacts (Planning) •Transition of control over the process and impact on decision-making (Collaboration) •Cost of land versus the desire for attainable units (Economic) •Negative perception or negative visual impacts of the hydro corridor (Infrastructure) •Future outcomes of environmental impact studies (Environment) •Limitations of water filtration and movement (Infrastructure) •Need to accommodate residential growth with sufficient infrastructure (Infrastructure) •Potential impact on environmentally sensitive areas within the surrounding land uses (Environment) •Traditional corridors versus the need for more complete streets (Infrastructure) •Future funding models (Economic) •Public acceptance and resident support (Socio-demographic) Page 21 of 354 Page 644 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Northwest Secondary Plan . pg. 7 Northwest Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 Based of the review of the strengths, opportunities, weaknesses and constraints and the categories in which they fall, the following table has been prepared to summarize the degree of reference for the various category considerations. Total Economic Socio- Demographic Planning Environment Collaboration Infrastructure Strength 11 1 1 3 3 0 3 Opportunity 20 2 3 7 0 5 3 Weakness 9 0 1 1 2 2 3 Constraint 14 2 2 2 2 2 4 Total 54 5 7 13 7 9 13 It is important to note that in many cases strengths can also be weaknesses and opportunities can be constraints. When reviewing each consideration the City is encouraged to consider how they could be addressed in multiple contexts. To complete this activity and to help inform the future activities facilitated throughout the day, attendees were asked to identify their top consideration from the SWOC analysis. The following is a summary of those results. Please note that the input is not presented in order of importance. 1.Density 2.Environmental pressures 3.Land use compatibility 4.Gateway potential 5.Housing 6.Smart community development 7.Infrastructure integration 8.Build and reflect the community 9.A mix of housing types 3.2 COMMUNITY VISION Activity #2 of the workshop was used to create a vision statement for the Northwest Secondary Plan area. The goal was to use a facilitated discussion to create a statement that represents the future aspirations of the Secondary Plan area once planned, designed, constructed, and lived in. The vision statement is an early building block to which future stages, particularly that of land use arrangement, can be tested and reflected. It can also inform the public to give reference on their commenting submissions with respect to the planning direction being taken by the City. A vision statement can take many forms but typically is around 3-5 sentences, is very high level articulating the aspirations for the community. The benefit in the approach taken to develop this Page 22 of 354 Page 645 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Northwest Secondary Plan . pg. 8 Northwest Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 vision statement is that it has been developed based on input from the CFG i.e. individuals who have a vested interest in the positive impact and outcomes of the planning process and a unique knowledge of the study area. Activity #2 was a three (3) part facilitated activity including: •Part 1 – “one word” – each attendee was asked to identify words that come to mind when thinking of an ideal community of what they would like to see the future of the secondary plan area to look like / feel like / function like. All of the words were documented on a slide in the form of a word cloud. •Part 2 – “top words” – each attendee was asked to identify five of the words on the display sheets that they considered to be the most important to them. The facilitator tallied the responses and highlighted the words / statements that were selected on numerous occasions by attendees indicating the greatest degree of support. •Part 3 – “vision statement creation” – the facilitator used the words and developed the vision statement which was placed on the display sheets and discussed with the working group. Edits were made based on input received and a series of statement iterations were generated with the final result being the preferred vision statement. The activity was considered complete when consensus regarding the vision statement was established (through a unanimous vote). The following is a summary of the results of the three parts with the final “approved” vision statement for the Northwest Secondary Plan area at the end. Part 1 & 2 – Vision Statement Words The items on the left-hand side of the table represent the words / statements that were identified by the Working Group members in Part 1 of the activity. The numbers included on the right-hand side of the table are the number of times the words / statements were selected when the working group was asked to each identify their top five words / statements of importance. The responses which received the highest number of “votes” are highlighted in red i.e., those where with three or more votes. In contrast, those with less than three votes are highlighted in green. Total Times Selected Good neighbourhood for today and tomorrow 1 Resilient and adaptable 0 Good community 0 Tomorrow’s world 0 Smart growth 0 Business and mixed use 1 Streetscapes and complete streets 2 Page 23 of 354 Page 646 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Northwest Secondary Plan . pg. 9 Northwest Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 Transportation flow and function 4 Technology 0 Access to the centre 0 Convenient 2 Health and wellness 0 Demographic evolution 0 Community versus individual needs 0 Electrification 0 Accommodate people living, working, and playing 3 Sufficient wifi 0 Quality of life 1 Enjoyment 0 Near by amenities 0 Active lifestyles 1 Mix of land uses 6 Resilient for population growth and evolution 2 Proximity to amenities 4 Walkability 2 Range of housing types 6 Access to nature 2 Nature preservation 1 Natural features 5 Accessible 0 Aesthetic 1 Access to amenities 0 Range of land uses for day-to-day needs 1 Thriving 0 Balanced 0 Part 3 – Vision Statement Creation Itteration #1 This is a complete, attractive and resilient (adaptable to stand the test of time) community. This community is one that accommodates a mix of land uses and housing types with appropriate and complete streets that create a connectved and convienet way for people to move and recreate. Page 24 of 354 Page 647 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Northwest Secondary Plan . pg. 10 Northwest Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 Our community provides recerational opportunities and preserves accesss to the natural enviromental and contributes to a high quality of life. Itteration #2 The Northwest Community accommodates people of all ages and abilities through a mix of land uses and housing types; has a connected and convenient system of complete streets and pathways with access to, within and outside of the community and natural / recreational areas. The community is resilient and responsibe to change. The community anticipates the future needs of those who live, work and play within the community. Final Vision Statement The Northwest community accomodates people of all ages and abilities through a mix of land uses and housing types. It has a connected and convenient system of complete streets and pathways with access to natural and recreational areas within and outside of the commuinity. It is planned and designed to antciapte the evolving needs of those who live, work and play within the neighbourhood. 3.3 COMMUNITY OBJECTIVES Activity #3 of the workshop built upon the vision statement with the intent of highlighting specific objectives that the CFG would like the City to work towards achieving through the Secondary Plan project. The activity was positioned as “articulating the future” and was used to further define the future vision of the secondary plan area by identifying goals and objectives for the future or more detailed aspects of how the vision statement will be achieved. The question was posed by the facilitator “what needs to be done / should be done in order to achieve the vision” for the secondary plan area. The group was encouraged to consider policy changes, municipal priorities, design considerations, etc. The following is a list of objectives which have been organized into five categories: 1.Policies – that will require changes to the City’s existing Official Plan or the development of policies to support future goals. 2.Guidelines and standards – municipal directions on how features are to be designed. 3.Programs – initiatives or strategies that would encourage changes to behaviour or municipal practice. 4.Implementation – timing, coordination, studies or other steps and stages needed to support next steps. 5.Coordination – collaboration between City staff, agencies, key stakeholders, and interest groups Objectives Highlighted Policies •Parking provision and accommodation Page 25 of 354 Page 648 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls // Northwest Secondary Plan . pg. 11 Northwest Community Focus Group Visioning Workshop Summary Report - Final January 2024 •Development of supportive policies within the OP and the Zoning By-law to create the “right environment” •Develop flexible policies for land use •Ensure that there is flexibility around the provision of housing types •Consider transition and the range of uses •Leveraging woodlots for recreational space and parklands •Dedicating land for parks and greenspace Guidelines & Standards •Traffic management and calming •Highlight the entry of the community •Manage the flow of individuals through the community •Consideration for the assessment of, impact and interaction with all users •Network or system of on and off-road trails and AT linkages •Consideration for streetscapes, trees, and universal design •Aesthetic integration of the private, semi-private and public realm •Establish unique design features to highlight the community Programs •Leveraging local tourism options •Celebrating the space as a hub for recreation and green space Implementatio n •Management of services and infrastructure •Simplification of the development / planning process •Connectivity to the wider transportation system e.g. transit or active transportation Coordination •Establishing strong partnerships with all of the owners and stakeholders •Collaboration with future planning areas within close proximity of the community 4.0 NEXT STEPS & ENGAGEMENT The required background study work for the Northwest Secondary Plan project is anticipated to be awarded to a successful consultant in early 2024. The various studies will commence as soon as possible following award and are expected to take up to one year to complete (some requiring four seasons of study). The studies will be phased in order to provide relevant information that will allow for conceptual land use planning and policy development to occur with the vision statement serving as a compass of City efforts and be refined at the time of the study conclusions. The intent is for the CFG to continue to be engaged through the project process. It is anticipated the next meeting of the CFG would take place in-person in Spring/Summer 2024, following the first phases of study completion and would focus on identifying specific planning and design opportunities for the Northwest Secondary Plan area. Page 26 of 354 Page 649 of 1679 Appendix 1. Workshop Presentation Page 27 of 354 Page 650 of 1679                                                                                                                             1 1/9/2024 Welcome to the Northwest Secondary Plan Community Focus Group Meeting No.1 Vision Exercise Introductions and Housekeeping •Chris Millar •Who is Chris? •Respect of Membership •Respect of Member time •Agenda •Claire Basinski •Who is Claire? •What is Claire’s role? •Membership Introductions •Who are you? •Why did you seek participation? December 19, 2023 1 Overview Why are we undertaking a Secondary Plan? •Regional OP Policy now requires; •Favoured practice of more and more LAMs; •Provide more detail for Master and Capital Planning benefit; •Provide more assurance to residents and vested interests; •Provide more assurance to project lenders December 19, 2023 2 1 2 Page 28 of 354 Page 651 of 1679                                                                                                           3 Overview City’s Secondary Plan Process •Provincial Conformity •Meeting with Niagara Region (Approval Authority) requirements to undertake background studies •Transparent and open consultation •Exhaustive engagement list December 19, 2023 3 Overview Studies •Subwatershed Study (or equivalent); •Functional Servicing Study* (incl. water, wastewater and stormwater management) •Transportation Impact Study* •Land Use Compatibility Study •Fiscal Impact Study * Will have regard for Regional and City MSP/TMP December 19, 2023 4 2 4 1/9/2024 Page 29 of 354 Page 652 of 1679                                                                                                                                  5 Overview City Role • Public and stakeholder consultation process • Land Use Plan • Planning justification; • Land use policies (including those that will result from background study outcomes and recommendations); • Urban Design policies/guidelines; • Administrative Reporting to Council; and • Final Amendments and Schedules. December 19, 2023 5 Overview CFG Role • The Visioning Exercise • Understanding and working within the parameters • SWOC Analysis • Goals and Objectives • Land Use Concepts • Informed Land Use arrangement • Consensus building • Policy Review and Input • Review and Commenting on Policies developed by staff following all party consult December 19, 2023 6 3 6 1/9/2024 Page 30 of 354 Page 653 of 1679         7 1/9/2024 Planning Policy Structure Provincial Provincial Policy / Provincial Acts Planning Statement Plans Niagara RegionOfficial Plan Official Plan Zoning By-laws December 19, 2023 7 Topography & Zoning 8 December 19, 2023 8 4 Page 31 of 354 Page 654 of 1679         9 1/9/2024 Niagara Region Natural Environment System Mapping December 19, 2023 9 City OP Natural Heritage Plan 10 December 19, 2023 10 5 Page 32 of 354 Page 655 of 1679                                                                   Type Pop U 5%463 %1380 %2829 70 70 0 1/9/2024 Subwatersheds BDSC Ten Mile Creek & NOTL Six Mile Creek 11 December 19, 2023 11 Targets 50 35 1 Mix by Mix @ 60 pjh nit Mix Apartment @ 1.8ppu 257 Town/Med @ 2.3ppu 600 Low/SFD and Semi @ 3.3ppu 857 Mix Total 100% 4200 1714 31 Pre 2051 Net Developable (ha) Minus Post 2051 Estimate (ha) Net Developable (ha) Expansion Area Northwest Non‐developable Net‐outs (ha) Gross Expansion Area (ha) 101 12 December 19, 2023 12 6 Page 33 of 354 Page 656 of 1679 cima.ca Page 34 of 354 Page 657 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls Northwest Secondary Plan Transportation Impact Study Existing ConditionsReport November 14, 2024 Page 35 of 354 Page 658 of 1679 Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Transportation Impact Study ExistingConditions Report City of Niagara Falls FINAL Project No.: CA0034270.2246 Date: November 14, 2024 WSP 150 Commerce Valley Drive West Thornhill, Ontario L3T 7Z3 Canada wsp.com Page 36 of 354 Page 659 of 1679 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 1 ............................................................................................................. 1.1 Overview 1 .......................................................................................................... 1.2 Study Approach 1 ................................................................................................ 2 Existing Conditions 5 ................................................................................................ 2.1 Road Network 5 ................................................................................................... 2.2 Study Area Intersections 5 .................................................................................. 2.3 Traffic Volumes 9 ................................................................................................. 2.4 Transit 12 ............................................................................................................ 2.5 Active Transportation 12 ...................................................................................... 2.6 Existing Condition Capacity Analysis 15 .............................................................. 2.6.1 Methodology 15 ........................................................................................ 2.7 Next Steps 18 ...................................................................................................... List of Tables Table 2-1 Turning Movement Count Summary 9 ......................................................... Table 2-2 LOS Criteria for Intersections 15 .................................................................. Table 2-3 Intersection Capacity Analysis Results – Existing (2024) Traffic 16 ............. List of Figures Figure 1-1 Study Area 2 ................................................................................................ Figure 2-1 Study Intersections 6 ................................................................................... Figure 2-2 Existing Lane Configuration 8 ..................................................................... Figure 2-3 Available Existing Traffic Volumes 10 .......................................................... Figure 2-4 Year 2024 Traffic Volumes 11 ...................................................................... Figure 2-5 Northwest Secondary Plan Area & Existing Transit Routes 13 .................... Figure 2-6 Existing Active Transportation Network 14 .................................................. Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page I Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 37 of 354 Page 660 of 1679 List of Appendices A Synchro Output Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page II Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 38 of 354 Page 661 of 1679 1 Introduction 1.1 Overview The City of Niagara Falls is preparing Secondary Plans for lands recently added to the City’s serviced urban area by Niagara Region, following their Municipal Comprehensive Review and Land Needs Assessment work prepared as part of their new Official Plan. The City is required to undertake secondary planning for greenfield lands added through the expansion process. Background studies are required to be completed as part of the secondary planning process. WSP was commissioned to undertake the analysis of the potential transportation needs of the Secondary Plan. The Northwest Secondary Plan Area is located west of the Queen Elizabeth Way (QEW), south of Mountain Road (Regional Road 101) and east of Kalar Road, (Regional Road 98, which also includes Montrose Road as Regional Road 98). The southerly limit of the existing hydro corridor represents the southern boundary limit of the Plan Area. The existing land uses include a place of worship, a hospitality and event centre (Club Italia), the Regency Athletic Resort and Restaurant, the Shady Oaks Mobile Home Park, and Niagara Sports Centre. In the interim, large portions of the Plan Area are being used for agricultural cash crop with some areas of natural vegetation. The total gross Plan Area is approximately 101 ha. Figure 1-1 shows the extent of the Study Area. 1.2 Study Approach This Transportation Impact Study (TIS) follows a three (3) phase methodology agreed to between the City of Niagara Falls and WSP. This Report represents the outcome of the Phase 1 component of the overall study approach. The City was required to consult with Niagara Region on the Terms of Reference prior to commencing this study work. The TIS approach will include the following: Existing Conditions (This Phase 1 Reporting) A comprehensive review of the existing conditions will be undertaken. This will include an analysis of the existing road network, transit routes and active transportation infrastructure. This section will provide the 2024 existing lane configuration of the Study Area intersections, the available existing traffic volumes, and the existing capacity analysis of the intersections. Niagara Region Activity Based Model The Niagara Region Activity Based Model (NRABM) will be a key tool used to identify the roadway infrastructure requirements for the growth scenarios. The 2024 base year mode will be used. Subsequent phases and reporting of this assignment will then focus on the Year 2031 Model which will look at the volume forecasts and roadway network Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 1 Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 39 of 354 Page 662 of 1679 Figure 1-1 Study Area Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 2 Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 40 of 354 Page 663 of 1679 performance and finally the 2051 Model focusing on the volume forecasts and roadway network performance. This section will include the 2024 existing lane configuration of the Study Area intersections, the available existing traffic volumes, and the existing capacity analysis of the intersections. Land Use Options Assessment (Phase 2) Land Use Options Assessment are part of the second phase of this study and will be subject of Phase 2 reporting at a later date, following the City’s required agency consultations, public and stakeholder/partner engagement, and the preparation of options for further assessment. This section will include the information on the assessment criteria, and evaluation of two land use options. Future Background Conditions (Phase 3) Phase 3 of the TIS (once a preferred land use option has been determined) will consider the three planning horizons of 2031, 2041, and 2051. This section will focus on planned roadway improvements and background traffic conditions and background intersection performance for all three planning horizons. This section will conclude with the findings of the future background analysis. Study Area Generated Traffic (Phase 3) The Phase 3 analysis will focus on the Study Area generated traffic by focusing on the preferred land use, trip generation, the preferred land use plan roadway network, as well as the trip distribution and assignment. Future Travel Conditions (Phase 3) The Phase 3 analysis will focus on the future travel conditions taking into account the three planning horizons of 2031, 2041, and 2051. The future total traffic conditions and future total intersection performance for all three horizons will be reported in this section, concluding with the findings of the future total analysis that will inform on improvements required over the horizon. Transit & Active Transportation (Phase 3) The Phase 3 analysis will take into account the future transit and active transportation potential and identify opportunities for improved pedestrian connectivity internally and with the broader area, supporting multi-modal options with anticipated transit needs to serve the new community. This section will include the suggested transit and active transportation improvements in the Study Area. Transportation Improvements (Phase 3) The Phase 3 section will detail transportation improvements needed to support the new community, including roadway and intersection improvements, transit and active transportation improvements, policy recommendations, and an implementation plan that will provide cost estimates. Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 3 Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 41 of 354 Page 664 of 1679 Conclusions (Phase 3) On completing all three phases of this assignment, the Conclusions section will provide a comprehensive summary of the noted transportation observations and proposed improvements as part of the Northwest Secondary Plan TIS serving to guide the capital planning and development process over the course of the planned future community implementation. Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 4 Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 42 of 354 Page 665 of 1679 2 Existing Conditions 2.1 Road Network There are presently six main/arterial roads in the Study Area. —Mountain Road is a Regional two-lane east-west arterial road that forms the northern boundary of the Study Area. It provides a connection to the Queen Elizabeth Way. The posted speed is 60km/h. —Kalar Road is a Regional two lane north-south arterial road that forms the western boundary of the Study Area. The posted speed is 70 km/h between Mountain Road and Montrose Road, 80 km/h between Montrose Road and Mount Carmel Boulevard, 60 km/h south of Mount Carmel Boulevard to approximately 350m north of Thorold Stone Road, and then 50 km/h to Thorold Stone Road. —Queen Elizabeth Way is a Provincial 400 Series Highway that connects from the Canada / United States border at Fort Erie through to Toronto with various other connecting 400 Series highway along that identified stretch. The highway includes two lanes in each direction but transitions to three lanes in each direction north of Mountain Road and the posted speed is 110 km/h. —Mewburn Road is a City two lane road located to the northeast of the Study Area which connects to Mountain Road. The posted speed is 60km/h. —Montrose Road is a Regional two lane north south arterial road that passes through the Study Area, in part, before becoming adjacent and parallel to the QEW, which forms the eastern boundary of the Study Area. The posted speed is 70 km/h from Kalar Road to the hydro corridor, then 50km/h south of it. —Thorold Stone Road is a Regional four lane arterial east-west road located approximately 1 km to the south of the Study Area. The road has a connection to the Queen Elizabeth Way to the east and transitions into Provincial Highway 58 several kilometre to the west, where it crosses the Welland Canal and ultimately merging with Highway 406. The posted speed is 50km/h for the stretch of roadway between the Kalar and Montrose Road intersections. Figure 2-1 shows the road network in the vicinity of the Study Area. 2.2 Study Area Intersections The seven intersections included in the intersection capacity analysis are: 1 Mountain Road & Kalar Road 2 Mountain Road & Queen Elizabeth Way SB off ramp 3 Mountain Road & Queen Elizabeth Way NB off ramp 4 Mountain Road & Mewburn Road Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 5 Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 43 of 354 Page 666 of 1679 Figure 2-1 Study Intersections Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 6 Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 44 of 354 Page 667 of 1679 5 Kalar Road & Montrose Road 6 Kalar Road & Thorold Stone Road 7 Montrose Road & Thorold Stone Road The Study Area intersections are shown in Figure 2-1. Figure 3 shows the existing lane configuration at these study intersections. Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 7 Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 45 of 354 Page 668 of 1679 Figure 2-2 Existing Lane Configuration Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 8 Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 46 of 354Page 669 of 1679 2.3 Traffic Volumes Turning Movement Counts (TMCs) for the study intersections were provided by Niagara Region and Ministry of Transportation Ontario (MTO) and were undertaken between May 2006 and August 2023. The count dates and the peak hours of traffic for each surveyed intersection has been included in Table 2-1. Table 2-1 Turning Movement Count Summary Intersection Traffic Control Type Count Date Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Mountain Road & Kalar Road SSSC 3/15/2021 8:00 -9:00 AM 4:00 -5:00 PM Mountain Road & Queen Elizabeth Way southbound off ramp Signal 8/26/2022 8:15 -9:15 AM 4:15 -5:15 PM Mountain Road & Queen Elizabeth Way northbound off ramp SSSC 8/26/2022 8:15 -9:15 AM 4:00 -5:00 PM Mountain Road & Mewburn Road Roundabout 5/16/2006 8:00 -9:00 AM 4:00 -5:00 PM Kalar Road & Montrose Road SSSC 7/12/2023 8:00 -9:00 AM 4:00 -5:00 PM Kalar Road & Thorold Stone Road Signal 8/8/2023 7:45 -8:45 AM 4:15 -5:15 PM Montrose Road & Thorold Stone Road Signal 8/15/2023 8:00 -9:00 AM 4:15 -5:15 PM Note: SSSC – Side Street Stop Control (stop controlled on minor street, typically at a T- intersection), AWSC – All Way Stop Control (stop controlled on all approaches) Figure 2-3 shows the traffic counts available at the study intersections. To develop year 2024 traffic volumes, growth factors were calculated using the year 2019 and 2022 peak hour counts at Mountain Road and the Queen Elizabeth Way ramp intersections. An annual growth rate of 1% and 2% were applied to all intersections the AM and PM peak hour volumes, respectively. Figure 2-4 shows the balanced year 2024 traffic volumes used to conduct the existing conditions traffic analysis. Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 9 Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 47 of 354 Page 670 of 1679 Figure 2-3 Available Existing Traffic Volumes Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 10 Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 48 of 354Page 671 of 1679 Figure 2-4 Year 2024 Traffic Volumes Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 11 Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 49 of 354Page 672 of 1679 2.4 Transit The Study Area lies approximately 7km west of the Niagara Falls Bus Terminal and GO Train Station. This transit terminal connects Niagara Falls to Union Station, Toronto on the Lakeshore West GO Line running between Toronto and Niagara Falls and Burlington on the GO bus network. The Bus Terminal is also served by the Niagara Region Transit (NRT). Transit in the City is served primarily by NRT and GO Transit as well as WEGO (operated by Niagara Parks Commission). On January 1, 2023, City-operated transit services were consolidated to be part of the NRT network as part of the Region’s vision for a single transit system and operator across the Region. Figure 2-5 shows the Study Area in relation to the existing transit route and coverage. The figure also shows a 400m buffer zone which equates to a 5-minute walk for potential users. The Study Area is not presently within the buffer zone for any transit route service. 2.5 Active Transportation No major multi-use trail facilities exist in the Study Area. The closest trail is to the south of the Study Area connecting Kalar Road and Mount Carmel Boulevard through Shriner’s Woodlot Park. There is a dedicated cycle lane on Mountain Road which terminates as it approaches the Mewburn Road roundabout from the east. There is a sidewalk on Mountain Road on the southside as it approaches the Mewburn Road intersection. Figure 2-6 shows the existing active transportation network. Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 12 Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 50 of 354 Page 673 of 1679 Figure 2-5 Northwest Secondary Plan Area & Existing Transit Routes Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 13 Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 51 of 354Page 674 of 1679 Figure 2-6 Existing Active Transportation Network Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 14 Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 52 of 354Page 675 of 1679 2.6 Existing Condition Capacity Analysis 2.6.1 Methodology The intersection capacity analysis was completed using the traffic modeling software program Synchro (Version 11), a traffic analysis software based on Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology, and SIDRA (Version 9) for roundabout capacity analysis. The traffic analysis is based on the busiest hour at each intersection assessed to reflect the worst-case scenario. The results of the analysis presented are based on HCM 2000 reports from Synchro. The Level of Service (LOS) of a transportation facility is a performance measure that represents quality of service from the vehicle user’s perspective. The HCM defines six levels of services, ranging from 'A’ to ‘F’ where ‘A’ represents the best operating conditions and ‘F’ represents the worst. The assigned LOS is based on the ranges of delay identified in Table 2-2. Table 2-2 LOS Criteria for Intersections Level of service Signalized IntersectionDelay (S) Stop Controlled Intersection Delay (s) A ≤10 ≤10 B >10-20 >10-15 C >20-35 >15-25 D >35-55 >25-35 E >55-80 >35-50 F >80 >50 The existing conditions operational analysis is summarized in Table 2-3 and includes the delays at the intersection, and Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratios. Critical movements are identified when the V/C ratios are greater than 0.85. The detailed analysis outputs are provided in Appendix A. The existing traffic assessment serves as a benchmark for all assessments of future scenarios. Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 15 Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 53 of 354 Page 676 of 1679 Table 2-3 Intersection Capacity Analysis Results – Existing (2024) Traffic Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay (s) LOS Critical Movement v/c* 95%le Queue Length (m) Delay (s) LOS Critical Movement v/c* 95%le Queue Length (m) Mountain Road & Kalar Road SSSC 12.7 B -0.05 NBL -1.3 NBR -9.5 33.1 D -0.37 NBL -5.2 NBR -13.7 Mountain Road & Queen Elizabeth Way southbound off ramp Signal 16.8 B -0.41 EBL -6.6 22.2 C WBT 0.86 EBL -15.0 Mountain Road & Queen Elizabeth Way Northbound off ramp SSSC 16.8 C -0.33 NBR -11.8 35.2 E -0.66 NBR -36.0 Mountain Road & Mewburn Road Round-about 4.0 A -0.51 WB -30.3 3.9 A -0.63 EB -57.9 Kalar Road & Montrose Road SSSC 10.2 B -0.05 WB -1.1 12 B -0.06 WB -1.4 Kalar Road & Thorold Stone Road Signal 10.1 B -0.55 EBL -8.1 WBL -5.6 NBL -25.4 SBL -16.1 18 B -0.71 EBL -13.2 WBL -22.4 NBL -22.9 SBL -10.2 Montrose Road & Thorold Stone Road Signal 26.7 C -0.76 EBL -12.9 WBL -#54.3 NBL -23.9 SBL -55.3 34.3 C EBTR WBL 0.86 0.89 EBL -12.7 WBL -#104.8 NBL -50.0 SBL -59.3 Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 16 Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 54 of 354Page 677 of 1679 * v/c reported for the overall intersection for signalized intersections and worst stop-controlled movement at stop-controlled intersections. # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity; queue may be longer. Note: SSSC – Side Street Stop Control, AWSC – All Way Stop Control, NB – Northbound, SB – Southbound, EB – Eastbound, WB – Westbound, L – Left, T – Through, R - Right Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 17 Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 55 of 354Page 678 of 1679 As shown in Table 2-3 most of the study intersections are operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS) of ‘C’ or better under existing weekday AM peak hour conditions. However, in the PM peak hour, the northbound left turn movement at the stop-controlled intersection of Mountain Road and Queen Elizabeth Way northbound off-ramp is operating at LOS of ‘E’. This movement has only 26 vehicles in the PM peak hour but is experiencing a delay of 35.2 seconds due to few gaps in the eastbound / westbound traffic. However, it is to be noted that this is only 0.2 seconds greater than 35 seconds delay which would otherwise be LOS ‘D’. The signalized intersection at Montrose Road and Thorold Stone Road intersection is operating at LOS ‘C’, however, the eastbound through-right movement and westbound left movements are operating with a V/C ratio slightly greater than 0.85 because of high turning volumes. 2.7 Next Steps The completion of the Phase 1 Existing Conditions will move the project into Phase 2 which will focus on the Lane Use Options and would include the City’s required agency consultation, public and stakeholder / partner engagement, as well as the preparation of options for further assessment. Northwest Secondary Plan, City of Niagara Falls Page | 18 Project No. CA0034270.2246 WSP Page 56 of 354 Page 679 of 1679 APPENDIX A Synchro Output Page 57 of 354 Page 680 of 1679 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Kalar Rd & Mountain Rd 10/08/2024 Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 138 23 126 152 23 225 Future Volume (Veh/h) 138 23 126 152 23 225 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly flow rate (vph) 153 26 140 169 26 250 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) 319 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 179 615 166 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 179 615 166 tC, single (s) 4.2 *5.2 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.3 3.6 3.3 p0 queue free % 90 95 71 cM capacity (veh/h) 1373 492 873 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 Volume Total 179 140 169 26 250 Volume Left 0 140 0 26 0 Volume Right 26 0 0 0 250 cSH 1700 1373 1700 492 873 Volume to Capacity 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.29 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 2.7 0.0 1.3 9.5 Control Delay (s) 0.0 7.9 0.0 12.7 10.8 Lane LOS A B B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 3.6 11.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value Existing AM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 1 Page 58 of 354 Page 681 of 1679 Queues 10/08/20242: Mountain Rd & Queen Elizabeth Wy SB off ramp Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 361 236 85 80 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.68 0.40 0.16 0.19 Control Delay 12.2 22.3 14.7 13.5 5.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 12.2 22.3 14.7 13.5 5.3 Queue Length 50th (m) 1.9 33.0 18.4 5.4 0.0 Queue Length 95th (m) 6.1 58.0 33.4 16.8 8.2 Internal Link Dist (m) 294.7 130.1 123.2 Turn Bay Length (m) 60.0 Base Capacity (vph) 527 1027 1121 541 416 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.05 0.35 0.21 0.16 0.19 Intersection Summary Existing AM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 2 Page 59 of 354 Page 682 of 1679 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2: Mountain Rd & Queen Elizabeth Wy SB off ramp Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 25 332 217 0 78 74 Future Volume (vph) 25 332 217 0 78 74 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1454 1579 1579 1900 1454 1301 Total Lost time (s) 6.5 6.5 5.5 5.9 5.9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1114 1397 1490 1328 906 Flt Permitted 0.61 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 717 1397 1490 1328 906 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 361 236 0 85 80 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 47 Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 361 236 0 85 33 Heavy Vehicles (%) 24% 13% 6% 0% 4% 22% Turn Type Perm NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 22.8 22.8 23.8 24.2 24.2 Effective Green, g (s) 22.8 22.8 23.8 24.2 24.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.41 0.41 Clearance Time (s) 6.5 6.5 5.5 5.9 5.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 275 536 597 541 369 v/s Ratio Prot c0.26 0.16 c0.06 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.04 v/c Ratio 0.10 0.67 0.40 0.16 0.09 Uniform Delay, d1 11.7 15.2 12.7 11.1 10.8 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 3.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 Delay (s) 11.9 18.8 13.3 11.8 11.3 Level of Service B B B B B Approach Delay (s) 18.4 13.3 11.5 Approach LOS B B B Intersection Summary 10/08/2024 HCM 2000 Control Delay 15.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.41 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 59.4 Sum of lost time (s) 12.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing AM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 3 Page 60 of 354 Page 683 of 1679 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/08/20243: Queen Elizabeth Wy NB off ramp & Mountain Rd Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 286 123 0 371 22 203 Future Volume (Veh/h) 286 123 0 371 22 203 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 311 134 0 403 24 221 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 445 781 378 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 445 781 378 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.7 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.8 3.4 p0 queue free % 100 93 67 cM capacity (veh/h) 1126 329 660 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 Volume Total 445 403 24 221 Volume Left 0 0 24 0 Volume Right 134 0 0 221 cSH 1700 1700 329 660 Volume to Capacity 0.26 0.24 0.07 0.33 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 1.9 11.8 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 16.8 13.2 Lane LOS C B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 13.5 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.8% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing AM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 4 Page 61 of 354 Page 684 of 1679 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 101 [Mewburn & Mountain_Exst AM Peak (Site Folder: General)] Mewburn & Mountain Roundabout Analysis Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Mov ID Turn INPUT VOLUMES DEMAND FLOWS Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service 95% BACK OF QUEUE Prop. Que Effective Stop Rate Aver. No. Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total veh/h HV ] % [ Total veh/h HV ] % v/c sec [ Veh. veh Dist ] m km/h South: Mewburn Rd 1 L2 57 0.0 61 0.0 0.076 9.7 LOS A 0.4 3.1 0.58 0.63 0.58 48.1 2 T1 4 0.0 4 0.0 0.076 3.5 LOS A 0.4 3.1 0.58 0.63 0.58 47.1 3 R2 16 19.0 17 19.0 0.076 4.5 LOS A 0.4 3.1 0.58 0.63 0.58 45.5 Approach 77 3.9 82 3.9 0.076 8.3 LOS A 0.4 3.1 0.58 0.63 0.58 47.5 East: Mountain Rd 4 L2 4 50.0 4 50.0 0.510 11.2 LOS B 4.1 30.3 0.45 0.38 0.45 54.0 5 T1 662 5.0 704 5.0 0.510 3.8 LOS A 4.1 30.3 0.45 0.38 0.45 53.3 6 R2 32 29.0 34 29.0 0.510 4.3 LOS A 4.1 30.3 0.45 0.38 0.45 51.2 Approach 698 6.4 743 6.4 0.510 3.9 LOS A 4.1 30.3 0.45 0.38 0.45 53.2 North: Mewburn Rd 7 L2 24 34.0 26 34.0 0.154 14.8 LOS B 1.0 8.4 0.77 0.75 0.77 51.9 8 T1 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.154 7.0 LOS A 1.0 8.4 0.77 0.75 0.77 51.0 9 R2 83 20.0 88 20.0 0.154 7.8 LOS A 1.0 8.4 0.77 0.75 0.77 49.1 Approach 108 22.9 115 22.9 0.154 9.3 LOS A 1.0 8.4 0.77 0.75 0.77 49.7 West: Mountain Rd 10 L2 71 22.0 76 22.0 0.326 7.8 LOS A 2.5 19.3 0.19 0.24 0.19 51.4 11 T1 395 11.0 420 11.0 0.326 1.4 LOS A 2.5 19.3 0.19 0.24 0.19 50.5 12 R2 23 9.0 24 9.0 0.326 2.0 LOS A 2.5 19.3 0.19 0.24 0.19 48.7 Approach 489 12.5 520 12.5 0.326 2.4 LOS A 2.5 19.3 0.19 0.24 0.19 50.5 All Vehicles 1372 9.7 1460 9.7 0.510 4.0 LOS A 4.1 30.3 0.39 0.37 0.39 51.6 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: SIDRA Roundabout LOS. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA Standard. Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0 | Copyright © 2000-2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: WSP CANADA INC. | | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC Processed: August 9, 2024 3:01:37 PM Project: C:\Users\inpc02141\WSP O365\CA0034270.2246 CA-Northwest Secondary Plan Transportation Impact Assessment - Project Folders \05. Technical\Sidra\Mewburn Roundabout Analysis.sip9 Page 62 of 354 Page 685 of 1679 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Kalar Rd & Montrose Rd 10/08/2024 Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 6 24 227 5 6 143 Future Volume (Veh/h) 6 24 227 5 6 143 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate (vph) 7 26 249 5 7 157 Pedestrians 4 Lane Width (m) 3.6 Walking Speed (m/s) 1.2 Percent Blockage 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 426 256 258 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 426 256 258 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 99 97 99 cM capacity (veh/h) 584 785 1314 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 33 254 164 Volume Left 7 0 7 Volume Right 26 5 0 cSH 732 1700 1314 Volume to Capacity 0.05 0.15 0.01 Queue Length 95th (m) 1.1 0.0 0.1 Control Delay (s) 10.2 0.0 0.4 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 10.2 0.0 0.4 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.4% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing AM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 6 Page 63 of 354 Page 686 of 1679 Queues 10/08/20246: Kalar Rd & Thorold Stone Rd Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 784 37 573 91 152 52 83 v/c Ratio 0.09 0.47 0.09 0.31 0.30 0.41 0.18 0.21 Control Delay 12.0 11.9 6.0 6.3 23.1 21.2 21.7 15.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 12.0 11.9 6.0 6.3 23.1 21.2 21.7 15.4 Queue Length 50th (m) 1.1 19.2 1.3 12.8 6.0 8.5 3.3 3.3 Queue Length 95th (m) 8.1 66.2 5.6 29.2 25.4 35.0 16.1 18.0 Internal Link Dist (m) 418.0 1022.4 246.1 2088.7 Turn Bay Length (m) 30.0 37.0 25.0 95.0 Base Capacity (vph) 457 2394 457 2617 703 827 660 876 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.33 0.08 0.22 0.13 0.18 0.08 0.09 Intersection Summary Existing AM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 7 Page 64 of 354 Page 687 of 1679 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/08/20246: Kalar Rd & Thorold Stone Rd Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 27 673 32 33 505 11 82 92 45 47 47 28 Future Volume (vph) 27 673 32 33 505 11 82 92 45 47 47 28 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1454 1579 1338 1454 1579 1338 1454 1338 1338 1454 1338 1338 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.94 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1201 2884 1222 2840 1381 1188 1380 1257 Flt Permitted 0.44 1.00 0.26 1.00 0.70 1.00 0.66 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 552 2884 340 2840 1022 1188 959 1257 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Adj. Flow (vph) 30 748 36 37 561 12 91 102 50 52 52 31 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 21 0 0 25 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 30 781 0 37 572 0 91 131 0 52 58 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 3 3 1 2 2 1 Heavy Vehicles (%) 15% 3% 7% 13% 5% 19% 0% 4% 12% 0% 0% 0% Turn Type Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 25.7 25.7 32.5 32.5 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 Effective Green, g (s) 25.7 25.7 32.5 32.5 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.50 0.50 0.63 0.63 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 274 1436 253 1788 200 232 187 246 v/s Ratio Prot c0.27 0.01 c0.20 c0.11 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.05 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.54 0.15 0.32 0.46 0.57 0.28 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 6.9 8.9 4.3 4.4 18.3 18.8 17.6 17.5 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.2 1.8 3.2 0.9 0.5 Delay (s) 7.2 9.6 4.7 4.6 20.1 22.0 18.5 18.0 Level of Service A A A A C C B B Approach Delay (s) 9.5 4.6 21.3 18.2 Approach LOS A A C B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 10.1 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.55 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 51.6 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing AM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 8 Page 65 of 354 Page 688 of 1679 Queues 10/08/20247: Montrose Rd & Thorold Stone Rd Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 832 222 680 85 136 251 210 169 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.83 0.71 0.55 0.31 0.38 0.72 0.60 0.29 Control Delay 11.4 34.8 25.8 20.0 25.5 40.8 17.6 31.7 24.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 11.4 34.8 25.8 20.0 25.5 40.8 17.6 31.7 24.7 Queue Length 50th (m) 4.6 68.4 18.3 44.0 10.7 12.4 0.0 29.5 9.4 Queue Length 95th (m) 12.9 #114.8 #54.3 77.3 23.9 23.0 25.5 55.3 21.1 Internal Link Dist (m) 1022.4 138.4 313.7 260.6 Turn Bay Length (m) 27.0 85.0 50.0 35.0 55.0 Base Capacity (vph) 445 1268 362 1339 369 924 506 368 879 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.14 0.66 0.61 0.51 0.23 0.15 0.50 0.57 0.19 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Existing AM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 9 Page 66 of 354 Page 689 of 1679 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/08/20247: Montrose Rd & Thorold Stone Rd Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 59 680 86 204 496 130 78 125 231 193 105 51 Future Volume (vph) 59 680 86 204 496 130 78 125 231 193 105 51 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1454 1579 1338 1454 1579 1338 1454 1579 1301 1454 1579 1338 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.6 3.0 5.6 3.0 5.4 5.4 3.0 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.99 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.95 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1267 2799 1315 2719 1288 2885 1047 1314 2630 Flt Permitted 0.39 1.00 0.19 1.00 0.65 1.00 1.00 0.53 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 524 2799 259 2719 875 2885 1047 734 2630 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 64 739 93 222 539 141 85 136 251 210 114 55 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 17 0 0 0 217 0 44 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 64 824 0 222 663 0 85 136 34 210 125 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 4 4 2 4 3 3 4 Heavy Vehicles (%) 9% 5% 7% 5% 7% 5% 7% 4% 4% 5% 6% 12% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 37.7 31.8 48.4 39.5 19.7 11.8 11.8 29.0 18.1 Effective Green, g (s) 37.7 31.8 48.4 39.5 19.7 11.8 11.8 29.0 18.1 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.36 0.55 0.45 0.22 0.13 0.13 0.33 0.20 Clearance Time (s) 3.0 5.6 3.0 5.6 3.0 5.4 5.4 3.0 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 273 1006 304 1214 231 385 139 333 538 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 c0.29 c0.11 0.24 0.03 0.05 c0.10 0.05 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.29 0.05 0.03 c0.11 v/c Ratio 0.23 0.82 0.73 0.55 0.37 0.35 0.24 0.63 0.23 Uniform Delay, d1 15.3 25.7 13.5 17.9 28.6 34.8 34.3 23.8 29.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 5.2 8.2 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.7 3.4 0.2 Delay (s) 15.6 30.8 21.7 18.3 29.3 35.2 34.9 27.2 29.5 Level of Service B C C B C D C C C Approach Delay (s) 29.8 19.1 34.0 28.2 Approach LOS C B C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 26.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.76 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 88.4 Sum of lost time (s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 78.7% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing AM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 10 Page 67 of 354 Page 690 of 1679 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 1: Kalar Rd & Mountain Rd Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 306 63 380 204 27 228 Future Volume (Veh/h) 306 63 380 204 27 228 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 333 68 413 222 29 248 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) 319 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 401 1415 367 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 401 1415 367 tC, single (s) 4.1 *5.2 6.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.5 3.4 p0 queue free % 64 82 63 cM capacity (veh/h) 1147 157 669 10/08/2024 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 WB 2 NB 1 NB 2 Volume Total 401 413 222 29 248 Volume Left 0 413 0 29 0 Volume Right 68 0 0 0 248 cSH 1700 1147 1700 157 669 Volume to Capacity 0.24 0.36 0.13 0.18 0.37 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 13.3 0.0 5.2 13.7 Control Delay (s) 0.0 9.9 0.0 33.1 13.5 Lane LOS A D B Approach Delay (s) 0.0 6.4 15.6 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 6.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 * User Entered Value Existing PM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 1 Page 68 of 354 Page 691 of 1679 Queues 10/08/20242: Mountain Rd & Queen Elizabeth Wy SB off ramp Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 84 522 350 324 279 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.77 0.51 0.62 0.48 Control Delay 14.1 23.9 15.4 25.9 6.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.1 23.9 15.4 25.9 6.0 Queue Length 50th (m) 6.5 53.0 29.8 31.1 0.0 Queue Length 95th (m) 15.0 85.1 48.9 #86.5 18.6 Internal Link Dist (m) 294.7 130.1 123.2 Turn Bay Length (m) 60.0 Base Capacity (vph) 465 1073 1066 520 582 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.49 0.33 0.62 0.48 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Existing PM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 2 Page 69 of 354 Page 692 of 1679 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/08/20242: Mountain Rd & Queen Elizabeth Wy SB off ramp Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 77 480 322 0 298 257 Future Volume (vph) 77 480 322 0 298 257 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1454 1579 1579 1900 1454 1301 Total Lost time (s) 6.5 6.5 5.5 5.9 5.9 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1328 1579 1533 1381 1084 Flt Permitted 0.49 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 684 1579 1533 1381 1084 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Adj. Flow (vph) 84 522 350 0 324 279 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 0 0 0 174 Lane Group Flow (vph) 84 522 350 0 324 105 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 0% 3% 0% 0% 2% Turn Type Perm NA NA Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 8 6 Permitted Phases 4 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 27.9 27.9 28.9 24.4 24.4 Effective Green, g (s) 27.9 27.9 28.9 24.4 24.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.43 0.43 0.45 0.38 0.38 Clearance Time (s) 6.5 6.5 5.5 5.9 5.9 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 294 680 684 520 408 v/s Ratio Prot c0.33 0.23 c0.23 v/s Ratio Perm 0.12 0.10 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.77 0.51 0.62 0.26 Uniform Delay, d1 11.9 15.6 12.8 16.4 13.9 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.7 5.5 0.9 5.5 1.5 Delay (s) 12.7 21.2 13.7 21.9 15.4 Level of Service B C B C B Approach Delay (s) 20.0 13.7 18.9 Approach LOS B B B Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.70 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 64.7 Sum of lost time (s) 12.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 73.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing PM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 3 Page 70 of 354 Page 693 of 1679 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/08/20243: Queen Elizabeth Wy NB off ramp & Mountain Rd Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 681 97 0 566 24 233 Future Volume (Veh/h) 681 97 0 566 24 233 Sign Control Free Free Stop Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 740 105 0 615 26 253 Pedestrians Lane Width (m) Walking Speed (m/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 845 1408 792 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 845 1408 792 tC, single (s) 4.1 6.5 6.2 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 2.2 3.6 3.3 p0 queue free % 100 82 34 cM capacity (veh/h) 800 145 386 Direction, Lane # EB 1 WB 1 NB 1 NB 2 Volume Total 845 615 26 253 Volume Left 0 0 26 0 Volume Right 105 0 0 253 cSH 1700 1700 145 386 Volume to Capacity 0.50 0.36 0.18 0.66 Queue Length 95th (m) 0.0 0.0 5.0 36.0 Control Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 35.2 30.5 Lane LOS E D Approach Delay (s) 0.0 0.0 30.9 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.8% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing PM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 4 Page 71 of 354 Page 694 of 1679 MOVEMENT SUMMARY Site: 101 [Mewburn & Mountain_Exst PM Peak (Site Folder: General)] Mewburn & Mountain Roundabout Analysis Site Category: (None) Roundabout Vehicle Movement Performance Mov ID Turn INPUT VOLUMES DEMAND FLOWS Deg. Satn Aver. Delay Level of Service 95% BACK OF QUEUE Prop. Que Effective Stop Rate Aver. No. Cycles Aver. Speed [ Total veh/h HV ] % [ Total veh/h HV ] % v/c sec [ Veh. veh Dist ] m km/h South: Mewburn Rd 1 L2 60 4.0 68 4.0 0.125 14.4 LOS B 0.9 6.7 0.87 0.80 0.87 45.4 2 T1 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.125 8.0 LOS A 0.9 6.7 0.87 0.80 0.87 44.5 3 R2 12 25.0 14 25.0 0.125 9.6 LOS A 0.9 6.7 0.87 0.80 0.87 43.1 Approach 73 7.4 83 7.4 0.125 13.5 LOS B 0.9 6.7 0.87 0.80 0.87 45.0 East: Mountain Rd 4 L2 4 0.0 5 0.0 0.553 10.5 LOS B 4.8 34.2 0.52 0.41 0.52 54.2 5 T1 662 3.0 752 3.0 0.553 4.0 LOS A 4.8 34.2 0.52 0.41 0.52 52.9 6 R2 32 8.0 36 8.0 0.553 4.3 LOS A 4.8 34.2 0.52 0.41 0.52 50.9 Approach 698 3.2 793 3.2 0.553 4.1 LOS A 4.8 34.2 0.52 0.41 0.52 52.8 North: Mewburn Rd 7 L2 29 0.0 33 0.0 0.190 14.1 LOS B 1.4 9.8 0.82 0.78 0.82 52.0 8 T1 8 0.0 9 0.0 0.190 7.6 LOS A 1.4 9.8 0.82 0.78 0.82 50.8 9 R2 95 4.0 108 4.0 0.190 7.9 LOS A 1.4 9.8 0.82 0.78 0.82 49.0 Approach 132 2.9 150 2.9 0.190 9.2 LOS A 1.4 9.8 0.82 0.78 0.82 49.7 West: Mountain Rd 10 L2 95 4.0 108 4.0 0.634 7.8 LOS A 7.8 57.9 0.34 0.24 0.34 51.0 11 T1 744 8.0 845 8.0 0.634 1.6 LOS A 7.8 57.9 0.34 0.24 0.34 49.9 12 R2 75 3.0 85 3.0 0.634 2.1 LOS A 7.8 57.9 0.34 0.24 0.34 48.2 Approach 914 7.2 1039 7.2 0.634 2.3 LOS A 7.8 57.9 0.34 0.24 0.34 49.9 All Vehicles 1817 5.3 2065 5.3 0.634 3.9 LOS A 7.8 57.9 0.47 0.37 0.47 50.7 Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Site tab). Roundabout LOS Method: SIDRA Roundabout LOS. Vehicle movement LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per movement. LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all movements (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6). Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard. Delay Model: SIDRA Standard (Geometric Delay is included). Queue Model: SIDRA Standard. Gap-Acceptance Capacity: SIDRA Standard (Akçelik M3D). HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0 | Copyright © 2000-2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd | sidrasolutions.com Organisation: WSP CANADA INC. | | Licence: NETWORK / 1PC Processed: August 9, 2024 3:02:08 PM Project: C:\Users\inpc02141\WSP O365\CA0034270.2246 CA-Northwest Secondary Plan Transportation Impact Assessment - Project Folders \05. Technical\Sidra\Mewburn Roundabout Analysis.sip9 Page 72 of 354 Page 695 of 1679 10/08/2024 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 5: Kalar Rd & Montrose Rd Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (veh/h) 12 18 240 16 36 405 Future Volume (Veh/h) 12 18 240 16 36 405 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Hourly flow rate (vph) 12 18 245 16 37 413 Pedestrians 3 Lane Width (m) 3.6 Walking Speed (m/s) 1.2 Percent Blockage 0 Right turn flare (veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal (m) pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 743 256 264 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol 743 256 264 tC, single (s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free % 97 98 97 cM capacity (veh/h) 374 786 1309 Direction, Lane # WB 1 NB 1 SB 1 Volume Total 30 261 450 Volume Left 12 0 37 Volume Right 18 16 0 cSH 545 1700 1309 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.15 0.03 Queue Length 95th (m) 1.4 0.0 0.7 Control Delay (s) 12.0 0.0 0.9 Lane LOS B A Approach Delay (s) 12.0 0.0 0.9 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Existing PM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 6 Page 73 of 354 Page 696 of 1679 Queues 10/08/20246: Kalar Rd & Thorold Stone Rd Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 1002 139 801 68 196 25 239 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.78 0.50 0.44 0.39 0.58 0.14 0.71 Control Delay 18.2 24.1 14.3 9.1 33.5 28.4 26.5 39.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 18.2 24.1 14.3 9.1 33.5 28.4 26.5 39.5 Queue Length 50th (m) 4.0 67.0 8.1 30.1 9.1 21.4 3.1 33.6 Queue Length 95th (m) 13.2 113.0 22.4 57.9 22.9 46.4 10.2 64.4 Internal Link Dist (m) 418.0 1022.4 246.1 2088.7 Turn Bay Length (m) 30.0 37.0 25.0 95.0 Base Capacity (vph) 281 1691 294 2235 286 527 304 542 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.59 0.47 0.36 0.24 0.37 0.08 0.44 Intersection Summary Existing PM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 7 Page 74 of 354 Page 697 of 1679 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/08/20246: Kalar Rd & Thorold Stone Rd Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 41 840 112 132 752 9 65 104 83 24 189 38 Future Volume (vph) 41 840 112 132 752 9 65 104 83 24 189 38 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1454 1579 1338 1454 1579 1338 1454 1338 1338 1454 1338 1338 Total Lost time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1316 2896 1341 2930 1381 1212 1266 1291 Flt Permitted 0.35 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.55 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 483 2896 219 2930 690 1212 734 1291 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Adj. Flow (vph) 43 884 118 139 792 9 68 109 87 25 199 40 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 11 0 0 1 0 0 32 0 0 8 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 43 991 0 139 800 0 68 164 0 25 231 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 5% 2% 0% 3% 2% 23% 0% 2% 3% 9% 0% 6% Turn Type Perm NA pm+pt NA Perm NA Perm NA Protected Phases 4 3 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 34.8 34.8 49.2 49.2 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 Effective Green, g (s) 34.8 34.8 49.2 49.2 19.9 19.9 19.9 19.9 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.45 0.45 0.63 0.63 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Clearance Time (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 Vehicle Extension (s) 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 215 1290 280 1845 175 308 187 328 v/s Ratio Prot c0.34 0.06 c0.27 0.14 c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.09 0.25 0.10 0.03 v/c Ratio 0.20 0.77 0.50 0.43 0.39 0.53 0.13 0.70 Uniform Delay, d1 13.2 18.3 9.1 7.4 24.1 25.1 22.5 26.4 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.8 3.2 2.4 0.3 1.5 1.9 0.4 6.8 Delay (s) 14.0 21.4 11.5 7.6 25.6 26.9 22.8 33.2 Level of Service B C B A C C C C Approach Delay (s) 21.1 8.2 26.6 32.2 Approach LOS C A C C Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 18.0 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.71 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 78.1 Sum of lost time (s) 13.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 80.9% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing PM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 8 Page 75 of 354 Page 698 of 1679 Queues 10/08/20247: Montrose Rd & Thorold Stone Rd Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 880 284 1031 193 238 376 229 285 v/c Ratio 0.25 0.88 0.87 0.77 0.61 0.54 0.79 0.67 0.61 Control Delay 14.7 42.0 48.0 27.9 33.4 43.6 17.7 35.5 41.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 14.7 42.0 48.0 27.9 33.4 43.6 17.7 35.5 41.1 Queue Length 50th (m) 4.4 85.0 36.3 87.6 30.3 24.6 1.3 36.9 27.1 Queue Length 95th (m) 12.7 #144.1 #104.8 #160.8 50.0 37.2 35.4 59.3 40.9 Internal Link Dist (m) 1022.4 138.4 313.7 260.6 Turn Bay Length (m) 27.0 85.0 50.0 35.0 55.0 Base Capacity (vph) 348 1141 326 1340 338 814 564 356 804 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.15 0.77 0.87 0.77 0.57 0.29 0.67 0.64 0.35 Intersection Summary # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Existing PM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 9 Page 76 of 354 Page 699 of 1679 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 10/08/20247: Montrose Rd & Thorold Stone Rd Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations Traffic Volume (vph) 51 764 89 275 767 233 187 231 365 222 219 57 Future Volume (vph) 51 764 89 275 767 233 187 231 365 222 219 57 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1454 1579 1338 1454 1579 1338 1454 1579 1301 1454 1579 1338 Total Lost time (s) 3.0 5.6 3.0 5.6 3.0 5.4 5.4 3.0 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 Frpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 Flpb, ped/bikes 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Frt 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.97 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1303 2884 1354 2808 1302 2913 1069 1340 2807 Flt Permitted 0.23 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.52 1.00 1.00 0.54 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 321 2884 220 2808 714 2913 1069 767 2807 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 Adj. Flow (vph) 53 788 92 284 791 240 193 238 376 229 226 59 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 8 0 0 20 0 0 0 313 0 23 0 Lane Group Flow (vph) 53 872 0 284 1011 0 193 238 63 229 262 0 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 2 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 2% 4% 2% 3% 2% 6% 3% 2% 3% 2% 8% Turn Type pm+pt NA pm+pt NA pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Protected Phases 7 4 3 8 5 2 1 6 Permitted Phases 4 8 2 2 6 Actuated Green, G (s) 40.3 34.6 54.9 46.2 29.2 15.0 15.0 30.6 15.7 Effective Green, g (s) 40.3 34.6 54.9 46.2 29.2 15.0 15.0 30.6 15.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.41 0.35 0.56 0.47 0.30 0.15 0.15 0.31 0.16 Clearance Time (s) 3.0 5.6 3.0 5.6 3.0 5.4 5.4 3.0 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 187 1009 320 1313 295 442 162 323 446 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.30 c0.16 0.36 0.09 0.08 c0.11 0.09 v/s Ratio Perm 0.10 c0.34 0.10 0.06 c0.11 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.86 0.89 0.77 0.65 0.54 0.39 0.71 0.59 Uniform Delay, d1 18.2 29.9 21.7 21.9 28.8 38.7 37.8 28.4 38.6 Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.6 7.8 24.2 2.7 4.6 1.0 1.1 6.5 1.6 Delay (s) 18.8 37.7 45.9 24.6 33.4 39.7 38.9 34.9 40.2 Level of Service B D D C C D D C D Approach Delay (s) 36.6 29.2 37.8 37.8 Approach LOS D C D D Intersection Summary HCM 2000 Control Delay 34.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service C HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.85 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 98.8 Sum of lost time (s) 17.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 90.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15 c Critical Lane Group Existing PM Peak Period Synchro 11 Report WSP Page 10 Page 77 of 354 Page 700 of 1679 Matthew Fisher, P.Eng. Senior Project Manager, Infrastructure Planning Benjamin Peachman, P.Eng. Project Manager, Infrastructure Planning Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Submitted to: Chris Millar, MCIP, RPP, CNU-A Senior Project Manager – Secondary Plans Planning, Building & Development City of Niagara Falls 4310 Niagara Street, Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Submitted by: Matthew Fisher, P.Eng. Senior Project Manager, Infrastructure Planning 1266 South Service Road, Unit C31, Hamilton, ON L8E 5R9 November 25th, 2024 Project No. 2402620 Page 78 of 354 Page 701 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls i Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Study Area 1 1.2. Report Objectives 3 2. Physical Constraints to Study Area 4 2.1. Topography 4 2.2. Subwatershed Analysis 6 2.3. Stormwater Management Facilities 7 2.4. Easements or Linkages 7 2.5. Transportation (Road and Rail) Networks 7 2.6. Wellhead Protection Areas, Highly Vulnerable Aquifers, and Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas 7 2.7. Areas of Environmental Sensitivity 8 2.8. Regulated Areas 8 2.9. Geotechnical Considerations 8 2.10. Summary of Physical Constraints to Servicing 12 3. Servicing Design Criteria 14 3.1. Water 14 3.1.1. Treatment Plant 14 3.1.2. Pumping Station 14 3.1.3. Storage 14 3.1.4. Watermains 14 3.1.5. Flow Criteria, Performance, and Sizing Methodology (Region MSP) 15 3.2. Wastewater 16 3.2.1. Wastewater Treatment Plant 16 3.2.2. Pumping Station 16 3.2.2.1. Sewage Pumping Station and Forcemain Policy Amendments 16 3.2.3. Forcemain 16 3.2.4. Trunk Sewers 16 3.2.5. Flow Criteria, Performance, and Sizing Methodology (Region MSP) 18 3.3. Stormwater 19 3.3.1. Quantity 19 3.3.2. Quality 19 Page 79 of 354 Page 702 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls ii 4. Planning & Growth Projections 20 4.1. Growth Projections 20 4.2. Flow Projection Methodology 20 4.2.1. Water Demand Projection Methodology 20 4.2.2. Wastewater Flow Projection Methodology 21 4.3. Projected Water Demand 21 4.4. Projected Wastewater Flows 21 5. Water Infrastructure 22 5.1. Existing Infrastructure 22 5.1.1. Water Treatment 22 5.1.2. Booster Stations 22 5.1.3. Storage 23 5.1.4. Trunk Distribution Network 23 5.2. Planned Capital Projects 26 5.3. Potential Connection Points 28 6. Wastewater Infrastructure 29 6.1. Existing Infrastructure 29 6.1.1. Wastewater Treatment 29 6.1.1.1. South Niagara Falls Wastewater Solutions Class EA 29 6.1.2. Sewage Pumping Stations 30 6.1.2.1. Private Sewage Pumping Station 31 6.1.3. Trunk Collection Network 32 6.2. Planned Capital Projects 36 6.3. Potential Connection Points 39 7. Hydraulic Modelling 40 7.1. Water Model 40 7.2. Wastewater Model 44 8. Recommendations for Phase 2 47 Page 80 of 354 Page 703 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls iii List of Tables Table 2-1: Borehole Log Summary ................................................................................................................................. 9 Table 3-1: Flow Criteria, Performance, and Sizing Methodology (Region MSP) .......................................................... 15 Table 3-2: Flow Criteria, Scenarios, System Performance, and Sizing Methodology ................................................... 18 Table 4-1: Growth Projections for Study Area ............................................................................................................. 20 Table 4-2: Projected Water Demand and Storage Requirements ................................................................................ 21 Table 4-3: Projected Wastewater Flows ....................................................................................................................... 21 Table 5-1: Summary of Booster Pumping Stations ...................................................................................................... 22 Table 5-2: Summary of Storage Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 23 Table 5-3: Planned Water Capital Projects ................................................................................................................... 26 Table 6-1: Summary of Relevant SPS Details................................................................................................................ 30 Table 6-2: Planned Wastewater Capital Projects ......................................................................................................... 36 Table 6-3: Summary of Potential Connection Points for NWSPA Wastewater System ................................................ 39 Table 7-1: Water Treatment Plant Demands to Build-out ............................................................................................ 40 Table 7-2: Summary of Water Booster Station Performance Details ........................................................................... 40 Table 7-3: Summary of Water Storage Performance Details ....................................................................................... 41 Table 7-4: Summary of the Water Storage Performance Details ................................................................................. 41 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Study Area ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2-1: Local Topography ......................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2-2: Historic Borehole Logs in Study Area ......................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2-3: Historic Borehole Log Profile in Study Area ............................................................................................... 11 Figure 2-4: Constraints Map ........................................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 5-1: Existing Water Infrastructure in Niagara Falls ............................................................................................ 24 Figure 5-2: Existing Water Infrastructure in Study Area .............................................................................................. 25 Figure 5-3: Planned Water Capital Projects in Niagara Falls ........................................................................................ 27 Figure 6-1: Projected Future ADF at Niagara Falls WWTP (2021 Region MSP) ............................................................ 30 Figure 6-2: Existing Wastewater Infrastructure in Niagara Falls .................................................................................. 33 Figure 6-3: Existing Wastewater Catchments by Sewage Pumping Station ................................................................. 34 Figure 6-4: Existing Wastewater Infrastructure in Study Area ..................................................................................... 35 Figure 6-5: Planned Wastewater Capital Projects in Niagara Falls ............................................................................... 38 Figure 7-1: Modelling Recommendations and Potential Connection Points for Water Infrastructure ........................ 43 Figure 7-2: Modelling Outputs for Connection Points 4 & 5 ........................................................................................ 44 Figure 7-3: Modelling Outputs for Kalar SPS to Niagara Falls WWTP .......................................................................... 45 Figure 7-4: Modelling Recommendations and Potential Connection Points for Wastewater Infrastructure .............. 46 Page 81 of 354 Page 704 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls iv Record of Revisions Version Date Author(s) Reviewed by Description 1 August 23, 2024 Benjamin Peachman, P.Eng. Matthew Fisher, P.Eng.Issued in Draft 2 September 27, 2024 Benjamin Peachman, P.Eng. Matthew Fisher, P.Eng.Issued for Review 3 November 25, 2024 Benjamin Peachman, P.Eng. Matthew Fisher, P.Eng.Revised per Region comments Page 82 of 354 Page 705 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls v Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronym / Abbreviation Definition ADD Average Daily Demand ADF Average Daily Flow BDSC Beaver Dam Schiner’s Creek CNF City of Niagara Falls DC Development Charge EA Environmental Assessment ECA Environmental Conservation Area ET Elevated Tank FF Fire Flow FSS Functional Servicing Study GGH Greater Golden Horseshoe ha hectare km kilometre l/c/d Litres per Capita per Day L/s Litres per Second m/s Metre per Second masl meters above sea level MCR Municipal Comprehensive Review MDD Maximum Day Demand MSP Master Servicing Plan MSPU Master Servicing Plan Update NPCA Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority NOTL Niagara-on-the-Lake NWSPA Northwest Secondary Plan Area OP Official Plan PDWF Peak Dry Weather Flow PHD Peak Hour Demand PPH Persons per Hectare PSI Pounds per Square Inch PSW Provincially Significant Wetland PWWF Peak Wet Weather Flow SNFWWS South Niagara Falls Wastewater Solutions SPS Sanitary Pumping Station SWM Stormwater Management WTP Water Treatment Plant WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant Page 83 of 354 Page 706 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 1 1. Introduction The City of Niagara Falls (CNF) is a lower-tier municipality located in southwestern Ontario within Niagara Region. The CNF is located on the Canadian border with the state of New York and is located north of Stevensville, east of Welland and Thorold, southeast of St. Catherines, and south of Niagara-on-the-Lake (NOTL). The CNF is located in the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) which is one of the fastest growing regions in North America. The CNF is anticipated to experience population growth over the next 30 years and the Northwest Secondary Plan Area (NWSPA) was identified as an urban expansion area through the completion of a Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) and new Official Plan (OP) by the CNF. GEI Consultants Canada Ltd. has been retained to complete the Functional Servicing Study (FSS) in support of the Northwest Secondary Plan. The FSS will include the following components: • Phase 1: Existing Conditions Report • Phase 2: Land Use Options Assessment • Phase 3: Preferred Land Use Plan (Functional Servicing Study) The Existing Conditions Report is being completed to summarize the existing conditions within and adjacent to the Study Area; specifically physical constraints to servicing, relevant design criteria, existing water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure, hydraulic modelling of the existing system, and recommendations for Phase 2. The goal of Phase 1 is to gain an understanding of the current infrastructure’s capacity and identify any physical constraints that could pose an issue with providing servicing to the proposed population growth within the NWSPA. 1.1. Study Area The NWSPA is approximately 101 hectares (ha) with an estimated 70 ha of net developable land, generally bound by Mountain Road to the north, Montrose Road to the east, a Hydro One corridor to the south, and Kalar Road to the west. The QEW runs north to south, east of the Study Area. The Study Area is located entirely within the CNF’s urban boundary and currently contains agricultural, commercial, and rural residential uses, along with several environmental features. The Study Area is show in Figure 1-1. Page 84 of 354 Page 707 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 3 1.2. Report Objectives The following objectives have been defined to guide the completion of the Existing Conditions Report: 1. Summarize existing water and wastewater systems, including key network topology, major facilities and any currently known constraints. 2. Review both the City and Region of Niagara’s policies and standards associated with water and wastewater services to identify key requirements for future development within the NWSPA. 3. Summarize planned improvements to the existing systems, triggered by existing constraints or by future growth demands. 4. Provide high-level commentary on opportunities and constraints that may impact overall development as well as opportunities for phased development. Page 85 of 354 Page 708 of 1679 Page 86 of 354Page 709 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 4 2.Physical Constraints to Study Area Identifying physical constraints to servicing the Study Area is a key component of Phase 1. These physical constraints can include topographical challenges, sensitive environmental areas, geotechnical conditions, and/or factors that could limit access to servicing. The following sub-sections will identify various physical and natural environmental constraints specific to the NWSPA, along with the assumptions carried for each constraint. 2.1. Topography Topography refers to the physical features of the Earth’s surface, including its elevation, slope, and landforms such as depressions or mounds. It dictates drainage patterns within the Study Area and is an important factor to consider for infrastructure development. A review of the topography within and adjacent to the Northwest Study Area was completed and it was found that the land surface elevations within the Study Area ranges from 184 meters above sea level (masl) to 196 masl. The surface elevation is approximately 196 masl where the Hydro One corridor meets Montrose Road in the southeast corner of the NWSPA and the surface grade falls quickly to level out in the range of 184 – 185 masl adjacent to the tributary of Ten Mile Creek that flows through the NWSPA. The creek flows east to west with the low point of the NWSPA being at the west limits of the site where the creek crosses Kalar Road. Moving northward, there is a gradual increase in elevation, with heights ranging from 185 masl to 187 masl for the properties fronting Mountain Road at the north limits of the NWSPA. The topography of the NWSPA is detailed inFigure 2-1. Page 87 of 354 Page 710 of 1679 Page 88 of 354Page 711 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 6 2.2. Subwatershed Analysis A watershed, also referred to as a catchment basin, is an area of land from which surface runoff (water, sediments, nutrients, and contaminants) drain into a common water body or watercourse. Watersheds include all of the water and water-dependent features such as wetlands, forests, urban areas, and agricultural areas. The CNF lies within the South Niagara Falls watershed. It is an important watershed on the Niagara Peninsula because it is primarily agricultural and is not located within the Greenbelt Plan area. This watershed is also located in the Niagara River Area of Concern, meaning it has been determined that the aquatic environment has been severely affected. A subwatershed refers to a smaller geographical area within a larger watershed, delineated by natural drainage patterns where runoff converges to a common outlet, such as a stream or river. By analyzing and incorporating the subwatershed data into the Secondary Plan process, the CNF can minimize environmental impacts and promote responsible land use practices within the NWSPA. A subwatershed analysis is being completed by Aquafor Beech in support of the Secondary Plan, in parallel with the Functional Servicing Study (FSS). The subwatershed analysis will complete in-depth investigations of the terrestrial habitat, fish habitat, water resources, fluvial geomorphology, and hydrogeology of the NWSPA and surrounding areas. Four seasons of monitoring and field surveys must be completed to support the recommendations of the subwatershed study so information from the subwatershed study will be incorporated into the FSS as it becomes available. For the purposes of the FSS, the results of the subwatershed study will refine the high-level desktop analysis completed within this report to identify constraints related to terrestrial habitat, fish habitat, water resources, fluvial geomorphology, and hydrogeology. For example, The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) has mapped the location of known Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) within its jurisdiction which will be overlaid onto the NWSPA mapping. These areas will be identified as a constraint to development and/or servicing and therefore water, wastewater, and stormwater servicing will not be proposed within these areas. The subwatershed study will refine the limits of these constraining features through the monitoring and field surveys and any updates to the location or sizing of constraining features will be reflected in the location of proposed servicing infrastructure. The majority of the NWSPA is located in the Beaver Dam Schiner’s Creek (BDSC) Ten Mile Creek subwatershed. A small portion of the properties fronting Mountain Road, near Kalar Road, are located in the BDSC Six Mile Creek subwatershed and a small portion of the Hydro One Corridor at the southeast corner of the Study Area is located in the BDSC Shriners Creek. As shown in Figure 2-4, there are several key environmental features that must be considered for infrastructure planning purposes. The NWSPA includes a NPCA-regulated watercourse (tributary to Ten Mile Creek) that flows east to west through the Study Area along with a second NPCA-regulated watercourse that flows north to south and discharges into this tributary. A third NPCA-regulated stream has been identified along the west lot line of 2600 Montrose Road. Several wooded area have been identified fronting Kalar Road, along with some areas of Significant Woodland. An Environmental Page 89 of 354 Page 712 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 7 Conservation Area (ECA) has been identified, along with a Locally Significant Wetland, in line with the tributary to Ten Mile Creek. These environmental features will be further investigated as part of the subwatershed study by Aquafor Beech but for the purposes of the FSS, they will be considered constraints to servicing. 2.3. Stormwater Management Facilities A desktop review of storm water management (SWM) facilities was completed by reviewing maps and background reports pertaining to the Study Area. No existing stormwater management facilities were identified within the Study Area. 2.4. Easements or Linkages The south end of the Study Area features a Hydro One easement extending approximately 1.1km in length and spanning approximately 170 meters in width. This easement runs along the entire southern boundary of the Study Area. During the desktop review, no significant ecological linkages were identified within the Study Area. 2.5. Transportation (Road and Rail) Networks Kalar Road is located on the west limits of the NWSPA. This road is under the ownership of two entities: the CNF and Niagara Region. The CNF owns approximately 1200 metres of Kalar Road, from the Hydro One corridor to Montrose Road, while Niagara Region owns approximately 230 metres, from Montrose Road to Mountain Road. The right of way (ROW) width for Kalar Road is 26 metres. Montrose Road follows the east limits of the NWSPA before running east-west through the NWSPA near the north boundary. Several properties are located between Montrose Road and Mountain Road which forms the north limit of the NWSPA. Montrose Road is owned by Niagara Region and has a ROW width of 26 metres. Mountain Road is the north limit of the NWSPA and is owned by Niagara Region. The ROW width for Mountain Road is approximately 28 metres. Mountain Road has an on-ramp to the adjacent QEW which is a Provincially-owned highway with a varying ROW width. The QEW is located parallel to Montrose Road along the east limits of the NWSPA and will be a major transportation route for the Study Area. In addition to the existing road network, there is a CN railway located approximately one kilometre north of the Study Area. The proximity of the railway is not anticipated to affect the servicing layout for this Secondary Plan. 2.6. Wellhead Protection Areas, Highly Vulnerable Aquifers, and Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas A desktop review was completed to identify Wellhead Protection Areas, Highly Vulnerable Aquifers, and Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas with respect to potential impacts on the proposed servicing layout. It was found that the NWSPA is not located within these areas. Per Figure 3.6 from the CNF Page 90 of 354 Page 713 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 8 Master Drainage Plan Update Study, the NWSPA is not located within an area classified as a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer or a Surface Water Intake Protection Zone. 2.7. Areas of Environmental Sensitivity A high level desktop review was completed to identify Areas of Environmental Sensitivity within the NWSPA. It was found that a locally significant wetland, Significant Woodlands, Non-significant Woodlands, and an Environmental Conservation Area (ECA) are present. A tributary to Ten Mile Creek extends through the NWSPA which has been deemed Important to fish habitat per Figure 3.4 from the CNF Master Drainage Plan Update Study. This tributary, along with another north-south tributary, the ECA, and Significant Woodlands are located within the regulation limits of the NPCA. These Areas of Environmental Sensitivity will be avoided during the design of the proposed servicing layout and will be investigated in-depth and refined by the subwatershed consultant, Aquafor Beech. 2.8. Regulated Areas A desktop review was completed to identify areas within the NWSPA that were regulated by the following: •Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) •Provincial Natural Heritage System (NHS) or Greenbelt •Niagara Escarpment •Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan The NWSPA is not located within the Greenbelt, Niagara Escarpment, or the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Several areas of environmental sensitivity are located within the regulation limits of the NPCA as detailed in Section 2.7. The NPCA-regulated areas will be avoided during the design of the proposed servicing layout and will be investigated in-depth and refined by the subwatershed consultant, Aquafor Beech. 2.9. Geotechnical Considerations Borehole logs were reviewed from the Ontario Well Records and nine (9) monitoring wells (MWs) were identified within the NWSPA. The locations of the MWs is shown in Figure 2-2 with a summary of geotechnical information related to the nine MWs provided in a table included on the figure. Four (4) of the MWs (Well IDs 6601268, 6604725, 6603400, and 6603308) were chosen within the NWSPA to create a historic geotechnical profile as shown in Figure 2-3 which illustrates the surface elevations, depth of overburden & bedrock, and groundwater levels. The geotechnical information from these MWs is summarized in Table 2-1. Page 91 of 354 Page 714 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 9 Table 2-1 Borehole Log Summary The borehole information is fairly consistent throughout the Study Area and indicates that silty clay is the predominant native soil condition, with bedrock being typically encountered between 11 to 12 metres below grade. The groundwater levels within the boreholes generally ranged from 4 to 6 metres below grade. This geotechnical information will be considered during the infrastructure planning stage as it can impact the practicality of constructing deep sewers or using certain infiltration practices for stormwater management. Well ID Top of Grade (masl) Groundwater Level (masl) Soil Conditions by Depth (m) Bedrock Level (masl) 6601268 185.6 179.5 Hard Brown Clay: 0 – 3.0 Soft Brown Clay: 3.0 – 10.5 Soft Brown Clay & Stone: 10.5 – 12.3 Limestone Rock: 12.3 – 17.4 173.3 6604725 185.8 179.4 Brown Sand Loam: 0 – 1.8 Grey Clay: 1.8 – 8.8 Grey Clay Boulders: 8.8 – 10.4 Grey Limestone: 10.4 – 55.5 175.4 6603400 186.0 181.7 Brown Clay: 0 – 2.1 Red Clay Loam: 2.1 – 6.4 Red Sand + Clay: 6.4 – 9.1 Grey Clay + Gravel: 9.1 – 11.3 Grey Rock: 11.3 – 14.0 174.7 6603308 195.8 191.7 Brown Clay: 0 – 1.8 Red Sand + Clay: 1.8 – 7.6 Red Clay + Gravel: 7.6 – 11.6 Red Rock: 11.6 – 13.4 184.2 Page 92 of 354 Page 715 of 1679 Page 93 of 354Page 716 of 1679 Page 94 of 354Page 717 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 12 2.10. Summary of Physical Constraints to Servicing Through the desktop review completed of the potential physical constraints to servicing, several constraints were identified and are as follows: •A NPCA-regulated watercourse (tributary to Ten Mile Creek) that flows east to west through the Study Area along with a second NPCA-regulated watercourse that flows north to south and discharges into this tributary. A third NPCA-regulated stream has been identified along the west lot line of 2600 Montrose Road; •Several wooded area have been identified fronting Kalar Road, along with some areas of Significant Woodland; •An Environmental Conservation Area (ECA) has been identified; •A Locally Significant Wetland, in line with the tributary to Ten Mile Creek; •A Hydro one easement spanning 170 metres in width and 1,100 metres in length that runs along the south limits of the NWSPA. •Historic geotechnical records identify typical bedrock at 11 to 12 metres in depth, groundwater at 4 to 6 metres in depth, and silty clay as the predominant native soil condition. The proposed servicing layout will avoid these constraints by minimizing crossings, maintaining appropriate setbacks per regulating bodies, and maintaining suitable depth of cover. This will ensure compliance with regulatory standards and preserve ecological integrity. Figure 2-4 illustrates the identified physical constraints to servicing within the NWSPA. Page 95 of 354 Page 718 of 1679 Page 96 of 354Page 719 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 14 3.Servicing Design Criteria 3.1. Water 3.1.1. Treatment Plant Treatment plants are designed to treat the maximum day demand. The following criteria were confirmed through the Region’s Master Servicing Plan (MSP) to assess when water treatment plants require expansion, as agreed upon with the Region: •When flows reach 80% of plant capacity, the planning process for plant expansion will be flagged; and, •When 90% of plant capacity has been reached, expansion should be completed. 3.1.2. Pumping Station Per the Region MSP, water pumping stations are sized to provide maximum day demands, assuming there is sufficient storage in the pressure zone. When sufficient storage in the pressure zone is not provided, the pumping requirement is: •Peak hour demands when there is insufficient balancing storage; or, •Maximum day demand plus equivalent fire storage deficit flow transfer. The following criteria is used to assess when a pumping station requires expansion: •When flows reach 80% of the facility’s firm capacity, the planning process for station expansion should be flagged; and, •When 90% of facility firm capacity has been reached, expansion should be completed. 3.1.3. Storage The required water storage capacity for a pressure zone was estimated in the Region MSP using the standard MECP criteria (A + B + C): •Fire storage volume (A) is calculated based on equivalent population in accordance with the MECP Guideline for the Design of Water Distribution System; •Equalization storage volume (B) is 25% of the maximum day demand; and, •Emergency storage volume (C) is 25% of the equalization volume plus fire storage (C = 25% of A+B). 3.1.4. Watermains Per the Region’s MSP, watermains are sized based on flow demands and pressure requirements, which include the following: Page 97 of 354 Page 720 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 15 •Maintain local system pressure between 40 and 100 psi; o Preferred pressure range of 50 to 80 psi for Regional transmission mains (exceptions being watermains that feed at-grade facilities, such as in-ground reservoirs, where low- pressures are expected and cannot be increased). •Pipe velocity and headloss in the system, including: o Target headloss of 2.5 m/km or less to reduce pumping costs; and, o Target velocity less than 2.0 m/s under normal operating conditions. •Minimum fire flow target of 250 L/s at a residual pressure of 30 psi within Regional transmission mains which service local distribution watermains. 3.1.5. Flow Criteria, Performance, and Sizing Methodology (Region MSP) Per the Region’s MSP, Table 3-1 presents a summary of the flow criteria, performance, and sizing methodology that was utilized. Table 3-1: Flow Criteria, Performance, and Sizing Methodology (Region MSP) Description Criteria Flow Criteria Water Demand Residential 240 L/capita/day Employment 270 L/employee/day Peaking Factor Maximum Day Based on historic average of maximum day peaking factors from 2016 - 2020 Peak Hour Factor Based on system mass balance using hourly SCADA data from 2018 - 2020 Existing System Demands Starting Point Methodology •Based on local billing meter records and production records to establish existing system demands •Growth demands are added to the existing systembaseline using design criteria System Performance Criteria System Pressures Acceptable pressure range of 40 – 100 psi •Regional objective of maximizing areas within the preferred range of 50 – 80 psi on Regional watermains Fire Flow 250 L/s on Regional watermains at residual pressure of 30 psi Velocity Average Day Flag areas less than 0.6 m/s minimum velocity MDD+FF or PHD Flag areas greater than 1.5 m/s Trigger upgrades when greater than 2 m/s Sizing and Triggers Plant and Facility Upgrade Triggers •80% trigger for plant and facility planning process (time- based trigger on a case-by-case basis) •Complete plant and facility expansions before 90%capacity is reached Treatment Plant Sizing Maximum day demand Pumping Station Sizing Various potential demand scenarios: •Maximum day demand (MDD) •MDD + fire flow (250 L/s or MECP) •Peak Hour Demand (PHD) Page 98 of 354 Page 721 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 16 Description Criteria Watermain Sizing Regional transmission main system for PHD and MDD + fire flow demands Storage Sizing MECP methodology (A+B+C) 3.2. Wastewater 3.2.1. Wastewater Treatment Plant Treatment plants are designed to treat the average daily flows. The following criteria were confirmed through the Region MSP to assess when wastewater treatment facilities require expansion. •When flows reach 80% of plant capacity, the planning process for plant expansion will be flagged and, •When 90% of plant capacity has been reached, expansion should be completed. 3.2.2. Pumping Station The Region’s design philosophy is to size sanitary pumping stations (SPS) in line with the Region’s extraneous flow design criteria, but as per the Region MSP a hybrid evaluation approach is to be undertaken in an effort to acknowledge that SPSs are a major contributor to local wastewater system performance and that many legacy system’s existing wet weather flows exceed the extraneous flow design allowance. Two flow scenarios and evaluation criterions were agreed upon in the Region MSP to measure performance and/or flag triggers for a SPS: •System Performance - Two flow scenarios considered o Design Allowance: Peak wet weather flow (PWWF) using the peaked dry weather flow (PDWF) plus the extraneous flow design allowance o 5-Year Storm: Modelled PWWF using the 5-year design storm •Trigger Sizing - Two criterions considered o Peak flow capacity to meet the design PWWF using the extraneous flow design allowance o Wet well and system storage considerations under 5-year storm to minimize basement flooding and overflow risks. 3.2.2.1. Sewage Pumping Station and Forcemain Policy Amendments Niagara Region council has adopted a Sewage Pumping Stations and Forcemains Policy regarding upper- tier and lower-tier ownership and responsibilities. The Proposed Policy Amendments require the following key considerations for the recommendation of pumping station and forcemain infrastructure as part of a Functional Servicing Plan for a Secondary Plan: •Need for any new pumping station recommendations to be documented for approval by Niagara Region; •Funding of new pumping stations to be identified for inclusion as part of the respective Region and/or Town Development Charges Background Studies, if Regional DC criteria are met; and, Page 99 of 354 Page 722 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 17 •Documentation of evaluation of pumping station recommendations compared against the option of servicing by gravity sewer (including life-cycle cost analysis for both options). Region policy maintains that: •Gravity sewers are the most reliable method of transferring sewage from the sanitary collection system to wastewater treatment facilities; •There are limitations to the practical depth of gravity sewers such that new pumping stations will only be allowed where it can be shown that pumping is a more cost effective and feasible option than gravity sewers; •The need for a new pumping station, as well as an assessment of capacity of the downstream infrastructure, must be documented in engineering and/or planning studies (including Functional Servicing Plans); and, •The cost for a new pumping station required to accommodate growth is to be included in the applicable Region/Town Development Charges (DC) by-law if Regional DC criteria are met. 3.2.3. Forcemain As per the Region MSP, forcemain capacity is sized based on the firm capacity of the pumping station. The following criterion is used to assess when a forcemain for a pumping station requires expansion: •Flag velocities less than 0.6 m/s for operational issues •Flag velocities greater than 2 m/s •Capacity expansion will be triggered once the forcemain design velocity exceeds 2.5 m/s and considering condition and age Sizing of new forcemain will target the following criteria: •Design velocity between 1.0 m/s and 2.0 m/s •Where presently feasible, capacity requirements will be achieved by twinning of an existing forcemain with the same size as existing. 3.2.4. Trunk Sewers As per the Region MSP, trunk sewers are sized to manage peak wet weather flows, using the extraneous flow design allowance (hybrid: 0.4 L/s/ha for existing areas and 0.286 L/s/ha for new areas), within the sewer obvert. The following criterion is used to assess when a sewer requires expansion: •Capacity expansion will be triggered once the sewer peak hydraulic grade line exceeds the pipe obvert from the design allowance peak wet weather flows. •Freeboard (depth between hydraulic grade line and ground surface) greater than 1.8m below ground surface during a 5-year design storm. •Flag velocities less than 0.6 m/s for operational uses. •Flag velocities greater than 3.0 m/s. Sizing of new sewer will have the following criterion: Page 100 of 354 Page 723 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 18 •Sized for full flow under post-2051 design allowance peak wet weather flow. •Assess 5-year design storm performance to minimize basement flooding risk and overflows. 3.2.5. Flow Criteria, Scenarios, System Performance, and Sizing Methodology (Region MSP) Per the Region MSP, Table 3-2 presents a summary of the flow criteria, scenarios, performance, and sizing methodology that was utilized. Table 3-2: Flow Criteria, Scenarios, System Performance, and Sizing Methodology Description Criteria Flow Criteria Existing System Flows Starting Point Methodology •Based on local billing meter records and flow monitoring data to establish existing dry and wet weather flows •Growth flows are added to the existing system baseline using design criteria Flow Generation Residential 255 L/c/d Employment 310 L/e/d Peaking Factor Peak Dry Weather Flow Harmon’s Peaking Factor Extraneous Flow Design Criteria •0.4 L/s/ha for existing areas •0.286 L/s/ha for new developments Wastewater Treatment Plant System Performance and Triggers •MECP Procedure F-5-1 •Trigger upgrade planning at 80% capacity •Trigger upgrade construction at 90% capacity Upgrade Sizing Average daily flow plus growth based on population design flows Pump Station System Performance Triggers and Sizing •Two flow scenarios considered o Design Allowance: Peak wet weather flow using the peak dry weather flow plus the extraneous flow design allowance o 5-Year Storm: Modelled peak wet weather flow using the 5-year design storm •Peak flow capacity to meet design peak wet weather flow using the extraneous flow design allowance. •Wet well and system storage considerations under 5- year storm to minimize basement flooding and overflow risks. Forcemain System Performance and Triggers •Flag velocities less than 0.6 m/s •Flag velocities greater than 2.0 m/s •Upgrade when velocities exceed 2.5 m/s and considering condition and age Upgrade Sizing •Design velocity target between 1 m/s and 2 m/s •Forcemain twinning to increase capacity where feasible Page 101 of 354 Page 724 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 19 Description Criteria Trunk System Performance and Triggers • Design allowance peak wet weather flows, using the extraneous flow design allowance, to be managed within pipe • Freeboard (depth between hydraulic grade line and ground surface) greater than 1.8 m below ground surface in 5-year design storm • Flag pipes velocities less than 0.6 m/s • Flag pipes velocities greater than 3.0 m/s Upgrade Sizing • Sized for full flow under post-2051 design peak wet weather flow • Assess 5-year design storm performance to minimize basement flooding risks and overflows 3.3. Stormwater 3.3.1. Quantity The Subwatershed Study will include hydrologic analysis of the Study Area to establish stormwater management criteria for quantity controls required of future development within the Study Area. Sizing of the conceptual stormwater management (SWM) facilities will be completed during Phase 3 of the FSS with recommendations provided on the required level of quantity and erosion controls for the entire Study Area, on-site quantity controls, and required conveyance (storm sewer) measures. 3.3.2. Quality The Subwatershed Study will provide stormwater management (SWM) criteria for quality controls required of future development within the Study Area based on constraints identified in the receiving watercourses and any applicable SWM criteria & guidelines. Sizing of the conceptual stormwater management (SWM) facilities will be completed during Phase 3 of the FSS with recommendations provided on the required level of quality control for the entire Study Area and potential on-site quality controls that can be further defined at the development application stage. Page 102 of 354 Page 725 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 20 4. Planning & Growth Projections 4.1. Growth Projections Population and employment growth projections were identified for the City of Niagara Falls in the ‘City Traffic Zone ID, Intensification Polygon ID, and Prorated Yield to 2051’ (November, 2023) figure. The Northwest Secondary Plan area is identified as an urban expansion area with a targeted growth density of 60 persons per hectare (pph). The Region OP identified several ‘Strategic Growth Areas’ where a target density of 100 to 150 pph was identified however the Northwest Secondary Plan area was not identified as one of these areas. Table 4-1 provides a summary of the projected population and employment growth for the Northwest Secondary Plan area. Table 4-1: Growth Projections for Study Area Study Area Gross Expansion Area (ha) Net Developable (ha) Population Estimate (persons) Employment Estimate (employees) Total Growth Estimate Northwest Secondary Plan 101 70 4,200 - 4,200 4.2. Flow Projection Methodology 4.2.1. Water Demand Projection Methodology Per the Region’s MSP, the future water system’s average daily demand (ADD) was developed using a starting point methodology (5-year rolling average of average daily demands and maximum day demands) incorporating a 25% reduction for non-revenue water for systems that are currently over 25% non-revenue water. Expected flows due to growth were added to the starting point flows to establish future flows. For this secondary plan the total growth estimate (persons) was strictly residential, and no 25% reduction was accounted for non-revenue water. A sample calculation for the ADD is provided below. Page 103 of 354 Page 726 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 21 4.2.2. Wastewater Flow Projection Methodology Per the Region’s MSP, the future wastewater system’s average daily flow (ADF) was developed using a starting point methodology (5-year rolling average of average daily flows) incorporating a 25% reduction for non-revenue water. Expected flows due to growth were added to the starting point flows to establish future flows. For this secondary plan the total growth estimate (persons) was strictly residential, and no 25% reduction was accounted for non-revenue water. A sample calculation for the ADF is provided below. 4.3. Projected Water Demand Projected water demands and storage requirements using the flow criteria and storage sizing methodology from the Region MSP are summarized below in Table 4-2. The maximum daily demand (MDD) and peak hourly flow (PHF) factors were 1.6 and 2.1, respectively. Table 4-2: Projected Water Demand and Storage Requirements Study Area Average Day Flow (L/s) Maximum Daily Demand (L/s) Peak Hourly Flow (L/s) Total Storage Required (m3) Northwest Secondary Plan 11.7 18.7 24.5 1,665 4.4. Projected Wastewater Flows Projected wastewater flows and extraneous flows using the flow criteria and methodology from the Region MSP are summarized below in Table 4-3. The calculated Harmon peaking factor was 3.31 based on the anticipated population growth. Table 4-3: Projected Wastewater Flows Study Area Total Average Dry Weather Flow (L/s) Peak Dry Weather Flow (L/s) Total Extraneous Flow (L/s) Total Peak Wet Weather Flow (L/s) Northwest Secondary Plan 12.4 41.1 20.02 61.1 Page 104 of 354 Page 727 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 22 5.Water Infrastructure 5.1. Existing Infrastructure The Niagara Falls water system servicing the City of Niagara Falls is interconnected with the DeCew water system to provide additional supply and storage capacity to the City of Thorold and the Town of Niagara- on-the-Lake (NOTL). The following sections describe the existing water infrastructure associated with treatment, pumping, storage, and transmission. 5.1.1. Water Treatment The Niagara Falls water system is supplied by the Niagara Falls Water Treatment Plant (WTP), which is located on 3599 Macklem Street in the City of Niagara Falls. The plant is a conventional surface water treatment plant with zebra mussel control, travelling screens, coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection. The plant’s intake is 5.5 metres deep and located on the west bank of the Welland River, just south of the Niagara River. Although located in the Welland River, the intake actually receives raw water from the Niagara River as the Chippawa/Queenston power canal draws water from the Welland River to fill its reservoirs thereby reversing flow in the Welland River. The plant has a rated capacity of 145.5 MLD (1,684 L/s). As outlined in the Region’s 2023 Summary Report, the average treated water ranged from 37.4 MLD (26% of rated capacity) to 50.9 MLD (35% of rated capacity) in 2023. The maximum treated water ranged from 42.0 MLD (29% of rated capacity) to 60.6 MLD (42% of rated capacity) in 2023. The Region’s 2021 MP identified that the Niagara Falls WTP had sufficient existing capacity to provided treated water to support population growth to 2051, based on the population growth estimates carried within that study. The location of the Niagara Falls WTP is shown in Figure 5-1. 5.1.2. Booster Stations The City of Niagara Falls operates within a single pressure zone with a hydraulic grade line (HGL) of 250 metres above sea level (masl). As previously stated, there is interconnectivity with the Thorold system (HGL = 227 masl) and the St. Davids and Queenston systems (HGL = 168 masl). Water pressure is maintained throughout the Niagara Falls system via a series of booster pumping stations (BPS) and storage reservoirs. Details related to the BPSs within the Niagara Falls water system are provided in Table 5-1. Table 5-1: Summary of Booster Pumping Stations Facility Information Niagara Falls WTP High Lift Station Kent Avenue BPS Address 3599 Macklem Street, Niagara Falls 4281 Kent Avenue, Niagara Falls Inlet Source (Pressure Zone & Facility) Water Treatment Plant (WTP) 250 (via Kent Avenue Reservoir) Discharge (Pressure Zone) 250 250 Pressure Zones Supplied 168, 189 (NOTL), 227 (Thorold), 250 168, 189 (NOTL), 227 (Thorold), 250 Page 105 of 354 Page 728 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 23 Facility Information Niagara Falls WTP High Lift Station Kent Avenue BPS Number of Pumps (Total/Firm) 5/4 3/2 Installed Capacity (MLD) 200.5 91.0 Firm Capacity (MLD) 146.0 46.0 Total Dynamic Head (m) 83.2 57.9 5.1.3. Storage Details related to the water storage facilities within the Niagara Falls WTP service area are provided in Table 5-2. The Region’s 2021 MP identified that the Lundy’s Lane Elevated Tank (ET) will be decommissioned with a new tank location to be determined through a separate study. Table 5-2: Summary of Storage Facilities Storage Facility Niagara Falls WTP Reservoir Kent Avenue Reservoir Lundy’s Lane Elevated Tank Address 3599 Macklem Street, Niagara Falls 4281 Kent Avenue, Niagara Falls 6280 Lundy’s Lane, Niagara Falls Storage Type Pumped Reservoir Pumped Reservoir Elevated Tank Volume (ML) 141 20.9 2.5 Top Water Level (m) 174.3 196.9 249.6 Fire Supply Zones 250 Pumped 250 Pumped 250 Floating Maximum Day Demand Supply Zones All 168 Pumped 227 Pumped 250 Pumped 168 Pumped 227 Pumped 250 Pumped Note 1: Total WTP storage volume is 14 ML however due to MECP contact time requirements, the actual useable volume at the Niagara Falls WTP is 5.7 ML under 2051 MDD. 5.1.4. Trunk Distribution Network The Regional trunk water distribution system, along with the local watermain networks, are shown in Figure 5-1. The transmission mains consist of 400mmø – 1050mmø watermains which distribute treated water throughout the Niagara Falls water system. The local watermain networks consist of 150mmø – 350mmø watermains which conveys treated water from the transmission mains to local residents and businesses. The boundary road network around the NWSPA contains the following water distribution network: •250mmø – 300mmø watermain on Montrose Road (Kalar Road to limit of Study Area) •300mmø watermain on Kalar Road at southwest limits of Study Area Refer to Figure 5-2 for the location of the water distribution network adjacent to the Study Area. Page 106 of 354 Page 729 of 1679 Page 107 of 354Page 730 of 1679 Page 108 of 354Page 731 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 26 5.2. Planned Capital Projects The Region’s 2021 MSP identified several capital projects to support the planned growth within the DeCew WTP & Niagara Falls WTP system service areas to 2051, which includes the NWSPA. Table 5-3 and Figure 5-3 identify and describe the planned Regional water capital projects potentially impacting growth in the NWSPA. Water projects included within the City of Niagara Falls’ 10-year capital program are also identified in Figure 5-3. Table 5-3: Planned Water Capital Projects Master Plan ID Name Description Size / Capacity Estimated Year in Service Project Type W-S-004 New South Niagara Falls ET New South Niagara Falls ET to replace the Lundy’s Lane ET and provide additional storage 12.0 ML 2022 – 2026 Storage W-S-014 In-ground reservoir expansion at Niagara Falls WTP In-ground reservoir expansion at Niagara Falls WTP to support buildout growth and CT volume requirements 10.0 ML Post 2051 Storage W-D-004 Decommissioning of Lundy’s Lane Elevated Tank (ET) Lundy’s Lane ET to be decommissioned and replaced by New South Niagara Falls ET. N/A 2027- 2031 Decom W-M-007 New transmission main in South Niagara Falls New transmission main from Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV) to Port Robinson Chlorine BPS in Niagara Falls 450 mm 2022 – 2026 Watermain W-M-009 New Niagara Falls South transmission main to New ET New Niagara Falls South transmission main to provide additional supply to new growth areas. 750 mm 2022 -2026 Watermain W-M-019 New Niagara Falls South feedermain from Dorchester Road to Lyon’s Creek Road New Niagara Falls South feedermain to provide additional supply to new growth areas. 600 mm 2032 - 2051 Watermain W-M-020 New Niagara Falls South feedermain along Lyon’s Creek Road New Niagara Falls South feedermain to provide additional supply to new growth areas. 600 mm 2042 – 2051 Watermain W-M-021 New Niagara Falls South Feedermain along Stanely Avenue New Niagara Falls South feedermain to provide additional supply to new growth areas N/A 2032 - 2051 Watermain Page 109 of 354 Page 732 of 1679 Page 110 of 354Page 733 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 28 5.3. Potential Connection Points As previously noted, the NWSPA has existing watermains located along the majority of the boundary roads surrounding the Study Area. Montrose Road has a local watermain ranging in size from 250mmø – 300mmø and Kalar Road has a 300mmø watermain located at the southern limits of the Study Area. A significant section of Kalar Road (~1,100 metres) does not currently contain a local watermain. Refer to Figure 5-2 for the location of the existing watermains. Potential connection points for the NWSPA could involve extending local watermains throughout the Study Area off of these existing watermains. Connecting the existing 250mmø watermain on Kalar Road to the 300mmø watermain on Kalar Road by extending a watermain along Kalar for approximately 1,100 metre could improve water quality, system resiliency, and redundancy of supply. Looping the existing watermains could also be accomplished through watermain installed within internal subdivision roads. Section 7 will review the hydraulic modelling completed as part of Phase 1, specifically looking at how the existing water system will respond to the increased demand from the NWSPA and potential system improvements to facilitate the growth. Page 111 of 354 Page 734 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 29 6. Wastewater Infrastructure 6.1. Existing Infrastructure The Niagara Falls wastewater system services the CNF and the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake (NOTL). A map of the existing wastewater system in the CNF is provided in Figure 6-2. The following sections describe the existing wastewater infrastructure associated with treatment, pumping, and collection. 6.1.1. Wastewater Treatment Wastewater treatment within the system is provided by the Niagara Falls Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), which is located at 3450 Stanley Avenue in the City of Niagara Falls. The plant is a rotating biological contacting plant with a current rated capacity of 68.3 MLD, a peak dry weather flow capacity of 136.3 MLD, and a peak wet weather flow capacity of 205.0 MLD. The plant uses ferric chloride addition for phosphorus removal. Five (5) years of recent flow data was used by the 2021 Niagara Region Water and Wastewater Master Servicing Plan Update (MSPU) to calculate an average daily flow at the plant of 39.9 Megalitres per day (MLD). It was projected that by 2051 the average daily flow will be 61.6 MLD which exceeds 90% of the existing wastewater treatment plant capacity (which is a trigger for expansion). The projected post-2051 average daily flow is 71.2 MLD, which exceeds the plant’s rated capacity. Based on these anticipated capacity limitations at the Niagara Falls WWTP, Niagara Falls completed the South Niagara Falls Wastewater Solutions Schedule ‘C’ Class EA; the recommendations of which are detailed below in Section 6.1.1.1. 6.1.1.1. South Niagara Falls Wastewater Solutions Class EA Niagara Region undertook the South Niagara Falls Wastewater Solutions (SNFWWS) study to identify, develop, and implement a wastewater servicing strategy and conceptual design of a new WWTP and associated collection and conveyance infrastructure in South Niagara Falls. The study identified a preferred location for the future WWTP at 6811 & 7047 Reixinger Road with an outfall into Chippawa Creek. The collection and conveyance system identified within the preferred strategy included a trunk sewer along Reixinger Road & Montrose Road; potentially involving the decommissioning of several existing sewage pumping stations (Grassy Brook SPS, Oakwood Drive SPS, Garner Road South West SPS, and South Side High Lift SPS). In addition, it included a trunk sewer along Brown Road, Beechwood Road, McLeod Road, and Barron Road to provide wastewater servicing to Thorold via a New Black Horse SPS with a forcemain along Allanport Road to discharge flows to the new trunk sewer terminating at the intersection of Barron Road & Allanport Road. Page 112 of 354 Page 735 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 30 Figure 6-1: Projected Future ADF at Niagara Falls WWTP (2021 Region MSP) With the implementation of the South Niagara Falls WWTP, the 2051 flows to the Niagara Falls WWTP will be reduced to 33.0 MLD and the post-2051 flow to 34.6 MLD. As such, the Niagara Falls WWTP has surplus capacity and will not reach 80% capacity within the 2051 planning period. The South Niagara Falls WWTP is anticipated to be online by 2027 per the projected flows graphed in Figure 6-1 which was extracted from the Region’s 2021 MSPU. The timeline identified for the implementation of the South Niagara Falls WWTP is subject to Provincial and Federal funding and requires Regional Council approval. 6.1.2. Sewage Pumping Stations The Region operates 21 sewage pumping stations throughout the CNF; the locations of which, along with their respective sewersheds, are shown in Figure 6-3. The Kalar Road SPS and Meyburn SPS service areas are in close proximity to the NWSPA and their details are provided in Table 6-1. Table 6-1: Summary of Relevant SPS Details Facility Details Station Name Kalar Road SPS Mewburn SPS Location 4254 Kalar Road 2617 Meyburn Road Pump Station Details ECA Firm Capacity (L/s) 510 23.3 Operational Firm Capacity (L/s) 463 17.1 Number of Pumps 4 2 Forcemain Details No. of Forcemains Single1 Single Forcemain Diameter (mm) 600 200 Forcemain Length (m) 2,448 685 Catchment Details Sewershed (ha) 500.1 8.9 Sewershed Inclusive of Upstream Catchments (ha) 500.1 8.9 Page 113 of 354 Page 736 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 31 Facility Details Station Name Kalar Road SPS Mewburn SPS Peak Dry Weather Flow (L/s) 2021 Flows 91.7 0.9 2051 Flows 126.7 2.3 Post-2051 Flows 138.3 5.1 Design Allowance - Peak Wet Weather Flow (L/s) 2021 Flows 291.7 4.5 2051 Flows 350.8 8.5 Post-2051 Flows 362.5 11.3 5-Year Storm – Peak Wet Weather Flow (L/s) 2021 Flows 670.9 7.2 2051 Flows 730.0 11.2 Post-2051 Flows 741.6 14.0 Note 1: Kalar Road SPS has an additional 350mmø forcemain as emergency standby that is approximately 1,269 metres in length along the existing hydro ROW and south along Montrose Road, discharging to a 600mmø trunk sanitary sewer. The 600mmø forcemain noted in this table is operated as a single forcemain. As shown in Figure 6-3, the Kalar Road SPS is located approximately 1.3 kilometres south of the southern limits of the NWSPA. Its’ service area is approximately 500 hectares and abuts the south and east limits of the Study Area. The Kalar Road SPS pumps flows via a 600mmø forcemain east to a 750mmø gravity trunk sewer located within a hydro corridor that eventually discharges directly to the Niagara Falls WWTP. There are networks of local & trunk sewers that drain to the Kalar Road SPS; several of which are in close proximity to the Study Area and could serve as potential connection points which will be explored further in Section 6.3. The Mewburn SPS is located approximately 500 metres east of the eastern limits of the NWSPA. Its’ service area is approximately 9 hectares and is localized around the station. This station pumps flows via a 200mmø forcemain east to a 300mmø gravity sewer on Woodfield Avenue that is located within the Niagara Falls WWTP catchment area. Flows are conveyed east via local & trunk sewers directly to the Niagara Falls WWTP. There are several local sewers that drain to the Mewburn SPS that could function as connection points for the Study Area however the QEW is located between the Study Area and the Mewburn SPS service area. These potential connection points will be explored further in Section 6.3. Mewburn SPS is currently being considered for expansion pending the results of a separate ongoing study. The anticipated flows experienced at the Kalar SPS and Mewburn SPS were extracted from the 2021 Region MSP and indicate that both stations operate within their firm capacity for peak dry weather flow (PDWF) events and design-based peak wet weather flow (PWWF) events. However, the Kalar SPS experiences an exceedance of its firm capacity during the 5-year PWWF event whereas the Mewburn SPS does not. As the NWSPA is anticipated to contribute approximately 61 L/s of PWWF, the Mewburn SPS is significantly undersized whereas the Kalar Road SPS has spare capacity. Page 114 of 354 Page 737 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 32 6.1.2.1. Private Sewage Pumping Station The existing commercial property within the Study Area known as Club Italia, which is located at the southeast corner of Kalar Road and Montrose Road, is currently serviced by a private sewage pumping station (SPS). An internal network of 200mmø sewers convey sewage flow from the facility to the private SPS which is located adjacent to Kalar Road, approximately 315 metres south of Montrose Road. The private SPS pumps sewage flow from Club Italia to the 250mmø gravity sewer on Mount Carmel Boulevard via a 100mmø PVC forcemain located on Kalar Road. It is anticipated that this private SPS will continue to operate until such time as the property re-develops and incorporates the sanitary servicing strategy identified for the Study Area through this study. The location of the private SPS is identified on Figure 6-4. 6.1.3. Trunk Collection Network As previously noted, sewage flows from the Niagara Falls WWTP service area are conveyed to the plant via a network of local and Regionally owned sewers, and Regionally owned sewage pumping stations and forcemains. As shown in Figure 6-4, the majority of the sewers in close proximity to the Study Area are local sewers which are typically designed to convey flows from the neighbourhoods they were installed within. The closest trunk sewer is a 500mmø trunk sewer located approximately 1,050 metres south of the Study Area which is tributary to the Kalar SPS. A local sewer extends from this trunk sewer to a distance of 550 metres from the Study Area however the viability of using this as a connection point will be explored further in Section 6.3. Page 115 of 354 Page 738 of 1679 Page 116 of 354Page 739 of 1679 Page 117 of 354Page 740 of 1679 Page 118 of 354Page 741 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 36 6.2. Planned Capital Projects The Region’s 2021 Master Plan identified several capital projects to support the planned growth within the DeCew WTP & Niagara Falls WTP system service areas to 2051, which includes the NWSPA. Table 6-2 and Figure 6-5 identify and describe the planned Regional wastewater capital projects potentially impacting growth in the NWSPA. Wastewater projects included within the City of Niagara Falls’ 10-year capital program are also identified in Figure 6-5. Table 6-2: Planned Wastewater Capital Projects Master Plan ID Name Description Size / Capacity Estimated Year in Service Project Type WW- TP-002 South Niagara Falls WWTP – Phase 1 New South Niagara Falls WWTP Phase 1 with 30 MLD capacity 30 MLD 2022- 2026 Treatment WW- TP-003 South Niagara Falls WWTP New South Niagara Falls WWTP upgrade from 30 MLD to 60 MLD 30 MLD 2037- 2041 Treatment WW- TP-004 South Niagara Falls WWTP Outfall Structure New South Niagara Falls WWTP Outfall Structure 1800 mm 2022- 2026 Treatment WW-SPS- 026 Dorchester SPS Pump Replacement Increase station capacity from 185 L/s to 345 L/s by replacing the existing three pumps 345 L/s 2027 -2031 Pumping WW- SPS- 028 Black Horse SPS Upgrade New SPS location with increased capacity from 67 L/s to 180 L/s 180 L/s 2027 - 2031 Pumping WW- SPS- 031 St. David’s #2 SPS Upgrade Increase station capacity from 42 L/s to 202 L/s with a full reconstruction 202 L/s 2027 - 2031 Pumping WW-SPS- 032 St. David’s #1 SPS Upgrade Increase station capacity from 29 L/s to 174 L/s with a full station reconstruction 174 L/s 2032 -2051 Pumping WW- SPS- 050 Bender Hill SPS Pump Replacement Full station replacement at new location from 237 L/s to re- establish 330 L/s ECA capacity 330 L/s 2022- 2026 Pumping WW- SPS- 051 Central SPS Pump Replacement Increase station capacity from 800 L/s to re-establish 1,000 L/s ECA capacity by replacing the existing five pumps 1,000 L/s 2037- 2041 Pumping WW- SPS- 052 Lundy’s Lane SPS Pump Replacement Increase station capacity from 56 L/s to re-establish 98 L/s ECA capacity by replacing the existing three pumps 98 L/s 2037 - 2041 Pumping WW- SPS-053 Royal Manor SPS Pump Replacement Increase station capacity from 9 L/s to 16 L/s by replacing the existing two pumps 16 L/s 2022 – 2026 Pumping Page 119 of 354 Page 742 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 37 Master Plan ID Name Description Size / Capacity Estimated Year in Service Project Type WW- FM- 006 New Black Horse Forcemain to Niagara Falls New Black Horse Forcemain to New South Niagara Falls Trunk on Barron Road to Montrose 400 mm 2027 – 2031 Forcemain WW- FM- 009 Dorchester Forcemain Upgrade Replace ex. 350mm Dorchester SPS Forcemain with new single 500mm forcemain in Niagara Falls 500 mm 2027- 2031 Forcemain WW- FM- 010 St David’s #1 Forcemain Upgrade Replace ex. 200mm St. Davids #1 Forcemain with new single 400 mm in Niagara-on-the-Lake (NOTL) 400 mm 2027- 2031 Forcemain WW- FM- 024 St. David’s #2 Forcemain Upgrade Replace ex. 250mm St. David’s #2 SPS forcemain with new single 400mm in Niagara Falls 400 mm 2027- 2031 Forcemain WW-D-003 Decommissioning of South Side High Lift (SSHL) SPS Decommissioning of SSHL SPS, to be replaced by gravity trunk sewer to SNF WWTP N/A 2037-2041 Decom WW-D- 004 Decommissioning of Garner SPS Decommissioning of Garner SPS to be replaced by gravity trunk sewer to SNF WWTP N/A 2032- 2036 Decom WW-D- 006 Decommissioning of Grassy Brook SPS Decommissioning of Grassy Brook SPS to be replaced by gravity trunk sewer to SNF WWTP N/A 2032- 2037 Decom WW- SS-06 New Montrose Trunk Sewer New tunnelled trunk sewer on Montrose conveying flows from SSHL SPS to new SNF WWTP 1500mm 2027- 2031 Sewer WW-SS-07 New Brown Road Trunk Sewer Shallow trunk sewer from South Thorold to Garner SPS-South Niagara Falls trunk connection 600mm 2027-2031 Sewer WW- SS-008 Chippawa Trunk Sewer Phase 1 New tunneled 1200mm trunk sewer from west of Lyon’s Creek to South Niagara Falls WWTP 1200 mm 2032 – 2036 Sewer WW- SS-014 South Niagara Falls SSO Trunk New sewer to eliminate overflows upstream of South Side High Lift SPS 1050 mm 2022- 2026 Sewer WW-SS-015 Chippawa Trunk Sewer Phase 2 New tunneled 1200mm trunk sewer from South Side Low Lift to west of Lyon’s creek 1200 mm 2037 -2041 Sewer Page 120 of 354 Page 743 of 1679 Page 121 of 354Page 744 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 39 6.3. Potential Connection Points As shown in Figure 7-4, there are several potential connection points for future sewers within the NWSPA which are detailed in Table 6-3. Section 7.2 will review the hydraulic modelling completed as part of Phase 1, specifically looking at how the existing wastewater system will respond to the increased demand from the NWSPA and potential system improvements to facilitate the growth. Table 6-3: Summary of Potential Connection Points for NWSPA Wastewater System Potential Connection Point No. Location / Description Comments 1 Connect to inlet of Mewburn Road SPS •Inlet sewer invert is ~185.20 masl (Study Area would require local SPS to convey flows to this SPS). •Mewburn Road SPS has firm capacity of 17 L/s; Study Area will generate PWWF of 61 L/s meaning station expansion would be required. •QEW crossing would be required. 2 Connect to 200mmø local sewer at 3151 Montrose Road •Sewer invert is ~191.30 masl (Study Area would require local SPS to convey flows to this sewer). •Potential for capacity constraints & required local upgrades as downstream sewers are small diameter. •Drains to the Kalar SPS which has a firm capacity of 463 L/s and a 2051 anticipated PWWF of 351 L/s (design) & 730 L/s (5-year). As Study Area is anticipated to generate a PWWF of 61 L/s, the existing station may not require expansion to accommodate flows. 3 Connect to 250mmø local sewer at Mount Carmel Blvd & Kalar Road •Sewer invert is ~187.25 masl (Study Area would require local SPS toconvey flows to this sewer). •Potential for capacity constraints & required local upgrades as downstream sewers are small diameter. •Drains to the Kalar SPS which has a firm capacity of 463 L/s and a 2051 anticipated PWWF of 351 L/s (design) & 730 L/s (5-year). As Study Area is anticipated to generate a PWWF of 61 L/s, the existing station may not require expansion to accommodate flows. 4 Connect to 200mmø local sewer at 3724 Kalar Road •Sewer invert is ~186.55 masl (Study Area would require local SPS to convey flows to this sewer). •Potential for capacity constraints & required local upgrades as downstream sewers are small diameter. •Drains to the Kalar SPS which has a firm capacity of 463 L/s and a2051 anticipated PWWF of 351 L/s (design) & 730 L/s (5-year). As Study Area is anticipated to generate a PWWF of 61 L/s, the existing station may not require expansion to accommodate flows. 5 Connect to 500mmø trunk sewer at 4075 Kalar Road •Sewer invert is ~181.05 masl (Study Area would require local SPS to convey flows to this sewer). •Drains to the Kalar SPS which has a firm capacity of 463 L/s and a 2051 anticipated PWWF of 351 L/s (design) & 730 L/s (5-year). As Study Area is anticipated to generate a PWWF of 61 L/s, the existing station may not require expansion to accommodate flows. Page 122 of 354 Page 745 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 40 7.Hydraulic Modelling The hydraulic modelling for this study was completed using the Region’s water and wastewater models. The goal was to review the impact of the increased water demand and wastewater flows on the existing systems in order to identify constraints within the existing networks. These constraints, along with the potential servicing strategies available for the NWSPA, will guide the development of potential servicing strategies for the NWSPA that will be further refined in Phases 2 and 3 of the study. 7.1. Water Model Water modelling was completed for the NWSPA to identify deficiencies and/or required upgrades within the existing water system to facilitate the development of the Study Area. The various components of the Regional water system relevant to development of the Study Area are detailed below: Treatment: As noted in Section 5.1.1, the Study Area will be supplied treated drinking water by the Niagara Falls WTP which has a rated capacity of 145.5 MLD (1,684 L/s). The Region’s 2021 MP identified that the Niagara Falls WTP had sufficient existing capacity to provide treated water to support population growth to 2051, based on the population growth estimates carried within that study. As shown in Table 7-1, the growth estimates for the NWSPA were updated and it was confirmed that the Niagara Falls WTP will have sufficient treatment capacity for the build-out of the NWSPA. Table 7-1: Water Treatment Plant Demands to Build-out Demand Details Region MSP Region MSP (including NWSPA) Population Identified for Study Area 3,497 4,200 Existing (MLD) Average Day Demand (ADD) 43.0 43.0 Maximum Day Demand (MDD) 64.5 64.5 2051 (MLD) Average Day Demand (ADD) 59.5 59.6 Maximum Day Demand (MDD) 90.9 91.1 Build-out (MLD) Average Day Demand (ADD) 66.1 66.3 Maximum Day Demand (MDD) 101.4 101.9 Pumping: As detailed in Section 5.1.2, water pressure is maintained throughout the Niagara Falls water system via a series of booster pumping stations (BPS) and storage facilities. The pumping stations include the Niagara Falls WTP High Lift Station and the Kent Avenue Booster Station. A summary of the pumping stations’ performance as outlined in the 2021 Region MSP, along with a scenario considering the addition of the NWSPA, is outlined in Table 7-2. Table 7-2: Summary of Water Booster Station Performance Details Performance Details Region MSP Region MSP (including NWSPA) Pump Station Firm Capacity (MLD) Niagara Falls WTP / High Lift PS 146.0 Kent Avenue BPS 46.0 Pressure Zone Supplied 250 Total Effective Capacity (MLD) 146.0 Page 123 of 354 Page 746 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 41 Performance Details Region MSP Region MSP (including NWSPA) Existing (MLD) Maximum Day Demand 64.5 64.5 Surplus / Deficit 81.5 81.5 2051 (MLD) Maximum Day Demand 90.9 91.1 Surplus / Deficit 55.1 54.9 Build-out (MLD) Maximum Day Demand 101.4 101.9 Surplus / Deficit 44.6 44.2 As shown in Table 7-2, there is sufficient pumping capacity at the Region’s existing water pumping stations to provide adequate water conveyance throughout the NWSPA. Storage: As detailed in Section 5.1.3, there are three water storage facilities within the Niagara Falls WTP service area which are the Niagara Falls Reservoir, the Kent Avenue Reservoir, and Lundy’s Lane Elevated Tank (ET). A summary of the storage facilities’ performance details as outlined in the 2021 Region MSP, along with a scenario considering the addition of the NWSPA, is outlined in Table 7-3. Table 7-3: Summary of Water Storage Performance Details Facility 2021 Rated Capacity (ML) 2051 Rated Capacity (ML) Buildout Rated Capacity (ML) Niagara Falls WTP Reservoir (250 Pumped) 6.27 6.27 5.37 Kent Avenue Reservoir (250 Pumped) 20.91 20.91 20.91 Lundy’s Lane ET (250 Floating) 2.46 12.00 12.00 Table 7-4 Summary of the Water Storage Performance Details Projection Year Storage Region MSP Region MSP (including GWPSA) 2021 Available Storage (ML) 29.64 29.64 Required Storage (ML) 31.33 31.33 Surplus / Deficit (ML) -1.69 -1.69 2051 Available Storage (ML) 39.18 39.18 Required Storage (ML) 40.23 40.31 Surplus / Deficit (ML) -1.05 -1.13 Build-out Available Storage (ML) 38.29 38.29 Required Storage (ML) 44.06 44.20 Surplus / Deficit (ML) -5.77 -5.91 As shown in Table 7-4, there is a storage deficit within the Region’s water system during the existing, 2051, and build-out scenarios with the addition of growth within the NWSPA having a minor impact. System Improvements: As shown in Figure 7-1, a potential servicing strategy for the NWSPA includes the extension of local 300mmø watermain along Kalar Road and through the Study Area via a future subdivision road, along with upsizing of the existing 250mmø watermain on Montrose Road to a 300mmø watermain. Local service extensions to the development parcels can be made from these local watermains. This scenario will ensure that water pressure within the Study Area is maintained between Page 124 of 354 Page 747 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 42 40-100 psi and available fire flow above 250 L/s under the 2051 and build-out conditions. As demonstrated in Section 7.1, water treatment and pumping are not constraints to development of the NWSPA however there is a storage deficit within the Region (refer to Table 7-3 for details) that will need to be reviewed and addressed in future MSP updates. Page 125 of 354 Page 748 of 1679 Page 126 of 354Page 749 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 44 7.2. Wastewater Model Wastewater hydraulic modelling was completed to identify constraints within the existing system to development of the Secondary Plan Area. The constraints were considered within the context of developing a potential wastewater servicing strategy to discharge sewage flows from the NWSPA to the existing system with minimal impacts. The various components of the Regional and local wastewater system relevant to development of the Study Area are detailed below: Treatment: Based on the location of the NWSPA, the Niagara Falls WWTP is the receiving treatment facility for flows from the Study Area. A desktop review of the average daily flows anticipated from the NWSPA vs. the available treatment capacity at the Niagara Falls WWTP to 2051 identified sufficient capacity assuming the South Niagara Falls WWTP is brought on-line as planned. Sewer Conveyance: There were several locations at which the NWSPA’s wastewater system could discharge flows to the existing network as detailed in Section 6.3. The review identified the following considerations for each outlet point: •Potential Connection Point #1 (Inlet Sewer Invert = 185.20 masl; refer to Figure 7-4): A significant station expansion would be needed at the Mewburn Road SPS to accommodate flows from the Study Area, along with potentially an upgraded forcemain to address velocity issues, along with a QEW crossing. •Potential Connection Points #2, #3, & #4 (Inlet Sewer Inverts = 191.92 masl, 187.26 masl, & 187.74 masl; refer to Figure 7-4): Local sewers did not have sufficient capacity and significant sections of sewer upsizing would be needed. •Potential Connection Point #5 (Inlet Sewer Invert = 181.05 masl; refer to Figure 7-4): Modelling indicated surcharging within the downstream 500mmø & 900mmø trunk sewers however a planned Inflow & Infiltration (I/I) program could potentially reduce this surcharging. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that these sewers would require upsizing to accommodate the flows from the Study Area (refer to Figure 7-2). This option appears to present the least number of obstacles to providing wastewater servicing to the Study Area. Figure 7-2: Modelling Outputs for Connection Points 4 & 5 Page 127 of 354 Page 750 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 45 Pumped Conveyance: As detailed in Section 6.1.2, Kalar SPS is downstream of Connection Point #5 and the modelling identified that it has the capacity to support the growth within the NWSPA and does not have recommendations for pump upgrades, however flows are backing up under the 10-year storm event into the upstream gravity sewers. The Kalar Road SPS pumps flows via a 2,500 metre length 600mmø forcemain to downstream receiving trunk sewers that flow by gravity to the Niagara Falls WWTP. The modelling indicated that surcharging is not anticipated from the Kalar Road SPS to the Niagara Falls WWTP (refer to Figure 7-3). Figure 7-3: Modelling Outputs for Kalar SPS to Niagara Falls WWTP System Improvements: As shown in Figure 7-4, a potential servicing strategy for the NWSPA includes the extension of local 450mmø gravity sewers throughout the Study Area along internal subdivision roads that discharge to a local sewage pumping station (SPS) located adjacent to Kalar Road. The local SPS (approximately sized for a firm capacity of 75 L/s) would pump south via a 300mmø forcemain installed along Kalar Road to the existing 500mmø trunk gravity sewer that discharges to the Kalar Road SPS. Sewer upgrades of the existing 500mmø and 900mmø sewers would be required to eliminate potential surcharging unless the planned I/I program removes this surcharging. The NWSPA sewage flows would then be pumped by the Kalar Road SPS, eventually discharging to the Niagara Falls WWTP which has sufficient capacity to treat flows from the Study Area. It is noted that the ‘Niagara Region Sewage Pumping Stations and Forcemains Policy’ dictates that the CNF would be responsible for the cost of any new pumping stations with a design capacity of less than 170 L/s of peak dry weather flow. As the local SPS proposed for the NWSPA is approximately 75 L/s for peak wet weather flow it would be below the Regional threshold and therefore the responsibility of the Town. Page 128 of 354 Page 751 of 1679 Page 129 of 354Page 752 of 1679 Existing Conditions Report Northwest Secondary Plan Area City of Niagara Falls, Ontario November 25th, 2024 City of Niagara Falls 47 8.Recommendations for Phase 2 Phase 2 of the Functional Servicing Study will build upon the information within the Existing Conditions Report to evaluate servicing alternatives for alternative land use options for the NWSPA. The goal will be to evaluate the land use options from a servicing perspective, given the potential impacts to scheduling, phasing, ease of construction, and infrastructure costs. The following recommendations for Phase 2 are provided based on the information gathered during Phase 1: •The preferred land use option should allow an infrastructure layout that protects or avoids the physical constraints identified in Section 2 of the Existing Conditions Report; •The servicing design criteria identified in Section 3 of the Existing Conditions Report should be considered during Phase 2 and implemented into the recommended servicing layout identified in Phase 3; •The timing identified in Sections 5.2 and 6.2 of the Existing Conditions Report for the planned water and wastewater capital projects should be considered when reviewing potential servicing and phasing strategies during Phases 2 and 3; and, •The water and wastewater system constraints, along with the potential servicing strategies for the NWSPA, as identified in Section 7 of the Existing Conditions Report, should be considered when evaluating the alternative land use options in Phase 2. GEI will continue to work closely with the project team, City, Region, and stakeholders throughout Phases 2 and 3 to develop a detailed and effective servicing plan for the Northwest Secondary Plan Area. Page 130 of 354 Page 753 of 1679 SSWA INC. 15 Wertheim Court, Suite 211, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4B 3H7 Tel: (905) 707-5800 E-mail: engineering@sswilsonassociates.com www.sswilsonassociates.com & www.noisetraining.com REPORT NO. WA24-018 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ASSESSMENT PROPOSED NORTHWEST SECONDARY PLAN AREA NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO SUBMITTED TO: MR. CHRIS MILLAR, MCIP, RPP, CNU-A SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER – SECONDARY PLANS PLANNING, BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS PREPARED BY: OMAR RAHAL, B.ENG., P.ENG. PROJECT ENGINEER SEPTEMBER 26, 2024 Page 131 of 354 Page 754 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ASSESSMENT PROPOSED NORTHWEST SECONDARY PLAN AREA NIAGARA FALLS, ONTARIO INDEX PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND SURROUNDING AREA 2 3.0 ASSESMENT CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY 3 4.0 SURVEY OF SURROUNDING INDUSTRIES 7 5.0 CONCLUSIONS 11 FIGURES APPENDIX A: NIAGARA REGION OFFICIAL PLAN – REGIONAL STRUCTURE APPENDIX B: CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS OFFICIAL PLAN – SCHEDULE A – LAND USE PLAN Page 132 of 354 Page 755 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SS Wilson Associates (SSWA) was retained by the City of Niagara Falls to prepare a Land Use Compatibility Study for the proposed Secondary Plan Area referred to as the Northwest Secondary Plan Area. This compatibility study considers air quality, odour, dust, noise, and vibration emissions from neighboring industries as per the Government of Ontario document D-6: “Compatibility between Industrial Facilities.” The results of the survey and review confirm that the proposed Secondary Plan Area is expected to be compatible with the existing neighboring industries without any adverse impacts. This is to say that no disruptive impacts as a result of air quality, odour, dust emissions, noise, and vibration are anticipated, and the proposed Secondary Plan Area should be considered compatible with all existing and proposed uses in the vicinity. Efforts made by Walker Industries to introduce a future landfill where existing quarry operations are occurring shall be subject to their own investigations. These investigations will be required to treat the Northwest Secondary Plan Area as a residential community use in respect of their own potential for emissions to be mitigated. Page 133 of 354 Page 756 of 1679 1 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 SS Wilson Associates (SSWA) was retained by the City of Niagara Falls to prepare a Land Use Compatibility Study as outlined in the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) D-1 and D-6 guidelines for the proposed Northwest Secondary plan areas in the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario. 1.2 As per “Attachment 2” in a document received by SSWA on April 22, 2024, prepared by the City staff, a compatibility assessment is required to identify all potential sources of incompatibility from outside sources on sensitive land uses within the Northwest Secondary Plan Area (Plan Area), planned primarily as a residential community, and in accordance with the MECP D-6 guidelines; and to Identify existing areas of influence and typical setbacks that will need consideration during land use planning exercises together with any typical mitigation practices that could be explored as well. 1.3 The objective of this report is to review the surrounding land uses for the potential to cause adverse effects in terms of noise, dust, odour, vibration, and other contaminants to support City initiated Official Plan Amendments and any subsequent Zoning By-Law Amendments to provide for the future development of lands within the Plan Area. It is to be noted that a quantitative assessment of adverse effects has not been undertaken as part of this land use compatibility assessment, which has been performed based on the MECP D-6 guideline distance setbacks and industrial classifications; in such a case where a potential incompatibility has been identified by this study, which warrants the need for additional analysis and studies, such detailed studies will undertake the necessary quantitative analyses in the form of measurements, predictions, calculations, etc. 1.4 The subject site is known as the Northwest Secondary Plan Area, in the City of Niagara Falls. The Plan Area is bounded on the north side by Mountain Road, to the south by an existing residential subdivision, to the west by Kalar Road, and to the east by the Queen Elizabeth Way (QEW). A Key Plan showing the location of the Plan Area is included in Figure 1. 1.5 This report is based on the features relevant and proximate in relation to the proposed plan area as a residential community as shown in the Location Map prepared by the City, dated June 7, 2023. The Location Plan is included in Figure 2. This location map illustrates the location of the Northwest Plan Area in the broader context and relationship to the City’s urban area boundaries. Page 134 of 354 Page 757 of 1679 2 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND SURROUNDING AREA 2.1 Proposed Development Concept The subject site is proposed to be developed/ redeveloped, with the City generating two proposed land use options for the Northwest Secondary Plan Area in their Phase 2 work program for further assessment and consultation at a later date. This Secondary Plan area is comprised of new urban expansion lands brought into the urban area boundary by Niagara Region for “community use” during their new Official Plan process in 2022. 2.2 Surrounding Area Description The area surrounding the site on all sides generally consists of ground-based residential to the south, long-standing commercial designation and zoning on the east side of the QEW remaining un-developed, and agricultural lands to the north, which fall within the Greenbelt and Niagara Escarpment Plan Areas. Lands to the west are generally environmental (wetlands) and Agricultural use. The lands west are also subject of a Ministers Zoning Order (MZO) that intends for agri-tourism use, which provides for a golf course, resort style villas, and boutique hotel accommodations. It is not certain when such development may occur on these westerly adjacent lands, however the permissions are in place. The Walker Brother Quarry further to the West is the primary use identified by the City staff, which is of interest with respect to compatibility, as outlined in numerous meetings. The facility property limits are greater than 1000m from the property line of the subject Secondary Plan Area, which as per the MECP, does not warrant land use compatibility assessment. The distance setbacks and potential for impacts will be discussed further in Sections 4.0 of this report. 2.3 Official Plan & Zoning Details of Proposed Site and Surrounding Area The Plan Area is zoned agricultural as per Niagara Falls (Zoning Bylaw 79-200) and is classified as a Designated Greenfield Area as per Niagara Region Official Plan (Schedule B – Regional Structure, May 2024 Consolidation). The City will recognize these Greenfield lands as being added to its urban area boundary as part of the required conformity amendments included in the City’s new Official Plan process, currently underway. The City’s new Official Plan will identify the appropriate urban designation for the Plan Area, providing the appropriate accommodation for the secondary planning requirements. The lots immediately to the south of the subject property are zoned as residential, with varying densities. The areas to the west are zoned Agri-tourism (via MZO), and Environmental Protection Area. The remaining lands to the east are zoned for Page 135 of 354 Page 758 of 1679 3 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 Tourist Commercial (undeveloped), and Residential beyond that. Lands to the north are designated Escarpment Rural Area in the Niagara Escarpment Plan and remain in agricultural use. A map from the Niagara Region Official Plan is included in Appendix A. A map showing the existing City of Niagara Falls Official Plan designations is provided as Appendix B. The new City Official Plan (currently in process) will update designation of the Plan Area accordingly. Page 136 of 354 Page 759 of 1679 4 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 3.0 ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 General Information The intent of this study is to survey the area surrounding the Plan Area to identify whether any of the existing or proposed future land uses present a potential concern with regard to incompatibility. In the case where the potential for compatibility concerns exists, additional investigation will be warranted to determine the severity of potential impacts and to identify control measures to eliminate or mitigate adverse effects. The assessment has been based on SSWA’s experience with industrial facility emissions within the MECP frameworks in the context of land use planning and applications for Environmental Compliance Approvals. 3.2 D-Series Guidelines The D-series guidelines were developed in 1995 by the MECP with the intent to provide a methodology for reviewing cases where non-sensitive land uses are proposed to be located in proximity to sensitive land uses, or vice versa, to identify the potential for adverse effects related to environmental contaminants. Several D-series guidelines exist for likely sources of potential incompatibility, such as sewage treatments plants (D-2), oil & gas pipelines (D-3), landfills (D-4), and water service (D-5), with the overarching methodology being described in D-1 “Land Use and Compatibility”. The specific document which will apply in the subject case is that for industrial land uses, i.e., D-6 “Compatibility between Industrial Facilities,” which will be the primary reference for this assessment. The D-6 guideline is concerned with adverse effects as a result of “point source and/or fugitive air emissions such as noise, vibration, odour, dust and others, either through normal operations, procedures, maintenance or storage activities, and/or from associated traffic/transportation.” The definition of “adverse effects” is included in the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), and can include one or more of the following: - Impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it - Injury or damage to property or to plant or animal life - Harm or material discomfort to any person - An adverse effect on the health of any person - Impairment of the safety of any person - Rendering any property or plan or animal life unfit for human use - Loss of enjoyment of normal use of property; and - Interference with the normal conduct of business Page 137 of 354 Page 760 of 1679 5 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 3.2.1 D-6 Guideline Classifications and Setback Distances The primary mechanism used within D-6 to identify and to limit the potential for adverse effects is the use of distance setbacks based on the classification of an industry within certain criteria. A given property or land use must be characterized as light, medium, or heavy industrial referred as Class I to Class III, respectively. The table below illustrates the industrial categorization criteria as identified in Appendix A of D-6, referred to as D-6-1 “Industrial Categorization Criteria.” Industrial Categorization Criteria (per D-6-1) Category Outputs Scale Process Operation /Intensity Possible examples Class I – Small Scale Industrial • Noise: Sound not audible off property • Dust and/or Odour: Infrequent and not intense • Vibration: No ground borne vibration on plant property • No outside storage • Small scale plant or scale is irrelevant in relation to all other criteria for this Class • Self-contained plant or building which produces/stores a packaged product. Low probability of fugitive emissions • Daytime operations only • Infrequent movement of products and/or heavy trucks • Electronics manufacturing and repair • Furniture repair and refinishing • Beverages bottling • Auto parts supply • Packaging and crafting services • Distribution of dairy products • Laundry and linen supply Class II – Medium Scale Industrial • Noise: Sound occasionally audible off property • Dust and/or Odour: Frequent and occasionally intense • Vibration: Possible groundborne vibration, but cannot be perceived off property • Outside storage permitted • Medium level of production allowed • Open process • Periodic outputs of minor annoyance • Low probability of fugitive emissions • Shift operations permitted • Frequent movement of products and/or heavy trucks with the majority of movements during daytime hours • Magazine printing • Paint spray booths • Metal command • Electrical production manufacturing • Manufacturing of dairy products • Dry cleaning services • Feed packing plant Class III – Large Scale Industrial • Noise: sound frequently audible off property • Dust and/or Odour: Persistent and/or intense • Vibration: Ground-borne vibration can frequently be perceived off property • Outside storage of raw and finished products • Large production levels • Open process • Frequent outputs of major annoyances • High probability of fugitive emissions • Continuous movement of products and employees • Daily shift operations permitted • Manufacturing of paint and varnish • Organic chemicals manufacturing • Breweries • Solvent recovery plants • Soaps and detergent manufacturing • Manufacturing of resins and costing • Metal manufacturing The notes on the subject table indicate that the categorization of a particular industry can vary with respect to the specific site conditions. It is noted that some of the uses listed in the ‘Possible examples’ column might otherwise be considered a commercial use (i.e., auto parts supply, dry cleaning, etc.) however in the context of D-6, these uses are considered as industrial uses. Page 138 of 354 Page 761 of 1679 6 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 The D-6 guidelines list specific distance setback criteria for Class I to Class III industries to identify the potential for incompatibilities, and to mitigate such adverse effects. The guideline defines “influence areas” for the various classes of industries to identify the potential area of influence within which adverse effects may be experienced, outlined in D6-4.1.1 “Potential influence areas for industrial land uses.” Further to this, the guideline also defines “minimum separation distance” between industrial and sensitive uses to provide buffer space between the uses to mitigate adverse effects, as outlined in D6-4.3. The guideline recommends that “no incompatible development […] should occur [within the minimum separation distances] even if additional mitigation for adverse effects […] is provided.” However, the guideline also states that such development may be permitted to proceed in the case of redevelopment, infilling, and mixed-use areas, as defined in D6-4.10. The table below illustrates the area of influence and minimum separation distance setbacks for each of the industrial classifications. Industry Classification Influence Area (D6-4.1.1) Minimum Separation Distance (D6-4.3) Class I – Light Industrial 70 m 20 m Class II – Medium Industrial 300 m 70 m Class III – Heavy Industrial 1,000 m 300 m The distance setbacks above are measured from the property lines of the source and receiver land uses, to guarantee full use of the property area upon each site. It is important to note that the proposed redevelopment will be to construct the primary and secondary dwellings further to the south on the subject property, and as such any effects perceived upon the site will necessarily be reduced at the future dwellings, due to the increase in distance setback from any potential sources. Nevertheless, the subject analysis will consider whether there is the potential for any adverse impacts anywhere upon the subject property. The guideline in Section 4.1.3 also indicates that the influence area may be reduced through the use of industrial controls applied at the industrial source, which may enable an industry to be categorized as a lesser Class, thereby reducing the necessary minimum separation distance requirements set out above. In cases where the distance setback between a sensitive land use is within the influence area for a given industry, additional studies should be conducted to assess impacts based on more detailed designs for respective development proposals. As part of this land use compatibility assessment, SSWA has prepared a diagram outlining the various distance setbacks with respect to the Plan Area limits, which contains the proposed sensitive uses, and identifies whether any potential Class I, II, and III industries were within the relevant setbacks based on aerial photography; the setback figure is included in Figure 3. These classifications were then Page 139 of 354 Page 762 of 1679 7 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 considered based on-site visits to observe/ confirm uses in relation to the Plan Area on March 7, 2023. Figure 3 illustrates the distance setbacks surrounding the Plan Area and all of the potential industrial sites which were considered in this assessment. 3.3 MECP Environmental Compliance Approvals In addition to the review of all facilities within the distance setbacks identified in D-6, this land use compatibility assessment included a review of any existing Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECAs) held by the surrounding properties. The MECP requires that industrial facilities obtain and maintain an ECA to ensure compliance with all applicable limits for any potential off-site adverse effects. The presence of an ECA for a subject facility represents an undertaking to measure, monitor, and control emissions and adverse effects at offsite points of reception to avoid or mitigate impacts. SSWA utilized the MECP’s online Access Environment tool in order to collect any and all ECA documentation in the areas of influence surrounding the Plan Area . Where a property was subject to an ECA, reference is made in the analysis below. 3.4 Meteorological Data Weather conditions, in particular wind speed and direction, can cause airborne contaminants, particularly odour, noise, and dust, to propagate further and to increase the potential influence area for a given industry. The wind rose diagram for the area close to the Plan Area was sourced from meteoblue.com, to determine the prevailing wind direction and intensity. The wind rose diagram is included in Figure 4 and shows that typically the wind in the subject area prevails from a south-westerly/ Westerly direction. This is favourable from a land use compatibility perspective, as there are no sources South-west/ West of the proposed secondary plan area. As such, the prevailing wind is expected to drive airborne contaminants away from the site most of the time. Page 140 of 354 Page 763 of 1679 8 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 4.0 SURVEY OF SURROUNDING INDUSTRIES 4.1 The influence areas for this project as set out in the D-6 Environmental Guideline are illustrated in Figure 3. SSWA utilized this figure to identify potential sites for observation, and later conducted onsite investigation to assess the potential for impacts from the subject facilities, where local industries were visited, inventoried, and examined. At the time the site visit, there was no noticeable dust, odour, air quality or vibration impacts observed from any of the surrounding industries on the proposed site. The noise environment around the proposed site was dominated by noise from surrounding road traffic. The potential impacts from each individual site are discussed in detail in the following sections. It is important to note that the proposed uses within the Plan Area itself are not considered to be of concern with respect to impacts upon the neighbouring properties. The proposed undertaking to develop / redevelop sites within the Plan Aera are not expected to introduce any permanent sources of noise, vibration, odour, or dust as it pertains to the MECP D Series Compatibility Guidelines. As such, this analysis has only considered the impacts from external sites upon the Plan Area as being consider a sensitive receptor. The following is a summary and analysis of all neighboring industries of concern as per their respective D-6-1 industrial categorization criteria classification, as well as a determination regarding additional assessment. 4.2 The Walker Brothers Quarry The Walker Brothers Quarry to the West is the primary use identified by the City staff which is of interest with respect to compatibility, as outlined in numerous meetings. The MECP Guideline for which this study is based on (D-6) does not apply to pits and quarries, rather, defers these guidelines to site specific studies. Current efforts are underway by Walker Brothers to modify post-extraction use of their current quarrying operations, to provide for a Landfill; however, the timeline of this remains uncertain at the time of this report. City and public consultation by Walker Brothers would indicate approximately 7 years of extraction remains before exhaustion. Should all necessary approvals be acquired, the use as a landfill would be expected immediately thereafter and could see operations as a landfill for an additional 20-30 years before ultimately being capped with a final land use to be determined (such as agricultural or open space use). Should quarry blasting continue at the time of development of this Northwest Secondary plan area, blasting operations should be confirmed to be in compliance with NPC-119, and all other applicable documents. As such, SSWA recommends Page 141 of 354 Page 764 of 1679 9 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 independent noise/vibration, odour, and dust studies be undertaken to address the impact of the neighbouring Quarry on the Plan Area, especially as it pertains to blasting activities. 4.3 Storm Sewers, Sanitary Sewers, and Landfill In SSWA’s collection of Municipal and Provincial data, there were found to be a number of sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and landfill sites which have been established under their respective Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECA’s). These sites and facilities are operating within this study’s area of concern as per D6-4.1.1. These sewers and landfill sites are expected to be of no concern and need not be considered further. 4.4 Gauld Nurseries Company Name Gauld Nurseries Address 8865 Mountain Rd. Approx. Distance to Plan Area 700 m Figure 3 Reference Number 1 Industry Classification Assessment Class II ECA Number N/A The MECP D-Series guidelines consider a number of operations as “industrial” uses, which might otherwise be considered as “commercial” or other similar use. For example, the Appendix A document, D-6-1, includes such uses as auto parts supply stores or dry-cleaning services as industrial uses. As such, Gauld Nurseries on Mountain Road was considered for adverse impacts. However, the subject facility is considered equivalent in potential for impacts as a Class II industry, due to the nature of the machinery and activities on site. As the facility is located well outside of both the Class II influence area and minimum separation distances (300m and 70m, respectively), the facility is expected to be of no concern and need not be considered further. 4.5 Commercial Plaza to the south Company Name A number of retail shops to the south of the subject lands Address 3770 Montrose Rd. Approx. Distance to Plan Area 850 m Figure 3 Reference Number 2 Industry Classification Assessment Class II ECA Number N/A The second land use identified in proximity to the subject development site is a commercial plaza south of the Plan Area at the intersection with Montrose Road, Page 142 of 354 Page 765 of 1679 10 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 which encompasses a number of shops, including Dollarama, and Food Basics. It should be noted that the Food Basics building itself is outside of the 1000m distance band set out by the MECP, however, the property is within these limits. Similar to the last industry, the plaza is not necessarily an industrial land use, but as a significant land use in the vicinity, it has been considered for completeness. The subject facility was visited by SSWA staff to observe the potential for emissions from the facility. None were noted at the time. Based on the observations of the facility, it appears to bear most characteristics of a Class II industry, with occasional emissions perceptible off property and medium levels of activity (Mainly due to truck deliveries and cold food storage from Food Basics); however, none of the subject emissions will be perceived upon the Plan Area . The facility is located approximately 850m from the subject residential site, which places it far beyond the influence area and minimum separation distance for a Class II industry, and there are a number of other residential properties between the residential site and this industry which would be impacted more significantly if there were any concerns with respect to compatibility. It should be noted that, SSWA has been made aware of a development application for use as residential are in process which would further render the this potential source as being of no concern. As such, no concerns with respect to compatibility were found in relation to the commercial facility, and no further assessment is considered necessary. Page 143 of 354 Page 766 of 1679 11 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 5.0 CONCLUSIONS A Land Use Compatibility assessment has been conducted in order to assess the potential for adverse impacts in terms air quality, dust, odour, noise, and vibration as perceived on the Northwest Secondary Plan Area as a result of nearby industries. A site visit was conducted to assess the actual perceived effects of fugitive dust, odour, noise, and vibration emissions on the Plan Area . Neighboring industries were also researched in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the process taking place at each industry. Further, MECP Environmental Compliance Approvals for these neighboring industries were examined in order to assess the mitigation measures already put into place, as well as to gain further knowledge of the industries. All of the above investigations cumulatively conclude that the neighboring industries are not expected to have any adverse effects on the proposed development as it pertains to dust, odour, vibration, and noise, and that the proposed development is anticipated to be compatible with the surrounding land uses. With regard to the Walker Brothers existing Quarry operations to the west, for which The MECP D-series guidelines do not apply, SSWA recommends independent noise/vibration, odour, and dust studies be undertaken to address the impact of the proximate Quarry on the Plan Area, especially as it pertains to blasting activities. As such, the proposed Secondary Plan Area should be considered compatible with all existing and proposed uses with respect to the MECP D-Series guidelines, specifically D- 6. Lastly, respecting Walker Brothers efforts to gain permissions for a landfill operation on (future) exhausted quarry lands, it will be the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate compatibility of their proposed operations on that of the sensitive receptors located in the Northwest Secondary Plan Area, an addition of the serviced urban area boundary of the City of Niagara Falls by Niagara Region in November 2022, for community use. Page 144 of 354 Page 767 of 1679 12 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 FIGURES Page 145 of 354 Page 768 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 FIGURE 1 KEY PLAN OUTLINE OF THE PROPOSED SECONDARY PLAN AREA N Page 146 of 354 Page 769 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 FIGURE 2 PROPOSED LOCATION MAP NORTHWEST SECONDARY PLAN AREA Page 147 of 354 Page 770 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 FIGURE 3 D-6 DISTANCE SETBACKS LEGEND Subject Property Class I Influence Area (70m) Class II Influence Area (300m) Class III Influence Area (1,000m) 1 2 Industry Number Company Name Distance (m) Industry Classification 1 Gauld Nurseries 700 Class II 2 Commercial Plaza to the South 850 Class II N Page 148 of 354Page 771 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 FIGURE 4 WIND ROSE DIAGRAM Page 149 of 354Page 772 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 APPENDIX A NIAGARA REGION OFFICIAL PLAN REGIONAL STRUCTURE Page 150 of 354 Page 773 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 Page 151 of 354Page 774 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 Appendix B CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS OFFICIAL PLAN – SCHEDULE A – LAND USE PLAN Page 152 of 354 Page 775 of 1679 SS Wilson Associates Consulting & Engineering Project No.: WA24-018 Page 153 of 354 Page 776 of 1679 Final Report Prepared by Hemson for City of Niagara Falls Existing Conditions Report ‒ Northwest Secondary Plan September 30, 2024 1000 - 30 St. Patrick Street, Toronto ON M5T 3A3 416 593 5090 | hemson@hemson.com | www.hemson.com Page 154 of 354 Page 777 of 1679 Contents 1. Introduction 1 A. Secondary Plan Area Context 1 B. Purpose of Report 3 2. Existing Conditions 4 A. Population, Dwelling Units and Employment 4 B. Current Infrastructure Conditions 5 C. Net Operating Costs of Existing Infrastructure 6 D. Assessment Generated From Existing Development 10 3. Conclusions & Next Steps 12 A. Next Steps 12 Page 155 of 354 Page 778 of 1679 Introduction | 1 1. Introduction The City of Niagara Falls is currently completing a Secondary Plan for the Northwest Secondary Plan Area. As part of this work, Hemson Consulting has been retained to complete a Fiscal Impact Study (FIS) to assess the overall financial contribution and cost implications of development that would occur through implementation of the preferred land use concept. The work for the assignment will be completed in two phases. The first being an assessment of existing conditions and the second being a FIS of the Preferred Land Use Scenario. The primary objective of the FIS will be to analyze the estimated capital and operating costs and available revenue to determine the financial viability of the Preferred Land Use Scenario. The Cityʼs operating and capital budgets, including infrastructure needs identified as part of the ongoing Master Servicing Plan (MSP) and Transportation Master Plan (TMP) updates, as well as the 2024/2025 capital budgets, will inform the analysis. Anticipated growth within the Secondary Plan Area will also inform the FIS. A. Secondary Plan Area Context The Northwest Secondary Plan Area is located along the western area of the City encompassing 101 gross hectares, with an estimated 70 hectares of net developable land area. As stated on Cityʼs website: The overall objective of secondary planning is to create or contribute to the complete community concept, one that considers future neighbourhood structure that is well designed and developed to be vibrant, walkable, transit-supportive and respectful of the natural environment while contributing to help achieve the Cityʼs 2051 housing and employment targets. Page 156 of 354 Page 779 of 1679 Introduction | 2 The goal for this project will see City staff work with Niagara Region, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, Council, residents, partner agencies and stakeholders as part of a continual and transparent land use planning process to create a land use vision and policies to guide future development of the Northwest Secondary Plan Area. The following map (Figure 1) provides an overview of the Northwest Secondary Plan Area boundary. Figure 1: Secondary Plan Boundary Page 157 of 354 Page 780 of 1679 Introduction | 3 B. Purpose of Report The purpose of report is to provide a review of existing conditions within the Secondary Plan Area. This includes an overview of existing land uses, the assessment revenue generated from existing residential and non-residential uses as well as the baseline operating impacts associated. The second phase of the FIS is anticipated to be completed in Q3 of 2025 and will provide a detailed assessment of the preferred land use scenario for the Secondary Plan Area. Page 158 of 354 Page 781 of 1679 Existing Conditions | 4 2. Existing Conditions The following summarizes the existing land uses, infrastructure and associated revenues and operating costs of these uses. Future capital costs have not been identified as these will be assessed as part of the Preferred Land Use scenario used in the Phase 2 FIS. Existing uses within the Northwest Secondary Plan Area include the following: ▪ Environmental/natural features ▪ Cash crop ▪ Place of worship ▪ Club Italia (hospitality and event centre) ▪ Regency Athletic Resort and Restaurant ▪ Shady Oaks Mobile Home Park ▪ Limited rural residential ▪ Niagara Sports Centre Ltd. A. Population, Dwelling Units and Employment The Northwest Secondary Plan area is bounded by the QEW to the east, Kalar Road to the west, Mountain Road to the north and the existing hydro corridor to the south. There are just over 20 hectares of land occupied by existing uses within the Secondary Plan Area (see Table 1). Existing residential uses include a small number of single detached houses in the northern part of the Secondary Plan Area plus the Shady Oaks Mobile Home Park. In total, it is estimated that there are 21 residential units with an estimated population of approximately 55. The existing non-residential uses include the Club Italia, Regency Athletic Resort, Niagara Sport and Social Club and a place of worship which are estimated in total to employ about 60 people, occupying nearly 5,500 m2 of gross floor area of non-residential space. Page 159 of 354 Page 782 of 1679 Existing Conditions | 5 Table 1: Existing Conditions in Northwest Secondary Plan Area Northwest Land Area Total Area 101.0 ha Area Occupied by Use or Structure 20.5 ha Hydro Corridor 19.4 ha Remaining Area 61.1 ha Existing Development Housing Units 21 Population 55 Employment 60 Non-Residential GFA 5,480 m2 B. Current Infrastructure Conditions There is limited city and regional infrastructure within the Secondary Plan Area as it is largely undeveloped or is being used for non-urban type uses such as cash crops and/or rural residential. In this respect, the following comments are made regarding existing infrastructure within the area: ▪ The area is serviced by approximately 3.4 kilometers of existing City and Regional roads which runs along the exterior boundary of the Secondary Plan Area. ▪ There is some urban servicing in the area. Water services were extended beyond the Cityʼs urban boundary to service existing uses in the Secondary Plan Area. Club Italia has a private forcemain which connects into an existing sanitary sewer located at the Mount Carmel intersection. The existing urban lands immediately surrounding the Secondary Plan Area boundary are serviced by existing water and wastewater linear infrastructure. Page 160 of 354 Page 783 of 1679 Existing Conditions | 6 ▪ A hydro corridor runs along the southern boundary of the Secondary Plan Area. ▪ No other city or regional infrastructure exists in the area (e.g. libraries, parks, fire stations, police services etc.). C. Net Operating Costs of Existing Infrastructure Tax-supported operating costs from existing infrastructure in the Secondary Plan Area were estimated based on data from the Cityʼs 2022 Financial Information Returns (FIR) (the most recently available FIR). Only costs which are a responsibility of the City of Niagara Falls have been included in the analysis. i. Operating Costs Table 2 provides a summary of the current operating costs per capita (person) throughout the City based on the 2022 FIR data (indexed to $2024) and existing 2024 population (based on population estimates included in the 2023 DC Background Study). In total, city-wide operating expenditures amounts to $1,984 per capita. Recognizing there is no wastewater or stormwater servicing in the Secondary Plan Area, the per capita operating costs are also shown without these expenses ($1,670 per capita). This amount is used to determine the base operating costs for the existing uses within the Secondary Plan Area. Page 161 of 354 Page 784 of 1679 Existing Conditions | 7 Table 2 ‒ Summary of City-wide Operating Costs per Capita Table 3 provides an estimate of the 2024 annual operating costs per person within the Secondary Plan Area. In total, roughly $91,870 in operating costs is expected to be generated from existing development in the Secondary Plan Area in 2024. Table 3 ‒ Existing Operating Costs of Northwest Secondary Plan Area Northwest Quantity Measure Existing Population (2024) 55 People Operating Cost per Capita $1,670 $/person Total $91,876 Service 2022 FIR Total Operating Costs (Indexed to $2024) 2024 Quantity Unit of Measure General Government $11,941,044 $121 per capita Fire $34,877,794 $353 per capita Police $4,177,004 $42 per capita Protective Inspection and Control $2,276,818 $23 per capita Building Permit and Inspection Services $2,586,999 $26 per capita Emergency Measures $9,464 $0 per capita Roads and Related $32,149,462 $325 per capita Air Transportation $817,476 $8 per capita Transit $0 $0 per capita Parking $1,834,979 $19 per capita Wastewater $25,559,470 $259 per capita Storm - Urban $5,360,717 $54 per capita Storm - Rural $93,090 $1 per capita Water $26,355,061 $267 per capita Public Health $93,902 $1 per capita Cemeteries $2,840,930 $29 per capita Social Services $906,264 $9 per capita Parks $6,791,294 $69 per capita Recreation $15,211,174 $154 per capita Libraries $6,308,443 $64 per capita Museums & Cultural Services $2,345,150 $24 per capita Niagara Convention and Civic Centre Inc. $6,041,975 $61 per capita Planning and Development $7,499,661 $76 per capita Total $1,984 per capita Total Without Wastewater and Storm $1,670 per capita Page 162 of 354 Page 785 of 1679 Existing Conditions | 8 ii. Grants, Service Fees and Charges Table 4 provides a summary of the Cityʼs grants, frees and service charges (as provided in the 2022 FIR), expressed as a dollar per capita (person) for 2024. In total, city-wide grants, fees and service charges amount to $293 per capita. Table 4 ‒ Summary of City-wide Grants, Fees and Service Charges Per Capita Table 5 provides an estimate of the 2024 annual grant revenues per person within the Secondary Plan Area. In total, roughly $16,100 in grants is expected to be generated from existing development in the Secondary Plan Area in 2024. Service Grants, User Fees, and Service Charges (Indexed to $2024) 2024 Quantity Unit of Measure General Government $957,477 $10 per capita Fire $69,226 $1 per capita Police $0 $0 per capita Protective Inspection and Control $176,036 $2 per capita Building Permit and Inspection Services $10,380 $0 per capita Emergency Measures $0 $0 per capita Roads and Related $1,902,195 $19 per capita Air Transportation $14,878,321 $151 per capita Transit $6,067,695 $61 per capita Parking $749,242 $8 per capita Wastewater $0 $0 per capita Storm - Urban $0 $0 per capita Storm - Rural $0 $0 per capita Water $0 $0 per capita Public Health $0 $0 per capita Cemeteries $700,592 $7 per capita Social Services $242,705 $2 per capita Parks $72,088 $1 per capita Recreation $2,033,442 $21 per capita Libraries $307,391 $3 per capita Museums & Cultural Services $107,199 $1 per capita Niagara Convention and Civic Centre Inc. Planning and Development $682,072 $7 per capita Total $28,956,061 $293 per capita Total Without Wastewater and Storm $28,956,061 $293 per capita Page 163 of 354 Page 786 of 1679 Existing Conditions | 9 Table 5 ‒ Existing Grant Revenues within Northwest Secondary Plan Area Northwest Quantity Measure Existing Population (2024) 55 People Grants, Fees and Service Charges per Capita $293 $/person Total $16,100 iii. Net Operating Cost The net operating costs of city-wide development for 2024 is summarized in Table 6. After accounting for anticipated grants, fees and service charges the total net operating impact per capita is $1,691 or $1,377 per capita without wastewater and storm operating costs. In total, the net operating impact estimated for existing development within the Secondary Plan Area totals approximately $75,760 in 2024 ($91,876 in operating cost less $16,100 in grants). Page 164 of 354 Page 787 of 1679 Existing Conditions | 10 Table 6 ‒ City-wide Net Operating Impact per Capita D. Assessment Generated From Existing Development Assessed values for existing residential units and non-residential gross floor area were determined with reference to the current value assessment (CVA) of homes that are of similar quality and size to those that currently exist in the Secondary Plan Area. Similarly, the non-residential assessment was Service Net Operating Cost Existing Conditions Unit of Measure General Government $111 per capita Fire $352 per capita Police $42 per capita Protective Inspection and Control $21 per capita Building Permit and Inspection Services $26 per capita Emergency Measures $0 per capita Roads and Related $306 per capita Air Transportation ($142) per capita Transit ($61) per capita Parking $11 per capita Wastewater $259 per capita Storm - Urban $54 per capita Storm - Rural $1 per capita Water $267 per capita Public Health $1 per capita Cemeteries $22 per capita Social Services $7 per capita Parks $68 per capita Recreation $133 per capita Libraries $61 per capita Museums & Cultural Services $23 per capita Niagara Convention and Civic Centre Inc. $61 per capita Planning and Development $69 per capita Total $1,691 per capita Total Without Wastewater and Storm $1,377 per capita Page 165 of 354 Page 788 of 1679 Existing Conditions | 11 based on values per square metre of gross floor area of existing buildings in Niagara Falls. The CVAs used in the analysis are as follows: ▪ Low Density Residential Units $450,000 per unit ▪ Medium Density Residential $300,000 per unit ▪ Local Commercial Buildings $2,000 per square metre Table 7 summarizes the anticipated annual 2024 assessment revenues generated by existing residential and non-residential uses within the Secondary Plan Area. Several uses within the Secondary Plan Area generate no or very little assessment (e.g. churches are exempt and agricultural uses have nominal assessment generated). The existing non-residential gross floor area (square metres) has been adjusted to account for uses which do not generate tax revenue. There are a total of 12 mobile homes within the Secondary Plan Area which for the purposes of the analysis, have been treated as “medium density” dwellings. Table 7 ‒ Assessment Revenue Generated by Existing Uses Unit Type Value per Unit or per GFA Measure Existing Units / Square Metres Assessment Value Niagara Falls Tax Rate Annual Tax Revenue Low Density 450,000$ per unit 4 1,800,000$ 0.005717320 10,291$ Medium Density 300,000$ per unit 17 5,100,000$ 0.005717320 29,158$ Non-Residential 2,000$ per square metre 4,680 9,360,000$ 0.009918980 92,842$ Total 132,291$ Page 166 of 354 Page 789 of 1679 Conclusions & Next Steps | 12 3. Conclusions & Next Steps There is nominal existing operating costs and assessment revenue generated from existing uses within the Secondary Plan Area. This is attributable to the fact that the area is largely undeveloped and/or is being used by non land intensive uses (e.g. cash crops, hydro corridor, vacant land etc.). A. Next Steps The next phase in the process will be to complete a comprehensive financial impact assessment of a preferred plan use plan once the City has received results from various technical studies currently underway. The analysis will include a summary of anticipated capital costs, operating costs and assessment revenue associated with the Preferred Land Use plan for the area. Capital costs will be informed from the Cityʼs 2024 Development Charges (DC) Background Study as well as the ongoing MSP and TMP updates and supporting analysis being completed as part of the Secondary Plan Area process. The detailed fiscal impact assessment will determine the impact of the Preferred Land Use Scenario on the Cityʼs overall financial position. Page 167 of 354 Page 790 of 1679 Prepared by: Aquafor Beech Ltd. 2600 Skymark Avenue Building 6, Suite 202 Mississauga, ON Reference #: 67511 February 2025 Final Report Prepared for: City of Niagara Falls Northwest Subwatershed Study Phase 1: Existing Conditions Final Report (Interim) Page 168 of 354 Page 791 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 i Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4 2.0 Study Area and Land Uses ............................................................................................ 5 2.1 Existing Policy Framework ................................................................................................. 6 2.2 Subwatershed Study Goals, Objectives, and Phasing ........................................................ 7 2.2.1 Scope of Investigations ................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Northwest Secondary Plan ................................................................................................ 9 3.0 Existing Subwatershed Conditions ............................................................................. 10 3.1 Hydrogeology ................................................................................................................... 10 3.1.1 Background and Review of Existing Information ......................................................... 10 3.1.2 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology ........................................................................... 10 3.1.3 Local Geology and Hydrogeology ................................................................................. 11 3.1.4 Hydraulic Conductivity ................................................................................................. 11 3.1.5 Water Balance .............................................................................................................. 12 3.1.6 Implications and Opportunities for Site Development ................................................ 13 3.2 Surface Water Resources ................................................................................................. 14 3.2.1 Headwater Drainage Feature Assessment ................................................................... 14 3.2.2 Fluvial Geomorphology ................................................................................................ 18 3.2.3 Hydrology & Hydraulics ................................................................................................ 29 3.2.4 Surface Water Quality Monitoring ............................................................................... 37 3.3 Natural Heritage .............................................................................................................. 44 3.3.1 Background Information Sources ................................................................................. 45 3.3.2 Ecological Field Studies Timing and Methodology ....................................................... 45 3.3.3 Aquatic Resources ........................................................................................................ 47 3.3.4 Terrestrial Resources .................................................................................................... 57 3.3.5 Species at Risk .............................................................................................................. 70 3.3.6 Significant Wildlife Habitat ........................................................................................... 74 4.0 Opportunities and Constraints ................................................................................... 75 4.1 Natural Hazards ............................................................................................................... 75 4.1.1 NPCA Flood Hazards ..................................................................................................... 76 4.1.2 Erosion and Migration Rate Assessment ..................................................................... 77 4.1.3 In-Stream Geomorphic Restoration Opportunities ...................................................... 80 4.2 Natural Heritage .............................................................................................................. 80 4.2.1 Natural Heritage System .............................................................................................. 80 4.2.2 Buffers .......................................................................................................................... 84 4.2.3 Linkages ........................................................................................................................ 85 4.2.4 Natural Heritage Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities ................................. 87 4.3 Consolidation of Constraints ........................................................................................... 89 5.0 Recommendations for Further Study ......................................................................... 93 5.1 Groundwater Recommendations .................................................................................... 93 5.2 Surface Water Recommendations ................................................................................... 93 5.2.1 Headwater Drainage Features ..................................................................................... 93 5.2.2 Watercourses ............................................................................................................... 96 Page 169 of 354 Page 792 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 ii 5.2.3 Erosion Hazard .............................................................................................................. 96 5.3 Natural Heritage Recommendations ............................................................................... 97 5.3.1 Site-Specific Studies ...................................................................................................... 97 5.3.2 Development of Opportunities .................................................................................... 98 6.0 References ............................................................................................................... 100 Appendices Appendix A – Summary of Policies, Guidelines and Legislation Appendix B – Hydrologic Modeling Appendix C – Water Quality Lab Reports Appendix D – Aquatic Ecology Field Sheets Appendix E – Botanical Species List Appendix F – Niagara Regional Natural Heritage System Criteria Tables Table 2.1: Reviewed Policies ................................................................................................................ 6 Table 3.1: Pre-Development Water Balance (Table 2 Approach) ...................................................... 12 Table 3.2: Guidelines for the Interpretation of RGA Results and SI Values. ...................................... 24 Table 3.3: RGA Field Score for Reach TMt1 ....................................................................................... 25 Table 3.4: Flows at Study Area Boundary upstream of Kalar Road ................................................... 34 Table 3.5 Water Quality Parameters & Sampling Procedure ............................................................ 42 Table 3.6: Northwest Water Quality Results ..................................................................................... 43 Table 3.7: Field Measurement Results ............................................................................................... 44 Table 3.8: Summary of Ecological Field Surveys ................................................................................ 46 Table 3.9: Representative Aquatic Habitat Photographs of NW1 ..................................................... 52 Table 3.10: Fish Community Results from NW1 (Eakins, 2023) ......................................................... 56 Table 3.11: Overview of Vegetation Communities Delineated by Aquafor, 2024 ............................. 59 Table 3.12: Coefficient of Conservatism by Category ........................................................................ 63 Table 3.13: 2024 Incidental Bird Observations and Background Records ......................................... 65 Table 3.14: Mammal Species List ....................................................................................................... 69 Table 3.15: Invertebrate Species List ................................................................................................. 69 Table 3.16: Fungus Species List .......................................................................................................... 70 Table 3.17: Preliminary Species at Risk Screening Results ................................................................ 71 Table 4.1: Erosion Hazard Limits by Bank Material (MNRF, 2001) .................................................... 78 Table 4.2: City of Niagara Falls NHS Components and Defining Criteria ........................................... 82 Table 4.3: Description of Constraints ................................................................................................. 90 Table 5.1: Summary of HDF Management Implications .................................................................... 95 Figures Figure 2-1: Northwest Secondary Plan Area ........................................................................................ 5 Page 170 of 354 Page 793 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67081 iii Figure 3-1: Candidate HDFs (Overview) ............................................................................................. 17 Figure 3-2: Geomorphic Stability ....................................................................................................... 20 Figure 3-3: 600 mm CSP culvert at upstream extent of Reach TMt1, looking downstream ............ 21 Figure 3-4: Vegetation infilling channel immediately downstream of culvert leading contributing to wetland habitat, looking upstream .................................................................................................... 21 Figure 3-5: Looking upstream at the narrowed 1 m wide ephemeral channel with well-vegetated banks .................................................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 3-6: Looking upstream at the wider portion of Reach TMt1 with a bankfull width of ~ 4 m . 22 Figure 3-7: Representative photograph of the upstream portion of Reach TMt2 facing upstream . 22 Figure 3-8: Representative photograph of the downstream portion of Reach TMt2 facing downstream ....................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 3-9: Looking upstream at the Potential HDF from the confluence with Reach TMt1 ............ 23 Figure 3-10: Looking downstream at the Potential HDF from the upstream extent at Montrose Road/ QEW ......................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 3-11: Looking upstream at Potential HDF 2 consisting of a grass-lined channel .................... 23 Figure 3-12: Looking downstream towards Reach TMt1 ................................................................... 23 Figure 3-13 : Looking upstream at the crushed CSP culvert at the crossing within Reach TMt2 ...... 26 Figure 3-14: Looking at the downstream portion of the crushed CSP culvert at the crossing within Reach TMt2 ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 3-15: Cross-sections cut through 2014 Lidar data (ODTM, 2015) at erosion sites. ................ 27 Figure 3-16: Cross-section through Reach TMt1 from Northeast to Southwest showing Distance (m) and Elevation (masl) .................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 3-17: Profile of Reach TMt1 from Southwest to Northeast showing Chainage (m) and Elevation (masl) .................................................................................................................................. 28 Figure 3-18: Cross-section through Reach TMt2 from Northwest to Southeast showing Distance (m) and Elevation (masl) .................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 3-19: Profile of Reach TMt2 from Southwest to Northeast showing Chainage (m) and Elevation (masl) .................................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 3-20: Local Hydrology .............................................................................................................. 31 Figure 3-21: Local Soil Classification .................................................................................................. 32 Figure 3-22: Hydrologic Model showing Total Catchment area and Flow Node “TM” ..................... 34 Figure 3-23: Local Floodplain Mapping .............................................................................................. 36 Figure 3-24: Water Quality Monitoring Station Location .................................................................. 40 Figure 3-25: Aquatic Monitoring Locations ........................................................................................ 49 Figure 3-26: Fish Habitat in Beaverdams and Shriners Creek Watershed (Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, 2011) ........................................................................................................... 54 Figure 3-27: Aquafor Beech 2024 ELC Overview (Interim) ................................................................ 61 Figure 4-1: One Zone Floodplain Concept, MNR - River & Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit, 2002. ................................................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 4-2: Erosion hazard limit for an unconfined system (MNRF, 2001) ........................................ 79 Figure 4-3: Land Cover Ratio using Preliminary ELC (2024) ............................................................... 87 Figure 4-4: Interim Constraints to Development ............................................................................... 91 Figure 4-5: Limitations of this Study .................................................................................................. 92 Page 171 of 354 Page 794 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 4 1.0 Introduction The City of Niagara Falls is a rapidly growing population centre located along the Niagara River, overlooking the Horseshoe and American Falls. With a 2021 population of 94,415 (Statistics Canada, 2023), growth is expected to push the population beyond the Region’s minimum of 141,000 people to more recently forecasted 177,500 people by 2051. This represents growth between 46,500 and 83,100 people, or an increase in the population between 49% to 88%. While this growth represents an opportunity, it also has the potential to cause significant impact to the local environment which has already been greatly influenced by agricultural cultivation and expanding urban development. The Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) Area has been identified for "Community" development (non-industrial). A Secondary Plan is therefore being developed, along with other environmental and technical studies to guide development and growth in the Northwest Area. This Subwatershed Study (SWS) is being completed to provide direction to the Northwest Secondary Plan. This document constitutes Phase 1 of the Northwest SWS, which investigates and inventories the natural resources which could potentially be impacted by future urban development. Along with characterization of natural resources, this document identifies preliminary constraints and opportunities which will be considered as the Secondary Plan is developed. The findings documented in this report will be used to develop a comprehensive Subwatershed Management Plan, including stormwater management and natural heritage strategies which will protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the environment within the study area limits. The SWS will fulfill the requirements of the Niagara Falls Official Plan (OP) and Niagara Region OP. Page 172 of 354 Page 795 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 5 2.0 Study Area and Land Uses The Northwest SWS Area, shown in Figure 2-1, covers an area of approximately 101 ha. It is located west of the QEW, south of Mountain Road, and east of Kalar Road. There is an existing residential area south of an Ontario Power Generation corridor that represents the southern limit of the Study Area. The Northwest SWS Area is almost entirely within the Ten Mile Creek subwatershed. Mapping available through the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) indicates that headwater areas of Ten Mile Creek begin east of the QEW and are conveyed under the highway and through the Study Area. Ten Mile Creek flows under Kalar Road at the downstream (western extent) of the Study Area. Several Headwater Drainage Features drain to the Ten Mile Creek within the Study Area. Land uses in this area include environmental features, agriculture, places of worship, hospitality venues, and limited rural residential areas. Figure 2-1: Northwest Secondary Plan Area N Page 173 of 354 Page 796 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 6 2.1 Existing Policy Framework In Canada, environmental issues, including stormwater planning and management are predominantly regulated through a multi-level legislative framework. Under the legislative framework for stormwater planning and management, there are several jurisdiction levels that interact and apply based on many factors including geographical scale, and administration role. These jurisdiction levels include: • Local, Regional, Watershed, or Municipal • Provincial • Federal The full list of reviewed documents is provided in Table 2.1, with summaries in Appendix A. Appendix A summarizes the multi-level legislative framework that will guide and direct future environmental and stormwater management activities within the Northwest Subwatershed Study area. It is also intended to inform this Subwatershed Study to ensure future municipal policy development is in full compliance with the necessary policies, statutes, regulations, plans, and guidelines. Table 2.1: Reviewed Policies Federal Legislation • Fisheries Act (1985, Amended 2019) • Canada Water Act (1985, Amended 2014) • Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999, Amended 2023) • Impact Assessment Act (2019) • Migratory Convention Birds Act (1994, Amended 2017) • Species at Risk Act (2002, Amended 2024) • Canadian Navigable Waters Act (1985, Amended 2019) Provincial Legislation, Policies and Guidelines Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) • Water Management – Guidelines and Procedures of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (“The Blue Book”) (1994, Reprinted 1999) • Ontario Water Resources Act (1990, Amended 2021) • Clean Water Act (2006, Amended 2021) • Consolidated Linear Infrastructure Environmental Compliance Approval (2023) • Environmental Protection Act (1990, Amended 2021) • Environmental Assessment Act (1990, Amended 2024) • Water Opportunities Act (2010, Amended 2021) • Enangered Species Act (2007, Amended 2020) • Environmental Bill of Rights (1993, Amended 2023) • Great Lakes Protection Act (2015, Amended 2021) Page 174 of 354 Page 797 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 7 • Conservation Authorities Act, Ontario Regulation 41/24Management of Excess Soil – A Guide for Best Management Practices (2018, Amended 2021) • Policy Review of Municipal Stormwater Management in the Light of Climate Change (2011) • Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (2003) Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) • Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (1990, Amended 2019) • Conservation Authorities Act, Ontario Regulation 41/24 Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) • Drainage Act (1990, Amended 2021) • Nutrient Management Act (2002, Amended 2021) Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) • Planning Act (2010, Amended 2024) • Provincial Planning Statement (2024) • The Municipal Act (2001, Amended 2024) • Greenbelt Plan (2004, Amended 2017) Ministry of Infrastructure • The Places to Grow Act (2005, Amended 2021) Local Legislation, Plans, Policies, and Guidelines • Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Area – Assessment Report (2011, Amended 2013) • Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Area – Source Protection Plan (2013) • NPCA Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (2022, Amended 2024) • NPCA Beaverdams and Shriners Creek Watershed Plan Phase One (2011) • NPCA Stormwater Management Guidelines (2017) • NPCA Strategic Plan (2021) • NPCA Erosion & Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction (2006) • Niagara Region Stormwater Management Guidelines (2022) • Niagara Region Official Plan (2022) • Niagara Region Transportation Master Plan (2017) • City of Niagara Falls Official Plan (1993, Amended 2024) • City of Niagara Falls Sustainable Transportation Master Plan (2011) 2.2 Subwatershed Study Goals, Objectives, and Phasing The overall goal of this SWS may be defined as follows: “Development of a management plan that allows sustainable urban growth, while ensuring maximum benefits to the natural and human environments on a watershed basis.” – Watershed Planning in Ontario The SWS is undertaken in three (3) phases. The objectives of this study are summarized below, according to the three study phases. This report has been prepared to present the results for Phase 1 of the process. Page 175 of 354 Page 798 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 8 Phase 1: Subwatershed Characterization • Identify and evaluate the location, extent, significance, and sensitivity of the existing natural features of the study area, together with their potential interrelationship with other natural features; • Identify sensitive areas and natural hazard lands, together with recommended buffers, and select preliminary management practices for these lands; and • Develop preliminary constraints and opportunities mapping to identify developable and non-developable lands which will inform the development and update of Secondary Plans within the Urban Boundary study area. Phase 2: Subwatershed Management Strategies • Identify potential land use impacts to natural features and functions (Impact Assessment); • Identify protective measures (best management practices, or BMPs) that, when implemented, will protect, enhance or restore environmental features and functions; • Identify actions and strategies to build resiliency to climate change into the community; • Formulate alternative subwatershed management strategies; • Evaluate each strategy, based on a range of environmental, social and cost considerations together with stakeholder input; and • Select from among the alternatives a recommended subwatershed strategy (or plan). Phase 3: Implementation and Monitoring Plans • Develop an Implementation Plan to ensure the long-term integrity of the Recommended Plan, including the identification of issues and areas where further detailed studies may be required at the draft plan of subdivision, condominium and/or Site Planning stages of the planning process; • Identify any future recommended monitoring studies or contingency plans; and • Integrate the Subwatershed Study findings with Municipal Official Plan Policy and ongoing Secondary Plans. 2.2.1 Scope of Investigations Detailed investigations are a part of a Subwatershed Study, and the results of those investigations completed in 2024 are presented in the following sections of this report. During the City’s scoping of this Study, several investigations were deferred to be completed by the development community. As such, these investigations were not part of the Subwatershed Study scope, including: • In situ hydrogeological and geotechnical investigations; • Floodplain mapping; • Erosion hazards; and • Environmental Impact Studies. Page 176 of 354 Page 799 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 9 Recommendations for what should be considered in these future investigations have been provided in Section 5.0 of this report. Headwater Drainage Feature Assessments are to be completed at a later stage following the timing window guidelines such that features are identified and management recommendations are accurately applied in subsequent phases of this study. Further details are provided hereafter. 2.3 Northwest Secondary Plan Secondary Plans are land use planning tools that formally address specific opportunities and constraints related to land use in certain defined geographic areas. They are typically undertaken in areas where detailed direction is needed for matters beyond the general framework provided by the Official Plan. The preparation or amendment of a Secondary Plan follows the same procedures as an Official Plan Amendment under the Planning Act. This includes the preparation of supporting technical studies, public engagement, notice and holding of public meetings and adoption/approval procedures. The preparation of any Secondary Plan requires input from supporting technical studies. The collective recommendations (opportunities and constraints) from these technical studies will influence the developable area of the Secondary Plan, influence the mix and location for the various land uses, as well as recommend design and development parameters. Subwatershed studies are important supporting technical documents to the Secondary Planning process because they establish the base environmental parameters for neighbourhood planning, including not only the natural heritage and hydrological systems but also establish high-level drainage planning for the Secondary Plan Areas. Subwatershed studies include strategies to support the City’s Official Plan and identify the responsible management strategies for subwatershed areas with the primary focus of protecting natural ecosystem functions, flooding and erosion. Subwatershed studies analyse the cumulative effects of changes in land use, identify areas of risk, and make recommendations on areas for enhancement to allow for a protected and connected Natural Heritage System. The Northwest Secondary Plan is being completed concurrently with the Northwest Subwatershed Study, and includes the same study area. The results of the SWS will inform the completion of the Secondary Plan. Page 177 of 354 Page 800 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 10 3.0 Existing Subwatershed Conditions 3.1 Hydrogeology 3.1.1 Background and Review of Existing Information The Northwest Secondary Area is in the City of Niagara Falls, Ontario, directly southwest of the intersection between the Queen Elizabeth Way Highway and Mountain Rd. The site has an area of approximately 0.78 km2 and is irregular in shape. The site is located at an elevation of approximately 187 masl and is undulating. The area surrounding the site slopes up towards the west. The site is occupied by commercial and residential properties in the portion on the south side of Mountain Road. There is a Place of Worship located in the southeast area of the plan area as well. South of Montrose Road are former agricultural fields not currently in use. A small, forested area is in the west-central portion of the site. No site-specific hydrogeological reports or data were available for review at the time of the report. 3.1.2 Regional Geology and Hydrogeology The Niagara Peninsula watershed is bounded by Lake Ontario to the north, Lake Erie to the south, Niagara River to the east and Grand River, as well as Hamilton watersheds to the west. The Niagara Peninsula watershed area spans approximately 2,430 km2 and includes areas within the Region of Niagara, and portions of the City of Hamilton as well as the County of Haldimand. This area includes many features, such as the Niagara Escarpment, Wainfleet Bog, Balls Falls, Lake Niapenco and Willoughby Marsh, along with many other significant landforms (e.g. the Fonthill Kame ice contact-delta complex). Approximately 64% of the Niagara Peninsula watershed is used for agricultural purposes, while approximately 21% is forested/undeveloped land, and 15% is urban/developed. (NPCA, 2018). The Niagara Peninsula is underlain by units of sedimentary rock of Silurian to Ordovician age (485.4 – 419.3 Ma). These units are dipping towards the south and outcrop along the Niagara Escarpment to the north of the site along the southwestern to western shores of Lake Ontario. From north (along the shoreline of Lake Ontario) to south (shoreline of Lake Erie), these include: the Queenston Formation, Lockport Formation, Guelph Formation, Salina Formation, Bertie Formation, Bois Blanc Formation and Onondaga Formation. Broadly speaking, the Niagara Region is underlain by a sequence of shales, limestones, sandstones and dolostones representing sea level fluctuations over millions of years. During the last ice age, termed the Wisconsin Glaciation (130,000 – 25,000 years before present) the Niagara Peninsula was covered by an ice sheet over 2 km in thickness. The ice began to retreat approximately 25,000 years before present (ybp) causing substantial releases of meltwater in the proglacial areas. This meltwater occupied basins and other low-lying areas forming glacial lakes along the retreating ice margin. One such lake, Lake Warren, formed between the Niagara and Onnondaga Escarpments running north to south. Rivers flowing off the retreating glacier carried sediment into this basin where the coarser grained material Page 178 of 354 Page 801 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 11 settled out closest to the river mouth forming a kame-delta complex of sands and gravels. As the ice continued to retreat the north face of the delta complex eventually collapsed and this deposit is today called the Fonthill Kame Complex. Further from the river mouth into the basin more fine-grained material was able to settle out of suspension resulting in the Haldimand Clay Plain that underlies the majority of the Niagara Peninsula. The Watershed Plan prepared by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) identifies the Fonthill Kame Complex as the most critical recharge area for the Niagara Peninsula. The Fonthill Kame is located approximately 8 km to the west of the site and is separated from the site by the Haldimand Clay, which would be considered a regional aquitard. The mapping from the NPCA identifies no significant area of recharge within the Ten Mile Creek sub watersheds. It is expected that regionally, groundwater will flow east toward the Niagara River and from there, the river flows north to Lake Ontario. 3.1.3 Local Geology and Hydrogeology Mapping available from the NPCA indicates that the site is within the Ten Mile Creek sub watershed. On October 9, 2024, a representative of Grounded Engineering conducted a site reconnaissance visit to observe any Headwater Drainage Features (HDF) on the site. The site is currently occupied by commercial/residential properties on the northern portion. South of Montrose Road the site is occupied by former agricultural fields except for the west-central portion occupied by the Club Italia Event Centre and a Place of Worship. In general, the site is undulating while the southern edge which has a steep hill dipping towards the north. A wetland, previously identified on NPCA mapping, was identified in the forested area in the western-central portion of the site. A tributary, likely from Ten Mile Creek, was observed to bisect the site but was mostly dry at the time of the investigation, indicating that it may not be continuously flowing (see Section 3.3.4.1 for additional details regarding Ecological Land Classification). Multiple agricultural drainage ditches were observed in the agricultural fields. Several of these appear to drain towards the tributary. Based on data from the MECP Well Records Database the site is underlain with a silty clay deposit (Haldimand Till Plain) overlying bedrock at approximately 8 mbgs to 15 mbgs. The MECP Well Records also indicated groundwater was found within the bedrock during drilling, however, in wells where pumping tests were completed, static water level was found to be within the overlying clay deposits at approximate elevations ranging from 190 to 178.5 masl. Based on the slope of the site, the presence of the wetland, and the tributary of Ten Mile Creek it is likely that locally groundwater will flow to the northwest. This should be confirmed with site specific data obtained through an intrusive field investigation as part of future studies. 3.1.4 Hydraulic Conductivity As previously stated, no site-specific data was collected or provided including borehole/monitoring well logs or water levels. As such a site-specific hydraulic conductivity was Page 179 of 354 Page 802 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 12 unable to be calculated at this time. The final conclusions of this study will determine whether any intrusive investigation is required. It should be noted that the expected hydraulic conductivity of a silty clay would range from 1.0x10-9m/s to 1.0x10-12 m/s (Freeze & Cherry, 1979). These flows would likely result minimal groundwater volumes to be discharged during development. 3.1.5 Water Balance A high-level water balance model was prepared for the Property to assess the distribution of rainfall run-off and infiltration for existing (pre-development) conditions. The model is based on Environment Canada’s climate data for Niagara Falls. The Thornthwaite method was used to evaluate the relative balance between rainfall, evaporation and evapotranspiration in the shallow soil zones. The Table 2 approach was selected and takes into consideration the topography, soil type and ground cover of the site. The water balance for pre-development conditions based on each approach is summarized in Table 3.1. Table 3.1: Pre-Development Water Balance (Table 2 Approach) Area (m2) Precipitation (m3) Evapo- transpiration (m3) Infiltration (m3) Run-Off (m3) Existing Building Area 10,798 10,231 0 0 10,231 Hard Surface Paving 60,398 57,227 0 0 57,227 Landscaped / Vegetated Area 708,804 671,592 446,547 90,018 135,027 Total 780,000 739,050 446,547 90,018 202,485 At the time of this report no development plans have been made available. As such no site- specific post-development water balance can be conducted. However, it can be assumed that the plans will involve typical development scenario with building, hard surface areas, pavements, and some open space areas. The relative distribution of these areas will govern the resulting post development water balance. Typically, the post development water balance will result in the following: • A decrease in open space or greenspace which will result in a decrease in evapotranspiration and infiltration. • An increase in hard surface areas, including pavement and rooftops. This will result in an increase in the runoff post development. Page 180 of 354 Page 803 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 13 Mitigation measures in a post-development scenario may include, but are not limited to: • Clean water from the rooftops can be harvested and used to promote infiltration; however, based on the low permeability soil, any infiltration measure at this site would be limited. • Low impact development (LID) strategies can be implemented to offset the reduction in evapotranspiration and infiltration and mitigate the increase in runoff. The percolation rates of the soil will be very low and, as such, the site will generally not be conducive to engineered infiltration measures (infiltration galleries, soak aways pits, etc.). Consideration will need to be given to partial infiltration design LIDs, filtration LIDs, and more passive LIDs. This would include bioretention, green roofs, permeable pavements, enhanced swales. Once preliminary development plans have been completed a detailed post development water balance can be provided along with specific recommendations regarding appropriate LIDs. 3.1.6 Implications and Opportunities for Site Development Based on the background review, the site would be low sensitivity to development from a hydrogeological perspective. This is based on the following: • Several suspected headwater drainage features (see Section 3.2.1 for more details) were observed during the site visit including a wetland in the western-central portion of the site, one tributary, likely of Ten Mile Creek, and multiple agricultural drainage ditches. Several of the drainage ditches were connected to the tributary, likely to assist with either drainage of the fields or overflow following rain events or seasonal melt. The drainage ditch network is not anticipated to have any major effect on development as these are not active recharge areas and were only used to drain the fields after irrigation was conducted and will likely be removed as part of construction. • If development encroaches on the wetland area then the impacts on drainage and storage of water will need to be accounted for. • The clayey silt to silty clay overburden soil is of low permeability (an aquitard) and is regionally extensive. As such, there will be limited groundwater recharge occurring in the area. • The groundwater flow velocity will be very slow and there will be limited groundwater flow volumes within the overburden. This results in minimal, if any, groundwater discharge or baseflow to local ecological receptors. • There appears to be no aquifers present within the overburden. Water supply is obtained from the bedrock (Guelph and Lockport Formations). The overburden thickness in the area is about 8 – 15 m. This low permeability overburden layer provides significant protection to the bedrock aquifer. • Given the relatively thick overburden, it is anticipated that construction activities would be within the low permeability soils. It is not likely that groundwater control Page 181 of 354 Page 804 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 14 (short or long term) would be required. Given this, the zone of influence of any construction activities will be very small. • Development of the site will result in a decrease in evapotranspiration and infiltration and an increase in runoff. Mitigation measures can be implemented; however, the low percolation rates at the site will not be conducive to engineered LID measures that utilize infiltration as the main mechanism. Partial infiltration LIDs, filtration LIDs and more passive LIDs are recommended to mitigate the reduction in infiltration post development. This would include bioretention, green roofs, permeable pavements, enhanced swales etc. 3.2 Surface Water Resources The surface water component of this study inventories the network of existing drainage channels through the study area. Further field analyses and modeling is completed to determine the environmental function of these drainage features and to establish any associated flooding and erosion hazards. The resulting environmental features and natural hazards are then used to identify constraints to future development, as well as restoration opportunities. Constraints to future development related to surface water resources are defined in the subsequent report sections under the following topics: • Headwater Drainage Features – defines management recommendations for the small headwater drainage channels throughout the study area; • Fluvial geomorphologic resources – defines erosion hazard considerations for the streams as well as restoration opportunities; and • Hydrology/hydraulics and flooding – defines the estimated flood flows, flood levels, and associated floodplain hazard lands. 3.2.1 Headwater Drainage Feature Assessment Headwater Drainage Features (HDFs), as defined in the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP), are depressions in the land that convey surface flow (Stanfield, 2017). Examples of HDFs include small streams, springs, wetlands, swales, and ditches (natural or human- modified). OSAP and the Evaluation, Classification, and Management of Headwater Drainage Features Guidelines (CVC & TRCA, 2014) note that HDFs vary in both form and function, and may provide direct (both permanent and seasonal) habitat for fish and/or indirect habitat for fish by transporting food and sediment to downstream waters. Examples of aquatic habitat types present in HDFs include refuge pools, seasonal spawning and nursery areas, and thermal refugia in areas of groundwater discharge. These features are also important sources, conveyors, or sinks of sediment, nutrients, and flow. Some HDFs may function as important habitat for terrestrial and wetland species as breeding areas or corridors for travel. Page 182 of 354 Page 805 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 15 HDFs have not traditionally been a part of most aquatic monitoring efforts. However, understanding of the importance of such features has been growing, and HDFs are now protected features under certain local and provincial regulations. HDFs providing direct or indirect fish habitat would qualify for protection as fish habitat under municipal NHS policy. Additionally, and following the update to the Ontario Regulation 41/24 under the Conservation Authorities Act, features which were once managed as HDFs and not historically mapped as a watercourse, may now be managed as a watercourse under the updated regulation. Following the HDF assessment protocol may further identify features that fall under the new definition of a watercourse, that is, “a defined channel, having a bed and banks or sides, in which a flow of water regularly or continuously occurs” (Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, 2024). Watercourse definitions are in the jurisdiction of the NPCA and HDF/watercourse mapping should be updated under NPCA consultation to account for these changes. Alterations to such features would require NPCA approval. All features which were historically mapped as watercourses were maintained through this exercise. This study included a preliminary assessment of potential HDFs to identify features and determine the appropriate level of future investigations, as detailed in Section 5.2.1. 3.2.1.1 Methodology The Evaluation, Classification, and Management of Headwater Drainage Features Guidelines (CVC & TRCA, 2014), hereafter “the Guidelines”, were used to classify HDFs within the study area. The Guidelines were developed to provide direction to practitioners for aquatic features that are not clearly covered by existing policy and legislation as being important eco- hydrological features (e.g., perennial streams and provincially significant wetlands) but still may contribute to the overall health of a subwatershed. The Guidelines attempt to evaluate, in a consistent way, the contribution of sediment, food, and flow transport to downstream reaches, as well as the use of these features by biota (CVC & TRCA, 2014). To distinguish HDFs from watercourses, the following definitions were specified per OSAP and the CVC & TRCA Guidelines document: • HDFs are non-permanently flowing drainage features that may not have defined bed or banks; they are first-order and zero-order intermittent and ephemeral channels, swales, and connected headwater wetlands, but do not include rills or furrows. • Features within a valley are typically not considered HDFs. • A HDF has a catchment of at least 2.5 ha in size. In order to identify possible HDFs, a drainage network for the Northwest study area was created using Arc Hydro in ESRI’s ArcMap 10.1. First, a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) was obtained from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). The DTM with a spatial resolution of 0.5 m x 0.5 m was derived from a classified lidar point cloud. Using Arc Hydro Tools in ESRI’s ArcGIS 10.5, the regulatory watercourse drainage pattern was ‘burned’ Page 183 of 354 Page 806 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 16 into the DTM and depressions were filled to correct potential raster processing problems. Flow direction and flow accumulation rasters were then processed from the reconditioned DTM. Utilizing the flow accumulation raster, a stream network raster was defined such that any streams with a catchment area of 2.5 ha would be accounted for. After the stream network was defined, the stream raster was then converted to vector feature layer. Lastly, maps were prepared for Aquafor biologists by overlaying the stream layer on aerial imagery to be assessed during field investigations. These maps, outlining Candidate HDFs within the study area are shown below in Figure 3-1. 3.2.1.2 Conclusions Figure 3-1 displays the Candidate HDFs within the study area. As noted above, Headwater Drainage Feature Assessments are to be completed at a later stage following the timing window guidelines such that features are identified and management recommendations are accurately applied in subsequent phases of this study. Management Recommendations are to be determined following these assessments and used to inform the developmental constraints and opportunities following the details in Section 5.2.1. Page 184 of 354 Page 807 of 1679 3-1 Candidate HDFs (Overview)Page 185 of 354 Page 808 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 18 3.2.2 Fluvial Geomorphology The river drainage network and channel landforms that make up the watershed develop over long timescales as the integrated product of hydrological and biological stream processes interacting on the geological template of the landscape. Fluvial geomorphology is the study of the processes and landforms that shape stream and river channels, including flow hydraulics and sediment transport. Land use changes within a watershed can alter the amount of surface runoff and the amount of sediment reaching a river. Historic alterations and aged river engineering structures may also have unintended consequences and deteriorate if left unmaintained for decades. Cumulatively, these historic changes to the river channel and environmental controls can result in erosion and flooding problems, as well as degraded aquatic and riparian habitat. Recent advances in river engineering and stream restoration practices can help mitigate the impacts of historic land-use change (through natural channel design and other environmentally sensitive river engineering approaches), balancing self-sustaining natural processes with long-term maintenance requirements for engineering controls. Within the overall study goal of responsible environmental and economic management of water resources, the objective of the fluvial geomorphology component is to characterize stream and river channels, particularly with respect to erosion and channel stability. As such, detailed geomorphic assessment of the watercourse(s) within the study area has been completed. The geomorphic assessments provide a basis for recommendations with respect to development constraints and mitigation of any existing erosion problems, and highlights opportunities for stream restoration that will improve future channel stability, protect infrastructure and property, and enhance ecological habitat. The drainage features within the study area consisted of the Ten Mile Creek tributary and several potential HDFs. The Ten Mile Creek tributary through the study area consists of a clearly defined watercourse to which a geomorphic assessment is applicable. A fluvial geomorphic assessment, however, is not applicable to the several potential HDFs identified within the study area. As noted previously, a detailed assessment of HDFs is to be completed at a later stage following the appropriate timing windows and methodology. The following subsections present reach delineations and characterizations for Ten Mile Creek, including classification of geomorphic stability through use of a Rapid Geomorphic Assessment (RGA) tool. 3.2.2.1 Reach Delineation Geomorphic stream reaches are relatively uniform lengths of channel in terms of surface geology, hydrology, channel slope, boundary materials, and vegetation that control dominant geomorphic processes and sediment transport dynamics. In other words, the physical channel processes and resulting river morphology are relatively consistent over the length of the reach as compared to the differences between adjacent reaches. Several drainage features were observed within the study area including several potential HDFs and one watercourse consisting of the Ten Mile Creek Tributary. The watercourse, subject to a Page 186 of 354 Page 809 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 19 fluvial geomorphic assessment, was observed and assessed for geomorphic stability and erosion hazard analysis. The tributary of Ten Mile Creek within the study area is divided into two reaches consisting of Reach TMt1 and Reach TMt2. The reach names have been adapted from the NPCA’s Reach Numbering Structure (NPCA, 2011). The identified watercourses including the assessed reaches with their geomorphic stability index are presented in Figure 3-2. Page 187 of 354 Page 810 of 1679 3-2 Page 188 of 354 Page 811 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 21 During field investigations, all potential channels identified as a drainage pathway in the initial desktop investigation (Figure 3-2) were walked. This confirmed those pathways that are channels and other non drainage pathways that are not a channel, however that may be potential HDFs. A reach description for all confirmed channels and potential HDFs has been included. This section serves to confirm reach conditions and to offer evidence that those drainage pathways denoted as Potential HDFs are not channels, subject to Rapid Geomorphic Assessments, nor show evidence of channel incision or erosion. 3.2.2.1.1 Reach TMt1 Ten Mile Creek Tributary Reach TMt1 in the study area begins immediately downstream of the CSP culvert located at the southeastern edge of property at 2525 Montrose Road (Club Italia Event Centre) and extends approximately 170 m upstream through the forested area towards the edge of the agricultural farm field. The average bankfull width of the reach is approximately 4 m, and average bankfull depth is approximately 0.4 m. Bank material throughout the reach consisted of sandy silty clay and the average grain size of the bed material consisted of silty sand with some clay. Figure 3-3 shows the 600 mm CSP culvert located at the downstream extent of the reach where ponding of the water downstream of the culvert is observed. Vegetation infilling the channel directly downstream of the culvert can be seen in Figure 3-4 contributing to a marshy environment. The channel narrows to approximately 1 m wide approximately halfway through the reach (approximately 80 m downstream) (Figure 3-5) and is observed to widen to around 4 m in Figure 3-6 at the widest segment. The unconfined and shallow ephemeral channel runs through the forested corridor and has plenty of access to the floodplain. Figure 3-3: 600 mm CSP culvert at upstream extent of Reach TMt1, looking downstream Figure 3-4: Vegetation infilling channel immediately downstream of culvert leading contributing to wetland habitat, looking upstream Page 189 of 354 Page 812 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 22 3.2.2.1.2 Reach TMt2 Ten Mile Creek Tributary Reach TMt2 in the study area begins immediately downstream of the Kalar Road culvert and extends approximately 150 m upstream through the landscaped area of the property at 2525 Montrose Road (Club Italia Event Centre). The average bankfull width of the reach is approximately 3.5 m, and average bankfull depth is approximately 0.6 m. Bank material throughout the reach consisted of sandy silty clay and the average grain size of the bed material consisted of sandy silty clay with small pebbles. Representative photographs of Reach TMt2 can be seen in the figures below where the 600 mm CSP culvert crossing the trail at the upstream extent of the reach is shown in Figure 3-7 and the downstream portion of the reach is shown in Figure 3-8. Well-maintained grass in the areas surrounding the reach, and landscaped areas in close proximity to the edge of the channel-top-of- bank can be seen throughout the reach. Figure 3-5: Looking upstream at the narrowed 1 m wide ephemeral channel with well-vegetated banks Figure 3-6: Looking upstream at the wider portion of Reach TMt1 with a bankfull width of ~ 4 m Figure 3-7: Representative photograph of the upstream portion of Reach TMt2 facing upstream Figure 3-8: Representative photograph of the downstream portion of Reach TMt2 facing downstream Page 190 of 354 Page 813 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 23 3.2.2.2 Potential HDFs Potential HDF 1 Potential HDF 1 drains the agriculture field located on the eastern side of the study area and trends east to west from Montrose Road to the edge of the agriculture farm field at the being of Reach TMt1. The view at the upstream extent of the potential HDF can be seen in Figure 3-9 looking downstream and the view from the downstream extent can be seen in Figure 3-10 looking upstream. Potential HDF 2 Potential HDF 2 drains the agriculture farm field located on the southeastern side of the study area and trends southeast to northwest from the 3017 Montrose Road property downstream towards Reach TMt1. The view at the upstream extent of the potential HDF can be seen in Figure 3-11 looking downstream and the view from the downstream extent can be seen in Figure 3-12 looking upstream. Figure 3-9: Looking upstream at the Potential HDF from the confluence with Reach TMt1 Figure 3-10: Looking downstream at the Potential HDF from the upstream extent at Montrose Road/ QEW Figure 3-11: Looking upstream at Potential HDF 2 consisting of a grass-lined channel Figure 3-12: Looking downstream towards Reach TMt1 Page 191 of 354 Page 814 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 24 3.2.2.3 Rapid Geomorphic Assessment As a tool to help evaluate the existing geomorphic conditions within the channel, Rapid Geomorphic Assessments (RGA) (MOE, 1999) were completed for relevant reaches. The RGA protocol uses a series of visual indicators to determine whether a given stream reach is stable or in adjustment based on a percentage score. The RGA procedure is comprised of four different factors that are used to assess channel sensitivity and stability: 1. Evidence of Aggradation (A) 2. Evidence of Degradation (D); 3. Evidence of Channel Widening (W); and 4. Evidence of Planimetric Form Adjustment (P). Table 3.2 summarizes the stability classifications associated with the RGA index scores and detailed RGA results are provided in Table 3.3. The RGA method is most appropriate for systems with natural or semi-natural alluvial boundaries that are capable of adjusting to flow changes in water and sediment. Therefore, reaches where the channel was characterized as a drainage ditch or agricultural swale were omitted from the assessment because these types of systems are not capable of adjusting to flow changes in water and sediment. Table 3.2: Guidelines for the Interpretation of RGA Results and SI Values. Stability Index (SI) Value Interpretation Comment 0 ≤ SI ≤ 0.25 Stable The morphological features do not show evidence of the progressive alterations. Variance in the dimensions of the morphological features is within acceptable levels 0.25 ≤ SI ≤ 0.4 Transitional The type and variance of observed morphological features indicates that the stream channel is in, or about to begin, the initial stages of adjustment. 0.4 ≤ SI ≤ 1.0 In Adjustment The type of morphological features suggests that the channel system has been de-stabilized and is in adjustment. The result of the RGA is summarized in Table 3.3. The assessed reach, Reach TMt1, in the study area has a stability index of 0.21 and is classified as being Stable. Aggradation is the dominant process within this reach as observations of siltation in pools, deposition in overbank zone, and poor longitudinal sorting of bed material were found. This reveals that the reach is generally stable and the channel conditions are within acceptable limits. Page 192 of 354 Page 815 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 25 Table 3.3: RGA Field Score for Reach TMt1 FactorValue No.Description No Yes 1 Lobate bar √ 2 Coarse material in riffle embedded √ 3 Siltation in pools √ 4 Medial bars √ 5 Accretion on point bars √ 6 Poor longitudinal sorting of bed materials √ 7 Deposition in overbank zone √ 1 Exposed bridge footings √ 2 Exposed sanitary/storm sewer/pipeline etc √ 3 Elevated stormsewer outfall √ 4 undermined gabion basket/concrete apron/etc √ 5 Scour pools d/s of culverts/stormsewers √ 6 Cut face on bar forms √ 7 Head cutting due to knick point migration √ 8 Terrace cut through older bar material √ 9 Suspended armor layer visible in bank √ 10 Channel worn into undisturbed overburden/bedrock √ 1 Fallen/leaning trees/fence posts/etc √ 2 Occurrence of large organic debris √ 3 Exposed tree roots √ 4 Basal scour on inside meander bends √ 5 Basal scour on both sides of channel through riffle √ 6 Gabion baskets/concrete walls/armour stone etc. out flanked √ 7 Length of basal scour > 50% through subject reach √ 8 Exposed length of previously buried pipe/cable etc.√ 9 Fracture lines along top of bank √ 1 Formation of chute(s)√ 2 Evolution of single thread channel to multiple channel √ 3 Evolution of pool-riffle form to low bed relief form √ 4 Cutoff channel(s)√ 5 Formation of island(s)√ 6 Thalweg alignment out of phase with meander geometry √ 7 Bar forms poorly formed/reworked/removed √ Stability Index (SI) = (AI+DI+WI+PI)/m SI = 0.21 0.43 0 0.11 0.29 PresentGeomorphic Indicator Evidence of Planimetric Form Adjustment (PI)Form/ Process Evidence of Aggradation (AI)Evidence of Degradation (DI)Evidence of Widening (WI)Page 193 of 354 Page 816 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 26 3.2.2.4 Maintenance/ Erosion Site This maintenance/ erosion site consists of a crushed CSP culvert located halfway through Reach TMt2. The crushed portion of the CSP culvert is clearly visible on the upstream side of the crossing as seen in Figure 3-13. The portion of the culvert as seen on the downstream side also appears to be impacted (Figure 3-14). The culvert may have been crushed by a motorized vehicle, due to which, the flow conveyance within the channel may be reduced. 3.2.2.5 Cross-Section and Longitudinal Profile Cross-sections and longitudinal profiles were obtained for the Ten Mile Creek Tributary for both reaches in the study area including Reach TMt1 and Reach TMt2. Reach TMt1 is located southeast of the property at 2525 Montrose Road (Club Italia Event Centre) whereas, Reach TMt2 is located just downstream of it and runs through the above-mentioned property. Specifically, the upstream extent of Reach TMt1 is at the edge of the agricultural farm field southeast of the property and the downstream extent is at the culvert crossing at the southeast corner of the above-mentioned property. Reach TMt2 starts on the downstream side of this culvert and extends further downstream to the Kalar Road culvert. The cross-sections through each reach were cut from Lidar data (ODTM, 2015) within the study area perpendicular to the channel trend. The location of the cross sections for each reach are shown in Figure 3-15 below. Figure 3-13 : Looking upstream at the crushed CSP culvert at the crossing within Reach TMt2 Figure 3-14: Looking at the downstream portion of the crushed CSP culvert at the crossing within Reach TMt2 Page 194 of 354 Page 817 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 27 Figure 3-15: Cross-sections cut through 2014 Lidar data (ODTM, 2015) at erosion sites. 3.2.2.5.1 Reach TMt1 Figure 3-16 shows the cross-section cut perpendicularly to the flow within the channel for Reach TMt1, spanning from the northeast (left) to the southwest (right). The channel is shown relative to the top of banks on either side and is seen to be unconfined. Uneven grounds can be seen on either side of the channel as it runs through the forested area southeast of the landscaped property. The bankfull channel width within this cross-section is noted to be approximately 5 m and the observed bankfull depth is approximately 0.2 m. Figure 3-16: Cross-section through Reach TMt1 from Northeast to Southwest showing Distance (m) and Elevation (masl) The channel profile as seen in Figure 3-17 was obtained from the upstream end at the edge of the agricultural farm field (left) to downstream at southeastern edge of the landscaped property (right). The profile is of the channel bed trends southeast to northwest through forested area. The overall channel gradient is observed to be 0.0003 or 0.032% with the upstream channel bed elevation being 183.28 masl and the downstream channel elevation being 183.22 masl. Several Channel Page 195 of 354 Page 818 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 28 peaks can be seen within the profile which represent the vegetation and woody debris present throughout the reach. Pool and riffle morphology can also be seen within the reach where the average riffle gradient is observed to be the same as the channel gradient of 0.0003 or 0.032%. Figure 3-17: Profile of Reach TMt1 from Southwest to Northeast showing Chainage (m) and Elevation (masl) 3.2.2.5.2 Reach TMt2 Figure 3-18 shows the cross-section cut perpendicularly to the flow within the channel for Reach TMt2, spanning from the north (left) to the south (right). The channel is shown relative to the top of banks on either side and is seen to be unconfined. Relatively flat grounds can be seen on either side of the channel where the grass is well-landscaped as it cuts through the property at 2525 Montrose Road (Club Italia Event Centre). The bankfull channel width within this cross-section is noted to be approximately 5 m and the observed bankfull depth is approximately 0.4 m. Figure 3-18: Cross-section through Reach TMt2 from Northwest to Southeast showing Distance (m) and Elevation (masl) The channel profile as seen in Figure 3-19 was obtained from the upstream end at the southeastern extent of the landscaped property (left) to the downstream extent at Kalar Road (right). The profile is of the channel bed trends directly east to west through the landscaped property. The overall channel gradient is observed to be 0.003 or 0.3% with the upstream channel bed elevation being 183.15 masl and the downstream channel elevation being 182.7 masl. Two large peaks can be seen within the profile which represent the culvert crossings present through the reach. This reach lacks well defined pool and riffle morphology and the most downstream culvert is partially crushed at the upstream end. Channel Page 196 of 354 Page 819 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 29 Figure 3-19: Profile of Reach TMt2 from Southwest to Northeast showing Chainage (m) and Elevation (masl) 3.2.3 Hydrology & Hydraulics Hydrology is the science which deals with the interaction of water and land. Hydrology focuses on the processes by which precipitation is transformed into runoff to the receiving watercourses, returned to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration, or infiltrated into the shallow and deep groundwater systems. One of the most dramatic changes brought about by urbanization is the change in hydrology. For example, the replacement of vegetation and undisturbed terrain with impermeable surfaces (e.g., pavement and roof tops), landscapes graded for rapid drainage, and the construction of an underground storm drainage network all result in the greater interception of water that would have naturally infiltrated into the ground, or evapotranspirated and that instead is directly and rapidly transported as surface runoff to streams. As a result, groundwater recharge diminishes, which in turn could potentially affect baseflows within streams which rely on groundwater discharge. A more rapid rate of stormwater runoff from rainfall and melt events can result in an increase in the total volume, peak flow, and frequency of runoff occurrences. Uncontrolled, these hydrologic changes can result in increases in flooding, channel erosion, sediment transport, and pollutant loadings. These changes can also cause deterioration in natural channel morphology, fish and wildlife habitats, recreational opportunity, and aesthetics. River hydraulics is the science of flow conveyance through a channel system. Hydraulic analysis uses the stream flow (runoff output) from hydrologic models along with channel and floodplain characteristics including river crossing details to establish flood elevations for specific return period events. The primary function of a floodplain is the conveyance of flood waters during extreme runoff events resulting from intense precipitation events and extreme spring melts. The results of a hydraulic analysis are dependent upon the shape, slope, material and the land-use of the channel and associated floodplain, the flow rate, and the location of structures (buildings, roads, etc.). NPCA regulates development applications within flood-susceptible areas such as the floodplains of watercourse systems. It is important that the existing hydrologic characteristics of the study area and its watercourses be established. This information is critical in defining existing flood characteristics, defining regulatory floodplain limits, and providing key information on the selection and design of stormwater management facilities for future urban development lands. Page 197 of 354 Page 820 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 30 3.2.3.1 Study Area Hydrology The Northwest Subwatershed Study Area is almost entirely within the Ten Mile Creek Subwatershed. Mapping available through the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) indicates that headwater areas of Ten Mile Creek begin east of the QEW and are conveyed under the highway and through the study area. Ten Mile Creek flows under Kalar Road at the downstream (western extent) of the study area just north of the gated driveway along Kalar Rd. accessing the soccer pitch (approximately 2513 Kalar Rd.) Several Headwater Drainage Features drain to the Ten Mile Creek within the Study Area. These HDFs are further discussed in Section 3.2.1. A 2020 Digital Terrain Model (contour interval no less than 1.0m) received through the City of Niagara Falls has allowed us to map catchment areas in the vicinity of the Study Area. Figure 3-20 shows the Ten Mile Creek catchment area as delineated from the Kalar Road crossing downstream of the Study Area. Watercourse layer mapping shown on this figure was provided by the City of Niagara Falls. Through contemporary watercourse mapping obtained from NPCA, the features to the east of the QEW are defined as rural drainage. Mapping indicates that the catchment area includes major system drainage associated with developed areas to the east of the QEW and to the south of the Study Area boundary. The total catchment area delineated as draining to Ten Mile Creek is 150.0 ha, this includes 100.3 ha within the Study area and 49.7 ha from upstream areas to the south and east. Existing residential properties fronting onto Mountain Road in the northwest corner of the Study Area drain north towards Six Mile Creek. A small (less than 1 ha) area along the southern Study Area border within the hydro corridor appears to drain southwest towards Shriner’s Creek. Local soil composition plays a significant role in determining how much precipitation is infiltrated and how much follows local surface water features as runoff into Ten Mile Creek. Soil survey mapping available for the study area shows local soils primarily consist of loamy textured soils over lacustrine silty clay. Soil classification is shown on Figure 3-21. Page 198 of 354 Page 821 of 1679 3-20 Page 199 of 354 Page 822 of 1679 CITY OF NIAGARAFALLS Ten-Mile Creek W-4-1 S hrin er'S C re ekMountain Rd Kalar RdMewburn Rd M o n t r o s e R d Mount Carmel Blvd Q u e e n E l i z a b e t h W a y Projection: NAD 1983 CSRS UTM Zone 17NData Source: City of Niagara Falls Figure 4 - 3 Date: 11/12/2024 1:5,000 Local Soil ClassificationNorthwest Secondary Plan Area Copyright 2024 – The Regional Municipality of Niagara and its Suppliers. All Rights Reserved. Legend Northwest Area Creeks Road Centerlines Soil Survey Complex: BEVERLY - LOAMY PHASE BEVERLY - RED PHASE NOT MAPPED PEEL - LOAMY RED PHASE PEEL - RED PHASE TAVISTOCK TAVISTOCK - RED PHASE TOLEDO TOLEDO - LOAMY PHASE ® Niagara River FORTERIE ST.CATHARINES NIAGARA-ON-THE-LAKE THOROLD NIAGARAFALLS WELLAND ¯ 1:400,000 0 125 25062.5 Meters 3-21 Page 200 of 354 Page 823 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 33 3.2.3.2 Hydrologic Model A hydrologic model was developed to simulate the predevelopment hydrology of the study area. During Phase 2 of this study, the hydrologic model will be updated to evaluate the hydrologic impacts of development, and how proposed stormwater infrastructure solutions can mitigate the impacts of urbanization. Appendix B provides the technical inputs/details of the hydrologic model setup for the Northwest Subwatershed Study area. 3.2.3.2.1 Design Storm The design storm is a critical precipitation event, used for assessing the flood hydrology for a certain return period (occurrence frequency). Design storms are created based on statistical analysis of historical storm data and are region specific. The 24-hour SCS storm distribution was provided by NPCA for use in the PCSWMM model for this study area. The 24-hour rainfall depths for the 2, 5, 10, 25, and 100-year return period storms, that have been applied in the PCSWMM model for the Northwest Subwatershed Study Area Tributaries are 49.5, 62.6, 71.3, 82.3, 90.4, and 98.5-mm respectively. Hyetograph tables are provided in Appendix B. 3.2.3.2.2 Hydrologic Modelling Results The PCSWMM Model was used to estimate peak flow rates where Ten Mile Creek flows off the western study area perimeter at Kalar Rd (Figure 3-20). With a design storm approach, a rainfall input (i.e. duration, return period depth, and temporal distribution) is selected and corresponding flows are determined. Factors that contribute to runoff response that are utilized by the hydrologic models include antecedent moisture conditions, topography and land use characteristics such as imperviousness. These model inputs are identified in Appendix B. With this approach, a key assumption is that the generated peak flows are of the same return period as the applied design storm. Table 3.4 summarizes the estimated flow rates in Ten Mile Creek upstream of Kalar Rd. This location is shown as flow node “TM” on Figure 3-22. Page 201 of 354 Page 824 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 34 Figure 3-22: Hydrologic Model showing Total Catchment area and Flow Node “TM” Table 3.4: Flows at Study Area Boundary upstream of Kalar Road Area 2-year (m3/s) 5-year (m3/s) 10-year (m3/s) 25-year (m3/s) 50-year (m3/s) 100-year (m3/s) Hurricane Hazel Event (m3/s) TM Upstream of Kalar Rd. 0.324 0.478 0.591 0.743 0.866 0.992 3.572 Legend Catchment Boundary Catchment Discharge Surface Water Feature Flow Node Culvert Crossing Page 202 of 354 Page 825 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 35 3.2.3.2.3 Existing Flood Lines NPCA regulates Flood Hazard Limits within the Study Area. Engineered floodplain mapping produced using hydrologic and hydraulic modelling extends up Ten Mile Creek but terminates 100 m upstream of Garner Road. As such there is no floodplain mapping available for the Study Area nor are channel cross-sections available. The floodplain mapping shown in Figure 3-23 to the south of the Northwest Subwatershed Study area is associated with the Shriner’s Creek subwatershed and has no hydraulic impacts on the study area. As noted in Section 3.2.3.1, the total catchment area identified via desktop analysis as draining to Ten Mile Creek at Kalar Road is approximately 150.0 ha, including 100.3 ha within the Study area and 49.7 ha from upstream areas to the south and east. Moving upstream from the hydrologic inputs associated with roadside ditch along the east side of Kalar Road, the catchment area contributing to Ten Mile Creek reduces significantly. While a 125 ha minimum catchment threshold has been used by NPCA for floodplain mapping studies, site specific flood hazard delineation may be requested for smaller catchments. Floodplain delineation was not included within the project scope and may be required as part of future development applications. Page 203 of 354 Page 826 of 1679 3-23 Page 204 of 354 Page 827 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 37 3.2.3.3 Stormwater Management Stormwater conveyance features within the Northwest Subwatershed Study Area are limited to municipal infrastructure within road rights-of-way and private stormwater features in areas that have previously been developed. Ditching along Kalar Road discharges directly to Ten Mile Creek at the site boundary. Catchment mapping of the major system (Figure 3-20) shows several developed areas south and east of the study area contributing to Ten Mile Creek. These areas are primarily residential but lack water quality or water quantity controls. Existing development at 2525 Montrose Road (Club Italia Event Centre) and 3017 Montrose Road (Redeemer Bible Church) are areas of significant impervious surfaces but appear to lack water quality and water quantity controls. 3.2.4 Surface Water Quality Monitoring Water quality, including the pollutant levels found in surface runoff, can impact both human and ecological well-being. The modification of natural environments to agricultural and urban land uses can impact the landscape, vegetation, and ecological functions within a subwatershed, which in turn can contribute to increases in the levels of pollutants in the receiving watercourses. There are a variety of pollutants as well as other physical, chemical and biological characteristics used to measure water quality. Some of the most common categories include: • Solids (e.g., suspended solids, volatile solids, turbidity); • Nutrients (e.g. phosphorus, nitrogen); • Bacteria (e.g., coliforms); • Metals (e.g., copper, zinc); • Temperature; • Chlorides; and • Dissolved oxygen. Provided below is an overview of these water quality parameters, their importance and influence in terms of aquatic and ecosystem health, and the potential impacts of urban development. Solids and Turbidity Suspended solids concentrations and turbidity both indicate the amount of solids suspended in the water, whether mineral (soil particles) or organic (algae). High concentrations of particulate matter can cause increased sedimentation and siltation in a stream, which in turn can degrade/impact important habitat areas for fish and other aquatic life. Elevated levels of suspended solids can also negatively affect water quality by absorbing light, thereby warming the water. Warm water holds less dissolved oxygen than cool water. The suspended particles also provide attachment places for other pollutants, such as metals and bacteria. High suspended solids or turbidity readings thus can be used as indicators of other potential pollutants. Land use is probably the greatest factor influencing changes in TSS or turbidity in streams. Agricultural and urban land use results in an increase in disturbed areas, a decrease in vegetation, and an increase in the rate of runoff. These cause increases in erosion, particulate matter, and nutrients, which promote increased algal growth. For example, loss of vegetation due to Page 205 of 354 Page 828 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 38 urbanization exposes more soil to erosion, allowing more runoff to form, and simultaneously reduces the subwatershed’s ability to filter runoff before it reaches the stream. Nutrients Instream nutrients are essential for growth. The additional algae and other plant growth supported by nutrients may be beneficial up to a point but may easily become a nuisance or negatively impact aquatic species/habitat. The main nutrients of concern are phosphorus and nitrogen. Nutrient loading can result in increased algae growth. Excessive growth of attached algae can cause low dissolved oxygen (DO), unsightly conditions, odors, and poor habitat conditions for aquatic organisms. Pollution from urban development can impact instream nutrient concentrations in a number of ways. Municipal and industrial discharges usually contain nutrients, and overland flow from developed watersheds contains nutrients from lawn and garden fertilizers as well as the additional organic debris, which is washed from urban surfaces. Increased runoff from urban surfaces may result in increased rates of erosion, which can also be a significant source of nutrients to receiving streams, as nutrients are also naturally present in many soils in Ontario. Agricultural areas also contribute to nutrient increases through manure and fertilizing practices and increased erosion from plowed surfaces. Pathogens (Bacteria) Fecal coliform bacteria are microscopic organisms that live in the intestines of warm-blooded animals, as well as in the waste material, or feces, excreted from the intestinal tract. When fecal coliform bacteria are present in high numbers in a water sample, it means that the water has received fecal matter from one source or another. Although not necessarily agents of disease, fecal coliform bacteria may indicate the presence of disease-carrying organisms, which live in the same environment as the fecal coliform bacteria. Bacteria levels do not necessarily decrease as a subwatershed develops from rural to urban. Instead, urbanization usually generates new sources of bacteria. Farm animal manure and septic systems are replaced by domestic pets and leaking sanitary sewers. Metals Urban transportation systems (i.e. roads) are a primary source of metals in stormwater runoff to urban streams and groundwater. All cars, even the cleanest vehicles, shed small amounts of metals, fluids, and other pollutants. Cadmium, copper, cobalt, iron, nickel, lead and zinc are deposited into the environment by vehicle exhaust, brake linings, and tire and engine wear. They accumulate on road surfaces and are then washed into storm drains with the next rainfall. Galvanized metal rooftops, gutters and downspouts, and moss control products are also a source of zinc in stormwater. Some copper comes from architectural uses and treated wood, and a primary source is brake pads. The erosion of soils can also be a significant natural source of metals within stormwater runoff. Temperature Water temperature is important because it governs the kinds of aquatic life that can live in a stream. Fish, insects, zooplankton, phytoplankton, and other aquatic species all have a preferred Page 206 of 354 Page 829 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 39 temperature range. If temperatures get too far above or below this preferred range, the number of individual species decreases until finally there are none. Additional to point sources of heat pollution such as of heated municipal and industrial discharges, the process of subwatershed development also can affect temperatures in nearby streams. Streambank vegetation is lost when land is cleared, thereby exposing the stream to increased warming by sunlight. A less obvious impact is that runoff water may be warmer, especially during the summer months when it flows over hot rooftops, asphalt or concrete. Chlorides Chloride is a conservative pollutant, in that it is not degraded or removed from water by any natural process. High levels of chlorides can inhibit plant growth and impair reproduction. They also reduce the diversity of fish and other aquatic organisms in streams. Chloride is a general surrogate for development pressures, from road salting and septic systems. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) Like terrestrial animals, fish and other aquatic organisms need oxygen to live. As water moves past their gills (or other breathing apparatus), microscopic bubbles of oxygen gas in the water, called dissolved oxygen (DO), are transferred from the water to their blood. In addition to being required by aquatic organisms for respiration, oxygen also is used for decomposition of organic matter and other biological and chemical processes. Unlike other water quality parameters discussed in this section, higher values of DO are typically considered indicative of good water quality. Stormwater runoff delivers oxygen-demanding substances to streams. When a subwatershed becomes developed, greater quantities of pollutants are released and the total volume of runoff increases. Most conventional pollutants (sediments, nutrients, organic matter) require oxygen for decomposition or for chemical reactions. Consequently, instream DO concentrations often decrease in a developed or developing subwatershed. A water quality parameter closely related to DO is Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD). BOD5 is a measure of the dissolved oxygen required by microorganisms to oxidize or decompose the organic matter within a water sample over a five-day laboratory test. It is used as a means to describe the amount of organic matter present in the water. The higher the BOD5, the more demand on dissolved oxygen within a water system. 3.2.4.1.1 Scope and Methodology One (1) water quality monitoring station was established downstream of Kalar Road within the Ten Mile Creek tributary that flows through the study area. The water quality monitoring station is shown in Figure 3-24. Page 207 of 354 Page 830 of 1679 Page 208 of 354 Page 831 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 41 Methodology The following items were used during grab sampling and field measurements: 1. Equipment/Materials: ALS sampling bottles, ice, coolers, sampling device, and sample bottles, thermometer, pH sample kit 2. Reagents and Chemicals: Preservatives (several collection bottles require an additive such as nitric acid (HNO3) to preserve the samples until they are analyzed) Sampling Methodology The sampling program covered one (1) dry weather base flow events (no precipitation within 48 hours of the sampling event) and one (1) wet-weather high flow events (rainfall events greater than 15 mm). As per standard protocols, field staff attempted to collect samples on the rising limb of the hydrograph when pollutant concentrations were greatest following the commencement of a significant storm event (typically cumulative precipitation depths greater than 15 mm). During each sample event one individual grab sample was collected at each monitoring location. Wet weather samples can be highly variable based on the magnitude and distribution of the rainfall event, number of dry days preceding the events, and the timing of the sample collection in comparison to the rising limb of the hydrograph. Grab Sample Collection Individual grab samples were collected by filling a typical sampling device and distributing sample to each of the sampling bottles to be submitted for analysis. The sampling device was filled facing an upstream directly with the sampled waterbody. Prior to sample collection, the use of the “triple rinse” technique, a standard procedure, was used to neutralize the sampling device from one monitoring station to the next. Sampling bottles were filled with sufficient volume to eliminate air bubbles or as directed by the laboratory. Field Measurements Field measurements were conducted during sampling as part of quality control procedures and included pH, dissolved oxygen (DO), temperature and conductivity. A YSI Professional Plus was used to measure each of these parameters. The device was calibrated prior to each use in the field according to the manufacturer’s specifications to ensure accurate results. The meter probes underwent the same “triple rinse” methodology using de-ionized water, to ensure that water from previously sampled sites did not cross-contaminate samples from subsequent sites. Water Quality Monitoring Parameters Table 3.5 lists the parameters that were analyzed and the sampling procedures utilized at the time of sampling. The sampling parameters were chosen to align with the NPCA Regional Monitoring program. Page 209 of 354 Page 832 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 42 Table 3.5 Water Quality Parameters & Sampling Procedure Parameters Sampling Procedure/Type Details Physical Grab Total Suspended Solids Bacterial Grab E. coli Nutrients Grab Chloride, Nitrate, Total Phosphorus Metals Grab Copper, Lead, Zinc Temperature, pH, Conductivity, Dissolved Oxygen Field Measurement YSI Professional Plus 3.2.4.1.2 Water Quality Results The following section summarizes the water quality monitoring results. Lab reports for each sampling event can be found in Appendix C. Water quality results were compared to the following agency where applicable: • PWQO: Provincial Water Quality Objectives • CCME: Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment The PWQO are numerical and narrative criteria which serve as chemical and physical indications representing a satisfactory level for surface waters of the Province. The PWQO are set at a level of water quality which is protective to all forms of aquatic life and all aspects of aquatic life cycles during indefinite exposure to the water. These objectives cover a large range of parameters including physical parameters, nutrients, metals, PAHs, and other chemicals. The CCME guidelines provide science-based goals for the quality of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Standards and guidelines from these sources were used on a select few parameters where there no PWQO was available. The CCME provides a narrative guideline for TSS: the maximum increase of TSS should be no more than 25mg/L from background concentrations. To remain consistent with the NPCA Water Quality Monitoring Program, a background TSS concentration of 10 mg/L was assumed and therefore a concentration of 35mg/L was used as the guideline. The CCME provides both a short-term and long-term guideline for Chloride. Due to the nature of the sampling program (limited grab sampling throughout the year), the short-term value was used as a guideline for Chloride in the results tables below, however any exceedances of the long-term guideline were also noted. Grab Sampling Results Two (2) water quality samples were taken at the Northwest monitoring station in 2024, one wet- weather sample and one dry weather (Table 3.6). Total Phosphorus was observed to be in exceedance in both the dry weather sample and wet weather sample with the concentrations observed being approximately 3-5 times greater than the PWQO guideline value. E. Coli was also observed to be in exceedance during the wet weather sample and was approximately 16 times Page 210 of 354 Page 833 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 43 greater than the PWQO guideline value. None of the metals sampled for were observed to be in exceedance of their respective guidelines for either the dry or wet weather event. Neither of the Chloride concentrations observed exceeded the short-term guideline, however both concentrations exceeded the long-term guideline. Table 3.6: Northwest Water Quality Results Parameter Units Standard/ Guideline Dry Weather Samples Wet Weather Samples 06-Sept-24 30-Oct-24 Total Suspended Solids mg/L 351 6.9 32 Chloride mg/L 6401 2363 6353 Nitrate (as N) mg/L 2.91 <0.100 0.177 Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.032 0.137 0.0956 Escherichia coli (E. Coli) CFU/100mL 1002 49 1600 Copper mg/L 0.0052 0.00218 0.00092 Lead mg/L 0.0052 0.000437 0.000313 Zinc mg/L 0.022 0.0047 <0.003 1CCME Guideline 2PWQO Guideline 3Chloride value exceeded the long-term CCME guideline of 120mg/L Field Measurement Summary Field measurements were conducted during sampling as part of quality control procedures and included pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO) and conductivity. Table 3.7 display the results of the field measurements taken during water quality sampling. Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations should not fall below the values specified in the PWQO guidelines for cold and warmwater biota. On average, PWQO guidelines for warm and coldwater biota range are 47% Saturation (Sat) and 54% Sat, respectively. Dissolved oxygen levels recorded during the wet weather sample were above both the coldwater and warmwater PWQO guideline, however the dissolved oxygen recorded during the dry weather sample fell below both guidelines. pH values for all stations fell within the PWQO guidelines (6.5-8.5) for both sampling events. The conductivity value is typically influenced by dissolved salts and water temperature. It is likely that the higher conductivity is related to the higher chloride concentrations that was observed during these samples, with both exceeding the long-term CCME guideline and the wet weather concentration falling just below the short-term guideline. Page 211 of 354 Page 834 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 44 Table 3.7: Field Measurement Results Parameter Units Standard/ Guideline Dry Weather Samples Wet Weather Samples 06-Sept-24 30-Oct-24 Temperature °C N/a 18 N/a pH N/a 6.5-8.5 7.84 7.82 Conductivity µS/cm N/a 1394 2550 Dissolved Oxygen % Sat 45% (warmwater) 54% (coldwater) 27.6 66.1 3.2.4.2 Surface Water Monitoring Conclusions and Recommendations The Ten Mile Creek Tributary sampled during this study flows across the study area from east to west, and based on site visits at various points of the study, likely experiences periods of low flow to stagnation during the summer and periods of dry weather. While there no background information about the water quality conditions within the Ten-Mile Creek subwatershed, there is a NPCA water quality monitoring station just south of the study area within Shriners Creek (site ID: SH002). Water quality results from this monitoring station between 2019-2023 were similar to those observed during the two samples taken within the study area in 2024. Similar to the Northwest results outlined above, the common parameters in exceedance at SH002 were Total Phosphorus and E. Coli which is common in areas that are surrounded by agricultural lands. It should be noted that due to the lack of available background information within this Watershed, and the limited number of samples that were included within this program, it is difficult to make any substantive statements or draw any detailed conclusions about the baseline water quality conditions within this watershed. It is recommended that a more robust water quality monitoring program be developed to inform on the baseline pre-construction conditions within the Watershed and that it be continued through the construction and post-construction phases. 3.3 Natural Heritage Natural heritage features and functions within the study area were characterized primarily from Aquafor Beech’s field investigations in 2024. Background resources (such as high-level vegetation community mapping maintained by NPCA) were reviewed and incorporated where available; however, for much of the study area, there was little existing information available, as such Aquafor relied on first-hand observation, base mapping, and aerial photographs. The results of this characterization exercise are presented in the following subsections, with Section 3.3.3 addressing Aquatic Resources and Section 3.3.4 addressing Terrestrial Resources. The potential for Species at Risk (Section 3.3.5) and Significant Wildlife Habitat (Section 3.3.6) have been discussed in separate subsections as these may encompass both aquatic and terrestrial systems. Page 212 of 354 Page 835 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 45 3.3.1 Background Information Sources A variety of sources were reviewed in an attempt to obtain background information that would provide context of the setting and sensitivity of the study area and surrounding lands. Sources that were reviewed for relevant information as part of the natural heritage characterization exercise include: • Current and historical air photos (2024, 2020, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2010, 2006, 2002, and 1934 - via Google Earth); • Region of Niagara and City of Niagara Falls Official Plans; • The Niagara Natural Areas Inventory, Volumes 1 and 2 (NPCA, 2010); • The Beaverdams and Shriners Creek Watershed Plan (NPCA, 2011); • Niagara River Watershed Fish Community Assessment (MNRF unpublished report, A. Yagi and C. Blott, 2012); • NPCA ELC mapping layers (Dougan & Associates, North South Environmental, 2022) • The Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) ‘Make A Map’ online mapping and database of significant species and natural areas; • Provincial species atlases (Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario, Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas, Ontario Butterfly Atlas); and • Flora and fauna occurrence records obtained from various sources (e.g., eBird and iNaturalist community science websites. 3.3.2 Ecological Field Studies Timing and Methodology The work plan for this study included three seasons of field investigations to characterize the existing conditions in the subwatershed study area and confirm existing data where applicable. As of the submission of this interim report, only the summer and fall 2024 field seasons have been completed, with additional work scheduled for spring and early summer 2025. The following sections therefore provide only the results of those investigations plus any related preliminary discussion, with the remainder to be provided in the final report. Table 3.8 summarizes the surveys conducted, provides an overview of the methodologies used, and lists the dates for the natural heritage field investigations completed by Aquafor staff as part of the Northwest SWS. Due to the large size of the study area, field investigations were scoped by necessity. This SWS acknowledges that future site-specific studies (completed as part of development applications or for other purposes) will be able to complete more detailed investigations on individual properties and that, where appropriate, the results of those detailed, site-specific investigations may amend or refine the results shown in this study report. That said, this SWS provides a comprehensive Page 213 of 354 Page 836 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 46 overview of the study area and considers its position and function within the larger landscape, and is expected to form the foundation upon which future site-specific studies are built. Table 3.8: Summary of Ecological Field Surveys Component Methodology Date(s) Completed Aquatic Ecology Aquatic Habitat (Section 3.3.3.1) Aquatic habitat was assessed using OSAP Version 10 (2017): Section 4: Module 1 (Rapid Assessment Methodology for Channel Structure) September 6, 2024 Fish Communities (Section 3.3.3.2) Fish communities were sampled using OSAP Version 10 (2017): Section 3: Module 1 (Fish Community Sampling using Standard, Single Pass Electrofishing Techniques) September 6, 2024 Terrestrial Ecology Vegetation Community Assessment (Section 3.3.4.1) Vegetation community surveys were completed in accordance with the Ecological Land Classification (ELC) system for Southern Ontario, First Approximation (Lee, et al., 1998), although supplemental community types from the Draft 2008 Southern Ontario ELC were utilized where no applicable community type was available to accurately represent the attributes of the feature being investigated. Existing ELC information and mapping from prior assessments was incorporated and updated as available and appropriate. The overall goal was to map the study area to a minimum of ecosite resolution. Aug. 15, Aug. 22, and Oct. 4, 2024 Spring assessment to be completed in 2025. Botanical Inventories (Section 3.3.4.2) Botanical inventory was conducted over three seasons (spring, summer, fall) concurrently with Ecological Land Classification surveys, using an area search methodology. Aug. 15, Aug. 22, and Oct. 4, 2024 Spring assessment to be completed in 2025. Breeding Bird Surveys (Section 3.3.4.3) Breeding birds were surveyed over two separate early-morning site visits between the end of May and early July (i.e., within the general peak breeding season identified by the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas). Area search methodology was used (i.e., slow walking transects within representative habitats on accessible properties and along roadsides) to obtain a fulsome list of the species present in the study area. To be completed in 2025 Page 214 of 354 Page 837 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 47 Component Methodology Date(s) Completed Migrant and Overwintering Birds (Section 3.3.4.3) A single site visit was completed to review migratory and overwintering habitat characteristics in early spring 2025, with emphasis on species or features that might trigger Significant Wildlife Habitat criteria. To be completed in 2025 Crepuscular Birds (Section 3.3.4.3) One survey was completed per the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas Nightjar Survey Instruction Manual (2022). To be completed in 2025 Amphibian (Frog and Toad) Calling Surveys (Section 3.3.4.4) Amphibian calling surveys were conducted at the study site in accordance with the methodology of the Marsh Monitoring Program (Bird Studies Canada, 2009), i.e., three separate surveys beginning half an hour after sunset once the required minimum air temperatures have been met in April (5°C), May (10°C), and June (17°C), respectively. To be completed in 2025 Vernal Pool Review (Section 3.3.4.4) A review of woodlands was completed following the first warm rain of spring to identify the locations of vernal pools in woodlands and complete a preliminary review for the presence of salamanders or egg masses (non-intrusive visual survey only, no collection of individuals or eggs was completed). To be completed in 2025 Bat Roosting Habitat (Section 3.3.4.5) A review of bat roosting habitat was completed during the leaf-off period when cavities and similar features were most visible. Larger treed areas were sampled via a plot method and extrapolated for the overall number of trees per area. To be completed in 2025 Other Wildlife (Section 3.3.4.5) Incidental observations of wildlife were recorded during all other field surveys. All dates listed 3.3.3 Aquatic Resources Aquatic resources play an important role in the natural heritage system, and both human health and ecosystem health are largely dependent on stable aquatic resources. Understanding these resources provides a better idea of overall ecosystem health and aids decision makers when applying the OP to the protection of both aquatic resources and the overall NHS. The following sections discuss these resources in two parts: aquatic habitat and fish communities. Aquatic ecology assessments were completed on September 6, 2024 for the Northwest Subwatershed study area. The aquatic components of the study area and photographs from Aquafor’s site visit are provided in the following subsections. Page 215 of 354 Page 838 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 48 The Northwest Subwatershed Study Area is almost entirely within the Ten Mile Creek subwatershed. Mapping available through the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) indicates that headwater areas of Ten Mile Creek begin east of the QEW and are conveyed under the highway and through the study area. Ten Mile Creek flows under Kalar Road at the downstream (western extent) of the study area just north of the gated driveway at 2513 Kalar Rd. Ten Mile Creek drains into the Welland Canal, ultimately flowing into Lake Ontario. One aquatic ecology site was designated for study within the boundary of the Northwest Subwatershed study area, hereafter referred to as NW1, as demonstrated in Figure 3-25. The study site was located in Ten Mile Creek, within the Ten Mile Creek subwatershed and Beaverdams & Shriners Creek Watershed within the NPCA jurisdiction. The study area is located in Local Management Area 1.9, as indicated within the Beaverdams and Shriners Creek Watershed plan, where land use is characterized primarily by residential with a mix of agriculture and vacant lands (Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, 2011). Natural heritage features within this management area include provincially significant wetlands (Welland Canal Turn Basins and Reservoir) and Lake Gibson, Moodie Lake and the Welland Canal wetland complex. In addition, significant remnant wooded areas, numerous unevaluated wetlands and Shriners Creek Conservation Area are also located within the watershed. Page 216 of 354 Page 839 of 1679 3-25 Page 217 of 354 Page 840 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 50 3.3.3.1 Aquatic Habitat Aquatic habitat characteristics, as described in the following section, are major determinants for biotic composition, which is an indicator of aquatic ecosystem health. Understanding aquatic habitat can therefore determine relationships with biotic composition, providing a better understanding of subwatershed health and integrity. While aquatic habitat changes constantly, anthropogenic disturbance can impact habitat, stressing the relationship with aquatic habitat and biological/chemical indicators. The habitat characteristics investigated within the immediate study sites as well as the adjacent watercourses include: • Bank characteristics; • Stream width (wetted and bankfull); • Instream cover (e.g., woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, vegetation); • Riparian cover (vegetation composition, quality and width); and • Physical barriers to fish movement (e.g., woody or debris jams, knickpoints, etc.) 3.3.3.1.1 Methodology An aquatic habitat assessment was completed on September 6, 2024 for the Northwest Subwatershed study area, using the Rapid Assessment Methodology for Channel Structure of OSAP (Section 4: Module 1) (Stanfield, 2017). 3.3.3.1.2 Results The following sections will discuss OSAP findings for the study area, with site photographs displayed in Table 3.9. The aquatic ecology site was located ~465 m south of the intersection of Mountain Road and Kalar Road in the City of Niagara Falls. The upstream extent was noted by two HDPE culverts on the west side of Kalar Road, with the downstream extent located ~40 m downstream. The average wetted width was ~1 m, while the mean depth at crossovers was ~50 mm. The maximum particle size was contributed by riprap at the two HDPE culverts. Overall, flow was extremely minimal and stagnant throughout, with isolated pockets of water throughout the study area (Photo 1). Ten Mile Creek crossed under Kalar Road through the CSP culvert(s), and demonstrated straightened features upstream of the study area with historic ditching and realignment through the Niagara Sport and Social Club grounds. The study area suggested intermittent flow due to stagnant and isolated water. Habitat throughout the study area was poor, with little opportunity for fish outside of the plunge pool located immediately downstream of the CSP culvert(s) (Photo 2). At the time of surveying, fish passage throughout the study area was not feasible. Instream substrate was dominated by silt, with some gravel dispersed throughout. The tributary demonstrated features of a straightened watercourse, with anthropogenic alterations including riprap and culverts that hardened the tributary. Water depths within the channel averaged ~80 mm, while the maximum depth within the plunge pool was ~1000 mm. Instream cover quantity was low, which consisted of macrophytes (cattail species) and wood. Woody material accumulation was observed near the mid-section of the site extent (Photo 3). Overall, the study area did not represent high-quality habitat for fish due to excess silt, cloudy, sediment-suspended water, and stagnant flow contributing to low dissolved oxygen. Page 218 of 354 Page 841 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 51 Fine materials such as silt dominated the instream substrate as a result of extreme sediment loading, likely attributed to surrounding and upstream agricultural land use. Rip rap was located at the upstream extent of the study area, surrounding the two HDPE culverts that serviced Kalar Road (Photo 4). Banks were generally stable throughout with gradual slopes that featured herbaceous and scrubland vegetation that covered the banks. The large pool downstream of the culvert suggested that flow that was conveyed by the crossing is capable of significant erosion and scouring. Some minor indications of erosion such as cut banks were observed, however, banks overall were stable. A generous, forested buffer surrounded the tributary within the study area, reaching up to 100 meters on each bank. Meadow and scrubland vegetation such as Jewelweed was noted in the immediate riparian area of the watercourse (Photo 5). Upstream of the study area and on the east side of Kalar Road, lawn was maintained to the immediate banks of the tributary within the property of the Club Italia lands (Photo 6). Beyond the naturalized area, agricultural land use was dominant, with residential properties and the QEW highway located upstream of the tributary, which all likely contribute contaminants and nutrients to the system. Phragmites was noted along the east side of Kalar Road. Consolidated clay was observed near the downstream extent of the site, which could prevent the burrowing ability of fish. Page 219 of 354 Page 842 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 52 Table 3.9: Representative Aquatic Habitat Photographs of NW1 Photo 1: Dry channel Photo 2: General aquatic habitat Photo 3: Woody material accumulation Photo 4: Large scour pool at U/S extent Page 220 of 354 Page 843 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 53 Photo 5: Jewelweed within riparian zone Photo 6: Upstream conditions of study area 3.3.3.2 Fish Communities Fish are effective biological indicators. They occur in a wide variety of habitats which are widely studied. Ontario fishes exhibit a wide range of tolerances to many disturbances and are easy to identify to species level. The following section focuses on the fish communities found within the Northwest subwatershed study area. Within the Niagara region, fish habitat is categorized into 1 of three categories: Type 1, Type 2 or Type 3. Habitat is based on the sensitivity and significance of current or potential habitats in a waterbody, with Type 1 habitat representing the most sensitive habitat, and Type 3 representing marginal or highly degraded habitat that does not contribute directly to fish productivity. The study area has been classified as Type 2 Habitat (important), as demonstrated in Figure 3-26, which represents less sensitive habitat than Type 1 habitat and requires a moderate level of protection. This type of habitat is considered ideal for enhancement or restoration projects and includes feeding areas for adult fish and unspecialized spawning habitat (Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, 2011). Page 221 of 354 Page 844 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 54 Figure 3-26: Fish Habitat in Beaverdams and Shriners Creek Watershed (Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, 2011) Page 222 of 354 Page 845 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 55 3.3.3.2.1 Methodology Fish sampling was conducted at NW1 (Ten Mile Creek) on September 6, 2024 by Aquafor Beech Limited trained ecology staff (Science Collection No. AYGU-2024-FWCA-00872). Surveys were conducted according to the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP) Section 3 – Module 1: Fish Community Sampling Using Screening, Standard and Multiple Pass Electrofishing Techniques. Surveys were conducted using a Halltech HT2000 Backpack Electrofisher and involved a standard single pass sampling technique with one netter. Sites were standardized following appropriate OSAP procedure in that each reach is represented by at least 40 m between one crossover and another. OSAP field sheets are presented in Appendix D. 3.3.3.2.2 Results A summary of the species found at NW1 is provided in Table 3.10. The only sampleable habitat throughout the study area was within the scour pool located downstream of the culverts and west of Kalar Road, which totaled ~10 m in length. Water was stagnant and highly turbid from suspended sediment with depths over 1 m. Conditions downstream of the study area were largely dry with isolated pockets of water. Fish that were sampled in the study area were isolated in the scour pool, suggesting that habitat fragmentation is present throughout the watercourse due to varying water levels and likely responsive to runoff events. In total, nine individual fish were captured that represented four species overall. Given the extremely poor habitat conditions within the sampled area, all species sampled were tolerant of low dissolved oxygen, high turbidity, pollution and high-water temperature. The community was comprised of cool-warm water, tolerant species that are commonly found in the Niagara region. Of significance, one Northern pike (Esox lucius) with a total length of ~350 mm was sampled, while another Esox sp. was observed within the pool. Within the Beaverdams and Shriners Creek Watershed Report, recorded species within Ten Mile Creek historically included: Central mudminnow, Common carp, Fathead minnow, Iowa darter and Spottail shiner (Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, 2011). While the sampled fish community differed from the recorded community in the watershed report, all species were intermediately tolerant of disturbance and are common within the Niagara region. Page 223 of 354 Page 846 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 56 Table 3.10: Fish Community Results from NW1 (Eakins, 2023) Species Conservation Status Characteristics Count (Individuals Sampled) Scientific Name Common Name National Rank (NRank) Provincial Rank (SRank) Tolerance Spawning Months Thermal Regime Micropterus nigricans Largemouth Bass N5 S5 Tolerant May – June Warmwater 2 Esox lucius Northern Pike N5 S5 Intermediate March – May Coolwater 1 Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed N5 S5 Intermediate May – August Warmwater 5 Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead G5 S4 Tolerant May – June Warmwater 1 Page 224 of 354Page 847 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 57 3.3.3.2.3 Fisheries Act Regulatory Review The federal Fisheries Act requires that projects avoid causing the death of fish and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat unless authorized by the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). This applies to work being conducted in or near waterbodies that support fish at any time during any given year or are connected to waterbodies that support fish at any time during any given year. As noted above, the study area(s) does contain fish at any time during any given year. Therefore, the Fisheries Act applies to works conducted in or near water at the site. Prior to completing any in or near water works, the design should be cross-referenced with the DFO “Projects Near Water” online service to determine if a request for regulatory review under the federal Fisheries Act is required (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2019). Based on field investigations conducted by Aquafor staff and background information, the study area does contain fish at any time during any given year. Should any works be proposed in the subwatershed that may result in Fisheries Act implications, it is recommended that the proponent exercise the Measures to protect fish and fish habitat listed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to avoid contravention with the federal Fisheries Act and exercise due diligence by further mitigating accidental death of fish and the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2023). It is further recommended that these mitigation measures be included in the detailed designs of any in or near water works, with any and all applicable Codes of Practice (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2022) exercised where feasible. 3.3.3.2.4 In-Water Timing Windows Based on the observations discussed above and on recommendations made by the DFO’s In-water Work Timing Window Guidelines (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2013) for Ontario’s Southern Region, no in-water works should take place between March 1st and July 1st of any given year. This restriction is aimed to protect the species that are likely to occur in the study area during their vulnerable life stages of spawning and rearing and should be implemented to avoid contravention to the Federal Fisheries Act, among other mitigation measures. These timing window guidelines are to be confirmed by the DFO during the Regulatory Review, if required. 3.3.4 Terrestrial Resources Terrestrial resources in the study area include the flora and fauna species that are present as well as the habitats that support them. Habitat suitability for various species, including Species at Risk (SAR), is generally determined based on the vegetation communities that are present, as there can be specific correlations between certain community types (which often develop only under certain physiographic conditions) and the species that they are able to support. The surveys and associated results described in the following sections aid in the identification and delineation of features protected under provincial and municipal natural heritage policies. Page 225 of 354 Page 848 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 58 3.3.4.1 Vegetation Community Classification Vegetation community delineation and assessment focuses on identifying individual habitat features such as forests, wetlands, and meadows, and paints a picture of how these features fit together at the landscape level. Mapping of vegetation communities is an important preliminary step in the delineation of the Natural Heritage System (NHS), as it informs the interpretation of habitat patches and mosaics that may be critical to the survival of particular plants or animals in the local context. The formation of vegetation communities is highly dependent on physical site characteristics such as level of moisture, soil texture, and slope, and so the community types present may also be used to draw conclusions about physical site aspects, such as flooding potential. 3.3.4.1.1 Methodology Vegetation community assessments were conducted in 2024 on the dates listed above in Table 3.8 and will continue into 2025. Vegetation communities were assessed according to Ecological Land Classification (ELC) for Southern Ontario (Lee, et al., 1998), a standardized methodology developed by the MNRF, and supplemented with community types from the Draft 2008 Southern Ontario ELC in situations where no applicable community type was available from the First Approximation to accurately represent the attributes of the feature. ELC polygons were evaluated to the community type level wherever possible, although there were sometimes missing or conflicting characteristics that necessitated the use of ecosite or series-level labels being applied instead. Although the smallest polygon size generally assessed under this methodology is 0.5 ha, Aquafor Beech Limited reviewed all distinct features on the landscape to determine their sensitivity/significance, and therefore the resulting ELC mapping produced for this report may include some polygons of less than 0.5 ha size where these were deemed appropriate to include. Soil sampling to ELC protocol standards using a hand auger was carried out in all natural (as opposed to cultural) community types to evaluated soil moisture where wetland status was in question. 3.3.4.1.2 Results Following are the preliminary results of vegetation community assessments completed in the study area during the summer and fall, 2024 study season. Additional information will be obtained in spring of 2025, and the evaluation will be finalized at that time. A total of 32 ELC polygons were defined through the field work conducted by Aquafor Beech biologists in 2024. In-situ field surveys were completed throughout most of the lands within the study area, although some locations were either inaccessible due to lack of land access granted and/or lacking in natural heritage features to be assessed, and these features were evaluated as described above. A complete list of communities and a general description of each community type is provided in the final report. All but one of the vegetation communities (1 polygon) recorded within the study area are considered common and secure; none are rare at a global or national level. Dry – Fresh Oak – Hickory Deciduous Forest (FOD2-2) is potentially rare at the provincial level with a classification of S3S4 indicating there is insufficient information exists to accurately assign a single rank at the provincial level, but will be treated as rare. Page 226 of 354 Page 849 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 59 The 31 polygons are composed of a total of 11 unique vegetation types, not including hedgerows and anthropogenic communities which are not recognized by ELC methodologies. The bulk of the naturalized areas are deciduous swamps with some thicket, mash, and hedgerow communities. At the time of the fall 2024 site visit, vegetation in Polygon 1 had been partially removed. However, based on the remaining undisturbed vegetation in the Polygon, ELC community MAM2-2 has been extrapolated across the entirety of the community based on a review of aerial imagery suggesting vegetation in the cleared areas is similar in composition. One ‘inclusion’ was delineated within Polygon 1, defined generally as areas where distinct communities are found within a larger polygon, but are too small to be individually mapped. In this instance, it was a Common Reed Graminoid Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAMM1-12) within the larger Reed-canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh (MAM2-2). In cases where the community codes in the 1998 ELC manual fell short of describing the communities present, updated codes provided by MNRF in 2008 (unpublished), were used (noted in brackets in Table 3.11). Additionally, some communities have not been field verified and are noted with asterisks. A list summarizing the vegetation types delineated by Aquafor Beech in 2024 is presented in Table 3.11, and an overview of Aquafor’s community delineations is provided in Figure 3-27. 3.3.4.1.3 Summary and Conclusions To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025. Table 3.11: Overview of Vegetation Communities Delineated by Aquafor, 2024 Code1 G Rank S Rank Name Polygon Numbers (Area) Deciduous Forest FOD2-2 G4? S3S4 Dry – Fresh Oak – Hickory Deciduous Forest 3 (0.70 ha) FOD -- -- Deciduous Forest 25* (.37 ha) Deciduous Forest Swamp SWD2-2 G? S5 Green Ash Mineral Deciduous Swamp 2 (1.43 ha) SWD3-2 GNR S5 Silver Maple Mineral Deciduous Swamp 4 (3.78 ha) SWD -- -- Deciduous Swamp 15* (0.84 ha) Thicket Swamp SWT2-2 G5 S5 Willow Mineral Thicket 6 (0.25 ha) Marsh Communities MAM2-2 GNR S5 Reed-canary Grass Mineral Meadow Marsh 1 (1.19 ha) Page 227 of 354 Page 850 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 60 Code1 G Rank S Rank Name Polygon Numbers (Area) MAMM1- 12 (MAS2) -- -- Common Reed Graminoid Mineral Meadow Marsh (Mineral Meadow Marsh) 7 (0.03 ha), 1.12 (0.03 ha) MAS2-1 G? S5 Cattail Mineral Shallow Marsh 5 (0.11 ha) MAM -- -- Meadow Marsh 18* (0.05 ha) Culturally Influenced Communities WOD (CUW) -- -- Deciduous Woodland (Cultural Woodland) 9* (0.25 ha) THDM (CUT) -- -- Deciduous Thicket (Cultural Thicket) 10* (0.24 ha), 11* (0.40 ha), 12* (0.14 ha), 13* (0.33 ha), 14* (0.12 ha) FODM11 (HR) -- -- Naturalized Deciduous Hedgerow (Hedgerow) 8 (0.22 ha), 19 (1.01 ha), 23* (0.21 ha) HR -- -- Hedgerow 20* (0.40 ha), 22* (0.30 ha), 24* (0.46 ha) CUM -- -- Cultural Meadow 17* (3.70 ha), 32 (0.12 ha) OAGM2 -- -- Perennial Cover Crops 26 (1.98 ha) OAG -- -- Open Agricultural 27 (62.20 ha) CGL_4 -- -- Recreational 21 (4.02 ha), 31 (6.90 ha) CVI_1 -- -- Transportation 16 (2.46 ha), 28 (1.59 ha) CVR_1 -- -- Low Density Residential 29 (3.64 ha), 30 (3.30 ha) * Denotes polygons that have not been reviewed in-situ. 1: When 2008 ELC codes have been implemented, the most appropriate First Approximate ELC codes are provided in brackets. 2: This community is an inclusion found within polygon 1. Page 228 of 354 Page 851 of 1679 Aquafor Beech 2024 ELC Overview (Interim) 0 340170 Metres Date: November 2024Author: KBProjection: UTM_Zone_17NSource: NPCAProject #: 67511 Mountain Rd Montrose Rd Q u e e n E l iz a b e t h W ay 27 - OAG 15 - SWD 25 - FOD 9 - WOD 4 - SWD3-2 3 -FOD2-2 26 - OAGM2 19 - FODM11 2 -SWD2-2 6 -SWT2-2 23 -FODM11 24 - HR 7 -MA 10 - THD 11 - THD 18 -MAM12 - THD 13 - THD 20 - HR 14 - THD 21 - CGL_4 28 - CVI_1 17 -CUM 31 - CGL_4 16 - CVI_1 29 - CVR_1 22 - HR 27 - OAG 30 - CVR_1 1 - MAM2-2 1.1 -MAMM1-12 5 -MAS2-1 8 - FODM11 32 - CUM Maxar Legend Study Area Anthropogenic (ANTH) Cultural Meadow (CUM) Deciduous Forest (FOD) Hedgerow (HR) Meadow Marsh (MAM) Shallow Marsh (MAS) Deciduous Swamp (SWD) Swamp Thicket (SWT) Deciduous Thicket (THD) Deciduous Woodland (WOD) Agricultural (AGR) Polygons only reviewed through aerialinterpretation Polygons based on NPCA, 2022 ELC This is preliminary ELC mapping and issubject to change pending spring field studies. Figure 3-27 Page 229 of 354Page 852 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 62 3.3.4.2 Botanical Inventory Botanical inventories are a key component of terrestrial ecological investigations, as these support the classification of vegetation communities (see Section 3.3.4.1) through the identification of dominant species, wetland indicators, etc., and also identify occurrences of noteworthy plant species such as SAR or regionally significant species. 3.3.4.2.1 Methodology Botanical inventories were undertaken concurrently with vegetation community studies in the summer and fall seasons. Spring surveys are to be completed in 2025. The botanical inventory aimed to identify as many species as possible that were present within a given community (recognizing that the large study area of the SWS prohibited the completion of thorough, three- season inventories in any one community; additional inventory is likely to be required during future studies to create a comprehensive species list for a site or property). The inventory was compiled via wandering area searches, conducted by qualified biologists with botanical expertise. Regional rarity was based off of checklist of the Vascular Plants of Niagara Regional Municipality (Oldham, 2010) and List of the Vascular Plants of Ontario’s Carolinian Zone (Oldham, 2017). 3.3.4.2.2 Results Following are the preliminary results of botanical inventories completed in the study area during the summer and fall, 2024 study season. Additional information will be obtained in spring of 2025, and the evaluation will be finalized at that time. A total of 100 species of vascular plants were catalogued during the botanical inventories undertaken in the study area in 2024. Of these, five (5%) were identified to the genus level due to lack of floristic characteristics for identification at the time of survey. Of those identified to species level, 73 (73%) are native to Ontario and 22 (22%) are introduced species. An annotated list of flora recorded within the study area is contained within Appendix E; it should be understood that additional species may be added to this list following the completion of field investigations in 2025. Coefficient of Conservatism (CC) values, per the Floristic Quality Assessment System for Southern Ontario (Oldham, Bakowsky, & Sutherland, 1995), are an accepted criterion for assessing botanical quality. The majority of species inventoried have a high range of habitat tolerances, as evidenced by the high proportion of species with low CC values. A total of five species with narrow habitat tolerances (i.e., with CC values ≥7) were found, Winter Bear Sedge (Carex albursina), Eastern Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), Royal Fern (Osmunda regalis), Swamp Pin Oak (Quercus palustris), and Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum). The number of native plant taxa found within each category of CC values, as categorized by Oldham, Bakowsky, & Sutherland (1995) is presented in Table 3.12. Page 230 of 354 Page 853 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 63 Table 3.12: Coefficient of Conservatism by Category Coefficient of Conservatism Categories # of Species Wide variety of sites (CC 0-3) 29 Typically associated with a specific community, but tolerate moderate disturbance (CC 4-6) 39 Associated with a plant community in an advanced successional stage (CC 7-8) 4 High degree of fidelity to a narrow range of parameters (CC 9-10) 1 The majority of the species recorded during surveys are considered to be common and secure in Ontario (S4 or S5). No species are provincially or federally rare. One species was determined to be locally rare, Hemp Dogbane (Apocynum cannabinum) found in Polygon 1 and 2. Further, 22 species observed in the study area are considered introduced in Ontario. A number of these species are considered to be invasive. Of these, the most prevalent and potentially problematic species are Common Reed (Phragmites australis spp. australis), European Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica), Glossy Buckthorn (Frangula alnus), Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense), European Privet (Ligustrum vulgare), White Willow (Salix alba), and Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Emerald Ash Borer (Agrilus planipennis) is prevalent in southern Ontario, and has caused severe decline of ash (Fraxinus spp.) trees throughout the study area. As ash trees continue to decline, Common Buckthorn (among other invasive species) has become more common, taking advantage of the opening canopy in previously forested and treed swamp habitats. 3.3.4.2.3 Summary and Conclusions To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025. 3.3.4.3 Birds Breeding bird surveys are a standard component of terrestrial ecological investigations since the bird species that breed in an area will reflect the type, quality, and extent of habitat that is present. Certain species of birds will only breed in particular habitat types (e.g., successional thicket, forest interior) or in a minimum habitat patch size (i.e., area-sensitive species). Breeding bird surveys are also completed to support the identification of SAR occurrences (see also Section 3.3.5) and Significant Wildlife Habitat (see also Section 3.3.6). For this assignment, Aquafor’s work plan included “standard” breeding bird surveys which include visual and auditory surveying for migrant songbirds during the nesting season, but also included specialty surveys for nightjars where habitat was suitable for that group. The results of nightjar surveys will be consolidated in this section of the report. Marsh bird surveys were not included for the Northwest Secondary Plan Study Area due to the lack of marsh habitat present. Supplemental review of overwintering and migrant birds will also be completed, both for general information and in support of the assessment of potential for Significant Wildlife Habitat (see Section 3.3.6). Results of migrant and overwintering bird surveys will also be incorporated into the following subsections. Page 231 of 354 Page 854 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 64 3.3.4.3.1 Methodology Breeding bird surveys and migrant/overwintering bird surveys will be carried out via area search methodology (i.e., wandering transects completed over a sufficient time to allow for the identification of the majority of birds inhabiting each section of representative habitat). The primary objective of the surveys will be to identify the species present and breeding in the study area, with some emphasis on successional/open habitats and similar areas which may provide Significant Wildlife Habitat but which may not be otherwise captured under natural heritage policy definitions. Breeding bird surveys will be completed during the peak breeding season (i.e., late may through early July) over the course of two separate surveys beginning no earlier than half an hour before sunrise and ending no later than five hours after sunrise, on days with clement weather and low wind. Migrant and overwintering surveys, in comparison, will be completed using similar methods in late winter or early spring. Crepuscular bird surveys will be completed using the Ontario Breeding Bird Atlas’ “Ontario Nightjar Survey Instruction Manual” (2021), which specifies surveys to occur between June 15 and July 15, beginning no earlier than 30 minutes before sunset and finishing within three hours after sunset. Surveys are required to occur on calm nights with high visibility, low wind, and little precipitation. Due to the overlap between the required conditions for these surveys and those of the third amphibian calling survey (see Section 3.3.4.4), crepuscular bird surveys are intended to be completed concurrently with the third and final amphibian calling survey in June of 2025. Background information sources (such as eBird records and the OBBA) were also reviewed with the intention of supplementing the results of the 2025 breeding bird surveys. Where those background sources did not provide precise location data for records, the resulting information was not specifically cited but was used to provide landscape context and as part of the significant species screenings completed in Sections 3.3.5 and 3.3.6. Incidental observations of birds were and will be recorded whenever encountered during all field investigations completed for this assignment. 3.3.4.3.2 Results Full results will not be available until after the completion of surveys in 2025. A list of species that were recorded incidentally through the course of Aquafor’s 2024 vegetation survey field investigations, plus any species reported from background resources, is provided in Table 3.13. 3.3.4.3.3 Summary and Conclusions To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025. Page 232 of 354 Page 855 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 65 Table 3.13: 2024 Incidental Bird Observations and Background Records Species Status Data Source Comments Common Name Scientific Name S-Rank Niagara (NAI 2009) American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos S5 Common resident Aquafor incidental, eBird American Goldfinch Spinus tristis S5 Common resident Aquafor incidental, eBird American Robin Turdus migratorius S5 Very common resident Aquafor incidental, eBird Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata S5 Very common permanent resident Aquafor incidental, eBird Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus S4 Uncommon permanent resident Aquafor incidental Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum S5 Common resident eBird Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula S5 Very common resident Aquafor incidental Downy Woodpecker Dryobates pubescens S5 Common permanent resident Aquafor incidental European Starling Sturnus vulgaris SNA Very common permanent resident Aquafor incidental, eBird Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis S5B, S3N Common resident Aquafor incidental House Sparrow Passer domesticus SNA Very common permanent resident Aquafor incidental Killdeer Charadrius vociferus S4B Common resident Aquafor incidental, eBird Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura S5 Very common resident Aquafor incidental, eBird Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis S5 Common permanent resident Aquafor incidental Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus S5 Common resident Aquafor incidental Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis S5 Common transient, uncommon resident Aquafor incidental, eBird Page 233 of 354Page 856 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 66 Species Status Data Source Comments Common Name Scientific Name S-Rank Niagara (NAI 2009) Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus S5 Very common resident eBird Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura S5B Uncommon resident, common transient Aquafor incidental White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis S5 Common transient and winter resident, uncommon summer resident Aquafor incidental White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis S5 Very common transient, uncommon winter resident eBird Migrant Page 234 of 354Page 857 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 67 3.3.4.4 Amphibians Amphibians (frogs, toads, and salamanders) are highly sensitive to environmental stresses such as air and water pollution. Populations of many amphibian species have been in decline over recent decades, particularly in heavily populated and industrialized areas, due to anthropogenic impacts. Amphibian surveys may therefore be used as an indicator of overall ecosystem health. Locations with high numbers and/or a high diversity of breeding amphibians are considered significant habitats on the provincial level (MNRF, 2015). 3.3.4.4.1 Methodology Frog and toad species are readily identifiable during their breeding periods, when they migrate to breeding ponds and give audible calls that can be identified to species (often from a great distance). Roadside survey stations for frogs and toads were chosen throughout the study area based on aerial interpretation of potentially suitable habitat characteristics. In comparison, salamanders do not make any audible calls and must be surveyed visually. For this assignment, Aquafor will take the approach of surveying for suitable breeding habitat features (i.e., woodland vernal pools) and, where found, conducting a visual inspection in and around these features in early spring for evidence of breeding adults or egg masses. Due to the sensitivity of salamanders to disturbance, staff will take care to minimize disturbance to potential habitat and will not conduct any sampling or capture of animals for this study. Calling surveys for frogs and toads will be conducted using the methods of the Marsh Monitoring Protocol (MMP) (Bird Studies Canada, 2009). Three separate calling surveys will be undertaken in April, May, and June, or when the minimum required air temperatures are met (5˚C, 10˚C, and 17˚C, respectively). Surveys will be conducted on still nights, with preference for evenings during or immediately after rain. Parameters to be recorded during each survey include date, time, air temperature, wind speed, the degree of cloud cover, and level of precipitation. At each call survey station, the intensity and number of calling amphibians will be documented using call level and abundance codes, as outlined in the MMP. Codes are as follows: Level 1: Calls are not simultaneous and calling individuals can be counted; Level 2: Some calls are simultaneous but individual calls are distinguishable and number of individuals can be estimated; and Level 3: Calls are continuous and overlapping, individuals cannot be distinguished. 3.3.4.4.2 Results Full results of amphibian surveys will be provided following the completion of surveys in 2025. Aquafor incidentally observed American Toad (Anaxyrus americanus) in the study area during the course of vegetation surveys in 2024. 3.3.4.4.3 Summary and Conclusions To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025. Page 235 of 354 Page 858 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 68 3.3.4.5 Bat Habitat Bats and bat habitat have become a topic of increasing importance in recent years, triggered in part by the designation of four Ontario species as Endangered due to the spread of a fungal pathogen known as White-nose Syndrome which caused significant mortality in overwintering colonies. The presence of summer and maternity roosting habitat for bats in woodlands can influence the determination of significance and the associated setbacks for such features. 3.3.4.5.1 Methodology Aquafor will utilize the MECP’s 2022 guidelines for Maternity Roost Surveys, supplemented by the older 2017 Guelph District MNRF “Survey Protocol for Species at Risk Bats within Treed Habitats, Little Brown Myotis, Northern Myotis & Tri-Colored Bat”, to review potential habitats in the study area. Acknowledging the overall scale of the SWS and to keep the task manageable within the project scope and timeline, a plot-based approach will be used for wooded areas whereby potential habitat trees (e.g., snags) within a fixed plot will be tallied and characterized, and that value will be extrapolated to provide an estimate of habitat density for the entire woodland. Features with a high density of snags (greater or equal to ten per hectare) are considered high quality potential maternity roost habitat and could therefore be recommended for a higher level of protection from adjacent disturbance. 3.3.4.5.2 Results To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025. 3.3.4.5.3 Summary and Conclusions To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025 3.3.4.6 Other Observations Mammals, reptiles, and insects were not directly surveyed during this study, although incidental observations of these and other taxa were and will be recorded during all terrestrial and aquatic ecology field surveys in order to make the characterization of the study area as comprehensive as possible. Incidental bird and amphibian observations have been incorporated into their respective sections, above. Other wildlife groups and organisms are discussed below. 3.3.4.6.1 Methodology Occurrences of wildlife or other organisms which were not actively surveyed (e.g., fungi) were identified by Aquafor staff in the field or via photographic reference. Verifiable background records of species submitted to the community science website iNaturalist were also the discussion below, with data source cited. 3.3.4.6.2 Results Two mammals (Table 3.14), 17 invertebrates (Table 3.15), and five fungi (Table 3.16) were identified by Aquafor Beech staff during the summer and fall 2024 field surveys. These results will be built upon in the 2025 field season. Page 236 of 354 Page 859 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 69 Most of the observed species are considered common both provincially and regionally with the exception of Monarch which is a Species at Risk (Special Concern provincially and Endangered federally) and Spined Micrathena which provincially rare with a subnational rank of S3S4. One additional species of concern was reported for the vicinity via the iNaturalist website: Black Purseweb Spider, provincially rare with a subnational rank of S3. Provincially rare species do not have regulatory implications under SAR legislation unless they are also listed as SAR, but will be a factor in the identification of Significant Wildlife Habitat (see Section 3.3.6 for further discussion). Table 3.14: Mammal Species List Species Status Data Source Common Name Scientific Name Coyote Canis latrans S5 Aquafor Raccoon Procyon lotor S5 Aquafor Table 3.15: Invertebrate Species List Species Status Data Source Common Name Scientific Name Butterflies and Moths Black Swallowtail Papilio polyxenes S5 Aquafor Cabbage White Pieris rapae SNA Aquafor Common Ringlet Coenonympha california S5 Aquafor Crescent species Phyciodes sp. - Aquafor Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Papilio glaucus S5 Aquafor Least Skipper Ancyloxypha numitor S5 Aquafor Monarch Danaus plexippus SC, S4B Aquafor Dragonflies and Damselflies Meadowhawk species Sympetrum sp. - Aquafor Spot-winged Glider Pantala hymenaea S4 Aquafor Other Arthropods Arrowhead Orbweaver Verrucosa arenata SNR Aquafor Black Purseweb Spider Sphodros niger S3 iNaturalist Common Eastern Bumble Bee Bombus impatiens S5 Aquafor Eastern Carpenter Bee Xylocopa virginica S4 Aquafor European Honeybee Apis mellifera SNA Aquafor Japanese Beetle Popillia japonica SNA Aquafor Grass Spider species Agelenopsis sp. - Aquafor Oak Leaf Gall Midge Polystepha pilulae SNR Aquafor Spined Micrathena Micrathena gracilis S3S4 Aquafor Page 237 of 354 Page 860 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 70 Table 3.16: Fungus Species List Species Status Data Source Common Name Scientific Name n/a Russula pectinatoides - Aquafor Silky Parchment Stereum striatum - Aquafor Turkey-tail Trametes versicolor - Aquafor Violet-toothed Polypore Trichaptum biforme - Aquafor 3.3.4.6.3 Summary and Conclusions To be provided following the completion of surveys in 2025. 3.3.5 Species at Risk For the purpose of this study, Species at Risk (SAR) are defined as species listed as Endangered (END), Threatened (THR), or Special Concern (SC) under the provincial Endangered Species Act (ESA) and/or the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA). Species listed provincially as Endangered and Threatened receive regulatory protection for themselves and their general or specific habitat under the ESA. The habitat of Special Concern species does not receive regulatory protection under the ESA but may be considered significant wildlife habitat (SWH) and thus be protected under municipal policy and the PPS (see Section 3.3.6 for further discussion). 3.3.5.1 Methodology In addition to the results of field surveys conducted for this study, background information sources were consulted to determine if there were existing records of SAR in or near the study area. Information from all background sources was combined to create a comprehensive list of potential SAR associations which was then screened by comparing the habitat needs of each species with the habitat conditions present within the subject property and adjacent lands. Species without any suitable habitat conditions present in the area may be screened out of further review. Species for which potentially suitable habitat conditions are present may be flagged for protection or further studies (e.g., targeted field investigations) as appropriate. 3.3.5.2 Results The results of Aquafor’s preliminary Species at Risk (SAR) screening are provided below in Table 3.17, along with any commentary resulting from the summer and fall site visits in 2024 and associated analysis. The full results of SAR screening and assessment will be provided once the additional field investigations are completed in 2025. Page 238 of 354 Page 861 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 71 Table 3.17: Preliminary Species at Risk Screening Results Species Status Comments Common Name Scientific Name Birds Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens Endangered Pending further evaluation. Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Threatened To be screened out - study area lacks steep eroding stream banks and similar topographic features which would support nesting by this species. Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Special Concern Pending further evaluation. Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Threatened Pending further evaluation. Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica Threatened Pending further evaluation. Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Special Concern Pending further evaluation. Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna Threatened Pending further evaluation. Eastern Wood-pewee Contopus virens Special Concern Pending further evaluation. Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Special Concern Pending further evaluation. Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus Endangered To be screened out - native habitat range is restricted to the extreme southwest of the province, with occurrences in the Niagara area resulting from escaped captive birds. Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Special Concern To be screened out - potential for migration flyovers but the study area lacks tall cliffs and buildings for nesting habitat. Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Endangered Pending further evaluation. Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Special Concern (Ont.), Threatened (Can.) Pending further evaluation. Page 239 of 354Page 862 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 72 Species Status Comments Common Name Scientific Name Reptiles and Amphibians Allegheny Mountain Dusky Salamander Desmognathus ochrophaeus Endangered To be screened out - species is known to only occur in two streams within the Niagara Gorge which are not physically or hydrologically connected to the current study area. Eastern Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum Special Concern (Can. only) Habitat potential is expected to be present in the study area. Midland Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta marginata Special Concern (Can. only) Pending further evaluation. Northern Dusky Salamander Desmognathus fuscus Endangered To be screened out - species is known to only occur in one location within the Niagara Gorge which is not physically or hydrologically connected to the current study area. Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina Special Concern Pending further evaluation. Timber Rattlesnake Crotalus horridus Extirpated To be screened out - this species is known to be extirpated in Ontario. Mammals Eastern Red Bat Lasiurus borealis Endangered (COSEWIC only) Pending further evaluation. Eastern Small-footed Myotis Myotis leibii Endangered Pending further evaluation. Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Endangered (COSEWIC only) Pending further evaluation. Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus Endangered Pending further evaluation. Northern Myotis Myotis septentrionalis Endangered Pending further evaluation. Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Endangered (COSEWIC only) Pending further evaluation. Tri-colored Bat Perimyotis subflavus Endangered Pending further evaluation. Page 240 of 354Page 863 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 73 Species Status Comments Common Name Scientific Name Invertebrates Monarch Danaus plexippus Special Concern (Ont.), Endangered (Can.) Observed in the study area by Aquafor staff. Mottled Duskywing Erynnis martialis Endangered To be screened out - local records from the Ontario Butterfly Atlas are >100 years old and preliminary site investigations did not identify preferred habitat types (i.e., dry, sparsely vegetated areas with its required larval host plants) Plants Black Ash Fraxinus nigra Endangered (Ont.), Threatened (COSEWIC) Pending further evaluation. Butternut Juglans cinerea Endangered Pending further evaluation. Deerberry Vaccinium stamineum Threatened Pending further evaluation. Page 241 of 354Page 864 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 74 3.3.5.3 Summary and Conclusions To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025. 3.3.6 Significant Wildlife Habitat Wildlife habitat is considered to be significant when it is “ecologically important in terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity” of wildlife habitat for a geographic area or portion of the natural heritage system (MMAH, 2024). Specifically, when habitat provides features and functions critical to the survival of an individual, species, or group, it may be considered Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH); for example, specialized vegetation communities, nest/den sites, overwintering sites, and migratory stopovers with particular characteristics may be limited on the landscape and/or provide habitat function during key life stages of the organism, and would therefore be considered significant. 3.3.6.1 Methodology The Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 7E (MNRF, 2015) and the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNRF, 2000) will be used to evaluate the presence of Significant Wildlife Habitat (SWH) within the study area, based on the available data from background sources and the on-site observations described in the preceding sections. 3.3.6.2 Results To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025. 3.3.6.3 Summary and Conclusions To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025. Page 242 of 354 Page 865 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 75 4.0 Opportunities and Constraints The term constraints is used here to indicate features or areas which will be subject to some limitation regarding future development (this includes natural heritage features which will be protected as part of the City’s NHS and natural hazard policy as outlined in the Official Plan). Opportunities for restoration and enhancement of existing natural heritage resources were identified based on the results of site investigations and a landscape-level review. It is recognized, however, that the opportunities identified do not represent the only opportunities for improvement that exist within the study area, and that future site-specific studies may refine or revise the noted locations with support from a suitable impact assessment or similar study. 4.1 Natural Hazards The City of Niagara Falls Official Plan (January 2024) outlines policies for Hazard Lands in Part 2, Sections 11.2.18 through 11.2.21. These are presented as reference below: 11.2.18 Natural hazard lands, including floodplains and erosion hazards, are included within the EPA designation because of their inherent risks to life and property. Natural hazard lands where identified by the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority or any study required under this Plan, shall be placed within an appropriate zoning category in the City's Zoning By-law. Development and site alteration may be permitted within or adjacent to floodplains or erosion hazards subject to written approval from the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. 11.2.19 Floodplains in the City are based on 100 year floodline mapping have been prepared for most waterways in the City. However a Regional Floodline shall apply to Beaverdams Creek, Shriner's Creek, Ten Mile Creek and Tributary W-6-5. 11.2.20 Where, as a result of a planning application, new Floodline or stream corridor mapping has been generated to the approval of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, amendments to this Plan may not be required. However, where the planning application involves a site specific Zoning Bylaw amendment, it shall be amended accordingly. 11.2.21 A geotechnical investigation may be required for development close or within areas susceptible to erosion. The geotechnical investigation shall evaluate the impact of the proposed development on slope stability on site and off site and shall provide recommendations on how negative impact can be avoided and slope stability improved. Along with the policy in the City’s Official Plan, relevant natural hazards policy includes the Conservation Authorities Act. Until revoked in April 2024, Ontario Regulation 155/06 Regulation of Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alteration to Shorelines and Watercourses (O. Reg. 155/06) was administered and enforced by NPCA. Since April 1, 2024, Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits have been regulated under O.Reg. 41/24. NPCA’s regulated areas comprise the following: Page 243 of 354 Page 866 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 76 a) Lands adjacent to or close to the shoreline of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River System that may be affected by flooding, erosion or dynamic beaches; b) River or stream valleys; c) hazardous lands; d) watercourses; and e) wetlands. Though O. Reg. 41/24 is administered at the development approval-level as opposed to the planning-level, it is prudent to consider these restrictions at present to avoid additional effort at a later time. 4.1.1 NPCA Flood Hazards Figure 4-6 in the Hydrology and Hydraulics section of this report identifies mapped flood hazard in close proximity to the Northwest Subwatershed Study Area. Flood hazard mapping does not extend onto the study area. O.Reg. 41/24 limits the amount of potential development in floodplains within the jurisdiction of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA). In most cases, NPCA defines the regulatory storm as the 100-year storm event. Three watercourses in the NPCA’s jurisdiction use the Regional Flood to determine the floodplain, these being Shriner’s Creek, Ten Mile Creek and Beaverdams Creek. In most cases, the NPCA implements a one-zone floodplain concept, where the entire floodplain defines the floodway and where new development in the floodplain are prohibited or restricted as illustrated in Figure 4-1. Figure 4-1: One Zone Floodplain Concept, MNR - River & Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit, 2002. Page 244 of 354 Page 867 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 77 4.1.2 Erosion and Migration Rate Assessment The erosion and migration rate assessment consist of vertical degradation and lateral migration erosion assessments, particularly of grade control structures or of erosion of engineered banks, respectively. Within the study area, no grade control features were observed within the reach, hence a vertical degradation assessment has not been conducted. Lateral migration and toe erosion analysis of the channel banks is presented below based on Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF, 2001) guidelines. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF, 2001) offers provincial guidelines for appropriate erosion hazard limits. Table 4.1 illustrates where the bank composition consists of cohesive soil, loose granular, or silty and sandy fill, the applicable erosion limit ranges between 8 to 15 meters depending on the observed conditions throughout the study area. The specific erosion hazard limit may factor in the site conditions including the RGA score assessed in the field investigation. Page 245 of 354 Page 868 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 78 Table 4.1: Erosion Hazard Limits by Bank Material (MNRF, 2001) Type of Material Native Soil Structure Evidence of Active Erosion ** OR Bankfull Flow Velocity> Competent Flow Velocity *** No evidence of Active Erosion** OR Bankfull Flow Velocity < Competent Flow Velocity*** RANGE OF SUGGESTED TOE EROSION ALLOWANCES Bankfull Width < 5m 5-30m > 30m 1. Hard Rock (granite) * 0 - 2 m 0 m 0 m 1 m 2. Soft Rock (shale, limestone) Cobbles, Boulders * 2 - 5 m 0 m 1 m 2 m 3. Stiff/Hard Cohesive Soil (clays, clay silt), Coarse Granular (gravels) Tills* 5 - 8 m 1 m 2 m 4 m 4. Soft/Firm Cohesive Soil, loose granular, (sand, silt) Fill* 8 - 15 m 1-2 m 5 m 7 m *Where a combination of different native soil structures occurs, the greater or largest range of applicable toe erosion allowances for the materials found at the site should be applied. **Active Erosion is defined as: bank material is exposed directly to stream flow under normal or flood flow conditions where undercutting, oversteepening, slumping of a bank or down stream sediment loading is occurring. An area may have erosion but there may not be evidence of ‘active erosion’ either as a result of well rooted vegetation or as a result of a condition of net sediment deposition. The area may still suffer erosion at some point in the future as a result of shifting of the channel. The toe erosion allowances presented in the right half of Table 3 are suggested for sites with this condition. ***Competent Flow Velocity is the flow velocity that the bed material in the stream can support without resulting in erosion or scour. Page 246 of 354 Page 869 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 79 4.1.2.1 Erosion Hazard Limits A detailed erosion hazard assessment consisting of a Meander Belt Assessment would be applicable for this reach as it consists of an unconfined section of the Ten Mile Creek Tributary and should be done as part of the future studies. An Erosion Hazard Assessment of the Northwest Study Area was not included in the scope of this study. The erosion hazard limit for unconfined systems (MNRF (2001)) consists of a meander belt allowance and Erosion Access Allowance as seen below in Figure 4-2. Erosion Access Allowance (EAA) is applicable to all erosion hazards and differs by conservation authority or regulatory agency. Provincial minimum EAA suggests that at least 6 m is required to offset all hazards associated with fluvial and valley erosion limits however, the NPCA policy states that a minimum setback of 7.5 meters from the NPCA approved physical top of slope or the location of the Stable Top of Slope (whichever is furthest landward) shall be required. Three main principles support the inclusion of the erosion access allowance include: • providing for emergency access to erosion prone areas; • providing for construction access for regular maintenance and access to the site in the event of an erosion event or failure of a structure; and • providing protection against unforeseen or predicted external conditions which could have an adverse effect on the natural conditions or processes acting on or within an erosion prone area of provincial interest. As such, the erosion hazard limit should incorporate a 7.5 m Erosion Access Allowance which would be applied to both sides of the watercourse. Figure 4-2: Erosion hazard limit for an unconfined system (MNRF, 2001) Page 247 of 354 Page 870 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 80 4.1.3 In-Stream Geomorphic Restoration Opportunities Within the Northwest Study Area, the completed geomorphic assessment identified one (1) restoration opportunity to address the straightened channel Reach TMt1. Channel restoration opportunities that may be considered as a result of future development may wish to evaluate the following strategies to maintain the geomorphic stability of the watercourse: • Daylighting the channel throughout the existing social club grounds and providing open bottom culverts for any proposed road crossings; • Reinstating a meandering planform to Reach TMt1; • Reinstating a pool and riffle morphology to Reach TMt1; • Maintain adequate riparian corridors and removal of any future invasive species within riparian corridors. 4.2 Natural Heritage The natural heritage component of the Northwest Subwatershed Study utilizes the characterization data detailed in this report and the criteria of the City of Niagara Falls and Niagara Region to identify areas or features that should be considered for inclusion in the Natural Heritage System (NHS). The following sections provide details of the analysis that was completed to determine the natural heritage constraints and opportunities within the study area, as well as considerations regarding buffers, linkages, and ecological restoration. 4.2.1 Natural Heritage System 4.2.1.1 Niagara Region The Official Plan (OP) of Niagara Region states that “the natural heritage system is made up of features such as wetlands, woodlands, valleylands, and wildlife habitat, as well as components such as linkages, buffers, supporting features and areas, and enhancement areas. The intent of the natural heritage system is to preserve and enhance the biodiversity, connectivity, and long-term ecological function of the natural systems in the region”. The NHS, in combination with the Water Resource System, forms the Region’s Natural Environment System. The features and areas included in the Region’s NHS, per Schedule L of the OP, include the following: • Significant wetlands, significant coastal wetlands, and other wetlands; • Fish habitat; • Significant woodlands and other woodlands; • Significant valleylands; • Habitat of endangered species and threatened species; • Significant wildlife habitat; and • Significant areas of natural and scientific interest. Page 248 of 354 Page 871 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 81 Further definitions and criteria for the noted features and areas are summarized in Appendix F. 4.2.1.2 City of Niagara Falls The City’s NHS, as described in the OP (2024 consolidation), includes the Environmental Protection Area (EPA) and Environmental Conservation Area (ECA) designations, plus applicable buffers and linkages. The OP’s aim is to “protect, maintain, and enhance the important ecological and environmental features within the City”, and to this end the OP specifies the following features as being included in the NHS designations: Environmental Protection Area: • Provincially Significant Wetlands • NPCA-regulated wetlands > 2 ha in size • Provincially Significant Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) • Significant habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species • Floodways and erosion hazard areas • Environmentally Sensitive Areas Environmental Conservation Area: • Significant woodlands • Significant valleylands • Significant wildlife habitat • Fish habitat • Significant Life and Earth Science ANSIs • Sensitive ground water areas • Locally significant wetlands or NPCA-regulated wetlands < 2 ha in size Policies pertaining to these areas are provided in section 11.2 of the City’s OP. Generally, new development and site alteration is not permitted in the EPA designation save for approved uses such as passive recreation and environmental conservation or management. Similar restrictions apply to the ECA designation with allowance for additional uses pending the completion of an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) or similar assessment to demonstrate that there will be no adverse impact to natural heritage features and their ecological functions. The criteria used for defining the EPA and ECA features above are provided and discussed in terms of their applicability to the study area in Table 4.2, below. It is noted that the City initiated the preparation of a new OP in 2024. As this document is not yet available, the existing OP will be used by this SWS in the review and evaluation of natural heritage features. Should there be changes in how the NHS is defined or approached in the new OP, future studies will need to evaluate natural heritage features in accordance with the new OP. Page 249 of 354 Page 872 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 82 Table 4.2: City of Niagara Falls NHS Components and Defining Criteria Feature Definition/Criteria Application Notes Environmental Protection Area Provincially Significant Wetlands (PSWs) Defined via provincial mapping or through the application of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (OWES) protocol. No PSWs are present within or adjacent to the study area. NPCA-regulated wetlands > 2 ha in size As of the enaction of O. Reg. 41/24, all wetlands are regulated by NPCA regardless of their size. Therefore, this category would include all wetlands over 2 ha in size that are not classified as PSW. A portion of the Ten Mile Creek Wetland Complex, which was evaluated as having “other” significance, is present within the study area; this feature measures at approximately 6.68 ha and includes ELC Polygons 1, 1.1, 2, 4, and 6. Additional wetlands in the same complex (approx. 22.6 ha) are mapped just west of the study area, on the far side of Kalar Road, which may have implications for the study area in terms of the associated buffer (see Section 4.2.2) Provincially Significant Life Science ANSIs Defined and classified by the MNRF. There are no identified ANSIs in the study area. Significant habitat of Endangered and Threatened Species The habitat, as approved by the province, that is necessary for the maintenance, survival, and/or recovery of naturally-occurring or reintroduced populations of species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Endangered and Threatened species to be evaluated for the study area following the completion of field investigations in 2025. Protected habitat is to be approved by the province prior to inclusion in the NHS, therefore this category will be kept separate from other Environmental Protection Area features. Floodways and erosion hazard areas Identified by NPCA or through applicable study. This has been depicted using NPCA’s Regulated Floodplain extent. Environmentally Sensitive Areas Identified for the region by prior studies. No ESAs were identified in the study area, and therefore this category was not applied. Environmental Conservation Area Page 250 of 354Page 873 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 83 Feature Definition/Criteria Application Notes Significant woodlands Treed areas identified by the City, Region or province as contributing to the health of the environment based on their provision of wildlife habitat, species diversity, hydrological value and identified significant species. Publicly-owned woodlands are also considered significant since they provide an excellent opportunity for the protection of the wooded area and its natural function. Provincial (i.e., size > 4 ha) and regional (per Section 4.2.1.1) criteria were applied to determine woodland significance. ELC Polygons 3 and 4 combined form a wooded area large enough to be considered a significant woodland. Significant valleylands Valleylands are identified through NPCA mapping; significance of valleylands to be identified per PPS and approved studies such as EIS. NPCA provided a Top of Slope mapping layer but nofeatures are present within the study area. Significant wildlife habitat Defined using the Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide (MNRF, 2000) and Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedules for Ecoregion 7E (MNRF, 2015). To be provided following completion of surveys in 2025. Fish habitat The spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes, as identified by relevant agencies or through applicable study. Confirmed fish habitat includes all streams, creeks, and rivers. Potential Headwater Drainage Features represent potential fish habitat that require further study (Figure 3-1). Significant Life and Earth Science ANSIs Defined and classified by the MNRF. There are no identified ANSIs in the study area. Sensitive ground water areas NPCA delineated Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas. No sensitive ground water areas are present within the study area. Locally significant wetlands and NPCA- regulated wetlands < 2 ha in size As of the enaction of O. Reg. 41/24, all wetlands are regulated by NPCA regardless of their size. Therefore, this category would include all identified wetlands less than 2 ha in size that are not identified as a PSW. Polygons 5, 6, 7, 15, and 18 are wetlands less than 2 ha in size but are still regulated by NPCA. Page 251 of 354Page 874 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 84 4.2.1.3 Northwest Subwatershed Study Recommendations Features which meet the criteria for inclusion in the NHS will be identified and mapped as part of the final Phase 1 report submission. As data collection for the study area is not yet complete, mapping has not yet been prepared as it would not accurately reflect the site conditions. 4.2.2 Buffers 4.2.2.1 Niagara Region Requirements The study area for this assignment falls within a Settlement Area as defined in the Region’s OP. Within Settlement Areas, the OP states that mandatory buffers from natural heritage features and areas are required. A mandatory buffer is described as a requirement for a buffer for which a minimum width has not been specified in policy as it is to be determined through the completion of an EIS, hydrological evaluation, or subwatershed study. Development and site alteration is not permitted within the mandatory buffer, except as specified in the OP or as supported through the completion of an EIS which demonstrates no negative impact on the buffer’s function. 4.2.2.2 City of Niagara Falls Requirements The City’s OP defines a buffer as “a naturally vegetated protective zone adjacent to a natural heritage feature or area serving to cushion and protect it from the impacts of human activities”. The OP further indicates that minimum vegetated buffers are to be applied to the Natural Heritage System including PSWs and NPCA wetlands > 2 ha (suggested minimum 30 m, with the note that exact specifications may be greater or less than 30 m depending on the results of an Environmental Impact Study). The City’s OP further notes that new development or site alteration within the vegetated buffers is not to be permitted. 4.2.2.3 NPCA Requirements NPCA policies for planning and development (2022, amended April 2024) indicate that where development is proposed adjacent to a wetland, a minimum 30 m buffer shall be provided. All wetlands regardless of size are regulated by NPCA and any future works within the study area that require site-specific study near or within a wetland, the NPCA staff reserve the right to review wetlands on a case-by-case basis. A reduction in buffer may be allowed if supported by an EIS, but only for non-provincially significant wetlands. For development or site alteration adjacent to a watercourse, the following requirements are specified: • A 30 m buffer shall be provided where the watercourse contains permanent flow. Notwithstanding this requirement, the buffer may be reduced where supported by an EIS in accordance with the NPCA Procedural Manual, but in no case shall the buffer be reduced below 15 m. • A 15 m buffer shall be provided for watercourses containing intermittent flow. Notwithstanding this requirement, the buffer may be reduced where supported by an EIS in accordance with the NPCA Procedural Manual. Page 252 of 354 Page 875 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 85 NPCA defines a buffer as “an area or band of permanent natural self-sustaining vegetation, located adjacent to a regulated feature and area and usually bordering lands that are subject to development or site alteration”. 4.2.2.4 Northwest Subwatershed Study Recommendations Ultimately, the width of a buffer should be informed by the sensitivity of the feature around which it is established, and therefore a blanket approach to buffers is not typically recommended. Instead, individual buffers may be recommended related to specific features or areas based on the ecological features and functions that are present. In keeping with the requirements noted above, it is recommended that a minimum default buffer of 30 m be applied as a starting point around all components of the NHS, and that future site- specific EIS should discuss the applicability of an increased or reduced buffer from that point. Features or areas for which a reduced buffer is proposed should demonstrate that they are of low sensitivity to disturbance overall or that the proposed adjacent land use will be sufficiently low- impact that harmful effects will be negligible. The minimum 30 m buffer will be applied to the NHS features identified in Section 4.2.1. 4.2.3 Linkages 4.2.3.1 Niagara Region Requirements Niagara Region’s OP defines a Linkage as “an area, that may or may not be associated with the presence of existing natural features and areas, that provides and maintains ecological connectivity between core areas consisting of natural features and areas, and supports a range of community and ecosystem processes enabling plants and animals to move among natural heritage features, in some cases over multiple generations, thereby supporting the long-term sustainability of the overall natural environment system”. Schedule L of the Region’s OP indicates that: “Known linkages have been identified between natural heritage features and areas and key natural heritage features consisting of natural areas (e.g., watercourses, valleylands, meadow, thicket, woodland, wetland, and hedgerows, etc.) or rural/agricultural lands without major barriers (i.e., developed areas or major roads greater than 30 m in width) based on the following set of criteria: a. large linkages (outside settlement areas and outside of the Provincial Natural Heritage System) that are: i. 200-400 m in width; and ii. connect core areas (i.e., a group of natural features and areas within 30 m of each other) with a combined area of ≥50 hectares in size; b. medium linkages (outside of settlement areas and outside of the Provincial Natural Heritage System) that are: i. 100-200 m in width; and Page 253 of 354 Page 876 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 86 ii. connect core areas (i.e., a group of natural features and areas within 30 m of each other) with a combined area of ≥20 hectares in size; c. small linkages, both inside and outside of settlement areas and outside of the Provincial Natural Heritage System) that are: i. 60-100 m in width; and ii. connect core areas (i.e., a group of natural features and areas within 30 m of each other) with a combined area of ≥10 hectares in size. The need to address opportunities for additional, ecologically appropriate linkages is flagged for when a subwatershed study is being completed in support of a secondary plan. The current Regional Natural Environment System mapping does not indicate the presence of linkages in the study area 4.2.3.2 City of Niagara Falls Requirements Policy 11.1.23 of the City’s OP states: “Linkages and natural corridors that provide a connection between natural heritage features can include valleylands, contiguous woodlands and wetlands, creeks, hedgerows, and service corridors. The City shall promote the function of valleylands or stream corridors as natural resource linkages and encourages the protection, naturalization and, wherever possible, the rehabilitation of valleylands or stream corridors in accordance with Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority Regulations. New development should not interfere with the function of these linkages and corridors and all efforts should be made through design for the enhancement or rehabilitation of natural heritage resource connections.” Policy 11.1.25 further states: “Development or site alteration in or near a natural heritage feature should be designed to maintain and, where possible, enhance the ecological functions of existing linkages. If necessary an alternative corridor may be created through the development process that will function as an ecological link between all natural heritage features in the area (water, wildlife, flora). Alternative corridors must be supported by an EIS that is reviewed by the appropriate authorities and approved by the City or Region.” Conceptual corridors and linkages have been illustrated in the OP with the intention that refinement or adjustment of the indicated locations will occur through the completion of watershed plans, EIS(s), or other studies. Within the study area, The City of Niagara Falls does not note any linkages. There is a linkage highlighted west of the study area connecting sections for Ten Mile Creek Wetland Complex along Ten Mile Creek. 4.2.3.3 Northwest Subwatershed Study Recommendations The identified linkage connects the significant woodland and wetland patch to other natural communities along the Ten Mile Creek. Any future development should consider these local Page 254 of 354 Page 877 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 87 linkages and protect or replicate their function to ensure that connectivity throughout the study area is maintained. 4.2.4 Natural Heritage Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities Environment Canada’s “How Much Habitat Is Enough?” document (2013) provides a general recommendation of 30% woodland cover and 10% wetland cover per subwatershed as a broad- scale goal to maintain ecosystem health. These values are not intended to be prescriptive but are provided as a threshold below which remnant natural areas may not be sustainable in the long- term with regards to ecological function. Currently, Northwest SWS study area is primarily agricultural with some successional communities including thickets, hedgerows, and meadows as well as some swamp and wetland communities. Swamp includes both treed swamps and swamp thickets. Therefore, the study area has approximately 9% wetland coverage (swamp and wetland) and between 1.2% (upland forest and woodlands only) and 7.2% (inclusive of treed swamps) wooded coverage. Figure 4-3: Land Cover Ratio using Preliminary ELC (2024) 4.2.4.1 General Principles Restoration opportunities with the potential for improving the existing NHS should be considered in keeping with the following principles: Anthropogenic84% Successional 7% Swamp6% Wetland2%Woodland1% Page 255 of 354 Page 878 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 88 • Size: Larger patches of habitat are generally more valuable than smaller. Opportunities to increase the size of existing patches of natural cover (e.g., by designating open space or establishing parks adjacent to existing natural areas) should therefore be considered. • Shape: Habitat patches which are compact (i.e., those which have less ‘edge’ per area) are generally more valuable than those which are linear or elongated. Edges are often associated with effects such as greater establishment of introduced and invasive plant species, increased rates of predation, increased noise disturbance, and changes to microclimate. Opportunities to fill in gaps and reduce the edge to interior ratio of natural heritage patches should therefore be considered. • Complexity: Natural areas with a high diversity of vegetation communities, microhabitats, and topographical features often support a wider variety of species (and a greater proportion of rare species) than those which are more uniform. Opportunities to increase the diversity of habitat across the landscape (e.g., by planting restoration areas with a variety of native species, by creating sloughs or pit/mound topography in restoration areas, or by conserving successional meadows and thickets in addition to forests) should therefore be considered. • Connectivity: Fragmentation of natural areas by development can lead to the isolation of habitat patches and the wildlife they support, limiting dispersal of individuals and reducing genetic variability within the population. Opportunities to maintain and improve existing connections between natural areas (e.g., by completing riparian planting along ephemeral watercourses and HDFs, or by widening and enhancing canopy cover along hedgerows) and to create new connections where they are currently lacking should therefore be considered. Restoration or enhancement of a site may occur either actively (i.e., by planting or seeding native vegetation, potentially accompanied by grading to create specific topography or features such as constructed wetlands) or passively (i.e., by ceasing management and allowing vegetation to colonize according to the in-situ seed bank). Active restoration is a more costly and labour- intensive approach, but it offers opportunities for community involvement (e.g., tree planting days) and can “kick-start” a site to a more advanced stage of succession (i.e., promote forest development through tree and shrub planting). It is also more likely to achieve a target vegetation community or species diversity target, since passively allowing succession to occur is more likely to allow colonization of a site by non-native and/or invasive species. Active restoration may form a required component of ecological mitigation, compensation, or offsetting plans related to impacts of proposed development; the need for and scope of such plans would be identified through the development application process (i.e., addressed as a component of a site-specific EIS or equivalent study), and would need to be developed in consultation with the approval authority. Page 256 of 354 Page 879 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 89 4.2.4.2 Niagara Region Enhancement Areas Niagara Region’s OP defines “enhancement areas” as ecologically supporting areas adjacent to natural heritage features and areas, key natural heritage features, and key hydrologic features, which are identified when they: • Connect natural features and areas to create larger contiguous natural areas; • Reduce edge habitat and increase proportion of interior conditions (> 100 m from edge); and • Include critical function zones and important catchment areas critical to sustaining ecological functions. Enhancement areas may be identified in areas composed of natural vegetation communities, currently under agricultural production, or do not contain a permanent form of development. Inside of Settlement Areas, enhancement areas are to be identified as follows: • In ‘bays and inlets’ along the edge of features - < 60 m wide; • Interior gaps in features - < 0.5 ha; • Gaps between features - < 60 m 4.2.4.3 Northwest Subwatershed Study Recommendations Opportunities for natural heritage restoration and enhancement will be identified in the final Phase 1 report for this SWS, based on the completed characterization of the study area and assessment of ecological function. 4.3 Consolidation of Constraints The above sections define the various constraints to development that were assessed for the study area, including those where additional study is required to refine the constrained area. Figure 4-4 provides an interim visual summary of the preliminary constraints to development posed by Natural Hazards and Natural Heritage. This figure will be updated in the final report in 2025 to account for the spring 2025 field investigations. The constraints included in the interim figure, or to be included in the final figure, are outlined in Table 4.3. Figure 4-4 only depicts the known constraints at the time of this interim report. Additional studies are to be completed in the spring including but not limited to Species at Risk habitat, Significant Wildlife Habitat, Ecological Land Classification (may impact wetlands and woodland boundaries), linkages, and restoration and enhancement areas. This figure should also be viewed in concert with Figure 4-5. It is the intention that future site-specific studies (e.g., Environmental Impact Study) may refine/confirm the boundaries of the illustrated constraints based on updated information (e.g., staking and survey of wetland boundaries or forest driplines, updated geotechnical investigations, etc.). Further, it is acknowledged that future studies related to transportation and utilities/servicing may affect the constraints illustrated in this SWS; if the placement of essential infrastructure results in impacts to constraint areas, it is expected that the Environmental Assessment for that infrastructure will address those impacts and provide any necessary mitigation or compensation. Future Environmental Assessments should consider the constraints Page 257 of 354 Page 880 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 90 and their triggering sensitivity presented within this study to best plan mitigations and compensation actions. In addition, Figure 4-5 presents locations where additional studies are required to confirm the presence or category of a constraint. These indicate potential constraints that were not evaluated as part of the scope of this Subwatershed Study phase, including: • Headwater Drainage Features (HDFs) (to be to be completed at a later stage) • Areas that are identified as Candidate SWH (to be included in final report). Due to the scale and scope of this study, some features are likely to be flagged for further study as a part of site-specific investigations, including parcels where access was not granted. • Erosion Hazard Limits • Private property where no site access was granted • Watercourses where classification review is recommended under Section 28(25) of the Conservation Authorities Act of Ontario Table 4.3: Description of Constraints Colour on Figure 4-4 Category Included Features Discussion Red Environmental Protection Area Per Section 4.2.1. Development intrusion is generally prohibited. City of Niagara Falls OP policies to apply. Feature boundaries as shown in this document may be refined through future study. Red Natural Hazards Per Section 4.1. Flood and erosion hazards have been delineated where possible but additional areas may require site specific evaluation. A buffer of 7.5 m has been applied to these features. Red - Hatched Preliminary Buffer on applicable EPA features Per Section 4.2.2. Default minimum 30 m buffer has been applied in keeping with approach used by the OP for visualization of constraints, but it is understood that final buffer size and configuration is to be assessed as part of EIS or similar study. Orange Environmental Conservation Area Per Section 4.2.1. City of Niagara Falls OP policies to apply to confirmed SWH, provincially and regionally significant woodlands, Significant Valleylands, and Fish Habitat. Orange - Hatched Preliminary Buffer on applicable ECA features Per Section 4.2.2. Default minimum 30 m buffer has been applied in keeping with approach used by the OP for visualization of constraints, but it is understood that final buffer size and configuration is to be assessed as part of EIS or similar study. Page 258 of 354 Page 881 of 1679 Figure 4-4 0 340170 Metres Date: November 2024Author: KBProjection: UTM_Zone_17NSource: NPCAProject #: 67511 Mountain Rd Montrose Rd Q u e e n E l iz a b e t h W ay Maxar Legend Study Area Known Environmental ProtectionAreas and Natural Hazards Known Environmental Conservation Areas Known Environmental Conservation Areas and Natural Hazards Buffers Known Environmental ProtectionAreas and Natural Hazards Buffers This figure only depicts the known constraints at the time of this interim report. Additionalstudies are to be completed in the springincluding but not limited to Species at Risk habitat, Significant Wildlife Habitat, Ecological Land Classification (may impact wetlands andwoodland boundaries), linkages, and restoration and enhancement areas. This figure should also be viewed in concert withFigure 5-1: Limitations of this Study. PRELIMINARY Interim Constraints to Development Page 259 of 354Page 882 of 1679 Limitations of This Study 0 340170 Metres Date: November 2024Author: KBProjection: UTM_Zone_17NSource: NPCAProject #: 67511 Mountain Rd Montrose Rd Q u e e n E l iz a b e t h W ay Maxar, Microsoft Legend Study Area Parcels No Site Access – Environmental Constraints to be assessment by Proponent(s) as part of a future study Watercourses Requiring ClassificationReview Under Section 28(25) of theConservation Authorities Act of Ontario (R.S.O. 1990,Cpt.27) AND Erosion Hazard Limit AssessmentRequired –Both to be completed byProponent(s) in consultation with NPCA as part of a future study Candidate HDFs Requiring In-situInvestigation Required - To becompleted by Proponent(s) as part of a future study This figure depicts potential constraints that have not been evaluated due to the scope ofthis study. These features will require additional investigations by the proponent(s) as a part of future studies prior to anydevelopment applications. PRELIMINARY Figure 4-5 Page 260 of 354Page 883 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 93 5.0 Recommendations for Further Study The following section outlines recommendations for further study based on the findings of the work completed to date. The noted recommendations are preliminary and may be updated both during the finalization of this Phase 1 report and during later phases of the SWS. 5.1 Groundwater Recommendations Based on the background research and the details observed during the site visit the following recommendations regarding groundwater are made: • Given the relatively thick overburden, it is anticipated that construction activities would be within the low permeability soils. It is not likely that groundwater control (short or long term) would be required. Given this, the zone of influence of any construction activities will be very small. • Development of the site will result in a decrease in evapotranspiration and infiltration and an increase in runoff. Mitigation measures can be implemented; however, the low percolation rates at the site will not be conducive to engineered LID measures that utilize infiltration as the main mechanism. Partial infiltration LIDs, filtration LIDs and more passive LIDs are recommended to mitigate the reduction in infiltration post development. This would include bioretention, green roofs, permeable pavements, enhanced swales etc. • Seasonal groundwater levels are important to fully evaluate potential impacts on groundwater. To date, no site-specific data evaluating groundwater levels and hydraulic conductivity has been made available. Therefore, it may be required to install several monitoring wells/piezometers across the site once design plans have been identified and proposed at the draft plan stage. • Once development plans have been finalized the post-development portion of the water balance can be completed to fully determine impacts on runoff values. 5.2 Surface Water Recommendations 5.2.1 Headwater Drainage Features HDFs are important in maintaining primary and secondary inputs to surface water, groundwater, and fish habitat as applicable; Candidate HDFs within the study area were previously defined in Section 3.2.1. A summary of the HDF management recommendations and implications, as provided in the TRCA and CVC guide (CVC & TRCA, 2014), as related to the hydrologic and ecologic function of each feature, is presented below in Table 5.1. In order to determine these management recommendations and potential implications to development constraints, Candidate HDFs identified in Section 3.2.1 are to be evaluated at a later stage following the timing window guidelines such that features are identified and management recommendations are accurately applied in subsequent phases of this study. Page 261 of 354 Page 884 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 94 A. A Standard Survey Type is to be applied, according to the recommendations in the Guidelines. This requires the use of the Ontario Stream Assessment Protocol (OSAP) to assess HDFs. The following modules are to be used by a certified individual: • Section 4: Module 10 (Constrained Headwater Sampling); and • Section 4: Module 11 (Unconstrained Headwater Sampling). Candidate HDFs that were identified in the preliminary field mapping displayed in Figure 3-1. Per the CVC & TRCA Guidelines, the OSAP Headwater module should be completed three times at each sampling location to assess the HDFs throughout the year: Site Visit #1: • Conducted from March-April, during the spring melt (frost-free conditions) • Intended to confirm Candidate HDF segments in the field Site Visit #2: • Conducted in April-May, when high melt flows have ceased • Ideally occurs before leaf-out, so that features can be easily observed • Includes fish community sampling using OSAP Site Visit #3: • Conducted in July-September, or when temperatures are consistently warm and conditions are dry • Intended to confirm hydrology, fish presence, and groundwater indicators B. Using the Guidelines, the results of the HDF assessments should be integrated with aquatic/terrestrial habitat observations, amphibian surveys, hydrology, and Species at Risk data. Due to the dynamic nature of these features, an extensive photo database should be compiled to ensure proper classification of these features. C. Once field surveys are complete, the HDFs are to be assessed in four steps, based on criteria outlined in the Guidelines, to classify each HDF: Step 1: Hydrology Classification: Flow conditions are classified into hydrology types Step 2: Riparian Classification: The feature is classified with regard to riparian conditions Step 3: Fish and Fish Habitat Classification: Fish and fish habitat is classified based on the presence of fish Step 4: Terrestrial Habitat Classification: Features are classified based on the presence of breeding amphibians and wetlands Page 262 of 354 Page 885 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 95 D. Finally, the results of Steps 1-4 are to be summarized and used in the Flow Chart within the CVC & TRCA Guidelines to assign a Management Recommendation (Table 5.1). The following management recommendations and implications are to be applied to the HDFs, as summarized from the TRCA/CVC Guidelines. Table 5.1: Summary of HDF Management Implications Management Implications HDF Classification Protection Conservation Mitigation No Management Required Must remain open Yes Yes n/a n/a Relocate using Natural Channel Design Not permitted, enhancement only May be considered, not preferred Natural Channel Design not required1 n/a Maintain or replicate groundwater or wetlands Maintain or enhance Maintain or replicate, restore if possible n/a n/a Maintain hydroperiod Yes Yes Yes n/a Direct connection to downstream Yes Yes Yes n/a Replicate function through enhanced lot conveyance control n/a n/a Replicate using bioswales, LID, vegetated swales or constructed wetlands n/a 1Unless the management recommendations call for the restoration of lost function or enhancement and creation of fish habitat. Please note that other considerations (e.g., flood hazard limits, wetland vegetation communities) may also apply to HDFs. Additionally, features which are assessed in the future as HDFs in the study area may be subject to the Conservation Authorities' Section 28 regulations following the update to the O. Reg. 41/41 made under the Conservation Authorities Act (February 2024), should be updated following consultation with and confirmation from the NPCA. Alterations to such features would require NPCA approval. Features observed during the assessments which fit the definition of a watercourse under this regulation, such that "a channel, having a bed and banks or sides, in which a flow of water regularly or continuously occurs should be reviewed in consultation with the NPCA and updated to reflect their management guidance. Candidate HDFs identified by this study provide indirect fish habitat function. Fish Habitat is a component of the municipal Natural Heritage System and would be classified as Environmental Page 263 of 354 Page 886 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 96 Conservation Area under the City’s Official Plan policies. However, it is recognized that the Evaluation, Classification, and Management of Headwater Drainage Features Guidelines set forth by the CVC and TRCA (CVC & TRCA, 2014) was developed with guidance from multiple stakeholder groups and is recognized by municipalities as a tool to provide direction specifically with regard to HDF management. Additional HDF Assessments shall be undertaken by others as part of future studies on features identified on agricultural properties prior to any development approval in order to accurately assess hydrologic functions of these features. This is especially the case if cultivated lands are allowed to go fallow in the intervening time. 5.2.2 Watercourses To ensure the hydrologic and hydraulic impacts of urban development are fully quantified and development is planned in a manner to best mimic the natural hydrologic and hydraulic regime, the following is recommended. A. That the hydrologic model be updated with proposed future land uses and that these results be used to evaluate the potential impacts to flooding and erosion in Ten Mile Creek. B. That climate change scenarios be incorporated into both single event and continuous hydrologic modelling for future scenarios in order to ensure community and infrastructure resiliency. C. That during Phase 2 of the Subwatershed Study, Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Practices consisting of source controls and conveyance be considered along with end-of-pipe SWM facilities to ensure the runoff regime is not significantly altered, natural hazards are not exacerbated, and important ecological features associated with aquatic and riparian habitat are maintained. These practices should be modelled via a continuous hydrologic model simulating average, wet and dry years in order to complete a robust analysis of water balance within the subwatersheds. D. That headwater protection be an ongoing consideration for any OP amendments as they contribute to the maintenance of baseflow and associated water quality, fisheries, ecological, and natural heritage benefits. 5.2.3 Erosion Hazard To ensure the development constraints are fully delineated and development is planned in a manner consistent with the aforementioned policies the following is recommended: • Meander belt considerations are warranted on all unconfined watercourse reaches that have a meandering channel morphology. • Future field investigations are required and will be completed at a later stage following the timing window guidelines to determine the existing conditions of the HDFs identified in Section 5.2.1. Should any drainage feature exhibit a channel morphology, then appropriate Page 264 of 354 Page 887 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 97 erosion hazard limits must be determined, consistent with NPCA guidelines and MNRF (2001) Guidelines. The appropriate determination of a confirmed watercourse should also be completed. These reaches that require such confirmations under Section 28(25) of the Conservation Authorities Act are highlighted in Figure 4-5. • Reach TMt1 was determined, as a part of this study, to require a meander belt assessment to determine development limits, and was not within the scope of this study. The MNRF (2001) and TRCA guidelines (2004) provides appropriate delineation procedures for this analysis and should be considered for determining a meander belt for conditions where the hydrologic regime is subject to change, due to the anticipated development within the catchment. Such development will reduce infiltration and divert additional flow to these watercourses. 5.3 Natural Heritage Recommendations 5.3.1 Site-Specific Studies The scope of work for this subwatershed study included a broad array of ecological field surveys within the study area that were intended to identify the major natural heritage constraints present and provide a baseline for future studies. However, the required scale of studies to address the large subwatershed study area was not necessarily conducive to providing detailed and comprehensive information on individual properties or locations. Further, detailed information concerning future development proposals was obviously not available as part of the current study in order to evaluate the potential impacts of those future developments on natural heritage features and functions. As a result, a site-specific study such as an EIS is anticipated to be required wherever development is proposed adjacent to natural heritage features, not only to confirm the existing conditions (per a scope of work to be determined at that time in consultation with the City, plus the Region and applicable agencies), but to assess the potential impacts of the proposed development and to propose appropriate measures for protection, mitigation, and/or compensation relative to the potential impacts. Regulatory requirements such as SAR permitting and confirmation of appropriate buffers would be completed as part of those site-specific studies. Specific recommendations for site-specific studies will be developed for the final report submission. On a preliminary basis, items that are expected to form a component of an EIS or similar study include the following: • Headwater Drainage Feature Assessments – where assessments are not completed as described above and at a later stage of this study, assessments should occur as described above in Section 5.2.1. • Bat Acoustic Surveys – acoustic surveys may be required where any tree removals are proposed, to satisfy MECP requirements and help determine the presence of SAR bats and SWH associated with bat species (i.e., Bat Maternity Colonies). This requirement should not necessarily be restricted to woodland habitats if cavity trees or other highly-suitable potential roosts will be affected. Page 265 of 354 Page 888 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 98 • Woodland and Wetland Delineation - Formal staking and survey of wetland and woodland areas may be required to confirm the boundaries adjacent to proposed development or site alteration, in keeping with the standards of the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System (2022) and municipal policy. Delineation and staking of wetlands is to be coordinated with NPCA Planning Ecology staff during the growing season to verify the location and extent of wetlands. The identified surveys for site-specific studies may not be applicable or required for all properties or development applications; the presence of habitat as well as the potential impact to that habitat will determine the need for related surveys and the overall scope of the study (e.g., a proposed site plan that requires no tree removals will likely not require detailed surveys to confirm bat habitat). The terms of reference for work to be carried out as part of site-specific assessments should be scoped with the Municipality, NPCA, MECP, and/or any other applicable agencies prior to beginning work. Any change in habitat between the time this SWS is completed and the submission of a development proposal may trigger a need for additional surveys to account for the noted changes. Further, if any natural heritage features currently identified by this study are removed without due assessment, a forensic assessment of the features and their functions may be required and restoration/compensation measures may be assigned. 5.3.2 Development of Opportunities A complete assessment of opportunities for the study area will be completed as part of the final report. The following are preliminary considerations that are expected to be included in that discussion for future planning stages: • Naturalization and Enhancement of Buffers Surrounding Natural Heritage Features - Buffers that are established around natural heritage features should be restored in keeping with the principles described in Section 4.2.4. • Maintain or Improve Connectivity of the NHS through Enhancement of Linkages – Existing and new linkages should be carried forward into land use plans such that they are maintained into the future. Consideration may also be given to improving wildlife passage at road crossings (e.g., through addition of terrestrial benches, increased openness ratios within culverts, etc.), both during rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing roads and the installation of any new roadways. • Plant Native Wildflowers to Support Native Insects – Native wildflowers, especially species known to support Monarch (i.e., Milkweed species), should be included in seeding plans. Construction of ‘Butterfly Gardens’ in landscaped areas (e.g., neighborhood parks) may also be considered, and landowners in new developments could be encouraged to landscape with native wildflower species instead of maintaining a grassed lawn. • Integrate Existing Specimen Trees with Future Landscaping – Existing mature trees in hedgerows, field, and other isolated locations outside of protected woodlots, are Page 266 of 354 Page 889 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 99 recommended to be retained where possible and integrated into planning of future parks and greenspaces. • Riparian Enhancement along Drainage Channels – Many of the potential HDFs in the study area occur on cropped agricultural properties with little to no natural vegetation currently present. Candidate HDFs that are identified to be retained may be enhanced through riparian plantings, as many watercourses within the study area that currently do not have consistent riparian vegetation. Page 267 of 354 Page 890 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 6.0 References Bird Studies Canada. 2009. Marsh Monitoring Program Participant's Handbook for Surveying Amphibians, 2009 Edition. Bird Studies Canada in cooperation with Environment Canada and the US Environmental Protection Agency. City of Niagara Falls, 2024. Official Plan for the City of Niagara Falls. Dougan & Associates and North South Environmental. 2022. Mapping Methods and Field Verification Summary: NPCA ELC Mapping Update. https://gis-npca- camaps.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/elc-2020-npca Environment Canada. 2013. How Much Habitat Is Enough? Third Edition. Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario. Lee, H., Bakowsky, W., Riley, J., Bowles, J., Puddister, M., Uhlig, P., & S. McMurray. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario, First Approximation and its Application. North Bay, Ontario: Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF). 2001. Technical Guide River & Stream Systems: Erosion Hazard Limit. Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. 2012. Natural Areas Inventory 2006-2009, Volume 1. Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. 2012. Natural Areas Inventory 2006-2009, Volume 2. Niagara Region, 2022. Niagara Official Plan. Oldham, M.J. 2010. Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Niagara Regional Municipality, Ontario. Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 223pp. Oldham, M. J., Bakowsky, W. D., & D.A. Sutherland. 1995. Floristic Quality Assessment System For Southern Ontario. Peterborough: Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Oldham, Michael J. 2017. List of the Vascular Plants of Ontario’s Carolinian Zone (Ecoregion 7E). Carolinian Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Peterborough, ON. 132 pp. Ontario Digital Terrain Model, Lidar-Derived (ODTM). Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry – Provincial Mapping Unit, (2015). Available: Ontario GeoHub < https://geohub.lio.gov.on.ca/> (Accessed October 26, 2024). Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. 2022. Bat Survey Standards. Page 268 of 354 Page 891 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2000. Significant Wildlife Habitat Technical Guide. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2010. Natural Heritage Reference Manual for Natural Heritage Policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2005. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2015. Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria Schedule for Ecoregion 7E. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2017. Survey Protocol for Species at Risk Bats within Treed Habitats Little Brown Myotis, Northern Myotis & Tri-Colored Bat. Guelph: Guelph District Office. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. 2022. Ontario Wetland Evaluation System, Southern Manual, 4th Edition. Stanfield, L. 2017. OSAP Version 10. Page 269 of 354 Page 892 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 Appendix A – Summary of Policies, Guidelines and Legislation Page 270 of 354 Page 893 of 1679 There exists a hierarchy of authority, described as policies, statutes, regulations, plans and guidelines. Legislative terms and principles are described below in order to provide a baseline context and shed light over basic definitions, what is enforceable and how. Relevant fundamental definitions are listed below. A Policy is a statement of intent or a commitment to achieve a goal, for which decision-makers can be held accountable. For example, within a municipality, policies like the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) are enacted through the Official Plan. An Act is a written law to declare a policy, and typically commands or prohibits something. Examples include: • Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) • Bill 6: Great Lake Protection Act (1st Reading) A Regulation is a subordinate legislation, passed pursuant to an Act. Because legislatures are reluctant to become embroiled in technical matters, regulations are delegated to an executive or technical branch, which provides details, measures or procedures for implementing the Act. A regulation is a rule that creates, limits, or constrains a right or a duty. Regulations are enacted to produce outcomes which might not otherwise occur or to prevent outcomes that might otherwise occur, usually with specific time frames. Regulations can impose sanctions if they are disregarded. Examples include: • O. Reg. 41/24 made under the Conservation Authorities Act: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits A Plan (or Strategy) is list of steps (with requirements for timing and resources) that will be taken to achieve a desired objective. It is a set of intended actions through which a goal can be achieved or a policy implemented. For example, a plan (such as an Official Plan) provides direction for land uses within a particular area and for mitigating the corresponding environmental impacts. A plan defines the where and how Regulations or Acts are applied. Examples include: • Municipal Official Plan • Ontario Recovery Strategy Series for Redside Dace (for species at risk under the Endangered Species Act). A Guideline is a statement of intent that determines a desirable course of action, which directs a process according to sound, predictable and high-quality practices or procedures. By definition, guidelines are not mandatory, not binding and are not legally enforceable. However, many regulators consider guidelines (especially numerical guidelines) as de facto minimum standards to be enforced. Examples include: • MECP Stormwater Management Plan and Design Manual (2003) Page 271 of 354 Page 894 of 1679 Federal Level The federal government exercises jurisdiction over a group of environmental issues related to stormwater planning and management including fish and fish habitat, navigable waters, environmental impact assessments, toxic substance releases, and some wildlife issues. More specifically, the main pieces of legislation that deal with stormwater are: • Fisheries Act; • Canada Water Act; • Canadian Environmental Protection Act; • Impact Assessment Act; • Migratory Convention Birds Act; • Species at Risk Act; and • Canadian Navigable Waters Act. Fisheries Act (1985, Amended 2019) Amendments to the Fisheries Act in 2012 and 2019 have each significantly impacted the Act. After the 2019 amendment, the Fisheries Act focuses on the protection of fish and fish habitat. It prohibits the deposit (direct discharging, spraying, releasing, spilling, leaking, seeping, pouring, emitting, emptying, throwing, dumping or placing) of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish or where the deleterious substances can enter waters frequented by fish. A deleterious substance can also be stormwater, wastewater, or other effluent that contains a substance in such quantity or concentration that it would, if deposited to waters frequented by fish, degrade or alter fish or fish habitat (DFO, 2006). This definition remains unchanged by recent amendments. Recent Modifications/ Amendments On August 28, 2019, amendments to the Fisheries Act came into force. The new Fisheries Act: • Protects all fish and fish habitat; • Restores prohibition against “harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat” (HADD); • Provides clearer permitting for development projects; • Indigenous traditional knowledge is to be used to inform habitat decisions; • Requires authorization for the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat from the Ministry; • Enables the prohibition of fishing to conserve and protect marine biodiversity; and • Promotes the restoration of degraded fish habitat for the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat. Effective in November 2013, Ontario Conservation Authorities no longer have Review Agreement with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and are no longer undertaking reviews under the Fisheries Act on behalf of DFO. As a result, it is up to the proponent to ensure that their projects meet the DFO requirements under the self-assessment process. Page 272 of 354 Page 895 of 1679 This self-assessment process applies to any on-going projects currently under review with the local CAs, applications where permits have not yet been issued and any future permit applications that would normally have involved CA review under the Fisheries Act. Canada Water Act (1985, Amended 2014) The Canada Water Act (last amended in 2014) is divided into three parts: 1. Comprehensive Water Resource Management; 2. Water Quality Management; and 3. General. Guidelines originally issued under this part of the Act are now listed under Canadian Environmental Protection Act. These include the Canadian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines and the Guidelines for Effluent and Waste Water Treatment at Federal Establishments. The final part focuses on administration and enforcement of the Act. Canadian Environmental Protection Act (1999, Amended 2023) The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) is administered by Environment Canada and Health Canada and is "An Act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development." Applicable Provisions Section 64 of CEPA states "a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that: • Have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity; • Constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends; or • Constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health." Section 95 states that when a toxic substance is released, or may be released, into the environment, the person responsible must report the release, take measures to prevent the release, and mitigate any danger to the environment or public safety. The focus of the CEPA is pollution prevention and the protection of the environment, primarily through the control of toxic substances. The CEPA applies indirectly to SWM through Section 95 which outlines that there are duties to report and take remedial measures in the event of a spill of a listed toxic substance. If stormwater contains a listed toxic substance and is released, it could be considered a reportable offence (Department of Justice Canada, 1999). For example, salt was recommended to be included as a toxic substance in Schedule 1 under CEPA. Impact Assessment Act (2019 The Impact Assessment Act (IAA) created the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and repealed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The IAA aims to prevent significant adverse environmental effects, and requires: Page 273 of 354 Page 896 of 1679 • Early planning and engagement, including with Indigenous peoples, the public and stakeholders; • Decisions to be based on science, evidence and Indigenous knowledge; • A broad scope that includes positive and negative environmental, economic, social, and health impacts; and • Indigenous engagement and participation throughout the project. Migratory Convention Birds Act (1994, Amended 2017) The Migratory Convention Birds Act deals with the protection of migratory game birds. Its relevance to stormwater is based on the protection of water that may be used by migratory birds. Like the Fisheries Act, it prohibits the direct discharging, spraying, releasing, spilling, leaking, seeping, pouring, emitting, emptying, throwing, dumping or placing of harmful substances in waters or an area frequented by migratory birds. The Act also provides for the protection and conservation of migratory bird habitat. C.R.C., c. 1035 outlines permitting requirements under the Act. Species At Risk (2002, Amended 2024) Environment and Climate Change Canada is the lead federal government department responsible for issues concerning species at risk, however Fisheries and Oceans Canada is responsible for the protection of aquatic species and habitat at risk. The Species at Risk Act is a key federal government commitment to prevent wildlife species from becoming extinct and secure the necessary actions for their recovery. It provides for the legal protection of wildlife species and the conservation of their biological diversity. The Act applies on federal lands, including national parks, and other protected heritage areas administered by Parks Canada, species protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, or aquatic species as defined in the Fisheries Act, SARA applies automatically on provincial and territorial lands and waters as well. Applicable Provisions include Section 58: no person shall destroy any part of the critical habitat of any listed endangered species or of any listed threatened species – or of any listed extirpated species if a recovery strategy has recommended the reintroduction of the species into the wild in Canada – if: a) the critical habitat is on federal land, in the exclusive economic zone of Canada or on the continental shelf of Canada; b) the listed species is an aquatic species; or c) the listed species is a species of migratory birds protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994. The relevance to stormwater is founded on surface runoff from different sources and land uses that may carry contaminants, adversely affecting physical habitat and water quality. Page 274 of 354 Page 897 of 1679 Canadian Navigable Waters Act (1985, Amended 2019) The Canadian Navigable Waters Act is administered by Transport Canada and is designed to protect the public right of navigation in Canadian waters. The Act prohibits unauthorized "work" involving construction or placement in, on, over, under, through, or across any navigable water. Applicable Provisions Section 21 states "no person shall throw or deposit or cause, suffer or permit to be thrown or deposited any sawdust, edging, slabs, bark or like rubbish of any description whatever that is liable to interfere with navigation in any water, any part of which is navigable or that flows into any navigable water." In addition, Section 22 states “No person shall throw or deposit or cause, suffer or permit to be thrown or deposited any stone, gravel, earth, cinders, ashes or other material or rubbish that is liable to sink to the bottom in any water, any part of which is navigable or flows into any navigable water, where there is not a minimum depth of 36 metres of water at all times”. The relevance to stormwater is based on the inclusion of sediment under Section 21 of this legislation from stormwater facilities, uncontrolled releases or as a result of excessive stream erosion. In 2019, the Act was amended to include: • A new definition of navigable water; • Distinguishing between major and minor works on navigable waters: o Minor works may be constructed, placed, altered, rebuilt, removed, or decommissioned in, on, over, under, through, or across any navigable water; o Major works, and works other than minor works regarding the waters listed in Schedule 1, requires approval from Transport Canada if the work interferes with navigation; and o Transport Canada must be notified prior to the implementation of major works, and works other than minor works regarding the waters listed in Schedule 1, that don’t interfere with navigation. • A requirement to consider adverse effects on Indigenous peoples when making a decision under the Act; • Indigenous knowledge is to be considered when determining whether to issue an approval; and • Prohibition of dewatering a navigable water to a depth that prevents vessels from navigating the water. Provincial Level In regard to water resources and stormwater related issues, Provincial legislative powers include, but are not limited to: • Flow regulation; • Authorization of water use development; • Water supply; and • Pollution control. Page 275 of 354 Page 898 of 1679 Ontario legislative mechanisms (e.g., policies and guidelines) to regulate water quality and quantity are primarily administered by: • Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP): o The Blue Book o Ontario Water Resources Act; o Clean Water Act; o Consolidated Linear Infrastructure Environmental Compliance Approval; o Environmental Protection Act; o Environmental Assessment Act o Water Opportunities Act; o Endangered Species Act; o Environmental Bill of Rights; o Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits, Ontario Regulation 41/24; o Management of Excess Soil – A Guide for Best Management Practices; o Policy Review of Municipal Stormwater Management in the Light of Climate Change; and, o Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual. • Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) o Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act • Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA): o Drainage Act; and o Nutrient Management Act. • Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) o The Planning Act; o Provincial Planning Statement; o The Municipal Act; and o Greenbelt Plan. • Ministry of Infrastructure o The Places to Grow Act Water Management Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives – The “Blue Book” (MECP, 1994, Reprinted 1999) The “Blue Book” was issued by the MECP under the authority of the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act. It provides direction on how to manage the quality and quantity of both surface water and ground water. It provides a framework but not procedures; for example, how the policy is applied to pollutant discharge limits is a matter of local choice or conditions or other pollutant management strategies. The Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) form an integral part of the policy. The PWQO are set at levels that are protective of aquatic life and aquatic life cycles during indefinite exposure to water, in addition to recreation. The PWQO are guidelines to making rational water quality decisions. In addition to the PWQO, other objectives and guidelines may be used that relate to specific uses. Section 3.5.1 sets out procedures for effluent requirements. Of interest is the determination of effluent requirements are expressed as “waste loadings and/or concentrations”. Meeting the PWQO “should be determined from data that adequately reflect the spatial and Page 276 of 354 Page 899 of 1679 temporal variations of the quality of the waterbody under consideration”. This must be accomplished through stormwater quality analyses of event mean concentration (EMC) values for various representative pollutants. The general policies that relate to Stormwater are listed below: Policy #1: “In areas which have water quality better than the PWQO, water quality shall be maintained at or above the Objectives.” Policy #2: “Water quality which presently does not meet the PWQO shall not be degraded further and all practical measures shall be taken to upgrade that water quality to the Objectives.” Policy #3: To “prevent the release, in any concentration, of hazardous substances that have been banned.” Policy #4: “Ensure that special measures are taken on a case by case basis to minimize the release of hazardous substances that have not been banned.” Policy #5: Refers to a mixing zone as an area of water contiguous to a point source or definable diffuse source where water quality does not comply with one or more PWQO. It states “Mixing zones should be as small as possible and not interfere with beneficial uses. Mixing zones are not to be used as an alternative to reasonable and practical treatment.” Policies of most relevance to this study are Policy #1 and #2. These policies are enforceable when incorporated into control documents, such as Environmental Compliance Approvals issued by the MECP through the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act, which regulate stormwater. The Conservation Authorities Act mandates Conservation Authorities to protect and regenerate natural systems and to maintain the quality, safety and sustainability of water resources. The application of the policy is as follows: 1. The water management policies and guidelines supporting the Provincial Water Quality Objectives (PWQO) are the basis for establishing acceptable limits for water quality and quantity that protect aquatic ecosystems and groundwater. They are equally applicable to a local site-specific situation, an entire watershed or to the Great Lakes Basin. 2. The policies and guidelines do not have any formal legal status but, by their successful use over the years, are now accepted as a standard code of practice for water resources management. 3. Meeting the policies related to the PWQO is the minimum requirement. Ontario Water Resources Act (MECP, 1990, Amended 2021) The Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) is designed to conserve, protect and manage Ontario's waters and for their efficient and sustainable use. The act focuses on both groundwater and surface water throughout the province. Page 277 of 354 Page 900 of 1679 The Ontario Water Resources Act regulates works related to water supplies, the distribution of water and stormwater management and conveyance infrastructure. The act provides for the protection and conservation of water, and the control of the quality of drinking water supplied to the public. Under the Act, stormwater is included in the definition as sewage and, as such is required to be managed properly. Accordingly, the act regulates sewage disposal and sewage works and prohibits the discharge of polluting materials that may impair water quality. Key stormwater-related issues addressed within the Water Resources Act are: • Prohibiting the discharge of polluting material in or near water; • Prohibiting or regulating the discharge of sewage; • Enabling the issuance of orders requiring measures to prevent, reduce or alleviate impairment of water quality; • Enabling the designation and protection of sources of public water supply; • Imposing a duty on corporate officers and directors to take all reasonable care to prevent the corporation from discharging materials into or near water that may impair water quality. Applicable Provisions Section 30 (1): Offence to discharge any material of any kind into or in any waters or shore or bank thereof or in any place that may impair the quality of the water of any waters Section 30(2): Person who discharged or caused or permitted the discharge to forthwith notify the Minister Section 110: The following are considered Aggravating Factors when imposing Sentencing Considerations: • Offence caused impairment of water quality; • Defendant committed the offence intentionally or recklessly; • Defendant was motivated to increase revenue or decrease costs; • Defendant committed the offence despite having been warned by the Ministry of circumstances that became the subject of the offence; • After the commission of the offence, the defendant: o Attempted to conceal the commission of the offence; o Failed to co-operate with the Ministry or other public authorities; o Failed to take prompt action to mitigate the effects of the offence; or o Failed to take prompt action to reduce the risk of similar offences being committed in the future. Exemptions In general, the need for, and nature of, an approval depends on the site and the activity. However, specific exemptions for certain types of sewage works equipment, system and application have been granted through legislation. The OWRA and Approval Exemption Regulation (O.Reg. 525/98) exempt minor sewage works from the approval requirements of the Act. Additionally, O.Reg. Page 278 of 354 Page 901 of 1679 525/98 states that Subsections 53(1) and (3) of the Act do not apply to the establishment, alteration, extension or replacement of or a change in a stormwater management facility that: a) Is designed to service one lot or parcel of land; b) Discharges into a storm sewer that is not a combined sewer; c) Does not service industrial land or a structure located on industrial land; and d) Is not located on industrial land O. Reg 525/98, s. 3. Industrial lands are defined as lands used for the production, processing, repair, maintenance or storage or goods or materials, or the processing, storage, transfer or disposal of waste, but does not include lands used primarily for the purpose of buying or selling, a) goods or materials other than fuel, or b) services other than vehicle repair services Other approval exemptions under Section 53 include: a) sewage works from which sewage is not to drain or be discharged directly or indirectly into a ditch, drain or storm sewer or a well, lake, river, pond, spring, stream, reservoir or other water or watercourse; b) drainage works under the Drainage Act or a sewage works where the main purpose of the works is to drain land for the purposes of agricultural activity; c) drainage works under the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, the Public Transportation and Highways Improvement Act or the Railways Act; d) sewage works that have a designed capacity of 10,000L/day or less and are whole contained within the boundaries of the lot or parcel of land on which is located the facility served by the works. Note: these are approved under the Building Code by municipalities. In all other circumstances beyond the aforementioned exemptions, an ECA from the MECP is required. If unsure about the exemption of your stormwater works, a pre-consultation meeting with the ministry is recommended. Clean Water Act (MECP, 2006, Amended 2021) The Clean Water Act 2006 was enacted to protect existing and future sources of drinking water. The Act specifies that drinking water source protection plans (SPP) be developed as a result of an overall assessment report and that the SPP sets forth policies that prevent activities from becoming a significant drinking water threat to surface and groundwater drinking supplies. Specifically, the regulations define threatened areas to include highly vulnerable aquifers, significant groundwater recharge areas (SGRA), wellhead protection areas (WHPA), and surface water intake protection zones (IPZ). Furthermore, Ontario Regulation 287/07 (as amended), lists 22 prescribed drinking water threats. Several of these prescribed activities relate to stormwater management and may impact where infiltration of water is promoted, specifically: • Activity 2: A system that collects, stores, transmits, treats or disposes of sewage, including stormwater; • Activity 12: The application of road salt, including salt transmitted in stormwater runoff; Page 279 of 354 Page 902 of 1679 • Activity 13: The handling and storage of salt, including salt treated or disposed in stormwater; and, • Activity 14: The storage of snow, including snow stored in or near stormwater management facilities. The City of Niagara Falls is within the Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Area. Consolidated Linear Infrastructure Environmental Compliance Approval (MECP, 2023) The MECP has updated the issuance of Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECAs) for municipalities, into one Consolidated Linear Infrastructure (CLI) ECA that includes all stormwater infrastructure. The CLI-ECA pre-authorizes low-risk routine alterations to the system. These low- risk alterations include the requirement to meet various criteria outlined in Appendix A of the CLI ECA. A key change to the criteria is the requirement to control the 90th percentile storm event to provide water quality treatment if technically possible. Controlling this storm event should proceed in a hierarchical manner, with a top priority on retention through infiltration, reuse, or evapotranspiration. If retention of the full volume isn’t feasible, then the second and third priorities of LID filtration and conventional stormwater management, respectively, should be followed. In addition, the CLI ECA requires the City to prepare and implement an operations and maintenance manual for their stormwater system. Environmental Protection Act (MECP, 1990, Amended 2021) The Environmental Protection Act is Ontario's key legislation for environmental protection. The act grants the MECP broad powers to deal with the discharge of contaminants which cause negative effects. Under this legislation, a contaminant is defined as “any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration, radiation or combination of them resulting directly or indirectly from human activities that causes or may cause an adverse effect.” The Environmental Protection Act was enacted to protect the natural environment and animal and human health from adverse effects of pollution contamination. Applicable Provisions Section 14(1): prohibits the discharge of any contaminants into the environment which cause or are likely to cause adverse effects. In the case of some approved contaminants, the Act requires that they must not exceed approved and regulated limits. Section 92: Requires the controller of a spilled pollutant and/or the person that caused the spill to report the spill if it is abnormal in quality or quantity. Agencies need to report if not certain it has been reported. Section 93: Requires the owner and/or person in control of a spilled pollutant to clean up and restore the natural environment. Key stormwater-related applications include: • Forbidding the discharge of contaminants into the natural environment in an amount, concentration or level in excess of that prescribed by the regulations; Page 280 of 354 Page 903 of 1679 • Allowing the issuance of binding administrative orders to prevent, control, minimize or remediate discharges of contaminants into the natural environment; • Imposing duties to report and clean up pollutant spills and imposes civil liability for loss or damage arising from spills; and • Imposing a duty on corporate officers and directors to take all reasonable care to prevent the corporation from causing or permitting unlawful discharges of contaminants into the natural environment. O.Reg. 255/11 describes the application process and requirements for Environmental Compliance Approvals, which are necessary for stormwater management facilities. O.Reg. 406/19 describes the requirements for on-site and excess soil management, including excess soil that is removed from a stormwater management facility. A sampling and analysis plan will be required when removing this soil. Environmental Assessment Act (MECP, 1990, Amended 2024) The Environmental Assessment Act applies to projects being carried out by the Province, municipalities, or public bodies (for example, Conservation Authorities and the Ontario Realty Commission). The EA Act may also apply to major commercial or business enterprises or activities or proposals, plans or programs, as set out in subsection 3(b) and 3(c) of the EA Act. The EA Act requires that proponents of major projects outline the details of the project and identify how construction, location and ultimate utilization will affect current and future uses of that area. Water quality effects, biological effects, and social and economic factors must be considered. The purpose of this Act is “betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management in Ontario of the environment.” A class environmental assessment must contain the following information: 1. A description of the class of undertakings to which it applies; 1.1 A description of any undertakings within the class that are proposed to be exempt from this Act and the basis for the proposed exemption; 2. A description of the reasons for using a class environmental assessment with respect to undertakings in the class; 3. A description of the similarities and differences to be expected among the undertakings in the class; 4. A description of the expected range of environmental effects that may result from proceeding with undertakings in the class; 5. A description of measures that could be taken to mitigate against adverse environmental effects that may result from proceeding with undertakings in the class; 6. A description of the process to be used by a proponent of a proposed undertaking to consult with the public and with persons who may be affected by the undertaking; 7. A description of the method to be used to evaluate a proposed undertaking with respect to the matters described in paragraphs 4 to 6; and 8. A description of the method to be used to determine the final design of a proposed undertaking based upon the evaluation described in paragraph 7. Page 281 of 354 Page 904 of 1679 Water Opportunities Act (MECP, 2010, Amended 2021) The Water Opportunities Act established in 2010 lays the foundations for new jobs in Ontario and develops new technologies and services for water conservation and treatment. The Act has an overarching objective to improve the efficiency of municipal infrastructure using the following key initiatives: • Identifying innovative, cost effective solutions for drinking water, wastewater and stormwater system challenges; • Optimizing systems and improving water conservation; and • Identifying opportunities to demonstrate and carry out new and emerging Ontario water technologies, services and practices. Endangered Species Act (MECP, 2007, Amended 2023) The Endangered Species Act came into effect in 2007 and provides for broader protection for species at risk and their habitats. In general, the purpose of the act includes the preservation and rehabilitation of habitat and the enhancement of other areas so that they can become habitat. Under the act, habitat may be described by specific boundaries, features or “in any other manner” and may prescribe areas where species live, used to lie or is believed to be capable of living and beyond. Applicable Provisions Section 10: A person shall not damage or destroy the habitat of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List (O.Reg. 230/08) as an endangered or threatened species, or as an extirpated species if the species is prescribed by the regulations. Policies under this legislation have relevance to urban development and stormwater management. As an example, the impacts to habitat can be as a result of: • Alteration to hydrologic regimes (increased runoff, flow regime change, and decreased infiltration) and increased water temperature (through increasing impervious surfaces and end-of-pipe discharges); • Increased sedimentation and erosion through site grading and excavation; • Releases of untreated stormwater which carry pollutants; and • General habitat losses through the loss of riparian vegetation, in-stream habitat features, wetland and groundwater sources. Section 4.4 of the Ministry of Natural Resources Guidance for Development Activities in Redside Dace Protected Habitat, (March 2016) provides the first example of stormwater management direction under this act. The Guidance for Development Activities in Redside Dace Protected Habitat provides the following as it relates to development within or adjacent to Redside Dace streams: • Emphasis on a “treatment train approach” - source, conveyance and end-of-pipe controls; • Maximization of at source infiltration; • Maximum threshold for TSS should not exceed 25mg/L above background levels; Page 282 of 354 Page 905 of 1679 • Stormwater discharges to Redside streams should not exceed 24°C and a minimum dissolved oxygen content of 7mg/l; • Post development water balance should match pre-development water balance (no runoff from rainfall events between 5-15 mm, dependent on subwatershed recommendations and local soils); • Hybrid end-of-pipe stormwater management facilities (extended detention wetlands/wet ponds) are recommended adjacent to Redside habitat; and • Suggests the use of Low Impact Development techniques to prevent habitat degradation. Environmental Bill of Rights (MECP, 1993, Amended 2023) The Environmental Bill of Rights (EBR) allows Ontarians the opportunity to participate in decisions that could impact Ontario’s air, water. Land and wildlife by ensuring Provincial ministries develop a Statemen of Environmental Values (SEV) and take reasonable steps to consider their SWVs when making decision that might significantly affect the environment. The purposes of this Act are: 1. to protect, conserve and, where reasonable, restore the integrity of the environment by the means provided in this Act; 2. to provide sustainability of the environment by the means provided in this Act; and 3. to protect the right to a healthful environment by the means provided in this Act. Under the EBR, Ontarians may: • comment on specified environmental government proposals • ask ministries subject to the act for either a new policy, act, or regulation, or to review of an existing policy, act, regulation or instrument • ask certain ministries to investigate an alleged harm to the environment • seek leave (permission) to appeal ministry decisions on certain instruments, such as permits, licenses, approvals or orders • in some cases, sue someone for causing harm to the environment • get whistleblower protection Through the EBR a searchable, online database was created to consult the public on certain provincial government decisions that might affect the environment. The registry is used to let people know about environmental matters in the province and allows for comment on policies, acts, regulations and instruments (for example, approvals, permits, licenses and orders). Great Lakes Protection Act (MECP, 2015, Amended 2021) The purposes of this Act are, a) to protect and restore the ecological health of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin; and; b) to create opportunities for individuals and communities to become involved in the protection and restoration of the ecological health of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin. The Great Lakes Protection Act allows the Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, in consultation with other Great Lakes Ministers, establish qualitative or quantitative targets relating Page 283 of 354 Page 906 of 1679 to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin. The act also provides the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry with authority to establish qualitative or quantitative targets for preventing the net loss of wetlands. The ability to set clear targets through this act is essential in helping all partners work towards common restoration and protection outcomes. Setting targets will also help Ontario to manage the cumulative impacts of activities on the Great Lakes, including climate change, and respond to specific areas when needed. Conservation Authorities Act, Ontario Regulation 41/24 This Act provides for the organization and delivery of programs and services that further the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources in watersheds in Ontario. In April 2024, all previous Conservation Authority development regulations were replaced by a new regulation, Ontario Regulation 41/24, Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits. Changes in the Act and new regulation include: 1) Prescribing Areas Where Development is Prohibited by Updating Definitions a. Definition of “watercourse” from any identifiable depression to a defined channel with a bed and banks/sides; b. “Other areas” in which the prohibitions on development activities apply have been changed to within 30 m of all wetlands. Previously, Provincially Significant Wetlands in some conservation authorities and wetlands greater than 2 hectares in size required a 120 m regulated area around the wetland. 2) Exempting Low-Risk Activities from Conservation Authority Approval. The following low- risk development activities are exempted from the prohibitions (under certain conditions, such as occurring outside of wetlands and watercourses, or following certain best practices for municipal drain maintenance) and no longer require a conservation authority permit, including: a. A seasonal or floating dock 10 m2 in size or less; b. A rail, chain-link or panelled fence with a minimum of 75 mm of width between panels; c. Agricultural in-field erosion control structures; d. A non-habitable accessory building or structure 15 m2 in size or less; e. An unenclosed detached deck or patio that is 15 m2 in size or less; f. Installation, maintenance, or repair of tile drains; g. Installation, maintenance, or repair of a pond for watering livestock; h. Maintenance or repair of a driveway or private lane; i. Maintenance or repair of municipal drainage; and j. Reconstruction of a garage that does not exceed the same footprint, with no basement or habitable space and that does not allow for change in potential use of the building or structure to habitable space. 3) Limiting the Conditions a Conservation Authority May Attach to a Permit Page 284 of 354 Page 907 of 1679 4) Streamline and Clarify Rules for Development. The new Minister’s regulation includes increased flexibility to issue a permit up to its maximum validity of 60-months, providing additional time to complete activities. New rules are set out for issuing permits including requiring that conservation authorities: a. Create publicly available maps depicting where a permit is required and to update their mapping annually or if new information or analysis becomes available that would result in significant changes to the regulated area; b. Engage in pre-submission consultation at the request of an applicant; c. Develop, make publicly available and consult on permitting policy and procedures documents with respect to permit applications and reviews; d. Notify an applicant within 21-days of receiving an application and payment of the permit fee whether or whether not the application is complete; e. Accept requests for review if an applicant has not received notice of whether or not an application is complete within the 21-day timeframe, or if they disagree with the authority’s decision on a complete application, and complete a review to confirm whether the application is complete or if more information is needed; and, f. Not request additional new studies or technical information after an application is confirmed as complete; g. Issue an annual report on permitting statistics, including reporting on the authority’s level of compliance with new requirements in the minister’s regulation. Management of Excess Soil – A Guide for Best Management Practices (MECP, 2018, Amended 2021) The best management practices in this document provide guidance on how to handle excess soil beginning at the place where the soil is excavated (a “Source Site”), during the transportation of the excess soil, and through to a site where the excess soil can be reused for a beneficial purpose (a “Receiving Site”). This document also includes recommendations for temporary storage of excess soil at an intermediate site, between the Source Site and Receiving Site, where the intermediate site (a “Temporary Storage Soil Site”) is owned or leased by the owner/operator of the Source Site or Receiving Site, for temporary storage of the excess soil. The best management practices are not intended to be applied to small, low-risk construction or maintenance activities that are limited to single-dwelling residential properties, or activities associated with minor municipal road work or sewer/water main construction or repair. However, those involved in these smaller-scale projects and smaller-scale soil management activities are encouraged to consider whether the best practices may be useful, and to consult with any applicable approval authorities and Receiving Site owners/operators on reuse or disposal options before moving excess soil from a Source Site to a Receiving Site or Temporary Soil Storage Site. All those who create, manage, transport, receive or store excess soil are responsible for ensuring that the excess soil is managed in an environmentally sound manner. They must also meet all applicable legal requirements, including current provincial and federal regulatory requirements, such as: site alteration, noise and traffic by-laws and permitting regimes established by municipalities and Conservation Authorities; the soil management provisions in Ontario Regulation Page 285 of 354 Page 908 of 1679 153/04 that relate to the submission and filing of a Record of Site Condition; the requirements for sampling and analysis outlined in Ontario Regulation 406/19; and, when excavated soil and other excavated materials are being managed as a waste, the EPA and waste regulations. Policy Review of Municipal Stormwater Management in the Light of Climate Change (MECP, 2011) The document reviews the need for a new policy, act, or regulation to deal with municipal SWM systems in light of climate change. The key findings of the policy review include: • Adaptation to climate change is best priority; • The Ontario Water Resources Act (OWRA) and the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) are anticipated to provide a sufficient legislative framework for climate change adaptation; • The 2003 Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual requires updating to include additional best practices for climate change adaptation for municipal stormwater management; • The MECP approvals process requires review to include identifying measures to encourage source control best practices; • Data collection and information management systems are necessary to track the performance of SWM systems in order to assess vulnerability to climate change; • Public education, demonstration projects and incentives are necessary to support SWM resilient systems; and • It is recommended that ministries work together to collaboratively seek solutions. Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (MECP, 2003) The document was developed to expand and improve upon the Ministry of the Environment report released in 1991, entitled Stormwater Quality Best Management Practices. The document provides guidance on: • Impacts of urbanization on the hydrologic cycle and stream ecosystems; • Evolution of the watershed planning process and implications for the design process; • Incorporation of water quantity, erosion control, water quality protection, and water balance principles into the selection and design of Stormwater Management Practices (SWMPs); • SWMPs such as sand filters, bioretention filters, wet swales, and hybrid wet ponds/wetlands; • Planting strategies and the function of plant material in the design of SWMPs; • Operation and maintenance; and • Design of various SWMPs. Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act (MNRF, 1990, Amended 2019) Under the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act, review and approval are required by the MNRF to permit work on watercourses and shore-lands. The purposes of this Act are to provide for, a) the management, protection, preservation and use of the waters of the lakes and rivers of Ontario and the land under them; Page 286 of 354 Page 909 of 1679 b) the protection and equitable exercise of public rights in or over the waters of the lakes and rivers of Ontario; c) the protection of the interests of riparian owners; d) the management, perpetuation and use of the fish, wildlife and other natural resources dependent on the lakes and rivers; e) the protection of the natural amenities of the lakes and rivers and their shores and banks; and f) the protection of persons and of property by ensuring that dams are suitably located, constructed, operated and maintained and are of an appropriate nature with regard to the purposes of clauses (a) to (e). Applicable Provisions Section 36(1): Offence to deposit or discharge any substance or matter into water (including water covered by ice) Section 36(2): Minister may order removal of any substance or matter from lake, river or from the shore or bank, as the case may be In accordance with existing regulatory administration and approval agreements, the Conservation Authority (i.e. GRCA) would conduct reviews of proposed works pertaining to watercourses and shore-lands under this act. O.Reg. 454/96 describes the approvals to make alterations, improvements or repairs to a dam that holds back water in a river, lake, pond or stream. Drainage Act (OMAFRA, 1990, Amended 2021) The Drainage Act regulates the construction and maintenance of municipal drains. More specifically, under Section 74 of the Drainage Act, municipalities are responsible to maintain municipal drainage systems within their jurisdiction. Various jurisdictions are exploring the use of the Drainage Act “as a tool for property aggregation to support wide scale adoption of LID on private property in urban areas” as described by the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program white paper “Making Green Infrastructure Mainstream: Exploring the Use of the Drainage Act for Decentralized Stormwater Management on Private Property.” The white paper states that use of the Drainage Act would: • Enable public and private landowners to design, construct and maintain communal infrastructure together; • Be a cost-effective approach for stormwater management, as it would not require the purchase of land specifically for stormwater works; • Facilitate economies of scale by implementing systems at a neighbourhood-level instead of a site-level; • Allow for local municipal knowledge to be incorporated; and • Protect drainage features and allow for appropriate recourse if works are damaged. Page 287 of 354 Page 910 of 1679 Nutrient Management Act (OMAFRA, 2002, Amended 2021) The purpose of this Nutrient Management Act is to provide for the management of materials containing nutrients in ways that will enhance protection of the natural environment and provide a sustainable future for agricultural operations and rural development. The Nutrient Management Act regulates the use, storage and disposal of fertilizers and farm wastes with the objective of protecting surface water and groundwater quality. The Planning Act (MMAH, 2010, Amended 2024) The Planning Act sets out the ground rules for land use planning in Ontario and describe how land uses may be controlled, and who may control them. Applicable Provisions • Section 24: Zoning By-law, • Section 41: Site Plan Control Areas and • Section 51: Plan of Subdivision Approvals. The relevance to stormwater, is in regards to Site Plan and Subdivision Approvals at the municipal level. Site Plan and Subdivision Approvals are: • Subject to Conditions o Grading and alterations to land, including storm and surface waters o Sediment and erosion control requirements • Criteria for conservation of natural resources and flood control • Requires entry into legal agreements • Requires compliance with imposed conditions • Can impose financial securities • Linked to other regulatory approvals (i.e. Conservation Authorities) Provincial Planning Statement (MMAH, 2024) Issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, the Provincial Planning Statement (PPS) is a consolidation of policies on land use planning and sets minimum standards that all decisions affecting planning matters must be consistent with. The PPS came into effect on October 20th, 2024, replacing both the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) and A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019). The PPS (2024) acknowledges that Municipal official plans are the most important method of implementation of the PPS and for achieving comprehensive, integrated, and long-term planning. Applicable Provisions of the Provincial Planning Statement • Section 2.3: Settlement Areas and Settlement Area Boundary Expansions • Section 2.9.1d directs planning authorities to promote green infrastructure and low impact development as part of approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of a changing climate • Section 3.6.8 directs that planning for stormwater management shall: Page 288 of 354 Page 911 of 1679 a) be integrated with planning for sewage and water services and ensure that systems are optimized, retrofitted as appropriate, feasible, and financially viable over their full life cycle; b) minimize, or, where possible, prevent or reduce increases in stormwater volumes and contaminant loads; c) minimize erosion and changes in water balance including through the use of green infrastructure; d) mitigate risks to human health, safety, property and the environment; e) maximize the extent and function of vegetative and pervious surfaces; f) promote best practices, including stormwater attenuation and re-use, water conservation and efficiency, and low impact development; and g) align with any comprehensive municipal plans for stormwater management that consider cumulative impacts of stormwater from development on a watershed scale • Section 4.1: Natural Heritage • Section 5.2: Natural Hazards The PPS (2024) defines Green Infrastructure as: natural and human-made elements that provide ecological and hydrological functions and processes. Green infrastructure can include components such as natural heritage features and systems, parklands, stormwater management systems, street trees, urban forests, natural channels, permeable surfaces and green roofs. The Municipal Act (MMAH, 2001, Amended 2024) Ontario's Municipal Act, 2001 is the main statute governing the creation, administration and government of municipalities in the province of Ontario. The Municipal Act empowers municipalities to enact and enforce by-laws on water-related matters including industrial discharges into municipal sewers and water rates. With respect to stormwater planning and management, municipalities have the responsibility to: • Promote current and future economic, social and environmental well-being of the municipality; • Manage and preserve the public’s assets of the municipality; • Provide services considered necessary or desirable for the effective management of stormwater; and • Participate and deliver in provincial programs and initiatives. Greenbelt Plan (MMAH, 2004, Amended 2017) In 2005 the Greenbelt region was introduced to shape the future of the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) area, which was home to over two-thirds of Ontario’s population as of 2017. The Greenbelt Plan identifies where urbanization should not occur, so that the agricultural land base, ecological and hydrological features, areas, and functions of the landscape in the GGH area are protected. Applicable Provisions: Page 289 of 354 Page 912 of 1679 • Section 1.2.2.2 outlines what should be promoted within the Protected Countryside in terms of environmental protection: d) Provision of long-term guidance for the management of natural heritage and water resources when contemplating such matters as watershed/subwatershed and stormwater management planning, water and wastewater servicing, development, infrastructure, open space planning and management, aggregate rehabilitation and private or public stewardship programs. • Section 3.2.3 outlines Water Resource System policies that apply throughout the Protected Countryside: 4. Decisions on allocation of growth and planning for water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure shall be informed by applicable watershed planning in accordance with the Growth Plan. • Section 4.2.3: Stormwater Management and Resilient Infrastructure Policies The Places to Grow Act (Ministry of Infrastructure, 2005, Amended 2021) This Act maintains that municipalities that share an inland water source and/or receiving water body should coordinate their planning for potable water, stormwater, and wastewater systems to ensure that water quality and quantity is maintained or improved. In conjunction with conservation authorities, municipalities are encouraged to prepare watershed plans and use these plans to guide development decisions and water and wastewater servicing decisions. Finally, municipalities are encouraged to implement and support innovative SWM actions as part of redevelopment and intensification (Ministry of Public Infrastructure and Renewal, 2006). Local Level Local legislative level is defined here as the level that includes regional and municipal government, and the conservation authority (i.e., NPCA). Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Area – Assessment Report (2011, Amended 2013) The City of Niagara Falls is within the Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Area (NPSPA). The Assessment Report (2013) was prepared to be part of the drinking water source protection process that is outlined in the Clean Water Act (2006), and the report contents are specified by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment Assessment Report Technical Rules (2009). The report outlines the following four (4) study areas: • Watershed Characterization • Water Budget and Water Quantity Threats Analysis • Groundwater Vulnerability and Threats Analysis • Surface Water Vulnerability and Threats Analysis The report assesses the quality and quantity of municipal drinking water supplies across the NPSPA and identifies significant threats that may impact drinking water sources. Page 290 of 354 Page 913 of 1679 Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Area – Source Protection Plan (2013) The Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Area (NPSPA) Source Protection Plan (SPP) was developed under the Clean Water Act (2006, Ontario Regulation 287/07). Under O.Reg. 287/07, the objectives of the SPP are as follows: • Protecting existing and future drinking water sources in the Niagara Peninsula Source Protection Area (NPSPA); and • Ensuring through management or prohibition, that activities identified as drinking water threats either never become a significant threat, or, if the activity is already taking place, the activity ceases to be a significant threat. Policies in the SPP are focused on ensuring that activities that are or would be a significant threat to municipal drinking water sources cease to exist or never become significant. Identified moderate and low drinking water threats to drinking water sources may be considered in the future. The SPP discusses stormwater management in the context of Intake Protection Zones (IPZ), with a focus on preventing stormwater runoff from contaminating drinking water sources. Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (2022, Amended 2024) The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) has outlined policies related to their role and responsibilities for the review of applications under the Planning Act and other legislation. This amendment brings the policies of the previous version into conformity with the April 1, 2024 amendments made to the Conservation Authorities Act and Ontario Regulation 41/24: Prohibited Activities, Exemptions and Permits. NPCA defines a subwatershed plan as “a proactive document created cooperatively by government agencies and the community to manage the water, land/water interactions, aquatic life and aquatic resources within a particular watershed to protect the health of the ecosystem as land uses change. Watershed and sub-watershed plans provide specific direction for the overall water and resource management of specific creek systems” (Section 2.2) Planning policies outlined in Section 2 include: • Natural hazards; • Lot creation; • Environmental assessments; • Municipal drains; • Climate change; • Natural heritage; • Stormwater management review; • Minister’s zoning order; and • Land securement. Page 291 of 354 Page 914 of 1679 NPCA Beaverdams and Shriners Creek Watershed Plan Phase One (2011) The Beaverdams and Shriners Creek Watershed Plan Phase One (NPCA, 2011) report provides the watershed characterization and preliminary issues identification within these two watersheds. In addition, it provides proposed watershed objectives related to: • Water Resources • Fish and Aquatic Habitat • Natural Heritage and Resources • Communication, Education, and Recreation • Development The report also discusses various stormwater management measures that are in place throughout the watersheds. NPCA Stormwater Management Guidelines (2017) The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) Stormwater Management Guidelines (2017) was initiated as a Direct Action out of the Niagara Water Quality Protection Strategy and provides a long-term plan to guide the safe and effective management of runoff in urban and urbanizing areas, and maintain the health of rivers and streams in the NPCA jurisdiction. The intention of the document is to be used in relation to, and not supersede, local municipal stormwater criteria. The report includes planning objectives that outline a process to help identify, protect, and preserve natural features and consider their role in Stormwater Management (SWM) planning. The process includes: • At source controls at the lot level to reduce runoff and reduce pollutants entering into the drainage system; • Conveyance controls, such as grassed swales, roadside ditches and pervious pipes to reduce flows and remove pollutants; • End-of-pipe controls to control flows and remove pollutants prior to stormwater entering the receiving system such as streams or other water bodies; • Best available practices while integrating or enhancing existing natural features into the system; • Identification of a review process that ensures all agencies the opportunity to review and comment on SWM reports and planning; and • Reflection and incorporation of the SWM objectives set out in current OPs, existing watershed and subwatershed planning, and Master Drainage Planning, especially regarding flood protection, erosion and protection of the receiving natural environment. Applicable Provisions: • Section 6: SWM Opportunities/Constraints Related to Development Types • Section 7: SWM Policies and Technical Guidelines Page 292 of 354 Page 915 of 1679 NPCA Strategic Plan (2021) The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) Strategic Plan (2021) is a ten-year plan that outlines NPCA’s vision, mission, core values, and guiding principles. The Strategic Plan outlines the following six (6) strategic priorities that will guide their work from 2021 to 2031: 1. Healthy and Climate Resilient Watersheds 2. Supporting Sustainable Growth 3. Connecting People to Nature 4. Partner of Choice 5. Organizational Excellence 6. Financial Sustainability Each of these strategic priorities have multiple associated goals and a plan for achieving each goal outlined in the Strategic Plan. NPCA Erosion & Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction (2006) The Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Guidelines for Urban Construction (2006) was developed to improve the practice of erosion and sediment control and outline a process to ensure ESC plans are prepared, implemented, and enforced. The Guidelines are intended to fulfill the following needs: • Provide a consolidated statement of Regulatory requirements and expectation regarding ESC; • Clarify the respective roles and responsibilities for all Regulatory agencies, land owners, developers, builders, contractors, and consultants; • Encourage awareness of and conformance with federal and provincial legislation and with municipal by-laws, permits, and standards related to ESC; • Improve communications among all parties responsible for ESC; • Assist parties in recognizing the causes of environmental damage and the various means of mitigating the risks, thereby reducing the environmental impacts; and, • Promote consistency, quality, and continual improvement in the standard of efforts to protect the environment. Niagara Region Stormwater Management Guidelines (2022) The Niagara Region Stormwater Management Guidelines (2022) was developed to be used by practitioners in the design of storm drainage infrastructure within the Niagara Region. The guidelines are meant to support other relevant and companion documentation, the planning and design process for new land development and re-development (infills/intensification), as well as infrastructure renewal projects, and are not meant to replace the technical guidelines of municipalities.. The guidelines were developed in light of the governing policies and vision outlines in the Niagara Region Official Plan (2022). The document provides hierarchical guidance, direction and consistency for the various stages of development, specifically related to the planning, design, and review of: • Regional Master Servicing Plans (RMSPs); Page 293 of 354 Page 916 of 1679 • Functional Servicing Reports (FSRs); and • Stormwater Management (SWM) Reports. Niagara Region Official Plan (2022) The Niagara Region Official Plan (NROP) (consolidated in November 2022) contains policies and maps which guide the type and location of land uses in the Region to 2051. Subwatershed planning is supported through the NROP through the policies outlined in Section 3.2.3, duplicated below for reference. 3.2.3.2 A subwatershed study should generally include, but is not limited to: a. an inventory of existing ecological and hydrological data and conditions; b. the identification of existing and proposed land uses, and the modelling of potential development impacts; c. water quality targets in accordance with the watershed plan, Provincial guidelines, or other industry standards and best practices; d. procedures for monitoring water quality and quantity before, during, and after development; e. completion of a water balance; f. consideration of all elements of the natural environment system as described in Section 3.1 of this Plan; g. refinement to the boundaries of the natural environment system; h. identification of opportunities for, and constraints to development; i. guidelines and best management practices for development design, environmental design, construction management, etc.; j. the recommendation of appropriate stormwater management techniques in accordance with Provincial, Regional and Local guidelines and industry best practices; k. an analysis the cumulative impact of development; and l. implementation and adaptive monitoring plans. 3.2.3.3 Proposed development in designated greenfield areas, including the associated water, wastewater and stormwater servicing, shall be planned to avoid, or if avoidance is not possible, minimize and mitigate any potential negative impacts on watershed conditions and the water resource system, including the quality and quantity of water. The NROP also contains policies for the protection of the Natural Environment System (Section 3.1), as well as for Source Water Protection (Section 3.3), and climate change considerations (Section 3.5). Niagara Region Transportation Master Plan (2017) The Niagara Region Transportation Master Plan (TMP) (2017) sets out a strategic vision for transportation and its implications in the Niagara Region over the subsequent twenty-five (25) years. The overall goal of the TMP is to improve existing transportation systems within each of the Region’s 12 municipalities, and develop strategies to enhance the movement of people and goods across all modes. The TMP informed development of transportation policies in the Niagara Region Official Plan. Section 5 of the TMP outlines a Complete Streets approach that is intended to use in urban development. Page 294 of 354 Page 917 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls Official Plan (1993, Amended 2024) The City of Niagara Falls Official Plan (OP), consolidated in April 2019, states that a “subwatershed plan may be required through secondary plans, neighbourhood plans or for large scale developments that require an amendment to this Plan, whether or not a watershed plan exists, to provide specific guidance on the means to protect, restore and rehabilitate natural resources and to provide a framework for integrating environmental concerns into the land use development process in context of the watershed area” (Part 2, Section 11.1.15). The OP also indicates that “the function of the natural heritage system shall be assessed on a watershed scale, exceeding lot boundaries, and in some cases, municipal boundaries. Within each watershed area, subwatershed plans and environmental impact studies will be utilized to identify, assess and protect the City's flora, fauna and water resources not only on a site specific, but also on a cumulative basis” (Part 2, Section 11.1). The OP outlines multiple policies for the protection of water resources. Key policies relevant to this SWS include: Part 2, Section 11.1.27: Development or site alteration shall not have an adverse impact on ground or surface water quality or quantity. The City, in consultation with the appropriate agencies, may require a hydrogeological study or an environmental impact study for development or site alteration for any proposal that may impact, either locally or cross- jurisdictionally, on: a) the quantity and quality of surface and ground water; b) the functions of ground water recharge and discharge areas, aquifers and headwaters; c) the natural hydrologic characteristics of watercourse such as base flow; d) surface and ground water such that other natural heritage features are negatively affected; e) natural drainage systems and stream forms; and f) flooding or erosion. 11.1.31 A stormwater management plan shall demonstrate that the proposal will minimize vegetation removal, grading and soil compaction, erosion and sedimentation, and impervious surfaces. Where a watershed or subwatershed plan exists, the stormwater management plan shall implement the recommendations of such plans. The Stormwater Management Plan shall be prepared and signed by a qualified engineer. 11.1.32 Stormwater management facilities shall not be constructed within any EPA [Environmental Protection Area] or ECA [Environmental Conservation Area] features. A stormwater management facility may be permitted in accordance with Land Use Polices of this Section only where it has been demonstrated through an applicable study, completed to the satisfaction of the City and Region, that there will be no impact on any natural heritage feature or the function of the natural heritage system. 11.1.33 Where a Watershed Study or Aquifer Management Plan or any other related environmental study has identified sensitive surface water features and/or sensitive ground water features, these features and their related hydrologic functions will be protected, improved or restored through a restriction of land uses in the implementing Zoning By-law. Uses that may Page 295 of 354 Page 918 of 1679 be restricted include, but are not limited to: landfills, lagoons or other waste disposal facilities, asphalt and concrete batching plants, the storage or processing of chemical products, gasoline or oil depots and service stations and vehicle salvage, maintenance and services yards. As watershed and ground water studies identify surface and ground water features, hydrologic functions and natural heritage features and areas necessary for the ecological and hydrologic integrity of the City's watersheds, the City shall consider appropriate amendments to this Plan. 11.1.36 Development or site alteration adjacent to any hydrologic feature such as valleylands, stream corridors or Municipal Drains shall be setback from the stable top of slope in accordance with the Regulations of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority. The required setback shall be protected through the implementing zoning by-law. City of Niagara Falls Sustainable Transportation Master Plan (2011) The City of Niagara Falls Sustainable Transportation Master Plan (STMP) (2011) provides a strategy of priority improvements and programs required for the City to be able to address its transportation challenges over the next twenty (20) to twenty-five (25) years. The STMP outlines operational, planning, and policy issues for all modes of transportation in the context of tourism, economics, environment, and the community, and also provides a vision for future transportation consistent with community values. The goals and principles of the STMP are as follows: • Optimize the transportation system; • Promote transportation choice; • Foster a strong economy; and • Support sustainable development and growth. Section 6 outlines future travel needs and opportunities, and Section 7.2 outlines recommendations for the future transportation network. Page 296 of 354 Page 919 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 Appendix B – Hydrologic Modeling Page 297 of 354 Page 920 of 1679 Garner West Modeling November, 2024 Aquafor Beech limited 1 Hydrology Hydrology is the science which deals with the interaction of water and land, and the processes by which precipitation is transformed into runoff to the receiving watercourses or infiltrated into the groundwater system. These processes are generally called the hydrologic cycle. One of the most dramatic changes brought about by urbanization is the change in hydrological cycle and stream hydrology. These changes can result in increases in flooding, channel erosion, sediment transport, and pollutant loadings which can cause deterioration in natural channel morphology, fish and wildlife habitats, recreational opportunity and aesthetics. It is important that the existing hydrologic characteristics of the study area and its watercourses be established. This information is critical in defining existing flood characteristics, defining regulatory floodplain limits, and providing key information on the selection and design of stormwater management facilities for future urban development lands. Hydrologic model setup A hydrologic model is used to simulate predevelopment and post development conditions and evaluate the Stormwater Management alternatives. Ultimately, the hydrologic model is a tool to evaluate how proposed stormwater infrastructure solutions can mitigate the impacts of urbanization. The hydrologic model selected for this study is PCSWMM 2023. PCSWMM has the capacity of using a number of versions of SWMM5 for performing the hydrologic and hydraulic calculations. For the existing condition model, SWMM 7.6.3675 was selected, as it is the latest official version of SWMM currently available. Provided below is an overview as to how the model was set up to define flows for existing conditions. Map Coordinate System The model was setup in PCSWMM 2016 using the NAD83 UTM zone 17N coordinates system. All of the GIS files prepared as part of this project used the same coordinate system. Subcatchments Area, Width and Length The area of each of the subcatchments were calculated using the auto-length feature within the SWMM5 model. This method provides an approximate area based on the NAD83 UTM zone 17N coordinate system. The width is a calibration parameter which is not easily measurable in the field. One method for initial estimation of subcatchment width is to calculate it by dividing the area by an assigned flow path length. This parameter may be adjusted significantly during the model calibration. Although it is often suggested that the subcatchment width be treated as a calibration parameter whereby the width is adjusted to best simulated runoff in the receiving system; however, in cases where calibration data is not available, the subcatchment width parameter must be estimated recognizing the impact of assumptions on model output and considering the potential limitations of these assumptions. The flow length for a subcatchment is the length of the overland sheet flow in meters. PCSWMM uses the EPA SWMM5 hydrology and hydraulics engine. Flow length is not a parameter used by EPA SWM5, rather it is used to initially estimate subcatchment width. Measuring the length of the overland flow requires some judgment and approximation as well as use of a DEM to define the major overland flow path. Infiltration Parameters Subcatchment infiltration is the process of rainfall infiltration into the pervious area of the ground surface into the unsaturated soil zone of pervious subcatchment areas. There are three methods available in SWMM5 for modelling infiltration including Horton’s Equation, Green-Ampt Method and Curve Number Page 298 of 354 Page 921 of 1679 Garner West Modeling November, 2024 Aquafor Beech limited 2 Method. The method selected for the North West was Horton’s Equation. Horton’s Equation input parameters include; the maximum and minimum infiltration rates, a decay coefficient that describes how fast the rate decreases over time, and the time it takes a fully saturated soil to completely dry (used to compute the recovery of infiltration rate during dry periods). For the North West catchment area, the soil type consists mainly of Loam. The infiltration parameters used for North West catchment are presented in Table E-1. Table E-1: Soil Characteristics for North West Catchment Texture K value (mm/hr) Max Infiltration Diamicton 0.25 25.4 Sand 120 127 Silt, sand, gravel 55 120 Loam 3.6 76.2 Clay, silt 0.51 50 Sand, gravel 5 150 Organic deposits 3.5 90 Clay, silt, sand 1.6 75 Percent Directly Connected Impervious Area (DCIA) The percent of imperviousness land in each subcatchment was calculated using the land use map (Error! Reference source not found.) layer using the general imperviousness values which are presented in Table E-2. Once the subcatchments were discretized, the percent of impervious land in each subcatchment was calculated using aerial photographs. A complete description of each land use type and its imperviousness is provided in Table E-2. Page 299 of 354 Page 922 of 1679 Garner West Modeling November, 2024 Aquafor Beech limited 3 Table E-2: Typical Imperviousness for a Defined Land Use Design Storm The design storm is a critical precipitation event which is used for assessing the flood hydrology for a certain return period (frequency). Design storms are created based on statistical analysis of historical storm data and are usually region specific. The 24-hour SCS storm distribution was provided by NPCA for use in the PCSWMM model for this study area. The 24-hour rainfall depths for the 2, 5, 10, 25, and 100-year return period storms, are applied in the PCSWMM model for North West Tributaries were 49.5, 62.6, 71.3, 82.3, 90.4- and 98.5-mm. Hurricane Hazel storm with 21-mm of rain was also applied to both study areas to define the regional flows. Figure 1 shows the PCSWM model setup for North West catchments. It presents catchment delineation, creeks, junctions and outlets of the catchments including the key flow node at North West watershed. Page 300 of 354 Page 923 of 1679 Garner West Modeling November, 2024 Aquafor Beech limited 4 Figure 1: PCSWMM Model Setup for North West Flow Estimation (Events) The Existing Model was used to estimate stormwater flow rates at the outlet of the North West watershed (Figure 1) for various return periods. The regulatory flood event in the study area for floodplain management purposes is the regional storm (Hurricane Hazel). A design storm approach was selected to estimate peak flow rates for the 2-year through 100-year return periods on North West catchment within the study area. With a design storm approach, a rainfall input (i.e. duration, return period depth, and temporal distribution) is selected and design flows are determined using specified antecedent moisture conditions and a computational technique such as hydrologic model. It is assumed with this approach that the peak flows which are generated are of the same return period as the applied design storm Table E-3 summarizes the estimated flow rates at the outlet of North West Tributaries. Table E-3: Flows at areas of interest Creek Catchment 2-year 5-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year Hurricane Hazel Event TM Ten Mile Creek North West 0.324 0.478 0.591 0.743 0.866 0.992 3.572 Page 301 of 354 Page 924 of 1679 Garner West Modeling November, 2024 Aquafor Beech limited 5 Design Storms 2-year 5-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year Time (H:M) Value Time (H:M) Value Time (H:M) Value Time (H:M) Value Time (H:M) Value Time (H:M) Value 0:00 0.54 0:00 0.69 0:00 0.78 0:00 0.91 0:00 0.99 0:00 1.08 0:15 0.54 0:15 0.69 0:15 0.78 0:15 0.91 0:15 0.99 0:15 1.08 0:30 0.54 0:30 0.69 0:30 0.78 0:30 0.91 0:30 0.99 0:30 1.08 0:45 0.54 0:45 0.69 0:45 0.78 0:45 0.91 0:45 0.99 0:45 1.08 1:00 0.54 1:00 0.69 1:00 0.78 1:00 0.91 1:00 0.99 1:00 1.08 1:15 0.54 1:15 0.69 1:15 0.78 1:15 0.91 1:15 0.99 1:15 1.08 1:30 0.54 1:30 0.69 1:30 0.78 1:30 0.91 1:30 0.99 1:30 1.08 1:45 0.54 1:45 0.69 1:45 0.78 1:45 0.91 1:45 0.99 1:45 1.08 2:00 0.64 2:00 0.81 2:00 0.93 2:00 1.07 2:00 1.18 2:00 1.28 2:15 0.64 2:15 0.81 2:15 0.93 2:15 1.07 2:15 1.18 2:15 1.28 2:30 0.64 2:30 0.81 2:30 0.93 2:30 1.07 2:30 1.18 2:30 1.28 2:45 0.64 2:45 0.81 2:45 0.93 2:45 1.07 2:45 1.18 2:45 1.28 3:00 0.64 3:00 0.81 3:00 0.93 3:00 1.07 3:00 1.18 3:00 1.28 3:15 0.64 3:15 0.81 3:15 0.93 3:15 1.07 3:15 1.18 3:15 1.28 3:30 0.64 3:30 0.81 3:30 0.93 3:30 1.07 3:30 1.18 3:30 1.28 3:45 0.64 3:45 0.81 3:45 0.93 3:45 1.07 3:45 1.18 3:45 1.28 4:00 0.79 4:00 1.00 4:00 1.14 4:00 1.32 4:00 1.45 4:00 1.58 4:15 0.79 4:15 1.00 4:15 1.14 4:15 1.32 4:15 1.45 4:15 1.58 4:30 0.79 4:30 1.00 4:30 1.14 4:30 1.32 4:30 1.45 4:30 1.58 4:45 0.79 4:45 1.00 4:45 1.14 4:45 1.32 4:45 1.45 4:45 1.58 5:00 0.79 5:00 1.00 5:00 1.14 5:00 1.32 5:00 1.45 5:00 1.58 5:15 0.79 5:15 1.00 5:15 1.14 5:15 1.32 5:15 1.45 5:15 1.58 5:30 0.79 5:30 1.00 5:30 1.14 5:30 1.32 5:30 1.45 5:30 1.58 5:45 0.79 5:45 1.00 5:45 1.14 5:45 1.32 5:45 1.45 5:45 1.58 6:00 0.89 6:00 1.13 6:00 1.28 6:00 1.48 6:00 1.63 6:00 1.77 6:15 0.89 6:15 1.13 6:15 1.28 6:15 1.48 6:15 1.63 6:15 1.77 6:30 0.89 6:30 1.13 6:30 1.28 6:30 1.48 6:30 1.63 6:30 1.77 6:45 0.89 6:45 1.13 6:45 1.28 6:45 1.48 6:45 1.63 6:45 1.77 7:00 1.09 7:00 1.38 7:00 1.57 7:00 1.81 7:00 1.99 7:00 2.17 7:15 1.09 7:15 1.38 7:15 1.57 7:15 1.81 7:15 1.99 7:15 2.17 7:30 1.09 7:30 1.38 7:30 1.57 7:30 1.81 7:30 1.99 7:30 2.17 7:45 1.09 7:45 1.38 7:45 1.57 7:45 1.81 7:45 1.99 7:45 2.17 8:00 1.29 8:00 1.63 8:00 1.85 8:00 2.14 8:00 2.35 8:00 2.56 8:15 1.29 8:15 1.63 8:15 1.85 8:15 2.14 8:15 2.35 8:15 2.56 8:30 1.39 8:30 1.75 8:30 2.00 8:30 2.30 8:30 2.53 8:30 2.76 8:45 1.39 8:45 1.75 8:45 2.00 8:45 2.30 8:45 2.53 8:45 2.76 9:00 1.58 9:00 2.00 9:00 2.28 9:00 2.63 9:00 2.89 9:00 3.15 Page 302 of 354 Page 925 of 1679 Garner West Modeling November, 2024 Aquafor Beech limited 6 9:15 1.58 9:15 2.00 9:15 2.28 9:15 2.63 9:15 2.89 9:15 3.15 9:30 1.78 9:30 2.25 9:30 2.57 9:30 2.96 9:30 3.25 9:30 3.55 9:45 1.78 9:45 2.25 9:45 2.57 9:45 2.96 9:45 3.25 9:45 3.55 10:00 2.28 10:00 2.88 10:00 3.28 10:00 3.79 10:00 4.16 10:00 4.53 10:15 2.28 10:15 2.88 10:15 3.28 10:15 3.79 10:15 4.16 10:15 4.53 10:30 3.07 10:30 3.88 10:30 4.42 10:30 5.10 10:30 5.60 10:30 6.11 10:45 3.07 10:45 3.88 10:45 4.42 10:45 5.10 10:45 5.60 10:45 6.11 11:00 4.75 11:00 6.01 11:00 6.84 11:00 7.90 11:00 8.68 11:00 9.46 11:15 4.75 11:15 6.01 11:15 6.84 11:15 7.90 11:15 8.68 11:15 9.46 11:30 14.65 11:30 18.53 11:30 21.10 11:30 24.36 11:30 26.76 11:30 29.16 11:45 60.59 11:45 76.62 11:45 87.27 11:45 100.74 11:45 110.65 11:45 120.57 12:00 7.13 12:00 9.01 12:00 10.27 12:00 11.85 12:00 13.02 12:00 14.18 12:15 7.13 12:15 9.01 12:15 10.27 12:15 11.85 12:15 13.02 12:15 14.18 12:30 3.66 12:30 4.63 12:30 5.28 12:30 6.09 12:30 6.69 12:30 7.29 12:45 3.66 12:45 4.63 12:45 5.28 12:45 6.09 12:45 6.69 12:45 7.29 13:00 2.67 13:00 3.38 13:00 3.85 13:00 4.44 13:00 4.88 13:00 5.32 13:15 2.67 13:15 3.38 13:15 3.85 13:15 4.44 13:15 4.88 13:15 5.32 13:30 2.08 13:30 2.63 13:30 2.99 13:30 3.46 13:30 3.80 13:30 4.14 13:45 2.08 13:45 2.63 13:45 2.99 13:45 3.46 13:45 3.80 13:45 4.14 14:00 1.49 14:00 1.88 14:00 2.14 14:00 2.47 14:00 2.71 14:00 2.95 14:15 1.49 14:15 1.88 14:15 2.14 14:15 2.47 14:15 2.71 14:15 2.95 14:30 1.49 14:30 1.88 14:30 2.14 14:30 2.47 14:30 2.71 14:30 2.95 14:45 1.49 14:45 1.88 14:45 2.14 14:45 2.47 14:45 2.71 14:45 2.95 15:00 1.49 15:00 1.88 15:00 2.14 15:00 2.47 15:00 2.71 15:00 2.95 15:15 1.49 15:15 1.88 15:15 2.14 15:15 2.47 15:15 2.71 15:15 2.95 15:30 1.49 15:30 1.88 15:30 2.14 15:30 2.47 15:30 2.71 15:30 2.95 15:45 1.49 15:45 1.88 15:45 2.14 15:45 2.47 15:45 2.71 15:45 2.95 16:00 0.89 16:00 1.13 16:00 1.28 16:00 1.48 16:00 1.63 16:00 1.77 16:15 0.89 16:15 1.13 16:15 1.28 16:15 1.48 16:15 1.63 16:15 1.77 16:30 0.89 16:30 1.13 16:30 1.28 16:30 1.48 16:30 1.63 16:30 1.77 16:45 0.89 16:45 1.13 16:45 1.28 16:45 1.48 16:45 1.63 16:45 1.77 17:00 0.89 17:00 1.13 17:00 1.28 17:00 1.48 17:00 1.63 17:00 1.77 17:15 0.89 17:15 1.13 17:15 1.28 17:15 1.48 17:15 1.63 17:15 1.77 17:30 0.89 17:30 1.13 17:30 1.28 17:30 1.48 17:30 1.63 17:30 1.77 17:45 0.89 17:45 1.13 17:45 1.28 17:45 1.48 17:45 1.63 17:45 1.77 18:00 0.89 18:00 1.13 18:00 1.28 18:00 1.48 18:00 1.63 18:00 1.77 18:15 0.89 18:15 1.13 18:15 1.28 18:15 1.48 18:15 1.63 18:15 1.77 18:30 0.89 18:30 1.13 18:30 1.28 18:30 1.48 18:30 1.63 18:30 1.77 18:45 0.89 18:45 1.13 18:45 1.28 18:45 1.48 18:45 1.63 18:45 1.77 19:00 0.89 19:00 1.13 19:00 1.28 19:00 1.48 19:00 1.63 19:00 1.77 19:15 0.89 19:15 1.13 19:15 1.28 19:15 1.48 19:15 1.63 19:15 1.77 Page 303 of 354 Page 926 of 1679 Garner West Modeling November, 2024 Aquafor Beech limited 7 19:30 0.89 19:30 1.13 19:30 1.28 19:30 1.48 19:30 1.63 19:30 1.77 19:45 0.89 19:45 1.13 19:45 1.28 19:45 1.48 19:45 1.63 19:45 1.77 20:00 0.59 20:00 0.75 20:00 0.86 20:00 0.99 20:00 1.08 20:00 1.18 20:15 0.59 20:15 0.75 20:15 0.86 20:15 0.99 20:15 1.08 20:15 1.18 20:30 0.59 20:30 0.75 20:30 0.86 20:30 0.99 20:30 1.08 20:30 1.18 20:45 0.59 20:45 0.75 20:45 0.86 20:45 0.99 20:45 1.08 20:45 1.18 21:00 0.59 21:00 0.75 21:00 0.86 21:00 0.99 21:00 1.08 21:00 1.18 21:15 0.59 21:15 0.75 21:15 0.86 21:15 0.99 21:15 1.08 21:15 1.18 21:30 0.59 21:30 0.75 21:30 0.86 21:30 0.99 21:30 1.08 21:30 1.18 21:45 0.59 21:45 0.75 21:45 0.86 21:45 0.99 21:45 1.08 21:45 1.18 22:00 0.59 22:00 0.75 22:00 0.86 22:00 0.99 22:00 1.08 22:00 1.18 22:15 0.59 22:15 0.75 22:15 0.86 22:15 0.99 22:15 1.08 22:15 1.18 22:30 0.59 22:30 0.75 22:30 0.86 22:30 0.99 22:30 1.08 22:30 1.18 22:45 0.59 22:45 0.75 22:45 0.86 22:45 0.99 22:45 1.08 22:45 1.18 23:00 0.59 23:00 0.75 23:00 0.86 23:00 0.99 23:00 1.08 23:00 1.18 23:15 0.59 23:15 0.75 23:15 0.86 23:15 0.99 23:15 1.08 23:15 1.18 23:30 0.59 23:30 0.75 23:30 0.86 23:30 0.99 23:30 1.08 23:30 1.18 23:45 0.59 23:45 0.75 23:45 0.86 23:45 0.99 23:45 1.08 23:45 1.18 Page 304 of 354 Page 927 of 1679 Garner West Modeling November, 2024 Aquafor Beech limited 8 subcatchment parameters Name Area (ha) Width (m) Flow Length (m) Slope (%) Imperviousness (%) N Impervious N Pervious Dstore Impervious (mm) Dstore Pervious (mm) Max. Infiltration Rate (mm/hr) Min. Infiltration Rate (mm/hr) Decay Constant (1/hr) Drying Time (days) NW-1 150.1 500.0 3001.7 6.6 28.8 1.5 5.5 0.013 0.23 76.2 3.6 4 7 Page 305 of 354Page 928 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 Appendix C – Water Quality Lab Reports Page 306 of 354 Page 929 of 1679 4 4.00 True CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Work Order :Page :1 of 3WT2426300 ::LaboratoryClientAquafor Beech Limited ALS Environmental - Waterloo ::Contact Meagan Bordi Andrew MartinAccount Manager ::AddressAddress55 Regal Road Unit 3 Guelph ON Canada N1K 1B6 60 Northland Road, Unit 1 Waterloo ON Canada N2V 2B8 :Telephone ----:Telephone +1 519 886 6910 :Project Northwest Gamer Monitoring Date Samples Received :06-Sep-2024 12:35 :PO ----Date Analysis Commenced :07-Sep-2024 :C-O-C number ----Issue Date :13-Sep-2024 16:29 Sampler :CLIENT Site : Quote number :2024 SOA 2:No. of samples received 2:No. of samples analysed This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. This document shall not be reproduced, except in full. This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information: l General Comments l Analytical Results Additional information pertinent to this report will be found in the following separate attachments: Quality Control Report, QC Interpretive report to assist with Quality Review and Sample Receipt Notification (SRN). Signatories This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is conducted in accordance with US FDA 21 CFR Part 11. Signatories Laboratory DepartmentPosition Nik Perkio Senior Analyst Inorganics, Waterloo, Ontario Nik Perkio Senior Analyst Metals, Waterloo, Ontario Walt Kippenhuck Supervisor - Inorganic Inorganics, Waterloo, Ontario Zeba Patel Analyst Microbiology, Waterloo, Ontario Page 307 of 354Page 930 of 1679 2 of 3:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Aquafor Beech Limited General Comments The analytical methods used by ALS are developed using internationally recognized reference methods (where available), such as those published by US EPA, APHA Standard Methods, ASTM, ISO, Environment Canada, BC MOE, and Ontario MOE. Refer to the ALS Quality Control Interpretive report (QCI) for applicable references and methodology summaries. Reference methods may incorporate modifications to improve performance. Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis. Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference. Please refer to Quality Control Interpretive report (QCI) for information regarding Holding Time compliance. Key :CAS Number: Chemical Abstracts Services number is a unique identifier assigned to discrete substances LOR: Limit of Reporting (detection limit). DescriptionUnit CFU/100mL colony forming units per hundred millilitres mg/L milligrams per litre <: less than. >: greater than. Surrogate: An analyte that is similar in behavior to target analyte(s), but that does not occur naturally in environmental samples. For applicable tests, surrogates are added to samples prior to analysis as a check on recovery. Test results reported relate only to the samples as received by the laboratory. UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED on SRN or QCI Report, ALL SAMPLES WERE RECEIVED IN ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. Qualifiers Qualifier Description Detection Limit Raised: Dilution required due to high Dissolved Solids / Electrical Conductivity. DLDS Detection Limit Adjusted due to sample matrix effects (e.g. chemical interference, colour, turbidity). DLM Page 308 of 354Page 931 of 1679 3 of 3:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Aquafor Beech Limited Analytical Results ------------GW1NW1Client sample IDSub-Matrix: Water (Matrix: Water) ------------06-Sep-2024 09:10 06-Sep-2024 10:05 Client sampling date / time ------------------------WT2426300-002WT2426300-001UnitLORCAS NumberAnalyte Method/Lab Result Result ------------ Physical Tests 6.9 ----mg/L3.0------------6.9E160/WTSolids, total suspended [TSS] Anions and Nutrients 236 ----mg/L0.5016887-00-6 --------440E235.Cl/WTChloride DLDS DLDS <0.100 ----mg/L0.02014797-55-8 --------0.125E235.NO3/WTNitrate (as N)DLDS DLDS 0.137 ----mg/L0.00207723-14-0 --------0.123E372-U/WTPhosphorus, total Microbiological Tests 49 ----CFU/100mL1------------310E012A.EC/WTColiforms, Escherichia coli [E. coli] DLM Total Metals 0.00218 ----mg/L0.000507440-50-8 --------0.00079E420/WTCopper, total 0.000437 ----mg/L0.0000507439-92-1 --------0.000456E420/WTLead, total 0.0047 ----mg/L0.00307440-66-6 --------0.0044E420/WTZinc, total Please refer to the General Comments section for an explanation of any result qualifiers detected. Please refer to the Accreditation section for an explanation of analyte accreditations.Page 309 of 354Page 932 of 1679 QUALITY CONTROL INTERPRETIVE REPORT Work Order :WT2426300 Page :1 of 6 ::LaboratoryClient ALS Environmental - WaterlooAquafor Beech Limited :Meagan Bordi Account Manager :Andrew MartinContact Address :55 Regal Road Unit 3 Guelph ON Canada N1K 1B6 Address :60 Northland Road, Unit 1 Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2V 2B8 Telephone :+1 519 886 6910Telephone:---- :Project Northwest Gamer Monitoring Date Samples Received :06-Sep-2024 12:35 Issue Date :13-Sep-2024 16:29----PO : C-O-C number ----: CLIENT:Sampler :Site Quote number :2024 SOA No. of samples received :2 2:No. of samples analysed This report is automatically generated by the ALS LIMS (Laboratory Information Management System) through evaluation of Quality Control (QC) results and other QA parameters associated with this submission, and is intended to facilitate rapid data validation by auditors or reviewers. The report highlights any exceptions and outliers to ALS Data Quality Objectives, provides holding time details and exceptions, summarizes QC sample frequencies, and lists applicable methodology references and summaries. Key Anonymous: Refers to samples which are not part of this work order, but which formed part of the QC process lot. CAS Number: Chemical Abstracts Service number is a unique identifier assigned to discrete substances. DQO: Data Quality Objective. LOR: Limit of Reporting (detection limit). RPD: Relative Percent Difference. Workorder Comments Holding times are displayed as "---" if no guidance exists from CCME, Canadian provinces, or broadly recognized international references. Summary of Outliers Outliers : Quality Control Samples l No Method Blank value outliers occur. l No Duplicate outliers occur. l No Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) outliers occur l No Matrix Spike outliers occur. l No Test sample Surrogate recovery outliers exist. Outliers: Reference Material (RM) Samples l No Reference Material (RM) Sample outliers occur.Page 310 of 354Page 933 of 1679 Outliers : Analysis Holding Time Compliance (Breaches) l No Analysis Holding Time Outliers exist. Outliers : Frequency of Quality Control Samples l No Quality Control Sample Frequency Outliers occur.Page 311 of 354Page 934 of 1679 3 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Analysis Holding Time Compliance This report summarizes extraction / preparation and analysis times and compares each with ALS recommended holding times, which are selected to meet known provincial and /or federal requirements. In the absence of regulatory hold times, ALS establishes recommendations based on guidelines published by organizations such as CCME, US EPA, APHA Standard Methods, ASTM, or Environment Canada (where available). Dates and holding times reported below represent the first dates of extraction or analysis. If subsequent tests or dilutions exceeded holding times, qualifiers are added (refer to COA). If samples are identified below as having been analyzed or extracted outside of recommended holding times, measurement uncertainties may be increased, and this should be taken into consideration when interpreting results. Where actual sampling date is not provided on the chain of custody, the date of receipt with time at 00:00 is used for calculation purposes. Where only the sample date without time is provided on the chain of custody, the sampling date at 00:00 is used for calculation purposes. Matrix: Water Evaluation: û = Holding time exceedance ; ü = Within Holding Time AnalysisExtraction / Preparation Container / Client Sample ID(s) Sampling Date Analysis DatePreparation Date EvalEval Method Holding Times Holding Times Rec Actual Rec Actual Analyte Group : Analytical Method Anions and Nutrients : Chloride in Water by IC HDPE [ON MECP] GW1 10-Sep-202407-Sep-202406-Sep-2024E235.Cl 28 days 1 days 28 days 4 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Chloride in Water by IC HDPE [ON MECP] NW1 10-Sep-202407-Sep-202406-Sep-2024E235.Cl 28 days 1 days 28 days 4 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Nitrate in Water by IC HDPE [ON MECP] GW1 10-Sep-202407-Sep-202406-Sep-2024E235.NO3 7 days 1 days 7 days 4 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Nitrate in Water by IC HDPE [ON MECP] NW1 10-Sep-202407-Sep-202406-Sep-2024E235.NO3 7 days 1 days 7 days 4 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Total Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L) Amber glass total (sulfuric acid) [ON MECP] GW1 13-Sep-202412-Sep-202406-Sep-2024E372-U 28 days 6 days 28 days 7 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Total Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L) Amber glass total (sulfuric acid) [ON MECP] NW1 13-Sep-202412-Sep-202406-Sep-2024E372-U 28 days 6 days 28 days 7 daysü ü Microbiological Tests : E. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG) Sterile HDPE (Sodium thiosulphate) [ON MECP] NW1 07-Sep-2024----06-Sep-2024E012A.EC --------48 hrs 29 hrs üPage 312 of 354Page 935 of 1679 4 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Matrix: Water Evaluation: û = Holding time exceedance ; ü = Within Holding Time AnalysisExtraction / Preparation Container / Client Sample ID(s) Sampling Date Analysis DatePreparation Date EvalEval Method Holding Times Holding Times Rec Actual Rec Actual Analyte Group : Analytical Method Microbiological Tests : E. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG) Sterile HDPE (Sodium thiosulphate) [ON MECP] GW1 07-Sep-2024----06-Sep-2024E012A.EC --------48 hrs 30 hrs ü Physical Tests : TSS by Gravimetry HDPE [ON MECP] GW1 10-Sep-2024----06-Sep-2024E160 --------7 days 4 days ü Physical Tests : TSS by Gravimetry HDPE [ON MECP] NW1 10-Sep-2024----06-Sep-2024E160 --------7 days 4 days ü Total Metals : Total Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS HDPE total (nitric acid) GW1 09-Sep-202409-Sep-202406-Sep-2024E420 180 days 3 days 180 days 3 daysü ü Total Metals : Total Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS HDPE total (nitric acid) NW1 09-Sep-202409-Sep-202406-Sep-2024E420 180 days 3 days 180 days 3 daysü ü Legend & Qualifier Definitions Rec. HT: ALS recommended hold time (see units).Page 313 of 354Page 936 of 1679 5 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Quality Control Parameter Frequency Compliance The following report summarizes the frequency of laboratory QC samples analyzed within the analytical batches (QC lots) in which the submitted samples were processed. The actual frequency should be greater than or equal to the expected frequency. Matrix: Water Evaluation: û = QC frequency outside specification; ü = QC frequency within specification. Quality Control Sample TypeQuality Control Sample Type EvaluationAnalytical Methods Method Count QC Regular Actual Expected Frequency (%) QC Lot # Laboratory Duplicates (DUP) 1 12 üChloride in Water by IC E235.Cl 1638844 5.08.3 1 6 üE. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG)E012A.EC 1639122 5.016.6 1 9 üNitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 1638842 5.011.1 1 20 üTotal Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 1639766 5.05.0 1 20 üTotal Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L)E372-U 1645559 5.05.0 1 17 üTSS by Gravimetry E160 1639945 4.75.8 Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) 1 12 üChloride in Water by IC E235.Cl 1638844 5.08.3 1 9 üNitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 1638842 5.011.1 1 20 üTotal Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 1639766 5.05.0 1 20 üTotal Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L)E372-U 1645559 5.05.0 1 17 üTSS by Gravimetry E160 1639945 4.75.8 Method Blanks (MB) 1 12 üChloride in Water by IC E235.Cl 1638844 5.08.3 1 6 üE. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG)E012A.EC 1639122 5.016.6 1 9 üNitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 1638842 5.011.1 1 20 üTotal Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 1639766 5.05.0 1 20 üTotal Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L)E372-U 1645559 5.05.0 1 17 üTSS by Gravimetry E160 1639945 4.75.8 Matrix Spikes (MS) 1 12 üChloride in Water by IC E235.Cl 1638844 5.08.3 1 9 üNitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 1638842 5.011.1 1 20 üTotal Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 1639766 5.05.0 1 20 üTotal Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L)E372-U 1645559 5.05.0 Page 314 of 354Page 937 of 1679 6 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Methodology References and Summaries The analytical methods used by ALS are developed using internationally recognized reference methods (where available), such as those published by US EPA, APHA Standard Methods, ASTM, ISO, Environment Canada, BC MOE, and Ontario MOE. Reference methods may incorporate modifications to improve performance (indicated by “mod”). Analytical Methods Method DescriptionsMatrixMethod / Lab Method Reference Following filtration (0.45 µm), and incubation at 44.5±0.2°C for 24 hours, colonies exhibiting characteristic morphology of the target organism are enumerated. E. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG)E012A.EC Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo APHA 9222D (mod) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) are determined by filtering a sample through a glass fibre filter, following by drying of the filter at 104 ± 1°C, with gravimetric measurement of the filtered solids. Samples containing very high dissolved solid content (i.e. seawaters, brackish waters) may produce a positive bias by this method. Alternate analysis methods are available for these types of samples. TSS by Gravimetry E160 Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo APHA 2540 D (mod) Inorganic anions are analyzed by Ion Chromatography with conductivity and /or UV detection. Chloride in Water by IC E235.Cl Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo EPA 300.1 (mod) Inorganic anions are analyzed by Ion Chromatography with conductivity and /or UV detection. Nitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo EPA 300.1 (mod) Total Phosphorus is determined colourimetrically using a discrete analyzer after heated persulfate digestion of the sample. Total Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L) E372-U Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo APHA 4500-P E (mod). Water samples are digested with nitric and hydrochloric acids, and analyzed by Collision/Reaction Cell ICPMS. Method Limitation (re: Sulfur): Sulfide and volatile sulfur species may not be recovered by this method. Total Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo EPA 200.2/6020B (mod) Preparation Methods Method DescriptionsMatrixMethod / Lab Method Reference Samples are heated with a persulfate digestion reagent.Digestion for Total Phosphorus in water EP372 Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo APHA 4500-P E (mod).Page 315 of 354Page 938 of 1679 False QUALITY CONTROL REPORT Work Order :Page :1 of 6WT2426300 ::LaboratoryClient ALS Environmental - WaterlooAquafor Beech Limited :Contact Meagan Bordi :Andrew MartinAccount Manager :Address 55 Regal Road Unit 3 Guelph ON Canada N1K 1B6 Address :60 Northland Road, Unit 1 Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2V 2B8 ::Telephone +1 519 886 6910:Telephone---- :Project Northwest Gamer Monitoring Date Samples Received :06-Sep-2024 12:35 :PO ----Date Analysis Commenced :07-Sep-2024 :C-O-C number ----Issue Date :13-Sep-2024 16:29 Sampler :CLIENT Site : Quote number :2024 SOA No. of samples received 2: No. of samples analysed :2 This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. This document shall not be reproduced, except in full. This Quality Control Report contains the following information: l Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report; Relative Percent Difference (RPD) and Data Quality Objectives l Matrix Spike (MS) Report; Recovery and Data Quality Objectives l Method Blank (MB) Report; Recovery and Data Quality Objectives l Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) Report; Recovery and Data Quality Objectives Signatories This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is conducted in accordance with US FDA 21 CFR Part 11. Signatories Position Laboratory Department Nik Perkio Senior Analyst Waterloo Inorganics, Waterloo, Ontario Nik Perkio Senior Analyst Waterloo Metals, Waterloo, Ontario Walt Kippenhuck Supervisor - Inorganic Waterloo Inorganics, Waterloo, Ontario Zeba Patel Analyst Waterloo Microbiology, Waterloo, Ontario Page 316 of 354Page 939 of 1679 2 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project General Comments The ALS Quality Control (QC) report is optionally provided to ALS clients upon request. ALS test methods include comprehensive QC checks with every analysis to ensure our high standards of quality are met. Each QC result has a known or expected target value, which is compared against predetermined Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) to provide confidence in the accuracy of associated test results. This report contains detailed results for all QC results applicable to this sample submission. Please refer to the ALS Quality Control Interpretation report (QCI) for applicable method references and methodology summaries. Anonymous = Refers to samples which are not part of this work order, but which formed part of the QC process lot. CAS Number = Chemical Abstracts Service number is a unique identifier assigned to discrete substances. DQO = Data Quality Objective. LOR = Limit of Reporting (detection limit). RPD = Relative Percent Difference # = Indicates a QC result that did not meet the ALS DQO. Key : Workorder Comments Holding times are displayed as "---" if no guidance exists from CCME, Canadian provinces, or broadly recognized international references.Page 317 of 354Page 940 of 1679 3 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report A Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) is a randomly selected intralaboratory replicate sample. Laboratory Duplicates provide information regarding method precision and sample heterogeneity. ALS DQOs for Laboratory Duplicates are expressed as test-specific limits for Relative Percent Difference (RPD), or as an absolute difference limit of 2 times the LOR for low concentration duplicates within ~ 4-10 times the LOR (cut-off is test-specific). Sub-Matrix: Water Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report RPD(%) or Difference Laboratory sample ID Client sample ID Analyte CAS Number LOR UnitMethod QualifierOriginal Result Duplicate Result Duplicate Limits Physical Tests (QC Lot: 1639945) Solids, total suspended [TSS]----mg/L 21.9 18.1 3.8 Diff <2x LORAnonymous WT2426172-001 E160 ----3.0 Anions and Nutrients (QC Lot: 1638842) Nitrate (as N)14797-55-8 mg/L <0.020 <0.020 0 Diff <2x LORAnonymous WT2426130-001 E235.NO3 ----0.020 Anions and Nutrients (QC Lot: 1638844) Chloride 16887-00-6 mg/L 3.28 3.25 0.03 Diff <2x LORAnonymous WT2426130-001 E235.Cl ----0.50 Anions and Nutrients (QC Lot: 1645559) Phosphorus, total 7723-14-0 mg/L 0.0110 0.0104 0.0006 Diff <2x LORAnonymous WT2426016-001 E372-U ----0.0020 Microbiological Tests (QC Lot: 1639122) Coliforms, Escherichia coli [E. coli]----CFU/100mL <1 <1 0 Diff <2x LORAnonymous WT2426293-001 E012A.EC ----1 Total Metals (QC Lot: 1639766) Copper, total 7440-50-8 mg/L 0.0401 0.0398 0.717%20%Anonymous WP2421356-001 E420 ----0.00050 Lead, total 7439-92-1 mg/L <0.000050 <0.000050 0 Diff <2x LORE420 ----0.000050 Zinc, total 7440-66-6 mg/L <0.0030 <0.0030 0 Diff <2x LORE420 ----0.0030 Page 318 of 354Page 941 of 1679 4 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Method Blank (MB) Report A Method Blank is an analyte-free matrix that undergoes sample processing identical to that carried out for test samples. Method Blank results are used to monitor and control for potential contamination from the laboratory environment and reagents. For most tests, the DQO for Method Blanks is for the result to be < LOR. Sub-Matrix: Water ResultAnalyteCAS Number LOR UnitMethod Qualifier Physical Tests (QCLot: 1639945) Solids, total suspended [TSS]----E160 3 mg/L <3.0 ---- Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1638842) Nitrate (as N)14797-55-8 E235.NO3 0.02 mg/L <0.020 ---- Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1638844) Chloride 16887-00-6 E235.Cl 0.5 mg/L <0.50 ---- Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1645559) Phosphorus, total 7723-14-0 E372-U 0.002 mg/L <0.0020 ---- Microbiological Tests (QCLot: 1639122) Coliforms, Escherichia coli [E. coli]----E012A.EC 1 CFU/100mL <1 ---- Total Metals (QCLot: 1639766) Copper, total 7440-50-8 E420 0.0005 mg/L <0.00050 ---- Lead, total 7439-92-1 E420 0.00005 mg/L <0.000050 ---- Zinc, total 7440-66-6 E420 0.003 mg/L <0.0030 ----Page 319 of 354Page 942 of 1679 5 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) Report A Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) is an analyte-free matrix that has been fortified (spiked) with test analytes at known concentration and processed in an identical manner to test samples. LCS results are expressed as percent recovery, and are used to monitor and control test method accuracy and precision, independent of test sample matrix. Sub-Matrix: Water Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) Report Recovery Limits (%)Recovery (%)Spike Target Concentration HighLCSAnalyteCAS Number LOR UnitMethod Low Qualifier Physical Tests (QCLot: 1639945) Solids, total suspended [TSS]----E160 3 mg/L 150 mg/L ----11585.094.8 Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1638842) Nitrate (as N)14797-55-8 E235.NO3 0.02 mg/L 2.5 mg/L ----11090.099.5 Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1638844) Chloride 16887-00-6 E235.Cl 0.5 mg/L 100 mg/L ----11090.099.9 Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1645559) Phosphorus, total 7723-14-0 E372-U 0.002 mg/L 0.333 mg/L ----12080.097.1 Total Metals (QCLot: 1639766) Copper, total 7440-50-8 E420 0.0005 mg/L 0.012 mg/L ----12080.0102 Lead, total 7439-92-1 E420 0.00005 mg/L 0.025 mg/L ----12080.098.9 Zinc, total 7440-66-6 E420 0.003 mg/L 0.025 mg/L ----12080.098.0 Matrix Spike (MS) Report A Matrix Spike (MS) is a randomly selected intra-laboratory replicate sample that has been fortified (spiked) with test analytes at known concentration, and processed in an identical manner to test samples. Matrix Spikes provide information regarding analyte recovery and potential matrix effects. MS DQO exceedances due to sample matrix may sometimes be unavoidable; in such cases, test results for the associated sample (or similar samples) may be subject to bias. ND – Recovery not determined, background level >= 1x spike level. Sub-Matrix: Water Matrix Spike (MS) Report Recovery (%)Recovery Limits (%)Spike MethodCAS NumberAnalyteClient sample IDLaboratory sample ID Concentration MS Low High QualifierTarget Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1638842) Anonymous WT2426130-001 14797-55-8 E235.NO3Nitrate (as N)2.5 mg/L 12575.095.5 ----2.39 mg/L Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1638844) Anonymous WT2426130-001 16887-00-6 E235.ClChloride 100 mg/L 12575.099.5 ----99.5 mg/L Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1645559) Anonymous WT2426016-001 7723-14-0 E372-UPhosphorus, total 0.1 mg/L 13070.093.9 ----0.0939 mg/L Total Metals (QCLot: 1639766) Anonymous WP2421356-002 7440-50-8 E420Copper, total ----13070.0ND ----ND mg/L 7439-92-1 E420Lead, total 0.025 mg/L 13070.094.3 ----0.0236 mg/L 7440-66-6 E420Zinc, total 0.025 mg/L 13070.093.5 ----0.0234 mg/LPage 320 of 354Page 943 of 1679 6 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2426300 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Page 321 of 354Page 944 of 1679 Page 322 of 354 Page 945 of 1679 WT2432418Aquafor Beech Limited Meagan Bordi 55 Regal Road Unit 3 Guelph Ontario Canada N1K 1B6 : : : : Work Order Client Contact Address ----:Telephone Laboratory ALS Environmental - Waterloo: Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project ----:PO ----:C-O-C number CLIENT:Sampler ----:Site 2024 SOA: No. of samples received Account Manager Andrew Martin: Address 60 Northland Road, Unit 1 Waterloo ON Canada N2V 2B8 : Telephone +1 519 886 6910: Date Samples Received 30-Oct-2024 13:05:Date Analysis Commenced 31-Oct-2024:Issue Date 06-Nov-2024 14:08: 2:Quote number No. of samples analysed 2: This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. This document shall not be reproduced, except in full. This Certificate of Analysis contains the following information: General Comments Analytical Results Additional information pertinent to this report will be found in the following separate attachments: Quality Control Report, QC Interpretive report to assist with Quality Review and Sample Receipt Notification (SRN). CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Signatories Signatories Position Laboratory Department Jeminikumari Patel Microbiology, Waterloo, Ontario John Tang Lab Analyst Inorganics, Waterloo, Ontario Kelly Fischer Technical Specialist Metals, Waterloo, Ontario Kelly Fischer Technical Specialist Inorganics, Waterloo, Ontario This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is conducted in accordance with US FDA 21 CFR Part 11. Page: 1 of 3Page 323 of 354Page 946 of 1679 The analytical methods used by ALS are developed using internationally recognized reference methods (where available), such as those published by US EPA, APHA Standard Methods, ASTM, ISO, Environment Canada, BC MOE, and Ontario MOE. Refer to the ALS Quality Control Interpretive report (QCI) for applicable references and methodology summaries. Reference methods may incorporate modifications to improve performance. Test results reported relate only to the samples as received by the laboratory. Surrogate: An analyte that is similar in behavior to target analyte(s), but that does not occur naturally in environmental samples. For applicable tests, surrogates are added to samples prior to analysis as a check on recovery. >: greater than.<: less than. Unit Description mg/L milligrams per litre CFU/100mL colony forming units per hundred millilitres LOR: Limit of Reporting (detection limit).CAS Number: Chemical Abstracts Services number is a unique identifier assigned to discrete substances.Key: Please refer to Quality Control Interpretive report (QCI) for information regarding Holding Time compliance. Where the LOR of a reported result differs from standard LOR, this may be due to high moisture content, insufficient sample (reduced weight employed) or matrix interference. Where a reported less than (<) result is higher than the LOR, this may be due to primary sample extract/digestate dilution and/or insufficient sample for analysis. UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED on SRN or QCI Report, ALL SAMPLES WERE RECEIVED IN ACCEPTABLE CONDITION. General Comments Qualifiers Qualifier Description DLDS Detection Limit Raised: Dilution required due to high Dissolved Solids / Electrical Conductivity. DLM Detection Limit Adjusted due to sample matrix effects (e.g. chemical interference, colour, turbidity). Aquafor Beech Limited Work Order : :Client :Project Northwest Gamer Monitoring WT2432418 Page: 2 of 3Page 324 of 354Page 947 of 1679 Analytical Results Sub-Matrix: Surface Water (Matrix: Water)Client sample ID NW WQ GARNER WQ ------------ Client sampling date / time 30-Oct-2024 10:22 30-Oct-2024 10:55 ------------ Analyte CAS Number Method/Lab/Accreditation LOR Unit WT2432418-001 WT2432418-002 ------------ Result Result ------------ Physical Tests Solids, total suspended [TSS]----E160/WT 3.0 mg/L 32.0 98.2 ------------ Anions and Nutrients Chloride 16887-00-6 E235.Cl/WT 0.50 mg/L DLDS635 51.4 ------------ Nitrate (as N)14797-55-8 E235.NO3/WT 0.020 mg/L DLDS0.177 0.645 ------------ Phosphorus, total 7723-14-0 E372-U/WT 0.0020 mg/L 0.0956 0.0754 ------------ Microbiological Tests Coliforms, Escherichia coli [E. coli]----E012A.EC/WT 1 CFU/100mL DLM1600 DLM3000 ------------ Total Metals Copper, total 7440-50-8 E420/WT 0.00050 mg/L 0.00092 0.00551 ------------ Lead, total 7439-92-1 E420/WT 0.000050 mg/L 0.000313 0.00350 ------------ Zinc, total 7440-66-6 E420/WT 0.0030 mg/L <0.0030 0.0435 ------------ Please refer to the General Comments section for an explanation of any result qualifiers detected. Please refer to the Accreditation section for an explanation of analyte accreditations. Aquafor Beech Limited Work Order : :Client :Project Northwest Gamer Monitoring WT2432418 Page: 3 of 3Page 325 of 354Page 948 of 1679 QUALITY CONTROL INTERPRETIVE REPORT Work Order :WT2432418 Page :1 of 6 ::LaboratoryClient ALS Environmental - WaterlooAquafor Beech Limited :Meagan Bordi Account Manager :Andrew MartinContact Address :55 Regal Road Unit 3 Guelph ON Canada N1K 1B6 Address :60 Northland Road, Unit 1 Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2V 2B8 Telephone :+1 519 886 6910Telephone:---- :Project Northwest Gamer Monitoring Date Samples Received :30-Oct-2024 13:05 Issue Date :06-Nov-2024 15:16----PO : C-O-C number ----: CLIENT:Sampler :Site Quote number :2024 SOA No. of samples received :2 2:No. of samples analysed This report is automatically generated by the ALS LIMS (Laboratory Information Management System) through evaluation of Quality Control (QC) results and other QA parameters associated with this submission, and is intended to facilitate rapid data validation by auditors or reviewers. The report highlights any exceptions and outliers to ALS Data Quality Objectives, provides holding time details and exceptions, summarizes QC sample frequencies, and lists applicable methodology references and summaries. Key Anonymous: Refers to samples which are not part of this work order, but which formed part of the QC process lot. CAS Number: Chemical Abstracts Service number is a unique identifier assigned to discrete substances. DQO: Data Quality Objective. LOR: Limit of Reporting (detection limit). RPD: Relative Percent Difference. Workorder Comments Holding times are displayed as "---" if no guidance exists from CCME, Canadian provinces, or broadly recognized international references. Summary of Outliers Outliers : Quality Control Samples l No Method Blank value outliers occur. l No Duplicate outliers occur. l No Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) outliers occur l No Matrix Spike outliers occur. l No Test sample Surrogate recovery outliers exist. Outliers: Reference Material (RM) Samples l No Reference Material (RM) Sample outliers occur.Page 326 of 354Page 949 of 1679 Outliers : Analysis Holding Time Compliance (Breaches) l No Analysis Holding Time Outliers exist. Outliers : Frequency of Quality Control Samples l Quality Control Sample Frequency Outliers occur - please see following pages for full details.Page 327 of 354Page 950 of 1679 3 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2432418 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Analysis Holding Time Compliance This report summarizes extraction / preparation and analysis times and compares each with ALS recommended holding times, which are selected to meet known provincial and /or federal requirements. In the absence of regulatory hold times, ALS establishes recommendations based on guidelines published by organizations such as CCME, US EPA, APHA Standard Methods, ASTM, or Environment Canada (where available). Dates and holding times reported below represent the first dates of extraction or analysis. If subsequent tests or dilutions exceeded holding times, qualifiers are added (refer to COA). If samples are identified below as having been analyzed or extracted outside of recommended holding times, measurement uncertainties may be increased, and this should be taken into consideration when interpreting results. Where actual sampling date is not provided on the chain of custody, the date of receipt with time at 00:00 is used for calculation purposes. Where only the sample date without time is provided on the chain of custody, the sampling date at 00:00 is used for calculation purposes. Matrix: Water Evaluation: û = Holding time exceedance ; ü = Within Holding Time AnalysisExtraction / Preparation Container / Client Sample ID(s) Sampling Date Analysis DatePreparation Date EvalEval Method Holding Times Holding Times Rec Actual Rec Actual Analyte Group : Analytical Method Anions and Nutrients : Chloride in Water by IC HDPE [ON MECP] GARNER WQ 04-Nov-202431-Oct-202430-Oct-2024E235.Cl 28 days 1 days 28 days 5 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Chloride in Water by IC HDPE [ON MECP] NW WQ 04-Nov-202431-Oct-202430-Oct-2024E235.Cl 28 days 1 days 28 days 5 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Nitrate in Water by IC HDPE [ON MECP] GARNER WQ 04-Nov-202431-Oct-202430-Oct-2024E235.NO3 7 days 1 days 7 days 5 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Nitrate in Water by IC HDPE [ON MECP] NW WQ 04-Nov-202431-Oct-202430-Oct-2024E235.NO3 7 days 1 days 7 days 5 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Total Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L) Amber glass total (sulfuric acid) GARNER WQ 04-Nov-202404-Nov-202430-Oct-2024E372-U 28 days 5 days 28 days 5 daysü ü Anions and Nutrients : Total Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L) Amber glass total (sulfuric acid) NW WQ 04-Nov-202404-Nov-202430-Oct-2024E372-U 28 days 5 days 28 days 5 daysü ü Microbiological Tests : E. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG) Sterile HDPE (Sodium thiosulphate) [ON MECP] GARNER WQ 31-Oct-2024----30-Oct-2024E012A.EC --------48 hrs 25 hrs üPage 328 of 354Page 951 of 1679 4 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2432418 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Matrix: Water Evaluation: û = Holding time exceedance ; ü = Within Holding Time AnalysisExtraction / Preparation Container / Client Sample ID(s) Sampling Date Analysis DatePreparation Date EvalEval Method Holding Times Holding Times Rec Actual Rec Actual Analyte Group : Analytical Method Microbiological Tests : E. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG) Sterile HDPE (Sodium thiosulphate) [ON MECP] NW WQ 31-Oct-2024----30-Oct-2024E012A.EC --------48 hrs 26 hrs ü Physical Tests : TSS by Gravimetry HDPE [ON MECP] GARNER WQ 01-Nov-2024----30-Oct-2024E160 --------7 days 2 days ü Physical Tests : TSS by Gravimetry HDPE [ON MECP] NW WQ 01-Nov-2024----30-Oct-2024E160 --------7 days 2 days ü Total Metals : Total Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS HDPE total (nitric acid) GARNER WQ 31-Oct-202431-Oct-202430-Oct-2024E420 180 days 1 days 180 days 1 daysü ü Total Metals : Total Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS HDPE total (nitric acid) NW WQ 31-Oct-202431-Oct-202430-Oct-2024E420 180 days 1 days 180 days 1 daysü ü Legend & Qualifier Definitions Rec. HT: ALS recommended hold time (see units).Page 329 of 354Page 952 of 1679 5 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2432418 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Quality Control Parameter Frequency Compliance The following report summarizes the frequency of laboratory QC samples analyzed within the analytical batches (QC lots) in which the submitted samples were processed. The actual frequency should be greater than or equal to the expected frequency. Matrix: Water Evaluation: û = QC frequency outside specification; ü = QC frequency within specification. Quality Control Sample TypeQuality Control Sample Type EvaluationAnalytical Methods Method Count QC Regular Actual Expected Frequency (%) QC Lot # Laboratory Duplicates (DUP) 1 10 üChloride in Water by IC E235.Cl 1743104 5.010.0 1 19 üE. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG)E012A.EC 1742845 5.05.2 1 20 üNitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 1743103 5.05.0 1 20 üTotal Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 1741583 5.05.0 0 19 ûTotal Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L)E372-U 1745506 5.00.0 1 17 üTSS by Gravimetry E160 1744583 4.75.8 Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) 1 10 üChloride in Water by IC E235.Cl 1743104 5.010.0 1 20 üNitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 1743103 5.05.0 1 20 üTotal Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 1741583 5.05.0 1 19 üTotal Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L)E372-U 1745506 5.05.2 1 17 üTSS by Gravimetry E160 1744583 4.75.8 Method Blanks (MB) 1 10 üChloride in Water by IC E235.Cl 1743104 5.010.0 1 19 üE. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG)E012A.EC 1742845 5.05.2 1 20 üNitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 1743103 5.05.0 1 20 üTotal Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 1741583 5.05.0 1 19 üTotal Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L)E372-U 1745506 5.05.2 1 17 üTSS by Gravimetry E160 1744583 4.75.8 Matrix Spikes (MS) 1 10 üChloride in Water by IC E235.Cl 1743104 5.010.0 1 20 üNitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 1743103 5.05.0 1 20 üTotal Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 1741583 5.05.0 0 19 ûTotal Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L)E372-U 1745506 5.00.0 Page 330 of 354Page 953 of 1679 6 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2432418 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Methodology References and Summaries The analytical methods used by ALS are developed using internationally recognized reference methods (where available), such as those published by US EPA, APHA Standard Methods, ASTM, ISO, Environment Canada, BC MOE, and Ontario MOE. Reference methods may incorporate modifications to improve performance (indicated by “mod”). Analytical Methods Method DescriptionsMatrixMethod / Lab Method Reference Following filtration (0.45 µm), and incubation at 44.5±0.2°C for 24 hours, colonies exhibiting characteristic morphology of the target organism are enumerated. E. coli (MF-mFC-BCIG)E012A.EC Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo APHA 9222D (mod) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) are determined by filtering a sample through a glass fibre filter, following by drying of the filter at 104 ± 1°C, with gravimetric measurement of the filtered solids. Samples containing very high dissolved solid content (i.e. seawaters, brackish waters) may produce a positive bias by this method. Alternate analysis methods are available for these types of samples. TSS by Gravimetry E160 Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo APHA 2540 D (mod) Inorganic anions are analyzed by Ion Chromatography with conductivity and /or UV detection. Chloride in Water by IC E235.Cl Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo EPA 300.1 (mod) Inorganic anions are analyzed by Ion Chromatography with conductivity and /or UV detection. Nitrate in Water by IC E235.NO3 Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo EPA 300.1 (mod) Total Phosphorus is determined colourimetrically using a discrete analyzer after heated persulfate digestion of the sample. Total Phosphorus by Colourimetry (0.002 mg/L) E372-U Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo APHA 4500-P E (mod). Water samples are digested with nitric and hydrochloric acids, and analyzed by Collision/Reaction Cell ICPMS. Method Limitation (re: Sulfur): Sulfide and volatile sulfur species may not be recovered by this method. Total Metals in Water by CRC ICPMS E420 Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo EPA 200.2/6020B (mod) Preparation Methods Method DescriptionsMatrixMethod / Lab Method Reference Samples are heated with a persulfate digestion reagent.Digestion for Total Phosphorus in water EP372 Water ALS Environmental - Waterloo APHA 4500-P E (mod).Page 331 of 354Page 954 of 1679 False QUALITY CONTROL REPORT Work Order :Page :1 of 6WT2432418 ::LaboratoryClient ALS Environmental - WaterlooAquafor Beech Limited :Contact Meagan Bordi :Andrew MartinAccount Manager :Address 55 Regal Road Unit 3 Guelph ON Canada N1K 1B6 Address :60 Northland Road, Unit 1 Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2V 2B8 ::Telephone +1 519 886 6910:Telephone---- :Project Northwest Gamer Monitoring Date Samples Received :30-Oct-2024 13:05 :PO ----Date Analysis Commenced :31-Oct-2024 :C-O-C number ----Issue Date :06-Nov-2024 14:06 Sampler :CLIENT Site : Quote number :2024 SOA No. of samples received 2: No. of samples analysed :2 This report supersedes any previous report(s) with this reference. Results apply to the sample(s) as submitted. This document shall not be reproduced, except in full. This Quality Control Report contains the following information: l Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report; Relative Percent Difference (RPD) and Data Quality Objectives l Matrix Spike (MS) Report; Recovery and Data Quality Objectives l Method Blank (MB) Report; Recovery and Data Quality Objectives l Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) Report; Recovery and Data Quality Objectives Signatories This document has been electronically signed by the authorized signatories below. Electronic signing is conducted in accordance with US FDA 21 CFR Part 11. Signatories Position Laboratory Department Jeminikumari Patel Waterloo Microbiology, Waterloo, Ontario John Tang Lab Analyst Waterloo Inorganics, Waterloo, Ontario Kelly Fischer Technical Specialist Waterloo Inorganics, Waterloo, Ontario Kelly Fischer Technical Specialist Waterloo Metals, Waterloo, Ontario Page 332 of 354Page 955 of 1679 2 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2432418 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project General Comments The ALS Quality Control (QC) report is optionally provided to ALS clients upon request. ALS test methods include comprehensive QC checks with every analysis to ensure our high standards of quality are met. Each QC result has a known or expected target value, which is compared against predetermined Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) to provide confidence in the accuracy of associated test results. This report contains detailed results for all QC results applicable to this sample submission. Please refer to the ALS Quality Control Interpretation report (QCI) for applicable method references and methodology summaries. Anonymous = Refers to samples which are not part of this work order, but which formed part of the QC process lot. CAS Number = Chemical Abstracts Service number is a unique identifier assigned to discrete substances. DQO = Data Quality Objective. LOR = Limit of Reporting (detection limit). RPD = Relative Percent Difference # = Indicates a QC result that did not meet the ALS DQO. Key : Workorder Comments Holding times are displayed as "---" if no guidance exists from CCME, Canadian provinces, or broadly recognized international references.Page 333 of 354Page 956 of 1679 3 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2432418 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report A Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) is a randomly selected intralaboratory replicate sample. Laboratory Duplicates provide information regarding method precision and sample heterogeneity. ALS DQOs for Laboratory Duplicates are expressed as test-specific limits for Relative Percent Difference (RPD), or as an absolute difference limit of 2 times the LOR for low concentration duplicates within ~ 4-10 times the LOR (cut-off is test-specific). Sub-Matrix: Water Laboratory Duplicate (DUP) Report RPD(%) or Difference Laboratory sample ID Client sample ID Analyte CAS Number LOR UnitMethod QualifierOriginal Result Duplicate Result Duplicate Limits Physical Tests (QC Lot: 1744583) Solids, total suspended [TSS]----mg/L 24.0 23.4 0.6 Diff <2x LORAnonymous WT2432402-001 E160 ----3.0 Anions and Nutrients (QC Lot: 1743103) Nitrate (as N)14797-55-8 mg/L 0.956 0.919 0.037 Diff <2x LORAnonymous WT2432370-001 E235.NO3 ----0.100 Anions and Nutrients (QC Lot: 1743104) Chloride 16887-00-6 mg/L 635 637 0.399%20%NW WQ WT2432418-001 E235.Cl ----2.50 Microbiological Tests (QC Lot: 1742845) Coliforms, Escherichia coli [E. coli]----CFU/100mL <1 <1 0 Diff <2x LORAnonymous WT2432363-001 E012A.EC ----1 Total Metals (QC Lot: 1741583) Copper, total 7440-50-8 mg/L 0.00116 0.00118 0.00002 Diff <2x LORAnonymous VA24C8663-001 E420 ----0.00050 Lead, total 7439-92-1 mg/L 0.00206 0.00210 2.05%20%E420 ----0.000050 Zinc, total 7440-66-6 mg/L 0.606 0.628 3.64%20%E420 ----0.0030 Page 334 of 354Page 957 of 1679 4 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2432418 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Method Blank (MB) Report A Method Blank is an analyte-free matrix that undergoes sample processing identical to that carried out for test samples. Method Blank results are used to monitor and control for potential contamination from the laboratory environment and reagents. For most tests, the DQO for Method Blanks is for the result to be < LOR. Sub-Matrix: Water ResultAnalyteCAS Number LOR UnitMethod Qualifier Physical Tests (QCLot: 1744583) Solids, total suspended [TSS]----E160 3 mg/L <3.0 ---- Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1743103) Nitrate (as N)14797-55-8 E235.NO3 0.02 mg/L <0.020 ---- Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1743104) Chloride 16887-00-6 E235.Cl 0.5 mg/L <0.50 ---- Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1745506) Phosphorus, total 7723-14-0 E372-U 0.002 mg/L <0.0020 ---- Microbiological Tests (QCLot: 1742845) Coliforms, Escherichia coli [E. coli]----E012A.EC 1 CFU/100mL <1 ---- Total Metals (QCLot: 1741583) Copper, total 7440-50-8 E420 0.0005 mg/L <0.00050 ---- Lead, total 7439-92-1 E420 0.00005 mg/L <0.000050 ---- Zinc, total 7440-66-6 E420 0.003 mg/L <0.0030 ----Page 335 of 354Page 958 of 1679 5 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2432418 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) Report A Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) is an analyte-free matrix that has been fortified (spiked) with test analytes at known concentration and processed in an identical manner to test samples. LCS results are expressed as percent recovery, and are used to monitor and control test method accuracy and precision, independent of test sample matrix. Sub-Matrix: Water Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) Report Recovery Limits (%)Recovery (%)Spike Target Concentration HighLCSAnalyteCAS Number LOR UnitMethod Low Qualifier Physical Tests (QCLot: 1744583) Solids, total suspended [TSS]----E160 3 mg/L 150 mg/L ----11585.095.3 Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1743103) Nitrate (as N)14797-55-8 E235.NO3 0.02 mg/L 2.5 mg/L ----11090.099.5 Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1743104) Chloride 16887-00-6 E235.Cl 0.5 mg/L 100 mg/L ----11090.099.2 Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1745506) Phosphorus, total 7723-14-0 E372-U 0.002 mg/L 0.333 mg/L ----12080.099.4 Total Metals (QCLot: 1741583) Copper, total 7440-50-8 E420 0.0005 mg/L 0.012 mg/L ----12080.096.5 Lead, total 7439-92-1 E420 0.00005 mg/L 0.025 mg/L ----12080.0104 Zinc, total 7440-66-6 E420 0.003 mg/L 0.025 mg/L ----12080.097.7 Matrix Spike (MS) Report A Matrix Spike (MS) is a randomly selected intra-laboratory replicate sample that has been fortified (spiked) with test analytes at known concentration, and processed in an identical manner to test samples. Matrix Spikes provide information regarding analyte recovery and potential matrix effects. MS DQO exceedances due to sample matrix may sometimes be unavoidable; in such cases, test results for the associated sample (or similar samples) may be subject to bias. ND – Recovery not determined, background level >= 1x spike level. Sub-Matrix: Water Matrix Spike (MS) Report Recovery (%)Recovery Limits (%)Spike MethodCAS NumberAnalyteClient sample IDLaboratory sample ID Concentration MS Low High QualifierTarget Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1743103) Anonymous WT2432370-001 14797-55-8 E235.NO3Nitrate (as N)25 mg/L 12575.095.9 ----24.0 mg/L Anions and Nutrients (QCLot: 1743104) NW WQ WT2432418-001 16887-00-6 E235.ClChloride ----12575.0ND ----ND mg/L Total Metals (QCLot: 1741583) Anonymous VA24C8663-002 7440-50-8 E420Copper, total 0.012 mg/L 13070.091.6 ----0.0114 mg/L 7439-92-1 E420Lead, total 0.025 mg/L 13070.098.9 ----0.0247 mg/L 7440-66-6 E420Zinc, total ----13070.0ND ----ND mg/LPage 336 of 354Page 959 of 1679 6 of 6:Page Work Order : :Client WT2432418 Aquafor Beech Limited Northwest Gamer Monitoring:Project Page 337 of 354Page 960 of 1679 Page 338 of 354Page 961 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 Appendix D – Aquatic Ecology Field Sheets Page 339 of 354 Page 962 of 1679 Page 340 of 354Page 963 of 1679 Page 341 of 354Page 964 of 1679 Page 342 of 354Page 965 of 1679 Page 343 of 354Page 966 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 Appendix E – Botanical Species List Page 344 of 354 Page 967 of 1679 APPENDIX E – Botanical Species List Northwest, Niagara ON – Subwatershed Study City of Niagara Falls Page | 1 Scientific Name Common Name CC CW COSEWIC SARA Status SARO Status G-Rank S-Rank Exotic Status Regional Rarity Oldham Niagara (2017) Local Status Niagara Region (2013) Native/Introduced Acer rubrum Red Maple 4 0 G5 S5 X C native Acer saccharinum Silver Maple 5 -3 G5 S5 X C native Apocynum cannabinum Hemp Dogbane 3 0 GNR S5 R C native Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed 6 -5 G5 S5 C C native Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed 0 5 G5 S5 C C native Carex albursina White Bear Sedge 7 5 G5 S5 U U native Carex crinita Fringed Sedge 6 -5 G5 S5 C C native Carex gracillima Graceful Sedge 4 3 G5 S5 C C native Carex hystericina Porcupine Sedge 5 -5 G5 S5 C C native Carex intumescens Bladder Sedge 6 -3 G5 S5 C C native Carex lupulina Hop Sedge 6 -5 G5 S5 C C native Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge 3 -5 G5 S5 C C native Carpinus caroliniana Blue-beech 6 0 G5 S5 C C native Carya ovata Shagbark Hickory 6 3 G5 S5 C C native Centaurea stoebe Spotted Knapweed 5 GNR SNA SE5 IU IU introduced Cephalanthus occidentalis Eastern Buttonbush 7 -5 G5 S5 C C native Circaea canadensis Broad-leaved Enchanter's Nightshade 2 3 G5 S5 C C native Cirsium arvense Canada Thistle 3 G5 SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Cornus racemosa Grey Dogwood 2 0 G5 S5 C C native Cyperus esculentus Perennial Yellow Flatsedge 1 -3 G5 S5 U U native Dianthus armeria Deptford Pink 5 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Dipsacus fullonum Common Teasel 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Dryopteris carthusiana Spinulose Wood Fern 5 -3 G5 S5 C C native Echinochloa crus-galli Large Barnyard Grass -3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Epilobium ciliatum Northern Willowherb 3 -3 G5 S5 C C native Erigeron canadensis Canada Horseweed 0 3 G5 S5 C C native Eupatorium perfoliatum Common Boneset 2 -3 G5 S5 C C native Euthamia graminifolia Grass-leaved Goldenrod 2 0 G5 S5 C C native Fagus grandifolia American Beech 6 3 G5 S4 C C native Fragaria vesca Woodland Strawberry 4 3 G5 S5 C C native Fraxinus pennsylvanica Red Ash 3 -3 G4 S4 C C native Geranium maculatum Spotted Geranium 6 3 G5 S5 C C native Hamamelis virginiana American Witch-hazel 6 3 G5 S4S5 C C native Ilex verticillata Common Winterberry 5 -3 G5 S5 C C native Impatiens capensis Spotted Jewelweed 4 -3 G5 S5 C C native Juglans nigra Black Walnut 5 3 G5 S4? C C native Juncus effusus Soft Rush 4 -5 G5 S5 C C native Juncus tenuis Path Rush 0 0 GNR S5 C C native Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar 4 3 G5 S5 C C native Leersia oryzoides Rice Cutgrass 3 -5 G5 S5 C C native Leersia virginica White Cutgrass 6 -3 G5 S4 C C native Page 345 of 354Page 968 of 1679 APPENDIX E – Botanical Species List Northwest, Niagara ON – Subwatershed Study City of Niagara Falls Page | 2 Scientific Name Common Name CC CW COSEWIC SARA Status SARO Status G-Rank S-Rank Exotic Status Regional Rarity Oldham Niagara (2017) Local Status Niagara Region (2013) Native/Introduced Ligustrum vulgare European Privet 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush 6 -3 G5 S4 C C native Lobelia inflata Indian-tobacco 3 3 G5 S5 C C native Lycopus americanus American Water-horehound 4 -5 G5 S5 C C native Lythrum salicaria Purple Loosestrife -5 G5 SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Maianthemum racemosum Large False Solomon's Seal 4 3 G5T5 S5 C native Morus alba White Mulberry 0 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern 4 -3 G5 S5 C C native Osmunda regalis Royal Fern 7 -5 G5 S5 C C native Ostrya virginiana Eastern Hop-hornbeam 4 3 G5 S5 C C native Penthorum sedoides Ditch Stonecrop 4 -5 G5 S5 C C native Persicaria virginiana Virginia Smartweed 6 0 G5 S4 C C native Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canarygrass 0 -3 G5 S5 C C native Phleum pratense Common Timothy 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Phragmites australis ssp. australis European Reed -3 G5T5 SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Poa palustris Fowl Bluegrass 5 -3 G5 S5 C C native Poa pratensis ssp. pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass 3 G5T5 SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Podophyllum peltatum May-apple 5 3 G5 S5 C C native Populus deltoides Eastern Cottonwood 4 0 G5 S5 C native Populus tremuloides Trembling Aspen 2 0 G5 S5 C C native Potentilla recta Sulphur Cinquefoil 5 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Prunus avium Sweet Cherry 5 GNR SNA SE4 IC IC introduced Prunus serotina Black Cherry 3 3 G5 S5 C C native Prunus virginiana Chokecherry 2 3 G5 S5 C C native Pyrus calleryana Callery Pear Quercus alba White Oak 6 3 G5 S5 C C native Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak 5 3 G5 S5 U U native Quercus palustris Swamp Pin Oak 9 -3 G5 S4 C C native Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 6 3 G5 S5 C C native Rhamnus cathartica European Buckthorn 0 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Rosa multiflora Multiflora Rose 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Rubus occidentalis Black Raspberry 2 5 G5 S5 C C native Rumex crispus Curled Dock 0 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Salix alba White Willow -3 G5 SNA SE4 IU IU introduced Salix amygdaloides Peach-leaved Willow 6 -3 G5 S5 C C native Salix bebbiana Bebb's Willow 4 -3 G5 S5 C C native Salix interior Sandbar Willow 1 -3 G5 S5 C C native Scirpus pendulus Hanging Bulrush 3 -5 G5 S5 U U native Solanum dulcamara Bittersweet Nightshade 0 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Solidago canadensis var. canadensis Canada Goldenrod 1 3 G5T5 S5 C C native Solidago juncea Early Goldenrod 3 5 G5 S5 C C native Solidago rugosa Rough-stemmed Goldenrod 4 0 G5 S5 C native Page 346 of 354Page 969 of 1679 APPENDIX E – Botanical Species List Northwest, Niagara ON – Subwatershed Study City of Niagara Falls Page | 3 Scientific Name Common Name CC CW COSEWIC SARA Status SARO Status G-Rank S-Rank Exotic Status Regional Rarity Oldham Niagara (2017) Local Status Niagara Region (2013) Native/Introduced Sonchus arvensis Field Sow-thistle 3 GNR SNA SE5 IC introduced Symphyotrichum lanceolatum Panicled Aster 3 -3 G5 S5 C native Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Calico Aster 3 0 G5 S5 C C native Symphyotrichum novae-angliae New England Aster 2 -3 G5 S5 C C native Tilia americana Basswood 4 3 G5 S5 C C native Toxicodendron radicans var. radicans Eastern Poison Ivy 2 0 G5T5 S5 C native Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved Cattail -5 G5 SNA SE5 IC C introduced Ulmus americana White Elm 3 -3 G4 S5 C C native Vaccinium corymbosum Highbush Blueberry 8 -3 G5 S4 C C native Verbena hastata Blue Vervain 4 -3 G5 S5 C C native Vicia cracca Tufted Vetch 5 GNR SNA SE5 IC IC introduced Vitis riparia Riverbank Grape 0 0 G5 S5 C C native Carex sect. ovales Sedges Carex sp. Sedges Crataegus sp. Hawthorns Geum sp. Avens Salix sp. Willows Page 347 of 354Page 970 of 1679 APPENDIX E – Botanical Species List Northwest, Niagara ON – Subwatershed Study City of Niagara Falls Page | 4 LEGEND Scientific Name and Common Name (NHIC, 2024) Based on NHIC’s species list for Ontario downloaded in 2024. COSEWIC (NHIC, 2024) Federal Rarity List (does not provide protection under any Act) EXT Extinct - A species that no longer exists. EXP Extirpated - A species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere. END Endangered - A species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. THR Threatened - A species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed. SC Special Concern (formerly vulnerable) - A species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. NAR Not At Risk - A species that has been evaluated and found to be not at risk of extinction given the current circumstances. DD Data Deficient (formerly Indeterminate) - Available information is insufficient to resolve a species' eligibility for assessment or to permit an assessment of the species' risk of extinction. Species on Schedule 1 of Species At Risk Act (SARA) (NHIC, 2024) Federal Rarity List EXP Extirpated - a species that no longer exists in the wild in Canada, but exists elsewhere in the wild. END Endangered - a species that is facing imminent extirpation or extinction. THR Threatened - a species that is likely to become an endangered species if nothing is done to reverse the factors leading to its extirpation or extinction. SC Species of Special Concern - a species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. S-Ranks (NHIC, 2024) Provincial Rarity List (does not provide protection under any Act) S1 Critically Imperiled—Critically imperiled in the nation or state/province because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer occurrences) or because of some factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the state/province. S2 Imperiled—Imperiled in the nation or state/province because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the nation or state/province. S3 Vulnerable—Vulnerable in the nation or state/province due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation. S4 Apparently Secure—Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. S5 Secure—Common, widespread, and abundant in the nation or state/province. S#S# Range Rank —A numeric range rank (e.g., S2S3) is used to indicate any range of uncertainty about the status of the species or community. Ranges cannot skip more than one rank (e.g., SU is used rather than S1S4). SX Apparently extirpated from Ontario, with little likelihood of rediscovery. Typically not seen in the province for many decades, despite searches at known historic sites. SE Exotic; not believed to be a native component of Ontario's flora. Species At Risk Ontario (SARO) (NHIC, 2024) Provincial Rarity List (Species protected under ESA 2007 and listed in O reg. 230/08) EXP Extirpated - A species no longer existing in the wild in Canada, but occurring elsewhere. END Endangered - A species facing imminent extirpation or extinction. THR Threatened - A species likely to become endangered if limiting factors are not reversed. SC Special Concern - A species that may become a threatened or an endangered species because of a combination of biological characteristics and identified threats. Exotic Status (NHIC, 2024) If an element is known to occur as an exotic in Ontario, the status value assigned to the element is SE. A ? qualifier added to that value indicates uncertainty about whether it is exotic or native. Numeric ranks of 1 through 5 added to the exotic status indicate the element’s abundance in Ontario, with 1 indicating the least abundance and 5 the most. Coefficient of Conservatism and Coefficient of Wetness (NHIC, 2024) CC = Coefficient of Conservatism. Rank of 0 to 10 based on plants degree of fidelity to a range of synecological parameters: (0-3) Taxa found in a variety of plant communities; (4-6) Taxa typically associated with a specific plant community but tolerate moderate disturbance; (7-8) Taxa associated with a plant community in an advanced successional stage that has undergone minor disturbance; (9-10) Taxa with a high fidelity to a narrow range of synecological parameters. CW = Coefficient of Wetness. -Value between 5 and –5. A value of –5 is assigned to Obligate Wetland (OBL) and 5 to Obligate Upland (UPL), with intermediate values assigned to the remaining categories (Oldham et al., 1995). Regional Rarity Status in Niagara Regional Municipality (Oldham, 2017) I - Introduced; thought to have been present in Niagara or individual area prior to European settlement; believed to be deliberately or inadvertently introduced to by humans (followed by a status, below) C - Common U - uncommon R - rare H - Historic records only (generally >30 years) X - present; status unknown or not specified in source lists ? - unconfirmed report hyb - hybrid Combined Status (Status overall) from Oldham 2017 H - Historic native in all and no known records for at least 30 years in all areas where native and ranked (i.e. not X). Occasionally used for a native species known to be extirpated from its only known location(s) R - Rare native and (a) rar (as defined in source lists; sometimes including "very uncommon") or historic (no records in > 30 years) in more than half of the area (>6) in which it is native and ranked; or (b) if rare or historic in <6 areas it must be uncommon or common in no more than one U - Uncommon native in and (a) listed as common in no more than one area; and (b) not rare or historic in more than half of the areas (>6) in which is it native and ranked C - Common native in the and (a) common in at least two areas; and (b) not rare or historic in more than half of the areas (>6) in which it is native and ranked X - No status. Present and native in but no status assigned because of lack or information, often due to confusion with similar species Niagara Region Status (June, 2013) C - common (native) U - uncommon (native) R - rare (native) RH - rare historic (native) Page 348 of 354 Page 971 of 1679 APPENDIX E – Botanical Species List Northwest, Niagara ON – Subwatershed Study City of Niagara Falls Page | 5 IC - introduced common IU - introduced uncommon IR - introduced rare IH - introduced historic DD - data deficient (status indetermined) Hyb – hybrid - not currently known from this region, but a record from adjacent County within the NPCA (see Data Source for details) Native Status VASCAN database (Brouillet et al. 2010) Native = Native to Ontario Introduced = Introduced to Ontario References Brouillet L, Desmet P, Coursol F, Meades SJ, Favreau M, Anions M, Bélisle P, Gendreau C, Shorthouse D, and contributors (2010+). Database of Vascular Plants of Canada (VASCAN). Online at http://data.canadensys.net/vascan and http://www.gbif.org/dataset/3f8a1297-3259-4700-91fc- acc4170b27ce, released on 2010-12-10. Version [xx]. GBIF key: 3f8a1297-3259-4700-91fc-acc4170b27ce. Data paper ID: doi: http://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.25.3100 [accessed on [07/24/2019]] Oldham, M.J. 2017. Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Niagara Regional Municipality, Ontario. Ontario Natural Heritage Information Centre, Ministry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 223pp Oldham, M.J. 2017. List of the Vascular Plants of Ontario's Carolinian Zone (Ecoregion 7E). Carolinian Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. Peterborough, ON. 132 pp. Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC) (2024). All Species. Available at: https://www.ontario.ca/page/get-natural-heritage-information Page 349 of 354 Page 972 of 1679 Northwest Subwatershed Study (SWS) February 2025 Final Phase 1 Report (Interim) Aquafor Beech Limited Ref No. 67511 Appendix F – Niagara Regional Natural Heritage System Criteria Page 350 of 354 Page 973 of 1679 Niagara Region Natural Heritage System Criteria NHS Components Definitions and Criteria Significant Wetlands Includes those identified as provincially significant by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry using evaluation procedures established by the province, as amended from time to time (i.e., the Ontario Wetland Evaluation System). Other Wetlands Include: • All wetlands that meet an Ecological Land Classification wetland system classification and have not been evaluated as a provincially significant wetland; • Both evaluated non-provincially significant wetlands and wetlands that have not been evaluated. These include wetlands that are regulated, and wetlands that are not regulated by the Conservation Authority; and • Wetlands with ecological and hydrological functions and wetlands that have only have a hydrological function. Woodlands Treed areas that provide environmental and economic benefits to both the private landowner and the general public, such as erosion prevention, hydrological and nutrient cycling, provision of clean air and the long-term storage of carbon, provision of wildlife habitat, outdoor recreational opportunities, and the sustainable harvest of a wide range of woodland products. Woodlands include treed areas, woodlots or forested areas and vary in their level of significance at the local, regional and provincial levels. Woodlands will be delineated according to the province’s Ecological Land Classification system definition for forest (PPS, 2020). For the purposes of this definition, forests include terrestrial vegetation communities as defined in accordance with the Ecological Land Classification system, where the tree cover is greater than 60%. Significant Woodlands A woodland meeting the Ecological Land Classification definition of forest, and also one or more of the following criteria: a. two hectares or greater in size; b. one hectare or greater in size meeting at least one of the following criteria: i. naturally occurring (i.e., not planted) trees (as defined in the species list of Appendix D in the Greenbelt Technical Paper); ii. treed areas planted with the intention of restoring woodland; iii. 10 or more trees per hectare greater than 100 years old or 50 cm or more in diameter; iv. wholly or partially within 30 m of a provincially significant wetland or habitat of an endangered or threatened species; v. overlapping or abutting one or more of the following features: 1. permanent streams or intermittent streams; 2. fish habitat; 3. significant valleylands; Page 351 of 354 Page 974 of 1679 Niagara Region Natural Heritage System Criteria c. 0.5 hectares or greater in size meeting at least one of the following criteria: i. a provincially rare treed vegetation community with an S1, S2 or S3 in its ranking by the MNRF’s NHIC; ii. habitat of a woodland plant species with an S1, S2 or S3 in its ranking or an 8, 9, or 10 in its Southern Ontario Coefficient of Conservatism by the NHIC, consisting of 10 or more individual stems or 100 or more sqm of leaf coverage; iii. any woodland overlapping or abutting one or more of the following features: 1. significant wildlife habitat; 2. habitat of threatened species and endangered species; or 3. non-provincially significant wetlands Other Woodlands A terrestrial treed area with ≥ 25% tree cover and which meets one or more of the following criteria: a. an average minimum width of 40 m and is ≥ 0.3 ha, measured to crown edges; or b. any size abutting a significant woodland, wetland, or permanent stream. Treed areas that “abut” a significant woodland, wetland or permanent stream are considered adjacent when located within 20 m of each other. Other woodlands are identified based on the Ecological Land Classification methodology. Significant Wildlife Habitat Shall be identified in accordance with the Significant Wildlife Habitat Criteria schedules for Ecoregion 7E (MNRF, January 2015) and/or the appropriate provincial guidance document(s) as may be developed or amended from time to time. Where any disagreements arise with respect to interpretation of significant wildlife habitat, the Region may confer with the province, however the Region’s interpretation shall prevail if it provides equal or greater protection for wildlife habitat. Significant Valleylands Includes any of the features identified in any of the following three categories: a. all streams with well-defined valley morphology (i.e., floodplains, riparian zones, meander belts and/or valley slopes) of an average width of 25 m or more; the physical boundary is defined by the stable top of bank (as defined by the conservation authority); b. all spillways and ravines with the presence of flowing or standing water for a period of no less than two months in an average year. Such features must be greater than 50 m in length (as defined from the point of valley formation downstream to the confluence of the valley being assessed); 25 m in average width with a well-defined morphology (i.e., two valley walls of 15 per cent slope or greater with a minimum height of 5 m, and valley floor), and having an overall area of 0.5 hectares or greater; or Page 352 of 354 Page 975 of 1679 Niagara Region Natural Heritage System Criteria c. additional features or areas beyond the ones described above that have been identified by the Region, Local Area Municipality, or the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority as providing one or more of the features or functions described in the table contained in Appendix A of the Greenbelt Plan 2005 Technical Definitions and Criteria for Key Natural Heritage Features in the Natural Heritage System of the Protected Countryside Area (MNRF, 2012). Linkages Known linkages have been identified between natural heritage features and areas and key natural heritage features consisting of natural areas (e.g., watercourses, valleylands, meadow, thicket, woodland, wetland, and hedgerows, etc.) or rural/agricultural lands without major barriers (i.e., developed areas or major roads greater than 30 m in width) based on the following set of criteria: a. large linkages (outside settlement areas and outside of the Provincial Natural Heritage System) that are: i. 200-400 m in width; and ii. connect core areas (i.e., a group of natural features and areas within 30 m of each other) with a combined area of ≥50 hectares in size; b. medium linkages (outside of settlement areas and outside of the Provincial Natural Heritage System) that are: i. 100-200 m in width; and ii. connect core areas (i.e., a group of natural features and areas within 30 m of each other) with a combined area of ≥20 hectares in size; c. small linkages, both inside and outside of settlement areas and outside of the Provincial Natural Heritage System) that are: i. 60-100 m in width; and ii. connect core areas (i.e., a group of natural features and areas within 30 m of each other) with a combined area of ≥10 hectares in size. Opportunities for additional, ecologically appropriate linkages shall be screened for when a subwatershed study is being completed in support of a secondary plan Supporting Features and Areas lands that have been restored or have the potential of being restored. Supporting features and areas include grasslands, meadows, and thickets (defined in accordance with Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario); other valleylands; and other wildlife habitat; and enhancement areas where they are determined to contribute to the biodiversity and ecological function of the natural environment system. The identification of supporting features and areas is to be determined through a detailed study, such as an environmental impact study, hydrological evaluation, or subwatershed study which would evaluate the ecological Page 353 of 354 Page 976 of 1679 Niagara Region Natural Heritage System Criteria contribution of the supporting feature and area to other components of the natural environment system Page 354 of 354 Page 977 of 1679 CAO-2025-05 Clerks Report Report to: City of Niagara Falls Council Date: March 18, 2025 Title: Fee Waiver Applications - March 2025 Submissions Recommendation(s) 1. THAT Council approve, approve in part or deny the Fee Waiver applications received for the March 18, 2025 submission date, listed as follows: a. Knights of Columbus Basketball Free Throw - in the amount of $154.28, to waive the costs of a facility rental at the MacBain Centre. b. Meeting Room Rental Fee for 2025 - Big Brothers Big Sisters of Niagara - in the amount of $8,791.40 to waive the costs of a facility rental at the MacBain Centre. c. Stamford Centre Volunteer Firefighters Association Annual Easter Egg Hunt - $2,600.00, to waive the costs of staffing and rental fees. d. Book Riot - 2025, Women's Place of South Niagara - o/a Birchway Niagara, in the amount of $10,238.00, to waive the costs of the ice rental at the Gale Centre. e. Charity Comedy Show, Niagara Health Foundation - in the amount of $884.79, to waive the costs of the rental fee at the Exchange Market. f. Cruising on the Q, Heart Niagara - in the amount of $5,750.00, to waive the costs of the fees associated with the road closures. g. Simchas bais Hashoaiva, Jewish Niagara - in the amount of $800.00, to waive the costs of the fees associated with the road closures, for the event that was held in 2024. h. Carifalls Niagara Falls Multicultural Caribbean Carnival Parade, Majestic Multicultural Events Inc., in the amount of $1,450.00, to waive the costs associated with the road closures. i. Second Annual Niagara Falls Golden Horseshoe Multicultural Latin Festival, Majestic Multicultural Events Inc., in the amount of $1,000.00, to waive the costs associated with the road closures. Page 1 of 105 Page 978 of 1679 j. Chippawa Volunteer Firefighters Association - Slo Pitch Tournament, in the amount of $310.80, to waive the fees associated with the diamond fees at Patrick Cummings Park. k. SPN Slo-Pitch Championship - Chippawa Volunteer Firefighters Association, in the amount of $5,932.64, to waive the costs associated with the arena fees at the Chippawa Willoughby Memorial Arena. l. Streets on Fire Car Show, Chippawa Volunteer Firefighters Association, in the amount of $250.00, to waive the costs associated with using the Chippawa Lions Park parking lot. m. Meeting Room Rental Fee for 2025 - Pathstone Mental Health - in the amount of $4,441.15 to waive the costs of a facility rental at the MacBain Centre and for drop- in recreation passes. Executive Summary Niagara Falls City Council adopted the Council Discretionary Spending report on February 12, 2019. This included the Fee Waiver Policy that accompanied the report. The City of Niagara Falls is committed to supporting volunteer, community-based organizations in order to maintain a quality of life for its residents. This policy aims to protect the City’s assets, interests, goals, facilities, programs and services while also ensuring that festivals and events grow and prosper, positively impacting the quality of life of Niagara Falls residents. The financial scope of this policy is limited to the Council approved budgetary amount for the corresponding year. The City of Niagara Falls will waive fees to eligible applicants to help offset the fee(s) that would have been charged by the City related to the delivery or presentation of a festival or event. Examples of City fees that can be waived include, but are not limited to: •Park permit fees •Rental of City Property •Road Closure Fees •Staffing costs outside normal operations Eligible groups must be not-for-profit organizations which demonstrate a degree of community support and representation including, but not limited to: •Registered charities •Arts and culture organizations •Athletic and social clubs •Service clubs •Neighbourhood groups and organizations, •School associations Page 2 of 105 Page 979 of 1679 Staff continue to follow the approval process adopted by Council in 2023. In accordance with the Fee Waiver Policy, there will be two more opportunities in 2025 for community groups to submit requests for fee waivers, which will be considered for approval by Council in June and September 2025. Background CHANGE FOR FEE WAIVER REQUESTS: The changes in process, as adopted by Council at the February 28, 2023 Council Meeting, are as follows, 1) That Council consider Fee Waiver Requests three (3) times per year. The consideration dates would be March, June and September. By considering requests in a bundled fashion, Council will be able to better allocate their budget evenly across the calendar year and to organizations. If an organization misses an approval meeting, the organization can apply for a fee refund (or, in other words, pay the fee and then ask Council to refund all or a portion of the fees paid). 2) That Council consider the granting of partial fee waivers, for example approving a portion of a fee waiver request rather than always approving the full fee waiver. GRANT REQUESTS: Attached to this report are all fee waiver applications. Each application outlines a detailed event description, including dates, locations and other specifics pertaining to each request. Analysis Grant Requests These fee waiver requests amounts to a substantial portion of the total fee waiver budget that Council has, so this is a significant portion of the total budget for the first quarter of the year. Council can also consider some alternatives to the staff recommendation: 1) Council can approve the full amount of the request understanding that additional requests may not be satisfied this year. Page 3 of 105 Page 980 of 1679 2) Council can approve a portion of the request currently and then if there is budgetary room later in the year consider a refund of the portion paid. Financial Implications/Budget Impact If all fee waiver applications received are approved in full, $42,603.06 will be charged to the 2025 fee waiver operating budget. The 2025 fee waiver applications being considered via this report total 84% of the total 2025 fee waiver budget, leaving 16% or $8,396.94 available for fee waivers to be considered in June and September 2025. A summary of the financial impacts is shown in the table below: Table - 2025 Fee Waiver Operating Budget Organization/ Event Fees Waived By Council (2025) 2025 Budget - Fee Waiver Requests $51,000.00 REQUESTS FOR CONSIDERATION Knights of Columbus Basketball Free Throw $154.28 Meeting Room Rental Fee for 2025 - Big Brothers Big Sisters of Niagara $8,791.40 Stamford Centre Volunteer Firefighters Association Annual Easter Egg Hunt $2,600.00 Book Riot - 2025, Women's Place of South Niagara - o/a Birchway Niagara $10,238.00 Charity Comedy Show, Niagara Health Foundation $884.79 Cruising on the Q, Heart Niagara $5,750.00 Simchas bais Hashoaiva, Jewish Niagara $800.00 Carifalls Niagara Falls Multicultural Caribbean Carnival Parade, Majestic Multicultural Events Inc. $1,450.00 Second Annual Niagara Falls Golden Horseshoe Multicultural Latin Festival, Majestic Multicultural Events Inc. $1,000.00 Chippawa Volunteer Firefighters Association - Slo Pitch Tournament $310.80 Chippawa Volunteer Firefighters Association - Slo Pitch Tournament $5,932.64 Page 4 of 105 Page 981 of 1679 Streets on Fire Car Show, Chippawa Volunteer Firefighters Association $250.00 Meeting Room Rental and recreation passes - MacBain- Pathstone Mental Heatlh $4,441.15 Total if approved in this report: $42,603.06 2025 Budget Remaining $8,396.94 (84%) TOTAL (if approved in this report) $42,603.06 Strategic Plan Pillars Sustainability - Financial Effectively managing the City’s financial resources to meet our current and future obligations without relying on external funding sources or sacrificing our ability to deliver essential services to our residents . List of Attachments Fee Waiver Application - Knights of Columbus Basketball Free Throw - Completed Fee Waiver Application - BBBSN - Small Meeting Room - MacBain - Completed Fee Waiver Application_SCFVA Easter_signed - Completed Fee Waiver Application - Birchway Niagara 2025 Book Riot - Completed Fee Waiver Application - Niagara Health Foundation - Comedy Show - Completed Fee Waiver Application_Cruising on the Q_signed - Completed Fee Waiver Application_Caribbean Parade_signed - Completed Fee Waiver Application_Latin Festival_signed - Completed Fee Waiver Application - CVFA - SPN Slo Pitch Championship - floor use - Arena Use - Completed with budgets Fee waiver application - CVFA tournament - Slo Pitch Tournament - Completed with budget Fee Waiver Application - CVFA - Car Show - Completed with budget Fee Waiver Application_Simchas Bais Hashoaiva_signed - Completed Fee Waiver Application - 2025 Pathstone Mental Health - Completed with budget and letter Written by: Heather Ruzylo, Supervisor, Clerks & Council Services Submitted by: Status: Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 11 Mar Page 5 of 105 Page 982 of 1679 2025 Page 6 of 105 Page 983 of 1679 , it if Fee Waiver Application Form Niagirafrrlls ‘r\\i)\ Nameofgvem;Knights of Columbus Basket Ball Free Throw Organization Name:Knights of Columbus Organization Address:7020 Stanley AVG W Niagara Falls Pasta.Code:L2G7B7 Contact Name:George KappUkatt Position:Chairman Phone Number (days):289 407 5441 Phone Number (evenings):905 351 1189 Email:g.kappukatt@gmail -Com Website: Type of Organization: Not-for-profit incorporation #: I Charitable Organization Registration #:<5‘79~7 3 ,559//9R 03/ Other (please specify): last The City of Niagara Falls willwaive fees that would have been charged by the City for eligible nonprofit groups or organizations that provide programs,services or events that are of a general benefit to the community.Fee Waiver Policy(700.22)is to ensure that the City‘ssupport of functions and events through the waiving of fees is facilitated ina fair and equitable manner and does not burden the City's annual operating budget. Examples of Cityfees that can be waived include,but are not limitedto: 'Park permit fees -Rental of City Property ‘Road Closure Fees.Staffing costs outside normal operations The City of Niagara &City’s websiteNote:insurance fees willnot be waived.\?Q,OAKS“Wmt!\\LQ/Page 1 of 4Page 7 of 105Page 984 of 1679 y 9,*Fee Waiver Application Form Nia‘gara ?agI,1S‘t.\lt\ er é; Applications can be submitted by email to:clerk@niagarafalls.ca In person or by mail to:City Hall 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls,ON L2E 6X5 Clerks Department Hours:8:30am -4:30pm 98"”Amount of Request:‘3 £79 ,“7;“,.4G \7 .$55”I g . Fees to be Waived (i.e.facilityrental,park per it,etc):faculty Dates and Times:(I a 1??ag [‘9‘20 L“7 3 0 Purpose of Event:BaSketba“Fr 8 Throw Number of People Expected:100 ’J ’50 Admission Fee (if applicable):ml Are you sewing food?no Are you serving alcohol?no 1.How willyour activity or event enhance recreation and community services inthe City of Niagara Falls? Open to all schools in Niagara Falls itis a long running successful sporting event ,Free to all ,We have prizes etc 2.Please describe the projected social,cultural,economic and environmental impact that the activity or event willhave on the Cityand its residents. Page 2 of4Page 8 of 105Page 985 of 1679 m Fee Waiver Application Form Niagara walls tl\.\ll\ 3.Whatwillthe impact on the event be ifthe fee is not waived? Less we can give to our Charities Food Kitchern ,Project Share etc 4.Are you seeking fundingfrom any other sources?(Fundraising,_grants,sponsorships)No 5.Whatfeatures willyou have in place to ensure that your event is accessible to all residents (residentswithdisabilities)? We willassist any that need it f:3.5%:H 0iii.in ~;~ Please submit one copy of each of the following documents. Mandatog Documents El A detailed budget,showing revenues and expenditures NW (A?l"9% Documents relating to City rentalpermit (ifapplicable):.Dates,times and location of event / o AllCity fees associated withthe event !/ Confirmationletter from charity (ifapplicable): 0 For special events whereby a portion or allof the proceeds are being donated to charity,aconfirmationletterfromthatcharitymustaccompanytheapplicationitt3b.S 3ForInternalUseOnly:V]l\is”3 %’_\-Page 9 of 105Page 986 of 1679 A Fee Waiver Application Form Niagara?glls ‘.\i)i. On behalf of,and withthe authority of,the above-mentioned organization,we certify that the information given in this application for waiving of City fees is true,correct and complete inevery respect. Signature of Senior Staff Person Name and Title Date Signature of Board Chair/Representative Name and Title Date Personal information,as defined in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFlPPA),is collected under the authority of the Municipal Act.2001,as amended,and inaccordance with MFlPPA.Personal information collected on this application form willbe used to assist in granting fee waivers and willbe made available to the members of City Council and staff and used for administrative purposes. Informationcollected may be subject to disclosure in accordance withthe provisions of MFlPPA.The City reserves the right to verify all information contained in submissions. Questions regarding the collection,use and disclosure of this personal information may be directed to the City Clerk,BillMatson,at bmatson@niagarafalls.ca By completing this applicationform,you consent to the collectionand disclosure of your personal information, and to its use by the Cityof Niagara Falls,as described above. Page 4 of 4Page 10 of 105Page 987 of 1679 Page 11 of 105Page 988 of 1679 Page 12 of 105Page 989 of 1679 Page 13 of 105Page 990 of 1679 Page 14 of 105Page 991 of 1679 Page 15 of 105Page 992 of 1679 Page 16 of 105Page 993 of 1679 Page 17 of 105Page 994 of 1679 BBBSN Operational Budget 2025 EXPENSES Jan to Dec total Audit & Legal 10,500.00$ Bank Charges & Interest 4,320.00$ Bookkeeping 24,600.00$ Dues & Fees 34,000.00$ General Liability, Property, D&O, Cyber Insurance 52,800.00$ Mileage 29,000.00$ Office & General 32,200.00$ Organizational Development 30,650.00$ Program Materials 12,000.00$ Promotion & Publicity 14,400.00$ Property Tax 5,680.00$ Rent (offices only)26,400.00$ Repairs & Maintenance 9,000.00$ Salaries & Benefits 1,115,141.53$ Telephone & Internet (offices only)4,140.00$ Utilities 15,996.00$ Nearly New Store (rent, internet, phone, etc)26,400.00$ Grant expenses (non-salaries)53,500.00$ TOTAL EXPENSES 1,500,727.53$ REVENUE Jan to Dec total Donations 126,000.00$ Special Events (Net)354,000.00$ 3rd Party Events (Net)60,000.00$ Grants 751,860.00$ Bingo 88,000.00$ Nearly New Store 75,000.00$ Investment/Endowment 12,000.00$ TOTAL REVENUE 1,466,860.00$ Excess of Revenues over Expenses (33,867.53)$ Approved by the Board of Directors November 20, 2024 Page 18 of 105 Page 995 of 1679 Fee Waiver Application Form Niagarafalls ('.1\'\A DA Name ovaent:SCVFA ANNUAL EASTER EGG HUNT Organization Name.STAMFORD CENTRE VOLUNTEER FIREMEN'S ASSOCIATION Organization Address:2275 DORCHESTER RD City:NIAGARA FALLS Postal Code.L2J4L6 Contact Name:KEVINFEHR Position.EASTER EGG HUNT CHAIRMAN Phone Number (days):90535681 16 Phone Number (evenings):90535681 16 Ema":kfeh r111@gmail.com Website.scvfa.ca Type of Organization: E Not—for—profit Incorporation #: Charitable Organization Registration #: Other (please specify): The City of Niagara Falls willwaive fees that would have been charged by the City for eligible non—profitgroups or organizations that provide programs,services or events that are of a general benefit to the community.Fee Waiver Policy (700.22)is to ensure that the City’s support of functions and events through the waiving of fees is facilitated in a fair and equitable manner and does not burden the City’s annual operating budget. Examples of City fees that can be waived include,but are not limitedto: -Park permit fees -Rental of City Property -Road Closure Fees -Staffing costs outside normal operations City of Niagara Falls Rates &Fees can be found on the City’s website at: Note:Insurance fees willnot be waived.Page 1 of 4Page 19 of 105Page 996 of 1679 NiagaraFalls(‘.\NA NA Fee Waiver Application Form Applications can be submitted by email to:clerk@nlagarafalls.ca In person or by mail to:City Hall 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls,ON L2E 6X5 Clerks Department Hours:8:30am —4:30pm Amount of Request:$3OOO-OO Fees to be Waived (i.e.facility rental,park permit,etc.)'Staffing and rental COStSOUtS'denormal operations Dates and Times:FRIDAY APRIL 18TH -11AM TO 1PM Purpose “Event:CHILDREN'S EGG HUNT FUNDRAISER FOR PROJECT SHARE Number of People Expected:1500-2500 Admission Fee (Ifapplicable):PROJECT SHARE DONATION Are you serving food?YES Are you sewing alcohol?NO 1.How willyour activity or event enhance recreation and community services inthe City of Niagara Falls? This outdoor Spring Easter Egg Hunt for children ages 3-10.Celebrate with family and friends while exploring Firemen's Park and all it has to offer to the Niagara Falls community. 2.Please describe the projected social,cultural,economic and environmental impact that the activity or event willhave on the Cityand its residents. Page 2 of 4Page 20 of 105Page 997 of 1679 Fee Waiver Application Form Niagara?alls (.‘\I\'.\l)i\ 3.What willthe impact on the event be ifthe fee is not waived? Allproceeds from this event willsupport Project Share.Any additional costs incurred willdirectly reduce the funds donated to this important cause,so every contribution helps make a difference! 4.Are you seeking funding from any other sources?(Fundraising,grants,sponsorships) SPONSORHIPS ARE SOUGHT OUTTO ASSIST IN COSTS LIKETHE 600 POUNDS OF CHOCOLATE FOR THE EGG HUNT. 5.What features willyou have in place to ensure that your event is accessible to all residents (residents with disabilities)? Firemen's Park now features new accessibility enhancements for individuals with mobility challenges.This year,with the support of Bethesda,we’re also introducing event features designed to welcome those with autism and social needs,ensuring a fun and inclusive experience for everyone! Application Checklist Please submit one copy of each of the following documents. Mandatog Documents A detailed budget,showing revenues and expenditures Documents relating to City rental permit (if applicable): 0 Dates,times and location of event.AllCityfees associated with the event Confirmation letter from charity (if applicable): 0 For special events whereby a portion or all of the proceeds are being donated to charity,a confirmation letter from that charity must accompany the application For Internal Use Only: -Fourteen crossing guards and one supervisor required for one weekend day.4 hours for regular staff,5 hours forsupervisor.$2600.00-Administrativepermit fee is $500.00.-Staff expense equals $1789.39.Completed by:M?f?b’w @QOML/Signature:%Page 3 of 4Page 21 of 105Page 998 of 1679 Fee Waiver Application Form Niagara alls(.\l\‘<\l)/ On behalf of,and with the authority of,the above-mentioned organization,we certify that the information given in this application for waiving of City fees is true,correct and complete in every respect. Signature of Senior Staff Person Name and Title 'Date Signature of Board Chair/Representative Name and Title Date Personal information,as defined inthe Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFlPPA),is collected under the authority of the Municipal Act,2001,as amended,and in accordance with MFIPPA.Personal information collected on this application form willbe used to assist in granting fee waivers and willbe made available to the members of City Council and staff and used for administrative purposes. information collected may be subject to disclosure in accordance with the provisions of MFlPPA.The City reserves the right to verify all information contained in submissions. Questions regarding the collection,use and disclosure of this personal information may be directed to the City Clerk,BillMatson,at bmatson@niagarafalls.ca By completing this application form,you consent to the collection and disclosure of your personal information, and to its use by the City of Niagara Falls,as described above. Page 4 of 4Page 22 of 105Page 999 of 1679 W Fee Waiver Application Form Niagara alls I'RN.\I)| Ao uiicant information Name of Event:E900kRiot Organization Name:Women's Place of South Niagara ola Blrchway Niagara Organization Address:8903 McLeod Road City:Niagara Falls Postal Code:L2H336 Contact Name:Amanda Braet Position:Directorof Development and Stewardship Phone Number (days):905 356 3933 X240 Phone Number (evenings):905 835 7835 Email:AmandaB@Birchway.ca Website:www.birchway.ca Type of Organization: El Not-for—profit incorporation #: in Charitable Organization Registration #:#131135717RR0001 El Other (please specify): The City of Niagara Falls willwaive fees that would have been charged by the City for eligible non—profitgroups or organizations that provide programs,services or events that are of a general benefit to the community.Fee Waiver Policy (700.22)is to ensure that the City's support offunctions and events through the waiving of fees is facilitated in a fair and equitable manner and does not burden the City's annual operating budget. Examples of City fees that can be waived include,but are not limitedto: -Park permit fees-Rental of City Property -Road Closure Fees -Staffing costs outside normal operations httgs:l/niagarafalls.calgdf/by—Iawslschedule—of—fees.gdfNote:Insurance fees willnot be waived.Page 1 of 4Page 23 of 105Page 1000 of 1679 r/Fee Waiver Application Form Niagara?qlls N‘I)\ Form Submission Information Applications can be submitted by email to:clerk@niagarafalls.ca In person or by mailto:City Hall 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls,ON L2E 6X5 Clerks Department Hours:8:30am —4:30pm Activit or Event Information Amount of Request:Cost of rinkrental from May 29—June9 Fees to be Waived (i.e.facility rental,park permit,etc.):Facility Rental Dates and Times:Thursday May 29th 2025 -Monday June 9th 2025 Purpose of Event:Fundraising for Birchway Niagara Number of People Expected:6000 Admission Fee (Ifapplicable):Free($10 at pre-sale only) Are you serving food?We 55"Maple Leaf FUdge only Are you sewing alcohol?N0 Activit or Event Descri ~tion 1.Howwillyour activity or event enhance recreation and community services inthe City of Niagara Falls? The Book Rlot event provides an opportunity for families of Niagara and surrounding areas to attend a free event where they can purchase affordable books,board games.cd's.dvd's and puzzles.All proceeds willbe invested back Intothe communityto help provide free services and shelter to support women and children affected by domestic abuse.This well-lovedcommunity event also provides many meaningful volunteer opportunities. 2.Please describe the projected social,cultural,economic and environmentalimpact that the activity or the community by saving well over 100,000 books from going into the land?ll,and offers variousvolunteeropportunitiesforallagesandlevelsofability.The Book Riotalso provides and affordable literacyoptlonsforlocalresidents.While hard cover books in retail stores sell for approximately $30.00 or more,mostbooksinoursaleareonly$3.00l Allof these bene?ts have contributed to our community for over 40 years andtheBookRiothasbecomeanannualtraditionformany.Page 2 of 4Page 24 of 105Page 1001 of 1679 m Fee Waiver Application Form Niagaraf'alls l’\\\|!\ 3.What willthe impact on the event be ifthe fee is not waived? To maintain the free and con?dential services.Birchway Niagara must fundraise annually approximately $800,000.As you can imagine,proceeds from the Book Riot has a big impact towards our overall goal.in 2024 the event raised $164,000]Anyway we can save or eliminate costs associated with the event,will directly benefit the women and children who use our services. 4.Are you seeking funding from any other sources?(Fundraising,grants,sponsorships) In the 2024,Birchway Niagara has been fortunate to recelve sponsorship money in the amount of $8,000.00 from various local businesses.This is the only sponsorship we receive besides the waiving of the rental fees as the City of Niagara Falls has done for 5 consecutive years -THANK YOU! 5.What features willyou have in place to ensure that your event is accessible to all residents (residents with disabilities)? One of the reasons why Birchway Niagara values the venue of the Gale Centre is the fact that the building is highly accessible;with the ample parking,automatic doors,ramps,great lighting etc.We have received great feedback from our supporters who attend the event,who thank us for the highlyaccessible venue.Also, we are able to space our rows of tables for the books farther apart which allows space for wheelchairs, walkers,strollers etc.to move freely within. A-olication Checklist Please submit one copy of each of the following documents. Mandatory Documents A detailed budget,showing revenues and expenditures E Documents relating to City rental permit (ifapplicable):.Dates,times and location of event.AllCity fees associated with the event Cl Confirmation letter from charity (ifapplicable): 0 For special events whereby a portion or all of the proceeds are being donated to charity,a confirmation letter from that charity must accompany the application Please list the cost of all fee waivers requested on page 2:Amount ($)"A 7“0"”W m Ma art-J'W—zoiKA3971‘fr 7 y/Ojg38.00!Completed by:(“A m (/3 6 R q /0,Signature:W Page 3 of 4Page 25 of 105Page 1002 of 1679 W Fee Waiver Application Form Niagara?a?s (\N\I)\ Authorization for A .-Iication On behalf of,and with the authority of,the above-mentioned organization,we certify that the informationgiven in this application for waiving of City fees is true,correct and complete inevery respect. Amanda Braet,Director of DevelopmentandStewardship m“— 3ignature of Senior Staff Person Name and Title ate Jenntnct/auxin WEggs};Dusgm @?lm 1&2 oard Chair/Representative Name and Title Date Personal Information Consent Personal information,as defined in the Municipal Freedom of information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA),is collected under the authority of the Municipal Act,2001,as amended,and in accordance with MFIPPA.Personal Informationcollected on this application form willbe used to assist in granting fee waivers and willbe made available to the members of City Council and staff and used for administrative purposes. Information collected may be subject to disclosure in accordance with the provisions of MFIPPA.The City reserves the right to verify all information contained In submissions. Questions regarding the collection,use and disclosure of this personal information may be directed to the City Clerk,BillMatson,at bmatson@niagarafalls.ca By completing this application form,you consent to the collection and disclosure of your personal information, and to its use by the City of Niagara Falls.as described above. Page 4 of 4Page 26 of 105Page 1003 of 1679 /‘City of Niagara Falls,Canada/Community Services Department Recreation and Culture,—Arenas SectionNlaganFallst\\\n\ Application for use of Winter Ice Time/Events or Tournaments at Municipal Arenas Birchway Niagara (Formerly Women's Place of South Niagara)Organization Contact/Person in Charge Amanda Braet Mailing Address 8903 MCLeOdRd-Telephone —Home City Niagara Falls Postal Code L2H386 Work 905—356-3938 Fax 905-356-5522 E~Mail amandab©birchwayga Cell 905—835-7835 Weekly Rentals or Spot Rentals 15'or 2'“I Choice Day(s)Requested First Choice Second Choice Time(s)Requested First Choice Second Choice Choose between the Gale Centre,Chippawa,or No Preference GALE CENTRE Starting Date Thursday May29.2025 (set I til Monday June 9,2025 Is the Ice for Youth or Adults?N/A Do you require insurance?YES Is the ice being used for a game,practice,hockey school,skating instruction,tournament or special event?Special Event —46‘hAnnual Book Riot How many dressing rooms are required?4 Press Box?0 For a tournament application,please complete the other side of this form. Room Rental Application) Which room would you like to use?NF Hydro Memorial Room,Sam Long Room,Walker industrial Boardroom or Chippawa Arena Rec Room?_ IA Willyou require Food &Beverages?YES Ifyes,itmust be provided exclusively by Breakaway Concessions.Are you a Not for Profit or a For Profit Company?YES Do you require the use of a Projector/Sound System?No Any documentation submitted to the municipality is subject to the municipal freedom of information and protection of privacy act.CityCouncil has approved a Municipal Alcohol Risk Management Policy in conjunction with Special Occasion Permits on City property (Chippawa Arena).Please direct any questions concerning the application or permitting procedures to 5602 atApplicant's Signature W Date W 1Spa?Page 27 of 105Page 1004 of 1679 Proposed dates and times for Book Riot 2025 Thursday May 29 9:00AM-4:00PM Bring over supplies Friday May 30 12:00AM—4:00PM Tables delivered/floorplan setup Saturday May 31 9:00AM—9200PM Booksdelivered (volunteers on site receiving &setting up) Sunday June 1 9:00AM-9200PM Volunteers Set up Monday June 2 9:00AM—9:00PM Volunteers Set up Tuesday June 3 9:00AM—9:30PM Set up/Pre Sale in afternoon/evening Wednesday June 4 9:00AM-9:00PM BookSales Thursday June 5 9:00AM-9:OOPM BookSales Friday June 6 9:00AM—9:00PM BookSales Saturday June 7 8:30AM~6:00PM BookSales Sunday June 8 8:30AM~6:OOPM Last day of BookSales Monday June 9 8:30AM—6:OOPM Tables Returned/Cleanup Page 28 of 105Page 1005 of 1679 WOMEN'S PLACE OF SOUTH NIAGARA,INC.PROPOSEDBUDGET FISCAL YEAR2024-2025 REVENUE: MCCSS Funding MCCSS CY MCCSS THSP MCCSS NAP-Gav Funding MAGFCSW AnnualizedFunding UnitedWay Municipal Granls Donations Niagara Falls Bingo Fort Erie Blngo Book Rlol Calendar Event Bowling MiscGrants DVProject interestTotalRevenue OPERATING EXPENSES: Wages and Bnne?ts Travel 8:Mileage CommercialFares TrainthTrainth-Retreat Resources Postage Client Needs Insurance Repairs &maintenance Janitorial cleanings Snow removal&landscaping Ulililes&taxes Telephone Safety &security Purchase services-Audil Purchase services—Legal Purchase services-HR Purchase services-Payroll Purchased services-IT Bankservice Charge Maillng (Postage)Fundraising expensesDevelopmentof?cer expensesOutreachOf?cesMiscellaneousTotalOperating Expenses 1,493,949 33,053 74,400 84,119 47,500 59,777 33,850 400,000 12,000 45,000 115,000 30,000 65,000 43,050 59,605 65 000W 2,130,764 7,800 11,000 22,345 9,000 21,125 1,900 5.452 30.732 27,000 16,000 27,700 30,200 25,240 13,900 20,200 12,000 5,000 4,000 55,481 1,020 4.00040.3007.00011,6040,000WPage 29 of 105Page 1006 of 1679 Page 30 of 105 Page 1007 of 1679 Page 31 of 105 Page 1008 of 1679 Stage RENT ($250 + tax) Table Linen RENT ($15 + tax) The Exchange Market Hall RENT ($410 + tax) Event Insurance - no alcohol event ($108 + tax)$884.79 (detailed rental permitenclosed below) Chetan Chandratre Page 32 of 105 Page 1009 of 1679 Page 33 of 105 Page 1010 of 1679 Page 34 of 105 Page 1011 of 1679 Page 35 of 105 Page 1012 of 1679 Page 36 of 105 Page 1013 of 1679 Page 37 of 105 Page 1014 of 1679 Page 38 of 105 Page 1015 of 1679 Page 39 of 105 Page 1016 of 1679 Fee Waiver Application Form NiagaraFaIIS (’A z“,\”A Name of Event:CFUiSingon the Q Organization Name:Heart Niagara Organization Address:46358 Queen Street City:Niagara Falls Postal Code:LZE 2L7 Contacmame:Karen Stearne position;Executive Directoe Phone Number (days):905'358'5552 Phone Number (evenings):905'321‘2821 Ema":karen.stearne@heartniagara.com Website:heartniagaracom Type of Organization: Not-for-profit Incorporation #:05462264 1 I Charitable Organization Registration #:1O7473316RR0001 Other (please specify): The City of Niagara Falls willwaive fees that would have been charged by the City for eligible non-profit groups or organizations that provide programs,services or events that are of a general benefit to the community.Fee Waiver Policy (700.22)is to ensure that the City's support of functions and events through the waiving of fees is facilitated in a fair and equitable manner and does not burden the City’s annual operating budget. Examples of Cityfees that can be waived include,but are not limited to: 'Park permit fees -Rental of City Property -Road Closure Fees -Staffing costs outside normal operations City of Niagara Falls Rates &Fees can be found on the City’swebsite at: Note:Insurance fees willnot be waived.Page 1 of4Page 40 of 105Page 1017 of 1679 Fee Waiver Application Form Niagara?ulls (/\R\ll;\ Applications can be submitted by email to:clerk@niagarafalls.ca In person or by mail to:City Hall 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls,ON L2E 6X5 Clerks Department Hours:8:30am —4:30pm Amount of Request: Fees to be Waived (i.e.facility rental,park permit,etc):Road Closure fees Dates and Times.every Tuesday May 21 —September 10 (17 events)4:00—8:00por dusk Purpose of Event:to bring our community and caraficionadostogether in a free outdoor event. 200 cars and 500 participantsNumberofPeopleExpected:Admission Fee (if applicable):no Are you sewing food?no Are you serving alcohol?no 1.How willyour activity or event enhance recreation and community services in the City of Niagara Falls? Inthe 11th year they increase social awareness of current topics,community event and fundraising for charity.A number of local businesses specifically in hospitality benefit from business generated this evening program.In 2024 the plan is to increase engagement of local artists and musicians to support local culture has been included in the budget . 2.Please describe the projected social,cultural,economic and environmental impact that the activity or event willhave on the City and its residents. —Culture -This event provides historicalinformation on cars,trucks,and the evolution classic cars for the community at large to learn more.Economic~withover 500 people enjoying up to200 cars weekly itprovides business exposure on what there isto offerand showcase the growth.The restaurants downtoWnsee a signi?cantincreaseinbusinessonaTuesdaywhichistraditionalaslownight.Cruising on the Qraises between $3,000-38000 annually through a 50/50 and each dollar raised isinvested Inthe HHSPCPR/AED training program reaching more than 3,500 students each yearacross the Niagara region inall 27 secondary schools.Environmental ~allcar owners and volunteers are committedto keeping the street looking beautifuland we workwiththe CityofNiagara FallsinitiativesHowdidyoudeterminetheneed:As a community.we continue torecover fromthe pandemic this is an excellent opportunity to get together weekly whilerespecting people's comfortlevel byofferingoutdoorgatherings.Over 200 car aficionados bring their vehicles each week weather permitting,whichIncreases the socialconnectivity withinthisgroup.The Cruising onthe Qvolunteerssupportlocalcharitiesandcommunityeventsaspartoftheirmandate.They offer several community outreach initiativesthroughout the“season".Page 2 of4Page 41 of 105Page 1018 of 1679 Fee Waiver Application Form Niagara?ulls ('r\N.\l).\ 3.What willthe impact on the event be ifthe fee is not waived? Heart Niagara and the Queen Street Cruiser volunteer their time to make the event a successful and showcase downtown,our sense of community and commitment to charitable works.Ifthe fees could not be waived itwould compromise our ability to deliver an action-packed evening,withgiveaways,community pro?les,artist showcases and entertainment.Alldollars raised through sponsorship would need to be dedicated to road closure fees.Additionally,there would be no net proceeds to donate to community CPR/AED training and/or delivery of CPR in Niagara Falls schools at no cost. 4.Are you seeking funding from any other sources?(Fundraising,grants,sponsorships) Yes,we will continue to fund raise through sponsorship opportunities to increase business profile in Niagara Falls,to offer more host nights on tuesday's,focus on healthy choice;activities,food and living smoke free. 5.What features willyou have in place to ensure that your event is accessible to all residents (residents with disabilities)? Queen Street Cruisers and Heart Niagara are committed to equity and access and have volunteers on—siteto support participants that are facing barrier after they arrive at the event Application Checklist Please submit one copy of each of the following documents. MandatomDocuments A detailed budget,showing revenues and expenditures Documents relating to City rental permit (if applicable): 0 Dates,times and location of event 0 AllCity fees associated with the event Confirmation letter from charity (ifapplicable): 0 For special events whereby a portion or allof the proceeds are being donated to charity,a confirmation letter from that charity must accompany the application For Internal Use Only: -One staff member required for afterhours weekday closures taking place every Tuesday between May20 andSeptember16.4 hour call outs for 17days.$5750.00Administrativepermitfeeis$500.00.-Road closure expense equals $4553.25.Completed by:[1%];7/’g)A)('/€CX.LJ Signature:Jig)Page 3 of 4Page 42 of 105Page 1019 of 1679 Fee Waiver Application Form Nlagara?a?s(‘\‘\\H,\ On behalf of,and with the authority of,the above-mentioned organization,we certify that the information given inthis application for waiving of City fees is true,correct and complete in every respect. Wé’f‘ww Karen Stearne March 4,2024 Signature of Senior Staff Person Name and Title Date 69W ?ay MW Helga Campbell March4,2024SignatureofBoardChair/Representative Name and Title Date Personal information,as defined in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFlPPA),is collected under the authority of the Municipal Act,2001,as amended,and in accordance with MFlPPA.Personal information collected on this application form willbe used to assist in granting fee waivers and willbe made available to the members of City Council and staff and used for administrative purposes. Information collected may be subject to disclosure in accordance with the provisions of MFlPPA.The City reserves the right to verify all information contained insubmissions. Questions regarding the collection,use and disclosure of this personal information may be directed to the City Clerk,BillMatson,at bmatson@niagarafalls.ca By completing this application form,you consent to the collection and disclosure of your personal information, and to its use by the City of Niagara Falls,as described above. Page 4 of4Page 43 of 105Page 1020 of 1679 Fee Waiver Application Form NEE—gt?{£5583 t\\\ll\ CARIFALLS NIAGARAFALLS MULTICULTURALCARIBBEANCARNIVAL/PARADENameofEvent: Organization Name:MAJESTIC MULTICULTURALEVENTS INC,NON-PROFIT Organization Address:4521 QUEEN ST NIAGARAFALLSCity:Postal Code:L2E2L4 Contact Name:ARLENEWENDT Position:C.E.O. Phone Number (days):2892001262 Phone Number (evenings):2892001262 Email:mmce905@gmail.com Website:mmeventsgroupcom Type of Organization:Not—for—profit incorporation #:1000337936 Charitable Organization Registration #:758186944 Other (please specify): The City of Niagara Fallswillwaive fees that would have been charged by the Cityfor eligible non-profit groups or organizations that provide programs,services or events that are of a general benefit to the community.Fee Waiver Policy (700.22)is to ensure that the City’ssupport offunctions and events through the waiving offeesisfacilitatedinafairandequitablemanneranddoesnotburdentheCity’sannual operating budget. Examples of City fees that can be waived include,but are not limitedto:-Park permit fees-Rental of City Property ~Road Closure Fees-Staffing costs outside normal operations The City of Niagara Falls Rates &Fees can be found on the City’s website at: Note:Insurance fees willnot be waived.Page 1 of 4Page 44 of 105Page 1021 of 1679 Fee Waiver Application Form Applications can be submitted by email to:clerk@niagarafalls.ca In person or by mailto:City Hall 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls,ON L2E 6X5 Clerks Department Hours:8:30am —4:30pm $1500.00AmountofRequest: Fees to be Waived (i.e.facility rental,park permit,etc,):parade route street closer and street carnival closure Dates and Times:Auqust 30 2025 Purpose of Event:A Caribbean Carnival/walking parade celebrating the multicultural communities of the Caribbean and {south Central America Number of People Expected:375 plus Admission Fee (Ifapplicable): Are you serving food?yeS vendor Are you serving alcohol?yes vendor 1.How willyour activity or event enhance recreation and community services inthe City of Niagara Falls? see attachment 2.Please describe the projected social,cultural,economic and environmental impact that the activityoreventwillhaveontheCityanditsresidents. Page 2 of 4Page 45 of 105Page 1022 of 1679 Fee Waiver Application Form Niagara HHS l\\‘\i)\ 3.What willthe impact on the event be ifthe fee is not waived? see attachment 4.Are you seeking funding from any other sources?(Fundraising,grants,sponsorships) see attachment 5.What features willyou have in place to ensure that your event is accessible to all residents (residents withdisabilities)? see attachment Please submit one copy of each of the following documents. MandatomDocuments 2?Adetailed budget,showing revenues and expenditures Documents relating to City rental permit (ifapplicable): -Dates,times and location of event 0 AllCity fees associated with the event Confirmation letterfrom charity (ifapplicable):.For special events whereby a portion or all of the proceeds are being donated to charity,a confirmation letterfrom that charity must accompany the application For Internal Use Only: -Two staff members required for two outs totaling 16 hours.routenumerousroadwaystobeclosed.$145000-Administrative permit fee is $500.00..Road closure expense equals $751.41.Completed low/W 16/ume ISignature:/%Page 3 of 4Page 46 of 105Page 1023 of 1679 Fee Waiver Application Form t\\H\ On behalf of,and with the authority of,the above-mentioned organization,we certify that the information given in this application for waiving of City fees is true,correct and complete inevery respect. Arlene Wendi C.E.O.Feb 2,2025 Signature of Senior Staff Person Name and Title Date Neshia States Feb 2 2025 Signature of Board Chair/Representative Name and Title ‘Date Personal information,as defined in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA),is collected under the authority of the Municipal Act,2001,as amended,and in accordance with MFIPPA.Personal information collected on this application form willbe used to assist ingranting fee waivers and willbe made available to the members of City Council and staff and used for administrative purposes. Information collected may be subject to disclosure in accordance with the provisions of MFIPPA.The City reserves the right to verify all information contained in submissions. Questions regardingthe collection,use and disclosure ofthis personal information may be directed to the City Clerk,BillMatson,at bmatson@niagarafalls.ca By completing this application form,you consent to the collection and disclosure of your personal information, and to its use by the Cityof Niagara Falls,as described above. Page 4 of 4Page 47 of 105Page 1024 of 1679 F FEE WAVIER APPLICATION ANSWERS l).The CarifallsFestivaland ParadeinNiagara Falls aimsto enhance recreation and community service by fostering growth,supportingsmall businesses,and improving residents'well—being.It seeks to strengthen family bonds and socialconnections,offering opportunitiesfor peopleto reconnect,share memories,and support one another.By bridging geographicaland generational divides,the festival promotes togetherness and inclusivity. The event will play a Vitalrole in preservingand promotingthe community'straditionalarts and culturalidentity,showcasing vibrant Caribbean culture through traditional dress,dance,music,food, and feather-adornedcostumes in a walking—styleparade.The festival is expectedto attract local, regional,and internationalvisitors,enriching the area's culturaland socialfabric while boosting the local economy. 2)The projected social,cultural,economic,and environmentalimpacts of the event on the city and its residents include the following: Social Impact Enhanced Community Engagement:The festival will bring residents together,strengthening community bonds and encouraging participationin shared activities. -Cultural Exchange:By celebrating Caribbean,Latin,Indigenous,and South American cultures,the event promotes inclusivity and cross-culturalunderstanding. Improved Well—being:Social interactions,music,dance,and festivitieswillpositively impact residents’mental and physical health. Cultural Impact Showcasing Local Heritage:The festival will highlight the vibrant traditions,music,and arts of various cultures,enriching the city's cultural identity..Generational Bridging:The event creates an inclusive space where people of all ages can connect through shared experiences,bridging generationaldivides. Cultural Celebration:Participantscan showcase traditionalcostumes and dances from Caribbean,Latin,and Indigenous cultures,celebrating the region’s rich heritage. Economic Impact ~Boost to Local Businesses:Hotels,restaurants,shops,and vendors will bene?t from increased visitor spending. Tourism Growth:Attracting Visitorsfrom local,regional,and internationalareas will bolsterthecity’s reputationas a culturaldestination.Environmental ImpactIncreasedFootTraf?c:With a focus on pedestrian—friendlyactivities,the festival reducesPage 48 of 105Page 1025 of 1679 vehicular congestion and promotes walking. -Sustainability Initiatives:Eco—friendlypractices,such as recycling and waste reduction,will help minimize the festival’s environmental footprint Awareness Campaigns:The event offers opportunitiesto educate attendeeson environmental stewardshipand sustainablepractices. By integrating these inclusive measures,including street—levelvendors and a walking parade showcasing traditional Caribbean,Latin,andIndigenous costumes,music,and dances,the festivalwill foster a welcoming environment.This celebrationof diversity underscores the community's commitmentto inclusivity and diversity,unity,and culturalpride. 3)If the fee for the Caribbean festivaland walking parade is not waived,several potentialimpacts could arise: Increased CostS:The additional?nancial burden may signi?cantly raise the overall cost of organizingthe festival,making it more challenging to allocate resources for key aspects such as performances,decorations,and accessibilitymeasures. Reduced Feasibility:.Higher costs might render the event less feasible,especially for organizers with limited budgets. This could result in scaling backthe festival’s scope,reducing its appeal and cultural significance. Lower Participation: -Financial strain on organizersmay lead to higher entry fees or fewer free activities,which could discourage community members and visitors from participating fully. Diminished Community Impact:.The festival’s ability to engage the community,celebrate cultural diversity,and foster inclusivity may be weakened if fewer resources are available to support these goals. Impact on Community Involvement and International Respect: The event’s role as a cornerstone in the Caribbean cultural calendar could bejeopardized, potentiallyreducing its prominenceandrespect withinthe internationalcultural community. onWaivingthefeewouldenablethefestivaltomaintain its full potential,supporting communityinvolvement,cultural expression,and its status as a key event in the Caribbean cultural calendar.Page 49 of 105Page 1026 of 1679 4)Seeking funding,Sponsorship,and grants for the Carifalls/WalkingParade is a strategic approachto ensure the event‘s success.Local community involvement will not only help cover costs but also foster a sense of ownershipand pride.Culturally relevant sponsorshipand grants can providesupport tailoredto the festival‘s unique focus on Caribbean,Latin,and Indigenous traditions,arts,and culturalcelebrations.These?nancial contributionswill ensure the parade remains vibrant,inclusive,and impactful for both residents and visitors. 5)To ensure everyone can enjoy and participate in the Carifalls/WalkingParade,several inclusive features will be in place: Key Features: Street—Level Event:The entire event will be accessibleat street level,allowing easy access for all attendees,including those using wheelchairs,strollers,or other mobility aids..Vendors at Street Level:All vendor booths and food stalls will be placedat street level, ensuring easy accessibility for everyone,no matter their mobility. Wide Open Viewing for Live Performances:The live performances will be staged in a way that ensures unobstructedviews from various points,making it easy for all attendeesto enjoy the entertainment. ,Open Area for Dancing:Therewill be designated open spaces where peoplecan freelyjoin in dancing,allowing for spontaneous participationand interaction. Slow Walking Parade Route:The parade route willbe designed to accommodate a slower pace,making it comfortable for participantsof all ages and abilitiesto take part in the procession. Family and Community Involvement:The festival encourages families and community members to participatetogether,fostering a sense of unity,connection,and shared enjoyment. By integratingthese features,the Carifalls/Walking Parade will be an inclusive celebrationthat ~welcomeseveryone,regardless of ability or background,to join in the festivities.Page 50 of 105Page 1027 of 1679 Here’s a structuredbudget layout for Carifalls Carnival/Parade 2025: Carifalls Carnival/Parade 2025 Budget Layout Category Details Amount ($) Technical Salaries and Fees Prejeetlead.consultant,coordinator,presenter,$5,000.00productlon/installatloncrew ?gftIC/CuratonalSalariesand Musiciansunion rates,CARFAC rates for artists $8,500.00 Venue/Facility Costs Equipment/spacerental,food/drink permits $3,000.00 Materials Art supplies,project supplies,etc.$2,500.00 Administrative/Professional ....~. Fees/Staffing Office administration,project staf?ng $2,000.00 Marketing Graphicsdesrgn,advertising,promotional materials,$3,000.00writing Travel /Accommo dation Travelforguest artists/presenters,accommodations,$1,000.00parking Total Project Expenses $22,300.00 This layout provides a clear breakdown of the total expenses,ensuring all essential aspects of the festival’s organization,from technicaland artistic elements to marketing and staffing,are covered.It offers transparency and ensures that each criticalarea receives appropriatefunding.Page 51 of 105Page 1028 of 1679 EUg?vet‘sitye?ENE?g?t‘?Felts@masda February 02,2025 Arlene Wendt Carifalls Caribbean Festival 4515 Queen St, Niagara Falls,ON L2E2L1!r Dear Ms.Wendt, On behalf of the University of Niagara Falls Canada,lam pleased to extend our full support for the Carifalls Caribbean Festival,scheduled for August 30,2025.This event will serve as a vibrant celebration of Niagara’s rich cultural diversity and an opportunity to bring the community together in a meaningfulway. As a global institution dedicated to multiculturalism and community engagement,the University of Niagara Falls Canada recognizes the importance of fostering cultural exchange and supporting initiatives that enhance inclusivity,education,and community development.The Carifalls Caribbean Festival aligns with these values by providing a platform for cultural expression,shared experiences,and community enrichment. We support your request fortundingfrom the City of Niagara Falls.Events like these not only contribute to the revitalization of Queen Street but also provide a sense of belonging and shared purpose among Niagara Falls residents.The festival’s positive impact on our community cannot be overstated. We are confident that the Carifalls Caribbean Festivalwill be a memorable event,and we are excited to see its positive effects on both our university and the broader community. Sincerely, University of Niagara Falls Canada 10134342Queen EStNiagara Falls,ON L213.7J7info@unfc.caPage 52 of 105Page 1029 of 1679 City Hall 4310 Queen Street P.O.Box 1023 Niagara Falls,ON L2E6X5 web site:www.niagarafalls.ca(905)356-7521 Ext.4201 Fax:(905)374-3357jdiodatl@niagarafalls.ca Mayor Jim Diodati February 4‘“,2025 To Whom It May Concern: Thank you for your consideration of support for the Carifalls MulticulturalCaribbean Carnival/Parade Niagara Falls.Majestic MulticulturalEvents is a non—profitorganizationthatcallsQueenStreet,Niagara Falls home and is the host organization for this year's festival once again. This should prove to be an enriching multiculturalfamily event for allto participate in.The festival willbe a rich multiculturalexperience,beginning with a walking parade onVictoriaAvenueandcontinuingtoQueenStreet,featuring 150 participants includingmasqueradersandbands.The carnival portion of the event willinclude a variety of Caribbean artists and vendors exhibiting culturaljewelry,clothing,paintings,music andmore. Just steps away from the GO Train and the tourist district,the event willdraw crowdsintotheheartofourdowntown,an underserved area of our community that vibrant events and an influxof visitors greatly benefits. Thank you again for offering your consideration to this outstanding event for 2025. Yours truly,WWWM74“ James M.DiodatiPage 53 of 105Page 1030 of 1679 ;’iii?{i1%.,.Zi‘éilj'i‘liif'iEii.if} Fee Waiver Application Form li’i‘réii Name of Event:Second Annual Niagara Falls Golden Horseshoe MulticulturalLatin Festival Organization Name:Majestic MulticulturalEvents Inc.NonuProfit Organization Address:4521 Queen 81' City:Niagara Falls Postal Code:L2E2L4 Contact Name:Arlene Wendi Position:C.E.O. Phone Number (days):2892001262 Phone Number (evenings):same Email:mmce905@gmail.com Website:mmeventsgroup.com Type of Organization: X Not—for~profit incorporation #:1000337936 Charitable Organization Registration #:758186944 Other (please specify):Account #758186944R00001 The City of Niagara Falls willwaive fees that would have been charged by the City for eligible noneprofitgroups or organizations that provide programs,services or events that are of a general benefit to the community.Fee Waiver Policy (700.22)is to ensure that the City’s support of functions and events through the waiving of fees is facilitated in a fair and equitable manner and does not burden the City’s annual operating budget. Examples of City fees that can be waived include,but are not limitedto: ~Park permit fees.Rental of City Property -Road Closure Fees -Staffing costs outside normal operations The City of Niagara Falls Rates &Fees can be found on the City's website at: Note:insurance fees willnot be waived.Page 1 of4Page 54 of 105Page 1031 of 1679 Fee Waiver Application Form Applications can be submitted by email to:clerk@niagarafalls.ca in person or by mail to:City Hall 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls,ON L2E 6X5 Clerks Department Hours:8:30am ~4:30pm Amount of Request:$350.$950 Fees to be Waived (i.e.facilityrental,park permit,etc):Road Closure (Queen St.Between St Clair AVG-and prysiei at.)July26 2025DatesandTimes: Purpose of Event:A Latin Street Festival with band DJ’s Altist,Cultural vendors offood and artifacts,kid zone. A multicultural-family friendly community Festivai Number of People Expected:375 and up Admission Fee (if applicable): Are you serving food?veg Are you serving alcohol?Yes 1.How willyour activity or event enhance recreation and community services inthe City of Niagara Falls? see attachment 2.Please describe the projected social,cultural,economic and environmental impact that the activityor event willhave on the Cityand its residents. see attachment Page 2 of 4Page 55 of 105Page 1032 of 1679 %Fee Waiver Application Form Niagmt?a?st'\\‘\ti\ 3.What willthe impact on the event be ifthe fee is not waived? see attachment 4.Areyou seeking funding from any other sources?(Fundraising,_grants,sponsorships) see attachment 5.What features willyou have in place to ensure that your event is accessible to all residents (residents withdisabilities)? see attachment Please submit one copy of each of the following documents. Mandatory Documents A detailed budget,showing revenues and expenditures :1 Documents relating to City rental permit (ifapplicable): 0 Dates,times and location of event a AllCity fees associated with the event Confirmation letterfrom charity (ifapplicable):.For special events whereby a portion or all of the proceeds are being donated to charity,a confirmation letter from that charity must accompany the application For Internal Use Onl : -One staff member required for two weekend callouts totaling 8 hours.A single road section requires closure.-Administrativepermit fee is $500.00.$1000.00-Road closure expense equals $382.98.complemd by:MMQJ56me JSignature:%Page 3 of 4Page 56 of 105Page 1033 of 1679 Fee Waiver Application Form On behalf of,and with the authority of,the above-mentioned organization,we certify that the information given in this application for waiving of Cityfees is true,correct and complete in every respect. Jan 29/25ArleneWendtC.E.O. Signature of Senior Staff Person Name and Title Date Jan 29/25NeshiaStatesDirector Signature of Board Chair/Representative Name and Title Date Personal information,as defined inthe Municipal Freedom of information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA),is collected under the authority of the Municipal Act,2001,as amended,and in accordance with MFIPPA.Personal information collected on this application form willbe used to assist in granting fee waivers and willbe made available to the members of City Council and staff and used for administrative purposes. information collected may be subject to disclosure in accordance with the provisions of MFiPPA.The City reserves the right to verifyall informationcontained in submissions. Questions regarding the collection,use and disclosure of this personal information may be directed to the City Clerk,BillMatson,at bmatson@niagarafaiis.ca By completing this application form,you consent to the collection and disclosure of your personal information, and to its use by the City of Niagara Falls,as described above. Page 4 of 4Page 57 of 105Page 1034 of 1679 FEE WAIVERAPPLICATION FORM ANSWERS 1)The festival in Niagara Falls will signi?cantly enhance recreation and community service by fostering growth and supporting small businesses.It will improve residents' overall well-being by strengthening family bonds and social connections,providing opportunities for people to reconnect,share memories,and support one another. Additionally,the festival willbridge geographical and generational divides, fostering togetherness and inclusivity.Itwillalso play a vital role in promoting and preserving the community’s traditions,arts,and cultural identity.The event is expected to attract visitors,further enriching the cultural and social fabric of the area while boosting the local economy. 2)Social Impact: Enhanced Community Engagement:The festival will bring people together,strengthening social bonds and fostering a sense of unity among residents. -Cultural Exchange:It may serve as a platform for celebrating localculture and traditions, promoting inclusivity,and encouraging paiticipationfrom diverse groups. -Improved Well—being:Residents and visitors can enjoy recreationalactivities that contributeto mentaland physicalhealth,encouraging social interaction and relaxation. Cultural Impact: Showcasing Local Heritage:The festival will highlight the city’s unique history,art,and culture,enhancing its cultural identity. Generational Bridging:It will create opportunitiesfor people of all ages to connect and share experiences,promotingmutual understanding andrespect. Economic Impact: »Boost to Local Businesses:Hotels,restaurants,shops,car rental services,and bus operators will experienceincreaseddemand,driving revenue growth. Job Creation:Temporary employment opportunitieswill arise,particularly in hospitality,event management,and transportation. -Tourism Growth:Attracting visitors will stimulate spendingin the local economy and raise Niagara Falls’profile as a vibrant destination. Environmental Impact: planning can mitigate negative effects.Sustainability Initiatives:The festival can promote Eco—friendly,practices,such as wastereduction,recycling,and the use of sustainablematerials.-Awareness Campaigns:It providesan opportunityto educate attendeesabout the importanceofpreservingthenaturalbeautyofNiagaraFalloverall,the festival is expectedto create arippleeffectofpositiveoutcomes,fostering a thriving,connected,and vibrant communitywhileboostingeconomicactivityandculturalappreciation.Page 58 of 105Page 1035 of 1679 3)Waiving the fee would help ensure the festival's success by alleviating ?nancial pressures, enabling broader community involvement,and preservingthe event‘s quality and cultural signi?cance. If the fee for the Latin festival is not waived,it could lead to several challenges: a).Increased Costs:The overall expenses would rise,making it harder to organize the festival,especiallyon a limited budget. b)Reduced Feasibility:Higher costs might force organizers to scale back the event,limit activities,or compromisequality. c)Lower Participation:Financial constraintscouldresult in fewer free offerings, discouraging attendance and participationfrom vendors,performers,and community groups. d)Diminished Community Impact:The festival’s ability to celebrate cultural heritage,foster social connections,and support local businesses might be undermined due to limited resources. Waiving the fee would alleviate ?nancial pressures,promote inclusivity,and help preserve the festival’s quality,appeal,and cultural signi?cance. 4)Seeking fundraising through local supporters,sponsorship's,and grants is a proactive approachto ensuring the Latin festival's success despitepotential?nancial challenges. Here's how these efforts can support the event: Fundraising Benefits Enhanced Budget Flexibility:Funds raised through community contributions and events can offset costs,allowing the festival to maintain its scope and quality..Community Involvement:Fundraising activitiesengage local residents andbusinesses, fostering a stronger sense of ownershipand connectionto the event. Sponsorship Advantages ~Business Promotion:Sponsorship provides local businesseswithvisibility and marketing opportunities,encouraging them to support the festival ?nancially. Shared Resources:Partnershipswith sponsors may includein-kind contributions,such as Grant OpportunitiesDedicatedFunding:Grants from cultural,arts,or community organizations can offer targeted?nancial support for speci?c aspects of the festival,such as performances or workshops.Legitimacy and Recognition:Securing grants can enhance the festival’s credibility and attractadditionalsponsorsandparticipants.Page 59 of 105Page 1036 of 1679 By leveraging these avenues,the festival can overcome ?nancial hurdles,ensuring it continuesto promote culturalheritage,bring the communitytogether,and bene?t Niagara Falls socially and economically. 5)The festival will prioritizeaccessibilityto ensure all residents,including those with disabilities,can fully participate and enjoythe event.Key features include: Accessibility Features:.Open Street Access:Streets will be open and easily navigable,with clear pathways to accommodatewheelchairs,strollers,and othermobility aids. Clear Roadways:Roads will be unobstructed,providing smooth access for attendees to move freely without physicalbarriers. -Stage Visibility:The festival layout will ensure unobstructedviews of the live performers on stage,accommodating differentvantage pointsfor everyone,including those seated or using mobility devices. -Street—LevelVendors:All vendor boothsand displayswill be positioned at street level, ensuring easy accessibility for attendees of all abilities. By integrating these inclusive measures,the festival will foster a welcoming environment where everyone can enjoy the celebrationsequally,highlighting the community's commitmentto inclusivity andunity.Page 60 of 105Page 1037 of 1679 Here’s a structured budget layout for the Latin Festival 2025: Latin Festival 2025 Budget Layout Category Details Amount ($) Technical Salaries and Fees Preyect leadconsultant,coordinator,presenter,$4:800productlon/installatlon crew giggle/CuratorialSalariesand Musicians union rates,CARFAC rates for artists $11,000 Venue/Facility Costs Equipment/space rental,food/drinkpermits $3,000 Materials Art supplies,project supplies,etc.$2,000 Administrative/Professional Of?ce administration ro'ect staf?n $2 000Fees/Staffing ’p J g ’ Marketing Graphlcsdesrgn,advertismg,promotionalmaterials,$5,200writing Travel/Accommodation Travelforguest artists/presenters,accommodations,$2,000parkmg Total Project Expenses $30,000 This layout provides a clear breakdownof the total expenses,ensuring all essential aspects of the festival’s organization,from technical and altistic elementsto marketing and staf?ng,are covered.It offers transparency and ensures that each criticalarea receives appropriatefunding.Page 61 of 105Page 1038 of 1679 City Hall 4310 Queen StreetP.O.Box 1023 Niagara Falls,ON L2E 6X5 web site:www.niagarafalls.ca (905)356-7521 Ext.4201 Fax:(905)374-3357 jdiodati@niagarafalls.ca Mayor Jim Diodati November 29,2024 To Whom It May Concern: Thank you for your consideration of support forthe Caribbean and Latin Festival in Niagara Falls.Majestic MulticulturalEvents is a non-pro?t organization that calls Queen Street,Niagara Falls home and is the host organization for this year’s festival once again. The festival would feature a richmulticulturalexperience like no other.lt’s poised to include a variety of traditional food,entertainment,vendors,dancing,music,folkloreand notable guests which willcombine for an immersiveexperience for our community members.Ithas something for everyone and is a family affair,complete with a children’s area withface painting,balloon animals and youth entertainment,welcoming young people to experience the excitement. Queen Street is the perfect location for the festival,drawing crowds of hundreds of community members and visitors alike.Just steps away from the GO Train and the tourist district,the event willdraw crowds into the heart of our downtown,an underserved area of our community that vibrant events and an influxof visitors greatly bene?ts. Thank you again for offering your consideration to this outstanding event for 2025. Sincerely, Jim Diodati Mayor,City of Niagara FallsPage 62 of 105Page 1039 of 1679 Onlnrln Wayne Gates III/IH CII I At;A 32A 33/21.?,f'; 2024—11—20 RE:Majestic Multicultural Event To whom it may concern, I am writing you in support of Majestic MulticulturalEvents (MME)and the criticalwork they do in our community.Year after year,MME has brought a beautifultapestry of cultures and artforms to the downtown core.The impactthat they have had and continueto have on our community is overwhelmingly positive. Through itsyearly street festivals in Downtown Niagara Falls,MME has boosted revenue and foot traf?c for localbusinesses,they have provided residents with a fun,enjoyable,and interactiveexperiencewithperformances of Caribbean,Latin,Indian,and Indigenous backgrounds.These performerswillreturn to Niagara Falls inthe summer 2025. The new and improvedNiagara Falls Multicultural Soca,Reggae,Latino Fete in the Summer of 2025 will prove to be MME’S most ambitious and successfulendeavour yet.Through sharing cultural expressionand focussing on heritageand the arts,MME provides entertainmentand enjoymentfor millions of people that visit Niagara inthe summer months. As in years past,my support for Majestic MulticulturalEvents is strong,and based on their years of dedicationto our community.They have aided in the strengthening of our melting pot in Niagara Falls to show visitors and residents alike the robust cultural exchange in our community. MajesticMulticulturalEvents is a wonderfulorganization,and I am more than happyto support them. Best Regards, Owen Riel Constituency Assistant to Wayne Gates,MPP Niagara Falls Fort Erie Niagara-on~the-Lake Queen's Park Office(77516Murrinrm Street,Unix I Donglnx Heights Scuim (Ivnrnr NUTI,l’ulllh~Library Run”)361,Main I.i‘§[I‘;Iuli\'<‘linilnlimz.Niagara Falls,ON L21;(17,":.{(.Slli;;l15i.,lo Amlw‘snn Lam,-Qucun'sl‘uiI-z.'l'nruntu,()N i\I7r\IA“)TI’IE)I)‘}~,$‘3/V(){>§il Full Flir.ON I,.»’.r\,lllri Ningummn 'l|l("'l.{li(l',(TI I.()‘$Ut)Tvi4?I02!,zmwFaxunanswut‘i?n 'I‘ulcurbmrnunu 'I‘ol22:9424I423}:l-‘ux43l6-21?.-(x|()(.\Vg?illt's‘rIf“(Illlltipltlluf?I‘ux ‘Jll‘3 8/]TH]l-‘ux9031.5")?EH36 wuult‘s t]|\(.I>n<.Ip,un.(:u a"Page 63 of 105Page 1040 of 1679 Tony Baldinelli,MP \lvr‘rx‘:«l r-1 ‘-‘\«ixrl all HOUSE OI COMMONS f“A5HHH.DISCUhUdUNIS (,‘,\.\':'\li.r\ December2,2024 ToWhom it May Concern: lam writing to you today to offer my support in the applicationfor the Niagara Falls CulturalDevelopment Fund by Majestic MulticulturalEvents (MME)and the Niagara Falls MulticulturalSoca,Reggae Latino Fete scheduledfor the end ofiuly 2025. Asan elected official and a community member,l support the positive impact that this organization has had on our localeconomy and our community.The mandate of Majestic MulticulturalEvents (MME)is to promote the diversity ofmulticulturalexhibits, performances and presentations of Caribbean,Latin,lndian,&Indigenous cultures. MME was responsible for successfully putting on Latinand CaribbeanStreet Festivalsin 2021,2022,and 2023 whichreached over 3,000 attendees. Inthe summer of 2025,.they are embarking on the Niagara FallsMulticulturalSoca, Reggae,Latino Fete with the anticipated reach of over 4,000 patrons. Focusing on heritage,arts,and culture through multiculturalevents,is a great way to enrich the cultural experience of visitors and residents of Niagara Fallsin the summer months. Youthinternship opportunities allow MME to give backto the community,allowing them to grow and continue their cultural legacyfor future generations.This in turn,makes Canada,specificallyNiagara Falls,the ultimate mosaic for visitors and residents. Thankyou for you consideration of MME’sfunding application. / ,.“newlonyBaldme (iii‘awa 1:0“.l‘irin,,“Um?“__Ni'apara-‘m'r-il'rowl,alcc iii latte 511““(””mdmm'imBullfhm"40361))(\I'C11L“$lt‘l'“ill'l‘l‘lUnitlll'i Fm Erw?m‘m“Ottawa,Omitario 'Ni‘g,"1‘FillsUni”1“l,2,\255KIMW’W larctic;‘rot:905-371-9991'lol.:(ul3-995~l?»l7 “.9;‘7.“I-‘a\.:vns..s7i—smclia\:ol3-‘)92-79lu ‘"””3““""0 'I’M:9013339535?lun)’.litiltliuullieuparlgcxaPage 64 of 105Page 1041 of 1679 Ugaéuaraity atNiagaraFats November 29,2024 Arlene Wendt The Niagara Falls Multicultural Latin Festival 4515 Queen St, Niagara Falls,ON L2E2L4 Dear Ms.Wendt, On behalf ofthe University of Niagara Falls Canada,Iam pleased to extend ourfullsupport for the Niagara Multicultural Latin Festival,scheduled for July 26th,2025.This exciting event will undoubtedly be a vibrant celebration of Niagara‘s diverse cultural landscape. Atthe University of Niagara Falls Canada,we pride ourselves on being a global institution that celebrates multiculturalism and community engagement.We believe in supporting events that encourage cultural exchange,providing opportunities for our students and the broader community to participate,engage and learn from.The Niagara Multicultural Latin Festival is a prime example of an event that aligns with these values. We support your request forfunding from the City of Niagara Falls.Events likethese not only contribute to the revitalization of Queen Street but also provide a sense of belonging and shared purpose among Niagara Falls residents.The festival’s positive impact on our community cannot be overstated. We are con?dent that the Niagara Multicultural Latin Festivalwill be a memorable event, and we are excited to see its positive effects on both our university and the broader community. Sincerely, Felicia Werner University of Niagara Falls Canada 1014342 Queen St Niagara Falls,ON L29”.7.]?info@ unfocaPage 65 of 105Page 1042 of 1679 :ma?mammM03m?mbacon.:u2m.WmmmPm?mmlmm?/Mmm.mammm?mmmHON.m?mwmQNM:rt»(momm. (C)(l) "1L3) :M?c 33.. 03M,333Ea?MmMm<w3Mm3mm,m36...m3M633M3830......man.omwm?Ma?oMQmQNEw. 33,333?33mgmxmocMSm33.5581629$:30?933MgmnncmwImmoémgm<many...Dumm3@2me.3Z.mmmmwMum:5MM...v.633mmamno?mmmMme0:3.3mOQSBCQMM..M/Mwmam 06....Mowanton.3M.._.3%.33%0033.5MmM3.Mg053.6.m305%m3m33....33.30. Z.mmmBmmmm. .MMMMm50.3M03583M03.6,.36..1.3)3M...>.03¢.3.033ngE.H<.m3mM0@336.3.5mcoowmma... Maw@8338meMM/me.Page 66 of 105Page 1043 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls December 2,2024 Business Development Department 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls,ON L2E6X5 Majestic MulticulturalEvents 4521 Queen Street Niagara Falls,ON L2E2L4 Re:Niagara FallsMulticultural LatinFestival —-Use of BIAEquipment On behalf of the City of Niagara FallsBusiness Development Department,i am writingthis letter to confirm that the Niagara FallsMulticulturalLatin Festivalqualifies for use Ofa portable stage, chairs and tables for their upcoming event in 2025. As the event is run by a Downtown based business and located on Queen Street,the Niagara FallsMulticulturalLatin Festivalwill benefit from the in—kinduse of event‘equipment that was formerly the property of the Downtown Business improvement Area (BIA). /KindRegards, Dean Spironello EconomicDevelopment Of?cer dspironello@niagarafalls.ca 905 356 7521 ext.5005Page 67 of 105Page 1044 of 1679 lMPEllIAl. November 12,2024 Plush Imperial 4515 Queen St.Niagara Falls Plush Imperial Live Entertainment Venue Niagara Falls will be collaborating with Majestic Multicultural Events.The event will take place in the months of July 2025,Niagara Falls Multicultural Latino Fete.Plush will provide the Green room space for the Artist and vendors for this event. The Venue will be given In-Kind for the event. Owner Mr.King Page 68 of 105Page 1045 of 1679 IMPERIAL November 12,2024PlushImperial 4515 Queen St.Niagara Falls To Whom It May Concern, Plush Imperial is proud to announce its collaboration with Majestic Multicultural Events for the upcoming Niagara Falls Latin Festival, set to take place at the end of July 2025. I,Mr.King,will serve as the Artist Coordinator for this event.I bring extensive experience,having successfully organized past events such as the Niagara Falls Latin Festival 2022 and Carifalls 2022,both of which were highly successful. Additionally,I have collaborated on multiple Latin and Caribbean festivals in events.I am excited to contribute tothisvibrantcelebrationofcultureandcommunity.Sincerely,Mr.KingPage 69 of 105Page 1046 of 1679 Page 70 of 105 Page 1047 of 1679 Page 71 of 105 Page 1048 of 1679 Page 72 of 105 Page 1049 of 1679 Page 73 of 105 Page 1050 of 1679 CV FA CHIPPAWA VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION 8696 Banting Ave Niagara Falls, On L2G 6Z8 vox: 905 295 4398 email: chippawafire@gmail.com SPN tournament August 22-24 Revenue: $14000.00 Expenses: Permit $675.00 Insurance $1000.00 Food $1200.00 Alcohol $7000.00 Bands $1000.00 All profits are donated back to the community. Page 74 of 105 Page 1051 of 1679 CV FA CHIPPAWA VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION 8696 Banting Ave Niagara Falls, On L2G 6Z8 vox: 905 295 4398 email: chippawafire@gmail.com SPN tournament August 16-17 Revenue: $6000.00 Expenses: Permit $400.00 Insurance $1000.00 Food $700.00 Alcohol $3000.00 All profits are donated back to the community. Page 75 of 105 Page 1052 of 1679 CV FA CHIPPAWA VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION 8696 Banting Ave Niagara Falls, On L2G 6Z8 vox: 905 295 4398 email: chippawafire@gmail.com SPN tournament September 5-7 Revenue: $9000.00 Expenses: Permit $675.00 Insurance $1000.00 Food $800.00 Alcohol $4500.00 All profits are donated back to the community. Page 76 of 105 Page 1053 of 1679 CV FA CHIPPAWA VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION 8696 Banting Ave Niagara Falls, On L2G 6Z8 vox: 905 295 4398 email: chippawafire@gmail.com SPN tournament September 12-14 Revenue: $12000.00 Expenses: Permit $675.00 Insurance $1000.00 Food $1000.00 Alcohol $6000.00 All profits are donated back to the community. Page 77 of 105 Page 1054 of 1679 Page 78 of 105 Page 1055 of 1679 Page 79 of 105 Page 1056 of 1679 Page 80 of 105 Page 1057 of 1679 Page 81 of 105 Page 1058 of 1679 CV FA CHIPPAWA VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION 8696 Banting Ave Niagara Falls, On L2G 6Z8 vox: 905 295 4398 email: chippawafire@gmail.com Chippawa Volunteer Firefighters Slo Pitch tournament Revenue: $4600.00 Expenses: Liquor permit $175.00 Prizes $1200.00 Umpires $1000.00 Insurance $500.00 Food $500.00 Alcohol $300.00 All profits are donated back to the community. Page 82 of 105 Page 1059 of 1679 Page 83 of 105 Page 1060 of 1679 Page 84 of 105 Page 1061 of 1679 Page 85 of 105 Page 1062 of 1679 Page 86 of 105 Page 1063 of 1679 CV FA CHIPPAWA VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION 8696 Banting Ave Niagara Falls, On L2G 6Z8 vox: 905 295 4398 email: chippawafire@gmail.com Streets on Fire Car Show budget Revenue: $9000.00 Expenses: Charitable donations $5000.00 Legion 50/50 $1500.00 50/50 winner $1500.00 Insurance $500.00 Food $500.00 All profits are donated back to the community. Page 87 of 105 Page 1064 of 1679 Fee Waiver Application Form Niagara?ulls ('.»\N A l)A Name ovaent:Simchas bais Hashoaiva Organization Name:JGWiShNiagara Organization Address:6417 Main St City:Niagara Falls Postal Code:L2G 5Y3 Contact Name:Shneur Zalman Position:Rabbi Phone Number (days):(905)356—7200ext 770 Phone Number (evenings):(905)356"7200 ext 770 Ema":visitor@jewishniagara.com Website: Type of Organization: Not-for—pro?t incorporation #;85580 1619 RR0001 Charitable Organization Registration #:85580 161 9 RROOO1 Other (please specify): The City of Niagara Falls willwaive fees that would have been charged by the City for eligible non-profit groups or organizations that provide programs,services or events that are of a general benefit to the community.Fee Waiver Policy (700.22)is to ensure that the City’s support of functions and events through the waiving of fees is facilitated in a fair and equitable manner and does not burden the City’s annual operating budget. Examples of City fees that can be waived include,but are not limited to: Park permit fees Rental of City Property Road Closure Fees Staffing costs outside normal operations 0 o o 0 The City of Niagara Falls Rates &Fees can be found on the City’s website at: Note:insurance fees willnot be waived.Page 1 of 4Page 88 of 105Page 1065 of 1679 Fee Waiver Application Form Niagara?qllsN»\l)A Applications can be submitted by email to:clerk@niagarafalls.ca In person or by mail to:City Hall 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls,ON L2E 6X5 Clerks Department Hours:8:30am —4:30pm Amount of Request:FU“Amount Fees to be Waived (i.e.facility rental,park permit,etc):Road Closure Fees Dates and Times.October 20-22,2024 /24 hours Purpose of Event:Annual Sukkos,a family gathering for the Jewish Community Number of People Expected:1 '2000 Admission Fee (if applicable):N/A Are you serving food?YES Are you serving alcohol?NO 1.How willyour activity or event enhance recreation and community services inthe City of Niagara Falls? The annual Sukkot celebration in Niagara Falls,Canada,enriches the community in numerous ways.itfosters culturalenrichment and understandingbyshowcasingJewishtraditionsandvalues,while promotinginclusivity and unity among residents of all backgrounds.This event provides opportunities for education,interfaith dialogue,and raising awareness about local communityservices,contributing to a more informed and harmonious community.Moreover,the Sukkot celebration attracts visitors,bene?ting the local tourism industry,and offers recreational activities andentertainment,enhancing the vibrancy of the community and reinforcing bonds among itsmembers. 2.Please describe the projected social,cultural,economic and environmental impact that the activity or event willhave on the City and its residents. The annual Sukkot celebration in Niagara Falls,Canada,is projected to have a significant impact on the city and its residents. 3multiculturalism,and creating a more vibrant cultural atmosphere.Economically,the celebration has the potential to boost localbusinessesandcreatejobopportunitiesthroughincreasedtourismandcollaborationswithvendors.Environmentally,itprovides aplatformtopromoteeco—friendlypractices and raise awareness about environmental conservation.in summary,this event promisestostrengthensocialbonds,enrich culture,stimulate the economy,and encourage environmental responsibility,enhancing the overallwell-being of Niagara Falls and its residents.Page 2 of 4Page 89 of 105Page 1066 of 1679 Fee Waiver Application Form Niagara?alls(A NA DA 3.What willthe impact on the event be ifthe fee is not waived? Not waiving the fee for the Sukkot celebration event may lead to reduced accessibility,potentially deterring individuals with limitedfinancial means and creating a financial barrier for budget-conscious attendees.This could result in lower attendance,decreased community engagement,and hinder the event’3 goal of promoting cultural exchange and inclusivityamong diverse backgrounds.' 4.Are you seeking funding from any other sources?(Fundraising,grants,sponsorships) No other source of Funding 5.What features willyou have in place to ensure that your event is accessible to all residents (residents with disabilities)? To ensureourSukkot celebrationevent is fullyaccessible toallresidents,including those withdisabilities,wewilltake several essentialsteps.ThisIncludesselecting anaccessible venuewithfeatures such as ramps,elevators,andaccessible bathrooms;providingclearand inclusivesignage andinformationin multipleformats;offering trainedevent staff andvolunteersfor assistance;reserving accessible seating areas;arranging sign language interpreters and captioning forcommunicationsupport;providing assistive listening devices;creating sensory-friendly spaces;sharing informationon accessible transportationoptions;adhering toaccessibility standards Inpromotionalmateiials;andestablishing a feedback mechanism tocontinuously improve the event's accessibility based on attendees'needs and suggestions These measures aimtoensure that individualswithdisabilitiescan fullyparticipateinand enjoy theSukkot celebration. Application Checklist Please submit one copy of each of the following documents. MandatomDocuments A detailed budget,showing revenues and expenditures Documents relating to City rental permit (if applicable):.Dates,times and location of event 0 AllCity fees associated with the event Confirmation letter from charity (if applicable): 0 For special events whereby a portion or all ofthe proceeds are being donated to charity,a confirmation letter from that charity must accompany the application For Internal Use Onl : -One staff member required for two weekend call outs totaling 8 hours.-Administrativepermit fee was $100.00.$800.00-Road closure expense equals $595.08.Completed EMMAfit/(M lg/L(49699 t/Signature:Mg Page 3 of 4Page 90 of 105Page 1067 of 1679 /x)"Fee Waiver Application Form NiagaraFaHS (.\l\‘/\l)\ On behalf of,and with the authority of,the above-mentioned organization,we certify that the information given in this application for waiving of City fees is true,correct and complete in every respect. Gayle Levesque Gayle Levesque /Office Manager 09/11/24 Signature of Senior Staff Person Name and Title Date Shneur Zaltzman Shneur zaltzman 09/11/24 Signature of Board Chair/Representative Name and Title Date Personal information,as defined in the Municipal Freedom of lnformation and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA),is collected under the authority of the Municipal Act,2001,as amended,and in accordance with MFlPPA.Personal information collected on this application form willbe used to assist in granting fee waivers and will be made available to the members of City Council and staff and used for administrative purposes. Information collected may be subject to disclosure in accordance with the provisions of MFIPPA.The City reserves the right to verify all information contained in submissions. Questions regarding the collection,use and disclosure of this personal information may be directed to the City Clerk,BillMatson,at bmatson@niagarafalls.ca By completing this application form,you consent to the collection and disclosure of your personal information, and to its use by the City of Niagara Falls,as described above. Page 4 of 4Page 91 of 105Page 1068 of 1679 Page 92 of 105Page 1069 of 1679 Page 93 of 105Page 1070 of 1679 Page 94 of 105Page 1071 of 1679 Page 95 of 105Page 1072 of 1679 Page 96 of 105Page 1073 of 1679 Page 97 of 105Page 1074 of 1679 Page 98 of 105Page 1075 of 1679 Page 99 of 105Page 1076 of 1679 Page 100 of 105Page 1077 of 1679 Page 101 of 105Page 1078 of 1679 Page 102 of 105Page 1079 of 1679 Page 103 of 105Page 1080 of 1679 1 Heather Ruzylo From: Zoe Sisson <ZSisson@Pathstone.ca> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 5:30 PM To: Beth Angle <bangle@niagarafalls.ca> Cc: Ryan Andres <RAndres@Pathstone.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Donation Request Good afternoon Beth, I hope this email finds you well. My name is Zoe Sisson, and I am a counsellor at Pathstone Mental Health’s Live-In Treatment program, Rotary House. Our program provides intensive treatment and support for youth facing mental health challenges, and we prioritize opportunities that encourage their growth, well-being, and connection to the community. We often take our youth on outings, and I have personally brought several to the McBain Community Centre to play basketball, run the track, and swim. These experiences have been incredibly valuable, allowing them to engage in physical activity, build social connections, and develop healthy habits. This past weekend, the front desk provided me with your contact information, and I wanted to reach out to explore the possibility of McBain Community Centre donating passes for our youth to participate in activities or programs at your facility. Access to these opportunities would be incredibly meaningful to them, providing experiences they may not otherwise have. Of course, we completely understand if this is not feasible at this time, but we truly appreciate your consideration. If you would be open to discussing this further, I would love the opportunity to connect and explore ways we can work together to support youth in our community. Thank you for your time and for all that you do. I look forward to hearing from you. Kindest regards, Zoe Sisson (She/Her), BA Live In Treatment Counsellor Page 104 of 105 Page 1081 of 1679 2 Pathstone Mental Health Pathstone Mental Health is proud to be the lead agency for children's mental health in Niagara. 6432 Thorold Stone Rd., Rotary House Niagara Falls, ON, L2J 1B3 T. 905.688-6850 www.pathstonementalhealth.ca Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Avis de confidentialité: Les informations contenues à l'intérieur de ce courriel, y compris tous les documents qui y sont attachés, sont pour l'usage exclusif du/des destinataire(s) désignés ; car elles peuvent être de nature confidentielle et privilégiée. N'importe quelle revue, utilisation, divulgation ou distribution non autorisée est interdite. Si vous n'êtes pas le ou les destinataire(s) désignés, veuillez immédiatement en aviser l'expéditeur par courriel et assurer vous d'avoir détruit toutes les copies du message original. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 105 of 105 Page 1082 of 1679 CS-2025-13 Finance Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: March 18, 2025 Title: Deferral of Taxes for Low-Income Seniors or Low-Income Disabled Persons Policy Recommendation(s) THAT Council APPROVE Policy 700.43 Deferral of Taxes for Low-Income Seniors or Low-Income Persons with Disabilities effective for the 2026 taxation year. Executive Summary A policy has been created to defer municipal taxes for low-income seniors or low- income persons with disabilities. This policy was discussed with the City's Seniors Committee on a couple occasions during the past year where feedback was garnered and taken into account in determining the final policy. All eligible low-income seniors or low-income persons with disabilities shall be entitled to a maximum $500 per year deferral of their current property taxes. Participation in the program requires that the property owner complete an application for the deferral of municipal taxes on an annual basis. To be eligible for the program the applicant must be 65 years of age and in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) or disabled and in receipt of assistance under the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). Qualified applicants may defer a maximum $500 per year for a maximum of 10 years toward taxes levied on their primary residence until the property is sold or ownership is transferred. This policy will come into effect for the 2026 tax year. The City’s current property tax software does not to have the ability to process a property tax deferral. The new deferral program will be implemented for the 2026 property tax year with a new property tax software program which can track the deferral or an upgrade to the current system to add additional functionality to process the deferral. Until this program comes into effect the current Low-Income Senior and Low-Income Persons with Disabilities rebate will continue. In the long term this program will provide greater relief for those most in need, with very limited financial impact to taxpayers as the amounts provided in relief will be recovered with the sale of the home. Page 1 of 10 Page 1083 of 1679 Background In 2023, staff was asked to explore the option of a Low-Income Senior and Low-Income Persons with Disabilities Property Tax Deferral Program to replace the current Low- Income Senior Property Tax and Water Rebate. After research on Section 319 of the Municipal Act, it was determined this program’s by-law must be passed by only the Upper Tier Municipality and administered by the Lower Tier. Staff have developed Policy 700.43 Deferral of Taxes for Low-Income Seniors or Low- Income Persons with Disabilities (Attachment 1) under Section 107 of the Municipal Act. This program is being offered in addition to, and mutually exclusive of, the existing Regional property tax deferral (s. 319 of the Municipal Act, 2001). For example, if a senior is accepted for the Region’s tax deferral program, then the same person is not eligible for the City’s tax deferral program. Analysis Under Section 319 of the Municipal Act, 2001, all upper tier municipalities are required to maintain a program to provide financial relief from year-over-year tax increases for low-income seniors, and low-income persons with disabilities. To qualify for the Niagara Region program:  property taxes must increase by $200.00 dollars year over year, and  the deferral is the amount above the $200.00 threshold,  applicants must be receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement or ODSP. Staff has observed this program has a low uptake with 2024 being the first year there was qualified applicants. The City of Niagara Falls processed 6 applicants for this program in 2024 related to the 2023 tax increase. Under the new policy 700.43 (Attachment 1) all eligible low-income seniors or low- income persons with disabilities shall be entitled to a $500 per year deferral of their current property taxes. The objective of this policy is to enable qualified low-income seniors or low-income persons with disabilities the ability to defer a portion of their property taxes to increase their current cash flow by deferring a portion of their property tax expenses. Participation in the program requires that the property owner complete an application for the deferral of municipal taxes on an annual basis. To be eligible for a tax deferral under this policy the applicant, or the applicant’s spouse must meet ownership, occupancy, income level and age criteria as follows:  The applicant must be the registered owner of the property. Page 2 of 10 Page 1084 of 1679  The applicant must satisfy one or both of the following: o Is 65 years of age or older and in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) requirement OR o Is disabled and in receipt of assistance under the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).  The applicant(s) must occupy the property as their principal residence for which the tax deferral is applied for.  The applicant(s) must be assessed as the owner of the property for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the date of application.  The property must be in the residential or farm tax class.  Qualifying income must include total household income – all co-owners must meet qualifications.  To maintain eligibility the applicant’s property taxes must be current less any approved deferral amounts.  The applicant(s) must be competent to make decisions on the property.  The applicant(s) power of attorney has the ability to sign on behalf of the applicant as long as the City is provided with a full version of the POA documentation prior to the application being received.  The applicant must disclose if they have a mortgage or any other registered loans against the property and provide signed acknowledgement that the applicant understands this deferral program could impact their current mortgage agreement or future lending.  Residents will be encouraged to consult a financial advisor before applying for this tax deferral. Participants will want to confirm any and all potential implications around their eligibility to claim property tax related income tax credits such as the Ontario Property Tax Credit and the Senior Homeowner’s Property Tax Grant. Qualified applicants may defer $500 per year for a maximum of 10 years toward taxes levied on the primary residence until the property is sold or ownership is transferred. All tax increases, including assessment related increases, are eligible for this deferral program. Once the resident has deferred 10 years of property taxes, they will no longer be eligible for additional deferrals. Repayment of Deferred Taxes Page 3 of 10 Page 1085 of 1679 The balance of the deferral becomes due and payable in full at the earliest of the following dates:  The date the real property with respect to which the deferral has been granted is sold or transferred; or  The date the applicant who applies for the deferral dies unless the applicant is survived by a spouse or co-applicant who continues to qualify and who shall thereafter be deemed to be the applicant who applied for the deferral.  When the applicant (including spouse) no longer resides at the property as a principal residence. The deferral is not transferable including to the estate of the deceased, except as noted above. Financial Implications/Budget Impact Administration Fee: At the time of discharge there will be a fee of $150.00 to cover administration costs. This is added to the total deferred amount when the property is sold, or ownership is transferred. This fee is subject to change based on the City’s Rate’s and Fee’s Schedule each year. Budget Implications: There will be no implications for the 2025 Tax Supported Operating Budget as this program will not be implemented until the 2026 tax year. The 2026 Tax Supported Operating Budget will have an expense decrease of $85,000 which is budgeted for the Low-Income Senior and Low-Income Disabled Persons property tax rebate. There could be budget implications for an upgrade to the City’s current taxation software to build in the deferral but the cost of this is unknown at this time. If the City has upgraded its taxation software by this time it is hopeful the new program will already have the ability to process a deferral. Strategic Plan Pillars Customer Service Delivering a welcoming and consistent customer service experience centred around the people we serve. Sustainability - Financial Effectively managing the City’s financial resources to meet our current and future obligations without relying on external funding sources or sacrificing our ability to deliver essential services to our residents . Sustainability - Social Page 4 of 10 Page 1086 of 1679 Working in partnership with the Niagara Region to ensure residents have access to basic needs, ensuring that Niagara Falls is a livable, inclusive and supportive community for all. List of Attachments CS-2025-13 Attachment 1 Policy 700.43 Deferral of Taxes for Low-Income Seniors or Low-Income Persons with Disabilities Written by: Amber Ferguson, Manager of Revenue Submitted by: Status: Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance Approved - 11 Mar 2025 Shelley Darlington, General Manager of Corporate Services Approved - 11 Mar 2025 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 12 Mar 2025 Page 5 of 10 Page 1087 of 1679 DEFERRAL OF TAXES FOR LOW-INCOME SENIORS OR LOW-INCOME PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES Finance Policy #: 700.43 Issue Date: February 25, 2025 Revision Date: N/A Submitted By: Amber Ferguson, Senior Manager of Revenue Recommended By: Jason Burgess, CAO Approved By Council On: Report #: CS-2025-13 DEFFERAL OF TAXES FOR LOW-INCOME SENIORS OR LOW-INCOME PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES 1. POLICY STATEMENT To enable qualified low-income seniors or low-income persons with disabilities the ability to defer a portion of their property taxes. 2. PURPOSE To establish a policy to defer municipal property taxes for low-income seniors or low- income persons with disabilities. All eligible low-income seniors or low-income persons with disabilities shall be entitled to a $500 per year deferral of their current property taxes, in order to assist low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities to increase their current cash flow by deferring a portion of their property taxes. 3. SCOPE This policy applies to all low-income senior or low-income persons with disabilities who are homeowners within Niagara Falls. 4. DEFINITIONS “Deferral” means postponement of payment of property taxes. “Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS)” means a monthly payment you may receive if you are 65 or older. The Supplement is based on income and is available to old age security pensioners with low income. “Low-Income Disabled” means a Niagara Falls homeowner who is in receipt of the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). “Low-Income Senior” means a Niagara Falls homeowner who is 65 years or older and receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement. “Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP)” means a means-tested government- funded last resort income support paid for qualifying residents in the province of Ontario, Canada, who are at least eighteen years of age and have a disability. Page 6 of 10 Page 1088 of 1679 A Great City … For Generations To Come 5. OBJECTIVES The objectives of this policy are to create a new low-income senior and low-income persons with disabilities property tax deferral program to replace the current low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities property tax rebate. 6. GUIDING PRINCIPLES This policy is not intended to replace Niagara Region’s current Low-income Seniors and Low-income Persons with Disabilities Tax Deferral Program, as this is mandatory under Section 319 of the Municipal Act. This program falls under Section 107 of the Municipal Act which states “Despite any provision of this or any other Act relating to the giving of grants or aid by a municipality, subject to section 106, a municipality may make grants, on such terms as to security and otherwise as the council considers appropriate, to any person, group or body, including a fund, within or outside the boundaries of the municipality for any purpose that council considers to be in the interests of the municipality. 2001, c. 25, s. 107 (1).” Participation in the program requires that the property owner complete an application for the deferral of municipal taxes on an annual basis and meet certain eligibility qualifications outlined below. Qualified applicants may defer $500 per year for a maximum of 10 years toward taxes levied on the primary residence until the property is sold or ownership is transferred. All tax increases, including assessment related increases are eligible for this deferral program. Once the resident has deferred 10 years of property taxes, they will no longer be eligible for additional deferrals. The resident will not be required to pay back the deferral until the property has sold or ownership is transferred. Eligibility • The applicant must be the registered owner of the property. • The applicant must satisfy one or both of the following: a) Is 65 years of age or older and in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) requirement OR b) Is disabled and in receipt of assistance under the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). • The applicant(s) must occupy the property as their principal residence for which the tax deferral is applied for. • The applicant(s) must be assessed as the owner of the property for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the date of application. • The property must be in the residential or farm tax class. • Qualifying income must include total household income – all co-owners must meet qualifications. • To maintain eligibility the applicant’s property taxes must be current less any approved deferral amounts. Page 7 of 10 Page 1089 of 1679 A Great City … For Generations To Come • The applicant(s) must be competent to make decisions on the property. • The applicant(s) power of attorney has the ability to sign on behalf of the applicant as long as the City is provided with a full version of the POA documentation prior to the application being received. • The applicant must disclose if they have a mortgage or any other registered loans against the property and provide signed acknowledgement that the applicant understands this deferral program could impact their current mortgage agreement or future lending. • Residents will be encouraged to consult a financial advisor before applying for this tax deferral. Participants will want to confirm any and all potential implications around their eligibility to claim property tax related income tax credits such as the Ontario Property Tax Credit and the Senior Homeowner’s Property Tax Grant. • This program is being offered in addition to, and mutually exclusive of, the existing Regional property tax deferral (s. 319 of the Municipal Act, 2001). For example, if a senior is accepted for the Region’s tax deferral program, then the same person is not eligible for the City’s tax deferral program. Procedure • The applicant is required to submit an application for the program each year to establish eligibility. • The applicant must provide proof of receipt of Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) and age with the application or proof of receipt of Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). • The property taxes must be paid in full at the time of application and must remain up to date to continue to qualify for the deferral (less any previously qualified deferral amounts). • If at any point throughout the year the property taxes are not paid in full the deferral will be added back to the tax account and become due immediately. • The maximum length of the deferral program is 10 years. • The accumulated value of the annual deferrals for the property cannot exceed $5,000.00. • Once approved the deferral will be registered against the property and will become due when the property is sold, or ownership is transferred. • The tax loan is not transferable to another person. • Any charges added to the tax account not related to the program must be paid separately. Failure to do so may result in disqualification from the program. • Statements will be sent annually to advise of the total amount of tax deferral. Page 8 of 10 Page 1090 of 1679 A Great City … For Generations To Come • Once the deferral reaches $5,000.00 it will be registered as a lien against the property. Repayment of Deferred Taxes The balance of the deferral becomes due and payable in full at the earliest of the following dates: • The date the real property with respect to which the deferral has been granted is sold or transferred; or • The date the applicant who applies for the deferral dies unless the applicant is survived by a spouse or co-applicant who continues to qualify and who shall thereafter be deemed to be the applicant who applied for the deferral. • When the applicant (including spouse) no longer resides at the property as a principal residence. The deferral is not transferable including to the estate of the deceased, except as noted above. Change in Eligibility If an applicant does not qualify for the deferral in a specific year due to a change in income, the deferral does not become immediately due. The applicant can still apply in future years if their eligibility changes. Charges On Taxes Deferred Administration Fee: At the time of discharge there will be a fee of $150.00 to cover administration costs. This is added to the total deferred amount when the property is sold, or ownership is transferred. This fee is subject to change based on the City’s Rate’s and Fee’s Schedule each year. Application Process and Timing The application deadline is October 31st each year beginning October 31st, 2025, for the 2026 taxation year. Applications will be processed by the end of the year and applied before the Interim tax bill. Letters will be sent to applicants indicating if the deferral has been approved or denied. Statements will be mailed each year indicating the total amount of the property tax deferral registered on the property. Evaluation of Applications Upon receipt of an application for deferral, the City shall review the application and determine whether the applicant and the property are eligible. Page 9 of 10 Page 1091 of 1679 A Great City … For Generations To Come Questions as to the application of this policy may be referred to the City whose determination shall be final. The City may, at any time, request the applicant to provide additional information and/or documentation and/or investigate as required to evaluate the application and the application shall not be further processed until satisfactory information and/or documentation and investigation has been received and completed. If an applicant fails to provide the information requested by the City within one (1) month of the date of the request, the application shall be deemed to have been abandoned and shall not be further processed. Fines If an applicant is found misrepresenting information to qualify for the deferral a fine of three times the deferral amount will be charged to the applicant. 7. RESPONSIBILITIES The Finance Department will be responsible for administering the program including: • Reviewing and approving applications • Monitoring and tracking deferrals year over year • Providing notification of the total deferral amount year over year • Ensuring the deferral is discharged and paid upon ownership change • Applying the administration fee upon discharge Applicants will have the responsibility of: • Providing the required documentation • Notifying financial advisor and/or mortgage company of the deferrals • Ensuring property tax account remains current Page 10 of 10 Page 1092 of 1679 Low-Income Senior and Low-Income Persons with Disabilities Property Tax Deferral March 18, 2025 Page 1093 of 1679 2 •To provide an option to assist low- income Seniors and low-income persons with disabilities the ability to defer a portion of their property taxes to reduce current expenses and increase current cash flow. Supporting SeniorsPurpose of Tax Relief Program(s)Page 1094 of 1679 3 •$102 water bill rebate. •$80 property tax rebate. •Applicant needs to be on Guaranteed Income Supplement or Ontario Disability Support Program. •Mandatory under Section 319 of the Municipal Act. •Eligible deferral amount is any property tax increase in excess of $200. •Applicant needs to be on Guaranteed Income Supplement or Ontario Disability Support Program.Supporting SeniorsThe Current State City of Niagara Falls Niagara Region Program Page 1095 of 1679 4 City of Niagara Falls •$500 annual property tax deferral (174% increase). •Residents would be eligible regardless of whether there was a year over year property tax increase. •Interest free loan until the property is sold, ownership is transferred, or threshold is exceeded. •Must be in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement or ODSP. •$150 administration fee to be added at discharge. Niagara Region Program •Remain the same •Resident would have the option to apply to City OR Region program. •City program would be the preferred option as there is no limitation on a year over year tax increase minimum threshold. Supporting SeniorsProposed New State Page 1096 of 1679 5 •The new program provides more annual relief to the qualifying seniors or people on ODSP. •This relief could effectively keep low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities tax increases below the rate of inflation. •A deferral as opposed to a rebate is more equitable to all taxpayers. Taxpayers support the seniors when they are in need, but when the house is sold the taxpayers recoup their support.Supporting SeniorsWhy is the City Considering a Change to the Existing Program?Page 1097 of 1679 6 •The total amount deferred is paid back to the City/taxpayers when the property is sold, or ownership is transferred. •There is no interest charged on the deferred amount. •Applications must be received annually.Supporting SeniorsHow Does the Deferral Work?Page 1098 of 1679 7Supporting Seniors•$500 credit will be applied to the tax account at the beginning of each year and noted as a “not due” amount to be paid back when the property has sold or ownership has transferred. •Property taxes must remain paid in full throughout the year or the deferral will be cancelled, and the balance added back to the tax account. How Does the Deferral Work?Page 1099 of 1679 8Supporting Seniors•Maximum length of the program is 10 years. At this point the resident will no longer be able to apply for additional deferrals, but the total amount deferred is not due until property has sold or ownership is transferred. •Once the deferral reaches $5,000 it will become a registered lien against the property. •Statements will be sent annually stating the total amount of deferral on the property. How Does the Deferral Work?Page 1100 of 1679 9Supporting Seniors•In receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement and must be 65 years of age or older. •OR in receipt of the Ontario Disability Support Program. •Proof of address on application as primacy residence. •Signed acknowledgement the deferral could have an impact on future lending and/or current mortgage. •Signed acknowledgement the applicant is competent to make decisions on the property or the power of attorney can fill out the application for the owner if full POA documentation is provided. •Property taxes paid in full less any previous deferral amounts. Application Requirements Page 1101 of 1679 10Supporting Seniors•The City’s current property tax software cannot process a property tax deferral. •The City will need either a software upgrade or new software system to effectively manage the program. •Implementation will be for the 2026 tax year to accommodate the new software or software upgrade. Limitations Page 1102 of 1679 11 •Low-income senior or persons with disabilities tenants that qualify for the program will remain on the existing program and receive the $102 water rebate on their water account. •As of January 1, 2024, the City no longer starts new tenant water accounts. Tenant accounts will eventually phase out entirely.Supporting SeniorsWhat About Tenants that aren’t Property Owners?Page 1103 of 1679 12 •Program targets homeowners who are looking to decrease expenses now to create an increase in cashflow. Low-income seniors and low- income persons with disabilities will be the ones benefiting from the tax deferral. •Qualified applicants may benefit from the ability to afford staying in their own homes for a longer time, promoting comfort and stability.Supporting SeniorsBenefits of the Program Page 1104 of 1679 13 •Applicants who are in arrears will not qualify. •If there is a high uptake in the program it will take a significant portion of staff time to administer. Supporting SeniorsDisadvantages of the Program Page 1105 of 1679 14Supporting SeniorsTHANK YOU Questions?Page 1106 of 1679 CS-2025-19 Finance Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: March 18, 2025 Title: 2024 Parking Fund Budget to Actual Variance (Unaudited) Recommendation(s) THAT Council RECEIVE the Parking Fund Budget to Actual Variance report for the year ended December 31, 2024. Executive Summary This report is intended to provide Council with information and details pertaining to the 2024 budget to actual variance results for the year ended December 31, 2024 for the Parking Fund. Within attachment 1, if there is a note number notation to the right of the variance column, there is a corresponding explanation to that note number located in the analysis section of this report. Please refer to this report in conjunction with the attachment. Background Council has expressed a desire to view actuals in conjunction with the budget. One goal of the Finance department is to provide Council with regular, quarterly budget variance reports. Staff have prepared the unaudited 2024 budget to actual results of the Parking Fund. Analysis Attachment 1 contains the Parking Fund 2024 budget to actual variance. The following notes correspond to the statement contained in Attachment 1. Revenues 1. Fines had a favourable variance of $117,000. The fine revenue is on an upward trend returning to and exceeding pre-COVID levels. This can be attributed to an increase in the level of enforcement in key areas and times. In addition, the City saw an increase in fines revenue during the Solar Eclipse Event on April 8th, 2024. 2. User Fees had a favourable variance of $161,000. User Fees revenue is driven by on-street and parking lot revenue from pay meters. The 2023 and 2024 Page 1 of 5 Page 1107 of 1679 parking meter revenues have returned to pre-COVID levels. This trend can be seen with all Parking Services revenues as more traffic to the Falls is present post-COVID. Specifically Parking Services has seen a significant increase in Honk Mobile revenue generation in 2024 over 2023 as this trend continues to increase. Expenses 3. Labour and Benefits had a favourable variance of $18,000. This is driven by gapping savings in Summer Students and other staff. 4. Materials had a favourable variance of $7,600. While the budget for this line is based on historical trends, actual figures often deviate from the budgeted amounts due to uncertainties. 5. Insurance Premiums had a favourable variance of $10,000. This account includes both insurance premiums and insurance claims settlements. The variance is primarily attributed to the insurance claims settlements, as no settlement payouts were made in 2024. To account for the unutilized budget, a corresponding offset of $10,000 has been recorded under To Special Purpose Reserves (Note #10), transferring the unused settlement budget to the Risk Management Reserve Fund. 6. Electricity had an unfavourable variance of $5,000 due to higher than budgeted electricity usage. The 2025 budget has been increased to address this. 7. Contracted Services had a favourable variance of $67,000. This is largely due to a favourable variance of $37,000 in Contracted services for Commissionaires as a result of removing overnight shifts in the spring and summer due to staff absences. In addition there are savings in Hectronic monitoring fees as the City had minimal Hectronic machines going into 2024 and has completely phased out these machines as of June 2024. There is also a favourable variance of $30,000 in Snow Plowing due to a mild winter in 2024. 8. Rents and Financial Expenses had an unfavourable variance of $14,000 due to higher than budgeted MTO charges and Honk Mobile Fees. This is offset by the increase in User fees and Fine revenues. 9. Internal Rent had an unfavourable variance of $14,000. Internal rents are the charges that we calculate for fleet gas usage, insurance, and future fleet replacement. While the budget for fuel and maintenance is based on historical trends, actual figures often deviate from the budgeted amounts due to uncertainties. Page 2 of 5 Page 1108 of 1679 10. To Reserve Funds and To Special Purpose Reserves During the November 26, 2024 Council meeting (F-2024-41) it was recommended that the City closes and reallocates the Parking Reserve Fund with $125,000 to the Parking Stabilization Special Purpose Reserve to fund any unforeseen deficits in annual operating parking budgets and the remainder to the Parking - unallocated Capital Special Purpose Reserve. There was a transfer of $10,000 to the Risk Management Reserve fund to transfer the unused Insurance Settlements budget (Noted in item #5). The 2024 year end Parking surplus of $397,426 was transferred to the Parking - unallocated Capital Special Purpose Reserve to continue to be used to fund capital needs in Parking. Operational Implications and Risk Analysis Revenues have rebounded in 2024 and have exceeded pre-COVID levels, this resulted in a surplus of $397,426 at 2024 year-end (Noted in item #10). As a result, the parking fund is in a position to not rely on any funding from the Tax Rate Stabilization Reserve and in a position to contribute the surplus to the Parking - unallocated Capital Special Purpose Reserve to be used to fund future capital needs in Parking. Financial Implications/Budget Impact This report is financial in nature with details throughout. It's important to highlight that the goal of the parking fund is to be self-sustaining. The parking fund has been engaged in a multi-year battle to regain its financial health and return to a surplus position. The challenges posed by COVID-19 and the removal of parking on Clifton Hill have shaped this ongoing struggle. As we move forward, careful financial management and revenue enhancement will be crucial to achieving the fund’s self-sustaining goal. Strategic/Departmental Alignment This report is consistent with the following Council strategic commitments: 1. To be financially responsible to the residents of Niagara Falls by practicing prudent fiscal management of existing resources, and by making sound long- term choices that allow core City programs and services to be sustainable now and into the future. 2. To be efficient and effective in our delivery of municipal services and use of resources, and accountable to our citizens and stakeholders. Strategic Plan Pillars Page 3 of 5 Page 1109 of 1679 Sustainability - Financial Effectively managing the City’s financial resources to meet our current and future obligations without relying on external funding sources or sacrificing our ability to deliver essential services to our residents . List of Attachments CS-2025-19 Attachment 1 – 2024 Parking Fund Budget to Actual Comparison (unaudited) Written by: Sebastian Zukowski, Senior Financial Analyst Katya Voronina, Senior Financial Analyst Submitted by: Status: Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance Approved - 09 Mar 2025 Shelley Darlington, General Manager of Corporate Services Approved - 09 Mar 2025 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 09 Mar 2025 Page 4 of 5 Page 1110 of 1679 Attachment 1 CS-2025-19 March 18, 2025 2024 Year End Budget to Actual Comparison Budget Actuals (Over)/ Under Budget Variance (Over)/ Under 2024 2024 $ % REVENUES Fines 550,000 666,707 (116,707) (21.2%)[1] Permits 147,100 148,530 (1,430) (1.0%) Other Revenue 0 3,770 (3,770) 0.0% User Fees 860,500 1,021,419 (160,919) (18.7%)[2] Licenses 2,500 2,500 0 0.0% Miscellaneous Revenue 1,560,100 1,842,926 (282,826) (18.1%) TOTAL REVENUE 1,560,100 1,842,926 (282,826) (18.1%) EXPENSES Labour 431,028 413,681 17,347 4.0% Employee Benefits Allocation 125,601 126,107 (506) (0.4%) Overtime 3,000 1,672 1,328 44.3% Labour and Benefits 559,629 541,461 18,168 3.2%[3] Materials 63,000 55,329 7,671 12.2%[4] Professional Development 800 0 800 100.0% Insurance Premiums 10,258 246 10,012 97.6%[5] Conferences/Conventions 3,000 2,540 460 15.3% Membership/Subscriptions 1,400 650 750 53.6% Office Supplies 6,400 4,661 1,739 27.2% Electricity 6,200 11,120 (4,920) (79.4%)[6] Materials 91,058 74,546 16,512 18.1% Contracted Services 464,000 427,319 36,681 7.9% Snow Plowing 111,000 80,835 30,165 27.2% Contracted Services 575,000 508,154 66,846 11.6%[7] Rents and Financial Expenses 102,000 116,270 (14,270) (14.0%)[8] Internal Rent 98,453 112,487 (14,034) (14.3%)[9] Indirect Costs 84,474 84,474 0 0.0% Interdepartmental Transfers 0 (1,890) 1,890 0.0% To Reserve Funds 49,486 0 49,486 100.0% To Special Purpose Reserves 0 407,426 (407,426) 0.0%[10] Internal Transfers 232,413 602,497 (370,084) (159.2%) TOTAL EXPENSES 1,560,100 1,842,926 (282,826) (18.1%) (Surplus)/Deficit 0 0 0 PARKING FUND Page 5 of 5 Page 1111 of 1679 CS-2025-24 Finance Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: March 18, 2025 Title: Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy Recommendation(s) 1. THAT Council REPEAL By-law 2019-093, a by-law to delegate the authority to approve and execute agreements to members of City Staff. 2. THAT Council APPROVE CS-FIN-038 Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy (attachment 1) effective March 24, 2025 and the associated By-law 2025- 040 Budget Spending and Signing Authority By-law Executive Summary In the interest of continuous improvement and best practices the City has reviewed it's existing spending authority limits and created a new policy, CS-FIN-038 Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy (attachment 1) to update these spending limits in time for the City's launch of it's new enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, Workday. As a result of the proposed changes, this report also proposes to repeal the existing By- law (2019-093) related to delegated signing authority to approve and execute agreements and replace with the attached policy and new by-law. Analysis Council has the ultimate authority to approve all municipal expenditures. In order to efficiently carry out the responsibilities of the City, Council needs to delegate this authority to staff. This policy authorizes delegation of various levels of budget Spending Authority (financial transactions) and Signing Authority (non-financial transactions) to designated positions. This Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy is meant to supplement and be followed together with the Purchasing Authority definition and guidelines referred to in the City’s Procurement Policy. More specifically, the purpose of CS-FIN-038 Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy is to: Page 1 of 18 Page 1112 of 1679  Establish guiding principles for the delegation of Spending Authority and Signing Authority within the City to authorize Staff to expend funds approved by Council,  Ensure that all Staff positions with delegated Spending Authority and Signing Authority understand their fiduciary responsibilities to the City. The City's existing signing authority limits (based on approved budgets) are as follows: Level Position Limit Existing 1 Chief Administrative Officer Unlimited 2 Treasurer/Director of Finance $50,000 3 General Managers/Directors not to exceed $25,000 4 Senior Managers/Managers not to exceed $15,000 5 Supervisors not to exceed $7,500 6 Other Staff not to exceed $2,500 The City's organization chart can be thought of as Divisions, Departments and Sections with the City having 5 Divisions as follows: 1. Chief Administrative Officer's Division 2. Corporate Services Division 3. Municipal Works Division 4. Planning, Building and Development Division 5. Recreation, Culture and Facilities Division Divisions can be further broken down into Departments, for example the Finance Department and the Legal Department are two departments within the Corporate Services Division with some departments breaking into smaller sections, for example Risk Management is a section of the Legal Department and Fleet is a section of the Operations Department. The City has adopted the following self explanatory definitions relating to Division and Department Heads: “Division Head” means the head of a City Division “Department Head” means the head of a Department within a City Division. In addition, the new policy provides a robust definition for a Budget Owner (also known as a Cost Centre Manager/Section Head) as follows: “Budget Owner” means an individual, often a division, department or section head, responsible for managing, overseeing and ensuring the appropriate allocation and use of funds within a designated budget. This role involves Budget Page 2 of 18 Page 1113 of 1679 Development, Resource Allocation, Monitoring and Control, Approval Authority, Reporting and Accountability and Compliance and Oversight as defined below: “Budget Development” means collaborating with other municipal officials and stakeholders to develop budget proposals that align with municipal goals and priorities. “Resource Allocation” means ensuring funds are allocated efficiently to various projects, programs and services within their jurisdiction. “Monitoring and Control” means tracking expenditures and revenues to ensure they are within the Approved Budget, identifying variances, and taking corrective actions as necessary. “Approval Authority” means authorizing expenditures and financial commitments within a Budget Owner’s approved budgetary limits. “Reporting and Accountability” means providing detailed financial reports to municipal council, committees, and other stakeholders, as requested and being accountable for budget performance. “Compliance and Oversight” means ensuring all financial activities adhere to municipal policies, provincial regulations, and other relevant guidelines. This policy is covering both financial spending authority and non-financial signing authority as follows: “Spending Authority” means the authority to approve Financial Transactions. “Signing Authority” means the authority to sign legal documents such as purchase orders, contracts, and other non-monetary agreements on behalf of the City. “Signing Officer” means Staff occupying an organizational position that has been delegated Spending Authority and/or Signing Authority. and will replace previous by-law 2019-093 (attachment 2) a by-law to delegate the authority to approve and execute agreements to members of City Staff. Page 3 of 18 Page 1114 of 1679 Within the new policy the new limits (based on approved budgets) are proposed to be: Level Position Limit Scope 1 Chief Administrative Officer, Treasurer/Director of Finance Limited to Council Approved Budget or Council Resolution All budget areas 2 Division Head $1,000,000 Designated Budget Area(s) 3 Department Head $100,000 Designated Budget Area(s) 4 Budget Owner (Cost Centre Manager) $50,000 Designated Budget Area(s) “Designated Budget Area(s)” means specific Cost Centres, Departments or Divisions assigned to a Budget Owner. The implementation of the new ERP system, Workday, provides the City with an effective tool for budgetary control, internal control and reduces overall risks with its full procure-to-pay (P2P) module. The revised spending authority limits, new policy and by-law will provide efficiencies and limits staff with budgetary control and responsibility the authority to spend resulting in improving accountability. Financial Implications/Budget Impact There are no direct financial implications regarding this policy. Strategic Plan Pillars List of Attachments CS-2025-24 Attachment 1 - CS-FIN-038 Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy CS-2025-24 Attachment 2 - By-law 2019-093 (Current Delegated Authority By-Law) Written by: Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance Submitted by: Status: Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance Approved - 11 Mar 2025 Shelley Darlington, General Manager of Corporate Services Approved - 11 Mar 2025 Page 4 of 18 Page 1115 of 1679 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 12 Mar 2025 Page 5 of 18 Page 1116 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls CS-FIN-038 BUDGET SPENDING AND SIGNING AUTHORITY POLICY 1 of 10 BUDGET SPENDING AND SIGNING AUTHORITY POLICY Number: CS-FIN-038 Category: Corporate Policy Division - Department: Corporate Services - Finance Related Policies: Procurement Policy Authority: Council Report CS-2025-24, Bylaw 2025-040 Approval Date: March 18, 2025 Effective Date: March 24, 2025 Revision Date(s): N/A 1. PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of CS-FIN-038 Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy is to: a) Establish guiding principles for the delegation of Spending Authority and Signing Authority within the City to authorize Staff to expend funds approved by Council, b) Ensure that all Staff positions with delegated Spending Authority and Signing Authority understand their fiduciary responsibilities to the City. Policy Statement 1.2 Council has the ultimate authority to approve all municipal expenditures. In order to efficiently carry out the responsibilities of the City, Council needs to delegate this authority to staff. This policy authorizes delegation of various levels of budget Spending Authority (financial transactions) and Signing Authority (non- financial transactions) to designated positions. 1.3 This Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy is meant to supplement and be followed together with the Purchasing Authority definition and guidelines referred to in the City’s Procurement Policy. Page 6 of 18 Page 1117 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls CS-FIN-038 BUDGET SPENDING AND SIGNING AUTHORITY POLICY 2 of 10 2. APPLICATIONS/SCOPE This policy applies to all Staff with delegated Spending Authority and Signing Authority to aid in the administration and operation of the City. 3. DEFINITIONS In this policy: “Approved Budget” means any budget approved by Council for the given fiscal year. “Budget Owner” means an individual, often a division, department or section head, responsible for managing, overseeing and ensuring the appropriate allocation and use of funds within a designated budget. This role involves Budget Development, Resource Allocation, Monitoring and Control, Approval Authority, Reporting and Accountability and Compliance and Oversight as defined below: “Budget Development” means collaborating with other municipal officials and stakeholders to develop budget proposals that align with municipal goals and priorities. “Resource Allocation” means ensuring funds are allocated efficiently to various projects, programs and services within their jurisdiction. “Monitoring and Control” means tracking expenditures and revenues to ensure they are within the Approved Budget, identifying variances, and taking corrective actions as necessary. “Approval Authority” means authorizing expenditures and financial commitments within a Budget Owner’s approved budgetary limits. “Reporting and Accountability” means providing detailed financial reports to municipal council, committees, and other stakeholders, as requested and being accountable for budget performance. “Compliance and Oversight” means ensuring all financial activities adhere to municipal policies, provincial regulations, and other relevant guidelines. “Chief Administrative Officer or CAO” means the Chief Administrative Officer of the City “City” means the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls. “Cost Centre” means a department or section within the City used to track and manage revenues and expenses. Page 7 of 18 Page 1118 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls CS-FIN-038 BUDGET SPENDING AND SIGNING AUTHORITY POLICY 3 of 10 “Cost Centre Manager/Section Head” see Budget Owner definition. “Council” means the elected or appointed Council of the City. “Department” means an area of operation within the City, provided with a Budget to deliver Goods, Services and Construction. “Department Head” means the head of a Department within a City Division. “Designated Budget Area(s)” means specific Cost Centres, Departments or Divisions assigned to a Budget Owner. “Division” means a Division of the City which includes any Departments within that Division. “Division Head” means the head of a City Division. “Financial Transaction” means a transaction for the investment, commitment or expenditure/receipt of funds, forgiveness of debt or provision of goods or services by the City. “Officially Appointed” means formally designated or assigned to a position by the Human Resources Department. “Purchasing Authority” means the authority delegated to designated employees to initiate and administer the purchase of Goods, Services and Construction up to the prescribed thresholds in accordance with the City’s Procurement Policy and the City’s Procurement Procedures. “Signing Authority” means the authority to sign legal documents such as purchase orders, contracts, and other non-monetary agreements on behalf of the City. “Signing Officer” means Staff occupying an organizational position that has been delegated Spending Authority and/or Signing Authority. “Spending Authority” means the authority to approve Financial Transactions. “Staff” means officer(s) or employee(s) of the City. “Temporary Planned Absence” means a situation where a Staff member is scheduled to be away for a specific period, with prior notice or approval. “Vendor” means any person or enterprise supplying goods or services to the City. Page 8 of 18 Page 1119 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls CS-FIN-038 BUDGET SPENDING AND SIGNING AUTHORITY POLICY 4 of 10 4. POLICY 4.1 Delegated Spending and Signing Authority 4.1.1 The Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended (“Municipal Act”) directs Council to adopt an annual budget including all sums required during the year to run its operations including capital projects, debt financing and amounts required by other bodies. Council approves the City’s capital and operating budgets and directs Staff to implement the programs and services as approved. Council may also authorize specific expenditures by resolution of Council for items not included in the annual budgets. 4.1.2 Pursuant to Section 23.1 of the Municipal Act, Council can delegate its authority to spend monies to Staff through the adoption of a by-law that outlines the specific level of delegation and any corresponding restrictions. 4.1.3 Delegated Spending Authority entitles Staff to initiate or authorize the spending of funds. Delegated Signing Authority provides Staff with the authority to sign legal documents such as purchase orders, contracts, and non-monetary agreements on behalf of the City. All purchases must be authorized by a person with Spending Authority as set out in Appendix 1 of this policy before the purchasing process can be initiated. Purchases can be initiated by individuals who have been assigned Purchasing Authority as per the Procurement Policy. 4.1.4 Each designated position with Spending Authority can approve spending in their designated budget areas up to the maximum amount indicated in Appendix 1. 4.1.5 This Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy does not apply to the following delegated authorities: a) Authority inherently granted by a Staff’s position, role and title at the City in accordance with the Municipal Act; b) Banking signing authorities; c) Investment trading; and d) Debt arrangements. 4.1.6 Non-compliance of this Policy will be subject to a review by the City, following which the City will take necessary corrective action which may lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment. 4.1.7 Delegated Spending Authority cannot be further delegated, however, a Staff member who has been Officially Appointed in an “acting” capacity assumes the Spending Authority of that position. Page 9 of 18 Page 1120 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls CS-FIN-038 BUDGET SPENDING AND SIGNING AUTHORITY POLICY 5 of 10 4.2 Emergency Spending Authority 4.2.1 In specified circumstances the City may be required to respond to an emergency, which includes without limitation: a) Where an emergency is declared pursuant to the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, 1990; b) An event or circumstance where the City’s municipal emergency Control Group established under the Act has been activated; c) There is an imminent or actual danger to the life, health or safety of an official or an employee while acting on the City’s behalf; d) There is an imminent or actual danger to destruction of real or personal property belonging to the City; or e) When immediate procurement of Goods or Services is essential or necessary to: i. Prevent or alleviate serious delay, a threat to public health, safety or welfare, ii. Prevent the disruption of essential Services, or iii. Prevent damage to public property. 4.2.2 Where an applicable state of emergency has been declared, the Chief Administrative Officer may authorize unbudgeted Spending Authority. Such Chief Administrative Officer authorization will be terminated upon termination of the state of emergency. 4.2.3 Any Department Head shall be authorized to make Emergency Purchases in excess of $50,000 upon approval of the general manager of the Division, the general manager of Corporate Services and the CAO. 4.2.4 All requests for Spending Authority must follow the chart in Appendix 1 and be approved by the CAO or applicable general manager. The chart in Appendix 1 lists the maximum amount of Spending Authority for each category. These amounts are not to be exceeded. All limits in Appendix 1 must fall within the Spending Authority’s designated budget areas as approved by Council. 4.2.5 The Director of Finance/Designate maintains a complete listing of all staff spending authority limits. Page 10 of 18 Page 1121 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls CS-FIN-038 BUDGET SPENDING AND SIGNING AUTHORITY POLICY 6 of 10 4.3 Conflict of Interest 4.3.1 Any Signing Officers who find themselves in an actual, perceived, or potential conflict of interest must disclose the matter to their direct supervisor and their general manager before exercising Spending and/or Signing Authority. 4.3.2 The Signing Officer and their direct supervisor and general manager is also responsible for advising the Director of Finance/Designate of any Financial Transaction or documents that may be of potential public interest regardless of value, including Financial Transactions or documents that present unusual risks, might bring the activities of the City under public scrutiny and/or, those involving controversial matters. 4.4 Absence of Signing Officers 4.4.1 If a Signing Officer is not available and a temporary Signing Officer has not been appointed, Spending and Signing Authority advances upward in accordance with the organization levels set out in Appendix 1 – Organizational Levels for Spending and Signing Authority based on Approved Budgets. 4.4.2 To cover Temporary Planned Absences Spending or Signing Authority can be temporarily assigned in accordance with the organization levels set out in Appendix 1 – Organizational Levels for Spending and Signing Authority based on Approved Budgets: i. A Signing Officer at organization levels 1 to 3 can temporarily assign Spending or Signing Authority to another Signing Officer at an organizational position at the same level, any level above or one level below for a temporary period subject to restrictions set out in section 4.4 of this policy. ii. A Signing Officer at organization level 4 can temporarily assign Spending or Signing Authority to another Signing Officer at an organizational position at the same level or any level above for a temporary period subject to restrictions set out in section 4.4 of this policy. 4.4.3 To temporarily assign Spending or Signing Authority to cover planned absences complete the necessary delegation steps in the City’s enterprise resource planning system. 4.4.4 When Spending or Signing Authority is assigned temporarily to another employee, the Signing Officer must: a) Ensure that the temporary assignment complies with this policy and any related directives or procedures issued by the City. Page 11 of 18 Page 1122 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls CS-FIN-038 BUDGET SPENDING AND SIGNING AUTHORITY POLICY 7 of 10 b) Ensure that the temporary Signing Officer has the skill and knowledge necessary to effectively apply Spending and Signing Authority. c) Ensure that the application of Spending or Signing Authority by the temporary Signing Officer is appropriate and reviewed as necessary. 4.5 Responsibilities Signing Officers 4.5.1 When exercising Spending Authority, Signing Officers must ensure that: a) The value of each Financial Transaction is within the scope of Council approved operating and capital budgets allocated to Cost Centres within the Signing Officer’s portfolio and monetary limits set out in Appendix 1. b) The related Financial Transaction complies with: i. The City’s policies, applicable laws and regulations, and ii. The terms and amounts that have been negotiated and agreed to by the City. c) Where applicable, goods have been received, services rendered, or in the case of other payments, that the Vendor is entitled to or eligible for payment by the City. d) They are free of any real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest relating to the Financial Transaction. e) No person is permitted to approve his or her own personal expenses, or any expenses in which the person has a conflict of interest. f) Transactions are not split for the purpose of meeting a financial spending Approval Authority level. 4.5.2 When exercising Signing Authority, Signing Officers must ensure that: a) Any related Financial Transactions have been: i. Authorized for Spending Authority by a Signing Officer in accordance with this policy, and ii. Processed in accordance with procedures established by the Finance Department b) The related Financial Transaction complies with: i. The City’s policies, applicable laws and regulations, and Page 12 of 18 Page 1123 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls CS-FIN-038 BUDGET SPENDING AND SIGNING AUTHORITY POLICY 8 of 10 ii. The terms and amounts that have been negotiated and agreed to by the City. c) Adequate documentation supports the application of Spending Authority. d) Documents have been reviewed by responsible organizational position(s), for legal, financial, risk or administrative implications. e) Where applicable, goods have been received, services rendered, or in the case of other payments, that the Vendor is entitled to or eligible for payment by the City. f) They are free of any real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest relating to the Financial Transaction. Finance Department 4.5.3 The Finance Department is responsible for: i. Administering this policy. ii. Maintaining a complete listing of all Staff spending authority limits. User Departments 4.5.4 The User Departments are responsible for: i. Adhering to this policy. 5. REVIEW 5.1 The Director of Finance/Designate will review this policy at least once every five (5) years. Next review date: March 2030 Page 13 of 18 Page 1124 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls CS-FIN-038 BUDGET SPENDING AND SIGNING AUTHORITY POLICY 9 of 10 Appendix 1 – Organizational Levels for Spending and Signing Authority based on Approved Budgets The table below identifies organizational levels and the assignment of positions within each level that Council has delegated Spending and Signing Authority and the scope of the Spending Authority. Level Position Spending and Signing Authorization Limit (excluding taxes) Scope 1 Chief Administrative Officer, Treasurer/Director of Finance Limited to Council Approved Budget or Council Resolution All budget areas 2 Division Head $1,000,000 Designated Budget Area(s) 3 Department Head $100,000 Designated Budget Area(s) 4 Budget Owner (Cost Centre Manager/Section Head) $50,000 Designated Budget Area(s) Page 14 of 18 Page 1125 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls CS-FIN-038 BUDGET SPENDING AND SIGNING AUTHORITY POLICY 10 of 10 Appendix 2 – Spending/Signing Authority Agreement First Name: Enter your first name Last Name: Enter your last name Position: Enter your position title Division: Select your Division. Department: Select your Department. Spending Authorization Limit: Choose an item. Effective Date: Enter the effective date Spending/Signing Authority is granted. Sample Signature: Sample Initial: Designated Budget Area(s) (Cost Centres) Enter applicable cost centre(s) or applicable dept. or division, i.e. CC133005 or “All Municipal Works Division”, or “All Transportation Department”. Statement of Agreement I hereby acknowledge that I have reviewed and understood the Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy (CS-FIN-038) and the Budget Spending and Signing Authority By-law 2025-040. Furthermore, I hereby agree to abide by the Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy and the corresponding Budget Spending and Signing Authority By-law to authorize spending only within the maximum values and within the budget areas stipulated above. _______________________________ _______________________ Budget Owner Date Approved by: Name Position Signature Date Manager Enter Name Enter Position Enter date. General Manager Enter Name Enter Position Enter Date Page 15 of 18 Page 1126 of 1679 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2019 - 93 A by-law to delegate the authority to approve and execute agreements to members of City Staff. WHEREAS Section 23.1(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended, authorizes a municipality to delegate its powers and duties, subject to certain restrictions; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls has deemed that certain routine administrative and legislative powers are of a minor nature and the delegation of these powers would contribute to the efficient management of the City, while still adhering to the principles of accountability and transparency; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls has further deemed that the delegation of such routine administrative and legislative powers will contribute to the efficient management of the City; will meet the need to respond to issues in a timely manner; will maintain accountability through conditions and limitations; and supports the City's Strategic Priorities. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: Definitions and Interpretation 1.In this by-law, Agreements" means written legal documents with third parties generally prepared by the Legal Services Department and which legally bind the City; and Monetary Value" means the consideration, excluding HST, to be paid or received under the Agreement, and, in the case of a multi-year Agreement, means the total consideration to be paid or received throughout the term of the Agreement. 2.If there is an inconsistency between this by-law and other by-laws delegating authority to administration, such other by-laws shall take precedence over this by-law. Delegation 3. The powers and duties described in section 5 are hereby delegated to the City Staff positions, or a position that is a successor thereto, listed in section 6 with the conditions and limitations described in section 7. 4. Council shall retain the right to exercise the powers and duties listed in section 5. Page 16 of 18 Page 1127 of 1679 2 Power to be Delegated 5. The following powers and duties are the subject of this delegation: a) The authority to approve and execute Agreements for the provision or acquisition of goods and services or other City activities, works or services, including leases and licenses of City land, that are ordinary to the business of the City, but subject to any limitations described in City policies established by Council; and b) The authority to approve and execute an amendment or termination of the Agreements described in (a). Delegates 6. The following City Staff or their successors are delegated the authority to enter into the Agreements described in sections 5(a) and (b): a) Chief Administrative Officer; b) City Treasurer/Director of Finance; c) City Solicitor/Director of Legal Services; d) Fire Chief; e) City Clerk; f) City Engineer/Director of Municipal Works; g) Director of Planning and Development; h) Chief Building Official/Director of Building and Enforcement; i) Director of Business Development; j) Director of Information Systems; k) Director of Transportation Services; I) Director of Recreation and Culture; m) Director of Human Resources; n) A person who is appointed as Acting Chief Administrative Officer by the Chief Administrative Officer, from time to time, to act in his/her stead; and o) A person who is appointed as an Acting Director by the Chief Administrative Office or by a Director, from time to time, to act in his/her stead. Conditions and Limitations 7. The following conditions and limitations shall apply to the delegation of the authority described in sections 5(a) and (b): a) The subject matter of the Agreement must be funded through the current year's operating or capital budget which has been approved by Council, if applicable; b) The Monetary Value of the Agreement is within the financial approval limits below: Page 17 of 18 Page 1128 of 1679 3 CAO 100,000 or less, excluding HST; and Directors $20,000 or less, excluding HST; c) The Agreement is reviewed by Legal Services prior to execution; and d) Executed copies of the Agreement are provided to Legal Services and the City Clerk. General 8. The short title of this by-law is "The Delegation of Authority By-law". 9. This by-law comes into force on the day it is passed. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 13th day of August, 2019. WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 18 of 18 Page 1129 of 1679 MW-2025-06 Operations Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: March 18, 2025 Title: Drinking Water System Summary Report and Overview Recommendation(s) That Council RECEIVE this report for information. Executive Summary In accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Acts Ontario Regulation (O. Reg.) 170/03, Schedule 22, each Municipal Council having jurisdiction over its water distribution system is required to receive and publish a Distribution Summary Report prior to March 31 in each calendar year. This report provides technical data regarding the system’s performance. Additionally, attached is the Drinking Water Quality Management Standard (DWQMS) Management Review which is to be provided to the system Owner annually. The Management Review evaluates the suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness of the quality management system. The purpose of this report is to provide the Owners of the drinking water system documentation confirming that the City is operating in accordance with all current legislation and is taking appropriate measures to guarantee the safety of the drinking water quality to all its consumers. Revision 8 of the DWQMS Operational Plan was endorsed by Council on March 19, 2024, via MW-2024-13. Revision 9 of the Operational Plan was created in February of 2025, and changes were very minor, and mostly administrative in nature, with the only substantial adjustment being the insertion of the official Commitment and Endorsement document (signed by the Owner and Top Management in 2024). A summary of changes can be found as an appendix v) to the Management Review. The Management Review and its appendices can be found as Attachments 1 & 2 of this Report, respectively. Background Distribution System Summary Report Each year the Distribution Summary report is presented to Council to illustrate the effectiveness and performance of the drinking water system. The attached Distribution Summary report provides detailed quantitative and qualitative information regarding the Page 1 of 111 Page 1130 of 1679 performance of the drinking water system. This Summary Report can be found as Attachment 3 to this Report. Highlights of the report include: In 2024 the Water & Wastewater Services Division responded to 49 watermain breaks. In 2023 there were 48 watermain breaks. In Q2 of 2024 NSF-International performed a surveillance audit on the City’s Drinking Water Quality Management System. Zero non-conformances were found during the audit. This audit document can be found as Appendix ii) of the Management Review. DWQMS Management Review The DWQMS Management Review takes place once every calendar year, as per the Standard. The review provides an overall picture as to the effectiveness and adequacy of the Drinking Water Quality Management System. Items of note from the Management Review Include: Final compliance rating of 100% during 2024 Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks inspection The City continues involvement with Niagara Region regarding the future decommissioning of Lundy’s Lane tank and new raw water intake location. The City will move forward in potentially developing a backflow prevention program, beginning with a structured risk assessment or an updated bylaw. Levels of service for a variety of repairs/maintenance programs will be more closely monitored and reported to Top Management and Council in the coming years. This will increase system wide operational performance awareness. Prior to this year, watermain breaks, percentage of pipe material types within the distribution system and water losses were the only statistics reported on during the Management Review and Report to Council. Standard of Care It is important to mention Section 19 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, entitled Standard of Care. This section states: The Owner and/or each person on behalf of the Municipality that oversees the operating authority or exercises decision making authority over the system must exercise the level of care, diligence, and skill in respect of a municipal drinking water system that a reasonable prudent person would be expected to exercise in a similar situation. Section 19, in its entirety has can be found as Attachment 4 to this Report, for reference. Page 2 of 111 Page 1131 of 1679 Analysis As stated above, the City had only one more watermain break in 2024 than in 2023. The number of watermain breaks fluctuate annually based on a variety of factors including weather, ground water table and capital infrastructure projects. The Graph below illustrates watermain break history since 2011. It should be noted that the remaining Cast Iron watermains in the system are the major cause of watermain breaks and should continue to be the focus of capital replacement projects. It should also be noted that historically, the majority of watermain breaks occur within the first two months of each year (due to extreme weather fluctuations). The average length of time properties experienced water interruptions due to main breaks in 2024 was four hours and forty-five minutes. This is similar to 2023’s average interruption time of four hours and twenty minutes. Page 3 of 111 Page 1132 of 1679 The City’s overall length of watermain is 493 km. PVC is currently the highest percentage material type of watermain from a system perspective. However, this value is skewed by the increase in new development since 2010. The City still has a significant portion of its watermains made of Cast Iron and Ductile Iron, representing approximately 44% of the overall system. It should be noted that some portions of cast iron watermain are over 100 years old, still in active service and are being relied on to providing residents with drinking water and support fire suppression in the event of an emergency. Section 11 of O. Reg. 170/03 stipulates that a systems Annual Summary Report must be created and made available to the public by February 28th of each year (outlining the water quality indicators for the system for the previous year). The 2024 Annual Summary Report has been placed on the City's website and can also be found as Attachment 5 to this Report. Other Performance Indicators Water Loss The City utilized the American Waterworks Association Audit Software v6.0 to assess the annual water distribution system leakage index. This is the industry standard for determining infrastructure leakage indexes. As evidenced in the below graphic, the City’s estimated leakage index value for 2024 is 0.7, which is an improvement to last year's value. It is estimated that continued improved tracking of all water loss channels, paired with the full implementation of the City’s water meter replacement program will Page 4 of 111 Page 1133 of 1679 continue to lower this value. The City will continue to identify and proactively mitigate all water losses. Valve Turning 4.5% of City system valves were exercised/proven out in 2024, compared to 2% in 2023. Hydrant Inspections 41.3 % of City owned hydrants were inspected/flushed in 2024, compared to 59.9% in 2023. Operational Implications and Risk Analysis In accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Annual Summary Report must be received by the drinking water system owner by a date of no later than March 31 of the following year. Failure to submit this would contravene the Safe Drinking Water Act. The drinking water quality management standard requires that the results of the Management Review be provided to the Owner on an annual basis. Failure to provide the results would initiate a non-conformance with the Standard. Financial Implications/Budget Impact Page 5 of 111 Page 1134 of 1679 This contents of this report do not contain any individual financial or budgetary impacts. Strategic/Departmental Alignment This report is to ensure adherence to Provincial Legislation and is consistent with the Council’s strategic commitment to continually monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of the City’s operations. Strategic Plan Pillars Contributor(s) Savannah Wells-Bisson, Acting Senior Manager of Water & Wastewater Services List of Attachments Attachment 1 - Management Review 2024 Attachment 2 - Management Review Appendices Attachment 3 - 2024 City of Niagara Falls Water Distribution System Summary Report Attachment 4 - Section 19- Standard of Care, Safe Drinking Water Act 2002 Attachment 5 - 2024 Annual Report Written by: Jessica Blanchard, Water & Wastewater Services Compliance Program Manager Submitted by: Status: Erik Nickel, General Manager of Municipal Works Approved - 10 Mar 2025 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 11 Mar 2025 Page 6 of 111 Page 1135 of 1679 DWQMS Management Review Covering: from January 1, 2024, through to and including December 31, 2024 Page 7 of 111 Page 1136 of 1679 Table of Contents List of Acronyms and Definitions ................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................... 5 1. Incidents of regulatory non-compliance ..................................................... 5 2. Incidents of adverse drinking-water tests ................................................... 5 3. Deviations from critical control point limits and response actions .............. 6 4. Efficacy of the risk assessment process .................................................... 6 5. Third-party and Internal audit reports ......................................................... 7 6. Results of emergency response testing ..................................................... 9 7. Operational performance ........................................................................... 9 8. Raw water supply and drinking-water quality trends .................................. 9 9. Follow-up on action items from previous management reviews .............. 10 10. Status of management action items identified between management reviews… ..................................................................................................... 12 11. Changes that could affect the Quality Management System ................. 13 12. Consumer feedback (i.e., internal & external communications) ............. 14 13. Resources needed to maintain the Quality Management System ......... 14 14. Results of DWQMS Infrastructure Review ............................................. 14 15. Operational Plan currency, content & updates……………………………15 16. Staff suggestions ............................. ……………………………………....15 17. List of Appendices…………………………………………………………...16 Page 8 of 111 Page 1137 of 1679 Page 3 of 16 2024 DWQMS Management Review List of Acronyms and Definitions BMP – Best Management Practise DWQMS – Drinking Water Quality Management Standard DWS – Drinking Water System LOS – Levels of Service MAC - Maximum Acceptable Concentration. It is the level that has been established for certain substances that are known or suspected to cause adverse health effects. MECP – Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks QMS – Quality Management System THM –Trihalomethanes are a group of compounds that can form when the chlorine used to disinfect drinking water reacts with naturally occurring organic matter (e.g., decaying leaves and vegetation). HAA - Haloacetic Acid. HAA values refer to the sum of the concentration of six haloacetic acid compounds which include mono-, di-, and trichloroacetic acids, and mono- and dibromoacetic acids, and bromochloroacetic acid. HAAs are a type of chlorination disinfection by-product that are formed when the chlorine used to disinfect drinking water reacts with naturally occurring organic matter, usually in raw water. OFI – Opportunity for Improvement Ontario Regulation 170/03 – Regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act governing Drinking Water Systems Ontario Regulation 169/03 – Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards which outline maximum allowable concentrations for microbiological, chemical and radiological elements and compounds in drinking water systems. Watermain Disinfection Procedure Section 4 – Documentation requirements for operators who are performing maintenance and repair activities associated with disinfecting watermains as part of an addition, modification, replacement, extension, planned maintenance, or emergency repair in a municipal residential drinking water system Page 9 of 111 Page 1138 of 1679 Page 4 of 16 2024 DWQMS Management Review Niagara Region Emergency Drinking Water Provision Plan • A Niagara Region document initially created in 2018 (in collaboration the key officials, agencies, departments and stakeholders), to establish framework for responding to an emergency involving the drinking water supply in Niagara Region. It is intended to service as a guideline that outlines the responsibilities and activities in managing a drinking water emergency. Page 10 of 111 Page 1139 of 1679 Page 5 of 16 2024 DWQMS Management Review 2024 DWQMS Management Review Introduction Element 20 of the Drinking Water Quality Management Standard states that a Management Review must be completed at least once every calendar year. The purpose of the Management Review is to document the actions and effectiveness of the Quality Management System. The outcome of the Management Review must be reported to the Owner of the Drinking Water System. The information reported to the Owner can be relayed at the same time as the Annual Drinking Water System Report, scheduled to be provided to Council in March of each year. 1. Incidents of regulatory non-compliance From June 10 to June 18, 2024, the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks completed an inspection of the City of Niagara Falls DWS for the June 1, 2023, to May 31, 2024, inspection period. The inspection report indicated that there were zero (0) incidents of regulatory non-compliance. The Final Inspection Rating was 100%. The MECP 2024 Final Inspection Report is attached as Appendix i), for review. 2. Incidents of adverse drinking-water tests The City experienced one (1) adverse sample result within its distribution system in 2024. i. October 28, 2024: A microbiological distribution sample collected at 6838 Morrison Street (Animal Medical Centre) resulted in an adverse reading of one (1) Total Coliform (1 CFU/100 mL). The maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) for total coliforms in a distribution system is zero (0). It was determined that this reading was likely caused by a sampling or lab error, as the free chlorine residual at the time of the sample was 0.44 mg/L and re-samples collected the day following the adverse sample were clear (0 coliforms). Page 11 of 111 Page 1140 of 1679 Page 6 of 16 2024 DWQMS Management Review Upon receiving the adverse notification from the Licenced Lab in the instance noted above, staff followed SOP “MW-WWW-DWS-SOP-012-001 – Adverse Water Quality Incident Reporting – O. Reg. 170/03”, and the incident was resolved by re-sampling. 3. Deviations from critical control point limits and response actions There were no deviations from critical control points during this report period. 4. Efficacy of the risk assessment process It should be noted that currently there are items listed as critical control points in the risk assessment matrix that the City cannot control, regardless of their importance, such as backflow prevention devices not owned by the City, and Niagara Region processes (such as water treatment). Outcomes of the most recent risk assessments are highlighted and considered during the infrastructure review. In April of 2022, The Environmental Registry of Ontario posted Notice #019- 4855: “Potential Hazardous Events for Municipal Residential Drinking Water Systems to Consider in the DWQMS Risk Assessment”. The body of this notice included new risks to consider cybersecurity threats. These specific risks were not captured in the Risk Assessment of 2022 but were captured in the 2023 & 2024 Risk Assessments and will be included in all future Risk Assessments. Element 14: Niagara Region: “System Pressure Maintenance and Pressure Surge Protection” was added to the matrix during the Risk Assessment process in 2020, based on Niagara Regions consideration of decommissioning the Lundy’s Lane tank and installing one in a different area due to increased demands in the growing south end of the City. The current elevated tank on Lundy’s is requiring substantial upgrades/repairs to maintain current legislative requirements. It has been discussed internally that the City of Niagara Falls must be a strong presence in the decision making of this tentative project (which is assumed to involve several flow studies to confirm feasibility and seamless service transition and continuance), as it will be stressed that if this is to occur, the residents should continue to receive the same, if not better service levels of water delivery (specifically related to pressure). This project will also require the City to install/upgrade/take over the current Niagara Region watermain along Lundy’s lane. The greatest risk to the system if this tank is decommissioned is likely frequent pressure surges (currently absorbed by the Lundy’s Lane tank), that would work through the system and likely cause several watermain breaks, which always increases the likelihood of microbiological contamination before and during their repair. Also, without the tank providing consistent pressure in the Page 12 of 111 Page 1141 of 1679 Page 7 of 16 2024 DWQMS Management Review system, the north end residents may experience a pressure drop in their water. If this was to become severe enough, the risk is a backflow event. Further discussion to this during the 2024 Infrastructure Review outlined that the preferred site for the new tank has been chosen and acquisition of this land is in progress. As the design of this project has not yet commenced, the project’s start and completion dates are therefore yet to be determined. The City will likely install municipal main along Lundy’s Lane (as the current main in this area is a Regional main and will be decommissioned along with the tank. The City, however, will likely not inherit the QEW critical crossing of this watermain, and the new municipal system will be looped at this location. The entire decommissioning process (tank and main) lays in design model. Impacts are being studies/considered (with focus on pressure surge protection, service levels and water quality standards), and the City will remain in communication with Niagara Region as these plans further develop, to ensure a seamless transition throughout and following this decommissioning project. Element 14 remains rated under the risk threshold, as the tank is still in service. Many of the Niagara Region controlled risks were consolidated into one line item in the 2024 risk matrix, as they lie solely within the Regions critical control points, had similar MECP MAC limits, and the same Region controllable measures (SOP’s). 5. Third-party and Internal Audit Reports Third Party Audit From July 3 to July 4, 2024, NSF Internal performed a surveillance audit of the City’s Drinking Water System for the July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, audit period. There were not any non-conformances found during this third-party audit. However, the Auditor suggested, in the “Opportunities for Improvement” section of the report to: • Consider stating exact time frame which the Management Review covers on the title page, for ease of auditing (e.g. January 1 – December 31, 2023). It was noted during the audit that the Management Review consisted of items which occurred during the previous calendar year and was therefore generally titled "2023 Management Review". • Consider adding any staff ACTION items which improve emergency preparedness (resulting from the Emergency Management Review) to the continual improvement initiatives The NSF Third Party Audit Report is attached as Appendix ii), for review. Page 13 of 111 Page 1142 of 1679 Page 8 of 16 2024 DWQMS Management Review Internal Audit An internal audit of the City’s Drinking Water System was completed by Acclaims Environmental on December 5 and 6, 2024. This covered the audit period of December 19, 2023, to December 6, 2024. During this internal audit, zero non- conformances were noted by the auditor. However, there were some opportunities for improvement noted which included: • Consider adding document ID and date to the City’s QMS Policy. • Consider adding document control to the Bulk Filling Station records and the Sample Location documents. • Consider updating the Drinking Water Quality section of the website and the Communication procedure as they currently reference CGSB as the accreditation body for DWQMS. • Consider removing the reference to Appendices that aren’t part of the OP document. The procedures can be referenced as stand-alone documents. • Consider adding the new DWQMS position to the Org Chart and the Roles, Responsibilities and Authorities Document. • Consider getting staff tours of the Region water plants. • Consider an on-call rotation with operations staff. Element 11 requires a procedure to ensure competent staff are available for duties that directly impact the drinking water system. • Consider reviewing the procedure for the annual vendor performance. It currently states that it will be completed and recorded annually. • Consider starting a water meter exchange program for large water meters. If these were on a regular rotation it could help water loss. • Consider requiring the company that performs the calibrations on the chlorine kits to put calibration stickers on the instruments. • Consider creating a program for quarterly verifications of the portable chlorine analyzers. • Consider adding information on adverse water quality incidents that would fall under 16.4 of Schedule 16 of O.Reg. 170/03 (i.e. Low-pressure incidents) and Total Coliforms to the Adverse Reporting Procedure. • Consider adding a report of the items in Table 15.1 of the OP to the Operational Control section of Management Review. • Consider including the Action Items from the Risk Assessment, Infrastructure Review, Emergency Drills and Management Review to the Continual Improvement Initiatives List. • Consider updating the Continual Improvement procedure to better describe how BMPs are considered. The 2024 Internal Audit Report is attached as Appendix iii), for review. Page 14 of 111 Page 1143 of 1679 Page 9 of 16 2024 DWQMS Management Review 6. Results of emergency response testing On November 21, 2024, Water & Wastewater Services Staff participated in an Emergency Response desktop training exercise. The scenarios during this training focused on cyber security and water disruption notification procedures. Team discussion touched on items such as security precautions, emergency water provisions, emergency aid means, optimum communication, water advisory procedures, operational reporting requirements and health and safety procedures. 7. Operational performance In 2024, the Water & Wastewater Services Division responded to 49 watermain breaks. This total number is a very slight increase from the previous year (2023), during which 48 watermain breaks occurred. The winters of 2023 and 2024 were similar in weather patterns during the winter months. Other operational levels of service statistics monitored included the following: • Average time of water interruption per main break in 2024 was 4 hours and 45 minutes per break, compared to 4 hours and 20 minutes per break in 2023 • 41.3% of all fire hydrants were flushed in 2024, compared to 59.9% in 2023 • 4.5% of system valves were exercised in 2024, compared to 2% in 2023 8. Raw water supply and drinking-water quality trends Niagara Region is responsible for all sampling and testing of raw water. Through a previous year’s hydrant maintenance program, City staff members have found areas of the municipal drinking water system where weekly or bi-weekly flushing’s can improve water quality. These areas are tracked by way of a flushing report form and this practice has continued throughout 2024. Source water temperature changes in late spring and fall have historically resulted in resident inquiries about chlorine levels. The majority of these calls originate from the south end of the City which is the geographic area closest to the water treatment plant. The City receives weekly chlorine residual results from Niagara Region, which have indicated no significant fluctuation in chlorine levels leaving the treatment plant. This remained unchanged in 2024. Page 15 of 111 Page 1144 of 1679 Page 10 of 16 2024 DWQMS Management Review The raw water intake for Niagara Falls Water Treatment plant is planned to be physically shifted to the south. Currently, the project remains stagnant, with an unknown tentative start date. The City remains in communication with Niagara Region on the development of this project. Niagara Region is continuing to monitor THM (trihalomethane) levels in conjunction with all local area municipalities. Various methods of preventing THM levels from increasing have been discussed. The City’s Water & Wastewater Services Division will continue to flush dead end watermains, which is a currently a suitable manner for which a distribution system can mitigate potential high THM levels. The Niagara Region replaced their granular activated carbon (GAC) filter at the Niagara Falls Water Treatment Plant in February of 2021.This filter media removes organic debris from the treated water and reduces THM formation. THM monitoring will carry on indefinitely, as we collaboratively strive for the continual improvement of water quality in the distribution system. 9. Follow-up on action items from previous management reviews Historic Action Items: Action Item Assigned To Due Dates Status/Follow-up Ensure the City has a liaison present at all discussions with Niagara Region involving the tentative decommissioning of the Lundy’s Lane Tank Erik Nickel/ James Sticca 2021 onward Ongoing. The City has been a presence at discussions involving this process. The Region has chosen the site for the new tank and is currently in the process of acquiring the land, as of Feb 2025. Further details TBD Collaborate with Infrastructure to develop a scoring matrix based on age, material type, tuberculation, so the score is standardized and not left up to the discretion of the Operator /WWW Supervisor staff/ Infra. team 2021 onward Ongoing. WWW staff were reminded in February of 2024 and monthly since that time to ensure photos are taken of the watermain which is being repaired and to provide comparative pipe condition sample pieces when possible Page 16 of 111 Page 1145 of 1679 Page 11 of 16 2024 DWQMS Management Review Consider performing a structured risk assessment to: Determine properties at the highest risk of experiencing a backflow (BF) event; Determine the likelihood of a BF event; Identify which high risk properties currently have a BF preventor on site – if they function properly and are being calibrated/ maintained; Review the current draft of the CoNF BFP program manual and; Identify/ develop trigger points to initiate the requirement for a property to have a BFP device installed Jessica Blanchard/ QMS staff Q1 2023 onward In progress: New NU DWQMS Coordinator was tasked to commence this process in 2025. There was some movement on data collection for those properties who have existing backflow prevention devices which took place during the large meter change out and unofficial bypass inspection completed by the City Plumber in 2023. The direction for this initiative has changed since the 2024 Management Review, and the focus on demanding property surveys of current property owners to start a fulsome and recent data collection of internal plumbing infrastructure Consider using upcoming changes to the distribution system (pressure changes due to elevated tank location shift) and possibility of backflow events as emergency scenarios for advanced preparedness Jessica Blanchard Q3 2023 onward Delayed: With the MSP yet to be complete (which will house an updated water model), these scenarios would not be effective. To perform this once the updated water model is complete (if software is available to run test scenarios). To promote public assurance regarding the provision of safe clean drinking water Jessica Blanchard Q3 of 2024 onward In progress: WWW Services Coordinator to collaborate with Operations Support Services Supervisor in Q3 of 2025 to provide more detail for consistent messaging surrounding public reassurance, as the City’s website is revamped. This was delayed from its intended Q3 2024 start To create realistic scenarios (using system flow data) for emergency preparedness training Jessica Blanchard Q4 of 2024 onward Delayed: Due to the yet to be released MSP, which one component is the updated water model. To push this deadline to Q4 of 2025 Page 17 of 111 Page 1146 of 1679 Page 12 of 16 2024 DWQMS Management Review Action Items resulting from 2024 Management Review: Action Item Assigned To Due Dates Status/Follow-up To investigate the possibility of sharing all SOP’s and other support documents listed in the Operations Plan on Council’s portal in Teams. This will shorten the actual Report to council, but still provide reference for those members interested in their review Jessica Blanchard Q1 2025 In progress To search for business case (assumed completed in 2024 by former Senior Manager of WWW Services) to justify a full time on-call shift for WWW Services Savannah Q1 2025 onward In progress: Access has been granted to emails and drives, and search will be initiated in Q1 of 2025. Investigate wording in legislative documents surrounding ORO requirement as far as availability and response time when called Jessica Blanchard Q2 2025 In progress To ensure our LOS indicated in the Operations plan are being achieved. Specifically for hydrant flushing and valve turning WWW Supervisor or ORO overseeing respective operational maintenan ce program by end of Q4, 2025 In progress To investigate parameter changes which would move a WD system from a Class 2 to a Class 3 Jessica Blanchard Q2 2025 In progress To create a list of renewal projects which were compromised shortly after their completion due to watermain or sewer repairs, to illustrate the need for resurfacing and infrastructure renewal projects proper alignment WWW Supervisor and ORO Q2 2025 or before next annual Infra. Review In progress Page 18 of 111 Page 1147 of 1679 Page 13 of 16 2024 DWQMS Management Review 10. Status of management action items identified between management reviews No action items identified during this review period. 11. Changes that could affect the Quality Management System • To review, since July 1, 2017, schools and childcare centers in Ontario have been required to test all fountains and drinking water taps in their facilities by Ministry prescribed timelines. If a sample result exceeds the standard, immediate action needs to be taken until the issue is resolved. The increased lead testing requirement was developed to ensure all water taps serving drinking water to children in schools and childcare centers are sampled for lead. This program currently remains the responsibility of the Public Health System. There has been discussion that the MAC for lead in a water distribution system may be lowered to mimic the new Health Canada Guideline (currently the MAC is 0.01 mg/L in water distribution systems in Ontario, where the Health Canada MAC has been lowered to 0.005 mg/L). • As mentioned in Section 8 of this Management Review, The raw water intake for Niagara Falls Water Treatment plant is planned to be physically shifted to the south. Raw water characteristics may be altered due to this adjustment, and the City will ensure ongoing communication with Niagara Region as it relates to any treatment process that may have to be altered if the raw water characteristics are substantial. This will ensure continued and consistent safe, clean drinking water is being provided throughout the Distribution System. • Another substantial topic relating to the Quality Management System is the Niagara Regions tentative plans to decommission the Lundy’s Lane elevated tank and the Regional watermain on Lundy’s Lane (as mentioned in Section 4 of this Management Review). The City will ensure ongoing communication with Niagara Region, to ensure the decommissioning of these assets does not affect water pressure or create contamination (during the construction component of the decommissioning) in the City’s Distribution System. This involvement is to achieve ongoing high customer service levels without interruption. The Region has chosen the site for this new tank in the City’s southeastern quadrant. • The Quality Management System may also expand to include a backflow prevention program – as there are continued plans for the City to move forward in further assessing the requirements for initiating such a program in 2025. This will begin with a structured risk assessment on existing properties within the City’s Distribution System, and potentially a requirement for all IC & I properties within the City to provide surveys of their property, to aid with the development of a fulsome and accurate initial backflow inventory. Page 19 of 111 Page 1148 of 1679 Page 14 of 16 2024 DWQMS Management Review 12. Consumer feedback (i.e., internal & external communications) The Water & Wastewater Services Division continues to flush areas known to have low chlorine residuals weekly. Discoloured or dirty water calls have continued to decrease; this is due to the extensive capital work taking place in areas known for water quality issues. 13. Resources needed to maintain the Quality Management System The DWQMS representative (Water & Wastewater Services Compliance Program Manager) continues to use an external consultant for the internal audit. This provides the DWQMS representative with detailed reports and multi-industry expertise during the on-site audit. The city chose to utilize the same internal auditor in 2024 as in 2023, for a fulsome and continued comparative gauge of improvement. 14. Results of DWQMS Infrastructure Review The DWQMS Infrastructure Review is one of many documents which aid in the decision-making process for determining Capital Works projects and schedules. The DWQMS Representative and the Senior Manager of Water & Wastewater Services, along with the Asset and Infrastructure teams have worked collectively to prioritize the proposal of capital work for design. Suggestions are also provided by Water & Wastewater Services staff based on field experience and observation and are taken into consideration along with other factors (sewer separation, removal of all cast/ductile infrastructure etc.). Additionally, as operational challenges arise, the Water & Wastewater Services Compliance Program Manager (DWQMS Rep), and Water & Wastewater Services Supervisors ensure these are communicated to the Senior Manager of Water & Wastewater Services who flags these to the Asset and Infrastructure teams for future capital replacement programs. This consistent line of communication between Operations and Engineering was absent prior to the initiation of the DWQMS. As previously mentioned, the outcomes of the most recent Risk Management Assessment were presented and considered in during the 2024 Infrastructure Review, and this process will continue for all future Infrastructure Reviews, as suggested by the City’s Internal Auditor. During the 2023 Internal Audit, it was suggested, in keeping with the requirements of Element 15 of the DWQMS, to ensure infrastructure review Page 20 of 111 Page 1149 of 1679 Page 15 of 16 2024 DWQMS Management Review findings and the City’s infrastructure maintenance, rehabilitation, and renewal programs are communicated to the Owner. Therefore, the 2024 infrastructure review meeting minutes and the Water/Wastewater Services “areas of concern” list of infrastructure (which was developed in 2023 and updated annually) continues to be a component of the Management Review. This “areas of concern list” was further expanded in 2024 to include the Asset Managements tentative timelines for capital renewal projects. The 2024 Management Review meting minutes and associated Areas of Concern list are attached as Appendix iv) (a and b respectively), for review. 15. Operational Plan currency, content & updates The Operational Plan was updated in February of 2025 which created the current version/revision 9. Revision 9 of the Operational Plan had mostly minor alterations from revision 8, which were generally administrative and grammatical, with the only substantial adjustment being the insertion of the official Commitment and Endorsement document (signed by the Owner and Top Management). City of Niagara Distribution System Operational Plan Revision 9: Summary of Changes: February 2025 is attached as Appendix v). 16. Staff suggestions Throughout 2024, Water & Wastewater Services staff offered several process improvement/knowledge expansion suggestions for the DWQMS. They included: • Arranging a tour of the Niagara Falls Water Treatment Plant, to review plant processes and obtain a visual process of how the water is prepared for distribution • Highlighting areas concern for renewal to ensure they align with road resurfacing, so those recently paved roads are not immediately compromised with main break repairs. • Consider re-locating or adding an additional Service Centre, to aid with response times, as the City’s boarders, infrastructure and populations expand. • Developing a permanent, year-round on-call shift, to prioritize after hour emergencies and improve response time to them. Page 21 of 111 Page 1150 of 1679 Page 16 of 16 2024 DWQMS Management Review 17. List of Appendices ➢ Appendix i) o 2024 MECP Inspection Report ➢ Appendix ii) o 2024 NSF Third Party Audit Report ➢ Appendix iii) o 2024 Internal Audit Report ➢ Appendix iv) o a: 2024 Infrastructure Review Meeting Minutes o b: 2024 Areas of Concern Excel Doc ➢ Appendix v) o City of Niagara Distribution System Operational Plan Revision 9: Summary of Changes: February 2025 Page 22 of 111 Page 1151 of 1679 Management Review’s Appendices Index Appendix i): 2024 MECP Inspection Report………………………………………. pages 2 – 28 Appendix ii): 2024 NSF Third Party Audit Report………………………………….pages 29 – 34 Appendix iii): 2024 Internal Audit Report……………….…………………………. pages 35 – 59 Appendix iv): o a: 2024 Infrastructure Review Meeting Minutes…………………….…. pages 60 – 67 o b: 2024 Areas of Concern Excel Doc………………………………………. pages 68 – 72 Appendix v): City of Niagara Falls Distribution System Operational Plan Revision 9: Summary of Changes: February 2025...…………….…….……... page 73 1 Page 23 of 111 Page 1152 of 1679 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Drinking Water and Environmental Compliance Division West Central Region Niagara District Qffice 9th Floor, Suite 15 301 St. Paul Street St. Catharines, ON L2R 7R4 Tel.: 905-704-3900 1-800-263-1035 Fax.: 905-704-4015 Ministere de l'Environnement de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs Division de la conformite en matiere d'eau potable et d'environnement Direction regionale du Centre-Quest Bureau de district de Niagara 9e etage, bureau 15 301, rue St. Paul St. Catharines, ON L2R 7R4 Tel.: 905 704-3900 1-800-263-1035 Fax: 905 704-4015 June 24, 2024 Jessica Blanchard Water & Wastewater Services Coordinator Niagara Falls Distribution System 3200 Stanley Avenue, Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6S4 Re: MECP Inspection – Niagara Falls Distribution System (DWS# 260002304) Please find the enclosed copy of the inspection report # 1-204034968 for the Niagara Falls Distribution System completed under the Ministry’s focused inspection protocol to assess compliance with Safe Drinking Water legislation. The report is based on conditions encountered at the time of inspection, and subsequent follow-up. If applicable, any items found within the section entitled “Non-Compliance/Non-Conformance Items” which have sections under legislative requirements outline noncompliance with regulatory requirements contained within an Act, a Regulation, or site specific approvals, licenses, permits, orders, or guidelines. Please ensure that the required actions are completed within the prescribed timeframe, if applicable. The items with “Not Applicable” legislative requirements provide information to the owner or operating authority outlining practices or standards established through existing and emerging industry standards that should be considered in order to advance current efforts. These items do not, in themselves, constitute violations. More recommendations may also be provided within the body of the report. In order to measure individual inspection results, the Ministry has established an inspection compliance risk framework based on the principles of the Inspection, Investigation & Enforcement (II&E) Secretariat and advice of internal/external risk experts. The Inspection Summary Rating Record (IRR), included as an Appendix of the inspection report, provides the Ministry, the system owner and the local Public Health Units with a summarized quantitative measure of the drinking water system’s annual inspection and regulated water quality testing performance. IRR ratings are published (for the previous inspection year) in the Ministry's Chief Drinking Water lnspectors' Annual Report. Thank you for your time and assistance during the inspection process. If you have any questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact me or Elizabeth Chee Sing, Water Compliance Supervisor, West Central Region at 519-400-6731 or Elizabeth.cheesing@ontario.ca. 2 Page 24 of 111 Page 1153 of 1679 Sincerely, Kiersten Atamanyk Provincial Officer #2067, Water Compliance Officer MECP Niagara District Office West Central Region kiersten.atamanyk@ontario.ca Cc: Adam Allcock – City of Niagara Falls Colin Horne - Niagara Public Health Department Jason Wolf - Niagara Public Health Department Leilani Lee-Yates - Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority Thomas Proks- Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority Elizabeth Chee Sing - Water Compliance Supervisor, MECP 3 Page 25 of 111 Page 1154 of 1679 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs We want to hear from you. How was my service? You can provide feedback at 1-888-745-8888 or Ontario.ca/inspectionfeedback Page 1 of 14 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Physical Address:3200 STANLEY AVE, , NIAGARA FALLS, ON INSPECTION REPORT System Number:260002304 Entity:CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Inspection Start Date:June 10, 2024 Site Inspection Date:June 10, 2024 Inspection End Date:June 18, 2024 Inspected By:Kiersten Atamanyk Badge #:2067 __________________ (signature) 4 Page 26 of 111 Page 1155 of 1679      4 5       INTRODUCTION          6 2 5 Page 27 of 111 Page 1156 of 1679 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs Event Number: 1-375142040 Page 2 of 14 INTRODUCTION Purpose This announced, focused inspection was conducted to confirm compliance with Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks' (MECP) legislation and conformance with ministry drinking water policies and guidelines. Scope The ministry utilizes a comprehensive, multi-barrier approach in the inspection of water systems that focuses on the source, treatment, and distribution components as well as management and the operation of the system. The inspection of the drinking water system included both the physical inspection of the component parts of the system listed in section 4 "Systems Components" of the report and the review of data and documents associated with the operation of the drinking water system during the review period. This drinking water system is subject to the legislative requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002 (SDWA) and regulations made therein, including Ontario Regulation 170/03, "Drinking Water Systems" (O. Reg. 170/03). This inspection has been conducted pursuant to Section 81 of the SDWA. This inspection report does not suggest that all applicable legislation and regulations were evaluated. It remains the responsibility of the owner to ensure compliance with all applicable legislative and regulatory requirements. Facility Contacts and Dates The drinking water system is owned and operated by the City of Niagara Falls. The system serves an estimated population of 92, 069 and is categorized as a Large Municipal Residential System. Information reviewed for this inspection covered the time period of June 1, 2023, to May 31, 2024. The water compliance officer met with Jessica Blanchard, Water & Wastewater Services Coordinator, as part of the inspection process. Systems/Components The Niagara Falls Distribution System only maintains secondary disinfection and distribution of water. Primary disinfection is undertaken by another regulated drinking water system which provides treated water to this drinking water system. 6 Page 28 of 111 Page 1157 of 1679 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs Event Number: 1-375142040 Page 3 of 14 Treated water is received from the Region of Niagara's Niagara Falls Water Treatment Plant. The Niagara Falls Water Treatment Plant is inspected separately from this drinking water system. Permissions/Approvals This drinking water system was subject to specific conditions contained within the following permissions and/or approvals (please note this list is not exhaustive) at the time of the inspection in addition to the requirements of the SDWA and its regulations: - Drinking Water Works Permit (DWWP) 068-201, Issue 4, approved on August 30, 2019. - Municipal Drinking Water Licence (MDWL) 068-101, Issue 5, approved on January 15, 2020. - Consolidated Linear Infrastructure Environmental Compliance Approval (CLI-ECA) 068-W601, Issue 2, approved on June 20, 2023. 7 Page 29 of 111 Page 1158 of 1679 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs Event Number: 1-375142040 NON-COMPLIANCE This should not be construed as a confirmation of full compliance with all potential applicable legal requirements. These inspection findings are limited to the components and/or activities that were assessed, and the legislative framework(s) that were applied. It remains the responsibility of the owner to ensure compliance with all applicable legislative and regulatory requirements. If you have any questions related to this inspection, please contact the signed Provincial Officer. 8 Page 30 of 111 Page 1159 of 1679 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs Event Number: 1-375142040 RECOMMENDATIONS This should not be construed as a confirmation of full conformance with all potential applicable BMPs. These inspection findings are limited to the components and/or activities that were assessed, and the legislative framework(s) that were applied. It remains the responsibility of the owner to ensure compliance with all applicable legislative and regulatory requirements. If you have any questions related to this inspection, please contact the signed Provincial Officer. 9 Page 31 of 111 Page 1160 of 1679 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs Event Number: 1-375142040 Page 6 of 14 INSPECTION DETAILS This section includes all questions that were assessed during the inspection. Ministry Program: DRINKING WATER | Regulated Activity: DW Municipal Residential Question ID DWMR1018001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | 31 | (1); Question: Did the owner ensure that equipment was installed in accordance with Schedule A and Schedule C of the Drinking Water Works Permit? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): The owner ensured that equipment was installed as required. Question ID DWMR1020001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | 31 | (1); Question: Were Form 1 documents prepared as required? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): Form 1 documents were prepared as required. During the inspection period seven Form 1s were reviewed for the following watermain projects: •Montrose Rd, Lyons Creek Rd and Biggar Rd •Jordan Ave, Fern Ave and Marieclaude Ave •Lyons Creek Rd and Reixinger Rd •Stanley Business Park •Waters Ave, Ann St and Richmond Cres •Brown Rd •Ferry St Completed forms appear to meet the requirements of Condition 3 of Schedule B of the DWWP. 10 Page 32 of 111 Page 1161 of 1679 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs Event Number: 1-375142040 Question ID DWMR1025001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | 31 | (1); Question: Were all parts of the drinking water system that came in contact with drinking water disinfected in accordance with a procedure listed in Schedule B of the Drinking Water Works Permit? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): All parts of the drinking water system were disinfected as required. The Ministry's Watermain Disinfection Procedure (WDP) was updated and approved in August 2020. As per Condition 2.3.2, the City of Niagara Falls is required to follow the requirements of the updated Watermain Disinfection Procedure, August 2020. The City's watermain commissioning and watermain repairs documentation met the requirements of the 2020 Ontario Watermain Disinfection Procedure. Question ID DWMR1033001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 7-2 | (3); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 7-2 | (4); Question: Was secondary disinfectant residual tested as required for the large municipal residential distribution system? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): Secondary disinfectant residual was tested as required. The City of Niagara Falls monitors free chlorine residual (FCR) in the distribution system, utilizing the 4/3 option as described in Sched. 7-2(4) of O. Reg. 170/03 (ie. at least 4 samples taken on one day of the week, at least 3 samples taken on a second day of the week, at least 48 hours apart). The City generally samples more locations than required. The minimum FCR concentration recorded during the period was 0.22 mg/L on March 12, 2024. The City flushes three areas of concern two to three times a week. Question ID DWMR1099001 Question Type Information Legislative Requirement(s): Not Applicable Question: Do records show that water provided by the drinking water system met the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards? 11 Page 33 of 111 Page 1162 of 1679 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs Event Number: 1-375142040 Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): Records showed that not all water sample results met the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards. During the inspection period there was one sample result that exceeded the value under O. Reg.169/03 of the Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standard. • November 20, 2023, Total Coliform 1, sample taken at Wally's Auto at 5580 Swayze Drive. All re-samples came back clear. All corrective actions were completed as required. Question ID DWMR1081001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 10-2 | (1); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 10-2 | (2); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 10-2 | (3); Question: Were distribution microbiological sampling requirements prescribed by Schedule 10-2 of O. Reg. 170/03 for large municipal residential systems met? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): Distribution microbiological sampling requirements were met. As per Schedule 10-2 of O. Reg 170/03, the City is required to take a minimum of 100 (8+92) microbiological samples per month. During the inspection period, the City complied with the minimum microbiological sampling requirements. In addition, at least 25% of these samples must also be tested for Heterotrophic Plate Count (HPC). All bacteriological samples were tested for HPC. Question ID DWMR1096001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 6-3 | (1); Question: Did records confirm that chlorine residual tests were conducted at the same time and location as microbiological samples? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): Records confirmed that chlorine residual tests were conducted as required. Question ID DWMR1086001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 13-6.1 | (1); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 13-6.1 | (2); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 13-6.1 | (3); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 13-6.1 | (4); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 13-6.1 | 12 Page 34 of 111 Page 1163 of 1679 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs Event Number: 1-375142040 (5); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 13-6.1 | (6); Question: Were haloacetic acid sampling requirements prescribed by Schedule 13-6 of O. Reg. 170/03 met? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): Haloacetic acid sampling requirements were met. Haloacetic Acid (HAA) samples were collected and tested on a quarterly basis with an annual running average of 8.875 ug/L. The limit for this parameter is 80 μg/L. The City takes samples at two different locations throughout its distribution system, Hydrant 00101 on Stanley Avenue and 8251 Wiloughby Drive. Question ID DWMR1087001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 13-6 | (1); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 13-6 | (2); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 13-6 | (3); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 13-6 | (4); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 13-6 | (5); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 13-6 | (6); Question: Were trihalomethane sampling requirements prescribed by Schedule 13-6 of O. Reg. 170/03 met? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): Trihalomethane sampling requirements were met. Trihalomethane (THM) samples were collected and tested on a quarterly basis with an annual running average of 31.75 ug/L. Question ID DWMR1094001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | 31 | (1); Question: Were water quality sampling requirements imposed by the Municipal Drinking Water Licence and Drinking Water Works Permit met? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): Water quality sampling requirements were met. Condition 1 of Schedule D of Issue 5 of MDWL 068-101 allows the City of Niagara Falls to take less lead samples than would be required by Schedule 15.1 of O. Reg. 170/03. However, the City is required to make every reasonable effort to ensure samples taken in accordance with Table 1 are within areas identified in the Niagara Falls Distribution System Lead Sampling Map, dated July 24, 2014. 13 Page 35 of 111 Page 1164 of 1679 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs Event Number: 1-375142040 The City is required to take the following samples during every lead sampling session: • Number of Sampling Points in Plumbing that Serves Private Residences: 20 • Number of Sampling Points in Plumbing that Does Not Serve Private Residences: 2 • Number of Sampling Points in Distribution System: 4 All water quality monitoring requirements were being met. Question ID DWMR1104001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 16-6 | (1); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 16-6 | (2); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 16-6 | (3); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 16-6 | (3.1); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 16-6 | (3.2); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 16-6 | (4); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 16-6 | (5); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 16-6 | (6); Question: Were immediate verbal notification requirements for adverse water quality incidents met? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): Immediate verbal notification requirements for adverse water quality incidents were met. Question ID DWMR1101001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 17-1; SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 17-10 | (1); SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 17-11; SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 17-12; SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 17-13; SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 17-14; SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 17-2; SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 17-3; SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 17-4; SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 17-5; SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 17-6; SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 17-9; Question: For large municipal residential systems, were corrective actions, including any steps directed by the Medical Officer of Health, taken to address adverse conditions? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): Corrective actions were taken to address adverse conditions. Question ID DWMR1103001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 15.1-10; Question: Were corrective actions as directed by the Medical Officer of Health taken by the owner and operating authority to address exceedances of the lead standard in plumbing? 14 Page 36 of 111 Page 1165 of 1679 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs Event Number: 1-375142040 Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): Corrective actions were taken as directed by the Medical Officer of Health. Question ID DWMR1114001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | 31 | (1); Question: Did the owner have evidence that, when required, all legal owners associated with the drinking water system were notified of the requirements of the Municipal Drinking Water Licence and Drinking Water Works Permit? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): The owner had evidence that the required notifications were made. Question ID DWMR1045001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | 31 | (1); Question: Did the owner update the document describing the distribution components within 12 months of completion of alterations to the system in accordance with the Drinking Water Works Permit? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): The owner had up-to-date documents describing the distribution components. Question ID DWMR1060001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | 31 | (1); Question: Did the operations and maintenance manual(s) meet the requirements of the Municipal Drinking Water Licence? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): The operations and maintenance manual(s) met the requirements of the Municipal Drinking Water Licence. 15 Page 37 of 111 Page 1166 of 1679 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs Event Number: 1-375142040 Question ID DWMR1062001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | O. Reg. 170/03 | 7-5; Question: Did records or other record keeping mechanisms confirm that operational testing not performed by continuous monitoring equipment was done by a certified operator, water quality analyst, or person who met the requirements of Schedule 7-5 of O. Reg. 170/03? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): Records or other record keeping mechanisms confirmed that operational testing not performed by continuous monitoring equipment was done by a certified operator, water quality analyst, or person who met the requirements of Schedule 7-5 of O. Reg. 170/03. The City moved to electronic logs on January 1, 2023, utilizing (Cartegraph OMS) where all operator reports, and main break reports are directly entered into the City's database. All records are associated to the City's assets and tasks have been created and time stamped when an operator has completed the task. While reviewing the non-watermain break operator reports, there were 3 instances of negative flushing duration times for hydrants noted. In all 3 cases, the end flushing times were entered electronically as an "am" time instead of "pm" – creating the discrepancy and negative flushing times, this was confirmed by the operators to the Operations Supervisor and Overall Responsible Operator (ORO). The City has requested their IT Division mitigate this issue to prevent future occurrences. No further actions are required. Question ID DWMR1071001 Question Type BMP Legislative Requirement(s): Not Applicable Question: Did the owner provide security measures to protect components of the drinking water system? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): The owner provided security measures to protect components of the drinking water system. The City has two bulk filling stations, one located on Stanley Ave across from the Public Works building and one at the corner of Stanley Ave and Chippawa Parkway. Both stations are locked with access codes and the area is monitored using security cameras. The stations are also equipped with backflow devices and are tested annually, the devices were last calibrated/tested on May 1, 2024, and November 6, 2023, respectively. Question ID DWMR1073001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | O. Reg. 128/04 | 23 | (1); 16 Page 38 of 111 Page 1167 of 1679 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs Event Number: 1-375142040 Question: Was an overall responsible operator designated for all subsystems which comprise the drinking water system? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): An overall responsible operator was designated for all subsystem. Niagara Falls Distribution System (DS) is classified as a Class 2 DS which received License #1445 on July 18, 2005. The designated ORO is Michael Pullano, who holds a valid Class 2 license, expiring May 31, 2027. Jonathan Danyluck has been designated as the backup ORO, who holds a valid Class 2 license, expiring September 30, 2024. Question ID DWMR1074001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | O. Reg. 128/04 | 25 | (1); Question: Were operators-in-charge designated for all subsystems which comprise the drinking water system? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): Operators-in-charge were designated for all subsystems. Question ID DWMR1075001 Question Type Legislative Legislative Requirement(s): SDWA | O. Reg. 128/04 | 22; Question: Were all operators certified as required? Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): All operators were certified as required. A search of the Ontario Water Wastewater Certification Office (OWWCO) operator listing report website showed that all operators have the required certification. Question ID DWMR1117001 Question Type Information Legislative Requirement(s): Not Applicable Question: Were there any other items related to the drinking water system that should be recognized in the report? 17 Page 39 of 111 Page 1168 of 1679 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Ministère de l'Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des Parcs Event Number: 1-375142040 Compliance Response(s)/Corrective Action(s)/Observation(s): The following items were noted as being relevant to the drinking water system: As part of the 2023 Internal and External Audit, it was suggested the City of Niagara Falls add a sample location to represent the Northwest area of the City. As a result, the City of Niagara Falls has started to utilize the sample station located across the road from 84 Concession 6 Road, Niagara-on-the-lake. The sample station is 450 meters from the City of Niagara Falls transition meter and is part of the Bevan Heights Distribution System. Niagara-on-the-Lake operators collect weekly chlorine residual and biweekly microbiological samples from this station, sample results are provided to the City of Niagara Falls on a monthly basis. The City of Niagara Falls has been receiving monthly samples from this station since January 2024. 18 Page 40 of 111 Page 1169 of 1679    Appendix A Stakeholder Appendix 19 Page 41 of 111 Page 1170 of 1679 Key Reference and Guidance Material for Municipal Residential Drinking Water Systems Many useful materials are available to help you operate your drinking water system. Below is a list of key materials owners and operators of municipal residential drinking water systems frequently use. To access these materials online click on their titles in the table below or use your web browser to search for their titles. Contact the Public Information Centre if you need assistance or have questions at 1-800-565-4923/416-325-4000 or picemail.moe@ontario.ca. For more information on Ontario’s drinking water visit www.ontario.ca/drinkingwater and email drinking.water@ontario.ca to subscribe to drinking water news. PIBS 8990b01 ontario.ca/drinkingwater PUBLICATION TITLE PUBLICATION NUMBER Taking Care of Your Drinking Water: A Guide for Members of Municipal Councils 7889e01 FORMS: Drinking Water System Profile Information, Laboratory Services Notification, Adverse Test Result Notification Form 7419e, 5387e, 4444e Procedure for Disinfection of Drinking Water in Ontario 4448e01 Strategies for Minimizing the Disinfection Products Trihalomethanes and Haloacetic Acids 7152e Total Trihalomethane (TTHM) Reporting Requirements Technical Bulletin (February 2011)8215e Filtration Processes Technical Bulletin 7467 Ultraviolet Disinfection Technical Bulletin 7685 Guide for Applying for Drinking Water Works Permit Amendments, Licence Amendments, Licence Renewals and New System Applications 7014e01 Certification Guide for Operators and Water Quality Analysts Guide to Drinking Water Operator Training Requirements 9802e Taking Samples for the Community Lead Testing Program 6560e01 Community Sampling and Testing for Lead: Standard and Reduced Sampling and Eligibility for Exemption 7423e Guide: Requesting Regulatory Relief from Lead Sampling Requirements 6610 Drinking Water System Contact List 7128e Technical Support Document for Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards 4449e01 March 2015 20 Page 42 of 111 Page 1171 of 1679 Principaux guides et documents de référence sur les réseaux résidentiels municipaux d’eau potable De nombreux documents utiles peuvent vous aider à exploiter votre réseau d’eau potable. Vous trouverez ci-après une liste de documents que les propriétaires et exploitants de réseaux résidentiels municipaux d’eau potable utilisent fréquemment. Pour accéder à ces documents en ligne, cliquez sur leur titre dans le tableau ci-dessous ou faites une recherche à l’aide de votre navigateur Web. Communiquez avec le Centre d’information au public au 1 800 565-4923 ou au 416 325-4000, ou encore à picemail.moe@ontario.ca si vous avez des questions ou besoin d’aide. PIBS 8990b01 ontario.ca/eaupotable Pour plus de renseignements sur l’eau potable en Ontario, consultez le site www.ontario.ca/ eaupotable ou envoyez un courriel à drinking.water@ontario.ca pour suivre l’information sur l’eau potable. TITRE DE LA PUBLICATION NUMÉRO DE PUBLICATION Prendre soin de votre eau potable – Un guide destiné aux membres des conseils municipaux 7889f01 Renseignements sur le profil du réseau d’eau potable, Avis de demande de services de laboratoire, Formulaire de communication de résultats d’analyse insatisfaisants et du règlement des problèmes 7419f, 5387f, 4444f Marche à suivre pour désinfecter l’eau potable en Ontario 4448f01 Strategies for Minimizing the Disinfection Products Thrihalomethanes and Haloacetic Acids (en anglais seulement)7152e Total Trihalomethane (TTHM) Reporting Requirements: Technical Bulletin (février 2011) (en anglais seulement)8215e Filtration Processes Technical Bulletin (en anglais seulement)7467 Ultraviolet Disinfection Technical Bulletin (en anglais seulement)7685 Guide de présentation d’une demande de modification du permis d’aménagement de station de production d’eau potable, de modification du permis de réseau municipal d’eau potable, de renouvellement du permis de réseau municipal d’eau potable et de permis pour un nouveau réseau 7014f01 Guide sur l’accréditation des exploitants de réseaux d’eau potable et des analystes de la qualité de l’eau de réseaux d’eau potable Guide sur les exigences relatives à la formation des exploitants de réseaux d’eau potable 9802f Prélèvement d’échantillons dans le cadre du programme d’analyse de la teneur en plomb de l’eau dans les collectivités 6560f01 Échantillonnage et analyse du plomb dans les collectivités : échantillonnage normalisé ou réduit et admissibilité à l’exemption 7423f Guide: Requesting Regulatory Relief from Lead Sampling Requirements (en anglais seulement)6610 Liste des personnes-ressources du réseau d’eau potable 7128f Document d’aide technique pour les normes, directives et objectifs associés à la qualité de l’eau potable en Ontario 4449f01 Mars 2015 21 Page 43 of 111 Page 1172 of 1679    Appendix B Inspection Rating Record (IRR) 22 Page 44 of 111 Page 1173 of 1679 APPLICATION OF THE RISK METHODOLOGY USED FOR MEASURING MUNICIPAL RESIDENTIAL DRINKING WATER SYSTEM INSPECTION RESULTS The Ministry of the Environment (MOE) has a rigorous and comprehensive inspection program for municipal residential drinking water systems (MRDWS). Its objective is to determine the compliance of MRDWS with requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act and associated regulations. It is the responsibility of the municipal residential drinking water system owner to ensure their drinking water systems are in compliance with all applicable legal requirements. This document describes the risk rating methodology, which has been applied to the findings of the Ministry’s MRDWS inspection results since fiscal year 2008-09. The primary goals of this assessment are to encourage ongoing improvement of these systems and to establish a way to measure this progress. MOE reviews the risk rating methodology every three years. The Ministry’s Municipal Residential Drinking Water Inspection Protocol contains 15 inspection modules consisting of approximately 100 regulatory questions. Those protocol questions are also linked  when conducting MRDWS inspections. PIBS 6797e April 2012 ontario.ca/drinkingwater 23 Page 45 of 111 Page 1174 of 1679 2 APPLICATION OF RISK METHODOLOGY The questions address a wide range of regulatory issues, from administrative procedures to drinking water quality monitoring. The inspection protocol also contains a number of non-regulatory questions. A team of drinking water specialists in the ministry assessed each of the inspection protocol regulatory questions to determine the risk (not complying with the regulation) to the delivery of safe drinking water. This assessment was based on established provincial risk assessment principles, with each question re- ceiving a risk rating referred to as the Question Risk Rating. Based on the number of areas where a system is deemed to be non-compliant during the inspection,  environmental, and health consequences, a risk- based inspection rating is calculated by the ministry for each drinking water system. It is important to be aware that an inspection rating less than 100 per cent does not mean the drinking water from the system is unsafe. It shows areas where a system’s operation can improve. The ministry works with owners and operators of systems to make sure they know what they need to do to achieve full compliance.  - ing year. Since the methodology is applied consis- tently over a period of years, it serves as a compara- tive measure both provincially and in relation to the individual system. Both the drinking water system and the public are able to track the performance over time, which encourages continuous improvement - ing attention. The ministry’s annual inspection program is an im- portant aspect of our drinking water safety net. The ministry and its partners share a common commit- ment to excellence and we continue to work toward the goal of 100 per cent regulatory compliance. Determining Potential to Compromise the Delivery of Safe Water The risk management approach used for MRDWS is aligned with the Government of Ontario’s Risk Management Framework. Risk management is a systematic approach to identifying potential hazards, understanding the likelihood and consequences of the hazards, and taking steps to reduce their risk if necessary and as appropriate. The Risk Management Framework provides a formu- la to be used in the determination of risk: Every regulatory question in the inspection proto- col possesses a likelihood value (L) for an assigned consequence value (C) as described in Table 1 and Table 2. TABLE 1: Likelihood of Consequence Occurring Likelihood Value 0% - 0.99% (Possible but Highly Unlikely)L = 0 1 – 10% (Unlikely)L = 1 11 – 49% (Possible)L = 2 50 – 89% (Likely)L = 3 90 – 100% (Almost Certain)L = 4 TABLE 2: Consequence Consequence Value Medium Administrative Consequence C = 1 Major Administrative Consequence C = 2 Minor Environmental Consequence C = 3 Minor Health Consequence C = 4 Medium Environmental Consequence C = 5 Major Environmental Consequence C = 6 Medium Health Consequence C = 7 Major Health Consequence C = 8 RISK = LIKELIHOOD × CONSEQUENCE (of the consequence) 24 Page 46 of 111 Page 1175 of 1679 3APPLICATION OF RISK METHODOLOGY The consequence values (0 through 8) are selected to align with other risk-based programs and projects currently under development or in use within the ministry as outlined in Table 2. The Question Risk Rating for each regulatory in- spection question is derived from an evaluation of - ing likelihood of occurrence: All levels of consequence are evaluated for their potential to occur Greatest of all the combinations is selected. TABLE 3: Does the Operator in Charge ensure that the equipment and processes are monitored, inspected and evaluated? Risk = Likelihood × Consequence C=1 C=2 C=3 C=4 C=5 C=6 C=7 C=8 Medium Administrative Consequence Major Administrative Consequence Minor Environmental Consequence Minor Health Consequence Medium Environmental Consequence Major Environmental Consequence Medium Health Consequence Major Health Consequence L=4 (Almost Certain) L=1 (Unlikely L=2 (Possible) L=3 (Likely) L=3 (Likely) L=1 (Unlikely L=3 (Likely) L=2 (Possible) R=4 R=2 R=6 R=12 R=15 R=6 R=21 R=16 Application of the Methodology to Inspection Results         non-compliance of each question relative to the others. Questions with higher values are those with        water safety and a higher likelihood of occurrence. The highest possible value would be 32 (4×8) and the lowest would be 0 (0×1). Table 3 presents a sample question showing the risk rating determination process. Based on the results of a MRDWS inspection, an overall inspection risk rating is calculated. During an inspection, inspectors answer the questions related to regulatory compliance and input their “yes”, “no” or “not applicable” responses into the Ministry’s Laboratory and Waterworks Inspection System (LWIS) database. A “no” response indicates non- compliance. The maximum number of regulatory questions asked by an inspector varies by: system (i.e., distribution, stand-alone); type of inspection (i.e., focused, detailed); and source type (i.e., groundwater, surface water). The risk ratings of all non-compliant answers are summed and divided by the sum of the risk ratings of all questions asked (maximum question rating). The resulting inspection risk rating (as a percentage)  inspection rating. 25 Page 47 of 111 Page 1176 of 1679 4 APPLICATION OF RISK METHODOLOGY 1. Source 2. Permit to Take Water 3. Capacity Assessment 4. Treatment Processes 5. Treatment Process Monitoring 6. Process Wastewater 7. Distribution System 8. Operations Manuals 9. Logbooks 10. Contingency and Emergency Planning 11. Consumer Relations 12. Certification and Training 13. Water Quality Monitoring 14. Reporting, Notification and Corrective Actions 15. Other Inspection Findings For further information, please visit www.ontario.ca/drinkingwater Figure 1: Year Over Year Distribution of MRDWS Ratings Reporting Results to MRDWS Owners/Operators  is generated in the form of an Inspection Rating  15 possible modules of the inspection protocol, 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 YEAR A YEAR B YEAR C YEAR D YEAR E 100% Rating NUMBER OF INSPECTION RATINGS>95% to 100%>90% to 95%>85% to 90%>50% to 80%>80% to 85% 512 538 572 586 585 137 117 92 77 75 18 13 5 7 7 12 16 8 12 9 33 26 22 18 17 233 281 349 344 406 279 257 223 242 179 5% RATING BANDING BY YEAR which would provide the system owner/operator with information on the areas where they need to improve. The 15 modules are: Application of the Methodology for Public Reporting The individual MRDWS Total Inspection Ratings are published with the ministry’s Chief Drinking Water Inspector’s Annual Report. Figure 1 presents the distribution of MRDWS rat- ings for a sample of annual inspections. Individual drinking water systems can compare against all the other inspected facilities over a period of inspection years. 26 Page 48 of 111 Page 1177 of 1679 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks - Inspection Summary Rating Record (Reporting Year - 2024-25) DWS Name:City of Niagara Falls Distribution System DWS Number:260002304 DWS Owner:CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Municipal Location:NIAGARA FALLS Regulation:O.REG. 170/03 DWS Category:DW Municipal Residential Type of Inspection:Focused Compliance Assessment Start Date:Jun-10-2024 Ministry Office:Niagara District Office Maximum Risk Rating:234 Inspection Module Non Compliance Risk (X out of Y) Certification and Training 0/28 Distribution System 0/4 Logbooks 0/14 Operations Manuals 0/14 Reporting & Corrective Actions 0/63 Treatment Processes 0/60 Water Quality Monitoring 0/51 Overall - Calculated 0/234 Inspection Risk Rating: 0.00% Final Inspection Rating: 100.00% Inspection Rating Record Generated On 2024-06-24 (Inspection ID: 1-375142040) 27 Page 49 of 111Page 1178 of 1679 Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks - Detailed Inspection Rating Record (Reporting Year - 2024-25) DWS Name:City of Niagara Falls Distribution System DWS Number:260002304 DWS Owner Name:CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS Municipal Location:NIAGARA FALLS Regulation:O.REG. 170/03 DWS Category:DW Municipal Residential Type of Inspection:Focused Compliance Assessment Start Date:Jun-10-2024 Ministry Office:Niagara District Office All legislative requirements were met. No detailed rating scores. Maximum Question Rating:234 Inspection Risk Rating:0.00% FINAL INSPECTION RATING:100.00% Inspection Rating Record Generated On 2024-06-24 (Inspection ID: 1-375142040) 28 Page 50 of 111Page 1179 of 1679 Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls 3200 Stanley Avenue Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6S4 CAN C0122263 Audit Type Surveillance Audit Auditor James Pang Standard Ontario's Drinking Water Quality Management Standard Version 2 (Exp Date: 06-OCT-2026) Audit Date(s): 07/03/2024 - 07/04/2024 Recommendation Ontario's Drinking Water Quality Management Standard Version 2 : Continue Certification (No NCRs) 29 Page 51 of 111 Page 1180 of 1679 NSF International Strategic Registrations | www.nsf-isr.org 7/15/2024 2 | 6 Executive Summary Ontario's Drinking Water Quality Management Standard Version 2 The QMS rep was diligent in the maintenance of this DWQMS. Opportunities Ontario's Drinking Water Quality Management Standard Version 2 Two OFIs Corrective Action Requests There is NO Corrective Action Request in this audit. Site Information The audit was based on a sampling of the company's management system. Industry Codes NACE:E 41 Scope of Registration Ontario's Drinking Water Quality Management Standard Version 2 : City of Niagara Falls Drinking Water System, 068-OA1, Entire Full Scope Accreditation 30 Page 52 of 111 Page 1181 of 1679 NSF International Strategic Registrations | www.nsf-isr.org 7/15/2024 3 | 6 Opportunities for Improvements Ontario's Drinking Water Quality Management Standard Version 2 Opportunity Observations / Auditor Notes Opportunities for Improvements (DWQMS)-01 Location of OFI Management Review; Discussed With Jessica Blanchard and Ryan O'Donnell ; Description Reviewed the minutes of management review held on Feb 6, 2024. All the prescribed agenda items were addressed. The Top Management, the GM of Municipal Works was in attendance. Noted that the OFI from 2023 external audit "consider to document the new action items together with their respective timelines and responsible parties" was visible in this record. As an improvement to the record of future management reviews, the management concerned should consider to include the period reviewed.; Opportunities for Improvements (DWQMS)-02 Location of OFI Continual Improvement; Discussed With Jessica Blanchard and Ryan O'Donnell ; Description Reviewed a tabulation of continual improvements of the QMS with 33 items listed of which 4 were for 2024 to be in general conformance. Lessons learned from the emergency exercise held on Nov 16, 2023 should be included in this table because they are also improvements to the emergency preparedness of the QMS. ; General Information Operating Authority: Legal Name & Address Corporation of the City of Nagara Falls, 4310 Queen Street, Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Language Preference: Correspondence English Language Preference: Audit English Owner: Legal Name and Address Corporation of the City of Nagara Falls, 4310 Queen Street, Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 Owner Language Preference: Correspondence English Owner Language Preference: Audit English Applicant Representative Information; Include Name, Title, Phone, Fax, Email & Website Jessica Blanchard Compliance Program Manager City of Niagara Falls,(905) 356-7521 ext. 6209 Fax 905-356-6460 jblanchard@niagarafalls.c a Accreditation Option Full Scope - Entire DWQMS Date of Previous Systems Audit:May 10 & 11, 2022 Date of Previous On-Site Verification Audit:July 28 to 31, 2023 31 Page 53 of 111 Page 1182 of 1679 NSF International Strategic Registrations | www.nsf-isr.org 7/15/2024 Processes Ontario's Drinking Water Quality Management Standard Version 2 Process Name Observations / Auditor Notes Processes or Activities (DWQMS)-01 Describe whether the process is effective or not (effectiveness should be supported with specific data/records/results). Include strengths & weaknesses of process: Conforming elements reviewed are as below: Element 3 - Reviewed minutes of Council Resolution approving the OP on March 19, 2024 submitted by the Top Management (General Manager, Municipal Works) and the CAO. Element 4 - The Department of Municipal Works Water & Wastewater Services Coordinator has been appointed as the Quality Management System Representative for the City of Niagara Falls QMS. Element 7 - Noted from the Continual Improvement Initiative table that the OFI from the 2023 external audit had been accepted and action to be undertaken in the 2026. The last Risk Assessment was carried out on July 6, 2023. It was undertaken by more than the minimum personnel required by the management, which is a good thing. Record of what transpired were well documented. Element 8 - Reviewed the only AWQI case #164067 for the last 12 months. Records of reporting and resolution were in order. Element 14 - Noted that the 2023 external audit OFI, "to date the record of infrastructure review" was carried out as per new record of infrastructure review dated October 13, 2023. Element 15 - The improvement requested in the 2023 external audit OFI was noted to be in progress. Reviewed a draft 2025 10 year forecast, from 2025 to 2035. The proposed waterman replacements were identifiable to the the road names. Element 16 - Noted that the OA was implementing the OFI raised during the 2023 external audit. They were obtaining micro samples from the neighboring municipality Niagara-on-the- Lake. They planned to continue obtaining these samples as a representation of this area of their system on a monthly or bi-monthly basis moving forward, to mirror our system sampling schedules.Element 17 - Noted that checks had been performed on all components of the City's measuring and recording equipment (including supplies). This will be followed up during the next onsite audit. Element 18 - Reviewed a record of an emergency exercise held on Nov 16, 2023, participated by 10 staff members. It was noted that the number of staff involved had increased from 6 to 10. Lessons learned were documented, and followed up with evidence. Element 19 - Reviewed records as contained in an internal audit report dated Dec 22, 2023, prepared by Acclaims Environmental for their audit conducted on December 13 and 18, 2023 to be generally conformance. All the 21 elements were reviewed. Objective evidence were recorded for each requirement. The auditors were independent of the DWS activities. The period of review by the audit was clearly identified. Element 20 - Reviewed the minutes of management review held on Feb 6, 2024. All the prescribed agenda items were addressed. The Top Management, the GM of Municipal Works was in attendance. Noted that the OFI from 2023 external audit "consider to document the new action items together with their respective timelines and responsible parties" was visible in this record. As an improvement to the record of future management reviews, the management concerned should consider to include the period reviewed.; 32 Page 54 of 111 Page 1183 of 1679 NSF International Strategic Registrations | www.nsf-isr.org 7/15/2024 Summary of Findings Requirement Finding 1. Quality Management System N/A 2. Quality Management System Policy N/A 3. Commitment and Endorsement C 4. Quality Management System Representative C 5. Document and Record Control N/A 6. Drinking-Water System N/A 7. Risk Assessment C 8. Risk Assessment Outcomes C 9. Organizational Structure, Roles, Responsibilities, and Authorities N/A 10. Competencies N/A 11. Personnel Coverage N/A 12. Communications N/A 13. Essential Supplies and Services N/A 14. Review and Provision of Infrastructure C 15. Infrastructure Maintenance, Rehabilitation & Renewal C 16. Sampling, Testing & Monitoring C 17. Measurement & Recording Equipment, Calibration & Maintenance N/A 18. Emergency Management C 19. Internal Audits C 20. Management Review OFI 21. Continual Improvement OFI Mj Major Non-Conformity. The auditor has determined one of the following:(a) a required element of the DWQMS has not been incorporated into a QMS: (b) a systemic problem with a QMS is evidenced by two or more minor conformities; or (c) a minor non-conformity identified in a corrective action request has not been remedied. Mn Minor Non-Conformity. In the opinion of the auditor, part of a required element of the DWQMS has not been incorporated satisfactorily into a QMS. OFI Opportunity for Improvement. Conforms to requirement, but there is opportunity for improvement. C Conforms to requirement. Not Applicable to this audit *Additional Comment added by auditor in the body of the report. 33 Page 55 of 111 Page 1184 of 1679 NSF International Strategic Registrations | www.nsf-isr.org 7/15/2024 Verification of CARs For Ontario's Drinking Water Quality Management Standard Version 2 Have you verified the effectiveness of all previous CARs? (List all new CAR's that you initiated in this report because you did not verify effective implementation of a previous CAR) N/A. Discuss your evaluation in detail. No CAR from the previous audit. 34 Page 56 of 111 Page 1185 of 1679 Drinking Water Quality Management Standard (DWQMS 2.0) Internal Audit Report For the period of: December 19, 2023 to December 6, 2024 For: City of Niagara Falls Water & Wastewater Services City of Niagara Falls Distribution System Conducted by: acclaims.ca Audit dates: December 5-6, 2024 Report date: December 7, 2024 35 Page 57 of 111 Page 1186 of 1679 Contents 0.1 Subject System Description Form 1.0 Audit Details 1.1 Organization information 1.2 Audit information 1.3 Audit objectives, constraints and confidentiality 1.4 Audit plan 1.5 Documented information included in scope 1.6 Previous audit findings 2.0 Audit Summary 2.1 Positive audit findings 2.2 Non-conformities 2.3 Opportunities for improvement 2.4 Conclusions 3.0 Checklists 3.1 DWQMS 3.2 Process audit 4.0 Auditor CV’s and Training Certificates 36 Page 58 of 111 Page 1187 of 1679 1.0 AUDIT DETAILS 1.1 Organization information Owner name City of Niagara Falls Owner mailing address 3200 Stanley Ave., Niagara Falls, ON, L2E6S5 DWS class(es) and name(s) e.g. Class I “x” Water Distribution System or Class II “x” Drinking Water System ☒ Completed Subject System Description Form included Niagara Falls Distribution System, Class II MDWL – 068-101, Issue 6 DWWP – 068-201, Issue 5 Population served 92069 Operating authority (OA) City of Niagara Falls ## of staff: 40 OA mailing address 3200 Stanley Ave., Niagara Falls, ON, L2E6S5 OA physical site address 3200 Stanley Ave., Niagara Falls, ON, L2E6S5 Primary contact name Jessica Blanchard Phone no. Primary contact e-mail jblanchard@niagarafalls.ca Secondary contact name Ryan O’Donnell Phone no. Secondary contact e-mail rodonnell@niagarafalls.ca 1.2 Audit information Standards / criteria used Drinking Water Quality Management Standard (DWQMS 2.0) ISO 19011:2018 – Guidelines for auditing management systems Dates of previous audit December 13 and 18, 2023 Dates of this year’s audit December 5-6, 2024 Lead auditor Janine deBoer Audit team member(s) NA Time period covered in scope December 19, 2023 – December 6, 2024 DWS’s in audit scope As noted above and in the completed Subject System Description Form. 37 Page 59 of 111 Page 1188 of 1679 1.3 Audit objectives, constraints and confidentiality To confirm that the organization’s quality management system (QMS) is effectively implemented, achieving its intended outcomes, conforming to requirements of the DWQMS 2.0, and meeting QMS policy commitments throughout. In order to conduct audits within scope, time and budgetary constraints, audit evidence is based on a sampling of processes, programs, and information available. The size of the sample selected is appropriate to the size and scale of the operation and information available. Objective evidence collected is based upon the sampling. The conclusions presented in the audit report are based on information presented during the internal audit. Information gathered by the audit team is the property of the client only and will not be transmitted to any third party without the prior written consent of an authorized representative. All documents provided by the organization prior to and during the assessment are kept only for the purpose of audit review and audit report preparation. 1.4 Audit plan Based on the drinking water system information provided in section 1.0, the following activities form part of the audit: 1. Desktop review (reviewing conformity of documented information (see s.1.5) against the DWQMS 2.0 requirements) 2. QMS audit interviews for processes and programs listed below, as applicable (“NA” is placed for topics not covered): MM-DD Time Auditee Process / Program (DWQMS elements covered in brackets) 12-06 8:00 ALL Opening meeting (El. 1, 19, 21) 12-06 8:15 MP W/WW Services ORO (El. 2, 5, 6-13, 15-18, 21) 12-06 9:00 EN Top Management’s responsibilities (El. 2-3, 7-9, 12-14, 18, 20-21) 12-06 10:00 PT Distribution sampling (El. 2, 5-13, 15-18, 21) 12-06 11:00 CS Distribution maintenance (El. 2, 5-13, 15-18, 21) 12-06 12:30 SWB Management (El. 2, 5, 6-13, 15-18, 21) 12-06 13:00 RO DWQMS Coordinator (El. 2, 4-10, 12-13, 18-21) 12-06 13:30 JB QMS Representative’s responsibilities (El. 2, 4-10, 12-13, 18-21) 12-06 14:30 ALL Closing meeting (El. 1, 19, 21) Legend for QMS Elements: 1-Quality Management System, 2-Quality Management System Policy, 3-Commitment and Endorsement, 4-QMS Representative, 5- Records Control, and Document 6-System, Drinking Water 7-Risk Assessment, 8-Risk Outcomes, Assessment 9-Organizational Structure, Roles, Responsibilities and Authorities, 10-Competencies, 11-Personnel Coverage, 12-Communications, 13-Essential Supplies and Services, 14-Review Infrastructure, of Provision and 15-Renewal, and Infrastructure Maintenance, Rehabilitation 16-Monitoring, and Testing Sampling, 17-Measurement and Recording Equipment Calibration and Maintenance, 18-Emergency Management, 19-Internal Audits, 20-Management Review, 21-Continual Improvement MP – Mike Pullano, EN – Erik Nickel, PT – Paul Tanasi, CS – Chris Scott, SWB – Savannah Wells-Bisson, RO – Ryan O’Donnell, JB – Jessica Blanchard Process audits examine the resources (equipment, materials and people) used to transform the inputs into outputs, the methods (procedures and instructions) followed, and the measures collected to determine process performance. Process audits check the adequacy and effectiveness of the controls established by procedures, work instructions, training and specifications. 38 Page 60 of 111 Page 1189 of 1679 1.5 Documented information included in scope Documented information Reference (Doc. name, section, date and/or version) 1. Operational Plan (OP) MW-WWW-DWS-09-001-001, February 2024 1.1. Website location re: OP available to public: Reviewed www.niagarafalls.ca. Reference to the OP is posted on the site. 2. QMS Policy statement MW-WWW-DWS-VIS-001-001 Water & Wastewater Services Mission Statement 2.1. Website location where QMS Policy is available: Posted on www.niagarafalls.ca. 3. Endorsement records Included as part of the OP 3.1. Top Management OP endorsement record Endorsement Clause, June 2024 3.2. Owner OP endorsement record Endorsement Clause, June 2024 4. QMS Representative identified Included in the OP 5. Document & Records Control procedure MW-WWW-DWS-PRO-002-001 DWQMS Control of Documents, December 2022, rev.10 MW-WWW-DWS-PRO-003-001 - Record Control, December 2022, rev.10 MW-WWW-DWS-LM-002-001 - DWQMS Document Control Matrix, rev.17 MW-WWW-DWS-LM-003-001 DWQMS Record Control matrix - rev 9 6. Drinking Water System description Included in OP MW-WWW-DWS-VIS-001-002 Niagara Falls DWS Map 7. Risk Assessment procedure MW-WWW-DWS-PRO-004-001 DWQMS Risk Assessment, December 2022, rev.10 2024 Risk Assessment, W&WW Services, October 16, 2024 8. Risk Assessment Outcomes records 2024 Risk Assessment Results, 2024-10-16 on MW- WWW-DWS-FRM-004-001 DWQMS Risk Assessment Matrix MW-WWW-DWS-SOP-011-001 Watermain Break Repair, June 2022, rev.11 MW-WWW-DWS-SOP-012-004 Chlorine Residual Sampling, September 2022, rev.7 9. Org. Structure, Roles, Responsibilities, Authorities Org Chart is included as Figure 9.1 in OP MW-WWW-DWS-LM-005-001 DWQMS Roles, Responsibilities & Authorities December 2022, rev.7 10. Competencies procedure MW-WWW-DWS-PRO-006-001 DWQMS Competencies and Training, December 2022, rev.7 MW-WWW-DWS-LM-006-001 DWQMS Competencies Matrix, December 2022, rev.6 10.1 List of current certified operators MW-WWW-DWS-LM-007-001 Certified Drinking Water System Personnel, rev.10 11. Personnel Coverage procedure MW-WWW-DWS-PRO-007-001 DWQMS Personnel Coverage, December 2022, rev11 39 Page 61 of 111 Page 1190 of 1679 MW-WWW-DWS-LM-007-002 DWS On-Call Schedule, rev.13 12. Communications procedure MW-WWW-DWS-PRO-008-001 DWQMS Communications, December 2022, rev.9 12.1 Sample of comms: Owner, Suppliers, Public, Staff Viewed various examples 13. Essential Supplies and Services procedure MW-WWW-DWS-PRO-009-001 DWQMS Essential Supplies and Services, December 2022, rev.8 MW-WWW-DWS-LM-009-001 List of Essential Supplies and Services, rev.12 14. Review & Provision of Infrastructure procedure MW-WWW-DWS-PRO-010-001 DWQMS Review and Provision of Infrastructure, December 2022, rev.10 2024 Infrastructure Review, October 25, 2024 October 25, 2024 Infrastructure Review Areas of Concern 14.1 Infrastructure Review reported to Owner Will go to Council with Annual Report in February 15. Infrastructure Maintenance, Rehabilitation & Renewal Included in OP, Table 15.1 DWS Infrastructure Maintenance Programs and Table 15.2 Rehabilitation and Renewal Programs 15.1 Infra. Maintenance programs reported to Owner Will go to Council with Annual Report in February 16. Sampling, Testing and Monitoring procedure MW-WWW-DWS-PRO-012-001 DWQMS Sampling, Testing and Monitoring, February 2024, rev.10 MW-WWW-DWS-SOP-012-001 Adverse Water Quality Incident Reporting, December 2022, rev.8 16.1 Sampling program plan / schedule MW-ES-DWS-VIS-012-005 Sampling Schedule 2024 17. Meas. & Recording Equip. Calibration & Maintenance MW-WWW-DWS-PRO-013-001 DWQMS Measurement and Recording Equipment Calibration and Maintenance, September 2022, rev.10 17.1 List of measurement equipment & records Chlorine Meter List 2024 Certificate of Verification of Equipment Accuracy for various analyzers. Date January 30, 2024 18. Emergency Management procedure MW-WWW-DWS-PRO-014-001 Emergency Management, December 2022, rev.9 MW-WWW-DWS-MAN-014-001 Niagara Falls Emergency Response Procedures Manual for Drinking Water MW-WWW-DWS-SOP-014-001 - Boil Water and Do Not Use Water Advisory, September 2022, rev 9 18.1 Emergency records: training, test, debrief, OFI link Emergency Response Training Minutes, November 21, 2024 Cyber Security Presentation 19. Internal Audits procedure MW-WWW-DWS-PRO-015-001 DWQMS Internal Auditing, December 2022, Rev.11 19.1 External audits: MECP Inspection + Accreditation MECP Inspection – June 24, 2024 EA - NSF, July 3-4, 2024 19.2 Previous internal audit report Acclaims, December 22, 2023 20 Management Review procedure MW-WWW-DWS-PRO-016-001 DWQMS Management Review, December 2022, rev.10 40 Page 62 of 111 Page 1191 of 1679 20.1 Latest Management Review minutes February 6, 2024 20.2 Last Management Review report to owner March 19, 2024 21 Continual Improvement procedure MW-WWW-DWS-PRO-017-001 DWQMS Preventive & Corrective Action, December 2022, rev.9 21.1 Continual improvement tracking / status updates DWQMS Continual Improvement Initiatives 1.6 Previous audit findings Previous audit type Details (e.g. dates of last inspection or audit, report date, audit organization name) MECP Inspection June 24, 2024 (no findings) External Audit (EA) July 3-4, 2024 Internal Audit (IA) December 22, 2023 Source (MECP, EA, IA) NC* or OFI? High-level summary of finding Status Update *NC stands for “non-compliance” for MECP inspections; and “non-conformity” for external and internal audits. EA OFI Include the period reviewed in the Management Review Report To be included in the next MR EA OFI Including the lessons learned from emergency exercises in the continual improvement log Being considered IA OFI Add document ID and date to the Quality Policy Not going to be done IA OFI Consider a formal commitment and endorsement clause Will be reviewed during next update IA OFI Add revision dates to documents Not going to be considered at this time IA OFI Consider adding reference to procedures for maintaining residuals in Element 6 References added to 6.1 under General IA OFI Identifying back up equipment for critical tasks Being considered IA OFI Changes to the recording of 36-month vs. annual risk assessment Added to 2024 risk assessment IA OFI Remove reference to date of last risk assessment from the OP Updated section 8.0 of the OP IA OFI Consolidating risk assessment outcomes by grouping similar items Being considered IA OFI Setting CCL’s higher than regulatory limits CHECK ON THIS ONE 41 Page 63 of 111 Page 1192 of 1679 Source (MECP, EA, IA) NC* or OFI? High-level summary of finding Status Update IA OFI Add DWQMS as an agenda item for monthly tailgate meetings Being considered IA OFI DWQMS training for all positions in the OP In progress IA OFI Adding positions identified as directly affecting drinking water in the org chart In progress IA OFI Create a procedure for the notifications required if using ESO Being considered IA OFI Formal communication process between the city, Region and other local municipalities In progress IA OFI QMS rep attend pre-con meetings to deliver DWQMS requirements Being considered IA OFI Communicate with the owner the findings of infrastructure review Was reported to council IA OFI Use data in Cartegraph to evaluate the effectiveness of infrastructure maintenance In progress IA OFI Updating sampling reference to the Watermain Disinfection Procedure Procedure was updated IA OFI Add recovery to all emergency response procedures Being considered IA OFI Add BMP’s to management review Being considered IA OFI Updates to the CAR/PAR procedures Being considered 42 Page 64 of 111 Page 1193 of 1679 2.0 AUDIT SUMMARY 2.1 Positive audit findings The following positive audit findings were noted during the audit: Category Description of positive finding Commitment Staff interviewed were knowledgeable about their processes and programs and their roles’ impacts on achieving the commitments included in the QMS Policy. All staff interviewed felt they had the support from management and resources they needed to carry out their jobs well. In addition, Top Management shows commitment to being available to staff by working out of the service centre on a regular basis. Culture of continual improvement Consistently throughout the audit, improvements were noted with regards to achieving intended outcomes of drinking water system processes and programs. All opportunities for improvement identified in the previous internal and external audits have been verified as completed or are in progress. Risk Assessment Reviewing the Risk Assessment and Risk Assessment Outcomes showed a in-depth knowledge of the process by all staff involved. 2.2 Non-conformities No non-conformities were noted during the audit. 2.3 Opportunities for improvement The following is a list of opportunities for improvement noted in conducting this audit: Category Description of opportunity for improvement Element 2 – Quality Policy Consider adding a review of the Mission Statement to Management Review and include the revision date on the document. Element 5 – Document Control Consider adding document control to the Bulk Filling Station records and the Sample Location documents. Consider updating the Drinking Water Quality section of the website and the Communication procedure as they currently reference CGSB as the accreditation body for DWQMS. Consider removing the reference to Appendices that aren’t part of the OP document. The procedures can be referenced as stand-alone documents. Element 9 – Org. Structure Consider adding the new DWQMS position to the Org Chart and the Roles, Responsibilities and Authorities Document. Element 10 – Competencies Consider getting staff tours of the Region water plants. Element 11 – Personnel Coverage Consider an on-call rotation with operations staff. Element 11 requires a procedure to ensure competent staff are available for duties that directly impact the drinking water system. Element 13 – Essential Supplies Consider reviewing the procedure for the annual vendor performance. It currently states that it will be completed and recorded annually. 43 Page 65 of 111 Page 1194 of 1679 Category Description of opportunity for improvement Element 15 – Infrastructure Renewal Consider starting a water meter exchange program for large water meters. If these were on a regular rotation it could help water loss. Element 16 - Calibrations Consider requiring the company that performs the calibrations on the chlorine kits to put calibration stickers on the instruments. Element 16 - Verification Consider creating a program for quarterly verifications of the portable chlorine analyzers. Element 18 – AWQI Consider adding information on adverse water quality incidents that would fall under 16.4 of Schedule 16 of O.Reg. 170/03 (ie. Low pressure incidents) and Total Coliforms to the Adverse Reporting Procedure. Element 20 – Management Review Consider adding a report of the items in Table 15.1 of the OP to the Operational Control section of Management Review. Element 21 – Continual Improvement Consider including the Action Items from the Risk Assessment, Infrastructure Review, Emergency Drills and Management Review to the Continual Improvement Initiatives List. Element 21 – BMP’s Consider updating the Continual Improvement procedure to better describe how BMP’s are considered. Staff Suggestion – Service Centre Numerous staff voiced the concern about the service centre not meeting the requirements of staff. This could be considered for a future capital improvement project. Staff Suggestion – Areas of Concern Report Staff indicated that for the Infrastructure Review Report for the Areas of Concern – jobs are not always prioritized as the way they listed in the Report. 2.4 Conclusions The results of this audit confirm that the quality management system (QMS) established is: - effectively implemented, - achieving its intended outcomes, - conforming to the requirements of the DWQMS 2.0, and - meeting QMS policy commitments throughout. Brigitte Roth, BES, EP(EMSLA) Janine deBoer 44 Page 66 of 111 Page 1195 of 1679 3.1 DWQMS CHECKLIST Summary of DWQMS 2.0 Requirement (Condition Expected) Evaluation: Y/NA/NC/OFI 1. PLAN The OP documents a QMS that meets the requirements of the DWQMS. Y DO The OA has established and maintains the QMS in accordance with the DWQMS requirements and the OP’s policies and procedures. Y Director’s Directions for OP’s are met, including: Y − single OP for DWS(s) with same owner / operating authority Y − version numbers and/or revision date(s) Y − OP title describes municipal DWS(s) Y − completed Subject System Description form Y − audited OP’s retained for a minimum of 10 years Y − OP available to public (hard copy or on website) OFI 2. PLAN The OP documents a QMS Policy that provides the foundation for the QMS and includes the required commitments, to: Y a) maintain & continually improve the QMS, Y b) provide safe drinking water to the consumer, and Y c) comply with applicable legislation and regulations. Y QMS Policy is communicated to all OA personnel, the owner, and the public. Y DO The QMS established and maintained consistently meets QMS Policy commitments. Y 3. PLAN The OP contains a written endorsement of its contents by top management – and – the owner. Y Confirmed current member(s) of top management and current owner have endorsed the OP. Y DO There is evidence of top management commitment to an effective QMS by: Y a) ensuring that a QMS is in place that meets the requirements of the DWQMS, Y b) ensuring the OA is aware of all applicable legislative and regulatory requirements, Y c) communicating the QMS according to the procedure for communications, and Y d) determining, obtaining and providing the resources needed to maintain and continually improve the QMS. Y 4. PLAN The OP identifies a QMS Representative. Y DO Top management has appointed and authorized a QMS Representative who, irrespective of other responsibilities: Y 45 Page 67 of 111 Page 1196 of 1679 Summary of DWQMS 2.0 Requirement (Condition Expected) Evaluation: Y/NA/NC/OFI a) administers the QMS by ensuring processes and procedures needed for the QMS are established and maintained, Y b) reports to top management on the performance of the QMS and any need for improvement, Y c) ensures that current versions of documents required by the QMS are being used at all times, Y d) ensures that personnel are aware of all applicable legislative and regulatory requirements that pertain to their duties for the operation of the Subject System, and Y e) promotes awareness of the QMS throughout the OA. Y 5. PLAN The OP documents a procedure for document and records control that describes how: Y a) Documents required by the QMS are: i. kept current, legible and readily identifiable, OFI ii. retrievable, Y iii. stored, protected, retained and disposed of, and Y b) Records required by the QMS are: i. kept legible and readily identifiable, Y ii. retrievable, Y iii. stored, protected, retained and disposed of Y DO The OA has implemented and conforms to the procedure for document and records control and ensures QMS documentation includes: Y a) the OP and its associated policies and procedures, Y b) documents and records determined by the OA as being needed to ensure the effective planning, operation and control of its ops, and Y c) the results of internal and external audits and management reviews. Y Audit notes, findings and recommendations (Elements 1-5) 1 – all required information is included in the OP. The subject system description form is complete. Information on the OP is available at www.niagarafalls.ca. Accessed on December 1, 2024 OFI – consider updating the Drinking Water Quality section of the website as it currently references CGSB as the accreditation body for DWQMS. 2 – The quality policy requirements are included in the Water & Wastewater Services Mission Statement. This is posted at www.niagarafalls.ca. Accessed on December 1, 2024 OFI – Consider adding a review of the Mission Statement to Management Review and include the revision date on the document. 3 – Reviewed minutes of the March 21, 2023 Council meeting which indicated that all members of Council endorsed the Operational Plan. Included an updated Endorsement Clause that is to be added to the next revision of the OP. 4 – The QMS Rep is the Water & Wastewater Services Coordinator. Currently this role is filled by Jessica Blanchard. 5 – Documents and records reviewed were 46 Page 68 of 111 Page 1197 of 1679 Summary of DWQMS 2.0 Requirement (Condition Expected) Evaluation: Y/NA/NC/OFI OFI – Consider removing the reference to Appendices that aren’t actually part of the OP document. The procedures can be referenced as stand-alone documents. 6. PLAN The OP documents a DWS description, as applicable: a) for the subject system: Y i. the name of the owner and operating authority, Y ii. if the system incl. equip. that provides primary disinfection and/or secondary disinfection: NA A. a description of the system including all applicable treatment system processes and distribution system components, NA B. a treatment system process flow chart, NA C. a description of the water source, including: NA I. general characteristics of the raw water supply, NA II. common event-driven fluctuations, and NA III. any resulting operational challenges and threats. NA iii. If the syst. does not incl. equip that provides primary disinfection or secondary disinfection: Y A. a description of the system including all distribution system components, and Y B. a description of any procedures that are in place to maintain disinfection residuals. Y b) if the subject system is an operational subsystem, a summary description of the municipal residential DWS is a part of incl. the name of the OA’s for the other operational subsystems NA c) if the subject system is connected to one or more other DWS’s owned by different owners, a summary description of those systems which: Y i. indicates whether the subject system obtains water from or supplies water to those syst’s, Y ii. names the owner and operating authority(ies) of those systems, and Y iii. identifies which, if any, of those systems that the subject system obtains water from are relied upon to ensure the provision of safe drinking water. Y DO The OA ensures that the DWS description is kept current. Y 7. PLAN The OP documents a risk assessment process that: Y a) considers potential hazardous events / assoc. hazards as ID’d in MECP’s Potential Hazardous Events for Municipal Residential DWS’s, Y b) identifies additional potential hazardous events and associated hazards, Y c) assesses the risks associated with the occurrence of hazardous events, Y d) ranks the hazardous events according to the associated risk, Y e) identifies control measures to address the potential hazards and hazardous events, Y 47 Page 69 of 111 Page 1198 of 1679 Summary of DWQMS 2.0 Requirement (Condition Expected) Evaluation: Y/NA/NC/OFI f) identifies critical control points, Y g) ID’s a method to verify, at least once every calendar year, the currency of the info + validity of the assumptions used in the risk assessment, OFI h) ensures that the risks are assessed at least once every thirty-six months, and Y i) considers the reliability and redundancy of equipment. NA DO The OA performs a risk assessment consistent with the documented process Y 8. PLAN The OP documents risk assessment outcomes that includes: Y a) the identified potential hazardous events and associated hazards, Y b) the assessed risks associated with the occurrence of hazardous events, Y c) the ranked hazardous events, Y d) the identified control measures to address the potential hazards and hazardous events, Y e) the identified critical control points and their respective critical control limits, OFI f) procedures and/or processes to monitor the critical control limits, Y g) procedures to respond to deviations from the critical control limits, and Y h) procedures for reporting and recording deviations from the critical control limits. Y DO The OA has implemented and conforms to the procedures. Y Audit notes, findings and recommendations (Elements 6-8) 6 - the drinking water system includes information on the water supply system (Niagara Falls WTP) and a list of procedures that are used to maintain good water quality. 7 – The 2024 Risk assessment was completed on October 16, 2024 and included 9 staff members. This was an annual review. The 36-month review was completed in 2023. The risk assessment review is thorough and well documented. OFI – Consider including the Action Items from the Risk Assessment to the Continual Improvement Initiatives List. 8 – DWQMS Risk Assessment Matrix lists numerous CCP’s. Reviewed SOP’s that are referenced in the chart including Chlorine Residual Sampling and Watermain Break Repair. NOTE: REVIEW SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT AREN’T LISTED AS CCP BUT ARE OVER THE LIMIT OF 18 (#22 AS AN EXAMPLE AND DISCUSS WHERE THE LIMITS ARE RECORDED. 9. PLAN OP documents the OA’s organizational structure and roles, responsibilities, authorities and: Y a) describes the org. structure of the OA incl. respective roles, responsibilities and authorities, Y b) delineates corporate oversight roles, responsibilities and authorities in the case where the OA operates multiple subject systems, NA c) identifies the person, persons or group of people w/in the mgmt. structure of the organization responsible for undertaking the management review described in El. 20, Y 48 Page 70 of 111 Page 1199 of 1679 Summary of DWQMS 2.0 Requirement (Condition Expected) Evaluation: Y/NA/NC/OFI d) identifies the person, persons or group of people, having top management responsibilities required by the DWQMS, along with their responsibilities, and Y e) identifies the owner of the subject system. Y DO The OA keeps the above current and communicates this information to OA personnel and owner. OFI 10. PLAN The OP documents competencies, including Y a) competencies required for personnel performing duties directly affecting drinking water quality, Y b) activities to develop and/or maintain competencies for personnel performing duties directly affecting drinking water quality, and Y c) activities to ensure that personnel are aware of the relevance of their duties and how they affect safe drinking water. Y DO The OA undertakes activities to Y a) meet and maintain competencies for personnel directly affecting drinking water quality and maintain records of these activities, and Y b) ensure that personnel are aware of the relevance of their duties and how they affect safe drinking water and maintain records of these activities. Y 11. PLAN The OP documents a procedure to ensure that sufficient personnel meeting identified competencies are available for duties that directly affect drinking water quality. Y DO The OA has implemented and conforms to the procedure. Y 12. PLAN The OP documents a procedure for communications that describes how the relevant aspects of the QMS are communicated between top management and Y a) the owner, Y b) OA personnel, Y c) suppliers that have been identified as “essential” under DWQMS El. 13, and OFI d) the public. Y DO The OA has implemented and conforms to the procedure. Y Audit notes, findings and recommendations (Elements 9-12) 9 – Reviewed Org chart and roles, responsibility and authorities. Numerous roles are listed and duties are complete. The ORO is declared through a memo signed by Erik (Top Management) OFI – consider adding the new DWQMS position to the Org Chart and the Roles, Responsibilities and Authorities Document. 10 – Training and competencies are recorded and tracked by the Water & Wastewater Services Coordinator. PT – WD1, 90899, exp. 09/30/27 CS – WD2, 73566, exp. 02/28/26 MP – WD2, 50210, exp. 31/05/27 49 Page 71 of 111 Page 1200 of 1679 Summary of DWQMS 2.0 Requirement (Condition Expected) Evaluation: Y/NA/NC/OFI Reviewed training records for staff. Anyone with upcoming renewals have enough hours. 11-Reviewed on-call schedule. Supervisors are on-call during winter months. 12-Reviewed Communication procedure and examples of communication between each of the groups including staff, other municipalities, the Owner and the Public. OFI – Consider updating the Accreditation Body. It is no longer CGSB (see OFI above) 13. PLAN OP identifies all supplies and services essential for the delivery of safe drinking water, and: Y a) …states for each supply or service, the means to ensure its procurement, and Y b) includes a procedure by which the OA ensures the quality of essential supplies and services, in as much as they may affect drinking water quality. OFI DO The OA has implemented and conforms to the procedure. Y 14. PLAN The OP documents a procedure for reviewing the adequacy of the infrastructure necessary to operate and maintain the subject system that Y a) considers the outcomes of the risk assessment documented under El. 8, and Y b) ensures that the adequacy of the infrastructure necessary to operate and maintain the subject system is reviewed at least once every calendar year. OFI DO The OA has implemented and conforms to the procedure and communicates findings to the owner. Y 15. PLAN The OP documents: Y a) a summary of the OA’s infrastructure maintenance, rehabilitation and renewal programs for the subject system, and Y b) a long-term forecast of major infrastructure maintenance, rehabilitation and renewal activities. Y DO The OA a) keeps the summary of infrastructure maintenance, rehabilitation + renewal programs current, Y b) ensures that the long-term forecast is reviewed at least once every calendar year, Y c) communicates the programs to the owner, and Y d) monitors the effectiveness of the maintenance program. Y Audit notes, findings and recommendations (Elements 13-15) 13-Reviewed Essential Supplies List. Essential providers are listed along with minimum and maximum inventory. OFI – Consider reviewing the procedure for the annual vendor performance. It currently states that it will be completed and recorded annually. 14-Reviewed Infrastructure Review minutes and tracking sheet. Review was complete and identified actions to be taken. Numerous staff members attended the meeting as recorded in the minutes. OFI – Consider adding the Action Items from the Infrastructure Review meeting to the Continual Improvement Initiatives List 15-The OP Table 15-1 lists the DWS Infrastructure Maintenance Programs along with related SOP’s. 50 Page 72 of 111 Page 1201 of 1679 Summary of DWQMS 2.0 Requirement (Condition Expected) Evaluation: Y/NA/NC/OFI OFI – see EN 16. PLAN The OP documents a sampling, testing and monitoring procedure for process control and finished drinking water quality Y a) including requirements for the sampling, testing and monitoring at the conditions most challenging to the subject system Y b) a description of relevant sampling, testing or monitoring activities, if any, that take place upstream of the subject system, and OFI c) a procedure that describes how sampling, testing and monitoring results are recorded and shared between the OA and the owner, where applicable. Y DO The OA has implemented and conforms to the procedure. Y 17. PLAN The OP documents a procedure for the calibration and maintenance of measurement and recording equipment. Y DO The OA has implemented and conforms to the procedure. OFI 18. PLAN The OP documents a procedure to maintain a state of emergency preparedness, including: Y a) a list of potential emergency situations or service interruptions, Y b) processes for emergency response and recovery, Y c) emergency response training and testing requirements, OFI d) owner and OA responsibilities during emergency situations, Y e) references to municipal emergency planning measures as appropriate, and Y f) an emergency communication protocol and an up-to-date list of emergency contacts. Y DO The OA has implemented and conforms to the procedure. Y 19. PLAN The OP documents a procedure for internal audits that: Y a) evaluates conformity of the QMS with the requirements of the DWQMS, Y b) identifies internal audit criteria, frequency, scope, methodology and record-keeping req’ts, Y c) considers previous internal and external audit results, and Y d) describes how QMS corrective actions are identified and initiated. Y DO The OA has implemented and conforms to the procedure and ensures internal audits are conducted at least once every calendar year. Y Audit notes, findings and recommendations (Elements 16-19) 16-reviewed Sampling, Testing and Monitoring procedure and associated SOP’s including testing for chlorine residual, micro sampling, THM and Lead sampling. 51 Page 73 of 111 Page 1202 of 1679 Summary of DWQMS 2.0 Requirement (Condition Expected) Evaluation: Y/NA/NC/OFI OFI – consider adding information on adverse water quality incidents that would fall under 16.4 of Schedule 16 of O.Reg. 170/03 (ie. Low pressure incidents) and Total Coliforms. 17-reviewed list of analyzers and calibration records. Verifications were completed on January 30, 2024. OFI – Consider creating a program for quarterly verifications of the portable chlorine analyzers and stickers. 18-Reviewed Emergency Management program and it lists numerous emergency situations including Watermain Break Repair, Boil Water and Do Not Use Water Advisory and Suspected Backflow or Cross Contamination. An emergency test was completed on November 21, 2024 with Cyber Security as the topic. There were some follow up actions identified from the test. OFI – Consider recording the action items from the emergency drills on the Continual Improvement Initiatives List 19-The last internal audit was completed by Acclaims Environmental on December 22, 2023. There were no non-compliances and numerous OFI’s that have all been responded to. The last MECP Inspection report was dated June 24, 2024, there were no findings in this report. The last External Audit was completed on July 3-4, 2024, there were 2 OFI’s identified in the report which have been responded. 20. PLAN The OP documents a procedure for management review that evaluates the continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the QMS and that includes consideration of items a) to p) The following is a briefing from the last Management Review Meeting summarizing high-level notes recorded: a) incidents of regulatory non-compliance, There were no incidents of regulatory non-compliance but there were 2 OFI’s b) incidents of adverse drinking water tests, There were 2 AWQI’s reported both for TC. c) deviations from CCL’s and response actions, None reported d) the effectiveness of the risk assessment process, Reviewed process. Added a risk due to perceived threats from social media posts. e) internal and third-party audit results, Reviewed the OFI’s from both audits. No NC’s identified f) results of emergency response testing, How to respond to AWQI’s and responding to a substantial watermain break g) operational performance, Reviewed watermain breaks. h) raw water supply and DW quality trends, Obtain information from the Region i) follow-up action items from prev. mgmt. reviews Reviewed outstanding items from the previous management review. Numerous items are still ongoing j) status of mgmt action items ID’d between reviews, None identified 52 Page 74 of 111 Page 1203 of 1679 k) changes that could affect the QMS, Considered such items as Lead MAC decrease, Chippawa Water Plant intake shift, tentative decommissioning of Lundy’s Lane Elevated Tank and potential for upgrading system classification to III l) consumer feedback, Water complaints remain low m) the resources needed to maintain the QMS, Use of an external company for the internal audit n) the results of the infrastructure review, Reviewed results. Creating an Areas of Concern list to be sent to Council o) OP currency, content and updates, and Made some minor changes and these changes to be sent to Council in March 2024 p) staff suggestions. Reviewed 5 staff suggestions. Summary of DWQMS 2.0 Requirement (Condition Expected) Evaluation: Y/NA/NC/OFI DO Top management has implemented and conforms to the procedure and: Y a) ensured that a management review is conducted at least once every calendar year, Y b) considers the results of the management review and identified deficiencies and action items to address the deficiencies, OFI c) provided a record of any decisions and action items related to the management review including the personnel responsible for delivering the action items and the proposed timelines for their implementation, and Y d) reported the results of the management review, the identified deficiencies, decisions and action items to the owner. Y Summary of DWQMS 2.0 Requirement (Condition Expected) Evaluation: Y/NA/NC/OFI 21. PLAN The OA has developed a procedure for tracking and measuring continual improvement of its QMS by Y a) reviewing and considering applicable BMP’s, incl. any published by the Ministry at least once every thirty-six months, OFI b) documenting a process for identification + mgmt. of QMS corrective actions that includes: Y i. investigating the cause(s) of an identified non-conformity (NC), Y ii. documenting actions that will be taken to correct the NC + prevent it from recurring Y 53 Page 75 of 111 Page 1204 of 1679 iii. reviewing actions taken to correct the NC, verifying that they are implemented and are effective in correcting and preventing the re-occurrence of the NC. Y c) documenting a process for identifying and implementing preventive actions to eliminate the occurrence of potential non-conformities in the QMS that includes: Y i. reviewing potential NC’s that are identified to determine if preventive actions may be necessary, Y ii. documenting the outcome of the review, incl. actions if any that will be taken to prevent a non-conformity from occurring, and Y iii. reviewing the actions taken to prevent a non-conformity, verifying that they are implemented and are effective in preventing the occurrence of the non-conformity. Y DO The OA has continually improved the effectiveness of tis QMS by implementing and conforming to the procedure. Y Audit notes, findings and recommendations (Elements 20-21) 20-Reviewed Management Review minutes and Council Report. All items were covered including an extra section titled positives/best management practices. OFI – Consider adding information to the Operational Performance section of Management Review including hydrant flushing program and valve program. 21 – Reviewed the continual improvement spreadsheet. Items from Internal and External Audits are included on the list along with staff suggestions. OFI – Consider updating the Continual Improvement procedure to better describe how BMP’s are considered 54 Page 76 of 111 Page 1205 of 1679 Process: W/WW Supervisor (ORO) Auditee(s): Mike Pullano Audit Date: December 6, 2024, 8:15 1.0 Who? (s. 2, 10) -WD2/WWC2 -grade 12 -management training (Niagara College offers a leadership program) -experience in the system (5 years) -CEU training, OTJ training -Quality Policy – provide safe drinking water -Currently the ORO 4.0 Process Under Control? (s. 5, 17) -signing authority for the certificate renewals. Forms come from Compliance Department -hydrant flushing – pump out black ring hydrants in the winter (300 approximately). All hydrants are flushed annually (or try to). Map on Cartegraph to track the ones that are getting done. -if deficiencies are discovered then it will be recorded in the flushing work order and it will get sent to a supervisor to create a new work order. -continually maintaining the distribution -valve maintenance – goal for next year to make the program better. Recently purchased a new valve turner. Infrastructure maintenance requirements are listed in Table 15.1 of the OP. OFI – Consider adding a report of the items in Table 15.1 of the OP to the Operational Control section of Management Review. 6.0 Adequate Resources? (s. 3, 11, 13-15) -more staffing would help with some of the routine maintenance which would mean more equipment, bigger facility -parts for repairs are typically not an issue. Have a small inventory on site. Have a stockroom. -informal agreements with other local municipalities. Emergency after hours contacts. -2 vacant positions currently 2.0 Process Input? (s. 3, 4, 14, 15) -review the night before via email -who called in sick, vacation -coordinate work that is required (if emergency situations occur would go check on them) -review schedule in the morning with other supervisors. -Outlook calendar for upcoming planned work then into OMS for the work orders - 7.0 Output? (s. 5) -Logbook using Cartegraph OMS, OIC hours are tracked here - 3.0 Measured? (s. 8, 12, 16) -hydrant flushing -hydrant repairs -emergency work (watermain breaks, service repairs, watermain tapping) -Capital works projects -planned repair work 5.0 What If Out-of-Control? (s. 7-8, 12, 18) -large watermain break in a major intersection, the public will notify us. Foreman called to report it. Went to site. Major intersection would call 911 as required. Safety is the most important. Emergency locates, call out a crew, could delegate as required. Determine if a contractor is required. Send out a Main Break Alert (email list with all required contacts) and on website. Review maps to determine how to shutdown the area, record issues. Start digging and make repairs. Sample as required. -For AWQI – call SAC, MOH, treatment plant -cross-contamination 8.0 Interested parties? (s. 12, 20) -public, personally, management, co-workers -no complaints 9.0 Evidence of Continual Improvement? (s. 21) -new DWQMS coordinator and WW/SW compliance analyst plus 2 new sampling positions SS-Infrastructure review (areas of concerns) – jobs are not always prioritized as the way they listed in the Infrastructure Review Report 55 Page 77 of 111Page 1206 of 1679 Process: Top Management Auditee(s): Erik Nickel, General Manager Municipal Works/City Engineer Audit Date: December 6, 2024, 9:00 1.0 Who? (s. 2, 10) -background in Engineering -Management skills, financial knowledge -big part of the role is working with Council and CAO, hiring management roles and downward. -Ensuring that all departments work together and how this fit together -planning for the future -stakeholder relationships including the Region, hydro, railway, highway. -City Engineer was a new role in 2019 4.0 Process Under Control? (s. 5, 17) POS-shows up to the operations centre to meet with staff weekly. -Top Management – signing the applicable documents, ensuring that resources, policies are in compliance. Advocate for staff for required resources (Training, equipment, staff, DWQMS program). Ensuring continuous improvement is happening. Management Review Meeting – key in on areas that are new or improving. May make suggestions for things that are happening in other areas. Capital Budgets Asset Management Plan – has a list of items that need to be addressed but the funding is not always available. As system gets older costs for maintaining the system increase. Backflow Prevention – currently in the planning process 6.0 Adequate Resources? (s. 3, 11, 13-15) -there has been talk of amalgamation, but this probably will not happen -challenging time to be able to balance growth and the resources to deal with this expansion (assuming new infrastructure). Some of the costs will still fall to the municipality. It is like walking a tightrope. -concerns with sustainability for the future 2.0 Process Input? (s. 3, 4, 14, 15) -dealing with customer complaints, from council -dealing with why things aren’t getting done as required -participate in leadership teams -active in engineering department -Stakeholder work, BIA’s, OPG -strategy work 7.0 Output? (s. 5) -council reports -asset management -Master Servicing Plan and Wet Weather Management Plan in second PIC (75%) 3.0 Measured? (s. 8, 12, 16) -Region has done a growth forecast. NF growth forecast is more aggressive. There has been agreement on a plan but there are still discussions that need. For instance, Marineland has a lot of property that could be redeveloped that would have some. 5.0 What If Out-of-Control? (s. 7-8, 12, 18) -role in emergency situations, would be involved in the formal EOC. For situations that impact public health, communicating to council (link with Operations). -activated for major snowstorms 8.0 Interested parties? (s. 12, 20) -personally, council, customers, MECP 9.0 Evidence of Continual Improvement? (s. 21) -added resources to DWQMS -day-to-day operations/customer service is top notch. -taking a leadership role in asset management, community of practice to talk about level of service. Operational data and using it for making decisions. SS – the service centre needs to be updated. Doesn’t meet the requirements of staff. 56 Page 78 of 111Page 1207 of 1679 Process: Water Sampling Auditee(s): Paul Tanasi, W/WW System Tech Audit Date: December 6, 2024, 10:00 1.0 Who? (s. 2, 10) -knowing how the system works, adverse limits, familiar with sampling techniques -relaying information to the public -WD2, chemical engineering technology -need CEU’s. Confined space, first aid, Book 7 -Quality Policy – reliable, dependent, clean and safe water, continuous improvement 4.0 Process Under Control? (s. 5, 17) -sampling locations, will help find new locations or the sample tap isn’t appropriate anymore. List of sampling locations. -28 sample locations a week -Lead sampling – no corrosion plan, on reduced sampling and regulatory relief (20 residences, 2 non-residences, 4 distribution). Take the distribution sample first, then in the system. pH and temperature. pH meter is calibrated pre-use. -chain of custody – ensure they are filled out, send to lab and filed by compliance. Can review results if interested. -Critical Users List (MW-WWW-DWS-LM-014-002, rev.20) 6.0 Adequate Resources? (s. 3, 11, 13-15) -enough resources, lots of knowledgeable people to help as required. 2.0 Process Input? (s. 3, 4, 14, 15) -procedure and sampling calendar -Chain of custody forms OFI – consider adding document control to the Bulk Filling Station records and the Sample Location documents. 7.0 Output? (s. 5) -Cartegraph OMS -Chain of custody 3.0 Measured? (s. 8, 12, 16) -THM/HAA, micro sampling, distribution chlorine (Tuesday/Friday, will move with holidays) -sampling ponds for suspended solids -Chlorine kit #20, no calibration sticker but report says that it was calibrated on January 20, 2024 OFI – consider requiring the company that performs the calibrations on the chlorine kits to put calibration stickers on the instruments. -Free PP – Lot A3284, exp.10/28 -reviewed sampling schedule and CofC’s. 5.0 What If Out-of-Control? (s. 7-8, 12, 18) -low chlorine – ensure that the sample is representative, inform compliance, flush the main. Would call SAC, MOH, critical users list -Emergency drill – who to call if there was supply issues. -could be part of the adverse response -if a sample is missed would record as cancel on Cartegraph and report to compliance 8.0 Interested parties? (s. 12, 20) -residents, management, co-workers, mom -no trouble, no sickness 9.0 Evidence of Continual Improvement? (s. 21) -sample ponds, valve turning -new positions for compliance SS – consider getting staff tours of the Region water plants -finding locations for lead sampling is a challenge. 57 Page 79 of 111Page 1208 of 1679 Process: Distribution Auditee(s): Chris Scott, USO Audit Date: December 6, 2024 1.0 Who? (s. 2, 10) -WD1, DZ license, experience in the system -24 years with the city -CEU hours, constant training. -some safety training, confined space, monthly safety training -Quality Policy – clean, safe drinking water 4.0 Process Under Control? (s. 5, 17) -hydrant repair – work order created in Cartegraph for the work. Unless it is an emergency repair then would just select whatever one. Order parts from Emco. -hydrant flushing – post repair flushing as required. Recorded in Cartegraph -valve repairs and maintenance -acting supervisor for vacations or in the winter. -dealing with customers as they come -Reviewed Cartegraph 6.0 Adequate Resources? (s. 3, 11, 13-15) -enough resources to do a good. 2.0 Process Input? (s. 3, 4, 14, 15) -assigned work by supervisor (shift supervisor does the assigning for things that happen off hours) -no on-call schedule but always a shift supervisor. In the winter there is a supervisor on call. OFI – Consider an on-call rotation with operations staff. Element 11 requires a procedure to ensure competent staff are available for duties that directly impact the drinking water system. 7.0 Output? (s. 5) -cartegraph 3.0 Measured? (s. 8, 12, 16) - 5.0 What If Out-of-Control? (s. 7-8, 12, 18) -watermain – shut down water, be mindful of critical users. Shutdown road, locates. Sampling may be required for these. -low chlorine – keep flushing, if still low then call supervisor. -low pressure – fire department are made aware of main breaks -OnCall deals with locating. 8.0 Interested parties? (s. 12, 20) -public, management -equipment works 9.0 Evidence of Continual Improvement? (s. 21) -always capital works projects ongoing -lead on leak detection program -could use a new service centre. 58 Page 80 of 111Page 1209 of 1679 Process: Manager Auditee(s): Savannah Wells-Bisson, Acting Manager W/WW Audit Date: December 6, 2024 1.0 Who? (s. 2, 10) -experience managing staff -experience writing report, liaising with council, public, contractors, union staff, union matters -health and safety concerns -OIT in water - 4.0 Process Under Control? (s. 5, 17) -for work that is still to be completed there is a data technician to review the jobs in the system and would send a report to the appropriate supervisor for follow-up. Would review the reports and follow up as required. -budgeting – run operations budget. Not many capital projects in Operations group. Review ops budget with supervisor to make sure that everything is appropriate. Materials are available. 6.0 Adequate Resources? (s. 3, 11, 13-15) -enough resources. Going through level of service review which may affect staffing requirements 2.0 Process Input? (s. 3, 4, 14, 15) -check with staff, look at assignments in work order system. -Council complaints, concerns, communication with public for high level issues. 7.0 Output? (s. 5) -council reports 3.0 Measured? (s. 8, 12, 16) 5.0 What If Out-of-Control? (s. 7-8, 12, 18) -staff will loop her for emergencies and would link to upper management and council 8.0 Interested parties? (s. 12, 20) -personally, other management, other staff, council, public -performing at personal expected levels, being told I’m doing a good. 9.0 Evidence of Continual Improvement? (s. 21) -Compliance group increased -reporting structure for maintenance management system, staff feeling more empowered. -Building is not functional for the staffing and vehicles SS-start a water meter exchange program for large water meters. Put it on a regular rotation to help with water loss. Currently a pilot project. 59 Page 81 of 111Page 1210 of 1679 DWQMS 2024 Management Review Date: Monday February 3, 2025 Time: 1:00 pm – 3:00 pm In attendance: James Sticca, Savannah Wells-Bisson, Jessica Blanchard, Mike Pullano, Ryan O’Donnell Regrets: Erik Nickel Minutes from Agenda Items 1. Incidents of regulatory non-compliance ▪ 0 - resulting in a final inspection rating of 100% and an inspection risk rating of 0% ▪ MECP Inspection took place from June 10 to June 18, 2024, and covered the record period of June 1, 2024, to May 31, 2024. ▪ Was a focused inspection ▪ 0 OFI’s recommended 2. Incidents of adverse drinking-water tests ▪ 1 for the distribution system (Under O. Reg. 170) – microbiological (due to sampling or lab error, considering FCR at time of sample) o October 28, 2024 – 1 total coliform from sample at 6838 Morrison Street (Animal Medical Centre) – with a FCR of 0.44 mg/L. Flush and re-sample yielded satisfactory results. 3. Deviations from critical control point limits and response actions ▪ None during this management period 4. Efficacy of the risk assessment process ▪ All risks introduced during the annual Infrastructure Review ▪ New Risk: Source water protection added to the matrix. ▪ Niagara Region Risks were consolidated as many of the Regions Controlled Risks shared similar CCPs and mitigation measures, and therefore were grouped into one) ▪ Update to the Lundy’s Lane Tank relocation provided during the Infrastructure Review: o the preferred site for the new larger elevated tank has been chosen and acquiring the land is in progress. However, the design has not yet started, so likely decommissioning of the current tank will not begin until post 2026. 5. Third-party and Internal audit reports: THIRD PARTY (ACCREDITATION AUDIT) - PERFORMED BY NSF - JULY 3, 2024 & JULY 4, 2024, which covered the period of July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024 ▪ 2023 was a surveillance audit. The City’s Certificate of Registration is valid until October 6, 2026 ▪ Zero non-conformances noted. Two OFI’s (and actions taken/considered) from the audit are as follows: 60 Page 82 of 111 Page 1211 of 1679 Management Review currently consists of items which occurred during the previous calendar year and therefore is simply titled "2023 (or whatever year) Management Review". To consider stating exact time frame which the Review covers on the title page, for ease of auditing – COMPLETE - "JANUARY 1 THROUGH TO AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 31, 2024” ADDED ON THE 2024 MANAGEMENT REIVEW TITLE PAGE AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE PRESENT ON ALL FUTURE MANAGEMENT REVIEW TITLE PAGES Consider adding any staff ACTION items which improve emergency preparedness (resulting from the Emergency Management Review) to the continual improvement initiatives– COMPLETE – FITTING ACTION ITEMS FROM 2024 EMERGENCY RESPONSE TESTING ADDED TO THE CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT INTIATIVE TRACKING DOCUMENT INTERNAL AUDIT - PERFORMED BY ACCLAIMS ENVIRONMENTAL - DECEMBER 5 & 6, 2024, which covered the period of December 19, 2023, to December 6, 2024 ▪ Zero non-conformances noted in both. Several OFI’s (and actions taken/considered) from the audit are as follows: Consider adding a review of the Mission Statement to Management Review and include the revision date on the document. – COMPLETE – REVISION 4 – JANUARY 2025 OF THE MISSION STATEMENTS INCLUDES THIS Consider adding document control to the Bulk Filling Station records and the Sample Location documents. – BEING CONSIDERED UPON NEXT FULSOME SOP AND SLP UPDATE Consider updating the Drinking Water Quality section of the website and the Communication procedure as they currently reference CGSB as the accreditation body for DWQMS. – COMPLETE – WEBSITE ADJUSTED – NOW INDICATES NSF AS THE ACCREDITIATION BODY Consider removing the reference to Appendices that aren’t part of the OP document. The procedures can be referenced as stand-alone documents. – COMPLETE – APPENDICIES AND REFERENCE TO THEM REMOVED FROM REVISION 9 (2025) OF THE OPERATIONAL PLAN ▪ ACTION: Jessica to investigate placing all SOP’s and SLP’s (now standalone documents) referenced in the Ops Plan in the shared Council portal in Teams – as to limit the length of the Annual Report to Council (which formerly included all appendices noted in the Ops Plan), yet still making them available to those Council members who wish to review them. Consider adding the new DWQMS position to the Org Chart and the Roles, Responsibilities and Authorities Document. – IN PROGRESS – ORG PLAN UPDATED IN REVISION 9 (2025) OF THE OPERATIONAL PLAN, OTHER DOCS TO BE UPDATED NEXT FULSOME SOP AND SLP REVIEW Consider getting staff tours of the Region water plants. – BEING CONSIDERED FOR 2025 Consider an on-call rotation with operations staff. Element 11 requires a procedure to ensure competent staff are available for duties that directly impact the drinking water system. – BEING CONSIDERED ▪ ACTION: Savannah to search A. Allcock’s files to see if there is a business case assembled to validate the need for an on-call shift in WWW. It had been noted by others present at the meeting that A. Allcock stated he had created one, prior to his leave. ▪ ACTION: Jessica to research language surrounding MECP requirements for OROs availability and official back up presence always. Consider reviewing the procedure for the annual vendor performance. It currently states that it will be completed and recorded annually. – COMPLETE – VENDOR GRADING COMPONENT REMOVED FROM REVISION 9 (2025) OF THE OPERATIONAL PLAN (REPLACED WITH THE UPDATED/CURRENT ANNUAL REVIEW AND PERFORMANCE MONITORING PROCEDURES), AND DWQMS ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES SOP MW-WWW-DWS-PRO-009-001 UPDATED TO REFLECT THE ADJUSTMENT Consider starting a water meter exchange program for large water meters. If these were on a regular rotation it could help water loss. – IN PROGRESS WITH INPUT FROM SENIOR MANAGER OF WWW SERVICES – STARTING WITH A SURVEY OF THE CURRENT IC&I PROPERTIES METERS Consider requiring the company that performs the calibrations on the chlorine kits to put calibration stickers on the instruments. – COMPLETE – CAR 2025-01 CREATED AND ISSUED TO THIS VENDOR 61 Page 83 of 111 Page 1212 of 1679 Consider creating a program for quarterly verifications of the portable chlorine analyzers. – BEING CONSIDERED – FOLLOWING ANNUAL CALIBRATION OF ALL UNITS, DWQMS COORDINATOR WILL BE ASSIGNED TO PERFORM QUARTERLY VERIFICATIONS ON SERVICE CENTRE CHLORINE METERS Consider adding information on adverse water quality incidents that would fall under 16.4 of Schedule 16 of O. Reg. 170/03 (i.e. Low-pressure incidents) and Total Coliforms to the Adverse Reporting Procedure. – BEING CONSIDERED – TO BE UPDATED NEXT FULSOME SOP AND SLP REVIEW Consider adding a report of the items in Table 15.1 of the OP to the Operational Control section of Management Review. – COMPLETE – FROM TABLE 15.1, IN ADDITION TO MAIN BREAKS, THE FOLLOWING 2024 DATA WAS ADDED TO THE MANAGEMENT REVIEW: AVERAGE TIME OF WATER DISRUPTION DURING MAIN BREAK, % OF HYDRANTS FLUSHED, % OF SYSTEM VALVES EXERCISED AND # OF WATER QUALITY COMPLAINTS RECEIVED Consider including the Action Items from the Risk Assessment, Infrastructure Review, Emergency Drills and Management Review to the Continual Improvement Initiatives List. – IN PROGRESS – EMERGENCY DRILLS ADDED TO LIST, TO ADD THOSE FITTING ACTION ITEMS FROM THE OTHER REVIEWS ONCE ALL COMPLETE (EST. IN Q2 OF 2025) Consider updating the Continual Improvement procedure to better describe how BMPs are considered. – BEING CONSIDERED - TO BE UPDATED NEXT FULSOME SOP AND SLP REVIEW 6. Results of emergency response testing ▪ Complete, utilizing effective, relative examples and a presentation on Cyber Security. ▪ Staff took a quiz which assessed their knowledge of water interruption notifications. ▪ ACTION ITEMS from this exercise were placed on the Continual Improvement list. 7. Operational performance ▪ 49 main breaks in 2024, which was one more than the 48 main breaks in 2023 (LOS goal is have less than 75 per year). Historic annual # of main breaks are as follows: o 2023: 48 o 2022: 86 o 2021: 50 o 2020: 56 o 2019: 82 o 2018: 87 o 2017: 55 It was discussed if we should keep our LOS goal for this at 75, as the number of main breaks per year are very unpredictable and unavoidable, given the aging water infrastructure present in many parts of the City, but it was decided to leave this value at 75. ▪ Average time of water interruption per main break in 2024 was 4:45, compared to 4:20 in 2023 (LOS goal is to ensure interruptions do not exceed 8 hours) ▪ 41.3 % of hydrants flushed, compared to 59.9 % flushed in 2023 (LOS and Fire Code goal is to have 100% flushed) o This was noted as being a concern, due to a 31% decrease in hydrants flushed over the past 2 years (from approximately 60% to 40%). It was stated that this decrease may be due to staffing gaps (staffing leaves) or vehicle issues (i.e. having 4 Operators available to flush any given day, but only 2 vehicles available, so staff are paired up). It was determined that this decrease is most likely due to staff production, and lack of follow up with staff who are not flushing a reasonable 62 Page 84 of 111 Page 1213 of 1679 number of hydrants daily. This would be simple to monitor, given all information present in OMS. ▪ ACTION: Jessica, Mike & Savannah to speak to Operators productivity, and the expectation of Supervisor staff to monitor this and correct underperformances at the next Supervisor meeting. The focus of this conversation will be on fire hydrants, as we are bound to our LOS by the Fire Code ▪ 4.5 % of valves exercised/proven out, compared to 2% in 2023 (LOS goal is to have 20% of system valves exercised annually) o Great increase from 2023 to 2024, but still far from our LOS goals of 20% annually. ▪ ACTION: Mike to continue his progress with the valve turning program annually to meet or exceed our current LOS goal ▪ Should we be looking at adjusting our LOS expectations or utilize stats as a tool to obtain more FTE operations staff – see notes above. If planned improvement options do not come to fruition, then to potentially investigate a business case for additional FTE’s – using the LOS data we will gather over the next few years. 8. Raw water supply and drinking-water quality trends ▪ Overall consistent over the past several years o Obtaining 2024 high/low averages for parameters pH, turbidity, and temperature from Niagara Region. Ops Plan (revision 9) will be updated accordingly. ▪ Intake shift still in planning stages. o There are no updates currently. Tentative start date yet to be determined. 9. Follow-up on action items from previous management reviews Historic DWQMS Management Review Action Items Action Items Assigned To Due Dates Status/Follow-up Ensure the City has a liaison present at all discussions with Niagara Region involving the tentative decommissioning of the Lundy’s Lane Tank. Erik Nickel/ Adam Allcock 2021 onward ONGOING. The City has been a presence at discussions involving this decommissioning process. Collaborate with Asset Management to develop a scoring matrix based on age, material type, tuberculation, so the pipe condition is standardized and not left up to the discretion of the Operator. Operator to take photos of mains during breaks as a first step to achieving this. Jessica Blanchard/ WWW Supervisor Staff/ WWW Operations staff/AM Team 2023 onward IN PROGRESS. ORO ensuring all Operations staff are taking photos of mains during breaks and these photos are being added to the MMS database associated with the watermain. 63 Page 85 of 111 Page 1214 of 1679 Consider performing a structured risk assessment to determine/identify: properties at the highest risk of experiencing a bf event; likelihood of a bf event; which of the high risk properties currently have a BFP on site – and if they function properly and are being calibrated/maintained; trigger points to initiate the requirement for a property to have a BFP device installed. Jessica Blanchard/ DWQMS Coordinato r 2023 onward IN PROGRESS. DWQMS Coordinator tasked to commence this process in Q1 of 2025. ▪ ACTION: Jessica & Savannah To re- address this action item: Perhaps take a different direction with this goal of developing a backflow program by way of requesting property owner surveys (which they would have to produce), and this would provide information on any back flow devices on the property). A new separate, or additions to the existing Water Use by-law would have to be established prior to requesting/mandating property surveys. Further information to be found on OWWCA site under cross connections (for establishing both noted above). Consider using upcoming changes to the distribution system (pressure changes due to elevated tank location shift) and possibility of backflow events as emergency scenarios for advanced preparedness. New addition to this consideration added in 2024 to include water model-based training for emergency scenarios. Jessica Blanchard 2023 onward IN PROGRESS. Site for new tower has been determined. To perform once updated water model is complete (if software is available to run test scenarios – through the MSP). Once water model is made available, it may be possible to initiate emergency response scenarios in real time & effect. Reach out to WWW Training contacts at Niagara Region to inquire if this day course is being made available to area municipalities WWW staff. Jessica Blanchard 2023 onward DELAYED. Training Coordinator stated that the Region is still working to get all their Operators training that was lacking during the Covid years, and when this is complete, they will open the training to area Municipalities (estimated this may occur in Q3 2025). To provide current approved budget and project list (from the City’s website) to the Accreditation body in 2024. Jessica Blanchard 2024 COMPLETED. 10-year budget forecast provided to Accreditation Body (along with Official Long Range Financial Plan) during 2024 Audit and will continue to be provided for all future audits. Action Items from 2023 DWQMS Management Review Request IS and MMS program administrator to develop custom reports to house all pertinent data required for each regulated water work in a pdf for ease of review. Jessica Blanchard Q4 2024 COMPLETE. This was completed in Q2 of 2024, for form submission to the MECP during the 2024 Inspection. The report developed in OMS will allow data to quickly and easily be gathered for all future inspections. 64 Page 86 of 111 Page 1215 of 1679 10. Status of management action items identified between management reviews ▪ None identified (other than noted above) 11. Changes that could affect the Quality Management System ▪ Potential Lead MAC decrease - ongoing ▪ Chippawa Water Plant intake shift o There are no updates currently. Tentative start date yet to be determined. ▪ Tentative decommissioning of Lundy’s Lane Elevated Tank o the preferred site for the new larger elevated tank has been chosen and acquiring the land is in progress. However, the design has not yet started, so likely decommissioning of the current tank will not begin until post 2026. ▪ Tentative Classification of the Water System to increase based on potential pressure zone changes. ▪ ACTION: Jessica to summarize the parameters which cause a water system to go from a Class 2 to a Class 3, to provide for information by Q2 of 2025 As a mitigation means for perceived risks to the water system (identified in the 2024 Risk Assessment), collaborate with Operations Support Services Supervisor to provide more detail for consistent messaging surrounding public reassurance of safe clean drinking water, as the City’s website is revamped. Jessica Blanchard Q3 2024 and beyond DELAYED. Corporate website upgrades pushed to 2025. New due date for this objective is estimated at Q3 2025. ▪ ACTION: Jessica to participate in website upgrade suggestions, which will be posed to staff in the summer or Q3 of 2025 Investigate watermain commissioning training options for Municipal Works Inspectors. Jessica Blanchard Q2 2024 COMPLETE. Walkerton Clean Water Centre New Watermain Commissioning training for majority of MW Inspectors took place in Q4 of 2024, and the remining inspectors have been signed up to take this training in Q1 of 2025. Include the most recent “WWW Areas of Concern” list (from the Infrastructure Review) as a component of the Management Review. Jessica Blanchard Q1 2024 COMPLETE. This list was included in the 2023 Management Review and will continue to be included for all future Management Reviews. Add an official signed document to the Operational Plan indicating that it has been Endorsed by Council and Top Management. Jessica Blanchard Q2 2024 COMPLETE. This Endorsement clause is present in S. 3.0: Commitment and Endorsement in revision 9 (2025) of the Operational Plan. 65 Page 87 of 111 Page 1216 of 1679 12. Consumer feedback (i.e., internal & external communications) ▪ Water quality complaints remain consistently low (25 for 2024 compared to 33 in 2023) o These are the water quality complaints which require follow up action items or outside of current working areas (where water interruptions are expected). 13. Resources needed to maintain the Quality Management System ▪ Internal Auditor – external ▪ Staffing – to achieve self administered and Legislated LOS o We will continue to monitor our LOS achievements, while improving staff productivity and re-visit during the next Management Review to see if additional FTE’s are required 14. Results of DWQMS Infrastructure Review ▪ Areas of concern noted – and comment columns were expanded to include AM comments including tentative renewal project start dates. ▪ ACTION: Jessica to circulate this document with the Management Review Minutes, to remind of highly prioritized areas of concern. ▪ The risk assessment was considered during this Review. ▪ This assessment list (areas WWW have determined require renewals) to be included in the Management Review and referenced in the Report to Council as well this year. 15. Operational Plan currency, content & updates ▪ Updated and endorsed in 2024, as noted to Council via MW-2024-13 ▪ New revision (with minor changes, to be summarized in a separate document) to be submitted in the March 2025 Report to Council and will include the written endorsement clause. ▪ ACTION: Jessica to provide a summary of Ops Plan changes to Supervisor staff at their next meeting, as an fyi 16. Staff suggestions ▪ Staff are interested in having on call procedures more defined and potentially developing a year-round on call shift. ▪ Staff voiced concern that the Service Centre is a failing building which lacks ample space and has some deteriorating functions. ▪ Staff interested in a tour of the Chippawa Water Treatment Plant ▪ Staff would like to see the “Areas of Concern” list more reflected in capital renewal project timelines. ▪ ACTION: Mike & Jessica to assemble a list recent renewal projects which have already experienced breaks and therefore been compromised (i.e. ripping up brand new road, curbs, sidewalks etc.), to further illustrate these concerns and validate our list. ▪ ACTION: Mike – to assemble a “top five” list of projects where the road and sewer or just road was renewed without consideration for the watermain – again to present at the next Infrastructure Review. 66 Page 88 of 111 Page 1217 of 1679 Additional Items: 1. It was noted that QMS Declarations were updated in 2024 and included the following: o QMS Rep declared as Jessica Blanchard, with the back up QMS Rep identified as Ryan O’Donnell o Water ORO declared as Mike Pullano, with back up ORO noted as Andrew Carruthers o Sewer/Sanitary ORO declared as Jonathan Danyluck, with back up ORO’s noted as Sean Escandon and Joe Gugliotta. 67 Page 89 of 111 Page 1218 of 1679 WATERMAIN OCT 25 2024 Area Comment/Concern (based on priority - highest first) Comments from 2024 Infrastructure Review , 2024 Capital Budget Review & WWW additional concerns Estimated Capital Forecast Year (D=design, C=construction) Updated Engineering and WWW Notes 1 TSR at Dorchester break history in VERY BUSY INTERSECTION This area is planned for resurfacing by NR within the next 2 years. To work collaboratively with the Region for watermain renewal in this area. Planning to advance in house designs for WM replacement on Dorchester Rd from Morrison to Mountain in advance of resurfacing. Will need to be phased over a few years due to scope and cost for construction. Replacement of watermain in the area south of the intersection with TSR is a priority. WWW Suggest replacement on Dorchester from approx. Pettit to Oxford. The budget for this is not yet formally approved, but will be brought to Council for design approval in 2024. Niagara Region to be upgrading forcemains off of TSR near Rolling Acres within next 5 years Pettit to Oxford: D - 2024/2025 Dorchester Rd Ph 1 Pettit Dr to Oxford is an in-house design project initially for 2024/2025, construction TBD (construction likely to commence 2026 through to 2027). 2 Dorchester Road (Morrison to Willinger)break history on old cast main Due to the scope of this stretch of renewal recommendation, this project will be broken into smaller sub prioritized areas. 2 sections which have the most historical main breaks would be TSR to Cherrygrove and Waterloo to Russell. Resurfacing of stretch from Morrison to Mountain is currently in design phase. To coordinate to ensure watermains are replaced prior to resurfacing. The watermain replacement project will likely occur over the next 5 years. Phase 2 of Dorchester renewal likely to put in the forecast in 2027 for renewal long term from Mountain to McLeod 3 Stanley Ave (Robinson - to HWY 420)break history NR has designed a 2 phase resurfacing of this area - to commence 2024 or 2025 (first phase likely being Murray to hwy 420). Will attempt to work collaboratively with NR for this watermain renewal. Planning information from Region of Niagara indicate that Stanley Ave from Murray to Peer is scheduled for 2025 and from Peer to Hwy 420 is scheduled for 2027. City Watermain replacement will be integrated into the NR projects. The City has recently requested a pause from Niagara Region, as far as the resurfacing of Stanley from Dunn to Marineland Parkway, as limited funds in for renewal of City mains may not be available for some time. Niagara Region will be upsizing their mains in this section to 12"- for future capacity demands. Projections to renew Stanley from Marineland Parkway to Hwy 420 will likely take 4 years, and 4 project phases. C - 2028 Based on Niagara Region's draft 5 Year Capital Forecast, pending approval for their own road widening/lane modification works in 2028. 4 Stanley Ave (Robinson to McLeod)break history Watermain replacement between Murray and Dixon can proceed as an independent project, as an in house design for watermains. This can occur in advance of Regional plan to resurface this section of Stanley Avenue in the near future (deferred at City request to address deficient watermains). Niagara Region will be upsizing their mains in this section as well to 12" - for future capacity demands. Projections to renew Stanley from Marineland Parkway to Hwy 420 will likely take 4 years, and 4 project phases. C - 2027 - Murray to Dixon 2026 Based on Niagara Region's draft 5 Year Capital Forecast, pending approval for their own road widening/lane modification works in 2027. - Plans to tie section into Regional Truck behind Corail drain. Some sections already started (approved in 2024 - Marineland to Dunn). Sewer may be twinned? 5 NEW 2023: Thorold Stone QEW crossing currently not in service - causing water quality issues in the Rolling Acres subdivision. Should be fixed or an alternate crossing in this area needs to be established. Engineering will be allotting funds in the 2024 budget to perform a feasibility assessment for re-lining the existing crossing infrastructure, in hopes of re-establishing flow there. If this is not feasible, will have to potentially find another appropriate highway crossing in the area. D - 2024 C - TBD Unable to line this watermain as a repair option, as only permitted to line 80 m, and this section is much longer than that. Must do a feasibility assessment for another QEW crossing in this vicinity to improve water quality in Rolling Acres. Or consider bridge hanging main. 6 Beaverdams Rd (Kalar to the Lane) break history (high priority). If water renewal prior to this is possible it would mitigate claims to the City (from main breaks flooding out residents in the area). Break history is most prominent on the stretch from Booth St. west to Kalar. Older cast main. This area has been allotted a budget for a consultant. First stage is developing a storm outlet for the Hodgson division. Scope of work includes watermain replacement and New Storm Sewer. Design may be complete with construction starting by 2025. Consider this problematic stretch be renewed in house. Design Phase for Reconstruction of Beaverdams from Kalar to Lundy's Lane was part of 2023 Capital Budget list for consideration/approval. Still awaiting to obtain an EA for this area. D - 2026 C - 2027 7 NEW 2023: Portage Road (Macklem to Norton) increasing number of breaks recently and difficulty to repair This is noted by Engineering, but this underground infrastructure renewal will likely be deferred until after this section of roadway has been resurfaced, as requested by Top Management. D - 2032 C - 2033 Included in the 2024 DC Program - Titled: DC Water 52 Portage Road Watermain (Norton Street to Macklem Street) Replacement and Upsizing suggested timing window -2029-2033 Portage Rd - Norton St to Macklem St on 2024 Mill & Pave Program list; may need to be deferred further This plan has been in the works since 2016, but has lacked funding 68 Page 90 of 111Page 1219 of 1679 8 Portage @ HWY 420 South end being rectified via Portage and Prospect Project 2022-503-16, however north dead end (5365 Portage) still requires a work around Main break years ago at this location resulted in the watermain to be capped on the north and south side of the highway - resulting in dead ends. This has created water quality issues on the north side specifically, which is remedied by City staff flushing this area 3 x/week for the past 5 years. Residents in this area (2 specifically are affected) have escalated their water quality concerns to the Council level, citing poor service levels and wasted City resources. Best scenario to remedy this would be to tie the dead end into the adjacent Biamonte Cr main. Would need to obtain an easement from property 5365 Portage to facilitate this, which is currently in the process of being secured. There will be a renewal and increase sizing of Biamonte Cr watermain at the same time due to this being a 70 yr. old 6" main. This Valley Way/Biamonte area renewal will go out for tender in early 2024, and services on Portage Road which have been compromised due to the dead end will be connected to the new main. C - 2024 Believe this was completed or is being completed for 2024 as part of the Biamonte Parkway Watermain Replacement project. Continues to be water quality issues for the 2 homes affected by this capped watermain. Now the Biamonte Pkwy WM renewal is going forward without the tie in to Portage. This is not acceptable - must find another means to loop/tie in Portage at this area for water quality purposes, and to save substantial water losses and staff time with continued 3x week flushing. 9 NEW 2024: Drummond Rd from Lundy's Lane to Frederica Frequency of main breaks old cast main with frequent failure in high traffic area C - 2026 In House Design project, construction depends on when the design will be substantially complete. 10 TSR (5 corners to the rail way tracks) breaks on the 200 mm cast main in VERY BUSY STRETCH OF ROAD This area planned for resurfacing by NR within the next 5 years, as per the September 2023 document "DRAFT - Proposed 5 Year Capital Forecast City of Niagara Falls". We may consider this watermain renewal prior to this project due to watermain break history and the substantial interruptions this creates. WWW suggest one redundant 6" main should be eliminated the services could be shifted to the south side 8"main, and affected water services could be shifted to the single main. To align this City project to coincide with the Regions resurfacing project, for best efficiency. D - 2029 C - 2030 Included in the 2024 DC Program - Titled: DC Water 57 Thorold Stone Road Watermain Upsizing from 150mm to 300mm (Portage Rd to CNR) suggested timing window 2029-2033 11 Drummond/Portage area Regional main renewal in progress 2021-530-20 was completed in the spring of 2022 - replaced main on Drummond from TSR to Glengate. This area will continue to be renewed in the next 5 years (Portage from Gallinger to Elizabeth - and Gallinger in its entirety), beginning with Gallinger in 2025. Portage/Gallinger: C - 2025 Drummond/Portage/Gallinger Ph 2 & Ph 3 Capital Project put forth for 2025 Capital Budget pending approval. 12 Drummond Rd in its entirety break history - esp. Cherrywood area Problematic area specifically in Cherrywood area. Portage Road phase 2 is currently design phase. The scope of this project will include Drummond from Glengate to railway and again to Althea.C - 2026 13 Bridge St (E of Victoria)Regional project - substantial breaks here This is a multiple break per pipe segment area as well (specifically at Erie) as well as a multiple main break area historically east of Victoria. This project has been delayed again until likely 2027 due to difficulties obtaining an EA and acquiring properties which will need to become part of the road allowance. The round about at Bridge and Victoria is complete, and experienced many complications. Watermain replacement should be going to RFP in 2024 or 2025. D - 2025/2026 C - 2026/2027 Design money was not approved in Niagara Regions budget for 2025. Potential construction start for 2026. Difficult to ascertain time as this is a Region led project. 14 NEW 2024: Garner Road South of Brown Main break history Only section in this area yet to be renewed - ductile iron main (DI) results in large breaks NEW - will incorporate into Forecast This consideration will be reflected in the updated EAM to be released in the coming weeks. Engineering will be performing a corrosion study for the 10 most problematic DI mains in the City, with the promise of having them upgraded with cathodic protection. This will also be outlined in the 10 year capital plan 15 NEW 2024: Jubilee Dr from McLeod to Dorchester Frequency of main breaks DI - large breaks historically NEW - will incorporate into Forecast same as above 16 NEW 2024: Drummond Rd from McLeod to Oldfield Frequency of main breaks DI - large breaks historically NEW - will incorporate into Forecast same as above 17 Brown Rd (Garner to Montrose) placement of main (in ditch) and hydrant locations make frequent repairs and operations difficult This project has gone through design phase and will be tendered before the end of 2023. There were geological issues which slowed the progress down. Likely 2024 renewal construction project will begin. COMPLETED IN 2024 Completed 2024 COMPLETE 18 Portage Rd (McLeod to Marineland Pkwy)break history, water quality concerns Niagara Parks Commission has requested a new watermain in this area, to service an upgraded property (the old power plant). They have yet to provide the actual size of main they will be requiring, so this project is on hold until information is provided (no specific date as of yet). This section of roadway is also on the resurfacing schedule, but this will be delayed, in order to coincide the watermain replacement project. D - TBD C - TBD To specify main entrance of Marineland to Old McLeod. Undetermined date as NPC is driving this project Portage Rd from Oak Hall Entrance to Norton St part of 2022 Mill & Pave program 19 George Street break history Sewer separation EA continues to progress. Watermains to be renewed during this project, and it will include Fraser Street. Estimated timeline for completion of this project was within 5 years of the start, and it is currently estimated that this area will be in design phase in 2025 and construction could potentially begin in 2026. There was a PM shift as to who was overseeing this project, but it is currently assigned. D - 2025/2026 C - 2026/2027 Put forward for the 2025 Capital Budget but may be deferred due to competing priorities. This has been problematic for years - and held up by an EA - but now with the release of the CLI ECA, this may fall into that scope. Other advancements here are that the storm system was found to have more capacity that first believed, so this may move along quicker now. 69 Page 91 of 111Page 1220 of 1679 20 Carolyn/Bracken/Heather/B urdette water flow/quality issues This area has recently (2023) again had water quality concerns spike - low residual in the area due to aging mains which reduce flow. It was thought that the Cannery subdivision would aid in increasing flow to this area and alleviate water quality concerns, but this did not seem to occur. This was moved up this priority list as it relates to water quality concerns. Burdette: D 2024, C 2025 Carolyn: D 2028, C 2029 Bracken/Heather: D 2028, C 2029 Burdette Drive put forth for 2025 Capital Budget, pending approval. It was determined that Carolyn and other streets of concern in this area would not be included in the 2024 Burdette renewal, and they should be - water quality in this area has been progressively worsening. 21 NEW 2023: Darcy Cres. and surrounding areas water quality concerns in this aging subdivision Area added to the mid point of this list as it involves potentially compromised water quality.D - 2028 C - 2029 To add crescents along Sheldon (Linwood, Fernwood, Patten) in this upgrade, due to substantially low pressure (at or nearing fire flow requirement thresholds). Consider looping these mains when upgrading. 22 Wiltshire Blvd and surrounding area break history, water quality concerns Water quality and pressure continue to be an ongoing concern in this area - Wiltshire, McColl, Baker, Oxford, Valour etc. There are 3 upcoming projects (currently in design phase - to be completed in house). They include the remainder of Oxford (from Rolling Acres to Wiltshire - which was not renewed via contract 2019-458-18), and 2 sections of Wiltshire. This design will be complete over the next 2 years, with the projects likely starting in 2025 and 2026 respectively. Wiltshire: D 2025, C 2026 Oxford: D 2025, C 2026 McColl: D 2029, C 2030 Wiltshire Blvd & Oxford St are currently in-house design phase. 23 Frances Ave - dead end water flow issues We are still investing a lot of resources in this flushing this dead end at a private hydrant (on school property). This area is on the list for renewal to tentatively commence within the next 5 years, however, sewer separation in the area will be prioritized, and should align watermain renewal with this project. D - 2027 C - 2028 24 NEW 2023: Sodom Road (Weinbrenner to Main) break history, difficulty to repair and property damage caused by breaks Niagara Region forecasted to upgrade all of Sodom Road, to allow for future increased service capacity to Chippawa East and other new subdivisions. This design is currently underway. Engineering to communicate with the Region so that City main upgrades can occur at the same time as Region upgrades and resurfacing, if possible. D - 2027 C - 2028 Region has plans for road renewal construction in 2029, so the City will need to be ahead of this with their infrastructure upgrades. 25 NEW 2023: Brooks Cres. - east end Main cuts across 2 private properties to tie into Carman main Main passes through 5879 Brooks and 5858 Carman. This would be problematic to repair. WWW suggests to re-direct or loop. Engineering will consider placing a 2" loop in the area to alleviate this issue. Best solution here would be o cut cap and loop the watermain in the Cul de Sac. This could be an in house design - with a tentative completion of 2025 or 2026. It is strongly suggested to add Portage (@ Biamonte - item 8 above) in this cut cap loop project. 26 NEW 2023: Erwin Cres.Main cuts across 3 private properties and the Hydro corridor to tie into Dunn main Main passes through 7627 Rainbow and 7766 Jubilee. This would be problematic to repair. WWW suggests to re-direct or loop. Engineering considering eliminating the section of main which travels through private properties and corridor, as there is a combined sewer also running along this path. This will have to go out for RFP, as the looping of the water and the capping of the combined main would have to have a substantial design. same as above 27 NEW 2023: Rainbow Cres.Main cuts across 2 private properties to tie into Jubilee main Main passes through 6597 Erwin, the Hydro corridor, 6519 Dunn and 6527 Dunn . This would be problematic to repair. WWW suggest to re-direct or loop. Engineering will consider/plan to place a 2" loop in the area, to alleviate this issue - could be complete as a project grouped with looping Brooks. same as above 28 Coventry/Buckingham break history, cathodic protection worn off This area will be considered for the tentative corrosion assessment study (2024) for application or re-application of cathodic protection As per items 14, 15 & 16 above, this consideration will be reflected in the updated EAM to be released in the coming weeks. Engineering will be performing a corrosion study for the 10 most problematic DI mains in the City, with the promise of having them upgraded with cathodic protection. This will also be outlined in the 10 year capital plan 29 Swayze/Heritage/Johnson/A ddison break history, deep services, watermain location, difficulty to repair It was repeated how costly even service breaks are in this area due to main placement. There is no official plan for work in this area at this time. Was advised that this is on the radar, but no definite spot on the next 10 year list for renewal. WWW strongly suggests that it made a priority nearing the top of the next 10 years. 30 NEW 2023: Drummond Hill adjacent streets (Morse, Hanan, Lowell) break history and difficulty to repair due to steep incline and sandy soils This area has been flagged for renewal, but this will likely be 5-10 years down the road (beyond 2027). The reason for this is that this area affects the current redundant feeds to GNGH, and until that time that the new hospital in the City's south end has been established, renewal projects in this area will be on hold, including sewer separation in the area. Morse & Hanan: D 2031, C 2032 Lowell & Latshaw: D 2032, C 2033 Frederica to Summer already planned? 31 Dorchester Road (Jill to Oldfield)break history Recently resurfaced without considering replacing aging watermain. This was driven by residential concerns of safety. This area will remain in the spotlight as there is to be a traffic assessment completed, and this may create the development of a round about at the south end of Dorchester - any watermain renewal to this area should coincide with the traffic assessment recommendations. This area will likely be considered for the corrosion assessment study, as it is also ductile iron. D - TBD C - TBD Dorchester Rd - 65m North of Cooper Dr to 45m South of Jubilee Dr part of 2022 Capital Project - Road Reconstruction- this is also DI, so should be included in the corrosion study. 70 Page 92 of 111Page 1221 of 1679 32 AC Pipe in Chippawa replace all Corporate goals outline that within 20 years this will all be replaced. Willoughby from Weinbrenner to Main Street will be renewed over a 2 year period - likely to commence in 2024-2025. Willoughby Dr Reconstruction - Main St to Weinbrenner put forth for 2025 Capital Budget - there will be a pilot lining program for AC pipes - starting with Banting and Roosevelt? Timeline? 33 Drummond/Dunn/Dorchest er/McLeod quadrant water quality concerns Aging cast in this area causing multiple breaks and compromised water quality/flow. Particularly on Whitman, Hagar, Hawkins, Margaret and Caledonia. Whitman, Margaret Street (from Hagar to Caledonia), Caledonia (from Margaret to Dorchester) and Hawkins Street (to be completed in 2 sections: Adams to Dell, and Dell to Drummond) are all forecasted for renewal, but no tentative dates have yet to be set. Caledonia: D 2027, C 2028 Hagar: D 2027, C 2028 Margaret: D 2028, C 2029 Whitman: D 2030, C 2031 Hawkins: D 2033, C 2034 34 Murray Ave (E of Orchard)break history This renewal project is in the forecast as per Asset Management (with a more broad scope of almost the entire stretch of Murray to be renewed in 2 or 3 phases: Orchard to Finlay, Drummond to Orchard & Franklin to Drummond. A portion of this will likely be completed design in 2024 and the remainder in 2025. Once design phase is completed, City will make a decision regarding sewer separation in this area as well (unsure at this time if the area contains combined). D - 2031 C - 2032 Portions may be removed? 35 NEW 2023: Old McLeod Road history of breaks which are not evident initially, due to remote location, resulting in large volumes of water loss Engineering noted this additional area of concern D - 2025 Design money was asked for 2025 as part of Development Project: McLeod Rd Sewer Upgrade (Stanley Ave to Drummond Road) to upgrade the sanitary sewer in this section of roadway, construction potentially 27/28. - Part of Conrail Drain tie in? We have a grant application for this (or line item below?) 36 Kitchener St - East of Stanley break history should focus on extremely old sections of this stretch of roadway (some are original 1889 cast mains). This renewal project is in the forecast, and is to include sewer as well, for both the extremely aged water and sewer mains on Kitchener and Macdonald Ave. This will likely have to be completed via several projects due to length of roadway, and for ease of funding. D - 2026 C - 2027 To commence at Macdonald @ Kitchener and head west - Do we have a grant application for this? Not sure if the grant application referenced old cast or line item above. 37 Wills St break history Engineering to consider adding this relatively small street into one of the Rolling Acres renewal projects. D - 2031 C - 2032 38 NEW 2023: Ellen Ave (Centre to Walnut)difficulty to repair This area is in the forecast for renewal - to begin once Ferry St upgrade project has been completed. As Ellen is part of the BIA, this section will be on the docket to be renewed. Timeline TBD D - 2027 C - 2028 BIA driven 39 Simcoe/Crysler/St Clair old cast some 4" mains should be renewed for flow/water quality Awaiting wet weather management study completion for sewer separation planning in this area. Watermains will be renewed during the time of the sewer separation. This is part of the MSP. 40 NEW 2023: Huron St (Valley Way to Crysler) difficulty to repair, due to presence of abandoned cast gas main which aligns with watermain This area had been on the renewal list, but was delayed due to lack of PM coverage. It has now been re introduced as a concern and will likely be assigned a PM to initiate this renewal. All pre war cast mains will be high on the cast replacement priority list. However, no tentative renewal date has been established as of yet. same as above 41 Third Ave (Bridge to Maple)break history Renewal needed in the areas which were not captured during the 2019-434-17 renewal project due to aging main causing multiple breaks. There is now funding in the budget to perform sewer separation on Maple from Stanley east to Sixth Ave, likely to commence in 2024. Following this project, renewal for Homewood, Maple Cedar and Third to be scheduled. The Maple area is challenging, as there is no road allowance currently as the roadway crosses the Hydro corridor. Temporary easements will need to be established prior to any work being performed in this area. same as above 42 Ellis St break history This is a multiple break per pipe segment area All pre-war cast in this general area D - 2030 C - 2031 same as above 43 Whirlpool Rd/Church's Lane/Stanley break history The watermain on Whirlpool Road (between Church's Lane and Stanley) was taken out of service on August 24, 2022. Renewal has been planned for Church's Lane (from Portage to Stanley). This section will go into design phase in 2024. D - 2026 C - 2027 This is Developer (Alterra?) driven from the Whirlpool Road project. Once this is complete, there will be an in house design for the surrounding areas renewal. 44 Martin Ave - Silvertown in its entirety break history This area is projected to be renewed. Currently, due to difficulty in determining an outflow storm location, and the fact that Victoria Avenue will require quite extensive preliminary work to its storm system, this project has been deferred to 2025, with entire completion of the area likely extending to 2028 (due to the many phases required) D - 2033 C - 2034 45 Hillcrest Cr break history This renewal project is in the forecast NOTE: The install date for this area states 1899 in OMS, which will likely require an adjustment for accuracy - WWW to email infraassets to have this adjusted D - 2031 C - 2032 71 Page 93 of 111Page 1222 of 1679 46 NEW 2023: WM along Niagara River Pkwy which appears to potentially be a redundant feed to the Newer Casino (6380 Fallsview Blvd.), yet does not tie into Fallsview Blvd unsure of the ownership of this section (along Niagara River Pkwy -WWM_06025) or if this feeding main (WWM_06033) is active or capped. Valving in the area does not allow for a prove out, without affecting many properties. Engineering noted this additional area of concern, and will attempt to find historic information on these sections of watermain. WWW Services has now determined the valving in this area, but it would be a very difficult if not impossible break to fix if one did occur. Exposed cast main along the parkway is very concerning as well. Should be protected in some manner. SEWER MAIN Area Comment/Concern Comments from 2024 Infrastructure Review , 2024 Capital Budget Review & WWW additional concerns Estimated Capital Forecast Year (D=design, C=construction) Updated Engineering and WWW Notes 1 Jepson @ 3rd, 4th & 5th sanitary chambers need renewal 2 Ferguson St sewer liner is failing from Victoria Ave to River Rd Design plans are currently in place - renewal will commence at Victoria and move east. Estimated time for construction start is 2025. D - 2024 C - 2025/2026 Ferguson St Reconstruction put forth for 2025 budget but will most likely be deferred 3 Lundy's Lane @ Royal manor 9" sewer main NR has plans for 2025 for this road renewal, as per the Niagara Regions 5-year capital forecast draft document. This work would likely be performed at the same time- as well as renewing watermains in the subdivision behind this area (Strathmore, Royal Manor etc.), which would greatly improve water quality. This project will likely take 5 years to complete. Royal Manor Dr watermain looping to connect to Dorchester Rd - D/C 2026 4 2019 Pipe Tech project Indicated further renewal recommendations This project is now complete, but approximately 20% of the pipes were missed for inspection (due to a variety of challenges and obstacles). These are now being scheduled for inspection, which will likely occur in 2024. Renewal strategies and associated timelines will likely be developed following a fulsome review once all data has been gathered. STORM MAIN Area Comment/Concern Comments from 2024 Infrastructure Review , 2024 Capital Budget Review & WWW additional concerns Estimated Capital Forecast Year (D=design, C=construction) Updated Engineering and WWW Notes 1 NEW 2024: OGS in Stanley Industrial Area Ongoing MECP investigation Consider some type of treatment train for this area of the City. Currently no City OGS units in this Industrial area. 2 North St catchbasin install to reduce road flooding There has been funding to go ahead in developing a CSO Management Strategy which will greatly aid in priority sequencing this large scale project. On a similar note, there will also be a condition assessment performed on all storm ponds and with this a clean out schedule/process will be developed. This project likely deferred until after the new south end hospital has been built and is active. 3 combined sewers throughout City to be removed 4 2019 GM BluePlan I & I Study would indicated further renewal recommendations See Notes regarding Pipe Tech project in "Sewer Main" section, above 72 Page 94 of 111Page 1223 of 1679 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OPERATIONAL PLAN REVISION 9: SUMMARY OF CHANGES: FEBRUARY 2025 • S. 1.2: Scope – the Appendices A through D were removed from the document, as moving forward, they will be stand alone supporting documents referenced in the Operational Plan, as recommended by the Internal Auditor in 2024. Subsequently, all references to Appendices throughout the body of the Operational Plan were removed. • S. 1.3: Definitions – Director of Operations was added to the descriptor for “Top Management”, as this role now has two titled positions (previously the General Manager, Municipal Works was the sole individual considered Top Management). • S. 3.0: Commitment and Endorsement – official endorsement date of March 19, 2024 (via MW- 2024-13) was added. Also, a signed “Commitment and Endorsement of Operational Plan” was added to this section. • S. 4.0: Quality Management System Representative – title change of QMS Rep (formerly WWW Services Coordinator) to WWW Compliance Program Manager, and addition of back up QMS Rep (DWQMS Coordinator). The title change of the Compliance Program Manager was updated throughout the document. • S. 13.0: Essential Supplies and Services – the section of the quality assurance review for vendors was removed (along with the vendor rating criteria table), as suppliers and service providers are monitored and chosen through strict recently developed Procurement and City Finance Department requirements. These establish continual quality assurance, along with the annual Essential Supply and Service Review completed by the DWQMS Team. Any non-conformances are remediated immediately with these procedures in place. • S. 6.3: Niagara Falls WTP Source Water: Table 6-1 was updated to reflect 2024 raw water data (including max., min. and averages of turbidity, pH, and temperature). • S. 6.4: Niagara Falls DWS – total number of assets for water meters, fire hydrants and valves were updated to reflect system data from January 2025. Also, the percentage of watermains with specific material types and total length of watermains were also updated in this section. • S. 19.0: Internal Audits – many specific details regarding the internal audit process were removed from the Ops Plan for brevity, as they are all included in the procedure referenced in this section (DWQMS Internal Auditing – MW-WWW-DWS-PRO-015-001). • S. 22.0: Schedule C – this schedule was updated to reflect title changes over the past year. 73 Page 95 of 111 Page 1224 of 1679 City of Niagara Falls Water Distribution System Annual Summary Report Period: January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024 Waterworks Number: 260002304 Created February 2025 Page 96 of 111 Page 1225 of 1679 Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Waterworks Description ........................................................................................ 1 Compliance ........................................................................................................... 2 Municipal Drinking Water Licensing Program .................................................... 2 Safe Drinking Water Act .................................................................................... 3 Niagara Falls Water Quality Test Results .......................................................... 4 Adverse Water Quality Incidents and Actions.................................................... 4 Operational Activities ............................................................................................ 5 Flow Rates ............................................................................................................ 6 Definitions ............................................................................................................. 7 Page 97 of 111 Page 1226 of 1679 Water Distribution Summary Report 1 City of Niagara Falls Water Distribution Annual Summary Report Introduction In accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act this report provides members of Niagara Falls Municipal Council, the legal Owners of the water distribution system with an annual summary report of actions that took place from January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024. In accordance with the Act, this report must list any time the City failed to meet the conditions and requirements of the Acts, Regulations, Approvals, Drinking Water Works Permits, Municipal Drinking Water Licences and Orders issued by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. For each requirement not met, the report must specify the duration of the failure and the measures taken to correct the failure. Additionally, the report must list the summary of the quantities and flows of the water supplied. Waterworks Description The City of Niagara Falls is a Class 2 water distribution system, which receives all treated water from the Regional Municipality of Niagara via the Niagara Falls Water Treatment Plant. The raw water source is surface water supplied from the Niagara River, via the Welland River. The distribution system consists of approximately 493 km of watermain, 3,172 fire hydrants and 5,388 valves owned and operated by the City of Niagara Falls. Additionally, there is 45 km of watermain owned and operated by Niagara Region. The size of watermains owned by the City of Niagara Falls range from 25mm to 450 mm in size. Additional information regarding the Niagara Falls Water Treatment Plant can be found on the Regional Municipality of Niagara website: http://www.niagararegion.ca/home.aspx Page 98 of 111 Page 1227 of 1679 Water Distribution Summary Report 2 Compliance Municipal Drinking Water Licensing Program As part of a recommendation made by Justice O’Connor during the Walkerton Inquiry, the Ministry of the Environment introduced the Municipal Drinking Water Licensing Program. This program requires the Drinking Water System Owner (City of Niagara Falls) to obtain a licence to operate their drinking water system. There are four components to each licence; the Drinking Water Works Permit, Implementation of a Drinking Water Quality Management System, Accreditation of the Quality Management System and preparation of a Financial Plan. • Drinking Water Work Permit allows the Municipality to alter, add, replace, modify and extend the drinking water based on a series of predefined conditions. • Drinking Water Quality Management Standard (DWQMS) is a series of 21 elements that address all aspects of a water system. The overall goal of the DWQMS is continuous improvement with respect to planning, operating and reviewing the drinking water system. Through the creation of an operational plan the drinking water system Owner demonstrates the ability to operate a safe and effective drinking water system, while continuously monitoring performance and compliance via internal and external audits. • Accreditation of the Quality Management System is achieved through internal and external audits, the goal of these audits are to ensure that the Owner is following the processes and procedures laid out in the operational plan. The City of Niagara Falls has enlisted NSF International to act as the Quality Management System accreditation body. • Ontario Regulation 453/07, Safe Drinking Water Act requires that each Owner prepare a Financial Plan for the drinking water system. The City has retained a consultant to aid in the preparation of the Financial Plan. In 2024, a surveillance audit was performed on the City’s Drinking Water Quality Management System by NSF-ISR. Zero non-conformances were found during this audit, allowing the City to continue their accreditation, meeting the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. Page 99 of 111 Page 1228 of 1679 Water Distribution Summary Report 3 Safe Drinking Water Act To remain compliant with the Safe Drinking Water Act, the City performs a minimum of 101 microbiological samples a month. This monthly number of 101 was determined by the 2021 Census data. This Census data indicated that the population of the Niagara Falls serviced by the distribution system was 92069. Each of these samples is taken from a system. distribution the of profile water a providing location, different diverse Disinfection levels showing free chlorine residuals are also taken at the time of each sample; ensuring proper disinfection levels are maintained. The City takes additional free chlorine residuals throughout the week, again to ensure proper disinfection levels are maintained. The City also takes water samples testing for elevated levels of trihalomethanes (THM), a chlorine disinfection by-product. The City takes these water samples from areas where the formation of THM would most likely occur. In 2018, a clarification to the Ministry guidance document for HAA sampling occurred, which required the City to test for Haloacetic Acids (HAA) at two separate locations (previously one location) beginning in 2019, which was and continues to be satisfied. HAA like THM is a chlorine disinfection by-product. The City and Niagara Region keep in close communications regarding these test results. The Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks has also provincially mandated a Community Lead Testing Program. The City has been granted permission, by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks to reduce the number of lead samples taken per sampling window due to the ratio of results that meet the Provincial Water Quality Objectives, compare to the samples that do not. The sample numbers have been to reduced distribution nonand 2 system samples 4 resident 20 samples, - residential samples as per Table 2 of Schedule D of the City of Niagara Falls Distribution System Municipal Drinking Water Licence. This must be done once between December 15 and April 15 and again June 15 to October 15, on an ongoing cycle. All the samples, in accordance with the Act must be taken by an individual with a Water Operators licence or a Water Quality Analyst licence. These licences are distributed by the Ontario Water Wastewater Certification Office, in accordance with Ontario Regulation 128/04, Safe Drinking Water Act. Samples are then taken to a Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks approved laboratory. Laboratories must meet quality standards determined by the Ministry of the Environment Parks and Conservation and are audited by the Canadian Association for Laboratories Accreditation. In the event an incident occurs where water samples do not meet Provincial water quality standards, this is deemed an Adverse Water Quality Incident (AWQI). This is detailed further in the chart following entitled Adverse Water Quality Incidents and Actions. Page 100 of 111 Page 1229 of 1679 Water Distribution Summary Report 4 An Annual Drinking Water Report has been completed and is available free of charge to the public through the City website and at the Municipal Service Centre. Members of the public may also view water sample results at the Municipal Service Centre. On December 31, 2012, section 19 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002. Section 19 entitled; Standard of Care came into force. This section requires the Owner of the Drinking Water System and each person with decision making authority to exercise the level of care, diligence and skill in respect of a municipal drinking water system that a reasonably prudent person would be expected to exercise in a similar situation and to act honestly, competently and with integrity with a view ensuring the protection and safety of the users of the drinking water system. Section 19 has been listed as an attachment to the accompanying Council Report. Niagara Falls Water Quality Test Results Parameter MAC Number of Samples Range Comments Microbiological Analysis Escherichia Coli (E. Coli) CFU/ 100mL 0 1431 0 Indicates presence of fecal matter Total Coliforms CFU/ 100 mL 0 1431 0 -1 Indicates the possible presence of fecal contamination Heterotrophic Plate Count (HPC) CFU/mL N/A 1431 0 – 138 Indication of overall water quality Chemical Analysis Trihalomethanes mg/L 0.10 mg/L 4 0.0260 - 0.0480 Average of Samples taken quarterly Haloacetic Acids mg/L 0.08 mg/L 8 0.0053 - 0.0154 Average of Samples taken quarterly Lead mg/L Residential and Non- Residential Plumbing 0.010 mg/L 44 0.00004 - 0.00668 Lead services were used in construction prior to 1955. Distribution 0.010 mg/L 14 0.00002 - 0.00042 City does not have lead watermains Disinfection Free Chlorine Residual mg/L 0.05 to 4.0 mg/L 1644 0.19 - 1.30 Level of disinfectant Adverse Water Quality Incidents and Actions Date Location Parameter Result Actions Date of Resolution 28/10/2024 6838 Morrison Street Total Coliform 1 CFU/100 mL Flush and re-sample 01/11/2024 Page 101 of 111 Page 1230 of 1679 Water Distribution Summary Report 5 In the event of an adverse water quality incident (AWQI), the City receives immediate notification from the laboratory. The City is then required as per Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks regulations to verbal notify the Regional Public Health Unit and the Ministry of the Environment Spills Action Centre. To ensure water safety with a microbiological or chemical exceedance, the City immediately sends a member of staff to flush the nearest fire hydrant and take additional water samples at the source of the AWQI. In addition, in the instance of a microbiological exceedance, City immediately initiates sampling upstream and downstream of the AWQI. This upstream/downstream sampling occurs for two consecutive days (unless otherwise directed by Public Health) until the City receives verbal notification from the laboratory that the water samples are all clear. In the above table, the column “Date of Resolution” indicates the date in which the City has received copies of the laboratory results or submits the “Notice of Resolution” to the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks and Public Health Unit. It should be noted that an Adverse Water Quality Incident does not indicate that the drinking water is unsafe; rather it indicates that with respect to that specific sample, the Provincial water quality objective was exceeded. In the event a lead result exceeds the Provincial standard, this result does not indicate system wide lead level, but rather at the specific sample site. Possible sources of lead include lead solder, leaded brass fixtures and lead service lines. Prior to 1955 it was common to use lead water service lines as opposed to copper due to the malleability of lead. Properties that have lead results that exceed the Provincial standard are given an information package on ways to best reduce lead in their drinking water. The City of Niagara Falls experienced one (1) AWQI in 2024. Operational Activities In 2024, the City of Niagara Falls experienced 49 water main breaks, compared to 48 in the previous year. With all water main breaks, the City follows a standard operating procedure, detailing the steps taken to repair the water main, while ensure water quality. Following Category 2 water main breaks, microbiological samples are taken upstream and downstream of the break; ensuring the break was repaired in such a way that water quality levels were not affected. Page 102 of 111 Page 1231 of 1679 Water Distribution Summary Report 6 Flow Rates 2024 Monthly Water Flow Rates (Mega Litres) Month Quantity (ML) January 1218.410 February 1117.434 March 1221.412 April 1233.388 May 1396.688 June 1459.657 July 1648.769 August 1545.722 September 1366.124 October 1265.429 November 1162.161 December 1221.477 Total 15856.671 Monthly Average 1321.39 Daily Average 43.30 1 Mega Litre = 1,000,000 Litres Page 103 of 111 Page 1232 of 1679 Water Distribution Summary Report 7 Definitions MAC - Maximum Acceptable Concentration This is a health-related standard established for parameters which when present above a certain concentration, have known or suspected adverse health effects. The length of time the MAC can be exceeded without injury to health will depend on the nature and concentration of the parameter. (Ontario Drinking Water Standards. Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. Revised January 2001. PIBS #4065e. Page 2.) mg/L - milligrams per litre (parts per million) cfu/100 mL - Colony Forming Units per 100 millilitres of sample µg/L - micrograms per litre (parts per billion) < - Less than > - Greater than Microbiological parameters (i.e. bacteria) - the source of bacteria may come from wildlife. and systems septic wastewater livestock plants, treatment operations, Microbiological analysis is the most important aspect of drinking water quality due to its association with dangerous waterborne diseases. (Paraphrased from Ontario Drinking Water Standards. Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.) Total Coliform - the group of bacteria most used as an indicator of water quality. The presence of these bacteria in a water sample indicates inadequate filtration and / or disinfection. (Ontario Drinking Water Standards. Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change.) Escherichia coli (E. coli) - a sub-group of coliform bacteria. It is most frequently associated with recent fecal pollution. The presence of E. coli or fecal coliforms in drinking water is an indication of sewage contamination. (Ontario Drinking Water Standards. Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change) Heterotrophic Plate Count (HPC) - an estimate of the number of background bacteria present in the distribution system. It is not an indicator of fecal contamination, but more a general indicator of disinfection effectiveness and distribution system status with respect to biofilm presence and the influence of bacterial re-growth in the distribution system. Page 104 of 111 Page 1233 of 1679 Water Distribution Summary Report 8 Trihalomethanes (THM’s) - The maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) for Trihalomethanes (THMs) in drinking water is 0.10 mg/L based on a four quarter moving annual average of test results. Trihalomethanes are the most widely occurring synthetic organics found in chlorinated drinking water. The four most commonly detected Trihalomethanes in drinking water are chloroform, bromodichloromethane, chlorodibromomethane and bromoform. The principal source of Trihalomethanes in drinking water is the action of chlorine with naturally occurring organics (precursors) left in the water after filtration. Haloacetic Acid (HAA) - The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality (GCDWQ) recommend a maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) of 0.08 mg/L for HAAs in drinking water, based on a locational running annual average of a minimum of quarterly samples taken in the distribution system. The reported HAAs value refer to the sum of the concentration of six haloacetic acid compounds which include mono-, di-, and trichloroacetic acids, and mono- and dibromoacetic acids, and bromochloroacetic acid. HAAs are a type of chlorination disinfection by-product that are formed when the chlorine used to disinfect drinking water reacts with naturally occurring organic matter, usually in raw water. HAA’s are a relatively new disinfection by-product. Lead - Metals, for the most part, are naturally present in source water, or are the result of industrial activity. Some, such as Lead, may enter the drinking water from plumbing in the distribution system. Lead can occur in the source water because of erosion of natural deposits. The most common source of lead is corrosion of the household plumbing. The MAC for lead levels is 0.010 mg/L. Page 105 of 111 Page 1234 of 1679 Standard of care, municipal drinking water system 19. (1) Each of the persons listed in subsection (2) shall, (a) exercise the level of care, diligence and skill in respect of a municipal drinking water system that a reasonably prudent person would be expected to exercise in a similar situation; and (b) act honestly, competently and with integrity, with a view to ensuring the protection and safety of the users of the municipal drinking water system. 2002, c. 32, s. 19 (1). Same (2) The following are the persons listed for the purposes of subsection (1): 1. The owner of the municipal drinking water system. 2. If the municipal drinking water system is owned by a corporation other than a municipality, every officer and director of the corporation. 3. If the system is owned by a municipality, every person who, on behalf of the municipality, oversees the accredited operating authority of the system or exercises decision-making authority over the system. 2002, c. 32, s. 19 (2). Offence (3) Every person under a duty described in subsection (1) who fails to carry out that duty is guilty of an offence. 2002, c. 32, s. 19 (3). Same (4) A person may be convicted of an offence under this section in respect of a municipal drinking water system whether or not the owner of the system is prosecuted or convicted. 2002, c. 32, s. 19 (4). Reliance on experts (5) A person shall not be considered to have failed to carry out a duty described in subsection (1) in any circumstance in which the person relies in good faith on a report of an engineer, lawyer, accountant or other person whose professional qualifications lend credibility to the report. 2002, c. 32, s. 19 (5). Page 106 of 111 Page 1235 of 1679 Drinking-Water Systems Regulation O. Reg. 170/03 City of Niagara Falls 2024 Annual Drinking Water Report Page 1 of 5 OPTIONAL ANNUAL REPORT TEMPLATE Drinking-Water System Number: 260002304 Drinking-Water System Name: City of Niagara Falls Distribution System Drinking-Water System Owner: The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls Drinking-Water System Category: Large Municipal Period being reported: Jan 1, 2024 – Dec 31, 2024 Complete if your Category is Large Municipal Residential or Small Municipal Residential Does your Drinking-Water System serve more than 10,000 people? Yes [X] No [ ] Is your annual report available to the public at no charge on a web site on the Internet? Yes [X] No [ ] Location where Summary Report required under O. Reg. 170/03 Schedule 22 will be available for inspection. Complete for all other Categories. Number of Designated Facilities served: Did you provide a copy of your annual report to all Designated Facilities you serve? Yes [ ] No [ ] Number of Interested Authorities you report to: Did you provide a copy of your annual report to all Interested Authorities you report to for each Designated Facility? Yes [ ] No [ ] Note: For the following tables below, additional rows or columns may be added, or an appendix may be attached to the report List all Drinking-Water Systems (if any), which receive all of their drinking water from your system: Drinking Water System Name Drinking Water System Number Port Robinson 260049582 Bevan Heights Drinking Water System 260062452 Did you provide a copy of your annual report to all Drinking-Water System owners that are connected to you and to whom you provide all of its drinking water? Yes [X] No [ ] 3200 Stanley Ave Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6S4 Phone: 905-356-7521 Fax: 905-353-8612 Page 107 of 111 Page 1236 of 1679 Drinking-Water Systems Regulation O. Reg. 170/03 City of Niagara Falls 2024 Annual Drinking Water Report Page 2 of 5 Indicate how you notified system users that your annual report is available and is free of charge. [X] Public access/notice via the web [X] Public access/notice via Government Office [ ] Public access/notice via a newspaper [X] Public access/notice via Public Request [ ] Public access/notice via a Public Library [X] Public access/notice via other method Ad placed in newspaper same time as annual hydrant flushing notification Describe your Drinking-Water System The City of Niagara Falls purchases treated water from the Regional Municipality of Niagara. Surface water from Lake Erie is at the Region’s Niagara Falls Treatment Plant. Treatment consists of pre-chlorinated, conventional screening, coagulation, flocculation and settling followed by filtration, UV treatment and post chlorination. Treated water is distributed by the City of Niagara Falls through approximately 490 km of watermains ranging in size from 25mm to 600mm. Niagara Falls is connected to the Niagara-on-the-Lake distribution system via a 300mm watermain, located on Mewburn Rd, and the entrance to Bevan Heights. List all water treatment chemicals used over this reporting period N/A Were any significant expenses incurred to? [ ] Install required equipment [ ] Repair required equipment [X] Replace required equipment Please provide a brief description and a breakdown of monetary expenses incurred In 2024, approximately 5.39 km of watermain was installed at a cost of approximately $5,411,797.42 Provide details on the notices submitted in accordance with subsection 18(1) of the Safe Drinking-Water Act or section 16-4 of Schedule 16 of O.Reg.170/03 and reported to Spills Action Centre Incident Date Parameter Result Unit of Measure Corrective Action Corrective Action Date 10/28/2024 Total Coliform 1 CFU/100 mL Flush and resample 11/01/2024 Page 108 of 111 Page 1237 of 1679 Drinking-Water Systems Regulation O. Reg. 170/03 City of Niagara Falls 2024 Annual Drinking Water Report Page 3 of 5 Microbiological testing done under the Schedule 10, 11 or 12 of Regulation 170/03, during this reporting period. Number of Samples Range of E.Coli Or Fecal Results (min #)-(max #) Range of Total Coliform Results (min #)-(max #) Number of HPC Samples Range of HPC Results (min #)-(max #) Raw Treated Distribution 1431 0 0 - 1 1431 0 - 138 Operational testing done under Schedule 7, 8 or 9 of Regulation 170/03 during the period covered by this Annual Report. Number of Grab Samples Range of Results (min #)-(max #) Turbidity Chlorine 1644 0.19 -1.30 Fluoride (If the DWS provides fluoridation) NOTE: Record the unit of measure if it is not milligrams per litre. Summary of additional testing and sampling carried out in accordance with the requirement of an approval, order or other legal instrument. Date of legal instrument issued Parameter Date Sampled Result Unit of Measure N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Summary of Inorganic parameters tested during this reporting period or the most recent sample results Parameter Sample Date Result Value Unit of Measure Exceedance Antimony Arsenic Barium Boron Cadmium Chromium *Lead Mercury Selenium Sodium Uranium Fluoride Nitrite NOTE: For continuous monitors use 8760 as the number of samples. Page 109 of 111 Page 1238 of 1679 Drinking-Water Systems Regulation O. Reg. 170/03 City of Niagara Falls 2024 Annual Drinking Water Report Page 4 of 5 *only for drinking water systems testing under Schedule 15.2; this includes large municipal non- residential systems, small municipal non-residential systems, non-municipal seasonal residential systems, large non-municipal non-residential systems, and small non-municipal non-residential systems Summary of lead testing under Schedule 15.1 during this reporting period (applicable to the following drinking water systems; large municipal residential systems, small municipal residential systems, and non-municipal year-round residential systems) Location Type Number of Samples Range of Lead Results (min#) – (max #) Number of Exceedances Plumbing 44 0.00004 – 0.00668 mg/L 0 Distribution 14 0.00002 – 0.00042 mg/L 0 Summary of Organic parameters sampled during this reporting period or the most recent sample results Parameter Sample Date Result Value Unit of Measure Exceedance Alachlor Aldicarb Aldrin + Dieldrin Atrazine + N-dealkylated metobolites Azinphos-methyl Bendiocarb Benzene Benzo(a)pyrene Bromoxynil Carbaryl Carbofuran Carbon Tetrachloride Chlordane (Total) Chlorpyrifos Cyanazine Diazinon Dicamba 1,2-Dichlorobenzene 1,4-Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) + metabolites 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,1-Dichloroethylene (vinylidene chloride) Dichloromethane 2-4 Dichlorophenol 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) Diclofop-methyl Page 110 of 111 Page 1239 of 1679 Drinking-Water Systems Regulation O. Reg. 170/03 City of Niagara Falls 2024 Annual Drinking Water Report Page 5 of 5 Dimethoate Dinoseb Diquat Diuron Glyphosate HAA (NOTE: showing latest annual average) Jan 2024 - Dec 2024 7.325 μg/L 0 Heptachlor + Heptachlor Epoxide Lindane (Total) Malathion Methoxychlor Metolachlor Metribuzin Monochlorobenzene Paraquat Parathion Pentachlorophenol Phorate Picloram Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCB) Prometryne Simazine THM (NOTE: showing latest annual average) Jan 2024 - Dec 2024 33.50 μg/L 0 Temephos Terbufos Tetrachloroethylene 2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol Triallate Trichloroethylene 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4,5-T) Trifluralin Vinyl Chloride List any Inorganic or Organic parameter(s) that exceeded half the standard prescribed in Schedule 2 of Ontario Drinking Water Quality Standards. Parameter Result Value Unit of Measure Date of Sample Page 111 of 111 Page 1240 of 1679 MW-2025-07 Engineering Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: March 18, 2025 Title: Reconstruction and Widening of McLeod Road from Kalar Road to Beechwood Road Capital Budget Amendment Recommendation(s) 1. That Council APPROVE a 2025 Capital Budget Amendment to create R177-25 for the Reconstruction and Widening of McLeod Road from Kalar Road to Beechwood Road with a total budget of $9,562,500 (inclusive of non-recoverable HST), funded by $250,000 from Development Charges, $4,531,250 from Capital Special Purpose Reserves and $4,781,250 from Municipal Housing Infrastructure Program (MHIP) – Housing Enabling Core Servicing (HECS) Grant; 2. That Council APPROVE the closure of TSP51-21 McLeod Road - Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) with a budget of $250,000 funded by Development Charges be transferred to R177-25; and, 3. That Council APPROVE the payment of $326,640.63 (inclusive of HST) to GrantMatch Corp. with $244,980.47 (75%) due upon project approval and $81,660.16 (25%) holdback due upon first receipt of government funds. Executive Summary The south west portion of the City has been experiencing significant growth for the past few years and as such the road network in the area is experiencing some issues with the level of service, particularly routes such as McLeod Road west of Kalar Road which is still a two-lane rural road cross-section. The expansion of the urban boundary in the area will only serve to further accelerate the traffic congestion issues. As such, the 2024 DC Background Study identified the section of McLeod Road between Kalar Road and Beechwood Road (see attached project limit mapping) as a roadway upgrade priority in the next five years being driven by new growth. As a result, it was decided to apply for funding from the Province through its Housing- Enabling Core Servicing (HECS) stream for the capacity improvements to McLeod Road in order to accommodate the new growth in the area. GrantMatch Corporation was retained to assist with completing the application and the City was successful in being approved for 50% of the estimated $9,562,500 in cost for the anticipated widening, urbanization, signalization of the busy intersections, and the addition of active transportation facilities. This report is seeking approval for a capital budget amendment to proceed with the implementation of this project in order to leverage the funding received from the Page 1 of 6 Page 1241 of 1679 Province. City Council had previously approved funding for the completion of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) study to determine the preferred alternative to address the issues being experienced along this corridor. Once the amendment is approved, City staff will proceed with completing the EA study, detailed design of the preferred alternative, and then move to tendering and construction. The funding program has an eligible cost deadline of March 31, 2028. As such, City staff would be targeting an anticipated construction start date around May of 2026 in order to complete the project on time. Additionally, City staff is seeking approval to pay the GrantMatch fees in the amount of $326,640.63 including HST for their contributions to the successful funding application. Background On August 20th of 2024, the Ministry of Infrastructure (MOI) announced the launch of a new Provincial funding program, the Housing-Enabling Core Servicing (HECS) stream of the $1 billion Municipal Housing Infrastructure Program to build, maintain, and repair core assets such as municipal roads, bridges and culverts that will support the construction of new homes. City staff engaged the services of GrantMatch Corporation to assist in the preparation of the funding application. This had been done on previous similar Provincial new housing driven funding program applications as it was felt that it would increase the likelihood of a successful application. Additionally, GrantMatch would only be paid for any successful funding applications. Staff decided that the most appropriate anticipated project to apply for this funding was the planned widening of McLeod Road between Kalar Road and Beechwood Road. The attached map illustrates the project limits. McLeod Road east of Kalar Road had been previously widened to four lanes and urbanized in response to growth in the area and increasing traffic volumes. The section in question is still currently a two-lane rural cross-section (with roadside ditches) and is experiencing increasing traffic capacity constraints impacting the level of service the roadway provides. Future growth in the area with the expansion of the urban boundary west of Garner Road will further strain the capacity of the road network in the area, particularly the arterials such as McLeod Road. The anticipated scope of improvement works includes widening and urbanization of the road within the project limits with signalization of the busiest intersections and the addition of active transportation facilities. Funding had been previously approved by Council for the completion of a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment study to engage potential project stakeholders and assess the potential options to address the current and anticipated issues along this section of roadway, and to recommend a preferred alternative based on a prioritized analysis of the options presented. Additionally, the 2024 Development Charges Background Study and By-Law, approved last year by Council, also identified the growth triggered road upgrades along this corridor as a priority within the next 5 years. The application was completed on October 18th, 2024 and submitted to the MOI. Near the end of January, 2025 the City was informed by MOI that our funding application had Page 2 of 6 Page 1242 of 1679 been successful. The total eligible costs included in the funding application amount to $9,562,500 (inclusive of non-recoverable HST), of which the approved HECS approved funding will cover 50% ($4,781,250). The GrantMatch fees for their assistance with the successful funding applications amount to a percentage of the approved funding amount (10% of the first $1,000,000 and 5% on the remainder) which amounts to a total of $326,640.63 including HST. Analysis The complete project scope is to widen and reconstruct approximately 2.1 kilometres of McLeod Road from Kalar Road to Beechwood Road. This project includes widening the existing two-lane road configuration to accommodate additional through-traffic, turning lanes, and bike lanes. The urbanization and build-out of the road base and shoulder work will be completed along the entire project area with the installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lighting, and road repaving. New traffic signal lights will be installed at the Garner Road and Parkside Road intersections. This project will also involve the investigation and completion of the necessary modifications to existing infrastructure to accommodate the road widening, including one possible culvert extension and/or replacement. Any required new/expanded drinking water and wastewater works, stormwater management facilities, and any soft costs (design, engineering) related to these works are ineligible for funding under the HECS approved funding and are not included in the noted project budget estimate. The intent of this project is to enhance the road network, promote growth, and enable housing. Pending approval of the noted budget amendment, staff will proceed to retain a consultant to complete the EA study and detailed design for the proposed works. The proposed schedule looks to have the design completed in late 2025 or early 2026 with the tender for construction issued in early spring of 2026 and construction beginning in May. The construction of the project will continue through the remainder of 2026 and is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2027. The HECS funding deadline for eligible costs is March 31st, 2028. Operational Implications and Risk Analysis The current level of service for the rural section of McLeod Road (west of Kalar Road) is deteriorating with the increased traffic demand caused by new growth in the south and west ends of the City. As is noted in the Background information section, the expansion of the urban boundary west of Garner Road will further increase traffic demand such that the 2024 Development Charges Background study included the widening of McLeod Road and the installation of traffic signals as a priority project in the next 5 years. The accelerated deterioration of the level of service of this road as traffic increases introduces significant potential risks with respect to the safety and integrity of the road network in this area. The Operational implications if this project is not approved is further deterioration in the condition and level of service provided by McLeod Road as well as increased similar stresses on the adjacent streets as motorists begin to look for and utilize alternate routes to avoid the congestion. Page 3 of 6 Page 1243 of 1679 Financial Implications/Budget Impact Staff is recommending a 2025 Capital Budget Amendment of $9,562,500 to create R177-25 for the Reconstruction and Widening of McLeod Road from Kalar Road to Beechwood Road funded by $250,000 from Development Charges, $4,531,250 from Capital Special Purpose Reserves and $4,781,250 from Municipal Housing Infrastructure Program (MHIP) – Housing Enabling Core Servicing (HECS) Grant. Staff is recommending the closure of TSP51-21 McLeod Road - Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (MCEA) with a budget of $250,000 funded by Development Charges with the $250,000 in funding to be transferred to R177-25. TSP51-21 hasn’t started, and the project scope overlaps with the proposed Reconstruction and Widening of McLeod Road from Kalar Road to Beechwood Road project The City has incurred service fees with Grant Match Corp. to receive the HECS government grant of $4,781,250. The total service fees are calculated as the following: First $1,000,000 of funding @ 10% = $100,000.00 + HST Remaining $3,781,250 @ 5% = $189,062.50 + HST Total Service Fee = $289,062.50 + HST The City has been invoiced by GrantMatch Corp. in the amount of $216,796.88+HST (75%) for the approval of the HECS grant with $72,265.62 (25%) holdback due upon the City’s first receipt of funding. Staff is recommending that the service fees are approved and allocated to the R177-25 Capital Project. Strategic/Departmental Alignment Implementation of this Capital Works project meets the intent under Council’s Strategic Pillar of Economic Diversification and Growth by improving the mobility, accessibility and sustainability of the Niagara Falls transportation network. Strategic Plan Pillars Economic Diversification & Growth Fostering a balanced and sustainable local economy achieved by expanding and diversifying the types of industries and businesses operating within the community. List of Attachments McLeod Road Widening - Map of Project Limits Written by: Kent Schachowskoj, Manager of Engineering Sebastian Zukowski, Senior Financial Analyst Page 4 of 6 Page 1244 of 1679 Submitted by: Status: Erik Nickel, General Manager of Municipal Works Approved - 10 Mar 2025 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 11 Mar 2025 Page 5 of 6 Page 1245 of 1679 McLeod Road Widening © City of Niagara Falls 9/18/2024 This data is provided "as is" and the City of Niagara Falls (the City) makes no representations or warranties, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the data. The maps and drawings contained herein are intended for general layout purposes only and shall not be considered as official plans or drawings. For further information, please contact the City. The City shall not be held liable for special, incidental, consequential or indirect damages arising from the use of this data. Users assume all risks in using this data. No part of these digital images, or information, or hardcopies made from them may be reproduced and/or distributed without this disclaimer. Print Date:Page 6 of 6Page 1246 of 1679 CS-2025-23 Finance Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: March 18, 2025 Title: Statement of 2024 Remuneration and Expenses for Members of Council and Commissions Recommendation(s) THAT Council RECEIVE report CS-2025-23 for information. Executive Summary Annual reporting of the renumeration received is a requirement of the Municipal Act, 2001. The renumeration outlined in this report is consistent with prior years and has been prepared according to legislation. In addition, as per the requests of previous Council, Councilor attendance is included in Attachment 2. Analysis The attached statement of remuneration and expenses for the year ending December 31, 2024 has been prepared pursuant to sections 283 and 284 of the Municipal Act, 2001, and authorized for payment under By-law #99-22, By-law #2002-57 and By-law #2001-252. A breakdown of remuneration and expenses, by member of City Council, various bodies and local boards, is provided in the attached statements. A summary for 2024 is provided below: Remuneration Benefits Expenses Total City Council $363,541.06 $106,416.28 $58,106.56 $528,063.90 Committee of Adjustment $3,600.00 $0.00 $943.05 $4,543.05 Niagara Falls Hydro Holding Corporation $43,200.00 $560.86 $0.00 $43,760.86 Strategic Plan Pillars List of Attachments CS-2025-23 Attachment 1 CS-2025-23 Attachment 2 Written by: Page 1 of 5 Page 1247 of 1679 Katya Voronina, Senior Financial Analyst Submitted by: Status: Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance Approved - 13 Mar 2025 Shelley Darlington, General Manager of Corporate Services Approved - 13 Mar 2025 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 14 Mar 2025 Page 2 of 5 Page 1248 of 1679 Attachment 1 CS-2025-23 March 18, 2025 Council Member Salary Committee Benefits Expenses Total DIODATI, J 124,639.06 150.00 30,469.72 20,200.77 175,459.55 CAMPBELL, W 28,392.00 1,800.00 6,752.36 2,685.99 39,630.35 LOCOCO, L 28,392.00 3,675.00 11,338.03 6,124.51 49,529.54 PIETRANGELO, V 28,392.00 1,125.00 10,899.85 2,079.66 42,496.51 STRANGE, M 28,392.00 1,950.00 6,975.79 6,089.22 43,407.01 NIEUWESTEEG, R 28,392.00 975.00 10,934.38 7,657.73 47,959.11 BALDINELLI, A 28,392.00 1,050.00 10,945.59 4,568.93 44,956.52 PATEL, M 28,392.00 1,425.00 11,001.65 6,017.40 46,836.05 DABROWSKI, C 6,552.00 0.00 2,718.19 0.00 9,270.19 THOMSON, W 19,656.00 1,800.00 4,380.72 2,682.34 28,519.06 TOTAL $349,591.06 $13,950.00 $106,416.28 $58,106.56 $528,063.90 2024 STATEMENT OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES NIAGARA FALLS CITY COUNCIL Page 3 of 5 Page 1249 of 1679 Attachment 1 CS-2025-23 March 18, 2025 Member Remuneration Expenses Total STRANGES, L 525.00 520.69 1,045.69 CAMPIGOTTO, P 675.00 130.49 805.49 FRANZE, D 900.00 291.87 1,191.87 BRADY, R 675.00 0.00 675.00 MOODY, D 825.00 0.00 825.00 TOTAL $3,600.00 $943.05 $4,543.05 Member Remuneration Benefits Expenses Total DIODATI, J 4,800.00 77.36 0.00 4,877.36 CAMPBELL, W 4,800.00 0.00 0.00 4,800.00 LOCOCO, L 4,800.00 77.36 0.00 4,877.36 PIETRANGELO, V 4,800.00 77.36 0.00 4,877.36 STRANGE, M 4,800.00 77.36 0.00 4,877.36 NIEUWESTEEG, R 4,800.00 77.36 0.00 4,877.36 BALDINELLI, A 4,800.00 77.36 0.00 4,877.36 PATEL, M 4,800.00 77.36 0.00 4,877.36 THOMSON, W 3,600.00 0.00 0.00 3,600.00 DABROWSKI, C 1,200.00 19.34 0.00 1,219.34 TOTAL $43,200.00 $560.86 $0.00 $43,760.86 2024 STATEMENT OF REMUNERATION AND EXPENSES COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT NIAGARA FALLS HYDRO HOLDING CORPORATION Page 4 of 5 Page 1250 of 1679 CS-2025-23 March 18, 2025 2024 Attendance of Council Members MEMBER OF COUNCIL Mayor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Councillor Diodati Baldinelli Campbell Lococo Nieuwesteeg Patel Pietrangelo Strange Dabrowski Thomson X = ABSENT V = Attending Virtual P = Present in Chambers Effective: October 1, 2024 Retired: Sep 10, 2024 01-16-2024 - Council P P P P P P P P P 01-23-2024 - Council (Budget) P P V P P P P P P 02-06-2024 - Council P X P P P P X P P 02-27-2024 - Council P P P V P P X P P 03-05-2024 - Special Council P P X P P P X P P 03-19-2024 P P P P P P X P P 04-09-2024 P P P P P P P X P 04-30-2024 P P P P X P P P P 05-28-2024 P P V P P P P V P 06-18-2024 P P P P P P P P P 07-16-2024 X P P P P P P P P 08-13-2024 P P V P P P P P P 09-10-2024 P P P P P P P P X 10-01-2024 P X V P P P P P X 10-22-2024 P P P P P P P P P 11-12-2024 P P X P P P P P P 11-26-2024 (Special Council) Budget P P X P P P P P P 12-10-2024 P P X P P X P P P V Total 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 P Total 17 16 10 17 17 17 14 16 4 12 Subtotal V + P 17 16 14 18 17 17 14 17 4 12 X Total 1 2 4 0 1 1 4 1 0 2 Total 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 4 14 Attachment 2 Page 5 of 5Page 1251 of 1679 CS-2025-21 Finance Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: March 18, 2025 Title: Final Tax Notice Due Dates Recommendation(s) 1. THAT Council APPROVE June 30 and September 30 as the 2025 Final Due Dates for the Residential, Pipeline, Farmland and Managed Forest Assessment Classes. 2. THAT Council APPROVE August 29 and October 31 as the 2025 Final Due Dates for the Commercial, Industrial and Multi-residential Assessment Classes. Executive Summary The City of Niagara Falls is responsible for billing and collecting property taxes on all assessable properties within the municipality. The due dates for final tax billing must be approved by Council pursuant to the Municipal Act. Staff is recommending that due dates for the Residential, Pipeline, Farmland and Managed Forest property classes be June 30 and September 30 and the due dates for the Commercial, Industrial and Multi- residential classes be August 29 and October 31. Financial Implications/Budget Impact These annual billings include the annual taxes for the City, for the Region of Niagara and the appropriate local school boards. Due dates for property taxes are set to coincide with the quarterly levy payments made to the Region and the school boards. Strategic Plan Pillars Written by: Amber Ferguson, Manager of Revenue Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance Submitted by: Status: Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance Approved - 09 Mar 2025 Shelley Darlington, General Manager of Corporate Services Approved - 09 Mar 2025 Page 1 of 2 Page 1252 of 1679 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 09 Mar 2025 Page 2 of 2 Page 1253 of 1679 CS-2025-22 Finance Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: March 18, 2025 Title: 2025 Property Tax Rates Recommendation(s) That Council APPROVE the 2025 Property Tax Rates as illustrated in attachments 1 through 3. Executive Summary The municipality must have the annual tax rates approved prior to providing rate payers with final tax bills. The 2025 Mayor's Proposed Tax Levy Supported Operating Budget was deemed adopted on January 21, 2025. An annual general tax levy of $95,515,912 was approved at this time. The City’s tax rates included in attachment 1 of this report reflect the approved General Tax Levy, Capital Levy and the Urban Service Area Levy (Sidewalks and Storm). The Region's three rates, Region General, Transit, and Waste Management are included in attachment 2 have been provided by the responsible level of government. Attachment 3 is an illustration of total tax rates for City (including Urban Service Area Levy), Region and Province (Education). The appropriations and levying by-law is prepared for Council’s adoption, should Council approve the recommendation. This by-law authorizes the preparation and sending of final tax notices. Schedule A of the by-law shows the summary of tax rates for each classification and for all levies. Background The Regional Municipality of Niagara has approved the 2025 tax ratios and tax rates. In addition, the Province of Ontario has established educational rates for 2025. The City is now in the position to establish total tax rates and to proceed with the Final 2025 billing. Financial Implications/Budget Impact City of Niagara Falls Tax Rates (attachment 1) The 2025 tax levy is $95,515,912.  the General taxation portion of this total levy is $90,162,500; Page 1 of 8 Page 1254 of 1679  the Urban Service Area taxation portion is $3,077,771 (Sidewalks and Storm) and  the Capital Levy taxation portion amounts to $2,275,641 Corresponding tax rates based on these levies are provided in Attachment 1. Region Tax Rates (attachment 2) The Region of Niagara has a general taxation levy, waste management levy and transit levy for the City of Niagara Falls. The Region has provided the costs for these services for 2025 to the City. For the City of Niagara Falls the annual cost of the general upper tier levy used to determine the region rates for 2025 is $112,195,034. The annual cost of waste management used to determine the rates for 2025 is $9,024,243. The annual cost of transit services used to determine the rates for 2025 is $16,502,125. To fund these expenses, the City collects the taxes from the residents using a separate tax rate for each levy. Attachment 2 provides a comparison of the regional tax rates used in 2024 to the recommended rates for 2025. Total Tax Rates - including Urban Service Area Levy (attachment 3) Attachment 3 is a comparison of total tax rates used in 2024 compared to the recommended rates for 2025. Strategic Plan Pillars List of Attachments CS-2025-22 Attachment 1 CS-2025-22 Attachment 2 CS-2025-22 Attachment 3 Written by: Amber Ferguson, Manager of Revenue Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance Submitted by: Status: Tiffany Clark, Director of Finance Approved - 09 Mar 2025 Shelley Darlington, General Manager of Corporate Services Approved - 09 Mar 2025 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 09 Mar 2025 Page 2 of 8 Page 1255 of 1679 Page 3 of 8 Page 1256 of 1679 Attachment 1 CS-2025-22 March 18, 2025 Tax Rates - City of Niagara Falls (including Urban Service Area Levy) Property Class General Levy Urban Service Area Levy Capital Levy Total City Tax Rate General Levy Urban Service Area Levy Capital Levy Total City Tax Rate General Levy Urban Service Area Levy Capital Levy Total City Tax Rate Residential 0.563202%0.020484%0.008530%0.592216%0.585386%0.021060%0.014775%0.621221%3.9%2.8%73.2%4.90% Multi-Residential 1.109509%0.040353%0.016804%1.166666%1.153211%0.041489%0.029106%1.223806%3.9%2.8%73.2%4.90% New Multi-Residential 0.563202%0.020484%0.008530%0.592216%0.585386%0.021060%0.014775%0.621221%3.9%2.8%73.2%4.90% Commercial - Occupied 0.977100%0.035537%0.014798%1.027435%1.015587%0.036537%0.025633%1.077757%3.9%2.8%73.2%4.90% - Excess Land 0.977100%0.035537%0.014798%1.027435%1.015587%0.036537%0.025633%1.077757%3.9%2.8%73.2%4.90% - Vacant Land 0.977100%0.035537%0.014798%1.027435%1.015587%0.036537%0.025633%1.077757%3.9%2.8%73.2%4.90% Commercial Other - Occupied 0.977100%0.035537%0.014798%1.027435%1.015587%0.036537%0.025633%1.077757%3.9%2.8%73.2%4.90% - Excess Land 0.977100%0.035537%0.014798%1.027435%1.015587%0.036537%0.025633%1.077757%3.9%2.8%73.2%4.90% Landfill 1.655962%N/A 0.025080%1.681042%1.721189%N/A 0.043442%1.764631%3.9%N/A 73.2%4.97% Industrial 1.481222%0.053872%0.022433%1.557527%1.539566%0.055389%0.038858%1.633813%3.9%2.8%73.2%4.90% - Excess Land 1.481222%0.053872%0.022433%1.557527%1.539566%0.055389%0.038858%1.633813%3.9%2.8%73.2%4.90% - Vacant Land 1.481222%0.053872%0.022433%1.557527%1.539566%0.055389%0.038858%1.633813%3.9%2.8%73.2%4.90% Aggregate Extraction 1.252755%N/A 0.031619%1.284374% Pipelines 0.958627%0.034865%0.014519%1.008011%0.996386%0.035847%0.025148%1.057381%3.9%2.8%73.2%4.90% Farmland 0.140801%0.005121%0.002132%0.148054%0.146347%0.005265%0.003694%0.155306%3.9%2.8%73.3%4.90% Managed Forest 0.140801%0.005121%0.002132%0.148054%0.146347%0.005265%0.003694%0.155306%3.9%2.8%73.3%4.90% Farmland Awaiting Development I 0.422402%0.015363%0.006397%0.444162%0.439040%0.015795%0.011081%0.465916%3.9%2.8%73.2%4.90% 2024 2025 Year over Year % Change Page 4 of 8Page 1257 of 1679 Attachment 1 CS-2025-22 March 18, 2025 Tax Rates - City of Niagara Falls (excluding Urban Service Area Levy) Property Class General Levy Capital Levy Total City Tax Rate General Levy Capital Levy Total City Tax Rate General Levy Capital Levy Total City Tax Rate Residential 0.563202%0.008530%0.571732%0.585386%0.014775%0.600161%3.9%73.2%4.97% Multi-Residential 1.109509%0.016804%1.126313%1.153211%0.029106%1.182317%3.9%73.2%4.97% New Multi-Residential 0.563202%0.008530%0.571732%0.585386%0.014775%0.600161%3.9%73.2%4.97% Commercial - Occupied 0.977100%0.014798%0.991898%1.015587%0.025633%1.041220%3.9%73.2%4.97% - Excess Land 0.977100%0.014798%0.991898%1.015587%0.025633%1.041220%3.9%73.2%4.97% - Vacant Land 0.977100%0.014798%0.991898%1.015587%0.025633%1.041220%3.9%73.2%4.97% Commercial Other - Occupied 0.977100%0.014798%0.991898%1.015587%0.025633%1.041220%3.9%73.2%4.97% - Excess Land 0.977100%0.014798%0.991898%1.015587%0.025633%1.041220%3.9%73.2%4.97% Landfill 1.655962%0.025080%1.681042%1.721189%0.043442%1.764631%3.9%73.2%4.97% Industrial 1.481222%0.022433%1.503655%1.539566%0.038858%1.578424%3.9%73.2%4.97% - Excess Land 1.481222%0.022433%1.503655%1.539566%0.038858%1.578424%3.9%73.2%4.97% - Vacant Land 1.481222%0.022433%1.503655%1.539566%0.038858%1.578424%3.9%73.2%4.97% Aggregate Extraction 1.252755%0.031619%1.284374% Pipelines 0.958627%0.014519%0.973146%0.996386%0.025148%1.021534%3.9%73.2%4.97% Farmland 0.140801%0.002132%0.142933%0.146347%0.003694%0.150041%3.9%73.3%4.97% Managed Forest 0.140801%0.002132%0.142933%0.146347%0.003694%0.150041%3.9%73.3%4.97% Farmland Awaiting Development I 0.422402%0.006397%0.428799%0.439040%0.011081%0.450121%3.9%73.2%4.97% 2024 2025 Year over Year % Change Page 5 of 8Page 1258 of 1679 Attachment 2 CS-2025-22 March 18, 2025 Tax Rates - Region of Niagara Property Class Region General Tax Rate Waste Mgmt Tax Rate Transit Tax Rate Total Region Tax Rate Region General Tax Rate Waste Mgmt Tax Rate Transit Tax Rate Total Region Tax Rate Region General Tax Rate Waste Mgmt Tax Rate Transit Tax Rate Total Region Tax Rate Residential 0.666111%0.058209%0.102996%0.827316%0.728438%0.058591%0.107141%0.894170%9.4%0.7%4.0%8.1% Multi-Residential 1.312239%0.114672%0.202902%1.629813%1.435023%0.115424%0.211068%1.761515%9.4%0.7%4.0%8.1% New Multi-Residential 0.666111%0.058209%0.102996%0.827316%0.728438%0.058591%0.107141%0.894170%9.4%0.7%4.0%8.1% Commercial - Occupied 1.155636%0.100987%0.178688%1.435311%1.263767%0.101650%0.185879%1.551296%9.4%0.7%4.0%8.1% - Excess Land 1.155636%0.100987%0.178688%1.435311%1.263767%0.101650%0.185879%1.551296%9.4%0.7%4.0%8.1% - Vacant Land 1.155636%0.100987%0.178688%1.435311%1.263767%0.101650%0.185879%1.551296%9.4%0.7%4.0%8.1% Commercial Other - Occupied 1.155636%0.100987%0.178688%1.435311%1.263767%0.101650%0.185879%1.551296%9.4%0.7%4.0%8.1% - Excess Land 1.155636%0.100987%0.178688%1.435311%1.263767%0.101650%0.185879%1.551296%9.4%0.7%4.0%8.1% Landfill 1.958540%0.171150%0.302835%2.432525%2.141798%0.172273%0.315023%2.629094%9.4%0.7%4.0%8.1% Industrial 1.751872%0.153090%0.270879%2.175841%1.915792%0.154094%0.281781%2.351667%9.4%0.7%4.0%8.1% Industrial - Excess Land 1.751872%0.153090%0.270879%2.175841%1.915792%0.154094%0.281781%2.351667%9.4%0.7%4.0%8.1% Industrial - Vacant Land 1.751872%0.153090%0.270879%2.175841%1.915792%0.154094%0.281781%2.351667%9.4%0.7%4.0%8.1% Aggregate Extraction 1.558892%0.125388%0.229287%1.913567% Pipelines 1.133788%0.099078%0.175309%1.408175%1.239874%0.099728%0.182365%1.521967%9.4%0.7%4.0%8.1% Farmlands 0.166528%0.014552%0.025749%0.206829%0.182110%0.014648%0.026785%0.223543%9.4%0.7%4.0%8.1% Managed Forests 0.166528%0.014552%0.025749%0.206829%0.182110%0.014648%0.026785%0.223543%9.4%0.7%4.0%8.1% Farmland Awaiting Development I 0.499583%0.043657%0.077247%0.620487%0.546329%0.043943%0.080356%0.670628%9.4%0.7%4.0%8.1% 2024 2025 Year over Year % Change Page 6 of 8Page 1259 of 1679 Attachment 3 CS-2025-22 March 18, 2025 Total Tax Rates - (including City of NF Urban Service Area Levy) Property Class City Region School Total Tax Rate City Region School Total Tax Rate City Region School Total Tax Rate Residential 0.592216%0.827316%0.153000%1.572532%0.621221%0.894170%0.153000%1.668391%4.9%8.1%0.0%6.1% Multi-Residential 1.166666%1.629813%0.153000%2.949479%1.223806%1.761515%0.153000%3.138321%4.9%8.1%0.0%6.4% New Multi-Residential 0.592216%0.827316%0.153000%1.572532%0.621221%0.894170%0.153000%1.668391%4.9%8.1%0.0%6.1% Commercial - Occupied 1.027435%1.435311%0.880000%3.342746%1.077757%1.551296%0.880000%3.509053%4.9%8.1%0.0%5.0% - Excess Land 1.027435%1.435311%0.880000%3.342746%1.077757%1.551296%0.880000%3.509053%4.9%8.1%0.0%5.0% - Vacant Land 1.027435%1.435311%0.880000%3.342746%1.077757%1.551296%0.880000%3.509053%4.9%8.1%0.0%5.0% Commercial Other - Occupied 1.027435%1.435311%0.880000%3.342746%1.077757%1.551296%0.880000%3.509053%4.9%8.1%0.0%5.0% - Excess Land 1.027435%1.435311%0.880000%3.342746%1.077757%1.551296%0.880000%3.509053%4.9%8.1%0.0%5.0% Landfill 1.681042%2.432525%0.880000%4.993567%1.764631%2.629094%0.880000%5.273725%5.0%8.1%0.0%5.6% Industrial 1.557527%2.175841%0.880000%4.613368%1.633813%2.351667%0.880000%4.865480%4.9%8.1%0.0%5.5% - Excess Land 1.557527%2.175841%0.880000%4.613368%1.633813%2.351667%0.880000%4.865480%4.9%8.1%0.0%5.5% - Vacant Land 1.557527%2.175841%0.880000%4.613368%1.633813%2.351667%0.880000%4.865480%4.9%8.1%0.0%5.5% Aggregate Extraction 1.284374%1.913567%0.511000%3.708941% Pipelines 1.008011%1.408175%0.880000%3.296186%1.057381%1.521967%0.880000%3.459348%4.9%8.1%0.0%5.0% Farmland 0.148054%0.206829%0.038250%0.393132%0.155306%0.223543%0.038250%0.417099%4.9%8.1%0.0%6.1% Managed Forest 0.148054%0.206829%0.038250%0.393133%0.155306%0.223543%0.038250%0.417099%4.9%8.1%0.0%6.1% Farmland Awaiting Development I 0.444162%0.620487%0.114750%1.179399%0.465916%0.670628%0.114750%1.251294%4.9%8.1%0.0%6.1% 2024 2025 Year over Year % Change Page 7 of 8Page 1260 of 1679 Attachment 3 CS-2025-22 March 18, 2025 Total Tax Rates - (excluding City of NF Urban Service Area Levy) Property Class City Region School Total Tax Rate City Region School Total Tax Rate City Region School Total Tax Rate Residential 0.571732%0.827316%0.153000%1.552048%0.600161%0.894170%0.153000%1.647331%5.0%8.1%0.0%6.1% Multi-Residential 1.126313%1.629813%0.153000%2.909126%1.182317%1.761515%0.153000%3.096832%5.0%8.1%0.0%6.5% New Multi-Residential 0.571732%0.827316%0.153000%1.552048%0.600161%0.894170%0.153000%1.647331%5.0%8.1%0.0%6.1% Commercial - Occupied 0.991898%1.435311%0.880000%3.307209%1.041220%1.551296%0.880000%3.472516%5.0%8.1%0.0%5.0% - Excess Land 0.991898%1.435311%0.880000%3.307209%1.041220%1.551296%0.880000%3.472516%5.0%8.1%0.0%5.0% - Vacant Land 0.991898%1.435311%0.880000%3.307209%1.041220%1.551296%0.880000%3.472516%5.0%8.1%0.0%5.0% Commercial Other - Occupied 0.991898%1.435311%0.880000%3.307209%1.041220%1.551296%0.880000%3.472516%5.0%8.1%0.0%5.0% - Excess Land 0.991898%1.435311%0.880000%3.307209%1.041220%1.551296%0.880000%3.472516%5.0%8.1%0.0%5.0% Landfill 1.681042%2.432525%0.880000%4.993567%1.764631%2.629094%0.880000%5.273725%5.0%8.1%0.0%5.6% Industrial 1.503655%2.175841%0.880000%4.559496%1.578424%2.351667%0.880000%4.810091%5.0%8.1%0.0%5.5% - Excess Land 1.503655%2.175841%0.880000%4.559496%1.578424%2.351667%0.880000%4.810091%5.0%8.1%0.0%5.5% - Vacant Land 1.503655%2.175841%0.880000%4.559496%1.578424%2.351667%0.880000%4.810091%5.0%8.1%0.0%5.5% Aggregate Extraction 1.284374%1.913567%0.511000%3.708941% Pipelines 0.973146%1.408175%0.880000%3.261321%1.021534%1.521967%0.880000%3.423501%5.0%8.1%0.0%5.0% Farmland 0.142933%0.206829%0.038250%0.388012%0.150041%0.223543%0.038250%0.411834%5.0%8.1%0.0%6.1% Managed Forest 0.142933%0.206829%0.038250%0.388012%0.150041%0.223543%0.038250%0.411834%5.0%8.1%0.0%6.1% Farmland Awaiting Development I 0.428799%0.620487%0.114750%1.164036%0.450121%0.670628%0.114750%1.235499%5.0%8.1%0.0%6.1% 2024 2025 Year over Year % Change Page 8 of 8Page 1261 of 1679 PBD-2025-20 Planning Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: March 18, 2025 Title: Annual Report - Delegated Authority Process Recommendation(s) That Council RECEIVE the Annual Report that reviews and provides an update on the Delegated Authority Process for information. Executive Summary which outlined that 2023, 21, PBD-2023-16 on Report approved Council March development applications would be delegated, the time savings of each, authorized Staff to proceed with amendments to the City’s Official Plan and create a draft delegation by- law to permit the delegation of these development applications. In October 2023, Council approved Report PBD-2023-60, outlining the amendments to the City's Official Plan and adoption the Delegation By-law. The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the activities and outcomes related to the delegated authority for processing minor Zoning By-law Amendments (ZBAs) and other planning applications. This delegated authority framework aims to streamline processes, reduce timelines, and enhance overall efficiency for Council, staff and applicants. Transparency is ensured through procedures, documented decisions, and opportunities for public consultation, public access to information, allowing stakeholders and the public to stay informed and engaged throughout the process. Background In 2021, Bill 13 (The Supporting People and Businesses Act) amended the Planning Act to allow for delegation of authority to Staff for approval of certain types of development applications. The amendments introduced the ability for Council to delegate the authority to pass zoning by-laws that are of a minor nature to Staff. This could include decisions for temporary use by-laws, the lifting of holding provisions, and other minor zoning by-law amendments (Section 39.2(1)). Additionally, Bill 13 allowed Council to delegate authority to Staff to approve minor revisions to draft approved plans, extend the lapsing period for draft approved plans, and approve draft plans (Section 51.2(1)). Page 1 of 8 Page 1262 of 1679 The delegation of approval authority for such development applications does not alter notice requirements, public meeting requirements, appeal rights, or the requirement for a proposal to be consistent with Provincial, Regional and Local Planning Policy. On March 21, 2023, Council approved Report PBD-2023-16, which authorized Staff to proceed with amendments to the City’s Official Plan and create a draft by-law to delegate authority to staff. The purpose of delegated authority is to enable staff to make planning decisions within established policies and regulations, ensuring timely and efficient application review and approval process for certain types of development applications. Staff held a Public Open House on September 14, 2023 which had no attendees. Report-2023-60, approved by Council on October 24, 2023 authorized the amendments to the City’s Official Plan and adopted the Delegation By-law that included the following development applications: 1. Minor Zoning By-law Amendments, including: a. Housekeeping matters (such as terminology) b. Lifting of a Holding Provision c. Temporary Use By-law d. Agricultural Purposes Only e. Other Minor Zoning By-law Amendments that meet the following criteria: i. No studies or reports are required to review the application, other than a Planning Justification report, and ii. The proposal does not contradict any Provincial Policies, and iii. The proposal conforms to the Region and City’s Official Plan. 2. Deeming By-law Applications 3. Technical Consent Applications, including: a. Easements b. Validations of Title Certificate c. Discharge of Mortgage 4. Lifting Part Lot Control 5. Draft Approved Plan Applications, including: a. Minor Status Revisions to a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision/Condominium b. Extending the Lapsing Period of a Draft Approved Plan of Subdivision/Condominium c. Approving a Draft Approved Plan of Condominium d. Condominium Exemptions for Draft Plan Approval 6. Community Improvement Plan Simple Grant Applications Process In the City of Niagara Falls, the process for delegated reports and meetings follows a structured approach similar to the Council approval process. This ensures transparency, public engagement (where applicable), and proper decision-making authority. Page 2 of 8 Page 1263 of 1679 1. Preparation by Planners  Planners review the application and gather relevant background information, including policies, zoning regulations, and site-specific considerations.  A detailed staff report is prepared, outlining the proposal, planning analysis, and a recommendation.  If public consultation is required, notifications and engagement processes are initiated. 2. Approval by General Manager or Delegate  The General Manager of Planning, Building and Development (GM) or delegate reviews the report to ensure compliance with municipal policies and planning principles.  If necessary, adjustments are made based on feedback or additional analysis.  Once finalized, the report is signed off and approved for the next stage. 3. Public Notification and Consultation (if applicable)  Delegated approvals follow the same process as Council decisions, meaning that proper public notification must be provided as per legislative requirements.  This includes: o Circulation to required agencies and stakeholders. o Mailing notices to affected property owners. o Posting the notice online.  If required, a Public Open House and Public Meeting are held to allow the public to review the proposal and provide input. 4. Public Meeting (if applicable)  For certain applications, a statutory public meeting is held before a decision is made.  The meeting allows applicants, staff, and the public to present information, ask questions, and provide feedback. 5. Final Decision and Approval  After all consultation and review steps are completed, a final decision is made by the GM or delegate.  The applicant and relevant parties are notified of the decision, and any required follow-ups or conditions are implemented. 6. Appeal Period  The appeal period for these decisions are the same as that for applications heard before Council. If no appeals are received within the designated timeframe, the decisions become final and binding. Public Meetings The delegated authority process typically streamlines approvals for minor applications by eliminating the need for formal public meetings. However, certain cases still necessitate Page 3 of 8 Page 1264 of 1679 broader community engagement. A public meeting is required for minor zoning by-law amendments that only need a Planning Justification Report, for Agricultural Purposes Only (APO) designations as a condition of agricultural consent, and for temporary use by- laws. Additionally, public meetings are required for the approval of draft plans of condominium and for minor modifications to draft plans of subdivision or condominium. Delegated authority public meetings adhere to the same requirements as Council meetings, as they are governed by the Planning Act. This includes providing proper notice to the public, allowing for public participation, and ensuring that all relevant planning policies and regulations are considered in the decision-making process. The meetings are conducted in an open and transparent manner, allowing members of the public to voice their opinions, submit written comments, and engage in the process just as they would during a Council meeting. Decisions made under delegated authority are subject to the same legislative framework, ensuring consistency, fairness, and compliance with provincial planning requirements. Administrative Approval (Without Meeting) Certain types of planning applications are considered administrative approvals under the Planning Act and do not require a public meeting. These include the removal of a Holding (H) symbol, condominium exemptions, easements, discharge of mortgage and validation of title, lifting of part lot control, extensions to draft plans of condominium, and simple grant applications under the Community Improvement Program (CIP). These applications are generally procedural in nature, involving technical or legal matters rather than policy- based land use decisions. Since they do not impact broader planning considerations or require public input, they can be processed efficiently through administrative approval, ensuring timely decision-making while maintaining compliance with legislative requirements. Summary of Applications Processed During the reporting period (January - December 2024), the following applications were reviewed and processed under delegated authority: Application Type Total Minor Zoning By-laws 6 Removal of Part Lot Control 2 Draft Plan of Condominium 2 Modification to Draft Plan of Condominium 1 Condominium Exemption 2 Extension of Draft Plan Approval – Subdivision 1 Modification to Draft Plan of Subdivision 1 Removal of Holding (H) Symbol 1 Community Improvement Plan 1 17 Page 4 of 8 Page 1265 of 1679 In the reporting year there were a total of 10 Public Meetings held. Approved - Minor Zoning By-law Amendments 1. 6254 Brock Street 2. 5696 Desson Avenue 3. 9234 Sodom Road & Part of Lot 19, Concession 2 Willoughby 4. 8700 Roosevelt Avenue 5. Part 8547 Grassy Brook Road & Part PID 30832 6. 4952 Walnut Street Deferred - Minor Zoning By-law Amendments Planning Staff received an application for a minor zoning by-law amendment for 5901- 5929, 5930-5950, 5933-5953 and 5985 Bentley Common to permit Vacation Rental Units (VRU) within 21 of 34 existing townhouse dwellings. A Public Open House was held on October 3, 2024, with 14 members of the public attending in opposition. Additionally, staff received written comments in opposition from six members of the public. Given the level of public interest and opposition, and to ensure transparency in the decision-making process, staff determined that it would be appropriate to return the decision-making authority to Council. This matter was considered by Council by way of Report PBD-2024-51 on December 10th, 2024. Approved - Removal of Part Lot Control 1. 4091 & 4099 Acheson Avenue 2. Registered Plan 59M-498 Approved – Draft Plan of Condominium and Draft Plan Modifications 1. 6357 Progress Street 2. 5881 Dunn Street 3. 4735 Pettit Avenue & 6705 Cropp Street Approved – Condominium Exemption 1. 7549 Kalar Road 2. 5629 Swayze Drive Approved – Extension to Draft Plan of Subdivision and Draft Plan Modifications 1. 5687 Ferry Street Approved – Downtown CIP: Commercial Building and Facade Improvement Grant 1. 4683 Crysler Avenue Page 5 of 8 Page 1266 of 1679 Analysis The amendments Bill 13 made to the Planning Act required that Official Plan policies be in place to outline criteria for the delegation of authority for Minor Zoning By-law Amendments and Draft Approved Plans. Report-2023-60, approved by Council on October 24, 2023 authorized the amendments to the City’s Official Plan (Official Plan Amendment No.155) and adopted the Delegation By-law. Delegated authority must be defined and permitted through a municipal delegation bylaw, which stipulates the parameters to maintain trust between Council and their delegate. The municipal Delegation By-law, approved by Council, permits the delegation of all development applications listed above in the Background of this report. For Council’s information, not all are required to have Official Plan policies such as deeming by-laws, technical consent applications, and lifting of part lot control. The by-laws currently passed under delegated authority are signed by the Mayor and Clerk; however, they are signed outside of Council’s agenda and will read “Signed and sealed under the delegated authority of Council to the General Manager of Planning, Building and Development, as per by-law 2025-XX, this XX day of XX, 2025”. Conclusion Overall, delegated authority is a highly effective tool for streamlining the development approval process, ensuring greater efficiency while maintaining transparency and accountability. By delegating these applications, the City Planning Staff have significantly reduced processing times—on average saving up to 2 to 5 weeks per application as outlined in Appendix A. This accelerated timeline allows projects to move forward more quickly, reducing delays for developers, homeowners, and businesses alike. Moreover, delegated authority helps optimize municipal resources by allowing Council to focus on more complex and high-impact planning matters while routine applications are handled efficiently by Staff. By aligning with both municipal and provincial priorities of building more homes faster, delegated authority plays a critical role in supporting economic growth, housing supply, and community development. Financial Implications/Budget Impact Delegating authority to Staff frees up Council time to focus on more complex and high- impact planning matters and therefore result in applications being processed by Staff at a faster rate with time savings between 2 to 5 weeks per application. Strategic/Departmental Alignment Delegating authority contributes to Council’s Engaging & Accountable Government priority by providing an improved and more efficient customer service experience. Page 6 of 8 Page 1267 of 1679 Strategic Plan Pillars Customer Service Delivering a welcoming and consistent customer service experience centred around the people we serve. List of Attachments Appendix A - Summary of Time Savings from Delegating Authority Written by: Tara O'Toole, Senior Manager of Current Development Page 7 of 8 Page 1268 of 1679 Appendix A – Summary of Time Savings from Delegating Authority Application Type Standard Processing Time Delegated Processing Time Time Savings Minor Zoning By-law Amendments Housekeeping 10-12 weeks 5-7 weeks Up to 5 weeks Lifting of a Holding Provision 8-10 weeks 4-5 weeks Up to 4 weeks Temporary Use By-laws 10-12 weeks 5-7 weeks Up to 5 weeks Agricultural Purposes Only 10-12 weeks 5-7 weeks Up to 5 weeks Other Minor Zoning By-law Amendments 10-12 weeks 5-7 weeks Up to 5 weeks Deeming By-law 4-5 weeks 1-2 weeks Up to 3 weeks Technical Consent Applications Easements 10-12 weeks 5-7 weeks Up to 5 weeks Validations of Title Certificate 4-5 weeks 1 week Up to 4 weeks Discharge of Mortgage 10-12 weeks 5-7 weeks Up to 5 weeks Lifting Part Lot Control 4-5 weeks 2 weeks Up to 2 weeks Minor Status Revisions to a Draft Approved Plan 8-9 weeks 4-5 weeks Up to 4 weeks Extend the Lapsing Period of a Draft Approved Plan 8-9 weeks 4-5 weeks Up to 4 weeks Draft Plan Approval of Condominium 14-16 weeks 10-12 weeks Up to 4 weeks Condominium Exemption 8-9 weeks 4-5 weeks Up to 4 weeks Page 8 of 8 Page 1269 of 1679 RCF-2025-02 Recreation and Culture Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: March 18, 2025 Title: 2024 Annual Update from the Culture Section Recommendation(s) THAT Council receive report R&C 2025-02 for information. Executive Summary The Culture Section of the Recreation & Culture Department is responsible for three municipally operated Museums, the Exchange and Cultural initiatives throughout the City. The Culture Section works with the Niagara Falls Culture Committee to deliver additional events, grant programmes and awards to the cultural community. This report is a summary of the actions of the section in 2024 and it is required by some of our funding bodies that such reports are submitted to Council. Staff of the Culture Section have put together annual reviews for many years and have provided these to council for information purposes in the past. This report provides Council with an update on some of the work completed by the Culture Section in 2024. Background Annually, Culture staff meet to pull together a summary of previous activities. This provides perspective on what has occurred and also provides direction on what is to come. This summary is a result of that meeting and the work of the Cultural team. Analysis This meets the requirements of provincial funding bodies to ensure that Council is aware of the work of the Culture Section and more specifically the Museums. Financial Implications/Budget Impact There are no current financial, staffing or legal implications with this report. Strategic/Departmental Alignment Page 1 of 30 Page 1270 of 1679 The City of Niagara Falls is committed to building and promoting a vibrant, sustainable City that supports an active, connected, and creative community. Through culture, the City can stimulate a sense of pride and commitment from residents and visitors to the City of Niagara Falls. Strategic Plan Pillars Sustainability - Financial Effectively managing the City’s financial resources to meet our current and future obligations without relying on external funding sources or sacrificing our ability to deliver essential services to our residents . List of Attachments 2024 Culture division annual report FINAL Written by: Clark Bernat, Culture & Museums Manager Submitted by: Status: Kathy Moldenhauer, General Manager of Recreation, Culture & Facilities Approved - 06 Mar 2025 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 09 Mar 2025 Page 2 of 30 Page 1271 of 1679 MUSEUMS & CULTURE A N N U A L R E P O R T F O R 2 0 2 4 Page 3 of 30 Page 1272 of 1679 MUSEUMS 2 0 2 4 Page 4 of 30 Page 1273 of 1679 Page 5 of 30 Page 1274 of 1679 COLLECTION HIGHLIGHTS Order of Canada Pin Awarded to Winnifred Stokes Hill 2024.009.3 Nabisco Factory Worker’s Uniform Worn by Mabel Shekelton 2024.005.1 Business Magnate Saul Davis Photographs 2024.004, 2024.007 Early GNGH Nursing School Collection of Garda Clark 2024.020 Councillor Winnifred “Judy” Orr Photographs 2024.030 Drawings of Niagara Falls Sites by Architects Borter, Mann and Findlay 2024.010 Sherman Zavitz Collection of 450 Niagara Falls Guidebooks, Brochures and Postcards 2024.016 Sam Thomas Strawberry Beadwork Panels 2024.017 623 Artefacts accessioned into the collection in 2024 Visitor Comments... "I don’t understand how this place is not on the bazillion lists of recommended places to stop. I only found it by google searching for different things to do while on vacation. Beautiful building with great information about the history of Niagara, War of 1812 and the featured art exhibit was amazing. This museum may be small but it is mighty and was worth the stop!“ Megan D - Google Review The Museums worked with Niagara Antique Power Association by deaccessioning some artefacts that will find a new home in their village. Page 6 of 30 Page 1275 of 1679 Page 7 of 30 Page 1276 of 1679 EXHIBITIONS & GALLERIES My Story, MyTattoo Tattoos are living images that reveal important stories about our residents, our community and the tattoo phenomenon. “My Story, My Tattoo” features 32 photographs and stories of people and their amazing tattoos. Page 8 of 30 Page 1277 of 1679 EXHIBITIONS & GALLERIES The Fabric of Our Being Local artist, author, and poet Nadine Williams shared a beautiful quilted piece from her current project that brings awareness to the UN’s International Decade for People of African Descent. Page 9 of 30 Page 1278 of 1679 EXHIBITIONS & GALLERIES The GoldspinkCollection: An Exhibit of Niagara Falls The Goldspink Collection came to the Niagara Falls History Museum in the summer of 2023 upon the closing of the TAG Art Gallery. Comprised of historically significant Niagara Falls related prints, watercolours, and pencil drawings, this large-scale donation is a generous gift from brothers Tom and Frank Goldspink. Page 10 of 30 Page 1279 of 1679 EXHIBITIONS & GALLERIES The Niagara Falls History Museum featured this exhibition of works by contemporary artists from around the world that highlighted the importance of one of our most important resources. Water for Life II Page 11 of 30 Page 1280 of 1679 The museum team continued its ongoing programming for members, families and adults. The following are the offerings in 2024 for the community. Family Day March Break Programming Winter Break Programming Drummond Hill Cemetery Tours PD Day Programming Community Art Project Film Series Jane Austen Tea Victorian Christmas Tea Pride Niagara’s Teach & Tell National Indigenous Peoples Day - Inuit Workshop Medicine Wheel Beading Workshop Reclaiming the Narrative Tattoos Talk Eclipse 101 Seniors Outreach Programming at Meadows of Dorchester PROGRAMMING 15,518 Museum visitors in 2024 14,098 Views on the Museum YouTube Channel 103,000 Website visits to our main webpage, virtual exhibition & online database $23,677 Gift Shop Sales Page 12 of 30 Page 1281 of 1679 Family Day We welcomed Earth Rangers back and were delighted to see their wonderful presentation take place in the Market Hall and families exploring the galleries. 879 attended in 2024 PROGAMMING FOCUS March Break and PD Days We hosted a variety of educational programmers and had children explore the museum 989 Attendees 8 Days of Programming 101 Research requests answered 18% Revenue increase from admissions to museum 9% Increse in Museum revenue from admissions, activities, donations, rentals and gift shop Cast of “Cataract House”. Presented in partnership with the Underground Railroad Museum, this play is in development and a workshop was held at the Exchange. Page 13 of 30 Page 1282 of 1679 SCHOOL PROGAMMING Heritage Fair The Museum and Exchange hosted over 125 DSBN students for their regional Heritage Fair presentations. CEDAR Working with the Hadiya'dagénhahs, First Nations, Métis and Inuit Student Centre, we presented interactive workshop based programming for Niagara Elementary School Children. 297 Attendees 3 Days of Programming School Tours The Museum and Drummond Hill Cemetery continues to be a favourite excursion for Grade 7/8 year-end trips. 900+ Students Page 14 of 30 Page 1283 of 1679 2024 MUSEUM DONORS Financial Supporters Peter Cherwonogodzky Sherman Zavitz Province of Ontario Donations to the Collection James Abohbot Richard Bright Wendy Canavan Garda Clark Marie Cullis Joyce De Sain Gary Dell Linda Dennison Kenneth Handford Paisley Janvary-Pool Jacques Lussier Fawn Messer Jim Millington Susan Montgomery Niagara Falls Public Library Heather Ott Judy Quagliariello Dan Regehr Antoinette Rodighiero Jennifer Skye St. Catharines Museum and Lock 3 Complex Karen Freeman Thorpe David Tupper Ann G. Ward Deborah Wilson Sherman Zavitz Page 15 of 30 Page 1284 of 1679 THE EXCHANGE 2 0 2 4 Page 16 of 30 Page 1285 of 1679 NOTABLE EVENTS @ THE EXCHANGE Indian Ocean Terra Lightfoot at Night of Art Cut ChemistSamantha Fickle Digital Drip Photo Courtesy JulieJocsak/Metroland Page 17 of 30 Page 1286 of 1679 EVENTS @ THE EXCHANGE Grand Opening Weekend Night of Art Paw’p Up Shop Deck the Halls Farmers’ Market Music Trivia Niagara Laughs Comedy Series Roller Skating Nights Niagara Concert Band Sundays Arts & Culture Wall of Fame Drag It! Culture Days March Break Programming Eclipse Lecture Intergalactic Dance Party Events hosted at the Exchange: Niagara Falls Volunteer Awards Prototype Fashion & Art Show Untitled Art Show 90s/Wheezer Tribute Metal Mayhem Concert Black Owned 905 Market NACCO Paradisia Performance Niagara Falls Mental Health Fair Paradisia PK Hummingbird BYOTA Film Festival Page 18 of 30 Page 1287 of 1679 Monthly Exchange Gallery Openings Bi-Monthly Mini-Gallery Installations The Gallery Exchange Program: John Mann Gallery, Steve Wilson Gallery, White Galleon Gallery, Lionel Labeau Niagara Falls Art Exhibition Mayors Christmas Card Competition MYAC Youth Exhibition Live Market Murals Niagara Falls In Focus Photography Exhibition River Rebels Wheatpaste: Emily Andrews, Lindsay Ann Chilcott & Marinko Jareb ART ONSITE ARTIST STUDIOS 22 artists renting in the studios in 2024 Studio Artist lead programming: Live Figure Drawing Bad Art Days Poetry Nights 5x5 talks Children’s Drawing Artist Materials Swapmeet Super Dope Art Exhibit Page 19 of 30 Page 1288 of 1679 MUSIC ONSITE Glissandi Quartet Weekly Market Musicians Ontario Creates Series Wednesday Night Social Nights Cataract House - Musical Workshop Night of Art Stage ft. DJ Dave Stiles, Sleepy Jean, Billy Rogers & Terra Lightfoot DJ Chance Matuku Stuck in the 90's Whiskey Glasses Niagara Falls Concert Band Music hosted onsite: #FunklecticAV ft. Cut Chemist, DJ Macualte & DJ Tanner Opera Niagara NIOMA Recital Indian Ocean Candle Making Workshops Bob Ross Paint Nights Woodworking Programmes Stained Glass Workshops Watercolour Workshops Cornhole League Indigenous Medicine Wheel Bracelet Workshop Floral Workshop Class PROGRAMMING Page 20 of 30 Page 1289 of 1679 The Woodworking Studio is a maker space for all. Members have accessed the space to create their passion projects, make unique crafts for friends and family and learn a new skill. Our woodshop techs are on hand to oversee the equipment and provide a helping hand. The techs have also developed some great workshops for adults, kids and for those that are learning to use the tools and equipment of the studio. WOODWORKING STUDIO TOOL DONATION The Niagara Falls Exchange received a generous donation from Tamara O’Shaughnessy in honor of Captain “Jimmy” James. Captain Jimmy James’s passion for woodworking and his dream of creating a space where others could learn, explore, and express their creative talents lives on through this donation. We are honored to carry forward his vision and to inspire a community of makers for generations to come. This significant collection of hand and power tools will benefit people for many years. Page 21 of 30 Page 1290 of 1679 PREMIER PARTNERS $35k Local drink sales at events 31,000+ Attended an event or activitiy at the Exchange The Exchange would like to thank the following for their support during our first year of operations: Crawford Smith & Swallow Martin Sheppard Fraser LLP 196 Days that the Woodshop was accessed by Studio members - representing 78% of the days open members utilized the space Page 22 of 30 Page 1291 of 1679 2024 NIAGARA BIENNIAL AWARDS Grand Prize Winners The Exchange Project Team: DTAH, Garritano Brothers Ltd, Faet Lab, WalterFedy, Entro, Introba/Integral Group, ASI Award of Excellence Winners Outdoor Art Public Art at the Exchange Project Project Team: Nicholas Crombach, Dillon Douglas, Jacob Headley, Emily Andrews, Lyndsay-Ann Chilcott Jury Comments... "The relationship between spaces and scales is exemplar. The project enhances the surrounding context filling the previously open site with a comprehensive approach to design quality across architecture, landscape architecture, and site design“ and “The art created an appealing visual contrast that brings the spaces around the building to life expressed in vibrant colours and dynamic sculptural forms.” Page 23 of 30 Page 1292 of 1679 CULTURE 2 0 2 4 Page 24 of 30 Page 1293 of 1679 Carry Me Home A collaborative community recording project and live concert album release event celebrating and featuring Niagara songwriters, musicians, and venues. Halloween on Queen A Niagara Falls event featuring inflatables, a witchcraft market, drumming, psychic readings, kids' activities, a movie, pumpkin carving, live music and more. Lucky's Lens Documentary To share Niagara's Culture and Historic events from the archives of local filmmaker and businessman Fortunato "Lucky" Stracuzzi since his immigration in 1968. Niagara Fiesta Extravaganza Niagara Fiesta Extravaganza is the biggest cultural festival in Niagara Falls, attended by thousands during the two-day free public event. 2024 NIAGARA FALLS CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT FUND RECIPIENTS Page 25 of 30 Page 1294 of 1679 Nikola Tesla Day International Festival Festival dedicated to honoring the life and contributions of Nikola Tesla. The primary goal of this festival is to commemorate Tesla's extraordinary legacy and inspire the next generation of inventors, scientists, and innovators. #FunklecticAV featuring Cut Chemist (LA) DJ Macualte (San Fran), DJ Tanner (Niagara, Canada) FunklecticAV: Bringing in world-class DJs to help elevate the local DJ culture and provide a fun event where everyone can enjoy the love, dancing, singing, unique video edits and visuals. Forest Captain A comedy mini-series following the trials and tribulations of the Heartland Forest Rangers as they work to conserve and protect their habitat. 2024 NIAGARA FALLS CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT FUND RECIPIENTS $183,361 NFCFC application requests Page 26 of 30 Page 1295 of 1679 2SLGBTQIA+ Newcomer Improv Connecting 2SLGBTQIA+ Newcomers to each other and Niagara through sharing improv skills to reduce isolation, build social & cultural capacity, and foster a sense of belonging. Music Videos by Marinko Jareb Creating a series of 5 music videos in Niagara Falls to be published and shared on a wide variety of social media platforms. Throwback! A Totally 90s Experience! This will be a night of iconic music from the 90s. Featuring two huge albums from the 90s in their entirety. Weezer's Blue album and Alanis Morissette's Jagged Little Pill but it's not just a bland representation of these great albums. We will add depth to the experience by using theatrical elements such as costumes, props, and dramatic flair to really bring the nostalgic elements of this music. Our goal is to create a fun and memorable night but also an experience. 2024 NIAGARA FALLS CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT FUND RECIPIENTS - MICROGRANTS Page 27 of 30 Page 1296 of 1679 Mini-Putt What?! From the minds of Brainkite Inc, came a wonderful installation in the OPG Gallery for Night of Art called, Mini-Putt What?! This was a spin on traditional mini-putt based on superstitions. Market Murals During the summer, local artists did live mural work on Saturdays and Wednesdays around the theme of “What I had for Breakfast.” CULTURE PROJECTS Page 28 of 30 Page 1297 of 1679 Guinness World Record With the eclipse passing through Niagara in April of 2024, the culture team was challenged to come up with some events. On April 8, 2024, while sailing on a Hornblower Cruise, 309 people set the GWR for people dressed in a sun costume. Trail Mix Located along the Millenium Trail, Trail Mix brings local music to those who are utilizing our trail system. Just scan the QR code on the trail and start listening. Mini Galleries Located in 5 locations around Niagara Falls, artists have created unique miniature installations to make you think, understand or just plan enjoy our local talented artists. 2024 artists are: Ashley Marazzo, Marsha Drew, Jon Shaw, Sarah Carter, Steve Wilson CULTURE PROJECTS 33 Artists participated in the 2024 Trail Mix programme 309 GWR of people dressed in sun costumes Page 29 of 30 Page 1298 of 1679 Arts & Culture Wall of Fame 2024 Wall of Fame Inductees were Brighton Rock (above) Evergon (left) and Denise Matthews (top left). Culture Committee Art Competition This annual event was held at the Niagara Falls Exchange. Photo credit: Gigi Angeletti Jean Jacques Ringuett Page 30 of 30 Page 1299 of 1679 PBD-2025-19 Planning Report Report to: Mayor and Council Date: March 18, 2025 Title: 2024 Development & Housing Monitoring Report - Year in Review Recommendation(s) That Council RECEIVE the 2024 Year End Development and Housing Monitoring Report that reviews the status of development and growth management activity for the City of Niagara Falls. Executive Summary This report informs Council about development and growth management activity that occurred in the City during 2024. The report utilizes statistics compiled from a variety of sources on different aspects of development activity in the City of Niagara Falls. As part of the strategy to manage and plan for the City’s future, the report provides data to show where and what types of housing are being constructed and to provide insight with respect to housing that will be needed in the future to accommodate the City’s growing population. As of December 31, 2023, Niagara Falls' estimated population was 105,552, an 11.7% increase (11,137 people) from the 2021 Census count of 94,415. The Niagara Region's Official Plan projects a population of 141,650 for Niagara Falls by 2051, which is a growth of 47,235 people. With the 2023 estimate showing the City at approximately 25% of the 47,235 expected population growth by 2051, growth has exceeded expectations since the 2021 Census therefore, housing development will need to keep pace with this trend. With respect to Niagara Falls’ 2024 provincial housing target of 667 units (modified from 800 units), the following 642 residential units were created, representing 96% of the target:  129 conversions as reported by the City of Niagara Falls, including: o 22 apartments at the former IHOP restaurant o 107 Additional Dwelling Units (ADUs)  288 long term care beds at 6747 Oakwood Drive.  225 housing starts as reported by CMHC: o 55 single detached homes o 8 semi-detached homes Page 1 of 26 Page 1300 of 1679 o 112 townhouses o 50 apartment units With respect to issued residential building permits, 430 permits were issued in 2024, including:  125 single detached homes  8 semi-detached homes  66 townhouses  102 apartment units  22 apartments at former IHOP  107 Additional Dwelling Units With respect to 2024 Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) building permits, there were 5 new industrial permits, 8 new commercial permits, and 14 new institutional permits issued, for a total value of $186 million. 2024 ICI renovation and alteration permits were valued at $34 million, for a total of $220 million in permits for all ICI activity. Despite a recognized slowdown in construction, planning applications held relatively steady in 2024. There was a decrease in pre-consultation meetings, which were previously mandatory in some areas. Bill 185, "The Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act, 2024," removed the authority to require mandatory pre-consultation, making them voluntary instead. More specifically:  Planning applications increased by 0.8% from the previous year (126 in 2023 vs 127 in 2024).  Pre-consultation applications were down 25% from 113 in 2023 to 83 in 2024.  There were 341 active planning applications in various stages of approval in 2024. With respect to By-Law Services, the following is a statistical summary for 2024:  By-Law Services responded to 2,252 complaints, which represets an increase from 1,841 complaints received in 2023.  The property standards complaints were up 25% in 2024 (456) from 2023 (364).  Building code orders were up in 2024 (190) from 2023 (104).  Rodent rebates held steady, with 79 rebates issued in 2024 and 78 rebates issued in 2023. Background This report provides Council with a summary of growth, building and development activity that occurred in Niagara Falls in 2024. The collection and reporting on these statistics enables staff and Council to make more informed decisions with respect to Page 2 of 26 Page 1301 of 1679 infrastructure projects, housing, and land needs requirements for the City. In addition, it allows for a benchmarking of servicing levels and key performance indicators. The 2024 Development and Housing Monitoring Report, attached as Appendix 1, highlights a number of key findings which are further summarized in this report. Analysis Population The most recent Census conducted by Statistics Canada was in 2021, and the next scheduled census is in 2026. The 2021 Census recorded a population of 94,415 people in Niagara Falls, representing a 7% increase from the 2016 Census and a 1.2% annual growth rate. Niagara Region’s Official Plan projects that the City’s population will be 141,650 people by 2051, driven primarily by international and intra-provincial migration. Further, Statistics Canada indicates the median age of the population in Niagara Falls is increasing and it is expected that seniors will represent a larger percentage of the population. As of the end of 2023, Niagara Falls' estimated population was 105,552, an increase of 11,137 (11.7%) from the 94,415 reported in the 2021 Census. This reflects an annual growth rate of 3.9%, more than double the projected rate of 1.7%, indicating faster than expected growth in recent years. Statistics Canada has recognized Canada as one of the 20 fastest growing countries in the world in 2023. With Canada’s population continuing to grow by over a million per year since 2022, Niagara Falls has followed this trend. However, if immigration to Canada slows, then it is anticipated that the growth in Niagara Falls’ population will follow suit. Residential Development: Building Permits Residential building permits were down 33% in 2024 as Niagara Falls issued 430 new residential building permits, as opposed to 643 residential building permits in 2023. More specifically in 2024, the 430 new residential building permits were issued for:  125 single detached dwellings (29.1%)  8 semi detached dwellings (1.9%)  66 townhouse units (15.3%)  102 apartment units (23.7%)  22 apartment units created at a former IHOP restaurant (5.1%)  107 additional dwelling units (i.e. basement apartments) (24.9%) The 430 residential building permits represent a diverse range of housing types, helping the City meet the varied needs of its residents. The new units contribute to ongoing population growth and align with the City's efforts to increase housing supply and affordability. Page 3 of 26 Page 1302 of 1679 Affordable Housing Target ‘Affordable’, as defined in the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement, is housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs that do not exceed 30% of gross income for low and moderate-income households. Affordability is measured across a spectrum of income levels with low income represented by households earning up to $64,800 annually and moderate incomes represented by households earning between $64,800 and $103,572 annually. To meet the affordability criteria, the value of new build construction must be equal to or less than $539,460. The City’s Official Plan sets an annual target of 270 new affordable housing units. In 2024, 243 new residential units met the affordability criteria, achieving 90% of this goal. The majority of these units were townhomes and apartments, reflecting the City's focus on higher-density housing to improve affordability and supply. Continued efforts to support diverse housing options will be essential in meeting future demand and ensuring accessible housing for all residents. On September, 28, 2023, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) introduced Bill 134, which proposed a new definition of “affordable” for the purposes of exemptions from development charges under the Development Charges Act, 1997. For a non-rental unit, affordability is classified as 90% of the average purchase price identified for a residential unit as set out in the Province’s Affordable Residential Units bulletin. The bulletin, for Niagara Falls identifies that an affordable purchase price of a new single detached/semi-detached/townhouse/condo apartment is $319,800. In 2024, no exemptions for development charges were granted by the City for affordable non- rental units. For a rental unit, affordability is classified as, the average market rent set out in the Province’s Affordable Residential Units bulletin. The bulletin, for Niagara Falls identifies that an affordable rent as •Bachelor Apartment: $732 •1 Bedroom Apartment Unit: $1,200 •2 Bedroom Apartment Unit: $1,317 •3 Bedroom Apartment Unit: $1,460 In 2024, no exemptions for development charges were granted by the City for affordable rental units. Residential Development: Starts and Completions Housing starts are calculated at the beginning of the housing construction cycle and completions at the end of the construction cycle. It should be noted that there is not a direct co-relation between housing starts and the number of issued building permits. For example, there may be a delay of up to six months between the City's issuance of a building permit and the start of construction by the builder. Page 4 of 26 Page 1303 of 1679 In 2024, 225 housing units as reported by CMHC, were started (the beginning of the housing construction cycle) and 534 housing units were completed (the end of the housing construction cycle) in Niagara Falls. These numbers are lower than 2023’s, which saw 389 starts and 590 completions. The lower number of housing starts and completions may be the result of a number of factors including the high cost of materials and land, high interest rates, shortage of skilled labour, and general economic uncertainty. Provincial Housing Target In 2023 the City signed a Housing Pledge to build 800 units per year between 2023 and 2031. For the years 2023, 2024 and 2025, the Provincial Build Faster Fund provides funding to municipalities that meet the Housing Pledge goal. Recognizing strong economic headwinds that are impacting the building industry conditions, the Province has modified this goal, with a 2024 target of 667 units for Niagara Falls. The housing target is measured by housing starts, long term care beds and conversions to new residential units. In 2024, CMHC reported 225 housing starts for the year, the Ministry of Long-Term Care reported 288 long term care beds, and there were 129 conversions to new residential units, totaling 642 units or 96% of the 667 goal. With the conclusion of the Provincial election, City staff will continue to work with the Provincial Government and CMHC staff to confirm our housing numbers and our Building Faster Fund allotment for 2024. Further, City staff will also be following up with Provincial staff in regard to 7280 Lundy’s Lane, which converted from a hotel to a 122 unit rental building, which was unaccounted for in the 2023 Provincial housing target reporting. Non-Residential Development: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional The value of all new Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) construction in 2024 was $186 million. With respect to industrial construction there were 5 new industrial building permits issued, totaling $32 million and adding approximately 3,644 square metres of new industrial space to the City (it is noted that not all 5 permits reported the size of construction). The largest industrial permit was for $10 million, for a new warehouse at 6162 Progress Street. With respect to new commercial construction, there were 8 building permits issued for a total value of $36 million, with the largest permit being $10 million for a new KIA sales facility at 7960 Oakwood Drive. There were 14 new institutional building permits issued in 2024 for a total value of $151 million, with the largest permit being the foundation permit for the new hospital at 9889 Montrose Road valued at $90 million. The second largest permit was for a new elementary school for the Niagara District School Board at 8422 McLeod Road, valued at $25 million. Page 5 of 26 Page 1304 of 1679 In 2024, the total value of permits issued for industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) renovations totaled $34 million, up from $27 million in 2023. Overall, the total value of all ICI permits issued in 2024 was $220 million, marking a significant 340% increase from the $50 million recorded in 2023. This substantial growth reflects strong investment in Niagara Falls' ICI sector, driven by new developments, expansions, and modernization efforts. Real Estate Market The real estate market in Niagara Falls weakened slightly in 2024 with a 2% decrease in the average price for residential real estate (re-sales). The average price for a house in Niagara Falls in 2024 was $626,040, compared to 2023’s average of $638,342. Though the average price of a house has decreased, lower house prices open up opportunities for those wanting to enter the housing market. Rental Vacancy Rate The rental vacancy rate increased in 2024 to 3.8%, representing a 1% increase from 2023 rental vacancy rate of 2.8%. A vacancy rate of 3% has traditionally been accepted as providing sufficient housing choice for tenants. Further, the average rent for tenants in Niagara Falls was $1,420, an increase from 2023’s average rent of $1,343. The average rent for St Catharines – Niagara as reported by CMHC for a bachelor apartment was $988, for a 1 bedroom $1,251, for a 2 bedroom $1,474, and for 3+ bedroom was $1,527. It is important to note, that the Province’s average rent for affordable rental units as set out in the Affordable Residential Units bulletin and is less than the average rent for St Catharines – Niagara as set out by CMHC. For Niagara Falls the affordable rental price is: •Bachelor Apartment: $732 •1 Bedroom Apartment Unit: $1,200 •2 Bedroom Apartment Unit: $1,317 •3 Bedroom Apartment Unit: $1,460 Vacation Rentals and Bed and Breakfast Establishments A Vacation Rental Unit (VRU) is a short-term accommodation that is available in its entirety with up to 3 bedrooms to rent, without the owner present on site and permitted in commercial zones. In 2024, there was a total of 64 licensed VRUs in Niagara Falls. Of these 64 units, 27 were newly licensed in 2024, representing an increase from the 47 VRUs licensed in 2023. A Bed and Breakfast (BnB) is permitted in residential and commercial zones. In residential zones a BnB is allowed 3 guest bedrooms, and in commercial zones 6 guest Page 6 of 26 Page 1305 of 1679 bedrooms. Bed and Breakfasts require the owner to live on site, unlike VRU’s which don’t require an owner to be present. In 2024, there were 56 licensed BnB establishments in the City of Niagara Falls. Both Vacation Rental Units and Bed and Breakfasts must be licensed by the City of Niagara Falls. Land Supply Draft plan approved subdivisions are plans of subdivision which have received Council approval but are subject to conditions that must be fulfilled prior to registration. As of December 31, 2024, there were 8,012 units in draft approved plans. Registered plans of subdivision are plans of subdivision which have received final approval from the City, having fulfilled all conditions and having been registered with the Land Registry Office. In 2024, 2 new plans of subdivision were registered in Niagara Falls, adding 97 units for an overall total of 390 units in registered plans as of December 31, 2024. With a supply of 8,402 draft-approved and registered units, the City has a 10.5-year supply of readily developable land, far exceeding the Province’s minimum requirement of three years. This strong land supply positions Niagara Falls well to accommodate future growth, support housing affordability, and meet evolving community needs. Intensification Intensification means increasing density through an increase in the number of units, uses or lots on a portion of land via development. If growth can occur through increased densities in existing neighborhood's, then less agricultural land will be required to accommodate future growth. Niagara Region’s official plan has increased the City’s intensification target from 40% to 50%. The highest intensification rate the City reached was 77% in 2020, and the lowest was 11% in 2018. Since 2019 the City has exceeded a 60% intensification target, with the majority of new development occurring within the Built Urban Boundary. At a 2024 intensification rate of 76% the City continues to exceed the Region’s Official Plan target of 50% for Niagara Falls. The City’s 2022 Housing Needs Study concluded that a significantly higher intensification target would be required to help address housing affordability and housing supply. It is important to note that the Region’s intensification target for Niagara Falls is a minimum target, and the City is able to strive for a higher target. 2024 Planning Applications During 2024, Planning staff have processed the following numbers and types of applications: Page 7 of 26 Page 1306 of 1679  2 Draft Plan of Condominium applications (5 in 2023)  37 Zoning By-Law Amendment applications (includes Official Plan amendments) (35 in 2023)  18 Site Plan applications (17 in 2023)  46 Minor Variances applications (50 in 2023)  24 Consent applications (19 in 2023)  83 Pre-consultations (117 in 2023) The Planning, Building and Development Department had 341 active planning applications in various stages of approval in 2024. By-Law Services Statistics By-law services received and responded to the following range of complaints in 2024:  2,252 By-law complaints over the various areas covered by City by-laws (1,841 in 2023)  456 Property Standards complaints (364 in 2023)  190 Building code orders were issued (104 in 2023)  78 rodent rebates paid out (79 in 2023) There has been an increase in By-law complaints, property standards complaints, and building code orders over the past year. Financial Implications/Budget Impact This report has no direct financial implications for the City, however, metrics contained in this report help inform the City’s financial strategies. The increased development activity combined with an increasing property assessment has a direct impact on tax revenue collected by the municipality. Strategic/Departmental Alignment The development of an annual Development and Housing Monitoring Report is consistent with the City’s Strategic priority of Economic Diversification and Growth. Strategic Plan Pillars Contributor(s) Brian Dick, Senior Manager Planning Policy Jamie Leitch, GIS Administrator Sarah Garner, GIS Analyst List of Attachments 2024 Development and Housing Monitoring Report - Page 8 of 26 Page 1307 of 1679 Written by: Jessica Abraham, Planner 1 Submitted by: Status: Signe Hansen, Director of Planning Approved - 12 Mar 2025 Kira Dolch, General Manager, Planning, Building & Development Approved - 12 Mar 2025 Jason Burgess, CAO Approved - 14 Mar 2025 Page 9 of 26 Page 1308 of 1679 Nlagara?qym 2024 Development &Housing Monitoring ReportPage 10 of 26Page 1309 of 1679 Population ...................................................................................................................3 Building Permits ..........................................................................................................4 Residential Building Activity .....................................................................4 Starts and Completions .............................................................................5 Housing Pledge ..........................................................................................7 Affordable Housing ...................................................................................7 Industrial,Commercial,Institutional Construction Activity (ICI)...............8 Total Building Permit Activity ..................................................................10 Real Estate and Rental Market ....................................................................................11 Residential Real Estate Market ................................................................11 Rental Market Data ..................................................................................12 Short Term Rentals................'..................................................................12' Land Supply ..............................................................................................................13 Draft Plans of SubdiviSion .......................................................................13 Registered Plans of Subdivision ..............................................................14 Short Term Land Supply ..........................................................................14 Long Term Land Supply -Vacant Land ..........Error!Bookmark not defined. Rate 15PlanningSummary....................................................................................................16Page 11 of 26Page 1310 of 1679 m Population As of October 1,2024,Canada’s estimated population was at 41,465,298.This is a growth of 936,902 people to Canada’s population of 40,528,396 recorded on October 1,2023.Of this population growth,92%was attributed to international migration,and 8%was attributed to natural increase (births minus deaths). Population estimates have been released for the City to the end of 2023.The estimated population of Niagara Falls at the end of 2023 was 105,552 which is an increase of 11,137 or 11.7%from 94,415 reported in the 2021 Census.This equates to an estimated annual growth rate of 3.9%.When compared to the projected growth rate of 1.7%,this illustrates that the City in the last few years has grown quicker than previously forecasted.If immigration to Canada slows,then it is anticipated that the growth in Niagara Falls’ population and the growth rate will slow as well. Niagara Region’s 2022 Official Plan sets a population target of 141,650 for the City of Niagara Falls by 2051 ,which is a growth of 47,235 people.The Region’s 2051 population target is considered to be a minimum and it is noted that the City has the potential to accommodate 177,500 people within our current Urban Area Boundaries,including our three recent urban expansion areas.With the 2023 estimate showing the City at approximately 25%of the 47,235 expected population growth by 2051,meaning the City has been growing faster than anticipated with respect to the population forecast.Ultimately, the Region estimates a population of 694,000 in Niagara Region by 2051 and Niagara Falls will represent 20%of the Region’s overall population.See Figure 1 below,which depicts the population of Niagara Falls over various census years in comparison to the target for 2051. 2021 Census Recorded (Niagara Falls) NIAGARA FALLS POPULATION BY CENSUS YEAR 160,000 140,000 120,000 , 100,000 W m.w .as.”'4 88137105315105’5527639177833153821334,..,97 i’ 19 6 2001 2006 2011 2016 2CensusYearPopulation (Source:Statistics Canada)Figure 1:Population of Niagara Falls by Census Yearin Comparison to 2051PopulationTargetPage 12 of 26Page 1311 of 1679 m B”"°“"9 Permits Residential Building Activity Building permit activity is a standard indicator of local investment and local economic activity.The number of building permits issued has a direct correlation to the number of housing units added to the Niagara Falls Housing stock in 2024.In 2024,building permits were issued for 125 single detached,8 semi-detached,66 townhouses,102 apartments,along with 129 conversions including ADU’s and conversions from commercial to residential for a total of 430 dwelling units.The table below depicts the number of building permits by type,categorized by year.The total for each category is also showcased,including the corresponding 10-year average. Building Permits Per Housing Type ‘I-l.I I ‘‘t . /\{I}“1111 llllli'"""’m 2 Year Single Semi Townhouse Apartment Conversions Total 10 Yr Avg EE-_——-_“-_ —-———-_—— —_—_-_—-— 2021_——_-__ 203 285 573 499 019 196 292 018 155 494 017 285 545 016 625 820 015 474 787 014 286 423 013 273 385 012 204 315 011 181 357 297 010 191 12 225 286 16 38 38 2 83 212 218 326 438 412 353 304 297 300 192 24 113 22 16 O “——__- __— __— _-=I__ “—— _—-_ _—-_ —-m.- “m.—__n- _— _— _— _— _— _— _— _—_- _— (Source:Niagara Falls buildingpermits,2024)In addition to the above residential building permits,there were 129 conversions tonewresidentialunits,including 107 Additional Dwelling Units anda conversion of partofaformerhotelto22residentialapartmentunitsattheformerIHOPrestaurant(7280Lundy’s Lane).These 129 conversions help contribute to affordable housing,as thePage 13 of 26Page 1312 of 1679 units are generally smaller in size. Overall,with the building permits issued,plus conversion data for new dwelling units, including ADUs there were a total of 430 issued permits in 2024 for new residential dwellings.Single detached units were the dominant housing type for which permits were issued (29.1%).Following the 125 single detached,were 107 ADUs making up 24.9%of new permits issued in 2024,followed by 102 apartment units (23.7%)and 66 townhouse permits (15.3%),then 22 conversion units from the former IHOP restaurant (5.1%),and finally 8 semi-detached dwellings (1.9%). Percentage of Annual Residential Building Permits by Type 12024 _ 2023 2022 2021 ‘2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% I Single I Semi I Townhouse I Apartment (Source:Niagara Falls building permits,2024) Figure 2:Annual Residential Building Permits by Type of Dwelling Figure 2 above shows annual residential building permits by type of dwelling.However,it is important to note that this chart does not report on conversion data,which includes ADUs. The composition of residential building permit activity in 2024 was heavily weighted towards single detached houses,which made up 42%of the building permit activity.In 2023,only 7% to single detached houses however 71%were attributed Starts and CompletionsHousingstartsarethebeginning of the housing construction cycle and completions aretheendoftheconstructioncycle.It should be noted that there is not a directPage 14 of 26Page 1313 of 1679 correlation between housing starts and the number of units created through issued building permits.For example,there may be a time lag (up to six months)between the issuance of a building permit by the City and when a residential unit is started for construction. Starts and Completions by Year Completions 534 590 846 385 (Source:CMHCstarts and completions data,2024) As shown in the table above,starts have been regularly decreasing since 2021.Overall, across Niagara,Ontario and Canada housing construction has been weak and this weakness can be attributed to a number of factors including,the high cost of materials and land,high interest rates,shortage of skilled labour and general economic uncertainty. Similar to housing starts,housing completions have been decreasing since 2022.The decrease in housing completions is reflective of the decrease in housing starts.Figures 3 and 4 below depict the Starts and Completions in 2024 as compared to 2023.. STARTS 2024 V5 2023 .COMPLETIONS 2024 VS -0-2024 Starts -:r 2023 Starts .2023 5 250 _,.—°—Completions 2024 ‘-Completions 2023 Z 300 , 200 }. 250 1150 I k / t 200 ‘ t ‘‘;l 100 -so 0’50Q1Q2Q3Q4'Q 1 Q 2 Q 3 Q 4Figure3Source:CMHChousing starts data,2024 Figure 4 Source:CMHChousing completions data,2024Page 15 of 26Page 1314 of 1679 Housing Target In 2023 the City signed a Housing Pledge to build 800 units per year between 2023 and 2031.The Provincial Build Faster Fund provides funding to municipalities that meet the Housing Pledge goal.Recognizing tough economic building conditions,the Province has modified the City’s goal with a target of 667 units for 2024,as measured by housing starts,long term care beds and conversions to new residential units.This year the City recorded 642 units,which can be broken down by 225 housing starts as reported by CMHC,288 new long term care beds as reported by Ministry of Long-Term Care,and 129 conversions to new residential units,including 107 ADUs.The City’s 642 units represents 96%of the target of 667 for 2024.City staff will continue to work with Provincial and CMHC staff to determine our Building Faster Fund allotment for 2024. Figure 5 below depicts the percent contribution of each of type of housing towards the 2024 Housing Target. l l 2024 Provincial Housing Target 1 I LongTerm Care Beds I Conversions l Starts n Missing il l l ll il ll (Source:Niagara Falls building permit data,and CMHC stans data,MinistryofLong-Term Care data) Figure 5:Percentage of Starts,Conversions,&Long-Term Care Beds for 2024 Housing Pledge Affordable Housing Target ‘Affordable’,as defined in the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement,is housing for which the purchase price results in annual accommodation costs that do not exceed 30 measured across a spectrum of income levels with low income represented byhouseholdsearningupto$64,800 annually and moderate incomes represented byhouseholdsearningbetween$64,800 and $103,572 annually.In order to meet theaffordabilitycriteria,the value of the new build construction must be equal to or lessthan$539,460.Page 16 of 26Page 1315 of 1679 Out of the 430 new residential permits issued in 2024,243 (73%)of units were considered affordable based on OLMCBO construction values.While accurate to construction costs,OLMCBOconstruction permit values will not account for land costs which adds to the overall cost of housing.Of these 243 units,all the ADUs are counted towards housing that is affordable due to their smaller size and therefore lower cost, which makes up 107 (44%)of the 243 units.There were 67 single detached houses that wereconsidered affordable (28%)and 4 semi-detached houses that were considered affordable in 2024.Finally,there were 65 townhouses that were considered affordable (27%)which represents almost all the new townhouse issued building permits in 2024. In the City’s Official Plan,the annual target for new affordable housing is 270 units. Accordingly,243 new residential units were considered to be affordable,and this represents 90%of our annual affordability target of 270 units.With respect to the creation of housing that is affordable,the majority of the 243 permits were new townhome and apartment construction,including ADUs. Industrial,Commercial,Institutional Construction Activity (ICI) In 2024 there were 141 building permits issued for Industrial,Commercial and Institutional construction,including 21 Industrial,84 Commercial and 36 Institutional permits issued.The 141 building permits issued includes both new construction and renovations and alterations and totals $221 million in total construction value.This is an 340%increase from the 2023 total construction value of $50 million. ICI comparison 2024 vs 2023 New All New All 0ConstructionRiga/f"Construction Construction Regal?"Construction Cha/:1e20242024202320239m$25,080,000 $7,145,774 $32,225,774 $8,750,000 $4,765,000 $13,515,000 +138% $21,683,200 $15,126,551 $36,809,751 $725,000 $17,693,370 $18,418,370 M $139,959,865 $11,579,330 $151,539,195 $13,510,000 $4,628,600 $18,138,600 +735% $186,723,065 $33,851,655 $220,574,720 $22,985,000 $27,086,970 $50,071,970 +340% The value of all new Industrial,Commercial,and Institutional (ICI)construction in 2024was$186 million.With respect to Industrial construction there were 5 new industrialbuildingpermitsissued,totaling,$32 million which added approximately 3,644 squaremetersofnewindustrialspacetotheCity,though it is important to note not all of the5permitsreportedtheirsizeofconstruction.The largest Industrial permit issued wasPage 17 of 26Page 1316 of 1679 for $10 million at 6162 Progress Street for a new warehouse. Withrespect to new Commercial construction,there were 8 building permits valued at total of $36 million,with the largest permit being $10 million for a new KIA sales facility at 7960 Oakwood Drive. There were 14 new Institutional building permits issued in 2024,for a total value of $151 million,with the largest permit being the foundation permit for the new hospital at 9889 Montrose Road,valued at $90 million.The second largest permit was for a new elementary school for the Niagara District Schoolboard at 8422 McLeod Road,valued at $25 million. Permits for [CI renovations and alterations,including expansion,additions to existing facilities,or renovations to improve existing buildings and facilities was $34 million in 2024,an increase from 2023’s $27 million.The table below showcases the various types of constructions in 2023 in comparison to 2024 including the %change for each category. NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL,COMMERCIAL, INSTITUTIONAL PERMITS BY MONTH ——Industrial InstitutionalCommercial 14 12 10 NUMBEROF PERMITS January Febuary March April May June July August September October November December Industrial 1 5 1 0 1 4 2 2 3 0 ‘0 2 Commercial 7 9 2 4 11 6 7 6 12 1 S 8 Institutional 2 2 1 2 3 ’7 4 7 4 2 1 0 (Source:Niagara Fallsbuildingpermit data,2024)Figure 6:Graph showcasing Industrial,Commercial,and Institutional Construction Permits by month in 2024Page 18 of 26Page 1317 of 1679 Total Building Permit Activity The total value Of all new residential and ICI construction activity,2024 was $341 million,compared to the total all construction value Of $415 million which includes renovations and alterations.The new construction total Of $341 is more than the overall 2023 value of $134 million,and the 2022 value Of $219 million.New residential construction comprises $154 million,whereas new ICI construction comprises $186 million Ofthe $341 million total. 2024 NEW CONSTRUCTION ' 2024 ALLCONSTRUCTION ($341M):‘($415M) llndustrial ICOmmercial llnstitutional IResidential llndustrial ICOmmercial llnstitutional lResidential Figure 7 Source:Niagara Falls building permits,2024 Figure 8 Source:Niagara Falls buildingpermits,2024 As illustrated in Figures 7 and 8 above,the relative growth of all sectors is consistent between new and all construction for the year.Residential and Institutional construction were the largest growth sectors for the year.This is to be expected with a new hospital and school being the largest overall projects for the year.Page 19 of 26Page 1318 of 1679 Real Estate and The Rental Market Residential Real Estate Market >The real estate market in Niagara Falls weakened in 2024 with a 2%decrease in the average price for a residential real estate resale home. >The average price for a house in Niagara Falls in 2024 was $626,040 compared to 2023’s average of $638,175.Figure 9 below showcases the 2023 and 2022 sale prices of residential units in Niagara Falls in comparison to the 2024 sale price. 2024 Average Residential Unit Sales to New Listings $650,000.00 $900,000.00 $640,000.00 $800,000.00 $630,000.00 $700,000.00 $620,000.00 $288,838.88 $61o'000'00 $400,000.00$600,000.00 $300,000.00 $590,000.00 $200,000.00 $580,000.00 $100,000.00 $570,000.00 $- _2023 Sale Prices _2022 Sale Price —-2024 Sale Prices (Source:NiagaraAssociation of Realtors,2024) Figure 9:2024 Average Residential unit Sales Niagara Association ofRealtors *Itis important to note November and December data has not been published due to a technology system transition at Niagara Association of Realtors. >The number of days a resale home remained on the market averaged 38 days with the highest being 44 days in January and the lowest being 31 days inJune. in January,an increase tolistingswas263listingsinSeptember,and the lowest was 75 listings in December.>An increase in available housing supply shows the market is rebounding from highinterestratesandthepandemicwherelesspeopleweremoving.Page 20 of 26Page 1319 of 1679 Rental Market Data The City uses Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC)data to track vacancy rates for rental housing.Overall,the vacancy rate for Niagara Falls grew 1% from 2.8%in October 2023,to 3.8%in October 2024.A vacancy rate of 3%is traditionally accepted as a healthy vacancy rate as it provides a sufficient choice for housing tenants.A higher vacancy rate provides more housing choice,with a greater rental supply. Regarding rents,the averagerent for tenants in Niagara Falls was $1,420,an increase from 2023’s average rent of $1,343.The average rent for St Catharines —Niagara as reported by CMHC for a bachelor apartment was $988,for a 1 bedroom $1,251,for a 2 bedroom $1,474,and for a 3+bedroom was~$1,527.Though a higher vacancy rate indicates the supply of rental housing has been growing,an increase in the average rent for tenants could be attributed to the general rising cost of maintaining a rental unit.In spite of this year’s higher rental vacancy rate,the City must continue to add to the existing rental housing stock as outlined in the Council approved 2022 Housing Strategy. Short Term Rentals A Vacation Rental Unit (VRU)is a short-term accommodation that is available in its entirety, without owner present on site.A VRU is permitted in commercial zones with up to 3 bedrooms.There was a total of 64 Registered VRUs in the City by the end of 2024,with 27 new VRUs registered in 2024.Compared to the end of 2023 there were 37 active registered VRU’swith 17 added in 2023.The number of licensed VRUs has increased over the last few years,demonstrating the importance of the effectiveness of enforcement.The City is also exploring the expansion of permissions for short term rentals through the proposed Owner— Occupied Short—TermRental policies. A Bed and Breakfast (BnB)is permitted in residential and commercial zones.In residential zones a BnB is allowed 3 guest bedrooms,and in commercial zones 6 guest bedrooms.Bed and Breakfasts require the owner to'live on site,unlike VRU’swhich don’t require an owner to live onsite.In 2024 there were S6 licensed Bed and Breakfast establishments in the City of Niagara Falls.Page 21 of 26Page 1320 of 1679 m Land Supply Previously,the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement required at least a 3—yearsupply of draft approved and registered units.The Provincial Planning Statement and Growth Plan,2024,which replaced the Provincial Policy Statement,planning authorities are required to: 1.Maintain at all times the ability to accommodate residential growth for a minimum of 15 years through lands which are designated and available for residential development;and 2.Maintain at all times land with servicing capacity sufficient to provide at least a three-year supply of residential units available through lands suitably zoned,including units in draft approved or registered plans. Draft Plans of Subdivision Draft plan approved subdivisions are plans of subdivision,which have received Council approval along with conditions for the applicant to fulfil before registration.in 2024,there was one draft plan approved subdivision for 30 units in the City’s Built-Up Area boundary. Within,the Greenfield Area two new draft approved subdivisions were added in 2024 including,Oakwood Drive,with up to 301 units including 255 townhouses and 46 ADU’s and 3151 Montrose Road with 10 units including 1 single and 9 townhouses.Altogether,31 i new units were draft approved in 2024.The table below depicts the categories of draft approved subdivisions in December 2024._- ————“— _—-_-_ ———-—- —__-—- _—-_-I_ —___—- ——_—-_ _—_—-_ ——-——- —__—_- ——--I__ ——1.065 *Grand Niagara Subdivision proposes a range of 3,558 to 5,387 housing units and has not yet provided a definitive lotbylotbreakdownofhousingtypes.Itshould be noted that the majority of the housing proposed inthe Grand Niagara Planwouldbeclassi?ed as multiples (i.e.townhouses street and block,and apartments).As of December 2024,there were 8 draft approved subdivisions within the City’s landsupplyinventory.There was i subdivision within the Built-Up Area Boundary for 30unitsandtherewere7subdivisionswithintheCity’s Greenfield Area with 8,012 unitsPage 22 of 26Page 1321 of 1679 predominantly comprised of multiple units,with multiple units defined as townhouse and apartments and including ADU’s.The total of 8,012 units at the draft plan of subdivision stage will be available for construction once conditions of approval are cleared. Registered Plans of Subdivision Registered plans of subdivision have received final approval from the City as all conditions have been fulfilled and have been registered with a Land Registry Office.In 2024,two new plans of subdivision were registered in Niagara Falls,one at Garner Road and Angie Road, and one at 2700 Mewburn Road.These two new subdivisions added 97 units to the total number of registered lots. Overall,the city has a supply of 390 registered units available for construction.Of the registered supply,there were 52 units registered to be built in the Built-Up Area Boundary,324 registered to be built in the Greenfield Area,and 14 registered to be built in the Agricultural Area.The table below depicts the categories of vacant lots in 2024. _—_- ___—_- ___-__ ———-__ ___“l- ___I__l_ —Total ___I- Greenfield Area _—__—- ————_- ——_-—- ———_—— Mingle Subdivision MillerRoad Estates MillerRoad Estates South Total .h\l(O .bO)(Source:Planning and Developmentdata,2024)Short Term Land SupplyBasedonthehousingsupplyof8,012 draft approved and 390 registered units for atotalof8,402,the City has an approximate 10.5 year supply of draft and registeredapprovedunits.The City’s 10.5 year supply exceeds the minimum requirement of 3(Page 23 of 26Page 1322 of 1679 years contained in both the Provincial Planning Statement and the City’s Official Plan. It can be concluded that the City continues to maintain a healthy supply of available land in the form of unbuilt lots/units available for development in the short term. As of December 31,2023 the City had an inventory of 14,768 approved residential units.This translates into an 18-year supply and exceeds the 15 year target as identified in the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement. Intensification Rate Provincial policy requires that municipalities support intensification and redevelopment to encourage complete communities,including policy to encourage a range and mix of housing types. The 2022 Niagara Region Official Plan has increased the City’s intensification target from 40%to 50%.The City’s 2022 Housing Needs Study concluded that a significantly higher intensification target would be required to help address housing affordability.A higher intensification target would result in the provision of a broader range of housing Opportunities.In 2024,the majority of new construction residential building permits issued were located within the Built-Up Area Boundary resulting in an intensification rate of 76%.Page 24 of 26Page 1323 of 1679 m Statistic“ Su m mary Planning Summary >The City was within 4%of meeting the Provincially modified 2024 housing target of 667 units with 642 new units of housing >The overall construction value in the City was dominated by Residential and Institutional construction. >In the Real Estate market,prices fell for residential homes 2%in 2024,with the average number of days on the market between 31 and 44 days. >The short-term housing supply of 10.5 years continues to exceed the Provincial standard of 3 years. >The City’s intensification rate of 76%also continues to exceed the regional target of 50%. >Overall,planning applications have increased 0.8%in 2024 with 127 applications over 126 in 2023 Planning Application Statistics 2024 Planning Application Rezoning /Official Plan 37 35 Draft Plans of Subdivision/Condo 2 5 Site Plans 18 17 Minor Variances 46 50 Consents 24 19 Pre-Consultations 83 113 Total 210 239 (Source:Planning and Development data,2024) Bylaw Summary >By-law services responded to 2,252 complaints which was a slight increase from 2023 when 1,841 complaints were received. >Property standards complaints were up 25%in 2024 (456)from 2023 (364).>Building Code orders were up in 2024 to 190 from the 104 orders issued in 2023.Page 25 of 26Page 1324 of 1679 Building and Bylaw Enforcement Statistics Portfolio Q1 02 03 Q4 $23 $23 m—----_— —_----_- ——---__n ——m——--—m——----__ ——----__ —_---_M _—---_l-“ ——-126 156 422 Total 258 845 869 280 2,252 1,341 IStandards 0‘)N Water supply/drainage Lack of Heat Zonin/Out buildins comlamts Total 100 129 147 84 456 BuildinQCode —----_ 161m-68 329 AONNNN-—‘-NN(A)O.)N 59 27 12 \lAN_\_\\l_\_x_\_..\O \lU‘lm(”CTN-h ()3N.h\l Total —-----Pro-ram ——----— ——----— Total ——----_ ——----_ ——-----——-—nnn Total 651 3,517 4,254 2,964 11,386 4,052——---“Total 24 30 70 68 192 MA(Source:MunicipalEnforcement data,2024)*Bylaw tracks annually,not monthly or quarterlyPage 26 of 26Page 1325 of 1679 1 Heather Ruzylo From: Bev Merrifield < Sent: March 7, 2025 10:59 AM To: Kristine Elia <kelia@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Apraxia Awareness Day, May 14, 2025 March 7, 2025 Kristine Elia Executive Assistant Office of the Mayor and CAO City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5 Dear Christine, I am writing to request that you proclaim May 14th as “Apraxia Awareness Day.” Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS) is a very misunderstood and challenging speech disorder, and our kids need your help. Now going into its thirteenth year, Apraxia Awareness Day, on May 14th, aims to unite community members, children with Childhood Apraxia of Speech, their friends and family, to be an unstoppable, united force advocating for children with Childhood Apraxia of Speech. By issuing this proclamation you will not only be showing that you support all your constituents, but you will also help to raise awareness of a complicated speech disorder that affects 1-in-1,000 children, the same prevalence as Down’s Syndrome. Page 1326 of 1679 2 I am a volunteer with “Apraxia Kids,” an international nonprofit, and the grandparent of a child with CAS. Because of little awareness of CAS, and the length of time before diagnosis and therapy, the children are not always getting timely treatment during their important speech development years. This leads to further speech, spelling, reading, and social development delays. In January 2023, I established and have been moderating the “Apraxia Kids, Niagara Region” Facebook group to offer education, resources, support and social activities for these families. We are trying to raise awareness and understanding about Childhood Apraxia of Speech, and we hope that you will issue a proclamation to help us further the cause of raising awareness. For your convenience, a sample proclamation is attached. Please feel free to contact me with any questions, or to confirm that you will proclaim May 14, 2025 as “Apraxia Awareness Day.” Warmest Regards, Bev Merrifield CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 1327 of 1679 2025 SAMPLE PROCLAMATION FOR APRAXIA AWARENESS DAY Whereas, May 14, 2025, marks “Childhood Apraxia of Speech Day” during which awareness will be raised throughout Niagara Falls about Childhood Apraxia of Speech, an extremely challenging speech disorder that affects 1-in-1,000 children, as prevalent as Down’s Syndrome in the population. Whereas, Childhood Apraxia of Speech (CAS) causes children to have significant difficulty learning to speak and is among the most severe speech deficits in children. Whereas, the act of learning to speak comes effortlessly to most children, those with Apraxia require early, appropriate, and intensive speech therapy, often for many years, to learn to speak. Whereas, without appropriate speech therapy intervention, children with Apraxia will have diminished communication skills, but are also placed at high risk for secondary impacts in reading, writing, spelling, and other school-related skills. Whereas, that such primary and secondary impacts diminish future independence and employment opportunities and challenge the ability to become productive, contributing citizens if not resolved or improved. Whereas, public awareness about Childhood Apraxia of Speech in Niagara Falls is essential for families of children with this neurological disorder, and the professionals who support them, to achieve the needed services for those learning to use their own voice. Whereas, our highest respect goes to these children, as well as their families, for their effort, determination, and resilience in the face of such obstacles. Let it be resolved that May 14, 2025 is “Apraxia Awareness Day” and citizens of Niagara Falls and surrounds are encouraged to work within their communities to increase awareness and understanding of Childhood Apraxia of Speech. “Apraxia Kids” is the leading nonprofit that strengthens the support systems in the lives of children with Apraxia of Speech. Please visit www.apraxia-kids.org for more information. Page 1328 of 1679 1 Heather Ruzylo Subject:Proclamation Request to Honour UN World Press Freedom Day From: Carey Campbell <ccampbell@niagarafalls.ca> Sent: Monday, March 10, 2025 1:19 PM To: Camryn Farquharson <cfarqu2@uwo.ca>; Jim Diodati <jdiodati@niagarafalls.ca>; Bill Matson <billmatson@niagarafalls.ca>; Heather Ruzylo <hruzylo@niagarafalls.ca>; Kristine Elia <kelia@niagarafalls.ca> Cc: Emily Tropea <etropea@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: RE: Proclamation Request to Honour UN World Press Freedom Day Hello Camryn: Thank you for your email to the City of Niagara Falls to request a proclamation. Our City Clerk’s office is included here so they may follow up on your request and bring it forward at a future Council Meeting. Thank you for reaching out. carey Carey Campbell | Manager | Office of the Mayor and CAO | City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street | Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 | 905.356.7521 X 4206 | ccampbell@niagarafalls.ca From: Camryn Farquharson <cfarqu2@uwo.ca> Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025 11:04 PM To: Jim Diodati <jdiodati@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: RE: Proclamation Request to Honour UN World Press Freedom Day Dear Mayor Jim Diodati, I'm writing as a member of Ink-stained Wretches, a grassroots volunteer advocacy group working to build a culture of appreciation for quality journalism — because we strongly believe quality journalism enables healthy democracies. We would like to request that you issue a proclamation on behalf of the city of Niagara Falls to recognize UN World Press Freedom Day (WPFD) 2025 which takes place May 3rd. Other cities who have participated in previous years have also lit up their respective City Hall buildings or raised a UN flag as well. In whatever way you may be willing to participate, it would be greatly appreciated. Last year, Niagara Parks participated in WPFD and lit up the Falls in the colour blue on the evening of May 3rd as part of our #SpotlightPressFreedom campaign to recognize the importance of press freedom (Blue being the colour of the UN, specifically R0 G158 B219 or Hex: #009edb). Niagara Parks has also agreed to participate again this year which is why we would love if the city also took part. Page 1329 of 1679 2 So far, this year’s campaign participants include:  Municipalities across Canada  Provincial legislatures in BC and NL, Canada  Niagara Falls, Canadian and American falls  The CN Tower  Jet d’eau in Geneva, Switzerland  Nearly a dozen public assets in Perth and the Gold Coast, Australia As both a journalism student and someone who was born and raised in Niagara Falls, I feel quite passionate about wanting to reach out and excited at the possibility of having my hometown participate. Please visit spotlightpressfreedom.org for a list of participants; an FAQ; and an interactive map. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Thank you for your consideration. Camryn Farquharson Member, Ink-stained Wretches Page 1330 of 1679 1 Heather Ruzylo To:Nikola Tesla Day Festival Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL]-Request to Raise the Nikola Tesla Day Flag – Tesla Fest 2025 From: Nikola Tesla Day Festival <nikolatesladayfestival@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 12:36 PM To: Heather Ruzylo <hruzylo@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]-Request to Raise the Nikola Tesla Day Flag – Tesla Fest 2025 Dear Heather, Good afternoon, and thank you for getting back to me so quickly. I am delighted to hear that our request for the flag-raising ceremony will be presented before the Council at your next meeting on March 18, 2025. We truly appreciate the City’s continued support for TESLA FEST and the recognition of Nikola Tesla Day. Please let me know if you need any additional details or information from our side before the meeting. I am excited to hear from the staff to finalize the arrangements once the decision is made. Thank you again for your time and attention to this request. Best regards, Borislav On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 12:05 PM Heather Ruzylo <hruzylo@niagarafalls.ca> wrote: Good afternoon Borislav: Thank you for sending your annual request for a flag-raising ceremony to recognize Nikola Tesla Day. This request will be presented before Council at our next meeting which is scheduled for March 18, 2025. Staff will be in touch with you shortly after the meeting to arrange further details. Kind regards, Heather Heather Ruzylo | Supervisor, Clerks & Council Services | City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street | Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 | (905) 356-7521 ext 4203 | Fax 905-356-9083 | hruzylo@niagarafalls.ca From: Nikola Tesla Day Festival <nikolatesladayfestival@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 11:51 AM Page 1331 of 1679 2 To: Jim Diodati <jdiodati@niagarafalls.ca>; Heather Phillips <hphillips@niagarafalls.ca>; Heather Ruzylo <hruzylo@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Request to Raise the Nikola Tesla Day Flag – Tesla Fest 2025 Dear Mayor Diodati, I hope you are doing well. As the Director of the Nikola Tesla Day Festival—now known as TESLA FEST— I am reaching out with great enthusiasm as we prepare for a milestone event in 2025, marking the 15th anniversary of our celebration. Since its inception on July 10, 2010, at Nikola Tesla Plaza, TESLA FEST has grown into a signature event in Niagara Falls, paying tribute to Tesla’s groundbreaking contributions to science, technology, and innovation. This year, from July 10 to 12, 2025, we look forward to celebrating Tesla’s legacy with an even more remarkable program. The City of Niagara Falls has been an invaluable supporter of our mission, and we are deeply grateful to you, the City Council, and the entire community for your ongoing encouragement. As we approach this special edition of TESLA FEST, we would be honoured to have once again the City’s participation in recognizing Tesla’s legacy. In that spirit, we kindly request the City’s support in raising the Nikola Tesla Day flag in front of City Hall on Thursday, July 10, 2025. This symbolic gesture would reinforce Niagara Falls’ recognition of Tesla’s extraordinary achievements and his historic connection to our region. As always, we will gladly provide the flag and coordinate any necessary arrangements. Tesla’s pioneering work continues to inspire scientists, engineers, and dreamers worldwide, and through this gesture, we can reaffirm Niagara Falls’ role in celebrating innovation and progress. We would also be delighted to collaborate with your office on any initiatives that could further enhance this meaningful occasion. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your positive response and to working together to make TESLA FEST 2025 an unforgettable celebration. Best regards, Borislav Zivkovic Director, Nikola Tesla Day Festival 905-321 8201 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 1332 of 1679 1 Heather Ruzylo Subject:Filipino Canadian Association of Niagara Flag raising ceremony From: Aida Mulley < Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 4:14 PM To: Carey Campbell <ccampbell@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Filipino Canadian Association of Niagara Flag raising ceremony Good Day, Here we are once again the Filipino Canadian Association of Niagara (FCAN)requesting to have our Flag raising ceremony to celebrate our Philippine Independence day on June 12, 2025. Please let us know if this date works with Mayor Jim Diodati and the City council. Thank you very much, Aida Mulley On behalf of the Filipino Canadian Association of Niagara (FCAN) Executives CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 1333 of 1679 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF SARNIA Office of the City Clerk 255 Christina St N Sarnia ON N7T 7N2 519-332-0330 clerks@sarnia.ca www.sarnia.ca March 6, 2025 The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, P.C., M.P. Prime Minister of Canada Office of the Prime Minister 80 Wellington Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2 Justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca Re: Carbon Tax Dear Prime Minister, At the meeting of Sarnia City Council held on March 3, 2025, the following resolution was adopted: That given the advent of the US tariffs and the economic impact on Canadians it is even more critical at this time to petition our own Federal liberal government to put a stop the 20 percent increase to the carbon tax scheduled to be implemented April 1, 2025. The vast majority of Canadians do not support the carbon tax, and the timing could not be worse for the impact to our citizens; and That the resolution be forwarded to the Prime Minister, his Cabinet, Leaders of Opposition, our MP, and All Ontario Municipalities. Your consideration of this matter is respectfully requested. Yours sincerely, Amy Burkhart City Clerk Cc: Cabinet Ministers The Honourable Pierre Poilievre, M.P. The Honourable Marilyn Gladu, M.P. All Ontario Municipalities Page 1334 of 1679 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Nicholas Debono, City Clerk 3540 Schmon Parkway, P.O. Box 1044 Thorold, ON L2V 4A7 February 27, 2025 SENT ELECTRONICALLY To All Concerned Organizations Re: 14.6 Actions to Address Mental Health, Addiction and Homelessness – City of Thorold Council Resolution Please be advised that the Council of the Corporation of the City of Thorold, at its meeting held on February 25, 2025, considered the aforementioned topic and the following resolution was passed: The Corporation of the City of Thorold enacts as follows: 1. That Council for the City of Thorold CONDEMNS the discrimination of people living with mental illness, people who are unhoused, homeless and/or people living with addiction; 2. That Staff BE DIRECTED to prepare and make publicly available a collection of resources for the assistance of addition and mental health support and treatment; 3. That Staff BE DIRECTED to contact the Canadian Mental Health Association to express interest in hosting a safe beds program in the City of Thorold; 4. That Staff BE DIRECTED to request the following from the Regional Municipality of Niagara: a) Increased delivery of preventative drug education in our community; b) Creation of an Indigenous homeless and housing action plan; c) A staff report on the subject of the Indigenous Mobile Crisis Unit; and d) Hosting of a public summit for mental health, homelessness and addiction. 5. That Staff BE DIRECTED to request from the Province of Ontario, access to alternative revenue streams other than property taxes, for the purpose of addressing social housing funding requirements; and 6. That this resolution BE CIRCULATED to the following, with a request for support and call to action: Page 1335 of 1679 City of Thorold P.O. Box 1044, 3540 Schmon Parkway, Thorold, Ontario L2V 4A7 Page 2 of 3 Tel: 905-227-6613 a) all Niagara region school boards, all Niagara region municipalities, all Niagara region Members of Provincial Parliament, all Niagara region Members of Parliament, the Federal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the Federal Minister of Indigenous Services, the Federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, the Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Ontario Minister of Indigenous Affairs, Ontario Solicitor General, and Ontario Minister of Health; and b) the Canadian Mental Health Association, Brock University, Niagara College, Fort Erie Native Friendship Centre, Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres, Niagara Regional Native Centre, Niagara Peninsula Aboriginal Area Management Board, Niagara Aboriginal Health Centre, Niagara Chapter of Native Women, and Niagara Region Métis Council. Thank you, Nicholas Debono City Clerk, City of Thorold cc. Niagara region School Boards • District School Board of Niagara • Niagara Catholic District School Board • Conseil scolaire catholique MonAvenir • Conseil Scolaire Viamonde Niagara region Municipalities • Niagara Falls • Port Colborne • St Catharines • Welland • Grimsby • Lincoln • Niagara-on-the-Lake • Pelham • Wainfleet • West Lincoln • Fort Erie Niagara region Members of Provincial Parliament • Sam Oosterhoff • Jennifer Stevens • Wayne Gates Page 1336 of 1679 City of Thorold P.O. Box 1044, 3540 Schmon Parkway, Thorold, Ontario L2V 4A7 Page 3 of 3 Tel: 905-227-6613 • Jeff Burch Niagara region Members of Parliament • Dean Allison • Chris Bittle • Tony Baldinelli • Vance Badawey Federal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada – Honourable Gary Anandasangaree Federal Minister of Indigenous Services – Honourable Patty Hajdu Federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions – Honourable Ya’ara Saks Ontario Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing – Honourable Paul Calandra Ontario Minister of Indigenous Affairs – Honourable Greg Rickford Ontario Solicitor General – Honourable Michael S. Kerzner Ontario Minister of Health – Honourable Sylvia Jones Canadian Mental Health Association Brock University Niagara College Fort Erie Native Friendship Centre Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres Niagara Regional Native Centre Niagara Peninsula Aboriginal Area Management Board Niagara Aboriginal Health Centre Niagara Chapter of Native Women Niagara Region Métis Council Steven Soos, Member of the Public Page 1337 of 1679 The Corporation of the City of Kingston 216 Ontario Street, Kingston, ON K7L 2Z3 Phone: (613) 546-4291 extension 1207 cityclerk@cityofkingston.ca Office of the City Clerk March 6, 2025 Via email: clerk@niagarafalls.ca Bill Matson, City Clerk City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street, Box 1023 Niagara Falls, ON, L2E 6X5 Dear Bill: Re: Kingston City Council Meeting, March 4, 2025 – Resolution Number 2025- 116; High Speed Rail Project At the regular Council meeting on March 4, 2025, Council approved Resolution Number 2025-116 with respect to High Speed Rail Project as follows: Whereas in 2017 senior officials from VIA Rail Canada asked communities along the Quebec-Windsor Corridor for their endorsement of VIA’s proposed High Frequency Rail (HFR) project to support VIA’s advocacy efforts with the federal government; and Whereas the City supported VIA’s HFR project with the understanding that although Kingston would not be a stop on the proposed line, it would become a VIA Rail Regional Hub in Eastern Ontario with increased service and more trains starting and ending in Kingston; and Whereas under VIA Rail’s Regional Hub Model smaller communities in Eastern Ontario would also benefit from additional service to support their towns and cities; and Whereas on February 19, 2025 VIA Rail Canada and the federal government announced that they were no longer planning a VIA HFR but a new High Speed Rail project that would completely bypass Kingston; and Whereas as one of the five busiest VIA stations in the country, VIA’s change of direction disproportionately impacts the residents of Kingston and Eastern Ontario Page 1338 of 1679 - 2 - who have been pushing for years for more convenient and reliable train service; and Whereas VIA Rail’s recent decision to fundamentally change their plans for rail expansion after securing Kingston’s endorsement is a breach of trust that undermines eight years of working with our community in a collaborative way; Therefore Be It Resolved That the City of Kingston formally withdraw its support for the VIA Rail High Speed Rail proposal and request VIA to honour their original commitment to Kingston for a Regional Hub that will improve service and train frequency; and That the City develop an advocacy approach in collaboration with Eastern Ontario Communities and others cities along the Quebec – Windsor corridor that will be negatively impacted by VIA’s change of direction; and That City Council request representatives from VIA Rail Canada to appear before Council to explain the change in their proposal and next steps for increased rail service in Kingston; and That a copy of this motion be sent to Mario Peloquin, President and CEO of VIA Rail Canada, Martin Imbleau, President of VIA Rail HFR, The Honourable Anita Anand, M.P., P.C., Minister of Transport and Internal Trade, Mark Gerretsen, M.P. Kingston and the Islands, the Greater Kingston Chamber of Commerce, Tourism Kingston, Kingston Economic Development, Queen’s University, CFB Kingston, St. Lawrence College, Kingston Health Sciences Centre, the Downtown Kingston BIA, the Ontario Big City Mayors' Caucus, the Eastern Ontario Mayors' Caucus, the Eastern Ontario Wardens' Caucus, Josh Morgan, Mayor of London, Stephanie LaCoste, Mayor of Drummondville and other municipalities along the Quebec City – Windsor Corridor impacted by this announcement. Yours sincerely, Janet Jaynes City Clerk /nb Page 1339 of 1679 Legal and Legislative Services February 25, 2025 Jon Altenberg, President & CEO Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative P. O. Box 1332 New Lenox, Il 60451 admin@glslcities.org Dear Mr. Altenburg: Re: Advancing A Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Strong Response to Trade War Please be advised the Municipal Council of the Town of Fort Erie at its meeting of February 24, 2025 received and supported correspondence from the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Cities Initiative dated February 13, 2025 as follows: • Affirming its strong opposition to the blanket 25 percent tariffs on Canadian goods entering the United States; • Expressing its solidarity with municipal and Indigenous governments across the Region that would be adversely impacted by these tariffs and their economic repercussions; • Expressing its solidarity with businesses across the Region that would be adversely be impacted by these tariffs; • Calling for a strong response to an eventual trade ware between the United States and Canada, including: • Calling on all States and Provinces in the Region, in collaboration with local governments, to take immediate and decisive action to oppose these tariffs, protect American and Canadian businesses and jobs and strengthen regional economic cooperation; • Encouraging the American and Canadian federal governments to consider relief measures for municipalities, as they develop assistance measures to protect workers, businesses and local economies from the impacts of a trade war; • Calling its Members to collaborate on strategies to mitigate economic damage from a trade war, protect against harmful federal actions and endorse this resolution; …/2 Mailing Address: The Corporation of the Town of Fort Erie 1 Municipal Centre Drive, Fort Erie ON L2A 2S6 Office Hours 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Phone: (905) 871-1600 FAX: (905) 871-4022 Web-site: www.forterie.ca Page 1340 of 1679 Jon Altenberg, President & CEO Page two • Working with stakeholders from across the Region to explore the possibility of a Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Unity Summit to chart a path forward for securing our shared interest in maintaining and prosperous regional economy. Attached please find a copy of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Cities Initiative correspondence and resolution dated February 13, 2025. Upon receipt of this correspondence the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Cities Initiative will be collaborating all municipal correspondence and forwarding along to their Members, the Great Lakes Task Force in the U.S. Congress, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Group of the Canada- United States Inter-Parliamentary Group (IPG), and the Governors and Premiers of the States and Provinces of the Region. Kind regards, Ashlea Carter, Acting Manager, Legislative Services/Town Clerk acarter@forterie.ca AC:dlk Encl. C.C. Niagara Region MPP’s wgates-co@ndp.on.ca; JStevens-CO@ndp.on.ca; JBurch-QP@ndp.on.ca; sam.oosterhoff@pc.ola.org Niagara Region MP’s Vance.Badawey@parl.gc.ca; tony.baldinelli@parl.gc.ca; Chris.Bittle@parl.gc.ca; dean.allison@parl.gc.ca Association of Municipalities of Ontario amo@amo.on.ca **As noted above the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Cities Initiative will collaborating all municipal correspondence and forwarding along as noted in the resolution Page 1341 of 1679 Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities lnitiative admin@gtstcities.org P.O. Box 13321New Lenox, lL 60451 US February 13,2025 Su ect: Advancing a Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Stro Response to Trade War CNEAT LAKES AND ST. TAWREI{CE CITIES INITIATIVE I'ALIIANCE DES VITLES DES GRANDS IACS ET DU SAINT,LAURFNT Advancing a Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Strong Response to Trade War Dear Members, The board of directors of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities lnitiative adopted a resolution affirming our strong opposition to the btanket 25 percent tariffs on Canadian goods entering the United States. We continue to urge both federaI governments to work together to avoid any negative economic impacts from a potential trade war. ln addition, our Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Strong resotution seeks to provide a roadmap for continued cross-border cottaboration and support for cities across our region that woutd be negativety impacted by a trade war. Ptease review and consider adopting a similar resolution through your councils. STANDING GREAT LAKES-ST. LAWRENCE STRONG The economic engine of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Region supports over 50 mittion jobs that our residents count on. Our region therefore has the most to lose from a trade war and other economic poticies that witt reduce your capacity to deliver services for your residents, modernize your infrastructure, prepare for climate change, and buitd a sustainabte economy. As a region, we need to work together, across borders, to advance common sense sotutions and better ways of achieving our common goals. Let's stand united and be Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Strong. Join the conversation! Share your support on social media using #GLSLStrong and tag us (@GLSLcities)to showyour commitment to protecting our region's economic and environmentaI future. Sincerety, Jon Altenberg, President & CEO FEB 2 q 2025 BY COUNCIL Page 1342 of 1679 GREAT TAKES Al{D ST. TAWRENCE CITIES INITIATIVE I'AILIANCE DES VILLES DES GRANDS LACS ET DU SAINT-LAURENT Resotution of the Board of Directors of the Gities lnitiative Adopted on February 6,2025 Advancing a Great Lakes-St. Lawrence strong Response to Trade War WHEREAS the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities lnitiative vatues the strong economic and trade retationship between Canada and the United States, incl,uding the mutual benefits derived from a fair and open exchange of goods and services; AND WHEREAS the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Region ("Region") benefits in particutar from a strong trade retationship between both countries, representing 50 percent of our countries'bilateraltrade and supporting a $6 trittion USD / $8 trill.ion CAD regionat economy; AND WHEREAS if the Region were its own country, it woul.d be the third-targest economy in the wortd; AND WHEREAS the proposed 25 percent blanket tariffs on al.t Canadian goods imported by the United States could disproportionatety harm businesses in the Region - both in Canada and the United States - leading to increased costs reduced competitiveness and potentiat job losses; AND WHEREAS countermeasures by the Canadian federat government witL l,ead to a trade war, further contributing to American and Canadian job losses and reduced competitiveness for our Region; AND WHEREAS tariffs of this nature undermine the principles of f ree and fair trade and create uncertainty for [ocaI businesses that rely on cross-border trade; AND WHEREAS tariffs are [iketyto cause chattenges to the integrated North American suppl.y chain, leading to higher prices and less choice for American and Canadian consumers while resutting in a 1.6 percent decrease in U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) and a 2.6 decrease in Canadian GDP; AND WHEREAS coltaboration and advocacy at a[[ tevets of government are essentiatto protecting our regionaI economy and supporting our businesses; THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED THAT the Cities lnitiative affirms its strong opposition to the btanket 25 percent tariffs on Canadian goods entering the United States; 1 Page 1343 of 1679 GREAT LAKES AND ST. LAWRENCE CITIES INITIATIVE t'AtLIANCE DES VILTES DES GRANDS LACS ET DU SAINT-LAURENI AND THAT the Cities lnitiative expresses its sotidarity with municipaI and lndigenous governments across the Region that woutd be adverseLy impacted by these tariffs and their economic repercussions; AND THAT the Cities lnitiative further expresses its sotidarity with businesses across the Region that woutd be adversely impacted by these tariffs; AND THAT the Cities lnitiative catts for a Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Strong response to an eventuat trade war between the United States and Canada, inctuding: Catting on a[tStates and Provinces in the Region, in cottaboration with locaI governments, to take immediate and decisive action to oppose these tariffs, protect American and Canadian businesses and jobs and strengthen regiona I econom ic cooperation; Encouraging the American and Canadian federaI governments to consider relief measures for municipatities, as they devetop assistance measures to protect workers, businesses and locaI economies from the impacts of a trade war; CatLing its Members to cotlaborate on strategies to mitigate economic damage from a trade war, protect against harmful federaI actions and endorse this resotution; and Working with stakehotders from across the Region to exptore the possibitity of a Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Unity Summit to chart a path forward for securing our shared interest in maintaining a strong and prosperous regional economy. o a a o AND THAT the Cities lnitiative catts for this resotution to be shared with al,t Members of the organization, the Great Lakes Task Force in the U.S. Congress, the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Group of the Canada-United States lnter-Partiamentary Group (lPG), and the Governors and Premiers of the States and Provinces of the Region. 2 Page 1344 of 1679 Page 1345 of 1679 Page 1346 of 1679 City Clerk's Office Secretariat Sylwia Przezdziecki Council Secretariat Support City Hall, 12th Floor, West 100 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2 John D. Elvidge City Clerk Tel: 416-392-7032 Fax: 416-392-2980 e-mail: Sylwia.Przezdziecki@toronto.ca web: www.toronto.ca In reply please quote: Ref.: 25-MM26.7 (Sent by Email) February 28, 2025 ALL ONTARIO MUNICIPALITIES: Subject: Member Motion Item 26.7 Creation of a City of Toronto “Buy Local, Buy Canadian” Campaign - by Councillor Mike Colle, seconded by Councillor Jennifer McKelvie (Ward All) City Council on February 5, 2025, adopted Item MM26.7 as amended and, in so doing, has forwarded the Item to all Ontario municipalities and encouraged them to join Toronto in a “Buy Local, Buy Canadian” campaign. Yours sincerely, for City Clerk S. Przezdziecki/mp Attachment c. City Manager Page 1347 of 1679 Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-980-6000 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca February 25, 2025 CL 3- 2025, February 20, 2025 DISTRIBUTION LIST SENT ELECTRONICALLY Motion Respecting Supporting Niagara’s Business Community and Advocating for Economic Resilience Measures Regional Council, at its meeting held on February 20, 2025, passed the following motion: WHEREAS Niagara is a critical hub for trade between the United States and Canada with our economy benefitting greatly from an historically positive trade relationship with the United States; WHEREAS Niagara’s business community has repeatedly shown its strength and resiliency navigating extreme economic uncertainty; WHEREAS the U.S. market accounts for 72 per cent of total exports from Niagara businesses, with export trade directly supporting over 30,000 jobs in Niagara; WHEREAS in 2023, 532 Niagara businesses exported $5.9 billion in goods to the United States; and WHEREAS Niagara’s identity as a border community places the region at particular economic risk during periods of trade uncertainty. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That Regional Council AFFIRMS its strong support for the local Niagara businesses that rely on positive trade relationships with the United States to contribute to our local economy; 2. That Regional Council DIRECT the Regional Chair to work alongside staff to undertake advocacy efforts calling on the Federal and Provincial governments to enhance the economic strength and resiliency of Niagara and other communities by: a) Reducing barriers to interprovincial trade, enhancing internal trade and economic flow within Canada; b) Encouraging the formation of local trade alliances to strengthen regional supply chains and ensure greater self-reliance; Page 1348 of 1679 Page 2 c) Supporting export market diversification by promoting the intensification of foreign market development and opportunities in places such as the United Kingdom and European Union or other favourable markets; d) Increasing investment to support economic resiliency, including Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) promotion, workforce development support and expedited development of strategic growth sectors; e) Reinforcing the necessity of a strong and integrated Canada-U.S. trade relationship, emphasizing mutual benefits; f) Exploring the need for a border community economic alliance and trade strategy for the benefits of border communities across Canada; g) Removing any impediments for municipalities to buy Canadian for capital projects; and 3. That this motion BE CIRCULATED to Niagara’s Area Municipalities, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, local Members of Parliament, local Members of Provincial Parliament, Niagara’s Chambers of Commerce and Business Improvement Areas and the Niagara Industrial Association. Yours truly, Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk :kl CLK-C 2025-013 Distribution List: Local Area Municipalities Association of Municipalities of Ontario Federation of Canadian Municipalities Local Members of Parliament Local Members of Provincial Parliament Niagara’s Chambers of Commerce Niagara’s BIAs Niagara Industrial Association Page 1349 of 1679 Administration Office of the Regional Clerk 1815 Sir Isaac Brock Way, PO Box 1042, Thorold, ON L2V 4T7 Telephone: 905-980-6000 Toll-free: 1-800-263-7215 Fax: 905-687-4977 www.niagararegion.ca February 25, 2025 CL 3-2025, February 20, 2025 CSC 1-2025, February 5, 2025 CSD 6-2025, February 5, 2025 LOCAL AREA MUNICIPALITIES SENT ELECTRONICALLY 2025 Property Tax Policy, Ratios and Rates CSD 6-2025 Regional Council, at its meeting held on February 20, 2025, passed the following recommendation of its Corporate Services Committee: That Report CSD 6-2025, dated February 5, 2025, respecting 2025 Property Tax Policy, Ratios and Rates, BE RECEIVED and the following recommendations BE APPROVED: 1.That Regional Council APPROVE the following tax ratios and sub-class reductions for the 2025 taxation year: Page 1350 of 1679 Page 2 2. That the interim and final Regional levy amounts and dates BE APPROVED in accordance with Appendix 5 to Report CSD 6-2025; 3. That the necessary by-laws BE PREPARED and PRESENTED to Council for consideration and BE CIRCULATED to the Councils of the Local Area Municipalities for information; and 4. That Report CSD 6-2025 BE CIRCULATED to the Councils of the Local Area Municipalities for information. 5. That as part of the incentive review scheduled to take place in 2026, staff BE DIRECTED to review the New Multi-Residential Sub-class as part of the (incentive) strategy. Report CSD 6-2025, By-law No. 2025-03 and By-law No. 2025-04 are enclosed for your reference. Yours truly, Ann-Marie Norio Regional Clerk :rh CLK-C 2025-012 cc: M. Raquion, Director, Financial Management and Planning/ Deputy Treasurer D. Carnegie, Commissioner/ Treasurer, Corporate Services K. Beach, Executive Assistant to the Commissioner/Treasurer, Corporate Services Page 1351 of 1679 CSD 6-2025 February 5, 2025 Page 1 Subject: 2025 Property Tax Policy, Ratios, and Rates Report to: Corporate Services Committee Report date: Wednesday, February 5, 2025 Recommendations 1. That Regional Council APPROVE the following tax ratios and sub-class reductions for the 2025 taxation year: Property Classification Tax Ratio Sub-Class Reduction Residential 1.000000 New Multi-Residential 1.000000 Multi-Residential 1.970000 Commercial 1.734900 Commercial – Excess Land 1.734900 Commercial – Vacant Land 1.734900 Industrial 2.630000 Industrial – Excess Land 2.630000 Industrial – Vacant Land 2.630000 Aggregate Extraction 2.140048 Pipeline 1.702100 Farmland 0.250000 Managed Forest 0.250000 Farmland Awaiting Development 1 1.000000 25.00% Page 1352 of 1679 CSD 6-2025 February 5, 2025 Page 2 Farmland Awaiting Development 2 Class Ratio Landfill Sites 2.940261 2. That the interim and final Regional levy amounts and dates BE APPROVED in accordance with Appendix 5 to Report CSD 6-2025; 3. That the necessary by-laws BE PREPARED and PRESENTED to Council for consideration and BE CIRCULATED to the Councils of the Local Area Municipalities for information; and 4. That Report CSD 6-2025 BE CIRCULATED to the Councils of the Local Area Municipalities for information. Key Facts • The purpose of this report is to set the tax policy for 2025 which includes tax ratios, and other policy considerations which are required to set tax rates. Tax policy accounts for property assessment changes and affects the distribution of the actual taxes paid by property owners or classes. • A new stand-alone mandatory Aggregate Extraction property class was introduced by Ministry of Finance for 2025 taxation year with transition ratios for municipalities approved through O. Reg. 510/24 on December 10, 2024. • A new optional Multi-Residential Subclass, which allows municipalities to provide a further reduction to newly built or substantially renovated multi-residential properties, beyond that already conveyed under the New Multi-Residential property class was also introduced by Ministry of Finance. The introduction of the optional new Multi- Residential Subclass is not supported at this time by Regional staff and Area Treasurers. • In order for the Area Municipalities to complete 2025 final tax billings in June, which includes Regional taxes, the Regional tax bylaw, following the approval of this report, needs to be established no later than April 2025. • The analysis in Appendix 1 to Report CSD 6-2025, is based on the actual Region’s General Tax Levy for 2024 being $483 million and for 2025 being $537 million. The assessment growth dollars for the 2025 Budget is $7.8 million or 1.62% over approved 2024 General Tax Levy. The tax policy decisions also apply to the Special Tax Levies for Waste Management and Transit. Page 1353 of 1679 CSD 6-2025 February 5, 2025 Page 3 • The proposed 2025 tax policy and approved 2025 Regional General Tax Levy will result in an increase of approximately $186 for the typical residential property with a current value assessment (CVA) of $298,000 for an annual regional property tax of $2,171 in 2025. The amount differs from the $191 disclosed in the 2025 budget as a result of the residential class having a higher share of assessment growth (1.65%) and tax class shifts. • The 2025 interim levy amounts and due dates are included in Appendix 5. The proposed 2025 interim levy dates are consistent with the prior years. The local area municipalities were consulted, and no alternative dates were considered. Financial Considerations There are no direct costs to the Region as a result of setting 2025 tax policy. There are however, taxpayer impacts as a result of tax shifts between property classes due to assessment growth, creation of new property class(s), and tax ratio/discount decisions. Detailed analysis of these impacts are included in the Tax Policy Study attached as Appendix 1 of Report CSD 6-2025. Analysis The Municipal Act,2001, provides the Region with the responsibility to establish tax policy to raise tax levy requirements. Reassessment impacts, assessment growth and Provincial legislation can create tax shifts in burden across all property classes. These factors are outside the control of Niagara Regional Council and the budget process. The only opportunity to affect these is through a thorough analysis of options available for ratios and resulting impacts. Regional staff engaged the Area Treasurers in the review of the 2025 Tax Policy Study as completed by the Region’s external tax consultant as well as discussed potential scenarios for 2025. Based on the feedback provided, both Regional staff and Area Treasurers are recommending to maintain the status quo tax ratios (i.e. to not implement the optional new Mul-Residential Subclass, and to only implement the mandatory new Aggregate Extraction class) in 2025. New Mandatory Aggregate Extraction Property Class The Aggregate Extraction (AE) class captures the active industrial portions of aggregate-producing properties including gravel pits and quarries (previously under Industrial class). Page 1354 of 1679 CSD 6-2025 February 5, 2025 Page 4 The implementation of the new AE class results in increased notional tax rates (revenue neutral year-over-year) of 0.02% for all other property classes in 2025. Staff are proposing to maintain the 2024 tax ratios in 2025 for all property classes, except the new AE class. Properties under the AE class were under the Industrial class in 2024 at 2.630000. For 2025 the province has regulated a new, lower transition ratio at 2.140048, which creates tax shifts of 0.02% to other property classes. Table 1 below illustrates: 1. The CVA assessment shifts in the Industrial and AE classes in 2024 2. The tax revenue based on the original 2024 treatment and classification. 3. The 2025 starting regional tax revenue. Table 1 – Regional Tax Impacts of Aggregate Extraction Class CVA Assessment1 2024 As Returned 2024 As Revised / 2025 As Returned Change $ Change % Industrial 980,165,768 966,686,842 -13,478,926 -1.38% Aggregate Extraction 0 30,502,100 30,502,100 100.00% Region General Levy2 2024 Yearend Levy 2025 Notional Levy Change $ Change % Industrial $16,935,112 $16,938,550 $3,438 0.02% Aggregate Extraction $534,358 $434,899 -$99,459 -18.61% 1 Table 1 in Appendix 1 2025 Tax Policy Study 2 Table 9 in Appendix 1 2025 Tax Policy Study Page 1355 of 1679 CSD 6-2025 February 5, 2025 Page 5 New Optional Multi-Residential Subclass The new Multi-Residential property class includes properties that: • Are a building or complex containing seven or more self-contained residential units, all captured under a single roll number; or • Vacant land zoned for multi-unit residential use improvements. Currently there are two (2) Multi-Residential properties classes at the Region: Multi- Residential class (tax ratio 1.970000) and the original New Multi-Residential class (tax ratio 1.000000). The original New Multi-Residential class was established in 2002 for the 2003 taxation year at Niagara Region. The new optional New Multi-Residential subclass introduced in 2024 is functionally similar to the New Multi-Residential class. Municipalities that choose to adopt this subclass may set a discount of up to 35% of the New Multi-Residential class. Properties within the new subclass (as part of the broader New Multi-Residential class) would revert to the Multi-Residential class after 35 years. Both Regional staff and Area Treasurers recommend that the new subclass is not adopted for 2025 taxation year due to the following main considerations. 1. Further Differentiation of Tax Treatment for Multi-Residential Properties The only factor that distinguishes buildings classified as Multi-Residential, New Multi-Residential, or the New Multi-Residential Subclass (if the Region were to opt in) is the timing of the original building permit under which the building was built or converted to a multi-residential property. Table 2 below illustrates the three (3) multi-residential property taxes and associated dates of building permits. Table 2 – Class/Subclass Inclusion Based Solely on Building Permit Date Class/Subclass Building Permit Issued Multi-Residential Before the date of passing the 2003 Tax Ratios By- law No. 37-2003 New Multi-Residential After the date of passing the 2003 Tax Ratios By- law No. 37-2003 New Multi-Res. Subclass After: Municipal Opt-In Date (adoption of the optional New Multi-Res. Subclass) Page 1356 of 1679 CSD 6-2025 February 5, 2025 Page 6 Theoretically, three (3) identical buildings adjacent to one another could be classified and taxed differently based on the timing of their respective building permits. Differential tax treatment based solely on the date a building permit is issued could raise questions about fairness. Additionally, it would add administrative burden as municipalities would need to track when each individual property starts and stops to receive the discount. 2. Financial Impact Due to the definition and eligibility of the new subclass, it would be difficult to quantify the financial and tax impact should the Region implement the new subclass as the building permits have not been issued for the subject properties at this time. Assuming that a new discounted Multi-Residential subclass had been adopted in 2024 with all of the assessment from the existing New Multi-Residential Class, The “foregone” regional tax revenues are estimated to range from $252,592 to $884,065 annually for up to 35 years, based on discount range from 10% to 35%. Any reductions to the Multi-Residential rates will result in increases to other property classes, with the largest impact being on the residential class. Based on the above considerations, and in consultation with the area treasurers’ group, staff are recommending that the optional discounted New Multi-Residential Tax subclass is not implemented for 2025. Analysis of Current State 1. Assessment Growth The overall real assessment growth that occurred in 2024 for the Region was 1.62%, equivalent to $7.8 million in General Tax Levy dollars from new taxpayers. When the 2025 Tax Levy Budget was presented to Council in December prior to the tax ratio for the AE class was announced, the growth was reported as 1.51% which was due the assessment for the AE class was not picked in the 2024 revised roll of CVA. The overall assessment growth is net of reduction in assessment due to property assessment appeals. Table 3 summarizes the overall assessment growth that occurred in 2024 (see Assessment Growth Impacts column) as well as the impacts affecting each of the tax Page 1357 of 1679 CSD 6-2025 February 5, 2025 Page 7 classes based on maintaining the status quo tax ratios with the implementation of new AE property class. The residential increase in Table 3 below of 9.51% (which is above the 2025 Regional total levy impact of 9.49%) is net of the tax shift due the implementation of the new AE class (See Appendix 1, Table 9). Table 3 – 2025 General Tax Levy Impacts by Property Class Property Class 2024 Approved General Tax Levy Assessment Growth (AG) Impacts Inter- class Shift* 2025 General Tax Levy Impacts (net of AG) 2025 Approved General Tax Levy Avg. General Tax % Increase Residential $354,217,202 $5,834,033 $72,974 $33,616,503 $393,740,720 9.51% New Multi- Res 2,259,947 265,441 514 235,785 2,761,686 10.46% Multi- Residential 17,955,968 80,208 3,654 1,683,945 19,723,776 9.40% Farm 4,224,068 3,638 862 394,697 4,623,265 9.36% Managed Forest 27,018 913 5 2,608 30,544 9.67% Commercial 84,198,711 1,331,762 17,321 7,985,556 93,533,351 9.50% Industrial 17,171,248 -236,136 3,438 1,581,152 18,519,700 9.23% Aggregate Extraction 0 534,358 -99,459 40,596 475,494 100.00% Pipelines 2,922,508 20,888 592 274,807 3,218,797 9.42% Landfill 61,743 0 12 5,765 67,520 9.36% Total $483,038,413 $7,835,105 -$87 $45,821,413 $536,694,853 9.49% % Increase 1.62% 0.00% 9.49% 11.11% Note: Includes tax shifts due to the new AE class. Page 1358 of 1679 CSD 6-2025 February 5, 2025 Page 8 2. Re-Assessment Phase-In and Tax Shift Reassessments of all properties is mandated by the Province every four years, however, as a result of COVID-19, the 2020 re-assessment has been delayed and the Province has not provided any guidance as to when the next assessment cycle will take place. Therefore, the assessment values for the 2025 tax year will remain the same based on the 2016 valuation date resulting in no tax shift impacts caused by assessment phase-in changes. Table 4 shows the relative tax share of each tax class from 2024 to 2025. The 2025 amounts are based on the recommended tax policy. Table 4 – Multi-Year Tax Distribution by Tax Class Property Class 2024 Levy % Share 2025 Levy % Share Residential $354,217,202 73.33% $393,740,720 73.36% New Multi-Residential 2,259,947 0.47% 2,761,686 0.51% Multi-Residential 17,955,968 3.72% 19,723,776 3.68% Farm 4,224,068 0.87% 4,623,265 0.86% Managed Forest 27,018 0.01% 30,544 0.01% Commercial 84,198,711 17.43% 2,761,686 17.43% Industrial 17,171,248 3.55% 18,519,700 3.45% Aggregate Extraction 0 0.00% 475,494 0.09% Pipelines 2,922,508 0.61% 3,218,797 0.60% Landfill 61,743 0.01% 67,520 0.01% Total $483,038,413 100% $536,694,853 100% Page 1359 of 1679 CSD 6-2025 February 5, 2025 Page 9 3. Education Rates The education tax rates are established by the Province to meet their revenue targets for the year. Typically, the education tax rates decrease from one year to the next as the Provincial policy is to maintain revenue neutrality. In prior years, this Provincial policy has created savings in Niagara which generally assist in offsetting municipal increases. Similar to 2024, the Province has maintained the education tax rates in 2025 for most of the classes. What this means is that with no changes in property assessment due to reassessment, most properties will typically pay the same dollars in education taxes as in the prior year. The education rate for the new AE class has been set at 0.00511 for 2025 taxation year, which results in an education tax increase of over 1,000% for captured properties in comparison to their 2024 final, adjusted levy (at 0.000440 education rate). 4. Waste Management Special Levy Rates Waste Management Special Levy tax rates are also set based on the Regional tax ratios. The 2025 waste management requisition by municipality was approved through 2025 Waste Management Budget By-law (Bill 2024-73); however, the by-law setting for the waste management special levy tax rates for the 2025 requisitions are brought forward with the 2025 general tax levy by-law as the rates are based on each municipality’s assessment and are dependent on the tax ratios (with the exception of Niagara-on-the-Lake). The household impacts reported in the budget will vary based on the tax policy being approved in this report in addition to variations in final assessment growth. 5. Niagara Transit Commission Special Levy Rates Similar to Waste Management, Niagara Transit Commission Special Levy tax rates are also set based on the Regional tax ratios. The 2025 Transit requisition by municipality was approved through 2025 Niagara Transit Commission Budget By-law (Bill 2024-74); however, the by-law setting for transit special levy tax rates for the 2025 requisitions are also brought forward with the 2025 general tax levy by-law as the rates are based on each municipality’s assessment and are dependent on the tax ratios. The household impacts reported in the budget will vary based on the tax policy being approved in this report in addition to variations in final assessment growth. Page 1360 of 1679 CSD 6-2025 February 5, 2025 Page 10 Tax Policy Considerations The Region considers council priorities, the current environment, as well as utilizing several BMA tax related performance metrics as seen in Appendix 3 of Report CSD 6- 2025 to assess policy options. • Residential taxpayer - The residential class is responsible for 73.36% of the overall tax levy. As identified in the most recent BMA study, Niagara’s average residential property taxes (including water and wastewater) payable as a percentage of household income is above the BMA study average (2024 - Niagara 5.35% versus BMA average 4.90%). This gap between Niagara and the survey average has remained roughly the same from 2023 (Niagara 5.24% versus BMA average 4.80%). • Multi-Residential Tax Class - the multi-residential tax category consists of two property tax classes. The multi-residential class is responsible for 3.68% of the overall tax levy while the new-multi-residential category (which includes multi-residential structures constructed after 2003) is responsible for 0.51%. It is important to note that new construction of purpose-built rental would be in the new multi-residential class, which is taxed at the same rate as residential. BMA metrics related to two multi-residential structure types (Walk-up and Mid/High-Rise). The walk-up style structure was identified as above the survey average by $364 and the high-rise structure types are also above the average by $37 for 2024. • Industrial Tax Class - The relative tax burden averages for standard industrial for the Region is higher than the BMA survey average as provided in Appendix 3 (Niagara is taxing $2.09/square foot, while the BMA average is $1.68/square foot). However, this is partially offset by the many incentive programs currently offered by the Region including tax increment and development charge related grants, specifically under the Employment and Brownfield pillars, that reduce the actual tax burden experienced by some industrial properties in Niagara. • Commercial Tax Class - These properties pay the second largest share (after residential) of Regional taxes at 17.43%. Appendix 3 illustrates that Niagara taxation of office buildings and motels are lower than the BMA average ($3.22 tax/square foot vs. $3.30 tax/square foot and $1,265 tax/unit vs. $1,309 tax/unit respectively) while Niagara’s taxation of shopping centres and hotels ($4.55 tax/square foot vs. $3.99 tax/square foot and $2,132 tax/unit vs. $1,742 tax/unit respectively) are above the BMA averages. Tax appeals in this class are significant and the property class has benefited from significant reduction due to assessment appeals such that it has generated the lowest assessment growth percentage. The impact of reduced assessment further increases the overall burden experienced by properties in other classes. This property class is also eligible for Employment and Brownfield related tax increment grant programs. Page 1361 of 1679 CSD 6-2025 February 5, 2025 Page 11 2025 Property Tax Impacts Table 5 – Regional General Tax Increases for Proposed Tax Policy Property Class 2024 Avg. CVA 2024 Regional General Tax 2025 Avg. CVA 2025 Regional General Tax* $ Increase Residential $298,000 $1,985 $298,000 $2,171 $186 Multi-Residential 2,517,300 33,033 2,517,300 36,124 3,091 Commercial – Occupied 846,692 9,784 846,692 10,700 916 Industrial – Occupied 1,095,946 19,200 1,095,946 20,996 1,796 Farmland 411,679 686 411,679 750 64 Note: Based on draft rates utilizing the recommended 2025 tax policy. 2025 Interim Levy Dates and Amounts The authority to incur expenditures by Regional departments, boards and agencies is granted by Regional Council through the annual approved operating budget as prescribed by the Municipal Act, 2001. Additionally, O.Reg 75/01 prescribes the information to be contained on property tax bills. Prior to the annual budget being adopted by Regional Council, bylaw 2017-63 as approved by Regional Council provides that Regional departments, boards and agencies may incur expenses up to 50% of their prior year’s operating budget in order to maintain business as usual for Regional services. Further to this, Section 316 of the Municipal Act, 2001, authorizes Council through a by- law to provide an interim levy equivalent to 50% of the prior year's approved estimates (subject to certain adjustments) before the adoption of budget estimates for the year. It has been the Region’s past practice to levy an interim amount in order to fund Regional services prior to the approval of the annual budget and final levy amounts. The Region’s 2025 General Tax Levy budget was approved in December 2024. Staff recommend that Page 1362 of 1679 CSD 6-2025 February 5, 2025 Page 12 50% of 2024 approve budget is levied as interim tax in first two quarters of 2025 to remain consistent and allow sufficient time for the lower-tier municipalities to adopt their 2025 levy budgets. As such, Appendix 5 to Report CSD 6-2025 includes the proposed 2025 interim and final levy dates and amounts by Local Area Municipality. The proposed levy dates have been communicated to the Treasurers of all twelve Local Area Municipalities who have supported these dates. The 2025 levy amounts to be requisitioned from local area municipalities total $644,935,164 with following breakdown by levy type (details in Appendix 5): • $536,694,853 for the General Levy • $45,584,715 for the Waste Management Special Levy, and • $62,655,596 for the Transit Special Levy Alternatives Reviewed Regional staff considered alternatives to the recommendations proposed in this report. After engaging with the Area Treasurers and reviewing the tax study and historical Regional tax ratios, it was determined to maintain the status quo tax ratios (with exception of the new AE class) for the 2025 taxation year. Alternative thresholds were not considered as the interim levy of 50% permitted by the Municipal Act, 2001 will generally ensure cash inflows in the shorter term are able to accommodate the level of expenditures. The Municipal Act, 2001 does not have a requirement to approve a spending limit in advance of the budget approval however the practice has been adopted by the Region through bylaw 2017-63. Relationship to Council Strategic Priorities This tax policy report is aligned to Effective Region, Delivery of fiscally responsible and sustainable core services. Other Pertinent Reports CSD 64-2024 2025 Consolidated General Levy Budget (https://pub-niagararegion.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=0281408c- b40e-404a-b9b0- 5cdd3582ac52&Agenda=Merged&lang=English&Item=19&Tab=attachments) Page 1363 of 1679 CSD 6-2025 February 5, 2025 Page 13 BRC-C 25-2024 2025 Consolidated General Levy Budget Update Memo (https://pub-niagararegion.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=6fe248c3- 7e32-435a-8ffc- 103cabcc703d&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English&Item=12&Tab=attachments) Bill 2024-83 2025 Operating Budget and Tax Levy (https://pub-niagararegion.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=33c65e0b- de4c-497b-98a4-2daa68f1e117&Agenda=Merged&lang=English) CSD 44-2024 Waste Management 2025 Operating Budget and Requisition (https://pub-niagararegion.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=6ed594dd- 1cef-4a22-92e7-186d204662a7&Agenda=Agenda&lang=English) Bill 2024-73 2025 Waste Management Budget (https://pub-niagararegion.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=2b9412ea- 0101-4985-871d-53d5e48fe506&Agenda=Merged&lang=English) BRC-C 2-2024 2025 Proposed Operating Budget and Special Levy Requisition – Niagara Transit Commission (https://pub-niagararegion.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=93252d78- 80cf-4c36-9b0f-2f9cb97010a3&Agenda=Merged&lang=English) BRC-C 3-2024 Niagara Transit Commission Additional Budget Information (https://pub-niagararegion.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=93252d78- 80cf-4c36-9b0f-2f9cb97010a3&Agenda=Merged&lang=English) Bill 2024-74 2025 Niagara Transit Commission Budget and Requisition for Niagara Region Special Levy tax for Transit (https://pub-niagararegion.escribemeetings.com/Meeting.aspx?Id=2b9412ea- 0101-4985-871d-53d5e48fe506&Agenda=Merged&lang=English) Page 1364 of 1679 CSD 6-2025 February 5, 2025 Page 14 ________________________________ Prepared by: Lucia Chen, MAcc, CPA, CMA Manager, Revenue Planning and Strategy Corporate Services _______________________________ Recommended by: Dan Carnegie Acting Commissioner Corporate Services ________________________________ Submitted by: Ron Tripp, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer This report was prepared in consultation with Beth Brens, Associate Director, Budget Planning & Strategy, and reviewed by Melissa Raquion, Director, Financial Management & Planning. Appendices Appendix 1 Niagara Region 2025 Tax Policy Study Appendix 2 History of Regional Tax Ratios Appendix 3 Performance Measures Appendix 4 Subclass Property Tax Rate Reductions Program Summary Appendix 5 2025 Interim and Final Levy Payments and Dates Page 1365 of 1679 ~ VOXTUR~ MTAG ~ Paralegal Professional Corp • VOXTUR company MTAG PROPERTY TAX AND TAX POLICY STUDY 2025 PROPERTY TAX AND TAX POLICY STUDY Prepared For: THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA Published On: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2024 Prepared and Published by: Municipal Tax Advisory Group Paralegal Professional Corporation A Voxtur Company VOXTUR.COM © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 1366 of 1679 ~ VOXTUR~ MTAG PROPERTY TAX AND TAX POLICY STUDY DISCLAIMER AND CAUTION The information, views, data and discussions in this document and related material are provided for general reference purposes only. Regulatory and statutory references are provided for convenience only and in many instances, are not directly quoted excerpts. The reader should refer to the relevant provisions of the legislation and regulations for complete information. The discussion and commentary contained in this report do not constitute legal advice or the provision of legal services as defined by the Law Society Act, any other Act, or Regulation. If legal advice is required or if legal rights are, or may be an issue, the reader must obtain an independent legal opinion. Decisions should not be made in the sole consideration of or reliance on the information and discussions contained in this report. It is the responsibility of each individual in either of a decision- making or advisory capacity to acquire all relevant and pertinent information required to make an informed and appropriate decision with regards to any matter under consideration concerning municipal finance issues. No attempt has been made by MTAG to establish the completeness or accuracy of the data prepared by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC). MTAG, therefore, makes no warrantees or guarantees that the source data is free of error or misstatement. MTAG is not responsible or liable to the municipality, nor to any other party for damages arising based on deficiencies, defects, errors, omissions, completeness, suitability, or accuracy of the data or due to the misuse of the information contained in this study, including without limitation, any related, indirect, special, punitive, incidental or consequential damages. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 1367 of 1679 ~ VOXTUR~ MTAG PROPERTY TAX AND TAX POLICY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................. 1 ASSESSMENT AND PROPERTY TAX IN 2025 .........................................................................................................................1 PART ONE: ASSESSMENT AND REVENUE GROWTH ANALYSIS ...................................................... 3 2024 ASSESSMENT GROWTH...........................................................................................................................................3 GROWTH VS. LOSS .........................................................................................................................................................3 HISTORIC GROWTH PATTERNS ..........................................................................................................................................7 REVENUE GROWTH ........................................................................................................................................................8 REVENUE LIMIT AND ZERO PER CENT LEVY CHANGE .............................................................................................................9 LOCAL REVENUE GROWTH .............................................................................................................................................11 PART TWO: 2025 BASE-LINE TAX LANDSCAPE ............................................................................ 13 ESTABLISHING 2025 STARTING TAXES WITH PRECISION AND ACCURACY .................................................................................13 NOTIONAL VS. REVENUE NEUTRAL TAX RATES ...................................................................................................................13 2025 START RATIOS AND NOTIONAL TAX RATES................................................................................................................14 TREATMENT OF PIL ASSESSMENT AND REVENUE ................................................................................................................14 OVERALL MUNICIPAL LEVY SHIFT ....................................................................................................................................15 BUSINESS, NON-BUSINESS AND PUBLIC SECTOR REVENUE....................................................................................................19 TYPICAL AND MEDIAN PROPERTIES ..................................................................................................................................20 PART THREE: OTHER REVENUE AND LEVIES................................................................................30 PROVINCIAL EDUCATION TAXES.......................................................................................................................................30 LINEAR PROPERTIES ......................................................................................................................................................33 RETAINED EDUCATION LEVIES FOR CERTAIN PAYMENT IN LIEU (PIL) PROPERTIES......................................................................34 POTENTIAL RISKS RELATED TO RETAINED EDUCATION PAYMENTS ..........................................................................................35 BUDGETING FOR RISKS ..................................................................................................................................................35 PART FOUR: GENERAL SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS...................................................................39 Enclosures: Appendix A: Understanding Reassessment and Real Growth Appendix B: New Multi-Residential Subclass Appendix C: Aggregate Extraction Property Class Local Results Addenda © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 1368 of 1679 ~ VOXTUR~ INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Each year, Ontario municipalities face crucial decisions regarding their local property tax regime. These decisions shape both the total amount of revenue to be raised as well as the distribution of the tax burden. Municipalities are not, however, making these decisions in a vacuum. Due to the complexities of the Province’s tax and assessment system, and the constantly changing landscape of the local tax base, even a choice to rely on last year’s decisions will come with new implications. In the realm of municipal property tax in Ontario, a true “status-quo” does not exist. To navigate these challenges effectively, municipalities must understand their options and choices within a comprehensive framework, aligning them with local priorities, objectives, and goals. This study aims to present a detailed and accurate overview of the 2025 assessment and tax landscape. In doing this we will document how the tax and assessment circumstances have changed since taxes were levied for 2024 and also consider the various tax policy options and choices that can be used to influence final tax outcomes for 2025. The overall goal is to provide municipal Staff and decision makers with the core insight and analysis needed to consider 2025 property tax decisions in an informed and strategic manner. This in turn will maximize the attainment of municipal priorities and objectives. Assessment and Property Tax in 2025 This new taxation year promises to be uniquely challenging in the realm of property taxation, influenced by a multitude of factors. In addition to the fact that reassessment has been paused for another year, the municipal policy landscape is changing rapidly. Municipal tax levies are subject to a host of unprecedented impact including the highest inflationary pressures in two decades and an economic climate that has spurred increased demand for a range of supports and services. At the same time, many municipalities are compelled to rely more heavily on property tax as a counterbalance to stresses and declines in other revenue streams. To further complicate the transition to 2025, municipalities must consider the implications of, and their reactions to two recent changes in provincial property tax policy in addition to the existing slate of property tax considerations. Mainly: − The introduction of a new multi-residential subclass, which allows municipalities to provide a further reduction to newly built or substantially renovated multi-residential properties, beyond that already conveyed under the new multi-residential property class; and − A new Aggregate Extraction property class, that will capture most gravel pits and quarries and will drive material tax shifts for 2025 in those jurisdictions with significant assessment being moved from the industrial class to this new stand-alone class. Other adjustments and implications for Ontario’s property tax regime could come in a variety of forms and from a variety of sources. Recognizing these challenges and uncertainty, MTAG has continued to ensure our Property Tax and Tax Policy Study provides a measure of clarity as to what this all means for how we interpret and explain tax and assessment matters. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 1 Page 1369 of 1679 ~ VOXTUR~ INTRODUCTION Assessment Roll Revisions The tables set out in this report are based on a revised assessment roll for 2025 for the property identified by roll number 2731 000 023 04600. The property specific roll revisions are listed in Figure 1. Figure 1 Roll Revisions RTC RTQ 2024 Start Per Roll Revised Diff Per Roll 2024 Year-End Revised Difference Per Roll 2025 Start Revised Difference CT 0 0 0 32,219,000 1,159,500 -31,059,500 32,219,000 1,159,500 -31,059,500 E 1,454,000 1,454,000 0 1,387,000 35,842,500 34,455,500 1,387,000 35,842,500 34,455,500 1,454,000 1,454,000 0 33,606,000 37,002,000 3,396,000 33,606,000 37,002,000 3,396,000 © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 2 Page 1370 of 1679 ~ VOXTUR~ PART ONE: ASSESSMENT AND REVENUE GROWTH ANALYSIS PART ONE: ASSESSMENT AND REVENUE GROWTH ANALYSIS 2024 Assessment Growth The ongoing reassessment pause does not have any independent implications for growth related assessment and tax change. As such, a restated 2025 revenue limit and starting tax position must be established in order to make informed decisions in respect of the new taxation year. Table 1 compares the CVA values contained on the roll as returned and the roll as revised for 2024, summarizing the net in-year changes to property within the municipality, as reflected for assessment and taxation purposes. Table 1-B summarizes this same growth by constituent lower tiers. Growth vs. Loss The municipality’s overall growth component will be made up of both positive and negative growth. Positive growth will be reflective of things such as new construction, additions, improvements, etc. The drivers of negative growth may include demolitions, Minutes of Settlement, and/or decisions of the Assessment Review Board. While it is ultimately this net figure that will inform taxation and revenue models as we move into the new taxation year, considering the differential patterns and impacts of growth and loss can be a valuable exercise. Considering loss patterns independently can reveal areas of concern, such as fluctuations in property valuations within a class, tax erosion due to appeals, and economic pressures in specific sectors, industries, or geographic areas. Similarly, isolating and examining positive growth can shed light on the effects of new developments, improvements, and expansions on the assessment base. When these change patterns are broken out as seen in Table 2, it is possible to see trends and movement within the assessment base that may otherwise be obscured or skewed when only the net impact is being considered. For instance, robust growth in a particular subset of a class might be less noticeable if it is counterbalanced (and camouflaged) by losses in another subset. While the results in these tables do not offer a comprehensive insight into the municipality's assessment and economic dynamics, they represent a crucial initial step towards identifying significant trends. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 3 Page 1371 of 1679 2024 Current Value Assessment Realty Tax Class As Returned As Revised In-Year Growth Taxable Residential 53,190,424,080 54,065,919,282 875,495,202 1.65% Farm 2,536,550,950 2,538,735,132 2,184,182 0.09% Managed Forest 16,224,389 16,772,189 547,800 3.38% New Multi-Residential 339,275,020 379,124,354 39,849,334 11.75% Multi-Residential 1,368,345,853 1,374,458,105 6,112,252 0.45% Commercial 7,285,919,704 7,401,201,054 115,281,350 1.58% Industrial 980,165,768 966,686,842 -13,478,926 -1.38% Aggregate Extraction 0 30,502,100 30,502,100 100.00% Industrial + AE 980,165,768 997,188,942 17,023,174 1.74% Landfill 3,152,500 3,152,500 0 0.00% Pipeline 257,765,000 259,607,000 1,842,000 0.71% Sub-Total Taxable 65,977,823,264 67,036,158,558 1,058,335,294 1.60% Payment in Lieu Residential 33,181,100 30,581,600 -2,599,500 -7.83% Farm 491,000 491,000 0 0.00% Commercial 618,996,999 613,027,199 -5,969,800 -0.96% Industrial 13,499,400 13,361,400 -138,000 -1.02% Landfill 1,720,300 1,720,300 0 0.00% Sub-Total PIL 667,888,799 659,181,499 -8,707,300 -1.30% Total (Tax + PIL) 66,645,712,063 67,695,340,057 1,049,627,994 1.57% ~ VOXTUR~ PART ONE: ASSESSMENT AND REVENUE GROWTH ANALYSIS Table 1 2024 Assessment Growth Resulting from Changes in the State and/or Use of Property Aggregate Extraction Class and Industrial Growth The amount identified as "Aggregate Extraction Growth" represents assessment that has been reallocated from the industrial class as of year-end. Consequently, a significant portion of the aggregate extraction growth corresponds directly to the reduction in the industrial class. To provide a clearer picture, we have included special sub-total lines labelled “Industrial + AE”. These lines illustrate what the industrial class growth would have been if the aggregate extraction class had not been introduced at year-end. This special sub-total serves as the most accurate measure of actual growth, as opposed to shifts driven by changes in Provincial property tax policy. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 4 Page 1372 of 1679 Local Municipality As Returned 2024 Current Value Assessment As Revised In-Year Growth Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln 4,331,739,217 5,180,847,562 4,498,084,340 12,705,893,850 5,921,811,011 3,139,784,700 2,044,211,554 15,821,257,302 3,131,182,509 1,214,062,034 5,481,098,445 2,507,850,740 4,424,339,527 5,211,631,353 4,530,767,570 12,916,243,434 5,993,893,947 3,208,408,282 2,099,653,000 15,955,595,680 3,289,592,009 1,230,672,889 5,651,963,836 2,523,397,031 92,600,310 30,783,791 32,683,230 210,349,584 72,082,936 68,623,582 55,441,446 134,338,378 158,409,500 16,610,855 170,865,391 15,546,291 2.14% 0.59% 0.73% 1.66% 1.22% 2.19% 2.71% 0.85% 5.06% 1.37% 3.12% 0.62% Region (Taxable only) 65,977,823,264 67,036,158,558 1,058,335,294 1.60% ~ VOXTUR~ PART ONE: ASSESSMENT AND REVENUE GROWTH ANALYSIS Table 1-B 2024 Assessment Growth Resulting from Changes in the State and/or Use of Property © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 5 Page 1373 of 1679 2024 In-Year Current Value Assessment Growth Realty Tax Class Positive Growth Negative Growth Net Growth Taxable Residential 1,050,344,145 1.97% -174,848,943 -0.33% 875,495,202 1.65% Farm 41,963,582 1.65% -39,779,400 -1.57% 2,184,182 0.09% Managed Forest New Multi-Residential 780,200 40,467,634 4.81% 11.93% -232,400 -618,300 -1.43% -0.18% 547,800 39,849,334 3.38% 11.75% Multi-Residential 15,844,652 1.16% -9,732,400 -0.71% 6,112,252 0.45% Commercial 313,129,183 4.30% -197,847,833 -2.72% 115,281,350 1.58% Industrial 43,628,894 4.45% -57,107,820 -5.83% -13,478,926 -1.38% Aggregate Extraction 30,502,100 100.00% 0 0.00% 30,502,100 100.00% Industrial + AE 43,628,894 4.45% -26,605,720 -2.71% 17,023,174 1.74% Landfill 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Pipeline 1,999,000 0.78% -157,000 -0.06% 1,842,000 0.71% Sub-Total Taxable 1,538,659,390 2.33% -480,324,096 -0.73% 1,058,335,294 1.60% Payment in Lieu Residential 480,000 1.45% -3,079,500 -9.28% -2,599,500 -7.83% Farm 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Commercial 10,191,700 1.65% -16,161,500 -2.61% -5,969,800 -0.96% Industrial 0 0.00% -138,000 -1.02% -138,000 -1.02% Landfill 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Sub-Total PIL 10,671,700 1.60% -19,379,000 -2.90% -8,707,300 -1.30% Total (Tax + PIL) 1,549,331,090 2.32% -499,703,096 -0.75% 1,049,627,994 1.57% ~ VOXTUR~ PART ONE: ASSESSMENT AND REVENUE GROWTH ANALYSIS Table 2 2024 Assessment Growth and Loss Patterns © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 6 Page 1374 of 1679 Current Value Assessment Growth Realty Tax Class 2023 In-Year 2024 In-Year Taxable Residential 870,256,976 1.66% 875,495,202 1.65% Farm 89,713,453 3.67% 2,184,182 0.09% Managed Forest -287,000 -1.74% 547,800 3.38% New Multi-Residential 74,367,300 28.07% 39,849,334 11.75% Multi-Residential 14,005,596 1.03% 6,112,252 0.45% Commercial 46,071,367 0.64% 115,281,350 1.58% Industrial 35,674,270 3.78% -13,478,926 -1.38% Aggregate Extraction 30,502,100 100.00% Industrial + AE 35,674,270 3.78% 17,023,174 1.74% Landfill 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Pipeline 1,693,000 0.66% 1,842,000 0.71% Sub-Total Taxable 1,131,494,962 1.75% 1,058,335,294 1.60% Payment in Lieu Residential -219,600 -0.66% -2,599,500 -7.83% Farm 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Commercial -72,287,200 -10.46% -5,969,800 -0.96% Industrial -334,900 -2.42% -138,000 -1.02% Landfill 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Sub-Total PIL -72,841,700 -9.83% -8,707,300 -1.30% Total (Tax + PIL) 1,058,653,262 1.61% 1,049,627,994 1.57% ~ VOXTUR~ PART ONE: ASSESSMENT AND REVENUE GROWTH ANALYSIS Historic Growth Patterns Table 3 has been prepared to provide the reader with a measure of context within which to consider the current year’s assessment growth. Table 3 provides a comparison between the full CVA growth realized during 2023, to the current year’s final growth figures. Table 3 Year-To-Year Assessment Growth Comparison © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 7 Page 1375 of 1679 2024 Upper Tier General Levy Realty Tax Class As Levied Year-End In-Year Growth Taxable Residential $354,217,454 $360,051,487 $5,834,033 1.65% Farm $4,224,068 $4,227,706 $3,638 0.09% Managed Forest $27,018 $27,931 $913 3.38% New Multi-Residential $2,259,947 $2,525,388 $265,441 11.75% Multi-Residential $17,955,968 $18,036,176 $80,208 0.45% Commercial $84,198,711 $85,530,473 $1,331,762 1.58% Industrial $17,171,248 $16,935,112 -$236,136 -1.38% Aggregate Extraction $0 $534,358 $534,358 100.00% Industrial + AE $17,171,248 $17,469,470 $298,222 1.74% Landfill $61,743 $61,743 $0 0.00% Pipeline $2,922,508 $2,943,396 $20,888 0.71% Sub-Total Taxable $483,038,665 $490,873,770 $7,835,105 1.62% Payment in Lieu Residential $221,022 $203,707 -$17,315 -7.83% Farm $818 $818 $0 0.00% Commercial $7,153,354 $7,084,362 -$68,992 -0.96% Industrial $236,493 $234,075 -$2,418 -1.02% Landfill $33,693 $33,693 $0 0.00% Sub-Total PIL $7,645,380 $7,556,655 -$88,725 -1.16% Total (Tax + PIL) $490,684,045 $498,430,425 $7,746,380 1.58% ~ VOXTUR~ PART ONE: ASSESSMENT AND REVENUE GROWTH ANALYSIS Revenue Growth On an annualized basis, the net growth-related gain or loss in taxation is the difference between the total tax amount as determined against the returned roll and the total tax as determined against the roll as revised. Not all of this value will, however, have been realized in the form of additional revenue during the year. Some changes would not have been effective for the full tax year, while others may have been made for multiple years. The net annualized revenue growth in Upper Tier general levy dollars is summarized by class in Table 4 and local area municipality in Table 4-B. Table 5 compares the municipality’s current year revenue growth against the final growth figures calculated as of roll return for 2025. Table 4 2024 Annualized Revenue Growth by Property Class © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 8 Page 1376 of 1679 Local Municipality As Levied 2024 Upper Tier General Levy Year-End In-Year Growth Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln $30,913,362 $36,630,801 $29,939,636 $100,859,244 $41,255,892 $20,871,194 $15,301,847 $121,130,220 $22,696,956 $7,261,170 $40,950,000 $15,228,341 $31,561,114 $36,862,949 $30,171,105 $102,605,433 $41,819,858 $21,331,022 $15,697,872 $122,099,168 $23,818,730 $7,384,977 $42,139,848 $15,381,693 $647,752 $232,148 $231,469 $1,746,189 $563,966 $459,828 $396,025 $968,948 $1,121,774 $123,807 $1,189,848 $153,352 2.10% 0.63% 0.77% 1.73% 1.37% 2.20% 2.59% 0.80% 4.94% 1.71% 2.91% 1.01% Region (Taxable only) $483,038,663 $490,873,769 $7,835,106 1.62% ~ VOXTUR~ PART ONE: ASSESSMENT AND REVENUE GROWTH ANALYSIS Revenue Limit and Zero Per Cent Levy Change For tax policy and tax levy purposes, the net annualized growth is a critical measure as it serves to inform the municipality’s “revenue limit” for the coming year. This revenue limit represents the tax dollars that can be raised for the current year under a zero percent levy change scenario. Table 4-B 2024 Annualized Revenue Growth by Local Area Municipality Note: Rounding differences may exist among tables due to the varying roll-up calculations. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 9 Page 1377 of 1679 Realty Tax Class Upper Tier Gen 2023 In-Year eral Levy Growth 2024 In-Year Taxable Residential $5,485,556 1.68% $5,834,033 1.65% Farm $139,883 3.67% $3,638 0.09% Managed Forest New Multi-Residential -$447 $463,822 -1.74% 28.07% $913 $265,441 3.38% 11.75% Multi-Residential $172,082 1.03% $80,208 0.45% Commercial $504,636 0.65% $1,331,762 1.58% Industrial $585,635 3.82% -$236,136 -1.38% Aggregate Extraction $534,358 100.00% Industrial + AE $585,635 3.82% $298,222 1.74% Landfill $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Pipeline $17,971 0.66% $20,888 0.71% Sub-Total Taxable $7,369,138 1.66% $7,835,105 1.62% Payment in Lieu Residential -$1,370 -0.66% -$17,315 -7.83% Farm $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Commercial -$781,952 -10.47% -$68,992 -0.96% Industrial -$5,493 -2.47% -$2,418 -1.02% Landfill $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Sub-Total PIL -$788,815 -9.95% -$88,725 -1.16% Total (Tax + PIL) $6,580,323 1.45% $7,746,380 1.58% ~ VOXTUR~ PART ONE: ASSESSMENT AND REVENUE GROWTH ANALYSIS Table 5 Year-To-Year Revenue Growth Comparison © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 10 Page 1378 of 1679 2024 Local Levies (All Locals) Realty Tax Class As Levied Year-End In-Year Growth Taxable Residential $314,508,891 $320,172,565 $5,663,674 1.80% Farm $3,184,322 $3,190,379 $6,057 0.19% Managed Forest $24,653 $25,446 $792 3.21% New Multi-Residential $2,181,530 $2,488,348 $306,818 14.06% Multi-Residential $17,303,958 $17,376,563 $72,605 0.42% Commercial $72,471,638 $73,662,789 $1,191,151 1.64% Industrial $16,420,569 $16,089,374 -$331,195 -2.02% Aggregate Extraction $0 $563,852 $563,852 100.00% Industrial + AE $16,420,569 $16,653,226 $232,657 1.42% Landfill $52,204 $52,204 $0 0.00% Pipeline $2,622,461 $2,643,328 $20,866 0.80% Sub-Total Taxable $428,770,226 $436,264,848 $7,494,620 1.75% Payment in Lieu Residential $180,758 $165,516 -$15,242 -8.43% Farm $800 $800 $0 0.00% Commercial $5,992,682 $5,932,721 -$59,961 -1.00% Industrial $194,646 $192,346 -$2,300 -1.18% Landfill $36,257 $36,257 $0 0.00% Sub-Total PIL $6,405,143 $6,327,640 -$77,503 -1.21% Total (Tax + PIL) $435,175,369 $442,592,488 $7,417,117 1.70% ~ VOXTUR~ PART ONE: ASSESSMENT AND REVENUE GROWTH ANALYSIS Local Revenue Growth MTAG's analysis of local revenue growth includes only general levies applied at the municipal level and excludes any special area rates or levies. Total region-wide growth in local levy dollars is summarized on a class-by-class basis in Table 6 and by local area municipality in Table 6-B. Table 7 compares the upper-tier and local levy growth by municipality. Table 6 2024 Local Revenue Growth by Property Class All General Local Municipal Levies © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 11 Page 1379 of 1679 Local Municipality As Levied 2024 Local General Levies Year-End In-Year Growth Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln $34,320,088 $17,593,164 $24,169,258 $85,277,296 $16,111,954 $19,093,616 $24,793,085 $117,204,858 $22,193,208 $9,042,694 $49,261,901 $9,709,103 $35,039,224 $17,704,661 $24,356,115 $86,754,109 $16,332,204 $19,514,282 $25,434,751 $118,142,406 $23,290,085 $9,196,877 $50,693,260 $9,806,875 $719,136 $111,497 $186,857 $1,476,812 $220,249 $420,665 $641,666 $937,548 $1,096,877 $154,183 $1,431,359 $97,772 2.10% 0.63% 0.77% 1.73% 1.37% 2.20% 2.59% 0.80% 4.94% 1.71% 2.91% 1.01% Region (Taxable only) $428,770,226 $436,264,848 $7,494,621 1.75% Local Municipality 2024 In-Year Mun Upper Tier Levy icipal Levy Growth Local General Levies Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln $647,752 $232,148 $231,469 $1,746,189 $563,966 $459,828 $396,025 $968,948 $1,121,774 $123,807 $1,189,848 $153,352 2.10% 0.63% 0.77% 1.73% 1.37% 2.20% 2.59% 0.80% 4.94% 1.71% 2.91% 1.01% $719,136 $111,497 $186,857 $1,476,812 $220,249 $420,665 $641,666 $937,548 $1,096,877 $154,183 $1,431,359 $97,772 2.10% 0.63% 0.77% 1.73% 1.37% 2.20% 2.59% 0.80% 4.94% 1.71% 2.91% 1.01% Region (Taxable only) $7,835,106 1.62% $7,494,621 1.75% ~ VOXTUR~ PART ONE: ASSESSMENT AND REVENUE GROWTH ANALYSIS Table 6-B 2024 Local Revenue Growth by Area Municipality General Local Levies Table 7 2024 Upper Tier and Local Revenue Growth by Area Municipality All Municipal General Levies © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 12 Page 1380 of 1679 ~ VOXTUR~ PART TWO: 2025 STARTING TAX LANDSCAPE PART TWO: 2025 BASE-LINE TAX LANDSCAPE Establishing 2025 Starting Taxes with Precision and Accuracy To accurately assess the tax impacts stemming from market value changes (reassessment), tax policy adjustments, and levy changes, it is essential to calculate and use revenue-neutral tax rates. While there is no reassessment for 2025, establishing these rates and a precise starting position remains critical for measuring and reporting all other factors affecting taxation. For 2025, a reliable notional baseline will enable municipalities to: 1. Quantify Year-Over-Year Taxation Shifts Identify the implications of provincially prescribed recalculation protocols on the balance of taxation. 2. Measure the Impact of the New Aggregate Extraction Property Class Evaluate and report how this newly introduced class affects the municipal tax base. 3. Assess Municipal Levy and Tax Policy Adjustments Accurately calculate and communicate the effects of any changes to the municipal levy or local tax policies. By establishing this solid foundation, municipalities can ensure transparency, accountability, and informed decision-making in their fiscal management. Notional vs. Revenue Neutral Tax Rates While there is no statutory distinction between Notional and Revenue Neutral tax rates, the differentiation is conceptually useful in property tax analysis. Both represent revenue-neutral positions, but we may need multiple sets of revenue-neutral rates to measure distinct forces affecting taxation. Notional Tax Rates are a specific set of tax rates designed to generate the municipality’s revenue limit (previous year levy + growth) using the current year’s assessment roll and starting tax policy parameters as dictated by provincial statutes and regulations. These rates isolate the impact of changes external to municipal policy and spending decisions and serve as the municipality’s baseline starting position each year. Any local policy or levy changes will be measured against this notional baseline. Alternate Revenue Neutral Tax Rates are those that raise the same baseline revenue but are recalibrated to account for any contemplated changes in tax policy or class structure. If adjustments are made, the levy impact for that year is measured by comparing taxes raised under these revised revenue-neutral rates with those generated by the final tax rates for the year. By leveraging these distinctions, municipalities can precisely analyze and report the financial impacts of both market-driven changes and policy decisions within their tax systems. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 13 Page 1381 of 1679 Realty Tax Class 2024 Tax Ratios 2025 Start % Change General Regional Rates 2025 2024 Notional % Change Residential Farm Managed Forest New Multi-Residential Multi-Residential Commercial Industrial 1 Aggregate Extraction Landfill Pipeline 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.000000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 2.630000 2.940261 1.702100 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.000000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 2.140048 2.940261 1.702100 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% -18.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00666111 0.00166528 0.00166528 0.00666111 0.01312239 0.01155636 0.01751872 0.01751872 0.01958540 0.01133788 0.00666246 0.00166562 0.00166562 0.00666246 0.01312505 0.01155870 0.01752227 0.01425798 0.01958937 0.01134017 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% -18.61% 0.02% 0.02% Taxable Only Revenue $490,873,770 $490,873,683 0.00% ~ VOXTUR~ PART TWO: 2025 STARTING TAX LANDSCAPE 2025 Start Ratios and Notional Tax Rates Table 8 outlines the municipality’s 2025 starting tax ratios and notional tax rates, established to ensure overall revenue neutrality on a year-over-year basis. For most property classes, the actual 2024 tax ratios have been carried forward as the 2025 start ratios. The exception to this is the Aggregate Extraction class. While its year-end 2024 effective ratio aligns with the industrial ratio, the Province has regulated a new, lower transition ratio for 2025. This adjustment results in increased notional tax rates for all other property classes. Table 8 Starting Ratios and Revenue Neutral (Notional) Tax Rates Note: minor variations in total dollars between the year-end and notional levy due to rounding are expected. Treatment of PIL Assessment and Revenue For municipalities that do not include the assessment and revenues associated with Payment in Lieu of Tax (PIL) properties in the calculation of tax rates, the amount of PIL revenue is dictated by, or dependant on the rates calculated using the municipality’s taxable assessment base. As such, municipalities that have directed MTAG to calculate their rates exclusive of PIL revenue and assessment will see that their revenue neutral levy amounts balance with the Taxable Sub-Total for 2024. In contrast, where a municipality includes both taxable and PIL revenue and assessment in their tax rate calculations, the total levy (Taxable + PIL) will balance on a year-over-year basis. Where the former approach has been applied, and a loss of PIL revenue is anticipated, the municipality may wish to consider an alternate calculation protocol. 1 2025 Aggregate Extraction Transition Ratio was set by an amendment to Ontario Regulation 385/98 made under the Municipal Act, 2001. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 14 Page 1382 of 1679 Upper Tier General Levy Inter-Class Shifts Realty Tax Class 2024 Year-End 2025 Notional $ % Taxable Residential $360,051,487 $360,124,461 $72,974 0.02% Farm $4,227,706 $4,228,568 $862 0.02% Managed Forest $27,931 $27,936 $5 0.02% New Multi-Residential $2,525,388 $2,525,902 $514 0.02% Multi-Residential $18,036,176 $18,039,830 $3,654 0.02% Commercial $85,530,473 $85,547,794 $17,321 0.02% Industrial $16,935,112 $16,938,550 $3,438 0.02% Aggregate Extraction $534,358 $434,899 -$99,459 -18.61% Landfill $61,743 $61,755 $12 0.02% Pipeline $2,943,396 $2,943,988 $592 0.02% Sub-Total Taxable $490,873,770 $490,873,683 -$87 0.00% Payment in Lieu Residential $203,707 $203,751 $44 0.02% Farm $818 $818 $0 0.00% Commercial $7,084,362 $7,085,794 $1,432 0.02% Industrial $234,075 $234,121 $46 0.02% Landfill $33,693 $33,700 $7 0.02% Sub-Total PIL $7,556,655 $7,558,184 $1,529 0.02% Total (Taxable + PIL) $498,430,425 $498,431,867 $1,442 0.00% ~ VOXTUR~ PART TWO: 2025 STARTING TAX LANDSCAPE Table 9 Year-Over-Year Inter-Class Tax Shifts (Upper-Tier General Levy) Although the rates calculated and shown in Table 8 are revenue neutral overall, they do result in shifts between individual properties and groups of properties. The inter-class shifts of the Upper-Tier general levy are documented in Table 9. In addition to shifting among property classes, the Upper-Tier levy will also shift among and within local municipalities based on the differential concentrations of Aggregate Extraction assessment in each local municipality. Table 10 documents these shifts of the upper-tier notional levy at the local level. Overall Municipal Levy Shift As with the Upper-Tier levy, local levies will shift amongst classes and taxpayers. Table 11 considers how the combined (upper tier + local) general levies are shifting among the property classes. The local levy amounts used in this section, as well as the underlying municipal specific notional tax rates are further documented in the Local Results Addenda attached to this study. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 15 Page 1383 of 1679 Local Municipality Upper-Tier General Levy 2024 Year-End 2025 Notional Inter-Municipal Shifts $ % Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln $31,561,115 $36,862,949 $30,171,106 $102,605,433 $41,819,859 $21,331,023 $15,697,873 $122,099,166 $23,818,729 $7,384,976 $42,139,848 $15,381,693 $31,556,347 $36,870,421 $30,155,889 $102,616,205 $41,817,128 $21,326,873 $15,678,901 $122,123,911 $23,823,555 $7,371,251 $42,148,389 $15,384,813 -$4,768 $7,472 -$15,217 $10,772 -$2,731 -$4,150 -$18,972 $24,745 $4,826 -$13,725 $8,541 $3,120 -0.02% 0.02% -0.05% 0.01% -0.01% -0.02% -0.12% 0.02% 0.02% -0.19% 0.02% 0.02% Region (Taxable) $490,873,770 $490,873,683 -$87 0.00% ~ VOXTUR~ PART TWO: 2025 STARTING TAX LANDSCAPE Table 10 Year-Over-Year Inter-Municipal Tax Shifts Table 11 Year-Over-Year Inter-Class Tax Shifts – All Municipal General Levies Upper-Tier + All Local General Levies Inter-Class Shifts Realty Tax Class 2024 Year-End 2025 Notional $ % Taxable Residential $680,224,052 $680,379,757 $155,705 0.02% Farm $7,418,085 $7,420,849 $2,764 0.04% Managed Forest $53,377 $53,397 $20 0.04% New Multi-Residential $5,013,736 $5,014,364 $628 0.01% Multi-Residential $35,412,739 $35,418,438 $5,699 0.02% Commercial $159,193,262 $159,222,152 $28,890 0.02% Industrial $33,024,486 $33,033,271 $8,785 0.03% Aggregate Extraction $1,098,210 $894,196 -$204,014 -18.58% Landfill $113,947 $113,964 $17 0.01% Pipeline $5,586,724 $5,588,135 $1,411 0.03% Sub-Total Taxable $927,138,618 $927,138,523 -$95 0.00% Payment in Lieu Residential $369,223 $369,323 $100 0.03% Farm $1,618 $1,618 $0 0.00% Commercial $13,017,083 $13,019,432 $2,349 0.02% Industrial $426,421 $426,504 $83 0.02% Landfill $69,950 $69,957 $7 0.01% Sub-Total PIL $13,884,295 $13,886,834 $2,539 0.02% Total (Taxable + PIL) $941,022,913 $941,025,357 $2,444 0.00% © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 16 Page 1384 of 1679 PART TWO: 2025 STARTING TAX LANDSCAPE ~ VOXTUR~ © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 17 Realty Tax Class Upper Tier Notional % of Levy Class Local Notional % of Levy Class Municipal Notional (UT + LT) Levy % of Levy Taxable Residential $360,124,461 52.93% $320,255,296 47.06% $680,379,757 72.30% Farm $4,228,568 56.98% $3,192,281 42.99% $7,420,849 0.79% Managed Forest New Multi-Residential $27,936 $2,525,902 52.32% 50.37% $25,461 $2,488,462 47.65% 49.62% $53,397 $5,014,364 0.01% 0.53% Multi-Residential $18,039,830 50.93% $17,378,608 49.06% $35,418,438 3.76% Commercial $85,547,794 53.73% $73,674,358 46.26% $159,222,152 16.92% Industrial $16,938,550 51.28% $16,094,721 48.71% $33,033,271 3.51% Aggregate Extraction Landfill $434,899 $61,755 48.64% 54.19% $459,297 $52,209 63.06% 45.81% $894,196 $113,964 0.10% 0.01% Pipeline $2,943,988 52.68% $2,644,147 47.30% $5,588,135 0.59% Sub-Total Taxable $490,873,683 52.95% $436,264,840 47.05% $927,138,523 98.52% Payment in Lieu Residential $203,751 55.17% $165,572 44.82% $369,323 0.04% Farm $818 50.56% $800 49.44% $1,618 0.00% Commercial $7,085,794 54.42% $5,933,638 45.57% $13,019,432 1.38% Industrial $234,121 54.89% $192,383 45.10% $426,504 0.05% Landfill $33,700 48.17% $36,257 51.83% $69,957 0.01% Sub-Total PIL $7,558,184 54.43% $6,328,650 45.57% $13,886,834 1.48% Total (Tax + PIL) $498,431,867 52.97% $442,593,490 47.03% $941,025,357 100.00% Table 12 provides a summary of both Upper Tier and local notional levies for 2025 by realty tax class. Figure 1 summarizes the starting notional municipal levy in each local area municipality and documents the Upper Tier and local proportional shares. Table 12 Upper Tier Levy, Local and Total Municipal Notional Levy Page 1385 of 1679 ■ ■ • ~ VOXTUR~ PART TWO: 2025 STARTING TAX LANDSCAPE Figure 1 Distribution of Total Municipal Notional Levy Upper Tier + Local Area Municipal Levies $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Upper-Tier and Local Levy in Millions Distribution of 2025 Notional Municipal Levy Local Municipal Share Regional Share Municipal Notional Levy Interpretation Notes: ‒Yellow bar portions represent the local share (%) of general municipal levy tax dollars; ‒Blue portions represent the Region’s share of general municipal levy dollars within each municipality; and ‒The Red Diamonds indicate the total municipal general levy dollars (Upper Tier + Local) based on the notional tax levies documented in this study. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 18 Page 1386 of 1679 ~ VOXTUR~ PART TWO: 2025 STARTING TAX LANDSCAPE Business, Non-Business and Public Sector Revenue Although some groups or categories of taxpayers are not specifically defined by the Municipal or Assessment Acts, it is possible to make distinctions between various types of taxpayers to support informative, interesting, and useful analysis. For many, the distinction between revenue that comes from non-business, business and public sector property owners is of significant interest. Figures 2 and 3 have been prepared to show how the relative burden of assessment and CVA tax is shared amongst various groups. For the purposes of this report, these categories incorporate the following assessment elements: Residential Taxable Residential Farm and Forest Taxable Farm and Managed Forest Multi-Residential Taxable Multi-Residential and New Multi-Residential Business Taxable Commercial, Industrial, Aggregate Extraction and Pipeline PIL Properties from any class subject to a Payment in Lieu of taxes Figure 2: 2025 Full CVA 2.59% Figure 3: 2025 General Levy 4.13% Business 12.79% Farm & Forest Multi-Residential PIL 0.97% Residential 79.87% 3.78% Business 21.25% Farm & Forest Multi-Residential PIL 1.52% Residential 72.25% 0.85% © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 19 Page 1387 of 1679 ~ VOXTUR~ PART TWO: 2025 STARTING TAX LANDSCAPE Typical and Median Properties It is also important to consider taxes at the property level. While the taxes carried by each ratepayer can vary widely within a class, or sub-set of properties, considering the taxes for a typical property can be very helpful in placing the broader trends in an understandable perspective. To this end, we have prepared Tables 13-A and B through 21-A and B to illustrate the potential impact on various “typical” taxable and median properties within the jurisdiction, including: − Single Detached Residential; − Freehold Townhouse; − Residential Condominium; − Waterfront Residential; − All Residential; − Farm; − Occupied Multi-Residential; − Commercial Occupied (CT); and − Industrial Occupied (IT). For each property type we have included results based on Average and Median Properties. In all results, the local component of the Region-Wide tax is based on the Average or Median CVA as shown and the Average Local General tax rate. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 20 Page 1388 of 1679 Local Municipality 2025 Average CVA Tax Upper Tier Tax Share Tax Local Share Education Tax Share Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln 236,947 451,067 405,015 285,480 545,346 402,909 203,084 274,556 284,755 321,350 231,671 387,741 $3,695 $5,138 $5,497 $3,947 $5,886 $5,756 $3,859 $4,019 $4,188 $5,304 $3,754 $4,823 $1,579 $3,005 $2,698 $1,902 $3,633 $2,684 $1,353 $1,829 $1,897 $2,141 $1,544 $2,583 43% 58% 49% 48% 62% 47% 35% 46% 45% 40% 41% 54% $1,753 $1,443 $2,179 $1,608 $1,419 $2,456 $2,195 $1,770 $1,855 $2,671 $1,856 $1,647 47% 28% 40% 41% 24% 43% 57% 44% 44% 50% 49% 34% $363 $690 $620 $437 $834 $616 $311 $420 $436 $492 $354 $593 10% 14% 11% 11% 14% 10% 8% 10% 11% 10% 10% 12% Region Wide 300,826 $4,335 $2,004 46% $1,871 43% $460 11% Local Municipality 2025 Median CVA Tax Upper Tier Tax Share Tax Local Share Education Tax Share Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln 212,000 425,000 383,000 252,000 485,000 379,000 181,000 258,200 262,000 303,000 216,000 369,000 $3,304 $4,842 $5,199 $3,484 $5,235 $5,415 $3,439 $3,779 $3,853 $5,002 $3,500 $4,590 $1,412 $2,832 $2,552 $1,679 $3,231 $2,525 $1,206 $1,720 $1,746 $2,019 $1,439 $2,458 43% 58% 49% 48% 62% 47% 35% 46% 45% 40% 41% 54% $1,568 $1,360 $2,061 $1,419 $1,262 $2,310 $1,956 $1,664 $1,706 $2,519 $1,731 $1,567 47% 28% 40% 41% 24% 43% 57% 44% 44% 50% 49% 34% $324 $650 $586 $386 $742 $580 $277 $395 $401 $464 $330 $565 10% 13% 11% 11% 14% 11% 8% 10% 10% 9% 9% 12% Region Wide 268,000 $3,863 $1,786 46% $1,667 43% $410 11% ~ VOXTUR~ PART TWO: 2025 STARTING TAX LANDSCAPE Table 13-A Average CVA Tax: Single Detached Residential Properties Table 13-B Median CVA Tax: Single Detached Residential Properties © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 21 Page 1389 of 1679 2025 Average Upper Tier Local Education Local Municipality CVA Tax Tax Share Tax Share Tax Share Fort Erie 260,497 $4,062 $1,736 43% $1,927 47% $399 10% Grimsby 335,080 $3,817 $2,232 58% $1,072 28% $513 14% Lincoln 302,757 $4,109 $2,017 49% $1,629 40% $463 11% Niagara Falls 226,953 $3,137 $1,512 48% $1,278 41% $347 11% Niagara-on-the-Lake 402,472 $4,344 $2,681 62% $1,047 24% $616 14% Pelham 319,450 $4,564 $2,128 47% $1,947 43% $489 10% Port Colborne 197,921 $3,761 $1,319 35% $2,139 57% $303 8% St. Catharines 221,927 $3,249 $1,479 46% $1,430 44% $340 10% Thorold 250,893 $3,690 $1,672 45% $1,634 44% $384 11% Welland 212,052 $3,436 $1,413 41% $1,699 49% $324 10% West Lincoln 284,375 $3,538 $1,895 54% $1,208 34% $435 12% Region Wide 259,821 $3,696 $1,731 47% $1,567 42% $398 11% 2025 Median Upper Tier Local Education Local Municipality CVA Tax Tax Share Tax Share Tax Share Fort Erie 268,500 $4,186 $1,789 43% $1,986 47% $411 10% Grimsby 332,000 $3,782 $2,212 58% $1,062 28% $508 13% Lincoln 304,000 $4,126 $2,025 49% $1,636 40% $465 11% Niagara Falls 198,000 $2,737 $1,319 48% $1,115 41% $303 11% Niagara-on-the-Lake 371,000 $4,005 $2,472 62% $965 24% $568 14% Pelham 317,000 $4,529 $2,112 47% $1,932 43% $485 11% Port Colborne 215,000 $4,085 $1,432 35% $2,324 57% $329 8% St. Catharines 205,000 $3,001 $1,366 46% $1,321 44% $314 10% Thorold 261,000 $3,838 $1,739 45% $1,700 44% $399 10% Welland 199,000 $3,225 $1,326 41% $1,595 49% $304 9% West Lincoln 292,000 $3,632 $1,945 54% $1,240 34% $447 12% Region Wide 259,000 $3,684 $1,726 47% $1,562 42% $396 11% ~ VOXTUR~ PART TWO: 2025 STARTING TAX LANDSCAPE Table 14-A Average CVA Tax: Townhouse/Semi-Detached Table 14-B Median CVA Tax: Townhouse/Semi-Detached © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 22 Page 1390 of 1679 2025 Average Upper Tier Local Education Local Municipality CVA Tax Tax Share Tax Share Tax Share Fort Erie 224,210 $3,496 $1,494 43% $1,659 47% $343 10% Grimsby 253,473 $2,888 $1,689 58% $811 28% $388 14% Lincoln 201,702 $2,738 $1,344 49% $1,085 40% $309 11% Niagara Falls 196,614 $2,718 $1,310 48% $1,107 41% $301 11% Niagara-on-the-Lake 457,243 $4,936 $3,046 62% $1,190 24% $700 14% Pelham 251,988 $3,601 $1,679 47% $1,536 43% $386 10% Port Colborne 134,900 $2,563 $899 35% $1,458 57% $206 8% St. Catharines 181,390 $2,656 $1,209 46% $1,169 44% $278 10% Thorold 166,062 $2,442 $1,106 45% $1,082 44% $254 11% Welland 125,589 $2,035 $837 41% $1,006 49% $192 10% West Lincoln 234,447 $2,917 $1,562 54% $996 34% $359 12% Region Wide 202,122 $2,875 $1,347 47% $1,219 42% $309 11% 2025 Median Upper Tier Local Education Local Municipality CVA Tax Tax Share Tax Share Tax Share Fort Erie 250,000 $3,898 $1,666 43% $1,849 47% $383 10% Grimsby 232,000 $2,643 $1,546 58% $742 28% $355 13% Lincoln 191,000 $2,593 $1,273 49% $1,028 40% $292 11% Niagara Falls 179,000 $2,475 $1,193 48% $1,008 41% $274 11% Niagara-on-the-Lake 407,000 $4,394 $2,712 62% $1,059 24% $623 14% Pelham 222,000 $3,172 $1,479 47% $1,353 43% $340 11% Port Colborne 131,500 $2,498 $876 35% $1,421 57% $201 8% St. Catharines 147,000 $2,151 $979 46% $947 44% $225 10% Thorold 204,000 $3,000 $1,359 45% $1,329 44% $312 10% Welland 118,000 $1,913 $786 41% $946 49% $181 9% West Lincoln 237,000 $2,949 $1,579 54% $1,007 34% $363 12% Region Wide 178,000 $2,531 $1,186 47% $1,073 42% $272 11% ~ VOXTUR~ PART TWO: 2025 STARTING TAX LANDSCAPE Table 15-A Average CVA Tax: Residential Condominium Table 15-B Median CVA Tax: Residential Condominium © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 23 Page 1391 of 1679 Local Municipality 2025 Average CVA Tax Upper Tier Tax Share Tax Local Share Education Tax Share Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln 579,730 931,230 832,668 557,974 1,054,588 299,111 623,612 818,529 426,948 415,818 456,163 402,102 $9,038 $10,608 $11,303 $7,714 $11,384 $4,274 $11,849 $11,981 $6,279 $6,863 $7,392 $5,002 $3,862 $6,204 $5,548 $3,717 $7,026 $1,993 $4,155 $5,453 $2,845 $2,770 $3,039 $2,679 43% 58% 49% 48% 62% 47% 35% 46% 45% 40% 41% 54% $4,289 $2,979 $4,481 $3,143 $2,744 $1,823 $6,740 $5,276 $2,781 $3,457 $3,655 $1,708 47% 28% 40% 41% 24% 43% 57% 44% 44% 50% 49% 34% $887 $1,425 $1,274 $854 $1,614 $458 $954 $1,252 $653 $636 $698 $615 10% 14% 11% 11% 14% 10% 8% 10% 11% 10% 10% 12% Region Wide 613,870 $8,848 $4,090 46% $3,819 43% $939 11% Local Municipality 2025 Median CVA Tax Upper Tier Tax Share Tax Local Share Education Tax Share Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln 521,500 806,000 773,000 451,000 850,500 300,000 588,000 714,000 344,000 384,000 483,500 394,000 $8,130 $9,182 $10,493 $6,235 $9,180 $4,287 $11,173 $10,451 $5,059 $6,338 $7,835 $4,901 $3,474 $5,370 $5,150 $3,005 $5,666 $1,999 $3,918 $4,757 $2,292 $2,558 $3,221 $2,625 43% 58% 49% 48% 62% 47% 35% 46% 45% 40% 41% 54% $3,858 $2,579 $4,160 $2,540 $2,213 $1,829 $6,355 $4,602 $2,241 $3,192 $3,874 $1,673 47% 28% 40% 41% 24% 43% 57% 44% 44% 50% 49% 34% $798 $1,233 $1,183 $690 $1,301 $459 $900 $1,092 $526 $588 $740 $603 10% 13% 11% 11% 14% 11% 8% 10% 10% 9% 9% 12% Region Wide 535,000 $7,711 $3,564 46% $3,328 43% $819 11% ~ VOXTUR~ PART TWO: 2025 STARTING TAX LANDSCAPE Table 16-A Average CVA Tax: Waterfront Residential Properties Table 16-B Median CVA Tax: Waterfront Residential Properties © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 24 Page 1392 of 1679 Local Municipality 2025 Average CVA Tax Upper Tier Tax Share Tax Local Share Education Tax Share Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln 232,916 397,382 372,013 272,829 509,413 373,308 214,700 263,429 252,394 282,866 222,887 330,321 $3,631 $4,527 $5,050 $3,772 $5,499 $5,334 $4,078 $3,856 $3,712 $4,669 $3,612 $4,109 $1,552 $2,648 $2,479 $1,818 $3,394 $2,487 $1,430 $1,755 $1,682 $1,885 $1,485 $2,201 43% 58% 49% 48% 62% 47% 35% 46% 45% 40% 41% 54% $1,723 $1,271 $2,002 $1,537 $1,326 $2,276 $2,320 $1,698 $1,644 $2,351 $1,786 $1,403 47% 28% 40% 41% 24% 43% 57% 44% 44% 50% 49% 34% $356 $608 $569 $417 $779 $571 $328 $403 $386 $433 $341 $505 10% 14% 11% 11% 14% 10% 8% 10% 11% 10% 10% 12% Region Wide 287,312 $4,141 $1,914 46% $1,787 43% $440 11% Local Municipality 2025 Median CVA Tax Upper Tier Tax Share Tax Local Share Education Tax Share Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln 200,000 368,000 329,000 241,000 448,000 350,000 174,000 241,000 241,000 266,500 204,000 320,000 $3,118 $4,192 $4,465 $3,332 $4,836 $5,002 $3,306 $3,528 $3,545 $4,399 $3,306 $3,981 $1,332 $2,452 $2,192 $1,606 $2,985 $2,332 $1,159 $1,606 $1,606 $1,776 $1,359 $2,132 43% 58% 49% 48% 62% 47% 35% 46% 45% 40% 41% 54% $1,480 $1,177 $1,770 $1,357 $1,166 $2,134 $1,881 $1,553 $1,570 $2,215 $1,635 $1,359 47% 28% 40% 41% 24% 43% 57% 44% 44% 50% 49% 34% $306 $563 $503 $369 $685 $536 $266 $369 $369 $408 $312 $490 10% 13% 11% 11% 14% 11% 8% 10% 10% 9% 9% 12% Region Wide 251,000 $3,617 $1,672 46% $1,561 43% $384 11% ~ VOXTUR~ PART TWO: 2025 STARTING TAX LANDSCAPE Table 17-A Average CVA Tax: All Residential Properties Table 17-B Median CVA Tax: All Residential Properties © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 25 Page 1393 of 1679 Local Municipality 2025 Average CVA Tax Upper Tier Tax Share Tax Local Share Education Tax Share Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln 212,885 402,254 539,877 282,115 662,221 320,909 197,898 655,850 269,004 300,212 229,807 367,311 $830 $1,146 $1,832 $975 $1,787 $1,147 $941 $2,400 $989 $1,239 $931 $1,142 $355 $670 $899 $470 $1,103 $535 $330 $1,092 $448 $500 $383 $612 43% 58% 49% 48% 62% 47% 35% 46% 45% 40% 41% 54% $394 $322 $726 $397 $431 $489 $535 $1,057 $438 $624 $460 $390 47% 28% 40% 41% 24% 43% 57% 44% 44% 50% 49% 34% $81 $154 $207 $108 $253 $123 $76 $251 $103 $115 $88 $140 10% 14% 11% 11% 14% 10% 8% 10% 11% 10% 10% 12% Region Wide 413,879 $1,491 $689 46% $644 43% $158 11% Local Municipality 2025 Median CVA Tax Upper Tier Tax Share Tax Local Share Education Tax Share Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln 182,200 322,100 384,600 214,500 414,000 219,000 155,350 373,750 213,500 222,600 157,400 312,400 $710 $917 $1,305 $741 $1,117 $783 $738 $1,368 $786 $919 $637 $971 $303 $536 $641 $357 $690 $365 $259 $623 $356 $371 $262 $520 43% 58% 49% 48% 62% 47% 35% 46% 45% 40% 41% 54% $337 $258 $517 $302 $269 $334 $420 $602 $348 $463 $315 $332 47% 28% 40% 41% 24% 43% 57% 44% 44% 50% 49% 34% $70 $123 $147 $82 $158 $84 $59 $143 $82 $85 $60 $119 10% 13% 11% 11% 14% 11% 8% 10% 10% 9% 9% 12% Region Wide 287,900 $1,038 $480 46% $448 43% $110 11% ~ VOXTUR~ PART TWO: 2025 STARTING TAX LANDSCAPE Table 18-A Average CVA Tax: Farm Properties Table 18-B Median CVA Tax: Farm Properties © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 26 Page 1394 of 1679 Local Municipality 2025 Average CVA Tax Upper Tier Tax Share Tax Local Share Education Tax Share Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln 1,381,776 2,245,750 1,710,564 2,615,161 5,382,367 1,608,455 1,245,806 3,242,650 1,229,309 457,000 1,969,569 1,468,500 $40,388 $47,066 $43,201 $67,343 $106,470 $42,889 $44,782 $88,693 $33,789 $14,181 $59,955 $33,807 $18,136 $29,476 $22,451 $34,324 $70,644 $21,111 $16,351 $42,560 $16,135 $5,998 $25,851 $19,274 45% 63% 52% 51% 66% 49% 37% 48% 48% 42% 43% 57% $20,138 $14,154 $18,133 $29,018 $27,591 $19,317 $26,525 $41,172 $15,773 $7,484 $31,091 $12,286 50% 30% 42% 43% 26% 45% 59% 46% 47% 53% 52% 36% $2,114 $3,436 $2,617 $4,001 $8,235 $2,461 $1,906 $4,961 $1,881 $699 $3,013 $2,247 5% 7% 6% 6% 8% 6% 4% 6% 5% 5% 5% 7% Region Wide 2,487,553 $66,939 $32,649 49% $30,484 46% $3,806 5% Local Municipality 2025 Median CVA Tax Upper Tier Tax Share Tax Local Share Education Tax Share Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln 695,000 1,090,000 1,305,000 1,371,000 2,620,000 681,000 640,000 1,061,100 810,500 457,000 842,000 1,471,000 $20,314 $22,844 $32,959 $35,305 $51,828 $18,158 $23,006 $29,023 $22,278 $14,181 $25,631 $33,865 $9,122 $14,306 $17,128 $17,994 $34,388 $8,938 $8,400 $13,927 $10,638 $5,998 $11,051 $19,307 45% 63% 52% 51% 66% 49% 37% 48% 48% 42% 43% 57% $10,129 $6,870 $13,834 $15,213 $13,431 $8,178 $13,627 $13,473 $10,400 $7,484 $13,292 $12,307 50% 30% 42% 43% 26% 45% 59% 46% 47% 53% 52% 36% $1,063 $1,668 $1,997 $2,098 $4,009 $1,042 $979 $1,623 $1,240 $699 $1,288 $2,251 5% 7% 6% 6% 8% 6% 4% 6% 6% 5% 5% 7% Region Wide 1,034,000 $27,824 $13,571 49% $12,671 46% $1,582 6% ~ VOXTUR~ PART TWO: 2025 STARTING TAX LANDSCAPE Table 19-A Average CVA Tax: Improved Multi-Residential Properties Table 19-B Median CVA Tax: Improved Multi-Residential Properties © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 27 Page 1395 of 1679 Local Municipality 2025 Average CVA Tax Upper Tier Tax Share Tax Local Share Education Tax Share Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln 381,852 923,794 634,932 1,626,570 1,408,034 521,447 345,338 746,242 504,056 258,381 525,296 383,220 $12,675 $23,934 $18,854 $49,010 $35,022 $16,131 $13,506 $23,537 $15,958 $8,987 $17,998 $10,626 $4,414 $10,678 $7,339 $18,801 $16,275 $6,027 $3,992 $8,626 $5,826 $2,987 $6,072 $4,430 35% 45% 39% 38% 46% 37% 30% 37% 37% 33% 34% 42% $4,901 $5,127 $5,928 $15,895 $6,356 $5,515 $6,475 $8,344 $5,696 $3,726 $7,303 $2,824 39% 21% 31% 32% 18% 34% 48% 35% 36% 41% 41% 27% $3,360 $8,129 $5,587 $14,314 $12,391 $4,589 $3,039 $6,567 $4,436 $2,274 $4,623 $3,372 26% 34% 30% 30% 36% 29% 22% 28% 27% 26% 25% 31% Region Wide 850,745 $26,502 $9,834 37% $9,181 35% $7,487 28% Local Municipality 2025 Median CVA Tax Upper Tier Tax Share Tax Local Share Education Tax Share Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln 185,600 454,750 285,300 422,450 655,000 300,000 157,400 337,000 310,000 147,100 213,250 201,900 $6,160 $11,782 $8,472 $12,729 $16,292 $9,281 $6,155 $10,629 $9,814 $5,115 $7,307 $5,599 $2,145 $5,256 $3,298 $4,883 $7,571 $3,468 $1,819 $3,895 $3,583 $1,700 $2,465 $2,334 35% 45% 39% 38% 46% 37% 30% 37% 37% 33% 34% 42% $2,382 $2,524 $2,663 $4,128 $2,957 $3,173 $2,951 $3,768 $3,503 $2,121 $2,965 $1,488 39% 21% 31% 32% 18% 34% 48% 35% 36% 41% 41% 27% $1,633 $4,002 $2,511 $3,718 $5,764 $2,640 $1,385 $2,966 $2,728 $1,294 $1,877 $1,777 27% 34% 30% 29% 35% 28% 23% 28% 28% 25% 26% 32% Region Wide 304,000 $9,470 $3,514 42% $3,281 27% $2,675 32% ~ VOXTUR~ PART TWO: 2025 STARTING TAX LANDSCAPE Table 20-A Average CVA Tax: Commercial Occupied Properties (CT) Table 20-B Median CVA Tax: Commercial Occupied Properties (CT) © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 28 Page 1396 of 1679 Local Municipality 2025 Average CVA Tax Upper Tier Tax Share Tax Local Share Education Tax Share Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln 912,678 1,684,637 1,037,895 1,081,096 905,238 260,043 865,708 848,539 897,344 279,413 916,579 582,210 $41,781 $58,518 $42,008 $44,472 $30,023 $11,014 $47,395 $36,719 $38,992 $13,464 $43,444 $21,828 $15,992 $29,519 $18,186 $18,943 $15,862 $4,557 $15,169 $14,868 $15,724 $4,896 $16,061 $10,202 38% 50% 43% 43% 53% 41% 32% 40% 40% 36% 37% 47% $17,757 $14,174 $14,689 $16,015 $6,195 $4,169 $24,608 $14,384 $15,371 $6,109 $19,317 $6,503 43% 24% 35% 36% 21% 38% 52% 39% 39% 45% 44% 30% $8,032 $14,825 $9,133 $9,514 $7,966 $2,288 $7,618 $7,467 $7,897 $2,459 $8,066 $5,123 19% 26% 22% 21% 26% 21% 16% 21% 21% 19% 19% 23% Region Wide 904,612 $38,612 $15,851 41% $14,800 38% $7,961 21% Local Municipality 2025 Median CVA Tax Upper Tier Tax Share Tax Local Share Education Tax Share Fort Erie Grimsby Lincoln Niagara Falls Niagara-on-the-Lake Pelham Port Colborne St. Catharines Thorold Wainfleet Welland West Lincoln 550,200 1,317,300 490,300 690,300 542,000 136,400 427,000 465,300 445,600 187,700 469,500 184,500 $25,188 $45,758 $19,845 $28,397 $17,976 $5,777 $23,378 $20,135 $19,362 $9,044 $22,254 $6,918 $9,641 $23,082 $8,591 $12,096 $9,497 $2,390 $7,482 $8,153 $7,808 $3,289 $8,227 $3,233 38% 50% 43% 43% 53% 41% 32% 40% 40% 36% 37% 47% $10,705 $11,084 $6,939 $10,226 $3,709 $2,187 $12,138 $7,887 $7,633 $4,103 $9,895 $2,061 43% 24% 35% 36% 21% 38% 52% 39% 39% 45% 44% 30% $4,842 $11,592 $4,315 $6,075 $4,770 $1,200 $3,758 $4,095 $3,921 $1,652 $4,132 $1,624 19% 25% 22% 21% 27% 21% 16% 20% 20% 18% 19% 23% Region Wide 447,650 $19,107 $7,844 41% $7,324 38% $3,939 21% ~ VOXTUR~ PART TWO: 2025 STARTING TAX LANDSCAPE Table 21-A Average CVA Tax: Industrial Occupied Properties (IT) Table 21-B Median CVA Tax: Industrial Occupied Properties (IT) © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 29 Page 1397 of 1679 ~ VOXTUR~ PART THREE: OTHER REVENUE AND LEVIES PART THREE: OTHER REVENUE AND LEVIES Provincial Education Taxes Municipalities levy and collect the education portion of property taxes; however, they have no authority over the rates set for this purpose. Since 1998, education tax rates have been regulated annually by the Minister of Finance. Uniform education tax rates are prescribed for properties in the residential, multi-residential, new multi-residential, farm, and managed forest property classes and apply across the Province. Traditionally, the uniform residential education rate is adjusted annually to maintain approximate revenue neutrality on a Province-wide basis. In reassessment years, these adjustments inevitably influence overall tax levels within each municipality, depending on how property values in each area compare to Province-wide phase-in change averages. For 2025, with no reassessment or phase-in change, the uniform education rates will remain unchanged from 2024 levels, ensuring no year-over-year shifts in education taxes for municipalities. Business Education Tax The Province also prescribes Business Education Tax (BET) rates, which historically varied by municipality and still may where special circumstances or optional property classes apply. From 1998 to 2007, the Province maintained approximate revenue neutrality at the single- and upper- tier municipal level when setting BET rates. In 2008, they initiated a transition toward uniform BET rates through a two-fold process: 1. New Construction Classes: Newly built or newly classified commercial and industrial properties were assigned to special New Construction classes, attracting uniform rates province-wide. 2. Rate Migration: Municipality-specific rates for traditional business classes were gradually reduced. Significant reductions occurred between 2008 and 2010. However, from 2011 through 2020, adjustments were limited to revenue-neutral restatements, with annual rates reset to reflect phase-in changes but no substantial levy reductions implemented. In the 2020 Budget, the Province introduced a uniform BET rate of 0.88% across all business classes. This adjustment provided most business properties with education tax reductions of up to 30% and eliminated the rate differential between standard and New Construction education classes. Aggregate Extraction Class In mid-2024 the Province introduced a special, temporary industrial subclass that captured the industrial component of gravel pits and quarries. This subclass maintained existing industrial rates for all municipal purposes, but attracted a special discounted education rate that was a set at 5% of the regular industrial rate (0.000440 vs. 0.008800) The properties captured by this temporary subclass for 2024, have all been returned under the new stand-alone aggregate extraction class for 2025. The education rate for this new class has been set at 0.00511, which results in an education tax increase of over 1,000% for captured property in comparison to their 2024 final, adjusted levy. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 30 Page 1398 of 1679 Realty Tax Class / Subclass Education Rates 2024 2025 Change % Taxable Residential 0.00153000 0.00153000 0.00% Farm 0.00038250 0.00038250 0.00% Managed Forest New Multi-Residential 0.00038250 0.00153000 0.00038250 0.00153000 0.00% 0.00% Multi-Residential 0.00153000 0.00153000 0.00% Commercial 0.00880000 0.00880000 0.00% SSOFB 0.00220000 0.00220000 0.00% Industrial 0.00880000 0.00880000 0.00% SSOFB 0.00220000 0.00220000 0.00% Aggregate Extraction Landfill 0.00044000 0.00880000 0.00511000 0.00880000 1061.36% 0.00% Pipeline 0.00880000 0.00880000 0.00% Payment In Lieu Residential 0.00153000 0.00153000 0.00% Farm 0.00038250 0.00038250 0.00% Commercial 0.00880000 0.00880000 0.00% Industrial 0.00880000 0.00880000 0.00% Retained Education PIL Commercial 0.00980000 0.00980000 0.00% Industrial 0.01250000 0.01250000 0.00% Landfill 0.01714649 0.01714649 0.00% ~ VOXTUR~ PART THREE: OTHER REVENUE AND LEVIES 2025 Education Rates and Levy Tables 22 and 23 document the municipality’s 2025 education rates and starting levy by class. Only subclasses subject to a unique education rate have been broken out in this table (SSOFB). Vacant and excess land are included in their respective class categories. Table 22 2024 - 2025 Education Rate Summary Important Notes: This is an unofficial listing of the education rates, the municipality should refer to Ontario Regulation 400/98 as amended or official Ministry of Finance documentation. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 31 Page 1399 of 1679 Realty Tax Class / Subclass Education Levy 2024 Year-End 2025 Start Difference $ % Taxable Residential $82,720,856 $82,720,856 $0 0.00% Farm $971,066 $971,066 $0 0.00% Managed Forest New Multi-Residential $6,414 $580,061 $6,414 $580,061 $0 $0 0.00% 0.00% Multi-Residential $2,102,920 $2,102,920 $0 0.00% Commercial $64,507,378 $64,507,378 $0 0.00% SSOFB $2,837 $2,837 $0 0.00% Industrial $8,484,518 $8,484,518 $0 0.00% SSOFB $5,583 $5,583 $0 0.00% Aggregate Extraction Landfill $13,421 $27,742 $155,867 $27,742 $142,446 $0 1061.37% 0.00% Pipeline $2,284,541 $2,284,541 $0 0.00% Sub-Total Taxable $161,707,337 $161,849,783 $142,446 0.09% Payment in Lieu Residential $14,390 $14,390 $0 0.00% Farm $188 $188 $0 0.00% Commercial $2,935,213 $2,935,213 $0 0.00% Industrial $7,130 $7,130 $0 0.00% Sub-Total PIL $2,956,921 $2,956,921 $0 0.00% Retained Education PIL Commercial $1,830,678 $1,830,678 $0 0.00% Industrial $150,139 $150,139 $0 0.00% Landfill $29,498 $29,498 $0 0.00% Sub-Total Retained Education $2,010,315 $2,010,315 $0 0.00% Grand Total $166,674,573 $166,817,019 $142,446 0.09% ~ VOXTUR~ PART THREE: OTHER REVENUE AND LEVIES Table 23 2024 – 2025 Education Levy Summary The Education Payment In Lieu (PIL) of Tax amounts summarized in this table have been calculated using different rates depending on whether the amount is to be shared with School Boards or retained by the local municipality. This is discussed in greater detail later in this section. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 32 Page 1400 of 1679 Regulated Rates Per Acre2 Linear Property Type Municipal Education Utility Corridors 396.09 436.50 Railway Right-of-Way 277.83 291.60 Shortline Railway Right-of-Way 264.83 291.60 ~ VOXTUR~ PART THREE: OTHER REVENUE AND LEVIES Linear Properties Unlike other property types, railway and power utility lands—commonly referred to as linear properties—are taxed based on area rather than market value. For assessment purposes, these properties are listed on the roll with their acreage rather than a CVA Value. Taxes are determined by applying provincially regulated rates per acre to the reported area. The rates per acre for municipal and education purposes are outlined in Ontario Regulations 387/98 and 392/98, respectively. As only a single municipal rate is prescribed, municipalities in two-tier jurisdictions must allocate the revenue between the upper-tier and local municipalities. This allocation is guided by a proportional sharing formula based on each tier’s share of revenue from the commercial property class. For education purposes, the treatment of linear properties and the distribution of the education portion varies by ownership and tax status. A summary of the current rates for each property type and levy is presented in Table 24, with no updates expected for 2025. Table 25 provides an overview of the linear properties in each local municipality. Table 24 Rate per Acre Summary 2 It is the responsibility of each local municipality to confirm final rates against the actual regulation prior to billing. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 33 Page 1401 of 1679 Local Municipality RTC RTQ Category 2025 Roll Return Count Acreage 2025 Preliminary Levy Municipal Education Fort Erie WT Railway 2 263.67 $73,255 $76,886 Fort Erie UT Utility 3 76.07 $30,131 $33,205 Grimsby WT Railway 2 102.89 $28,586 $30,003 Grimsby UH Utility 1 91.70 $36,321 $40,027 Lincoln WT Railway 1 150.69 $41,866 $43,941 Lincoln UH Utility 1 246.76 $97,739 $107,711 Niagara Falls WT Railway 2 331.86 $92,201 $96,770 Niagara Falls UT Utility 1 19.89 $7,878 $8,682 Niagara Falls UH Utility 1 735.75 $291,423 $321,155 Niagara-on-the-Lake UH Utility 1 0.44 $174 $192 Pelham WT Railway 1 62.01 $17,228 $18,082 Pelham UH Utility 1 398.34 $157,778 $173,875 Port Colborne WT Railway 2 149.14 $41,436 $43,489 Port Colborne WF Railway 1 96.13 $26,708 $28,032 Port Colborne BT Shortline Rail 3 49.36 $13,072 $14,393 St. Catharines WT Railway 1 106.83 $29,681 $31,152 St. Catharines BT Shortline Rail 2 45.04 $11,928 $13,134 St. Catharines UH Utility 1 102.15 $40,461 $44,588 Thorold WT Railway 1 120.35 $33,437 $35,094 Thorold BT Shortline Rail 2 116.04 $30,731 $33,837 Thorold UH Utility 1 547.54 $216,875 $239,001 Wainfleet WT Railway 3 160.02 $44,458 $46,662 Wainfleet BT Shortline Rail 2 56.28 $14,905 $16,411 Welland WT Railway 2 51.35 $14,267 $14,974 Welland BT Shortline Rail 3 181.07 $47,953 $52,800 Welland UH Utility 1 143.80 $56,958 $62,769 West Lincoln WT Railway 1 146.00 $40,563 $42,574 West Lincoln UH Utility 1 1,123.09 $444,845 $490,229 I Region-Wide 44 5,674.26 $1,982,858 $2,159,668 ~ VOXTUR~ PART THREE: OTHER REVENUE AND LEVIES Table 25 Linear Property Summary Retained Education Levies for Certain Payment in Lieu (PIL) Properties Federal and Provincially owned and occupied properties are exempt from both municipal and Provincial (education) property taxes. Both levels of government do, however, maintain programs whereby payments are made to local governments in lieu of the taxes that would otherwise be applicable to property that they own and occupy. PIL payments are made and administered under a variety of Federal and Provincial statutes and regulations, including the federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act, and Ontario’s Municipal Tax Assistance © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 34 Page 1402 of 1679 ~ VOXTUR~ PART THREE: OTHER REVENUE AND LEVIES Act, Municipal Act, 2001, Assessment Act, and various supporting regulations. This collection of statutes and regulations prescribe not only the circumstances and amounts of PILs that are made, but also the manner in which the payments are shared and distributed. Of particular interest regarding the sharing of revenues raised against PIL properties is the fact that in certain circumstances the local municipality retains the education portion of the levy as local revenue. This is provided for under section 2 of Ontario Regulation 392/98, which state that in the case of payments made under a number of specific authorities, the “education” portion is ultimately retained by the local municipality. The eligible payments captured by these rules, are those made in accordance with: − Subsection 27 (3) of the Assessment Act; − The Municipal Grants Act (Canada), which may be referenced as the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act; and − Subsections 84(2), (3) or (5) of the Electricity Act. All education amounts raised against residential, multi-residential and new multi-residential property must be remitted to the school boards. Potential Risks Related to Retained Education Payments The Province's decision to reduce Business Education Tax (BET) rates in 2021 introduced potential risks for municipalities that depend on retained education amounts as part of their annual revenue stream. To address municipal concerns, the Province assured municipalities that status quo education rates would be used to calculate payments in lieu of taxes (PILs) for properties where municipalities were entitled to retain the education portion. Despite the Provincial Government’s attempt to maintain inflated education rates for certain PIL properties, Federal payment rules still require the taxable rate to be used. Although the Education Act grants the Minister of Finance authority to prescribe rates for calculating payments in lieu of taxes (PILs), the statutory provisions governing these payments mandate alignment with the tax rates for taxable properties. While the Education Act allows for separately identified rates for PILs, the regulations governing the payments require that they match the rates applicable to taxable properties. The requirement that Federal—and, technically, all other—PILs be calculated using the lower taxable rates is neither new nor a response to current circumstances in Ontario. This approach is long-standing, deliberate, and fundamental to the design of the relevant statutes. By legislative intent, PILs are calculated using the same rates as taxable properties, ensuring that no special or dedicated rates are established to target government properties. These statutes are intentionally crafted to prevent the use of alternative rates in calculating payments, reinforcing their reliance on uniformity with taxable property rates. Budgeting for Risks Since the introduction of the rate differentials, many municipalities have received reduced payments based on the taxable rather than the inflated special rates regulated by the Province. The most consistent short-payments have been those made under the Federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes Act and this is generally expected to continue on a go-forward basis. As such, MTAG recommends that the © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 35 Page 1403 of 1679 PART THREE: OTHER REVENUE AND LEVIES municipality consider budgeting for the lower retained education amounts based on taxable rates rather than the full amounts calculated using the specially regulated Retained PIL Education Rates. Table 26 provides a summary of retained education payment amounts that would be raised using the special regulated rates and the lower alternate amounts calculated using preliminary 2025 taxable education rates. Municipalities with significant Federal properties should undertake further analysis to specifically identify and stratify these discrepancies and risks by property owner and/or payee. Table 26 Retained Education Levy Amounts Municipality RTC / RTQ Retained Rates Taxable Rates Difference $ % Fort Erie CF $100,925 $90,627 -$10,298 -10.20% Fort Erie Subtotal $100,925 $90,627 -$10,298 -10.20% Grimsby CF CH IH UH $247,408 $14,024 $1,010 $40,027 $222,162 $12,593 $711 $40,027 -$25,246 -$1,431 -$299 $0 -10.20% -10.20% -29.60% 0.00% Grimsby Subtotal $302,469 $275,493 -$26,976 -8.92% Lincoln CH CF IK IH UH $10,412 $53,289 $2,235 $8,594 $107,711 $9,350 $47,852 $1,573 $6,050 $107,711 -$1,062 -$5,437 -$662 -$2,544 $0 -10.20% -10.20% -29.62% -29.60% 0.00% Lincoln Subtotal $182,241 $172,536 -$9,705 -5.33% Niagara Falls CH CJ CK CF IH IK IJ UH $71,453 $8,472 $9,434 $202,904 $43,611 $5,840 $234 $321,155 $64,162 $7,608 $8,471 $182,200 $30,702 $4,111 $165 $321,155 -$7,291 -$864 -$963 -$20,704 -$12,909 -$1,729 -$69 $0 -10.20% -10.20% -10.21% -10.20% -29.60% -29.61% -29.49% 0.00% Niagara Falls Subtotal $663,103 $618,574 -$44,529 -6.72% © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 36 Page 1404 of 1679 PART THREE: OTHER REVENUE AND LEVIES ~ VOXTUR~ © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 37 Municipality RTC/RTQ Retained Rates Taxable Rates Difference $ % Niagara-on-the-Lake CK $564 $507 -$57 -10.11% CH $11,372 $10,212 -$1,160 -10.20% CF $304,437 $273,372 -$31,065 -10.20% CV $23,217 $20,848 -$2,369 -10.20% IJ $23,150 $16,298 -$6,852 -29.60% IH $4,544 $3,199 -$1,345 -29.60% UH $192 $192 $0 0.00% NOTL Subtotal $367,476 $324,628 -$42,848 -11.66% Pelham CF $8,580 $7,704 -$876 -10.21% IH $358 $252 -$106 -29.61% UH $173,875 $173,875 $0 0.00% Pelham Subtotal $182,813 $181,831 -$982 -0.54% Port Colborne CF $102,132 $91,710 -$10,422 -10.20% IH $1,375 $968 -$407 -29.60% WF $28,032 $28,032 $0 0.00% Port Colborne Subtotal $131,539 $120,710 -$10,829 -8.23% St. Catharines CF $383,646 $344,498 -$39,148 -10.20% CH $46,192 $41,479 -$4,713 -10.20% CK $4,381 $3,934 -$447 -10.20% IH $21,708 $15,282 -$6,426 -29.60% IK $7,229 $5,089 -$2,140 -29.60% UH $44,588 $44,588 $0 0.00% St. Catharines Subtotal $507,744 $454,870 -$52,874 -10.41% Thorold CH $13,299 $11,942 -$1,357 -10.20% CF $71,382 $64,098 -$7,284 -10.20% IH $20,152 $14,187 -$5,965 -29.60% IF $1,650 $1,162 -$488 -29.58% UH $239,001 $239,001 $0 0.00% Thorold Subtotal $345,484 $330,390 -$15,094 -4.37% Table 26 (Continued) Retained Education Levy Amounts Page 1405 of 1679 Municipality RTC/RTQ Retained Rates Taxable Rates Difference $ % Wainfleet IH $45 $32 -$13 -28.89% IJ $84 $59 -$25 -29.76% Wainfleet Subtotal $129 $91 -$38 -29.46% Welland CF $109,404 $98,241 -$11,163 -10.20% CH $12,586 $11,302 -$1,284 -10.20% CK $320 $288 -$32 -10.00% IH $6,985 $4,917 -$2,068 -29.61% IJ $21 $15 -$6 -28.57% HF $22,879 $11,742 -$11,137 -48.68% UH $62,769 $62,769 $0 0.00% Welland Subtotal $214,964 $189,274 -$25,690 -11.95% West Lincoln CF $20,845 $18,718 -$2,127 -10.20% IH $1,314 $925 -$389 -29.60% HF $6,619 $3,397 -$3,222 -48.68% UH $490,229 $490,229 $0 0.00% West Lincoln Subtotal $519,007 $513,269 -$5,738 -1.11% Region Wide $3,517,894 $3,272,293 -$245,601 -6.98% ~ VOXTUR~ PART THREE: OTHER REVENUE AND LEVIES Table 26 (Continued) Retained Education Levy Amounts © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 38 Page 1406 of 1679 ~ VOXTUR~ PART FOUR: GENERAL SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS PART FOUR: GENERAL SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS As discussed in the introduction, the qualitative and quantitative content of this study is intended to provide the municipality with a clear and comprehensive overview of the 2025 assessment and tax landscape. Establishing an accurate and precise foundation such as that set out here is the essential first step in making informed decisions for the coming tax year. The ultimate aim of this analysis is to support municipalities in making choices that are not only informed by the most current data and trends but also aligned with their unique local priorities and objectives. Based on this foundation, municipalities can make effective, locally sensitive decisions that meet both their revenue needs and their preferences regarding the distribution of the tax burden among their residents and business. Beyond the simple translation of assessment data to tax outcomes, this study offers a strategic framework for understanding the local tax landscape in a manner that is thoughtful, responsible, and forward-looking. Thus, this study is not just an end in and of itself, but a starting point for informed, and strategic planning and decision making. Based on this foundation, the municipality is encouraged to consider any and all local priorities, challenges and preferences that will or may influence the tax landscape for the coming year. While the scope and nature of further enquiry will vary by municipality, it is generally recommended that some consideration be given to each of the following. 1. If any of the alternate tax policy models contained herein, or any other model that may deviate from the status quo is being considered, additional analysis should be undertaken. At a minimum, models should be prepared to document how any options under consideration will impact each local area municipality as the implications could vary significantly. 2. Whether or not tax policy changes (ratio, class structure, discounts, etc.) are being considered, the municipality should prepare complimentary models to document the specific implications of budgetary change if the 2025 total levy is going to differ from the revenue neutral position. 3. It is recommended that specific tax policy options be modelled and considered with care before any annual decisions are made. For 2025 we also recommend that no final decisions be put before Council prior to receiving formal word from the Province with regards to their 2025 tax policy intentions. 4. Where specific tax policy challenges or pressures are anticipated, early attention should be devoted in order to effectively address and understand any potential challenges, opportunities and/or tax implications. 5. In light of the fact that we continue to tax on values that are far removed from the actual market value of properties, MTAG encourages all of our clients to undertake deliberate market analysis in order to build an understanding as to the potential assessment and tax changes that could be expected once reassessment is restarted. Staff are also encouraged to take steps necessary to ensure that both Council and the public are well informed regarding base line tax impacts and any implications related to potential policy change. MTAG would be pleased to provide any level or type of support that may be deemed appropriate and/or necessary in this regard. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics Page 39 Page 1407 of 1679 ~ VOXTUR~ APPENDIX A: UNDERSTANDING REASSESSMENT AND REAL GROWTH UNDERSTANDING REASSESSMENT, MARKET UPDATES AND REAL GROWTH Although we are not dealing with reassessment, we are in a circumstance where the values we are taxing on are further away from the actual market than has been the case since the 1990’s. As such, MTAG suggests it remains critical for those in both administrative and decision-making positions to understand how market value updates impact the tax landscape when they do occur (and how they do not). We also feel that a clear understanding of these concepts is critical as we brace for and prepare for the inevitable implications of restarting reassessment after the longest pause in over two decades. For the 2017 taxation year all properties in Ontario were reassessed based on their Current Value Assessment (CVA) as of January 1st , 2016. These updated CVA values, as adjusted under the Province’s assessment phase-in program, were to form the basis of taxation through the 2020 taxation year. Those properties that experienced a CVA increase as of 2017 were taxed in accordance with a phase-adjusted CVA value through 2019, while all properties in the Province were subject to taxation based on their full, unmitigated CVA for 2020. While 2021 should have been the first year of a new reassessment cycle, with all destination (Full CVA) values being updated to reflect January 1, 2019 market conditions, the Province put a pause on reassessment in the spring of 2020. This decision was made as part of a host of early measures in response to COVID-19. This pause was subsequently extended meaning that property taxes for 2025 will again rely on the full destination values based on the January 1, 2016 valuation date. This will be the fifth year in a row without any market driven valuation changes at the municipal level and we will be taxing on values that are further out of date than at any time since 1997. Growth vs. Market Value Changes The Assessment Roll is a living data set, which is continually evolving in response to real-world market and property changes. The assessed value of a property can and does change for a number of reasons; for the purposes of the property tax system in Ontario, all valuation changes must be considered in one of only two categories; Real Growth in the Tax Base and Market Value Updates (reassessment). Growth (positive or negative) reflects the value increase or decrease associated with a change to a property’s state, use or condition. − Properties are developed, improved, or intensified; − Involves actual changes in the size and intensity of the tax base; − Positive growth means an increase in tax revenue supplied exclusively by taxpayers of new homes, businesses, buildings, etc.; − Equate positive growth to increased income tax resulting from new or better paying jobs. Reassessment change is simply a matter of revaluating what a property’s market value would be at one point in time (2016) vs. an earlier point in time (2012) in the absence of any other changes. − Reassessment (and annual phase-in adjustments) do not represent or reflect new property, improved or intensified property, and are not accompanied by new taxpayers; − If additional revenue is raised from market updates (phase-in) those amounts represent a net tax increase on existing taxpayers; − Equate to inflation; the product or job has not changed but the price/salary has been updated to reflect current market conditions. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics MTAG Property Tax & Tax Policy Study Page 1408 of 1679 ~ VOXTUR~ APPENDIX A: UNDERSTANDING REASSESSMENT AND REAL GROWTH The following illustrations can be helpful in considering the difference between additional assessment that comes from growth and the restatement of values for existing assessable property within the context of a reassessment or the annual phase-in of those changes. January: $10,000,000 CVA December: $12,000,000 CVA New Buildings New Lots New Taxpayers Growth 2012: $10,000,000 CVA 2016: $12,000,000 CVA Reassessment Same Properties, More Current Real Estate Market Tax Implications of Growth Real growth (and loss) within the municipality’s assessment base has real and direct implications for the municipality’s overall tax revenue. Positive growth means net-new revenue for the municipality, while negative growth reduces the municipality’s revenue and future revenue capacity. The property tax implications of growth materialize at the property level and do not have any immediate impact on other taxpayers. Growth related tax increases are carried solely by those taxpayers who improve, develop, or otherwise alter their property in a manner that results in additional assessment. Growth related decreases are enjoyed by those taxpayers whose property taxes are reduced. That said, secondary implications of both positive and negative growth can and do impact the broader base. Significant and/or unanticipated losses resulting from assessment appeals, plant closures or other circumstances can alter the balance of taxation and create budgetary pressures that must be carried by other taxpayers. Material growth can ease the burden that might otherwise be carried by the pre- growth base, however, this is largely dependent on the nature of the growth and the increased budgetary requirements the growth brings. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics MTAG Property Tax & Tax Policy Study Page 1409 of 1679 CVA 2,500,000 300,000 300,000 550,000 600,000 750,000 Share of CVA 100% 12% 12% 22% 24% 30% Tax $100,000 $12,000 $12,000 $22,000 $24,000 $30,000 Share of Tax 100% 12% 12% 22% 24% 30% Reassessment New CVA 3,750,000 475,000 525,000 825,000 825,000 1,100,000 CVA Change 50% 58% 75% 50% 38% 47% New CVA Share 100% 13% 14% 22% 22% 29% Change in CVA Share 0% 6% 17% 0% -8% -2% New Tax $100,000 $12,667 $14,000 $22,000 $22,000 $29,333 Reassessment Shift $ $0 $667 $2,000 $0 -$2,000 -$667 Reassessment Shift % 0% 6% 17% 0% -8% -2% ~ VOXTUR~ APPENDIX A: UNDERSTANDING REASSESSMENT AND REAL GROWTH Tax Implications of Reassessment When reassessment occurs, the tax base doesn’t increase or grow, properties are simply assigned new values (CVA’s) that reflect a more current market. Although this generally means that the overall “value” of the base increases, reassessment has no direct implications for municipal revenue, only the share each taxpayer will carry. Ultimately, it is not the absolute value of a property that determines one’s tax liability, it is the property’s relative value, or more precisely, the share of the total base that the property’s value represents. Hence, the actual tax implications of reassessment are driven by the realignment of value shares rather than the actual value changes. This simplified illustration shows that it is the change in CVA Share, not the change in absolute CVA that drives the reassessment related tax shifts. In this example the base as a whole is increasing by 50%; properties increasing at a greater rate experience reassessment related tax increase, while properties increasing at a lesser rate see tax decreases. The magnitude of tax change is based on the degree to which each property’s rate of change varies from the overall. What Is and Is Not Impacted by the Pause in Reassessment? Understanding how reassessment impacts the tax landscape is an important prerequisite for understanding what the pause in reassessment means for municipalities in terms of the 2025 taxation and tax policy. The pause in reassessment will have no direct or independent implications for 2025 municipal revenue and there will be no market driven shifts among property, between classes or across local municipalities within two-tier jurisdictions. The longer-term implications remain unknown, however, municipalities should be aware that the real- world market value changes that reassessment captures have not been paused. The longer reassessment is put off, the more dramatic and disruptive the update will be when finally made. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics MTAG Property Tax & Tax Policy Study Page 1410 of 1679 - ~ VOXTUR~ APPENDIX B: NEW MULTI RESIDENTIAL SUBCLASS NEW MULTI-RESIDENTIAL SUBCLASS – STRUCTURE AND GENERAL POLICY DISCUSSION Multi-Residential Class in Brief In simple terms, the Multi-Residential property class includes properties that: 1. Are improved with a building or complex containing seven or more self-contained residential units, all captured under a single roll number; or 2. Vacant land zoned for multi-unit residential use improvements. Multi-residential class buildings can include traditional (vertical) apartment buildings, townhouse complexes, and even collections of detached homes, provided they are located on a single assessment parcel under unified ownership. New Multi-Residential Class Inclusion in the New Multi-Residential Class is purely a function of timing and includes any property that would otherwise qualify as multi-residential if the subject units were built, or converted from another use, under a building permit dated after: − The date on which the host municipality opted to have the class apply; or − April 20th, 2017, the date on which the class ceased to be an optional property class. New Multi-Residential Subclass The new multi-residential subclass introduced in 2024 is functionally similar to the New Multi- Residential class. It applies to any building or complex that would otherwise be classified as multi- residential, provided the building permit for its construction or conversion was issued after the municipality enacts a by-law to implement the subclass. Class/Subclass Inclusion Based Solely on Building Permit Date The only factor that distinguishes buildings classified as multi-residential, new multi-residential, or the new multi-residential subclass is the timing of the original building permit under which the building was built or converted to a multi-residential property. Class/Subclass Building Permit Issued Multi-Residential Before the earlier of: April, 2017; or Municipal Opt-In Date1 New Multi-Residential After the earlier of: April, 2017; or Municipal Opt-In Date New Multi-Res. Subclass After: Municipal Opt-In Date. Theoretically, three identical buildings adjacent to one another could be classified and taxed differently based on the timing of their respective building permits. 1 Municipal Opt-In Date is the date of passing a by-law to adopt the optional new multi-residential class prior to April 2017 or to adopt the optional new multi-residential subclass. By-law authority rests with upper and single tier councils. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics MTAG Property Tax & Tax Policy Study Page 1411 of 1679 2 Assumes a new multi-residential ratio of 1.00 - ~ VOXTUR~ APPENDIX B: NEW MULTI RESIDENTIAL SUBCLASS Duration of New Multi-Residential Classification Properties classified as new multi-residential are transitioned to the standard multi-residential class after 35 years. For example, a property added to the New Multi-Residential class on December 31, 2010, will be reclassified to the standard multi-residential class as of January 1, 2045. This rule also applies to properties within the new subclass, as they are considered part of the broader new multi-residential class and therefore will revert to the multi-residential class after 35 years. Differential Tax Treatment The range of flexibility for setting the multi-residential ratio varies based on the existing ratio level of each upper and single tier municipality. With this in mind, and considering provincially established parameters, the range of flexibility may be generally summarized as follows: Multi-Residential Ratios Above 2.00 are subject to levy restriction, which will also trigger annual reduction calculations until the ratio is reduced to 2.00 or below. Multi-Residential Ratios at or Below 2.00 may remain at the previous year’s level or be reduced. - Multi-residential ratios may be set freely between 1.00 and 1.10 New Multi-Residential Class ratio may be set anywhere between 1.00 and 1.10 New Multi-Residential subclass - Municipalities that choose to adopt this subclass may set a discount of up to 35% pegged against the new multi-residential class. - If the new multi-residential ratio is set at 1.00, the lowest effective rate for eligible properties would be 65% of the residential rate. The net municipal tax rate incentive offered by the new multi-residential class or the subclass will depend on both the multi-residential ratio as well as the settings for the incentive classes. The following table illustrates the incentive potential of the new multi-residential class, and the new multi-residential subclass depending on the municipality’s multi-residential ratio. Multi-Residential Class Ratio Discount of Municipal Rate vs. Multi-Residential2 New Multi-Subclass Residential 10% 20% 30% 35% 2.00 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 67.5% 1.75 42.9% 48.6% 54.3% 60.0% 62.9% 1.50 33.3% 40.0% 46.7% 53.3% 56.7% 1.25 20.0% 28.0% 36.0% 44.0% 48.0% 1.00 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 35.0% The uniform residential education rate applies to all multi-residential classes and subclasses. No reduction in education tax is applied to the new multi-residential class or subclass. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics MTAG Property Tax & Tax Policy Study Page 1412 of 1679 - ~ VOXTUR~ APPENDIX B: NEW MULTI RESIDENTIAL SUBCLASS Considering the Policy Logic of Property Tax Incentives for New Multi-Residential Builds Reducing the property tax burden on multi-residential properties sends a clear, housing-positive signal to landlords, tenants, and the broader public. Lowering tax rates can directly reduce rental costs for tenants and lessen expenses for municipally owned housing, enhancing overall sector viability. Still, the actual effectiveness of the new multi-residential class in spurring additional rental construction remains uncertain. Most development decisions hinge on factors like land availability, infrastructure, financing, and market demand—variables that generally outweigh marginal tax incentives. Since this class has applied province-wide since 2017, it has likely had a limited direct influence on whether projects move forward, instead influencing only where they might be located. The optional new subclass reintroduces some competitive differentiation among municipalities, potentially making those that adopt it more appealing to developers. However, this advantage is not guaranteed, as comparing tax treatments, rates, and property values across jurisdictions can be both complex and speculative. Overall, policymakers should critically evaluate the extent to which these measures genuinely drive new development versus simply demonstrating municipal support for such projects. While the subclass may help reinforce a municipality’s commitment to encouraging multi-residential growth, it should not be assumed that it will substantially increase the number of units built. Policy Considerations for the New Multi-Residential Subclass Below we have set out a series of policy considerations that may be helpful to the reader. We have deliberately avoided organizing these into “pros and cons” as those determinations are inherently subjective. Such judgments can only be made in light of locally defined objectives and preferences. Housing and Rental Friendly Signaling: Lower tax rates for new multi-residential properties may send a positive signal to developers, landlords, and tenants, thereby reinforcing and even improving the municipality’s image as being supportive of housing development. Modest Impact on New Construction Decisions: While the subclass could influence where developers choose to locate, it is unlikely to decisively change whether they build. Fundamental factors like land availability, infrastructure, and market demand usually outweigh marginal tax incentives. Competitive Advantage Between Municipalities: Offering the subclass may help a municipality stand out compared to those that do not, potentially tipping the scales for developers choosing between similar jurisdictions. No Immediate Impact or Volatility: Unlike altering an existing tax ratio or discount, there will be no immediate impacts and no measurable tax shifts down the road. The new subclass will emerge gradually as new qualifying buildings are constructed, and each will be taxed at the lower rate from the start. While other classes may carry marginally more than they otherwise would this differential will be subtle, and no property will see a policy driven “spike” or “shift”. Equity and Perception Issues: Differential tax treatment based solely on the date a building permit is issued could raise questions about fairness. Existing properties will not benefit, potentially creating perceived inequities among property owners. This risk should be considered more closely by municipalities with higher multi-residential ratios and/or where no ratio reduction plan is in place. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics MTAG Property Tax & Tax Policy Study Page 1413 of 1679 - ~ VOXTUR~ APPENDIX B: NEW MULTI RESIDENTIAL SUBCLASS Revenue Trade-Offs: While an upper-tier government subject to local taxation may gain from enhanced development spurred by the subclass, the corresponding reduction in tax rates for new properties will decrease the local municipality’s direct revenue from that growth. Policy Intent vs. Practical Outcomes: Policymakers should be realistic about the subclass’s ability to drive new housing supply. Any decision to implement it should balance the symbolic, competitive, and economic benefits against the fiscal and equity considerations it introduces. Quantitative Modelling Protocols Modelling future tax implications for properties where building permits have not yet been issued—let alone constructed—should be approached with extreme caution. As most appropriate solution can only be identified in consideration of local circumstances, objectives, and available data, we have not set out specific avenues of inquiry here. MTAG is available to work with each client jurisdiction to assess the most appropriate modelling approach should such analysis be required. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics MTAG Property Tax & Tax Policy Study Page 1414 of 1679 ~ VOXTUR~ APPENDIX C: NEW AGGREGATE EXTRACTION PROPERTY CLASS ONTARIO’S NEW AGGREGATE EXTRACTION PROPERTY CLASS Background: Temporary 2024 Industrial Subclass In July 2024, the Minister of Finance introduced a temporary property subclass specifically for the active industrial portions of aggregate-producing properties, including gravel pits and quarries. This subclass was designed to apply solely for the 2024 taxation year, targeting the education portion of the tax bill. The impact of the subclass was significant: for every $100,000 in Current Value Assessment (CVA) captured by the subclass, the education portion of the tax bill was reduced from $880 to $44, representing a reduction of 95%. While the education tax rate was significantly lowered, the municipal portion of the levy remained unchanged and continued to be taxed at the standard industrial rate. New Stand-Alone Aggregate Extraction Property Class With the introduction of regulations in the fall of 2024, the temporary subclass will cease to exist after 2024, to be replaced by a new stand-alone Aggregate Extraction property class. This new class will initially capture the same assessment base as the temporary subclass, although some definitional differences may affect what is included in the class moving forward. As a distinct class, the Aggregate Extraction property class will no longer form part of the industrial class as was the case with the temporary subclass. As such, it will be subject to its own tax ratio as well as class specific rules and limits governing how the ratio may be moved and adjusted. For 2025, the most relevant factors that will determine the initial impact of this new class on the municipal balance of taxation are: 1) The municipal specific transition ratio regulated for each upper and single-tier jurisdiction with eligible properties appearing on the roll as returned for 2025; and 2) The regulated range of flexibility is 0.6000 to 1.1000, within which municipalities may freely set and adjust the ratio for this class. These factors will guide how the tax burden shifts between the new class and other property classes. Transition Ratios and Flexibility for 2025 The provincially regulated transition ratios vary by municipality, but analysis of a significant sample suggests that the ratios have generally been set by reducing each municipality’s starting industrial ratio by 18.63%. The rationale behind this uniform reduction factor has not been explained, and there is no indication of the intent or reasoning for its indiscriminate application across municipalities. Many transition ratios have been set below 1.00, however, the effective upper limit for any municipality is the higher of: - The regulated transition ratio, or - 1.10, which is the upper limit of the allowable range for this class. Increases above these limits are not permitted, and in fact, have been explicitly prohibited for 2025. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics MTAG Property Tax & Tax Policy Study Page 1415 of 1679 ~ VOXTUR~ APPENDIX C: NEW AGGREGATE EXTRACTION PROPERTY CLASS Provincial Education Tax Rates While regulating forced, across the board decreases in municipal tax for eligible properties, the province has increased the education portion of the tax bill for these properties in comparison to the special treatment they received under the temporary 2024 subclass. - In 2024, the education rate for eligible properties was reduced by 95% in comparison to the industrial rate that originally applied for that year. - The education rate is approximately 58% of the industrial education rate in 2025. Summary of Overall Impacts and Municipal Specific Observations The following table has been prepared to document the tax change pattern for the assessment now captured by Aggregate Extraction due to these changes in provincial policy. Based on the total assessment of 30,502,100 as returned for 2025, we illustrate: 1) The taxes based on the original 2024 treatment and classification 2) The year-end tax under the temporary 2024 subclass, and 3) The 2025 starting municipal levy for municipal and education purposes. Levy Component 2024 Original Tax 2024 Temporary Subclass Adjusted Tax Vs. Original Levy 2025 Notional Levy Start Tax vs. 2024 Adjusted Region Local (all) $534,358 $563,853 $534,358 $0 0.00% $563,853 $0 0.00% $434,899 -$99,459 -18.61% $459,297 -$104,556 -18.54% Total Municipal $1,098,211 $1,098,211 $0 0.00% $894,196 -$204,015 -18.58% Education $268,418 $13,421 -$254,997 -95.00% $155,867 $142,446 1061.37% Total $1,366,629 $1,111,632 -$254,997 -18.66% $1,050,063 -$61,569 -5.54% -The total collective tax burden for property now captured by the Aggregate Assessment class decreased by over $250,000 in 2025, and has decreased by an additional $61,500 over year-end. -There has been significant re-alignment between the provincial and municipal portions of the tax bill. In comparison to year-end municipal taxes have decreased by over $200,000, while the provincial portion has increased by over $142,000. -On a Region-wide basis, the notional starting municipal levy for a typical residential property, with an average CVA of 188,133, has increased by less than $1.00 as a result of the introduction of this class Note: All summary figures noted here are intended for illustrative and general reference only. Please refer to the body of the study for detailed results. © 2024 Voxtur Analytics MTAG Property Tax & Tax Policy Study Page 1416 of 1679 ~ VOXTUR~ MTAG PROPERTY TAX AND TAX POLICY STUDY LOCAL RESULTS ADDENDUM 2024 Local Assessment Growth Year-Over-Year Assessment Growth Comparison 2024 Local Revenue Growth Year-Over-Year Local Revenue Growth Comparison 2025 Start Ratios and Notional Tax Rates 2025 Inter-Class Shifts: Local General Levy 2025 Inter-Class shifts: Upper-Tier General Levy © 2024 Voxtur Analytics MTAG Property Tax & Tax Policy Study Page 1417 of 1679                        Realty   Tax Class  As Returned  As Revised  Full    $          CVA            Growth % Taxable Residential 3,870,279,233 3,943,493,368 73,214,135 1.89% Farm 58,959,800 60,033,500 1,073,700 1.82%  Managed Forest 1,190,100 1,217,800 27,700 2.33%  New Multi‐Residential 0 10,862,300 10,862,300 100.00% Multi‐Residential 43,161,796 43,467,517 305,721 0.71% Commercial 285,183,393 292,013,547 6,830,154 2.40% Industrial 55,575,895 52,104,795 ‐3,471,100 ‐6.25%  Aggregate Extraction 0 3,419,700 3,419,700 100.00% Pipeline 17,389,000 17,727,000 338,000 1.94%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 4,331,739,217 4,424,339,527 92,600,310 2.14%  Payment  In Lieu Residential 1,057,200 1,057,200 0 0.00% Commercial 12,444,300 12,429,900 ‐14,400 ‐0.12% Industrial 54,000 54,000 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu 13,555,500 13,541,100 ‐14,400 ‐0.11%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 4,345,294,717 4,437,880,627 92,585,910 2.13%       2024  Full CVA  Growth  Special Sub‐Total  As Returned  As Revised     $                 % Industrial   + AE 55,575,895 55,524,495 ‐51,400 ‐0.09%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local Results Table 2024 Local Assessment Growth (Full / Non Phase‐Adjusted CVA) Fort Erie 2024 Full CVA Aggregate  Extraction  Class  and  Industrial  Growth  The  figures  identified  as  Aggregate  Extraction  Growth  reflect  the  assessment  and  tax  dollars  that  have  been   reallocated  from  the  industrial  class  as  of  year‐end.  To  provide  a  clearer  picture  of  actual  overall  change,  we   have  included  a  special  subtotal  line  for  each  growth  table.  These  rolled‐up  amounts  show  the  industrial   class  growth  without  the  policy  shift  created  by  the  introduction  of  the  new  class  at  year‐end.   © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1418 of 1679        Fort Erie 2023   Full CVA  Growth 2024   Full CVA  Growth Realty   Tax Class $                    % $                     % Taxable Residential 136,377,363 3.65% 73,214,135 1.89% Farm 2,726,500 4.85% 1,073,700 1.82%  Managed Forest 207,400 21.11% 27,700 2.33% New  Multi‐Residential 10,862,300 100.00% Multi‐Residential 796,796 1.88% 305,721 0.71% Commercial 12,183,641 4.46% 6,830,154 2.40% Industrial 4,728,000 9.30% ‐3,471,100 ‐6.25%  Aggregate Extraction 3,419,700 100.00% Pipeline 285,000 1.67% 338,000 1.94%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 157,304,700 3.77% 92,600,310 2.14%  Payment In  Lieu Residential ‐21,000 ‐1.95% 0 0.00% Commercial 76,000 0.61% ‐14,400 ‐0.12% Industrial 0 0.00% 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu 55,000 0.41% ‐14,400 ‐0.11%  Total  (Taxable +  PIL) 157,359,700 3.76% 92,585,910 2.13% Special  Sub‐Total 2023  Full  CVA  Growth 2024  Full  CVA  Growth  Industrial +  AE 4,728,000 9.30% ‐51,400 ‐0.09%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Assessment  Growth  Comparison (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1419 of 1679        Fort Erie  Realty  Tax Class  As  2024  Local Returned  General Levy  As Revised    Annualized    $                     Growth % Taxable Residential $28,621,412 $29,162,843 $541,432 1.89% Farm $109,005 $110,990 $1,985 1.82%  Managed Forest $2,200 $2,251 $51 2.32%  New Multi‐Residential $0 $80,329 $80,329 100.00% Multi‐Residential $628,803 $633,257 $4,454 0.71% Commercial $3,658,875 $3,746,505 $87,631 2.40% Industrial $1,080,913 $1,013,403 ‐$67,510 ‐6.25%  Aggregate Extraction $0 $66,511 $66,511 100.00% Pipeline $218,881 $223,136 $4,255 1.94%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $34,320,089 $35,039,225 $719,138 2.10% Payment   In Lieu Residential $7,818 $7,818 $0 0.00% Commercial $159,659 $159,475 ‐$185 ‐0.12% Industrial $1,050 $1,050 $0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $168,527 $168,343 ‐$185 ‐0.11%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $34,488,616 $35,207,568 $718,953 2.08%  2024  Local General  Levy  Growth Special  Sub‐Total As  Returned  As Revised                     $ % Industrial   + AE $1,080,913 $1,079,914 ‐$999 ‐0.09%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Revenue  Growth (Annualized) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1420 of 1679                                                                                              Special Sub‐Total  2023 Local  Growth  2024 Local  Growth Industrial   + AE $88,874 9.58% ‐$999 ‐0.09%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Annualized  Local  Revenue  Growth  Comparison (Local  General  Purpose  Levy) Fort Erie 2023 Local Annualized 2024 Local Annualized Revenue Growth Revenue Growth Realty Tax Class $ % $ % Taxable Residential $955,890 3.65% $541,432 1.89% Farm $4,778 4.85% $1,985 1.82% Managed Forest $363 21.08% $51 2.32% New Multi‐Residential $0 0.00% $80,329 100.00% Multi‐Residential $11,002 1.88% $4,454 0.71% Commercial $146,278 4.44% $87,631 2.40% Industrial $88,874 9.58% ‐$67,510 ‐6.25% Aggregate Extraction $0 0.00% $66,511 100.00% Pipeline $3,400 1.67% $4,255 1.94% Sub‐Total: Taxable $1,210,585 3.87% $719,138 2.10% Payment In Lieu Residential ‐$147 ‐1.95% $0 0.00% Commercial $924 0.61% ‐$185 ‐0.12% Industrial $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $777 0.49% ‐$185 ‐0.11% Total (Taxable + PIL) $1,211,362 3.85% $718,953 2.08% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1421 of 1679       Fort Erie  Realty  Tax Class  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Ratios‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2025   Start  2024 Actual    Change Ratio %  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Rates‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2025  Revenue  2024 Actual  Change  Netural (Notional) % Taxable Residential Farm  Managed Forest  New Multi‐Residential Multi‐Residential Commercial Industrial  Aggregate Extraction Pipeline 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.000000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 2.630000 1.702100 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.000000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 2.140048 1.702100 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ‐18.63% 0.00% 0.00739518 0.00184880 0.00184880 0.00739518 0.01456850 0.01282990 0.01944932 0.01944932 0.01258734 0.00739780 0.00184945 0.00184945 0.00739780 0.01457367 0.01283444 0.01945621 0.01583165 0.01259180 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% ‐18.60% 0.04%  Sub‐Total of   Taxable Levy $35,039,225 $35,039,240 0.00%  Payment In  Lieu Residential Commercial Industrial 1.000000 1.734900 2.630000 1.000000 1.734900 2.630000 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00739518 0.01282990 0.01944932 0.00739780 0.01283444 0.01945621 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% Sub‐Total  of   Payment  In  Lieu Levy $168,343 $168,403 0.04% Total  Taxable   + PIL  Levies  Based  on  Rate  Set $35,207,568 $35,207,643 0.00%                                                                                             ~VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Starting  Ratios  and  Revenue  Neutral  (Notional)  Tax  Rates(Local  General  Levy) NOTE: These results are based on preliminary start ratios and notional levy amounts and are subject to change based on municipal policy decisions, spending decisions and/or Provincial policy updates. No rates or ratios should be used for actual taxation purposes without independent verification. © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1422 of 1679                                                                         w VOXTUR® MTAG Client Report Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Interclass  Tax  Shifts (Local  General  Levy:  Revenue  Neutral ‐Start  Ratios) Fort Erie Local General Levy Change Realty Tax Class 2024 as Revised 2025 Notional $ % Taxable Residential $29,162,843 $29,173,175 $10,332 0.04% Farm $110,990 $111,029 $39 0.04% Managed Forest $2,251 $2,252 $1 0.04% New Multi‐Residential $80,329 $80,357 $28 0.03% Multi‐Residential $633,257 $633,481 $224 0.04% Commercial $3,746,505 $3,747,830 $1,325 0.04% Industrial $1,013,403 $1,013,762 $359 0.04% Aggregate Extraction $66,511 $54,139 ‐$12,372 ‐18.60% Pipeline $223,136 $223,215 $79 0.04% Sub‐Total: Taxable $35,039,225 $35,039,240 $15 0.00% Payment In Lieu Residential $7,818 $7,821 $3 0.04% Commercial $159,475 $159,531 $56 0.04% Industrial $1,050 $1,051 $1 0.10% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $168,343 $168,403 $60 0.04% Total (Taxable + PIL) $35,207,568 $35,207,643 $75 0.00% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1423 of 1679                                                                           VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Upper‐Tier  Levy  Shifts (Upper‐Tier  General  Levy) Fort Erie Upper‐Tier General Levy Change Realty Tax Class 2024 as Revised 2025 Notional $ % Taxable Residential $26,268,043 $26,273,367 $5,324 0.02% Farm $99,973 $99,993 $20 0.02% Managed Forest $2,028 $2,028 $0 0.00% New Multi‐Residential $72,355 $72,370 $15 0.02% Multi‐Residential $570,398 $570,513 $115 0.02% Commercial $3,374,612 $3,375,296 $684 0.02% Industrial $912,810 $912,995 $185 0.02% Aggregate Extraction $59,909 $48,758 ‐$11,151 ‐18.61% Pipeline $200,987 $201,027 $40 0.02% Sub‐Total: Taxable $31,561,115 $31,556,347 ‐$4,768 ‐0.02% Payment In Lieu Residential $7,042 $7,044 $2 0.03% Commercial $143,644 $143,673 $29 0.02% Industrial $946 $946 $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $151,632 $151,663 $31 0.02% Total (Taxable + PIL) $31,712,747 $31,708,010 ‐$4,737 ‐0.01% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1424 of 1679       Grimsby Realty   Tax Class  As  2024 Returned  Full CVA  As Revised  Full    $  CVA       Growth % Taxable Residential 4,629,231,679 4,656,472,770 27,241,091 0.59% Farm 94,763,095 94,529,795 ‐233,300 ‐0.25%  Managed Forest 584,800 657,300 72,500 12.40% Multi‐Residential 27,616,000 27,616,000 0 0.00% Commercial 360,648,788 362,913,988 2,265,200 0.63% Industrial 59,716,200 61,087,500 1,371,300 2.30% Pipeline 8,287,000 8,354,000 67,000 0.81%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 5,180,847,562 5,211,631,353 30,783,791 0.59%  Payment  In Lieu Residential 5,132,200 5,132,200 0 0.00% Commercial 39,332,700 40,257,700 925,000 2.35% Industrial 80,800 80,800 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu 44,545,700 45,470,700 925,000 2.08%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 5,225,393,262 5,257,102,053 31,708,791 0.61%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Assessment  Growth (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1425 of 1679       Grimsby 2023   Full CVA  Growth 2024   Full CVA  Growth Realty   Tax Class $ % $          % Taxable Residential 74,615,609 1.64% 27,241,091 0.59% Farm 5,712,400 6.41% ‐233,300 ‐0.25%  Managed Forest ‐264,500 ‐31.14% 72,500 12.40% Multi‐Residential 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Commercial 288,300 0.08% 2,265,200 0.63% Industrial 465,200 0.79% 1,371,300 2.30% Pipeline 6,000 0.07% 67,000 0.81%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 80,823,009 1.58% 30,783,791 0.59%  Payment In  Lieu Residential 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Commercial 3,960,000 11.20% 925,000 2.35% Industrial 0 0.00% 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu 3,960,000 9.76% 925,000 2.08%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 84,783,009 1.65% 31,708,791 0.61%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Assessment  Growth  Comparison (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1426 of 1679       Grimsby  Realty  Tax Class  As  2024  Local Returned  General Levy  As Revised    Annualized    $                     Growth % Taxable Residential $14,793,560 $14,880,710 $87,150 0.59% Farm $75,792 $75,606 ‐$187 ‐0.25%  Managed Forest $468 $526 $58 12.39% Multi‐Residential $174,049 $174,049 $0 0.00% Commercial $2,001,721 $2,014,293 $12,573 0.63% Industrial $502,448 $513,986 $11,538 2.30% Pipeline $45,126 $45,491 $365 0.81%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $17,593,164 $17,704,661 $111,497 0.63%  Payment  In Lieu Residential $16,419 $16,419 $0 0.00% Commercial $218,310 $223,444 $5,134 2.35% Industrial $680 $680 $0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $235,409 $240,543 $5,134 2.18%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $17,828,573 $17,945,204 $116,631 0.65%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Revenue  Growth (Annualized) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1427 of 1679       Grimsby  2023  Local  Annualized  Revenue Growth  2024  Local  Annualized  Revenue Growth  Realty  Tax Class    $                 %    $                  % Taxable Residential $227,901 1.64% $87,150 0.59% Farm $4,362 6.41% ‐$187 ‐0.25%  Managed Forest ‐$202 ‐31.12% $58 12.39% Multi‐Residential $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Commercial $1,150 0.06% $12,573 0.63% Industrial $3,792 0.80% $11,538 2.30% Pipeline $31 0.07% $365 0.81%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $237,034 1.43% $111,497 0.63% Payment   In Lieu Residential $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Commercial $20,984 11.39% $5,134 2.35% Industrial $0 0.00% $0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $20,984 10.46% $5,134 2.18%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $258,018 1.54% $116,631 0.65%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Annualized  Local  Revenue  Growth  Comparison (Local  General  Purpose  Levy) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1428 of 1679      Grimsby  Realty  Tax Class  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Ratios‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2025   Start  2024 Actual    Change Ratio %  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Rates‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2025 Revenue   2024 Actual  Change  Netural (Notional) % Taxable Residential 1.000000 1.000000 0.00% 0.00319922 0.00319922 0.00% Farm 0.250000 0.250000 0.00% 0.00079981 0.00079981 0.00%  Managed Forest 0.250000 0.250000 0.00% 0.00079981 0.00079981 0.00% Multi‐Residential 1.970000 1.970000 0.00% 0.00630246 0.00630246 0.00% Commercial 1.734900 1.734900 0.00% 0.00555033 0.00555033 0.00% Industrial 2.630000 2.630000 0.00% 0.00841395 0.00841395 0.00% Pipeline 1.702100 1.702100 0.00% 0.00544539 0.00544539 0.00%  Sub‐Total of   Taxable Levy $17,704,661 $17,704,661 0.00%  Payment In  Lieu Residential 1.000000 1.000000 0.00% 0.00319922 0.00319922 0.00% Commercial 1.734900 1.734900 0.00% 0.00555033 0.00555033 0.00% Industrial 2.630000 2.630000 0.00% 0.00841395 0.00841395 0.00% Sub‐Total   of  Payment  In  Lieu Levy $240,543 $240,543 0.00% Total  Taxable   + PIL  Levies  Based  on  Rate  Set $17,945,204 $17,945,204 0.00%                                                                                             ~VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Starting  Ratios  and  Revenue  Neutral  (Notional)  Tax  Rates(Local  General  Levy) NOTE: These results are based on preliminary start ratios and notional levy amounts and are subject to change based on municipal policy decisions, spending decisions and/or Provincial policy updates. No rates or ratios should be used for actual taxation purposes without independent verification. © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1429 of 1679                                                       w VOXTUR® MTAG Client Report Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Interclass  Tax  Shifts (Local  General  Levy:  Revenue  Neutral ‐Start  Ratios) Grimsby Local General Levy Change Realty Tax Class 2024 as Revised 2025 Notional $ % Taxable Residential $14,880,710 $14,880,710 $0 0.00% Farm $75,606 $75,606 $0 0.00% Managed Forest $526 $526 $0 0.00% Multi‐Residential $174,049 $174,049 $0 0.00% Commercial $2,014,293 $2,014,293 $0 0.00% Industrial $513,986 $513,986 $0 0.00% Pipeline $45,491 $45,491 $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Taxable $17,704,661 $17,704,661 $0 0.00% Payment In Lieu Residential $16,419 $16,419 $0 0.00% Commercial $223,444 $223,444 $0 0.00% Industrial $680 $680 $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $240,543 $240,543 $0 0.00% Total (Taxable + PIL) $17,945,204 $17,945,204 $0 0.00% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1430 of 1679       Grimsby Realty   Tax Class 2024   as Upper‐Tier  Revised General  Levy 2025  Notional Change $              % Taxable Residential $30,983,192 $30,989,472 $6,280 0.02% Farm $157,419 $157,451 $32 0.02%  Managed Forest $1,095 $1,095 $0 0.00% Multi‐Residential $362,388 $362,461 $73 0.02% Commercial $4,193,964 $4,194,814 $850 0.02% Industrial $1,070,174 $1,070,392 $218 0.02% Pipeline $94,717 $94,736 $19 0.02%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $36,862,949 $36,870,421 $7,472 0.02%  Payment In  Lieu Residential $34,186 $34,193 $7 0.02% Commercial $465,232 $465,326 $94 0.02% Industrial $1,416 $1,416 $0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $500,834 $500,935 $101 0.02%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $37,363,783 $37,371,356 $7,573 0.02%          VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Upper‐Tier  Levy  Shifts (Upper‐Tier  General  Levy) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1431 of 1679       Lincoln Realty   Tax Class  As  2024 Returned  Full CVA  As Revised  Full    $          CVA            Growth % Taxable Residential 3,559,530,667 3,589,185,158 29,654,491 0.83% Farm 536,611,073 537,177,373 566,300 0.11%  Managed Forest 926,700 926,700 0 0.00%  New Multi‐Residential 3,811,500 3,811,500 0 0.00% Multi‐Residential 20,192,200 20,192,200 0 0.00% Commercial 239,296,542 240,907,881 1,611,339 0.67% Industrial 115,987,658 110,216,458 ‐5,771,200 ‐4.98%  Aggregate Extraction 0 6,535,300 6,535,300 100.00% Pipeline 21,728,000 21,815,000 87,000 0.40%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 4,498,084,340 4,530,767,570 32,683,230 0.73% Payment   In Lieu Residential 5,873,800 5,873,800 0 0.00% Commercial 18,160,700 18,160,700 0 0.00% Industrial 2,131,500 2,131,500 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu 26,166,000 26,166,000 0 0.00%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 4,524,250,340 4,556,933,570 32,683,230 0.72%  2024 Full  CVA  Growth  Special Sub‐Total  As Returned  As Revised     $                 % Industrial   + AE 115,987,658 116,751,758 764,100 0.66%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Assessment  Growth (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) Aggregate  Extraction  Class  and  Industrial  Growth  The  figures  identified  as  Aggregate  Extraction  Growth  reflect  the  assessment  and  tax  dollars  that  have  been   reallocated  from  the  industrial  class  as  of  year‐end.  To  provide  a  clearer  picture  of  actual  overall  change,  we   have  included  a  special  subtotal  line  for  each  growth  table.  These  rolled‐up  amounts  show  the  industrial   class  growth  without  the  policy  shift  created  by  the  introduction  of  the  new  class  at  year‐end.   © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1432 of 1679       Lincoln 2023   Full CVA  Growth 2024   Full CVA  Growth Realty   Tax Class $ % $          % Taxable Residential 23,750,448 0.67% 29,654,491 0.83% Farm 15,803,700 3.03% 566,300 0.11%  Managed Forest ‐261,800 ‐22.03% 0 0.00%  New Multi‐Residential 3,811,500 100.00% 0 0.00% Multi‐Residential ‐1,234,000 ‐5.76% 0 0.00% Commercial 6,508,961 2.80% 1,611,339 0.67% Industrial 6,848,300 6.27% ‐5,771,200 ‐4.98%  Aggregate Extraction 6,535,300 100.00% Pipeline 53,000 0.24% 87,000 0.40%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 55,280,109 1.24% 32,683,230 0.73%  Payment In  Lieu Residential 18,600 0.32% 0 0.00% Commercial ‐40,000 ‐0.22% 0 0.00% Industrial 0 0.00% 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu ‐21,400 ‐0.08% 0 0.00%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 55,258,709 1.24% 32,683,230 0.72%  Special Sub‐Total 2023  Full  CVA  Growth 2024   Full CVA  Growth  Industrial  + AE 6,848,300 6.27% 764,100 0.66%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Assessment  Growth  Comparison (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1433 of 1679       Lincoln  Realty  Tax Class  As  2024  Local Returned  General Levy  As Revised    Annualized    $                     Growth % Taxable Residential $19,140,629 $19,300,089 $159,461 0.83% Farm $721,377 $722,138 $761 0.11% Managed  Forest $1,246 $1,246 $0 0.00%  New Multi‐Residential $20,496 $20,496 $0 0.00% Multi‐Residential $213,901 $213,901 $0 0.00% Commercial $2,232,411 $2,247,443 $15,033 0.67% Industrial $1,640,330 $1,558,712 ‐$81,618 ‐4.98%  Aggregate Extraction $0 $92,424 $92,424 100.00% Pipeline $198,870 $199,666 $796 0.40%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $24,169,260 $24,356,115 $186,857 0.77%  Payment  In Lieu Residential $31,585 $31,585 $0 0.00% Commercial $169,423 $169,423 $0 0.00% Industrial $30,145 $30,145 $0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $231,153 $231,153 $0 0.00%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $24,400,413 $24,587,268 $186,857 0.77%  2024  Local  General Levy  Growth  Special Sub‐Total  As Returned  As Revised $ %  Industrial  + AE $1,640,330 $1,651,136 $10,806 0.66%          © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Revenue  Growth (Annualized) Page 1434 of 1679                                                                                           Special Sub‐Total  2023  Local Growth  2024  Local Growth  Industrial  + AE $89,376 6.28% $10,806 0.66%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Annualized  Local  Revenue  Growth  Comparison (Local  General  Purpose  Levy) Lincoln 2023 Local Annualized 2024 Local Annualized Revenue Growth Revenue Growth Realty Tax Class $ % $ % Taxable Residential $118,611 0.67% $159,461 0.83% Farm $19,731 3.03% $761 0.11% Managed Forest ‐$327 ‐22.04% $0 0.00% New Multi‐Residential $19,035 100.00% $0 0.00% Multi‐Residential ‐$12,141 ‐5.76% $0 0.00% Commercial $56,645 2.82% $15,033 0.67% Industrial $89,376 6.28% ‐$81,618 ‐4.98% Aggregate Extraction $0 0.00% $92,424 100.00% Pipeline $451 0.24% $796 0.40% Sub‐Total: Taxable $291,381 1.32% $186,857 0.77% Payment In Lieu Residential $93 0.32% $0 0.00% Commercial ‐$347 ‐0.22% $0 0.00% Industrial $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu ‐$254 ‐0.12% $0 0.00% Total (Taxable + PIL) $291,127 1.30% $186,857 0.77% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1435 of 1679      Lincoln  Realty  Tax Class  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Ratios‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2025   Start  2024 Actual    Change Ratio %  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Rates‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2025  Revenue  2024 Actual  Change  Netural (Notional) % Taxable Residential Farm  Managed Forest  New Multi‐Residential Multi‐Residential Commercial Industrial  Aggregate Extraction Pipeline 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.000000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 2.630000 1.702100 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.000000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 2.140048 1.702100 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ‐18.63% 0.00% 0.00537729 0.00134432 0.00134432 0.00537729 0.01059326 0.00932906 0.01414227 0.01414227 0.00915269 0.00538109 0.00134527 0.00134527 0.00538109 0.01060075 0.00933565 0.01415227 0.01151579 0.00915915 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% ‐18.57% 0.07%  Sub‐Total of   Taxable Levy $24,356,115 $24,356,096 0.00%  Payment In  Lieu Residential Commercial Industrial 1.000000 1.734900 2.630000 1.000000 1.734900 2.630000 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00537729 0.00932906 0.01414227 0.00538109 0.00933565 0.01415227 0.07% 0.07% 0.07% Sub‐Total  of   Payment  In  Lieu Levy $231,153 $231,314 0.07% Total  Taxable   + PIL  Levies  Based  on  Rate  Set $24,587,268 $24,587,410 0.00%                                                                                             ~VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Starting  Ratios  and  Revenue  Neutral  (Notional)  Tax  Rates(Local  General  Levy) NOTE: These results are based on preliminary start ratios and notional levy amounts and are subject to change based on municipal policy decisions, spending decisions and/or Provincial policy updates. No rates or ratios should be used for actual taxation purposes without independent verification. © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1436 of 1679     Lincoln Realty   Tax Class  2024  as  Local  General Levy Revised  2025 Notional Change    $                  % Taxable Residential $19,300,089 $19,313,728 $13,639 0.07% Farm $722,138 $722,649 $511 0.07%  Managed Forest $1,246 $1,247 $1 0.08%  New Multi‐Residential $20,496 $20,510 $14 0.07% Multi‐Residential $213,901 $214,052 $151 0.07% Commercial $2,247,443 $2,249,032 $1,589 0.07% Industrial $1,558,712 $1,559,812 $1,100 0.07%  Aggregate Extraction $92,424 $75,259 ‐$17,165 ‐18.57% Pipeline $199,666 $199,807 $141 0.07%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $24,356,115 $24,356,096 ‐$19 0.00%  Payment  In Lieu Residential $31,585 $31,608 $23 0.07% Commercial $169,423 $169,541 $118 0.07% Industrial $30,145 $30,165 $20 0.07%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $231,153 $231,314 $161 0.07%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $24,587,268 $24,587,410 $142 0.00%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Client Report Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Interclass  Tax  Shifts (Local  General  Levy:  Revenue  Neutral ‐Start  Ratios) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1437 of 1679                                                                        VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Upper‐Tier  Levy  Shifts (Upper‐Tier  General  Levy) Lincoln Upper‐Tier General Levy Change Realty Tax Class 2024 as Revised 2025 Notional $ % Taxable Residential $23,907,957 $23,912,803 $4,846 0.02% Farm $894,551 $894,733 $182 0.02% Managed Forest $1,543 $1,544 $1 0.06% New Multi‐Residential $25,389 $25,394 $5 0.02% Multi‐Residential $264,970 $265,024 $54 0.02% Commercial $2,784,018 $2,784,583 $565 0.02% Industrial $1,930,852 $1,931,242 $390 0.02% Aggregate Extraction $114,490 $93,180 ‐$21,310 ‐18.61% Pipeline $247,336 $247,386 $50 0.02% Sub‐Total: Taxable $30,171,106 $30,155,889 ‐$15,217 ‐0.05% Payment In Lieu Residential $39,126 $39,135 $9 0.02% Commercial $209,872 $209,914 $42 0.02% Industrial $37,341 $37,350 $9 0.02% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $286,339 $286,399 $60 0.02% Total (Taxable + PIL) $30,457,445 $30,442,288 ‐$15,157 ‐0.05% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1438 of 1679        Niagara Falls Realty   Tax Class  As  2024 Returned  Full CVA  As Revised  Full    $  CVA       Growth % Taxable Residential 9,452,617,426 9,607,140,842 154,523,416 1.63% Farm 83,474,398 82,377,598 ‐1,096,800 ‐1.31%  Managed Forest 1,707,300 1,832,500 125,200 7.33%  New Multi‐Residential 54,737,900 57,602,500 2,864,600 5.23% Multi‐Residential 334,774,189 337,917,289 3,143,100 0.94% Commercial 2,583,027,388 2,621,715,856 38,688,468 1.50% Industrial 145,811,749 154,771,149 8,959,400 6.14%  Aggregate Extraction 0 3,069,200 3,069,200 100.00% Landfill 3,152,500 3,152,500 0 0.00% Pipeline 46,591,000 46,664,000 73,000 0.16%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 12,705,893,850 12,916,243,434 210,349,584 1.66% Payment   In Lieu Residential 6,935,400 4,059,700 ‐2,875,700 ‐41.46% Commercial 376,056,399 368,076,299 ‐7,980,100 ‐2.12% Industrial 4,072,000 3,974,800 ‐97,200 ‐2.39%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu 387,063,799 376,110,799 ‐10,953,000 ‐2.83%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 13,092,957,649 13,292,354,233 199,396,584 1.52%  2024  Full CVA  Growth  Special Sub‐Total  As Returned  As Revised     $           % Industrial   + AE 145,811,749 157,840,349 12,028,600 8.25%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Assessment  Growth (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) Aggregate  Extraction  Class  and  Industrial  Growth  The  figures  identified  as  Aggregate  Extraction  Growth  reflect  the  assessment  and  tax  dollars  that  have  been   reallocated  from  the  industrial  class  as  of  year‐end.  To  provide  a  clearer  picture  of  actual  overall  change,  we   have  included  a  special  subtotal  line  for  each  growth  table.  These  rolled‐up  amounts  show  the  industrial   class  growth  without  the  policy  shift  created  by  the  introduction  of  the  new  class  at  year‐end.   © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1439 of 1679        Niagara Falls 2023  Full  CVA  Growth 2024  Full  CVA  Growth Realty   Tax Class $ % $          % Taxable Residential 143,045,937 1.54% 154,523,416 1.63% Farm 1,432,998 1.75% ‐1,096,800 ‐1.31%  Managed Forest 100,000 6.22% 125,200 7.33%  New Multi‐Residential 4,107,400 8.11% 2,864,600 5.23% Multi‐Residential 7,974,900 2.44% 3,143,100 0.94% Commercial 8,253,400 0.32% 38,688,468 1.50% Industrial 3,955,500 2.79% 8,959,400 6.14%  Aggregate Extraction 3,069,200 100.00% Landfill 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Pipeline 345,000 0.75% 73,000 0.16%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 169,215,135 1.35% 210,349,584 1.66%  Payment In  Lieu Residential ‐214,200 ‐3.00% ‐2,875,700 ‐41.46% Commercial ‐76,592,200 ‐16.92% ‐7,980,100 ‐2.12% Industrial 37,800 0.94% ‐97,200 ‐2.39%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu ‐76,768,600 ‐16.55% ‐10,953,000 ‐2.83%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 92,446,535 0.71% 199,396,584 1.52%  Special Sub‐Total 2023  Full  CVA  Growth 2024   Full CVA  Growth  Industrial  + AE 3,955,500 2.79% 12,028,600 8.25%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Assessment  Growth  Comparison (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1440 of 1679        Niagara Falls  Realty  Tax Class  As  2024  Local Returned  General Levy  As Revised    Annualized    $                     Growth % Taxable Residential $53,237,330 $54,107,609 $870,279 1.63% Farm $117,533 $115,988 ‐$1,544 ‐1.31%  Managed Forest $2,404 $2,580 $176 7.32%  New Multi‐Residential $308,285 $324,418 $16,133 5.23% Multi‐Residential $3,714,350 $3,749,223 $34,873 0.94% Commercial $25,238,760 $25,616,787 $378,025 1.50% Industrial $2,159,796 $2,292,506 $132,708 6.14%  Aggregate Extraction $0 $45,462 $45,462 100.00% Landfill $52,204 $52,204 $0 0.00% Pipeline $446,634 $447,334 $700 0.16%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $85,277,296 $86,754,111 $1,476,812 1.73%  Payment  In Lieu Residential $39,060 $22,864 ‐$16,196 ‐41.46% Commercial $3,674,447 $3,596,474 ‐$77,974 ‐2.12% Industrial $60,315 $58,875 ‐$1,440 ‐2.39%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $3,773,822 $3,678,213 ‐$95,610 ‐2.53%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $89,051,118 $90,432,324 $1,381,202 1.55%  2024  Local  General Levy  Growth  Special Sub‐Total  As Returned  As Revised $ %  Industrial  + AE $2,159,796 $2,337,968 $178,170 8.25%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Revenue  Growth (Annualized) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1441 of 1679                                                                                              Special Sub‐Total  2023 Local  Growth  2024  Local Growth  Industrial  + AE $55,910 2.82% $178,170 8.25%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Annualized  Local  Revenue  Growth  Comparison (Local  General  Purpose  Levy) Niagara Falls 2023 Local Annualized 2024 Local Annualized Revenue Growth Revenue Growth Realty Tax Class $ % $ % Taxable Residential $825,930 1.64% $870,279 1.63% Farm $1,942 1.75% ‐$1,544 ‐1.31% Managed Forest $136 6.24% $176 7.32% New Multi‐Residential $22,273 8.11% $16,133 5.23% Multi‐Residential $85,196 2.44% $34,873 0.94% Commercial $83,742 0.35% $378,025 1.50% Industrial $55,910 2.82% $132,708 6.14% Aggregate Extraction $0 0.00% $45,462 100.00% Landfill $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Pipeline $3,185 0.75% $700 0.16% Sub‐Total: Taxable $1,078,314 1.33% $1,476,812 1.73% Payment In Lieu Residential ‐$1,161 ‐2.99% ‐$16,196 ‐41.46% Commercial ‐$720,383 ‐16.92% ‐$77,974 ‐2.12% Industrial $539 0.95% ‐$1,440 ‐2.39% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu ‐$721,005 ‐16.57% ‐$95,610 ‐2.53% Total (Taxable + PIL) $357,309 0.42% $1,381,202 1.55% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1442 of 1679       Niagara Falls  Realty Tax  Class  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Ratios‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2025   Start  2024 Actual    Change Ratio %  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Rates‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2025 Revenue   2024 Actual  Change  Netural (Notional) % Taxable Residential Farm  Managed Forest  New Multi‐Residential Multi‐Residential Commercial Industrial  Aggregate Extraction Landfill Pipeline 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.000000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 2.630000 2.940261 1.702100 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.000000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 2.140048 2.940261 1.702100 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ‐18.63% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00563202 0.00140801 0.00140801 0.00563202 0.01109509 0.00977100 0.01481222 0.01481222 0.01655962 0.00958627 0.00563257 0.00140814 0.00140814 0.00563257 0.01109616 0.00977195 0.01481366 0.01205397 0.01656123 0.00958720 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% ‐18.62% 0.01% 0.01%  Sub‐Total of  Taxable  Levy $86,754,111 $86,754,092 0.00%  Payment In  Lieu Residential Commercial Industrial 1.000000 1.734900 2.630000 1.000000 1.734900 2.630000 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00563202 0.00977100 0.01481222 0.00563257 0.00977195 0.01481366 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% Sub‐Total  of   Payment  In  Lieu Levy $3,678,213 $3,678,572 0.01% Total  Taxable   + PIL  Levies  Based  on  Rate  Set $90,432,324 $90,432,664 0.00%                                                                                             ~VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Starting  Ratios  and  Revenue  Neutral  (Notional)  Tax  Rates(Local  General  Levy) NOTE: These results are based on preliminary start ratios and notional levy amounts and are subject to change based on municipal policy decisions, spending decisions and/or Provincial policy updates. No rates or ratios should be used for actual taxation purposes without independent verification. © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1443 of 1679      Niagara Falls Realty   Tax Class  2024  as  Local  General Levy Revised  2025 Notional Change    $                  % Taxable Residential $54,107,609 $54,112,893 $5,284 0.01% Farm $115,988 $115,999 $11 0.01%  Managed Forest $2,580 $2,580 $0 0.00%  New Multi‐Residential $324,418 $324,450 $32 0.01% Multi‐Residential $3,749,223 $3,749,584 $361 0.01% Commercial $25,616,787 $25,619,277 $2,490 0.01% Industrial $2,292,506 $2,292,727 $221 0.01%  Aggregate Extraction $45,462 $36,996 ‐$8,466 ‐18.62% Landfill $52,204 $52,209 $5 0.01% Pipeline $447,334 $447,377 $43 0.01%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $86,754,111 $86,754,092 ‐$19 0.00%  Payment  In Lieu Residential $22,864 $22,867 $3 0.01% Commercial $3,596,474 $3,596,824 $350 0.01% Industrial $58,875 $58,881 $6 0.01%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $3,678,213 $3,678,572 $359 0.01%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $90,432,324 $90,432,664 $340 0.00%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Client Report Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Interclass  Tax  Shifts (Local  General  Levy:  Revenue  Neutral ‐Start  Ratios) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1444 of 1679        Niagara Falls Realty   Tax Class 2024   as Upper‐Tier  Revised General  Levy 2025  Notional Change $              % Taxable Residential $63,994,222 $64,007,192 $12,970 0.02% Farm $137,182 $137,210 $28 0.02%  Managed Forest $3,052 $3,052 $0 0.00%  New Multi‐Residential $383,697 $383,774 $77 0.02% Multi‐Residential $4,434,282 $4,435,181 $899 0.02% Commercial $30,297,024 $30,303,160 $6,136 0.02% Industrial $2,711,392 $2,711,942 $550 0.02%  Aggregate Extraction $53,768 $43,761 ‐$10,007 ‐18.61% Landfill $61,743 $61,755 $12 0.02% Pipeline $529,071 $529,178 $107 0.02%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $102,605,433 $102,616,205 $10,772 0.01%  Payment In  Lieu Residential $27,042 $27,048 $6 0.02% Commercial $4,253,621 $4,254,482 $861 0.02% Industrial $69,634 $69,647 $13 0.02%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $4,350,297 $4,351,177 $880 0.02%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $106,955,730 $106,967,382 $11,652 0.01%          VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Upper‐Tier  Levy  Shifts (Upper‐Tier  General  Levy) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1445 of 1679       Niagara‐on‐the‐Lake Realty   Tax Class  As  2024 Returned  Full CVA  As Revised  Full    $          CVA            Growth % Taxable Residential 4,443,315,978 4,504,737,714 61,421,736 1.38% Farm 584,396,423 580,767,823 ‐3,628,600 ‐0.62%  Managed Forest 1,402,100 1,402,100 0 0.00%  New Multi‐Residential 3,041,000 3,041,000 0 0.00% Multi‐Residential 16,745,500 16,147,100 ‐598,400 ‐3.57% Commercial 793,483,710 808,860,910 15,377,200 1.94% Industrial 60,291,300 56,303,100 ‐3,988,200 ‐6.61%  Aggregate Extraction 0 3,432,200 3,432,200 100.00% Pipeline 19,135,000 19,202,000 67,000 0.35%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 5,921,811,011 5,993,893,947 72,082,936 1.22% Payment   In Lieu Residential 3,304,600 3,520,600 216,000 6.54% Commercial 41,112,100 40,776,100 ‐336,000 ‐0.82% Industrial 2,215,500 2,215,500 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu 46,632,200 46,512,200 ‐120,000 ‐0.26%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 5,968,443,211 6,040,406,147 71,962,936 1.21%  2024 Full  CVA  Growth  Special Sub‐Total As  Returned  As Revised     $                 % Industrial   + AE 60,291,300 59,735,300 ‐556,000 ‐0.92%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Assessment  Growth (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) Aggregate  Extraction  Class  and  Industrial  Growth  The  figures  identified  as  Aggregate  Extraction  Growth  reflect  the  assessment  and  tax  dollars  that  have  been   reallocated  from  the  industrial  class  as  of  year‐end.  To  provide  a  clearer  picture  of  actual  overall  change,  we   have  included  a  special  subtotal  line  for  each  growth  table.  These  rolled‐up  amounts  show  the  industrial   class  growth  without  the  policy  shift  created  by  the  introduction  of  the  new  class  at  year‐end.   © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1446 of 1679                                                         Special Sub‐Total 2023  Full  CVA  Growth 2024   Full CVA  Growth  Industrial  + AE 2,404,700 4.15% ‐556,000 ‐0.92%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Assessment  Growth  Comparison (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) Niagara‐on‐the‐Lake 2023 Full CVA 2024 Full CVA Growth Growth Realty Tax Class $ % $ % Taxable Residential 39,316,693 0.89% 61,421,736 1.38% Farm 19,746,507 3.50% ‐3,628,600 ‐0.62% Managed Forest 0 0.00% 0 0.00% New Multi‐Residential 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Multi‐Residential 0 0.00% ‐598,400 ‐3.57% Commercial 2,676,700 0.34% 15,377,200 1.94% Industrial 2,404,700 4.15% ‐3,988,200 ‐6.61% Aggregate Extraction 3,432,200 100.00% Pipeline 61,000 0.32% 67,000 0.35% Sub‐Total: Taxable 64,205,600 1.10% 72,082,936 1.22% Payment In Lieu Residential 0 0.00% 216,000 6.54% Commercial 0 0.00% ‐336,000 ‐0.82% Industrial 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu 0 0.00% ‐120,000 ‐0.26% Total (Taxable + PIL) 64,205,600 1.09% 71,962,936 1.21% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1447 of 1679       Niagara‐on‐the‐Lake  Realty  Tax Class  As  2024  Local Returned  General Levy  As Revised    Annualized    $                     Growth % Taxable Residential $11,558,887 $11,718,670 $159,783 1.38% Farm $380,062 $377,702 ‐$2,360 ‐0.62%  Managed Forest $912 $912 $0 0.00%  New Multi‐Residential $7,911 $7,911 $0 0.00% Multi‐Residential $85,817 $82,750 ‐$3,067 ‐3.57% Commercial $3,581,141 $3,650,541 $69,400 1.94% Industrial $412,495 $385,210 ‐$27,287 ‐6.62%  Aggregate Extraction $0 $23,482 $23,482 100.00% Pipeline $84,727 $85,024 $297 0.35%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $16,111,952 $16,332,202 $220,248 1.37%  Payment  In Lieu Residential $8,597 $9,159 $562 6.54% Commercial $185,546 $184,029 ‐$1,517 ‐0.82% Industrial $15,158 $15,158 $0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $209,301 $208,346 ‐$955 ‐0.46%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $16,321,253 $16,540,548 $219,293 1.34%  2024  Local  General Levy  Growth Special  Sub‐Total  As Returned  As Revised                     $ %  Industrial  + AE $412,495 $408,692 ‐$3,805 ‐0.92%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Revenue  Growth (Annualized) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1448 of 1679                                                                                           Special Sub‐Total  2023  Local Growth  2024  Local Growth  Industrial  + AE $15,439 4.24% ‐$3,805 ‐0.92%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Annualized  Local  Revenue  Growth  Comparison (Local  General  Purpose  Levy) Niagara‐on‐the‐Lake 2023 Local Annualized 2024 Local Annualized Revenue Growth Revenue Growth Realty Tax Class $ % $ % Taxable Residential $95,980 0.89% $159,783 1.38% Farm $12,051 3.50% ‐$2,360 ‐0.62% Managed Forest $0 0.00% $0 0.00% New Multi‐Residential $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Multi‐Residential $0 0.00% ‐$3,067 ‐3.57% Commercial $11,516 0.34% $69,400 1.94% Industrial $15,439 4.24% ‐$27,287 ‐6.62% Aggregate Extraction $0 0.00% $23,482 100.00% Pipeline $253 0.32% $297 0.35% Sub‐Total: Taxable $135,239 0.90% $220,248 1.37% Payment In Lieu Residential $0 0.00% $562 6.54% Commercial $0 0.00% ‐$1,517 ‐0.82% Industrial $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $0 0.00% ‐$955 ‐0.46% Total (Taxable + PIL) $135,239 0.89% $219,293 1.34% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1449 of 1679      Niagara‐on‐the‐Lake  Realty  Tax Class  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Ratios‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2025   Start  2024 Actual    Change Ratio %  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Rates‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2025 Revenue   2024 Actual  Change  Netural (Notional) % Taxable Residential Farm  Managed Forest  New Multi‐Residential Multi‐Residential Commercial Industrial  Aggregate Extraction Pipeline 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.000000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 2.630000 1.702100 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.000000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 2.140048 1.702100 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ‐18.63% 0.00% 0.00260141 0.00065035 0.00065035 0.00260141 0.00512478 0.00451319 0.00684171 0.00684171 0.00442786 0.00260211 0.00065053 0.00065053 0.00260211 0.00512616 0.00451440 0.00684355 0.00556864 0.00442905 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% ‐18.61% 0.03%  Sub‐Total of   Taxable Levy $16,332,202 $16,332,224 0.00%  Payment In  Lieu Residential Commercial Industrial 1.000000 1.734900 2.630000 1.000000 1.734900 2.630000 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00260141 0.00451319 0.00684171 0.00260211 0.00451440 0.00684355 0.03% 0.03% 0.03% Sub‐Total  of   Payment  In  Lieu Levy $208,346 $208,403 0.03% Total  Taxable   + PIL  Levies  Based  on  Rate  Set $16,540,548 $16,540,627 0.00%                                                                                             ~VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Starting  Ratios  and  Revenue  Neutral  (Notional)  Tax  Rates(Local  General  Levy) NOTE: These results are based on preliminary start ratios and notional levy amounts and are subject to change based on municipal policy decisions, spending decisions and/or Provincial policy updates. No rates or ratios should be used for actual taxation purposes without independent verification. © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1450 of 1679                                                           w VOXTUR® MTAG Client Report Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Interclass  Tax  Shifts (Local  General  Levy:  Revenue  Neutral ‐Start  Ratios) Niagara‐on‐the‐Lake Local General Levy Change Realty Tax Class 2024 as Revised 2025 Notional $ % Taxable Residential $11,718,670 $11,721,823 $3,153 0.03% Farm $377,702 $377,807 $105 0.03% Managed Forest $912 $912 $0 0.00% New Multi‐Residential $7,911 $7,913 $2 0.03% Multi‐Residential $82,750 $82,773 $23 0.03% Commercial $3,650,541 $3,651,523 $982 0.03% Industrial $385,210 $385,313 $103 0.03% Aggregate Extraction $23,482 $19,113 ‐$4,369 ‐18.61% Pipeline $85,024 $85,047 $23 0.03% Sub‐Total: Taxable $16,332,202 $16,332,224 $22 0.00% Payment In Lieu Residential $9,159 $9,161 $2 0.02% Commercial $184,029 $184,080 $51 0.03% Industrial $15,158 $15,162 $4 0.03% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $208,346 $208,403 $57 0.03% Total (Taxable + PIL) $16,540,548 $16,540,627 $79 0.00% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1451 of 1679       Niagara‐on‐the‐Lake Realty   Tax Class 2024   as Upper‐Tier  Revised General  Levy 2025  Notional Change $                     % Taxable Residential $30,006,553 $30,012,635 $6,082 0.02% Farm $967,141 $967,338 $197 0.02%  Managed Forest $2,335 $2,335 $0 0.00%  New Multi‐Residential $20,256 $20,261 $5 0.02% Multi‐Residential $211,889 $211,931 $42 0.02% Commercial $9,347,488 $9,349,379 $1,891 0.02% Industrial $986,359 $986,559 $200 0.02%  Aggregate Extraction $60,128 $48,936 ‐$11,192 ‐18.61% Pipeline $217,710 $217,754 $44 0.02%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $41,819,859 $41,817,128 ‐$2,731 ‐0.01%  Payment In  Lieu Residential $23,451 $23,456 $5 0.02% Commercial $471,223 $471,319 $96 0.02% Industrial $38,813 $38,820 $7 0.02%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $533,487 $533,595 $108 0.02%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $42,353,346 $42,350,723 ‐$2,623 ‐0.01%          VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Upper‐Tier  Levy  Shifts (Upper‐Tier  General  Levy) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1452 of 1679       Pelham Realty   Tax Class  As  2024 Returned  Full CVA  As Revised  Full    $  CVA       Growth % Taxable Residential 2,803,859,339 2,869,618,392 65,759,053 2.35% Farm 173,178,700 174,253,782 1,075,082 0.62%  Managed Forest 3,491,000 3,491,000 0 0.00%  New Multi‐Residential 966,700 966,700 0 0.00% Multi‐Residential 18,604,000 18,604,000 0 0.00% Commercial 115,129,661 116,841,708 1,712,047 1.49% Industrial 6,588,300 3,886,700 ‐2,701,600 ‐41.01%  Aggregate Extraction 0 2,596,000 2,596,000 100.00% Pipeline 17,967,000 18,150,000 183,000 1.02%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 3,139,784,700 3,208,408,282 68,623,582 2.19%  Payment  In Lieu Residential 3,000 3,000 0 0.00% Commercial 2,924,500 2,924,500 0 0.00% Industrial 28,600 28,600 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu 2,956,100 2,956,100 0 0.00%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 3,142,740,800 3,211,364,382 68,623,582 2.18%  2024  Full CVA  Growth  Special Sub‐Total  As Returned  As Revised     $           % Industrial   + AE 6,588,300 6,482,700 ‐105,600 ‐1.60%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Assessment  Growth (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) Aggregate  Extraction  Class  and  Industrial  Growth  The  figures  identified  as  Aggregate  Extraction  Growth  reflect  the  assessment  and  tax  dollars  that  have  been   reallocated  from  the  industrial  class  as  of  year‐end.  To  provide  a  clearer  picture  of  actual  overall  change,  we   have  included  a  special  subtotal  line  for  each  growth  table.  These  rolled‐up  amounts  show  the  industrial   class  growth  without  the  policy  shift  created  by  the  introduction  of  the  new  class  at  year‐end.   © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1453 of 1679       Pelham 2023   Full CVA  Growth 2024   Full CVA  Growth Realty   Tax Class $ % $          % Taxable Residential 80,998,996 2.98% 65,759,053 2.35% Farm 8,450,700 5.13% 1,075,082 0.62%  Managed Forest ‐106,900 ‐2.97% 0 0.00% New  Multi‐Residential 422,700 77.70% 0 0.00% Multi‐Residential 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Commercial 568,504 0.50% 1,712,047 1.49% Industrial 2,005,500 43.76% ‐2,701,600 ‐41.01%  Aggregate Extraction 2,596,000 100.00% Pipeline 90,000 0.50% 183,000 1.02%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 92,429,500 3.04% 68,623,582 2.19%  Payment In  Lieu Residential 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Commercial 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Industrial 0 0.00% 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu 0 0.00% 0 0.00%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 92,429,500 3.04% 68,623,582 2.18%  Special Sub‐Total 2023  Full  CVA  Growth 2024   Full CVA  Growth  Industrial  + AE 2,005,500 43.76% ‐105,600 ‐1.60%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Assessment  Growth  Comparison (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1454 of 1679       Pelham  Realty  Tax Class  As  2024  Local Returned  General Levy  As Revised    Annualized    $                     Growth % Taxable Residential $17,086,130 $17,486,852 $400,722 2.35% Farm $263,829 $265,467 $1,638 0.62%  Managed Forest $5,318 $5,318 $0 0.00%  New Multi‐Residential $5,891 $5,891 $0 0.00% Multi‐Residential $223,337 $223,337 $0 0.00% Commercial $1,217,164 $1,235,265 $18,100 1.49% Industrial $105,588 $62,291 ‐$43,298 ‐41.01%  Aggregate Extraction $0 $41,605 $41,605 100.00% Pipeline $186,358 $188,256 $1,898 1.02%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $19,093,615 $19,514,282 $420,665 2.20%  Payment  In Lieu Residential $18 $18 $0 0.00% Commercial $30,918 $30,918 $0 0.00% Industrial $458 $458 $0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $31,394 $31,394 $0 0.00%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $19,125,009 $19,545,676 $420,665 2.20%  2024  Local  General Levy  Growth Special  Sub‐Total  As Returned  As Revised $ % Industrial   + AE $105,588 $103,896 ‐$1,693 ‐1.60%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Revenue  Growth (Annualized) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1455 of 1679                                                                                           Special Sub‐Total  2023  Local Growth  2024  Local Growth  Industrial  + AE $30,839 43.87% ‐$1,693 ‐1.60%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Annualized  Local  Revenue  Growth  Comparison (Local  General  Purpose  Levy) Pelham 2023 Local Annualized 2024 Local Annualized Revenue Growth Revenue Growth Realty Tax Class $ % $ % Taxable Residential $473,580 2.98% $400,722 2.35% Farm $12,352 5.13% $1,638 0.62% Managed Forest ‐$156 ‐2.97% $0 0.00% New Multi‐Residential $2,471 77.68% $0 0.00% Multi‐Residential $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Commercial $5,786 0.50% $18,100 1.49% Industrial $30,839 43.87% ‐$43,298 ‐41.01% Aggregate Extraction $0 0.00% $41,605 100.00% Pipeline $896 0.50% $1,898 1.02% Sub‐Total: Taxable $525,768 2.96% $420,665 2.20% Payment In Lieu Residential $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Commercial $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Industrial $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Total (Taxable + PIL) $525,768 2.96% $420,665 2.20% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1456 of 1679      Pelham  Realty  Tax Class  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Ratios‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2025   Start  2024 Actual    Change Ratio %  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Rates‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2025  Revenue  2024 Actual  Change  Netural (Notional) % Taxable Residential Farm  Managed Forest  New Multi‐Residential Multi‐Residential Commercial Industrial  Aggregate Extraction Pipeline 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.000000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 2.630000 1.702100 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.000000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 2.140048 1.702100 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ‐18.63% 0.00% 0.00609379 0.00152345 0.00152345 0.00609379 0.01200477 0.01057212 0.01602667 0.01602667 0.01037224 0.00609621 0.00152405 0.00152405 0.00609621 0.01200953 0.01057631 0.01603303 0.01304618 0.01037636 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% ‐18.60% 0.04%  Sub‐Total of   Taxable Levy $19,514,282 $19,514,274 0.00%  Payment In  Lieu Residential Commercial Industrial 1.000000 1.734900 2.630000 1.000000 1.734900 2.630000 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00609379 0.01057212 0.01602667 0.00609621 0.01057631 0.01603303 0.04% 0.04% 0.04% Sub‐Total  of   Payment  In  Lieu Levy $31,394 $31,408 0.04% Total  Taxable   + PIL  Levies  Based  on  Rate  Set $19,545,676 $19,545,682 0.00%                                                                                             ~VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Starting  Ratios  and  Revenue  Neutral  (Notional)  Tax  Rates(Local  General  Levy) NOTE: These results are based on preliminary start ratios and notional levy amounts and are subject to change based on municipal policy decisions, spending decisions and/or Provincial policy updates. No rates or ratios should be used for actual taxation purposes without independent verification. © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1457 of 1679                                                           w VOXTUR® MTAG Client Report Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Interclass  Tax  Shifts (Local  General  Levy:  Revenue  Neutral ‐Start  Ratios) Pelham Realty Tax Class Taxable Local General Levy 2024 as Revised 2025 Notional $ Change % Residential $17,486,852 $17,493,796 $6,944 0.04% Farm $265,467 $265,571 $104 0.04% Managed Forest New Multi‐Residential $5,318 $5,891 $5,320 $5,893 $2 $2 0.04% 0.03% Multi‐Residential $223,337 $223,425 $88 0.04% Commercial $1,235,265 $1,235,754 $489 0.04% Industrial $62,291 $62,316 $25 0.04% Aggregate Extraction Pipeline Sub‐Total: Taxable Payment In Lieu Residential $41,605 $188,256 $19,514,282 $18 $33,868 $188,331 $19,514,274 $18 ‐$7,737 $75 ‐$8 $0 ‐18.60% 0.04% 0.00% 0.00% Commercial $30,918 $30,931 $13 0.04% Industrial $458 $459 $1 0.22% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $31,394 $31,408 $14 0.04% Total (Taxable + PIL) $19,545,676 $19,545,682 $6 0.00% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1458 of 1679                                                                  VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Upper‐Tier  Levy  Shifts (Upper‐Tier  General  Levy) Pelham Realty Tax Class Taxable Upper‐Tier General Levy 2024 as Revised 2025 Notional $ Change % Residential $19,114,844 $19,118,718 $3,874 0.02% Farm $290,181 $290,241 $60 0.02% Managed Forest New Multi‐Residential $5,813 $6,439 $5,815 $6,441 $2 $2 0.03% 0.03% Multi‐Residential $244,129 $244,178 $49 0.02% Commercial $1,350,265 $1,350,538 $273 0.02% Industrial $68,090 $68,104 $14 0.02% Aggregate Extraction Pipeline Sub‐Total: Taxable Payment In Lieu Residential $45,479 $205,783 $21,331,023 $20 $37,014 $205,824 $21,326,873 $20 ‐$8,465 $41 ‐$4,150 $0 ‐18.61% 0.02% ‐0.02% 0.00% Commercial $33,797 $33,804 $7 0.02% Industrial $501 $501 $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $34,318 $34,325 $7 0.02% Total (Taxable + PIL) $21,365,341 $21,361,198 ‐$4,143 ‐0.02% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1459 of 1679        Port Colborne Realty   Tax Class  As  2024 Returned  Full CVA  As Revised  Full    $  CVA       Growth % Taxable Residential 1,701,021,440 1,751,307,356 50,285,916 2.96% Farm 57,683,974 57,390,474 ‐293,500 ‐0.51%  Managed Forest 926,100 993,600 67,500 7.29%  New Multi‐Residential 913,000 2,351,000 1,438,000 157.50% Multi‐Residential 39,890,000 39,371,000 ‐519,000 ‐1.30% Commercial 143,778,561 147,446,145 3,667,584 2.55% Industrial 89,139,479 83,164,425 ‐5,975,054 ‐6.70%  Aggregate Extraction 0 6,786,000 6,786,000 100.00% Pipeline 10,859,000 10,843,000 ‐16,000 ‐0.15%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 2,044,211,554 2,099,653,000 55,441,446 2.71%  Payment  In Lieu Residential 1,420,400 1,420,400 0 0.00% Commercial 11,326,600 10,921,600 ‐405,000 ‐3.58% Industrial 110,000 110,000 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu 12,857,000 12,452,000 ‐405,000 ‐3.15%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 2,057,068,554 2,112,105,000 55,036,446 2.68%  2024  Full CVA  Growth  Special Sub‐Total  As Returned  As Revised     $           % Industrial   + AE 89,139,479 89,950,425 810,946 0.91%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Assessment  Growth (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) Aggregate  Extraction  Class  and  Industrial  Growth  The  figures  identified  as  Aggregate  Extraction  Growth  reflect  the  assessment  and  tax  dollars  that  have  been   reallocated  from  the  industrial  class  as  of  year‐end.  To  provide  a  clearer  picture  of  actual  overall  change,  we   have  included  a  special  subtotal  line  for  each  growth  table.  These  rolled‐up  amounts  show  the  industrial   class  growth  without  the  policy  shift  created  by  the  introduction  of  the  new  class  at  year‐end.   © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1460 of 1679       Port  Colborne 2023  Full  CVA  Growth 2024  Full  CVA  Growth Realty   Tax Class $ % $          % Taxable Residential 20,986,709 1.25% 50,285,916 2.96% Farm 359,200 0.63% ‐293,500 ‐0.51%  Managed Forest 87,200 10.39% 67,500 7.29% New  Multi‐Residential 0 0.00% 1,438,000 157.50% Multi‐Residential 0 0.00% ‐519,000 ‐1.30% Commercial 2,498,525 1.77% 3,667,584 2.55% Industrial 5,166,575 6.15% ‐5,975,054 ‐6.70%  Aggregate Extraction 6,786,000 100.00% Pipeline 13,000 0.12% ‐16,000 ‐0.15%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 29,111,209 1.44% 55,441,446 2.71%  Payment In  Lieu Residential 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Commercial ‐51,500 ‐0.45% ‐405,000 ‐3.58% Industrial 0 0.00% 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu ‐51,500 ‐0.40% ‐405,000 ‐3.15%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 29,059,709 1.43% 55,036,446 2.68%  Special Sub‐Total 2023  Full  CVA  Growth 2024   Full CVA  Growth  Industrial  + AE 5,166,575 6.15% 810,946 0.91%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Assessment  Growth  Comparison (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1461 of 1679        Port Colborne  Realty  Tax Class  As  2024  Local Returned  General Levy  As Revised    Annualized    $                     Growth % Taxable Residential $18,355,083 $18,901,475 $546,392 2.98% Farm $155,643 $154,851 ‐$792 ‐0.51%  Managed Forest $2,499 $2,681 $182 7.28%  New Multi‐Residential $9,854 $25,374 $15,520 157.50% Multi‐Residential $848,132 $837,098 ‐$11,035 ‐1.30% Commercial $2,692,166 $2,760,840 $68,674 2.55% Industrial $2,530,224 $2,360,624 ‐$169,602 ‐6.70%  Aggregate Extraction $0 $192,621 $192,621 100.00% Pipeline $199,484 $199,190 ‐$294 ‐0.15%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $24,793,085 $25,434,754 $641,666 2.59%  Payment  In Lieu Residential $15,330 $15,330 $0 0.00% Commercial $212,083 $204,500 ‐$7,583 ‐3.58% Industrial $3,122 $3,122 $0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $230,535 $222,952 ‐$7,583 ‐3.29%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $25,023,620 $25,657,706 $634,083 2.53%  2024  Local General  Levy  Growth Special  Sub‐Total  As Returned  As Revised                     $ % Industrial   + AE $2,530,224 $2,553,245 $23,019 0.91%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Revenue  Growth (Annualized) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1462 of 1679                                                                                              Special Sub‐Total  2023 Local  Growth 2024   Local Growth  Industrial  + AE $140,295 6.23% $23,019 0.91%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Annualized  Local  Revenue  Growth  Comparison (Local  General  Purpose  Levy) Port Colborne 2023 Local Annualized 2024 Local Annualized Revenue Growth Revenue Growth Realty Tax Class $ % $ % Taxable Residential $215,821 1.25% $546,392 2.98% Farm $923 0.63% ‐$792 ‐0.51% Managed Forest $224 10.39% $182 7.28% New Multi‐Residential $0 0.00% $15,520 157.50% Multi‐Residential $0 0.00% ‐$11,035 ‐1.30% Commercial $44,504 1.77% $68,674 2.55% Industrial $140,295 6.23% ‐$169,602 ‐6.70% Aggregate Extraction $0 0.00% $192,621 100.00% Pipeline $227 0.12% ‐$294 ‐0.15% Sub‐Total: Taxable $401,994 1.73% $641,666 2.59% Payment In Lieu Residential $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Commercial ‐$918 ‐0.45% ‐$7,583 ‐3.58% Industrial $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu ‐$918 ‐0.42% ‐$7,583 ‐3.29% Total (Taxable + PIL) $401,076 1.71% $634,083 2.53% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1463 of 1679       Port Colborne  Realty  Tax Class  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Ratios‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2025   Start  2024 Actual    Change Ratio %  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Rates‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2025  Revenue  2024 Actual  Change  Netural (Notional) % Taxable Residential Farm  Managed Forest  New Multi‐Residential Multi‐Residential Commercial Industrial  Aggregate Extraction Pipeline 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.000000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 2.630000 1.702100 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.000000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 2.140048 1.702100 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ‐18.63% 0.00% 0.01079278 0.00269820 0.00269820 0.01079278 0.02126178 0.01872439 0.02838501 0.02838501 0.01837039 0.01080803 0.00270201 0.00270201 0.01080803 0.02129182 0.01875085 0.02842512 0.02312970 0.01839635 0.14% 0.14% 0.14% 0.14% 0.14% 0.14% 0.14% ‐18.51% 0.14%  Sub‐Total of   Taxable Levy $25,434,754 $25,434,756 0.00%  Payment In  Lieu Residential Commercial Industrial 1.000000 1.734900 2.630000 1.000000 1.734900 2.630000 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01079278 0.01872439 0.02838501 0.01080803 0.01875085 0.02842512 0.14% 0.14% 0.14% Sub‐Total  of   Payment  In  Lieu Levy $222,952 $223,267 0.14% Total  Taxable   + PIL  Levies  Based  on  Rate  Set $25,657,706 $25,658,023 0.00%                                                                                             ~VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Starting  Ratios  and  Revenue  Neutral  (Notional)  Tax  Rates(Local  General  Levy) NOTE: These results are based on preliminary start ratios and notional levy amounts and are subject to change based on municipal policy decisions, spending decisions and/or Provincial policy updates. No rates or ratios should be used for actual taxation purposes without independent verification. © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1464 of 1679      Port Colborne Realty   Tax Class  2024  as  Local  General Levy Revised  2025 Notional Change    $      % Taxable Residential $18,901,475 $18,928,182 $26,707 0.14% Farm $154,851 $155,070 $219 0.14%  Managed Forest $2,681 $2,685 $4 0.15%  New Multi‐Residential $25,374 $25,410 $36 0.14% Multi‐Residential $837,098 $838,280 $1,182 0.14% Commercial $2,760,840 $2,764,740 $3,900 0.14% Industrial $2,360,624 $2,363,959 $3,335 0.14%  Aggregate Extraction $192,621 $156,958 ‐$35,663 ‐18.51% Pipeline $199,190 $199,472 $282 0.14%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $25,434,754 $25,434,756 $2 0.00%  Payment  In Lieu Residential $15,330 $15,351 $21 0.14% Commercial $204,500 $204,789 $289 0.14% Industrial $3,122 $3,127 $5 0.16%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $222,952 $223,267 $315 0.14%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $25,657,706 $25,658,023 $317 0.00%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Client Report Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Interclass  Tax  Shifts (Local  General  Levy:  Revenue  Neutral ‐Start  Ratios) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1465 of 1679                                                                     VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Upper‐Tier  Levy  Shifts (Upper‐Tier  General  Levy) Port Colborne Upper‐Tier General Levy Change Realty Tax Class 2024 as Revised 2025 Notional $ % Taxable Residential $11,665,651 $11,668,015 $2,364 0.02% Farm $95,571 $95,591 $20 0.02% Managed Forest $1,655 $1,655 $0 0.00% New Multi‐Residential $15,660 $15,663 $3 0.02% Multi‐Residential $516,642 $516,746 $104 0.02% Commercial $1,703,941 $1,704,286 $345 0.02% Industrial $1,456,934 $1,457,229 $295 0.02% Aggregate Extraction $118,882 $96,755 ‐$22,127 ‐18.61% Pipeline $122,937 $122,961 $24 0.02% Sub‐Total: Taxable $15,697,873 $15,678,901 ‐$18,972 ‐0.12% Payment In Lieu Residential $9,462 $9,463 $1 0.01% Commercial $126,214 $126,239 $25 0.02% Industrial $1,927 $1,927 $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $137,603 $137,629 $26 0.02% Total (Taxable + PIL) $15,835,476 $15,816,530 ‐$18,946 ‐0.12% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1466 of 1679        St. Catharines Realty   Tax Class  As  2024 Returned  Full CVA  As Revised  Full    $  CVA       Growth % Taxable Residential 12,574,119,833 12,688,089,111 113,969,278 0.91% Farm 162,242,600 161,339,100 ‐903,500 ‐0.56%  New Multi‐Residential 141,355,620 143,246,320 1,890,700 1.34% Multi‐Residential 678,919,668 682,793,399 3,873,731 0.57% Commercial 2,048,356,937 2,069,217,092 20,860,155 1.02% Industrial 184,869,644 179,607,658 ‐5,261,986 ‐2.85% Pipeline 31,393,000 31,303,000 ‐90,000 ‐0.29%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 15,821,257,302 15,955,595,680 134,338,378 0.85%  Payment  In Lieu Residential 3,036,200 3,036,200 0 0.00% Commercial 87,982,300 89,588,300 1,606,000 1.83% Industrial 2,346,100 2,346,100 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu 93,364,600 94,970,600 1,606,000 1.72%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 15,914,621,902 16,050,566,280 135,944,378 0.85%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Assessment  Growth (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1467 of 1679        St. Catharines 2023  Full  CVA  Growth 2024  Full  CVA  Growth Realty   Tax Class $ % $          % Taxable Residential 34,510,879 0.28% 113,969,278 0.91% Farm 6,533,800 4.20% ‐903,500 ‐0.56% New  Multi‐Residential 29,978,700 26.92% 1,890,700 1.34% Multi‐Residential 7,568,900 1.13% 3,873,731 0.57% Commercial ‐2,197,866 ‐0.11% 20,860,155 1.02% Industrial 2,466,087 1.35% ‐5,261,986 ‐2.85% Pipeline 102,000 0.33% ‐90,000 ‐0.29%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 78,962,500 0.50% 134,338,378 0.85%  Payment In  Lieu Residential ‐3,000 ‐0.10% 0 0.00% Commercial 137,500 0.16% 1,606,000 1.83% Industrial ‐376,500 ‐13.83% 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment In  Lieu ‐242,000 ‐0.26% 1,606,000 1.72%  Total  (Taxable +  PIL) 78,720,500 0.50% 135,944,378 0.85%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Assessment  Growth  Comparison (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1468 of 1679        St. Catharines  Realty  Tax Class  As  2024  Local Returned  General Levy  As Revised  Annualized    $                       Growth % Taxable Residential $81,029,462 $81,764,023 $734,560 0.91% Farm $261,423 $259,967 ‐$1,456 ‐0.56%  New Multi‐Residential $911,072 $923,258 $12,186 1.34% Multi‐Residential $8,620,338 $8,669,523 $49,185 0.57% Commercial $22,904,441 $23,137,696 $233,257 1.02% Industrial $3,133,725 $3,044,529 ‐$89,196 ‐2.85% Pipeline $344,396 $343,408 ‐$987 ‐0.29%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $117,204,857 $118,142,404 $937,549 0.80%  Payment  In Lieu Residential $19,569 $19,569 $0 0.00% Commercial $983,806 $1,001,764 $17,958 1.83% Industrial $39,769 $39,769 $0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $1,043,144 $1,061,102 $17,958 1.72%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $118,248,001 $119,203,506 $955,507 0.81%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Revenue  Growth (Annualized) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1469 of 1679        St. Catharines  2023  Local  Annualized  Revenue Growth  2024  Local  Annualized  Revenue Growth  Realty  Tax Class    $                 %    $                  % Taxable Residential $220,354 0.28% $734,560 0.91% Farm $10,430 4.20% ‐$1,456 ‐0.56%  New Multi‐Residential $191,416 26.92% $12,186 1.34% Multi‐Residential $95,206 1.13% $49,185 0.57% Commercial ‐$20,734 ‐0.09% $233,257 1.02% Industrial $36,428 1.20% ‐$89,196 ‐2.85% Pipeline $1,108 0.33% ‐$987 ‐0.29%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $534,208 0.46% $937,549 0.80% Payment   In Lieu Residential ‐$19 ‐0.10% $0 0.00% Commercial $1,523 0.16% $17,958 1.83% Industrial ‐$6,323 ‐14.07% $0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu ‐$4,819 ‐0.47% $17,958 1.72%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $529,389 0.45% $955,507 0.81%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Annualized  Local  Revenue  Growth  Comparison (Local  General  Purpose  Levy) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1470 of 1679      St.  Catharines  Realty  Tax Class  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Ratios‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2025   Start  2024 Actual    Change Ratio %  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Rates‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2025  Revenue  2024 Actual  Change  Netural (Notional) % Taxable Residential 1.000000 1.000000 0.00% 0.00644525 0.00644525 0.00% Farm 0.250000 0.250000 0.00% 0.00161131 0.00161131 0.00%  New Multi‐Residential 1.000000 1.000000 0.00% 0.00644525 0.00644525 0.00% Multi‐Residential 1.970000 1.970000 0.00% 0.01269714 0.01269714 0.00% Commercial 1.734900 1.734900 0.00% 0.01118186 0.01118186 0.00% Industrial 2.630000 2.630000 0.00% 0.01695100 0.01695100 0.00% Pipeline 1.702100 1.702100 0.00% 0.01097046 0.01097046 0.00%  Sub‐Total of   Taxable Levy $118,142,404 $118,142,406 0.00%  Payment In  Lieu Residential 1.000000 1.000000 0.00% 0.00644525 0.00644525 0.00% Commercial 1.734900 1.734900 0.00% 0.01118186 0.01118186 0.00% Industrial 2.630000 2.630000 0.00% 0.01695100 0.01695100 0.00% Sub‐Total  of   Payment  In  Lieu Levy $1,061,102 $1,061,101 0.00% Total  Taxable   + PIL  Levies  Based  on  Rate  Set $119,203,506 $119,203,507 0.00%                                                                                             ~VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Starting  Ratios  and  Revenue  Neutral  (Notional)  Tax  Rates(Local  General  Levy) NOTE: These results are based on preliminary start ratios and notional levy amounts and are subject to change based on municipal policy decisions, spending decisions and/or Provincial policy updates. No rates or ratios should be used for actual taxation purposes without independent verification. © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1471 of 1679                                                                                        w VOXTUR® MTAG Client Report Local Results Table Year‐Over‐Year Interclass Tax Shifts (Local General Levy: Revenue Neutral ‐Start Ratios) St. Catharines Local General Levy Change Realty Tax Class 2024 as Revised 2025 Notional $ % Taxable Residential $81,764,023 $81,764,023 $0 0.00% Farm $259,967 $259,967 $0 0.00% New Multi‐Residential $923,258 $923,258 $0 0.00% Multi‐Residential $8,669,523 $8,669,523 $0 0.00% Commercial $23,137,696 $23,137,696 $0 0.00% Industrial $3,044,529 $3,044,531 $2 0.00% Pipeline $343,408 $343,408 $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Taxable $118,142,404 $118,142,406 $2 0.00% Payment In Lieu Residential $19,569 $19,569 $0 0.00% Commercial $1,001,764 $1,001,763 ‐$1 0.00% Industrial $39,769 $39,769 $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $1,061,102 $1,061,101 ‐$1 0.00% Total (Taxable + PIL) $119,203,506 $119,203,507 $1 0.00% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1472 of 1679        St. Catharines Realty   Tax Class 2024   as Upper‐Tier  Revised General  Levy 2025  Notional Change $                     % Taxable Residential $84,502,409 $84,519,535 $17,126 0.02% Farm $268,675 $268,730 $55 0.02% New  Multi‐Residential $954,179 $954,373 $194 0.02% Multi‐Residential $8,959,881 $8,961,698 $1,817 0.02% Commercial $23,912,617 $23,917,459 $4,842 0.02% Industrial $3,146,495 $3,147,135 $640 0.02% Pipeline $354,910 $354,981 $71 0.02%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $122,099,166 $122,123,911 $24,745 0.02%  Payment In  Lieu Residential $20,224 $20,229 $5 0.02% Commercial $1,035,315 $1,035,524 $209 0.02% Industrial $41,101 $41,109 $8 0.02%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $1,096,640 $1,096,862 $222 0.02%  Total  (Taxable +  PIL) $123,195,806 $123,220,773 $24,967 0.02%          VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Upper‐Tier  Levy  Shifts (Upper‐Tier  General  Levy) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1473 of 1679       Thorold Realty   Tax Class  As  2024 Returned  Full CVA  As Revised  Full    $  CVA       Growth % Taxable Residential 2,640,994,960 2,788,701,160 147,706,200 5.59% Farm 53,017,740 53,262,740 245,000 0.46%  Managed Forest 531,400 531,400 0 0.00%  New Multi‐Residential 106,235,800 106,235,800 0 0.00% Multi‐Residential 43,152,800 43,267,500 114,700 0.27% Commercial 188,308,009 195,266,209 6,958,200 3.70% Industrial 71,828,800 74,608,200 2,779,400 3.87% Pipeline 27,113,000 27,719,000 606,000 2.24%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 3,131,182,509 3,289,592,009 158,409,500 5.06%  Payment  In Lieu Residential 4,704,900 4,765,100 60,200 1.28% Farm 491,000 491,000 0 0.00% Commercial 13,434,900 13,072,900 ‐362,000 ‐2.69% Industrial 1,744,200 1,744,200 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu 20,375,000 20,073,200 ‐301,800 ‐1.48%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 3,151,557,509 3,309,665,209 158,107,700 5.02%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Assessment  Growth (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1474 of 1679       Thorold 2023   Full CVA  Growth 2024   Full CVA  Growth Realty   Tax Class $ % $          % Taxable Residential 161,640,500 6.52% 147,706,200 5.59% Farm 465,400 0.89% 245,000 0.46%  Managed Forest 0 0.00% 0 0.00% New  Multi‐Residential 33,216,000 45.49% 0 0.00% Multi‐Residential ‐631,000 ‐1.44% 114,700 0.27% Commercial 1,674,792 0.90% 6,958,200 3.70% Industrial ‐417,592 ‐0.58% 2,779,400 3.87% Pipeline 345,000 1.29% 606,000 2.24%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 196,293,100 6.69% 158,409,500 5.06%  Payment In  Lieu Residential 0 0.00% 60,200 1.28% Farm 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Commercial 223,000 1.69% ‐362,000 ‐2.69% Industrial 0 0.00% 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu 223,000 1.11% ‐301,800 ‐1.48%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 196,516,100 6.65% 158,107,700 5.02%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Assessment  Growth  Comparison (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1475 of 1679       Thorold  Realty  Tax Class  As  2024  Local Returned  General Levy  As Revised    Annualized    $                     Growth % Taxable Residential $17,201,513 $18,163,564 $962,050 5.59% Farm $86,330 $86,729 $399 0.46%  Managed Forest $865 $865 $0 0.00%  New Multi‐Residential $691,942 $691,942 $0 0.00% Multi‐Residential $553,700 $555,171 $1,472 0.27% Commercial $2,127,857 $2,206,483 $78,627 3.70% Industrial $1,230,420 $1,278,031 $47,611 3.87% Pipeline $300,581 $307,299 $6,718 2.24%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $22,193,208 $23,290,084 $1,096,877 4.94%  Payment  In Lieu Residential $30,645 $31,036 $392 1.28% Farm $800 $800 $0 0.00% Commercial $151,813 $147,722 ‐$4,091 ‐2.69% Industrial $29,878 $29,878 $0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $213,136 $209,436 ‐$3,699 ‐1.74%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $22,406,344 $23,499,520 $1,093,178 4.88%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Revenue  Growth (Annualized) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1476 of 1679       Thorold  2023  Local  Annualized  Revenue Growth  2024  Local  Annualized  Revenue Growth  Realty  Tax Class    $                 %    $                  % Taxable Residential $1,022,027 6.52% $962,050 5.59% Farm $736 0.89% $399 0.46%  Managed Forest $0 0.00% $0 0.00%  New Multi‐Residential $210,019 45.49% $0 0.00% Multi‐Residential ‐$7,860 ‐1.44% $1,472 0.27% Commercial $17,927 0.88% $78,627 3.70% Industrial ‐$6,482 ‐0.55% $47,611 3.87% Pipeline $3,713 1.29% $6,718 2.24%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $1,240,080 6.12% $1,096,877 4.94%  Payment In  Lieu Residential $0 0.00% $392 1.28% Farm $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Commercial $2,447 1.69% ‐$4,091 ‐2.69% Industrial $0 0.00% $0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $2,447 1.20% ‐$3,699 ‐1.74%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $1,242,527 6.07% $1,093,178 4.88%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Annualized  Local  Revenue  Growth  Comparison (Local  General  Purpose  Levy) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1477 of 1679      Thorold  Realty  Tax Class  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Ratios‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2025   Start  2024 Actual    Change Ratio %  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Rates‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2025  Revenue  2024 Actual  Change  Netural (Notional) % Taxable Residential Farm  Managed Forest  New Multi‐Residential Multi‐Residential Commercial Industrial Pipeline 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.000000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 1.702100 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.000000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 1.702100 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00651327 0.00162832 0.00162832 0.00651327 0.01283114 0.01129987 0.01712990 0.01108624 0.00651327 0.00162832 0.00162832 0.00651327 0.01283114 0.01129987 0.01712990 0.01108624 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%  Sub‐Total of   Taxable Levy $23,290,084 $23,290,084 0.00%  Payment In  Lieu Residential Farm Commercial Industrial 1.000000 0.250000 1.734900 2.630000 1.000000 0.250000 1.734900 2.630000 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00651327 0.00162832 0.01129987 0.01712990 0.00651327 0.00162832 0.01129987 0.01712990 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Sub‐Total  of   Payment  In  Lieu Levy $209,436 $209,436 0.00% Total  Taxable   + PIL  Levies  Based  on  Rate  Set $23,499,520 $23,499,520 0.00%                                                                                             ~VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Starting  Ratios  and  Revenue  Neutral  (Notional)  Tax  Rates(Local  General  Levy) NOTE: These results are based on preliminary start ratios and notional levy amounts and are subject to change based on municipal policy decisions, spending decisions and/or Provincial policy updates. No rates or ratios should be used for actual taxation purposes without independent verification. © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1478 of 1679                                                         w VOXTUR® MTAG Client Report Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Interclass  Tax  Shifts (Local  General  Levy:  Revenue  Neutral ‐Start  Ratios) Thorold Realty Tax Class Taxable Local General Levy 2024 as Revised 2025 Notional $ Change % Residential $18,163,564 $18,163,564 $0 0.00% Farm $86,729 $86,729 $0 0.00% Managed Forest New Multi‐Residential $865 $691,942 $865 $691,942 $0 $0 0.00% 0.00% Multi‐Residential $555,171 $555,171 $0 0.00% Commercial $2,206,483 $2,206,483 $0 0.00% Industrial $1,278,031 $1,278,031 $0 0.00% Pipeline Sub‐Total: Taxable Payment In Lieu Residential $307,299 $23,290,084 $31,036 $307,299 $23,290,084 $31,036 $0 $0 $0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Farm $800 $800 $0 0.00% Commercial $147,722 $147,722 $0 0.00% Industrial Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $29,878 $209,436 $29,878 $209,436 $0 $0 0.00% 0.00% Total (Taxable + PIL) $23,499,520 $23,499,520 $0 0.00% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1479 of 1679                                                                VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Upper‐Tier  Levy  Shifts (Upper‐Tier  General  Levy) Thorold Realty Tax Class Taxable Upper‐Tier General Levy 2024 as Revised 2025 Notional $ Change % Residential $18,575,845 $18,579,610 $3,765 0.02% Farm $88,697 $88,715 $18 0.02% Managed Forest New Multi‐Residential $885 $707,648 $885 $707,792 $0 $144 0.00% 0.02% Multi‐Residential $567,773 $567,888 $115 0.02% Commercial $2,256,566 $2,257,022 $456 0.02% Industrial $1,307,040 $1,307,305 $265 0.02% Pipeline Sub‐Total: Taxable Payment In Lieu Residential $314,275 $23,818,729 $31,741 $314,338 $23,823,555 $31,747 $63 $4,826 $6 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% Farm $818 $818 $0 0.00% Commercial $151,075 $151,105 $30 0.02% Industrial Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $30,556 $214,190 $30,562 $214,232 $6 $42 0.02% 0.02% Total (Taxable + PIL) $24,032,919 $24,037,787 $4,868 0.02% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1480 of 1679       Wainfleet Realty   Tax Class  As  2024 Returned  Full CVA  As Revised  Full    $  CVA       Growth % Taxable Residential 961,108,525 973,343,380 12,234,855 1.27% Farm 212,224,215 213,150,715 926,500 0.44%  Managed Forest 1,848,789 1,783,389 ‐65,400 ‐3.54% Multi‐Residential 457,000 457,000 0 0.00% Commercial 23,365,605 26,833,505 3,467,900 14.84% Industrial 9,041,900 4,421,200 ‐4,620,700 ‐51.10%  Aggregate Extraction 0 4,663,700 4,663,700 100.00% Pipeline 6,016,000 6,020,000 4,000 0.07%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 1,214,062,034 1,230,672,889 16,610,855 1.37%  Payment  In Lieu Residential 268,700 268,700 0 0.00% Commercial 1,352,500 1,352,500 0 0.00% Industrial 10,300 10,300 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu 1,631,500 1,631,500 0 0.00%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 1,215,693,534 1,232,304,389 16,610,855 1.37%  2024  Full CVA  Growth  Special Sub‐Total  As Returned  As Revised     $           % Industrial   + AE 9,041,900 9,084,900 43,000 0.48%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Assessment  Growth (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) Aggregate  Extraction  Class  and  Industrial  Growth  The  figures  identified  as  Aggregate  Extraction  Growth  reflect  the  assessment  and  tax  dollars  that  have  been   reallocated  from  the  industrial  class  as  of  year‐end.  To  provide  a  clearer  picture  of  actual  overall  change,  we   have  included  a  special  subtotal  line  for  each  growth  table.  These  rolled‐up  amounts  show  the  industrial   class  growth  without  the  policy  shift  created  by  the  introduction  of  the  new  class  at  year‐end.   © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1481 of 1679       Wainfleet 2023   Full CVA  Growth 2024   Full CVA  Growth Realty   Tax Class $ % $          % Taxable Residential 5,445,800 0.57% 12,234,855 1.27% Farm 8,411,500 4.13% 926,500 0.44%  Managed Forest 89,800 5.11% ‐65,400 ‐3.54% Multi‐Residential 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Commercial 2,469,700 11.82% 3,467,900 14.84% Industrial 4,423,400 95.78% ‐4,620,700 ‐51.10%  Aggregate Extraction 4,663,700 100.00% Pipeline 28,000 0.47% 4,000 0.07%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 20,868,200 1.75% 16,610,855 1.37%  Payment In  Lieu Residential 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Commercial 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Industrial 0 0.00% 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu 0 0.00% 0 0.00%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 20,868,200 1.75% 16,610,855 1.37%  Special Sub‐Total 2023  Full  CVA  Growth 2024   Full CVA  Growth  Industrial  + AE 4,423,400 95.78% 43,000 0.48%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Assessment  Growth  Comparison (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1482 of 1679                                                                                              w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Revenue  Growth (Annualized) Wainfleet 2024 Local General Levy Annualized Growth Realty Tax Class As Returned As Revised $ % Taxable Residential $7,972,789 $8,074,282 $101,493 1.27% Farm $440,121 $442,043 $1,921 0.44% Managed Forest $3,834 $3,698 ‐$136 ‐3.55% Multi‐Residential $7,468 $7,468 $0 0.00% Commercial $336,270 $386,179 $49,909 14.84% Industrial $197,267 $96,457 ‐$100,809 ‐51.10% Aggregate Extraction $0 $101,748 $101,748 100.00% Pipeline $84,944 $85,000 $56 0.07% Sub‐Total: Taxable $9,042,693 $9,196,875 $154,182 1.71% Payment In Lieu Residential $2,229 $2,229 $0 0.00% Commercial $19,464 $19,464 $0 0.00% Industrial $225 $225 $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $21,918 $21,918 $0 0.00% Total (Taxable + PIL) $9,064,611 $9,218,793 $154,182 1.70% 2024 Local General Levy Growth Special Sub‐Total As Returned As Revised $ % Industrial + AE $197,267 $198,205 $939 0.48% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1483 of 1679                                                                                         Special Sub‐Total  2023  Local Growth  2024  Local Growth  Industrial  + AE $91,233 96.11% $939 0.48%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Annualized  Local  Revenue  Growth  Comparison (Local  General  Purpose  Levy) Wainfleet 2023 Local Annualized 2024 Local Annualized Revenue Growth Revenue Growth Realty Tax Class $ % $ % Taxable Residential $42,708 0.57% $101,493 1.27% Farm $16,491 4.13% $1,921 0.44% Managed Forest $176 5.10% ‐$136 ‐3.55% Multi‐Residential $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Commercial $33,442 11.83% $49,909 14.84% Industrial $91,233 96.11% ‐$100,809 ‐51.10% Aggregate Extraction $0 0.00% $101,748 100.00% Pipeline $374 0.47% $56 0.07% Sub‐Total: Taxable $184,424 2.21% $154,182 1.71% Payment In Lieu Residential $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Commercial $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Industrial $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Total (Taxable + PIL) $184,424 2.20% $154,182 1.70% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1484 of 1679      Wainfleet  Realty  Tax Class  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Ratios‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2025   Start  2024 Actual    Change Ratio %  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Rates‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2025  Revenue  2024 Actual  Change  Netural (Notional) % Taxable Residential Farm  Managed Forest Multi‐Residential Commercial Industrial  Aggregate Extraction Pipeline 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 2.630000 1.702100 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 2.140048 1.702100 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% ‐18.63% 0.00% 0.00829541 0.00207385 0.00207385 0.01634196 0.01439171 0.02181693 0.02181693 0.01411962 0.00831254 0.00207814 0.00207814 0.01637570 0.01442143 0.02186198 0.01778923 0.01414877 0.21% 0.21% 0.21% 0.21% 0.21% 0.21% ‐18.46% 0.21%  Sub‐Total of   Taxable Levy $9,196,875 $9,196,878 0.00%  Payment In  Lieu Residential Commercial Industrial 1.000000 1.734900 2.630000 1.000000 1.734900 2.630000 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00829541 0.01439171 0.02181693 0.00831254 0.01442143 0.02186198 0.21% 0.21% 0.21% Sub‐Total  of   Payment  In  Lieu Levy $21,918 $21,964 0.21% Total  Taxable   + PIL  Levies  Based  on  Rate  Set $9,218,793 $9,218,842 0.00%                                                                                             ~VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Starting  Ratios  and  Revenue  Neutral  (Notional)  Tax  Rates(Local  General  Levy) NOTE: These results are based on preliminary start ratios and notional levy amounts and are subject to change based on municipal policy decisions, spending decisions and/or Provincial policy updates. No rates or ratios should be used for actual taxation purposes without independent verification. © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1485 of 1679                                                         w VOXTUR® MTAG Client Report Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Interclass  Tax  Shifts (Local  General  Levy:  Revenue  Neutral ‐Start  Ratios) Wainfleet Local General Levy Change Realty Tax Class 2024 as Revised 2025 Notional $ % Taxable Residential $8,074,282 $8,090,956 $16,674 0.21% Farm $442,043 $442,957 $914 0.21% Managed Forest $3,698 $3,706 $8 0.22% Multi‐Residential $7,468 $7,484 $16 0.21% Commercial $386,179 $386,978 $799 0.21% Industrial $96,457 $96,657 $200 0.21% Aggregate Extraction $101,748 $82,964 ‐$18,784 ‐18.46% Pipeline $85,000 $85,176 $176 0.21% Sub‐Total: Taxable $9,196,875 $9,196,878 $3 0.00% Payment In Lieu Residential $2,229 $2,234 $5 0.22% Commercial $19,464 $19,505 $41 0.21% Industrial $225 $225 $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $21,918 $21,964 $46 0.21% Total (Taxable + PIL) $9,218,793 $9,218,842 $49 0.00% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1486 of 1679                                                                VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Upper‐Tier  Levy  Shifts (Upper‐Tier  General  Levy) Wainfleet Upper‐Tier General Levy Change Realty Tax Class 2024 as Revised 2025 Notional $ % Taxable Residential $6,483,547 $6,484,861 $1,314 0.02% Farm $354,956 $355,028 $72 0.02% Managed Forest $2,970 $2,970 $0 0.00% Multi‐Residential $5,997 $5,998 $1 0.02% Commercial $310,098 $310,161 $63 0.02% Industrial $77,452 $77,470 $18 0.02% Aggregate Extraction $81,702 $66,495 ‐$15,207 ‐18.61% Pipeline $68,254 $68,268 $14 0.02% Sub‐Total: Taxable $7,384,976 $7,371,251 ‐$13,725 ‐0.19% Payment In Lieu Residential $1,790 $1,790 $0 0.00% Commercial $15,630 $15,633 $3 0.02% Industrial $180 $180 $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $17,600 $17,603 $3 0.02% Total (Taxable + PIL) $7,402,576 $7,388,854 ‐$13,722 ‐0.19% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1487 of 1679       Welland Realty   Tax Class  As  2024 Returned  Full CVA  As Revised  Full    $  CVA       Growth % Taxable Residential 4,705,857,491 4,840,731,831 134,874,340 2.87% Farm 22,417,900 23,440,300 1,022,400 4.56%  Managed Forest 1,134,200 1,261,900 127,700 11.26%  New Multi‐Residential 28,213,500 51,007,234 22,793,734 80.79% Multi‐Residential 137,789,700 137,582,100 ‐207,600 ‐0.15% Commercial 422,017,611 433,944,414 11,926,803 2.83% Industrial 141,560,043 141,376,057 ‐183,986 ‐0.13% Pipeline 22,108,000 22,620,000 512,000 2.32%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 5,481,098,445 5,651,963,836 170,865,391 3.12% Payment   In Lieu Residential 890,100 890,100 0 0.00% Commercial 11,884,000 12,480,700 596,700 5.02% Industrial 601,300 560,500 ‐40,800 ‐6.79% Landfill 1,334,300 1,334,300 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu 14,709,700 15,265,600 555,900 3.78%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 5,495,808,145 5,667,229,436 171,421,291 3.12%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Assessment  Growth (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1488 of 1679       Welland 2023   Full CVA  Growth 2024   Full CVA  Growth Realty   Tax Class $ % $          % Taxable Residential 152,047,786 3.34% 134,874,340 2.87% Farm 768,500 3.55% 1,022,400 4.56%  Managed Forest ‐38,500 ‐3.28% 127,700 11.26%  New Multi‐Residential 2,831,000 11.15% 22,793,734 80.79% Multi‐Residential ‐470,000 ‐0.34% ‐207,600 ‐0.15% Commercial 10,972,883 2.67% 11,926,803 2.83% Industrial 1,814,700 1.30% ‐183,986 ‐0.13% Pipeline 334,000 1.53% 512,000 2.32%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 168,260,369 3.17% 170,865,391 3.12%  Payment In  Lieu Residential 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Commercial 0 0.00% 596,700 5.02% Industrial 3,800 0.64% ‐40,800 ‐6.79% Landfill 0 0.00% 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment In  Lieu 3,800 0.03% 555,900 3.78%  Total  (Taxable +  PIL) 168,264,169 3.16% 171,421,291 3.12%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Assessment  Growth  Comparison (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1489 of 1679       Welland  Realty  Tax Class  As  2024  Local Returned  General Levy  As Revised    Annualized    $                     Growth % Taxable Residential $37,661,736 $38,742,505 $1,080,770 2.87% Farm $44,910 $46,958 $2,048 4.56%  Managed Forest $2,272 $2,528 $256 11.27%  New Multi‐Residential $226,079 $408,729 $182,650 80.79% Multi‐Residential $2,175,139 $2,171,861 ‐$3,277 ‐0.15% Commercial $5,866,905 $6,032,712 $165,807 2.83% Industrial $2,983,324 $2,979,446 ‐$3,878 ‐0.13% Pipeline $301,536 $308,519 $6,983 2.32%  Sub‐Total: Taxable $49,261,901 $50,693,258 $1,431,359 2.91%  Payment  In Lieu Residential $7,132 $7,132 $0 0.00% Commercial $165,212 $173,507 $8,295 5.02% Industrial $12,672 $11,812 ‐$860 ‐6.79% Landfill $31,437 $31,437 $0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu $216,453 $223,888 $7,435 3.43%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) $49,478,354 $50,917,146 $1,438,794 2.91%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Revenue  Growth (Annualized) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1490 of 1679                                                                                                 w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Annualized  Local  Revenue  Growth  Comparison (Local  General  Purpose  Levy) Welland Realty Tax Class Taxable 2023 Local Annualized Revenue Growth $ % 2024 Local Annualized Revenue Growth $ % Residential $1,182,489 3.34% $1,080,770 2.87% Farm $1,494 3.55% $2,048 4.56% Managed Forest New Multi‐Residential ‐$75 $22,017 ‐3.29% 11.15% $256 $182,650 11.27% 80.79% Multi‐Residential ‐$7,201 ‐0.34% ‐$3,277 ‐0.15% Commercial $145,776 2.64% $165,807 2.83% Industrial $42,114 1.48% ‐$3,878 ‐0.13% Pipeline Sub‐Total: Taxable Payment In Lieu Residential $4,421 $1,391,035 $0 1.53% 3.00% 0.00% $6,983 $1,431,359 $0 2.32% 2.91% 0.00% Commercial $0 0.00% $8,295 5.02% Industrial $78 0.64% ‐$860 ‐6.79% Landfill $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $78 0.04% $7,435 3.43% Total (Taxable + PIL) $1,391,113 2.99% $1,438,794 2.91% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1491 of 1679      Welland  Realty  Tax Class  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Ratios‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2025   Start  2024 Actual    Change Ratio %  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Rates‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2025  Revenue  2024 Actual  Change  Netural (Notional) % Taxable Residential Farm  Managed Forest  New Multi‐Residential Multi‐Residential Commercial Industrial Pipeline 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.000000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 1.702100 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.000000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 1.702100 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00801316 0.00200329 0.00200329 0.00801316 0.01578593 0.01390204 0.02107462 0.01363921 0.00801316 0.00200329 0.00200329 0.00801316 0.01578593 0.01390204 0.02107462 0.01363921 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%  Sub‐Total of   Taxable Levy $50,693,258 $50,693,254 0.00%  Payment In  Lieu Residential Commercial Industrial Landfill 1.000000 1.734900 2.630000 1.000000 1.734900 2.630000 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00801316 0.01390204 0.02107462 0.00801316 0.01390204 0.02107462 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Sub‐Total  of   Payment  In  Lieu Levy $223,888 $223,888 0.00% Total  Taxable   + PIL  Levies  Based  on  Rate  Set $50,917,146 $50,917,142 0.00%                                                                                             ~VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Starting  Ratios  and  Revenue  Neutral  (Notional)  Tax  Rates(Local  General  Levy) NOTE: These results are based on preliminary start ratios and notional levy amounts and are subject to change based on municipal policy decisions, spending decisions and/or Provincial policy updates. No rates or ratios should be used for actual taxation purposes without independent verification. © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1492 of 1679                                                                            w VOXTUR® MTAG Client Report Local Results Table Year‐Over‐Year Interclass Tax Shifts (Local General Levy: Revenue Neutral ‐Start Ratios) Welland Local General Levy Change Realty Tax Class 2024 as Revised 2025 Notional $ % Taxable Residential $38,742,505 $38,742,505 $0 0.00% Farm $46,958 $46,958 $0 0.00% Managed Forest $2,528 $2,528 $0 0.00% New Multi‐Residential $408,729 $408,729 $0 0.00% Multi‐Residential $2,171,861 $2,171,861 $0 0.00% Commercial $6,032,712 $6,032,709 ‐$3 0.00% Industrial $2,979,446 $2,979,445 ‐$1 0.00% Pipeline $308,519 $308,519 $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Taxable $50,693,258 $50,693,254 ‐$4 0.00% Payment In Lieu Residential $7,132 $7,132 $0 0.00% Commercial $173,507 $173,507 $0 0.00% Industrial $11,812 $11,812 $0 0.00% Landfill $31,437 $31,437 $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $223,888 $223,888 $0 0.00% Total (Taxable + PIL) $50,917,146 $50,917,142 ‐$4 0.00% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1493 of 1679                                                                      VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Upper‐Tier  Levy  Shifts (Upper‐Tier  General  Levy) Welland Upper‐Tier General Levy Change Realty Tax Class 2024 as Revised 2025 Notional $ % Taxable Residential $32,205,533 $32,212,060 $6,527 0.02% Farm $39,035 $39,043 $8 0.02% Managed Forest $2,101 $2,102 $1 0.05% New Multi‐Residential $339,765 $339,834 $69 0.02% Multi‐Residential $1,805,406 $1,805,772 $366 0.02% Commercial $5,014,818 $5,015,834 $1,016 0.02% Industrial $2,476,727 $2,477,229 $502 0.02% Pipeline $256,463 $256,515 $52 0.02% Sub‐Total: Taxable $42,139,848 $42,148,389 $8,541 0.02% Payment In Lieu Residential $5,929 $5,931 $2 0.03% Commercial $144,232 $144,261 $29 0.02% Industrial $9,819 $9,821 $2 0.02% Landfill $26,133 $26,138 $5 0.02% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $186,113 $186,151 $38 0.02% Total (Taxable + PIL) $42,325,961 $42,334,540 $8,579 0.02% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1494 of 1679        West Lincoln  Realty  Tax Class  As  2024 Returned  Full CVA  As Revised  Full    $  CVA       Growth % Taxable Residential 1,848,487,509 1,853,098,200 4,610,691 0.25% Farm 497,581,032 501,011,932 3,430,900 0.69%  Managed Forest 2,481,900 2,674,500 192,600 7.76% Multi‐Residential 7,043,000 7,043,000 0 0.00% Commercial 83,323,499 85,239,799 1,916,300 2.30% Industrial 39,754,800 45,139,600 5,384,800 13.55% Pipeline 29,179,000 29,190,000 11,000 0.04%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 2,507,850,740 2,523,397,031 15,546,291 0.62%  Payment  In Lieu Residential 554,600 554,600 0 0.00% Commercial 2,986,000 2,986,000 0 0.00% Industrial 105,100 105,100 0 0.00% Landfill 386,000 386,000 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu 4,031,700 4,031,700 0 0.00%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 2,511,882,440 2,527,428,731 15,546,291 0.62%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Assessment  Growth (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1495 of 1679        West Lincoln 2023  Full  CVA  Growth 2024  Full  CVA  Growth Realty   Tax Class $ % $          % Taxable Residential ‐2,479,744 ‐0.13% 4,610,691 0.25% Farm 19,302,248 4.04% 3,430,900 0.69%  Managed Forest ‐99,700 ‐3.86% 192,600 7.76% Multi‐Residential 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Commercial 173,827 0.21% 1,916,300 2.30% Industrial 1,813,900 4.78% 5,384,800 13.55% Pipeline 31,000 0.11% 11,000 0.04%  Sub‐Total: Taxable 18,741,531 0.75% 15,546,291 0.62%  Payment In  Lieu Residential 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Commercial 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Industrial 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Landfill 0 0.00% 0 0.00%  Sub‐Total:  Payment  In Lieu 0 0.00% 0 0.00%  Total  (Taxable  + PIL) 18,741,531 0.75% 15,546,291 0.62%          w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Assessment  Growth  Comparison (Full  /  Non  Phase‐Adjusted  CVA) © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1496 of 1679                                                                            w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table 2024  Local  Revenue  Growth (Annualized) West Lincoln 2024 Local General Levy Annualized Growth Realty Tax Class As Returned As Revised $ % Taxable Residential $7,850,360 $7,869,941 $19,581 0.25% Farm $528,297 $531,939 $3,643 0.69% Managed Forest $2,635 $2,840 $204 7.74% Multi‐Residential $58,925 $58,925 $0 0.00% Commercial $613,924 $628,044 $14,120 2.30% Industrial $444,037 $504,182 $60,145 13.55% Pipeline $210,925 $211,005 $80 0.04% Sub‐Total: Taxable $9,709,103 $9,806,876 $97,773 1.01% Payment In Lieu Residential $2,356 $2,356 $0 0.00% Commercial $22,001 $22,001 $0 0.00% Industrial $1,174 $1,174 $0 0.00% Landfill $4,820 $4,820 $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $30,351 $30,351 $0 0.00% Total (Taxable + PIL) $9,739,454 $9,837,227 $97,773 1.00% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1497 of 1679                                                                                                  w VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐To‐Year  Annualized  Local  Revenue  Growth  Comparison (Local  General  Purpose  Levy) West Lincoln Realty Tax Class Taxable 2023 Local Annualized Revenue Growth $ % 2024 Local Annualized Revenue Growth $ % Residential ‐$9,886 ‐0.13% $19,581 0.25% Farm $19,238 4.04% $3,643 0.69% Managed Forest Multi‐Residential ‐$99 $0 ‐3.85% 0.00% $204 $0 7.74% 0.00% Commercial $982 0.17% $14,120 2.30% Industrial $19,108 4.82% $60,145 13.55% Pipeline Sub‐Total: Taxable Payment In Lieu Residential $211 $29,554 $0 0.11% 0.33% 0.00% $80 $97,773 $0 0.04% 1.01% 0.00% Commercial $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Industrial $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Landfill $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $0 0.00% $0 0.00% Total (Taxable + PIL) $29,554 0.32% $97,773 1.00% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1498 of 1679       West Lincoln  Realty  Tax Class  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Ratios‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2025   Start  2024 Actual    Change Ratio %  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Tax Rates‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 2025  Revenue  2024 Actual  Change  Netural (Notional) % Taxable Residential Farm  Managed Forest Multi‐Residential Commercial Industrial Pipeline 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 1.702100 1.000000 0.250000 0.250000 1.970000 1.734900 2.630000 1.702100 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00424691 0.00106173 0.00106173 0.00836642 0.00736797 0.01116938 0.00722867 0.00424691 0.00106173 0.00106173 0.00836642 0.00736797 0.01116938 0.00722867 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%  Sub‐Total of   Taxable Levy $9,806,876 $9,806,875 0.00%  Payment In  Lieu Residential Commercial Industrial Landfill 1.000000 1.734900 2.630000 1.000000 1.734900 2.630000 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00424691 0.00736797 0.01116938 0.00424691 0.00736797 0.01116938 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Sub‐Total   of  Payment  In  Lieu Levy $30,351 $30,351 0.00% Total   Taxable  + PIL  Levies  Based  on  Rate  Set $9,837,227 $9,837,226 0.00%                                                                                             ~VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Starting  Ratios  and  Revenue  Neutral  (Notional)  Tax  Rates(Local  General  Levy) NOTE: These results are based on preliminary start ratios and notional levy amounts and are subject to change based on municipal policy decisions, spending decisions and/or Provincial policy updates. No rates or ratios should be used for actual taxation purposes without independent verification. © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1499 of 1679                                                                     w VOXTUR® MTAG Client Report Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Interclass  Tax  Shifts (Local  General  Levy:  Revenue  Neutral ‐Start  Ratios) West Lincoln Local General Levy Change Realty Tax Class 2024 as Revised 2025 Notional $ % Taxable Residential $7,869,941 $7,869,941 $0 0.00% Farm $531,939 $531,939 $0 0.00% Managed Forest $2,840 $2,840 $0 0.00% Multi‐Residential $58,925 $58,925 $0 0.00% Commercial $628,044 $628,043 ‐$1 0.00% Industrial $504,182 $504,182 $0 0.00% Pipeline $211,005 $211,005 $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Taxable $9,806,876 $9,806,875 ‐$1 0.00% Payment In Lieu Residential $2,356 $2,356 $0 0.00% Commercial $22,001 $22,001 $0 0.00% Industrial $1,174 $1,174 $0 0.00% Landfill $4,820 $4,820 $0 0.00% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $30,351 $30,351 $0 0.00% Total (Taxable + PIL) $9,837,227 $9,837,226 ‐$1 0.00% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1500 of 1679                                                                       VOXTUR® MTAG Tax Policy Study Local  Results  Table Year‐Over‐Year  Upper‐Tier  Levy  Shifts (Upper‐Tier  General  Levy) West Lincoln Upper‐Tier General Levy Change Realty Tax Class 2024 as Revised 2025 Notional $ % Taxable Residential $12,343,691 $12,346,193 $2,502 0.02% Farm $834,325 $834,495 $170 0.02% Managed Forest $4,454 $4,455 $1 0.02% Multi‐Residential $92,421 $92,440 $19 0.02% Commercial $985,062 $985,262 $200 0.02% Industrial $790,787 $790,948 $161 0.02% Pipeline $330,953 $331,020 $67 0.02% Sub‐Total: Taxable $15,381,693 $15,384,813 $3,120 0.02% Payment In Lieu Residential $3,694 $3,695 $1 0.03% Commercial $34,507 $34,514 $7 0.02% Industrial $1,841 $1,842 $1 0.05% Landfill $7,560 $7,562 $2 0.03% Sub‐Total: Payment In Lieu $47,602 $47,613 $11 0.02% Total (Taxable + PIL) $15,429,295 $15,432,426 $3,131 0.02% © Voxtur Analytics, All Rights Reserved Page 1501 of 1679 CSD 6-2025 February 5, 2025 Appendix 2 History of Regional Tax Ratios The following table summarizes the annual tax ratio by realty tax class. The sections highlighted in the table below reflect the most recent ratio changes (multi-residential and commercial classes): Realty Tax Class 2017 Ratios 2018 Ratios 2019 Ratios 2020 Ratios 2021 Ratios 2022 Ratios 2023 Ratios 2024 Ratios 2025 Start Ratios Ranges of Fairness -Min Ranges of Fairness -Max Threshold -Max Subject to Levy Restriction Residential 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.00 1.00 - N/A Farm 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 - 0.25 - N/A Managed Forest 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.250000 0.25 0.25 - N/A New Multi-Residential 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.00 1.10 - N/A Multi-Residential 2.000000 1.970000 1.970000 1.970000 1.970000 1.970000 1.970000 1.970000 1.970000 1.00 1.10 2.00 No Commercial 1.758600 1.734900 1.734900 1.734900 1.734900 1.734900 1.734900 1.734900 1.734900 0.60 1.10 1.98 No Industrial 2.630000 2.630000 2.630000 2.630000 2.630000 2.630000 2.630000 2.630000 2.630000 0.60 1.10 2.63 No Aggregate Extraction 2.630000 2.140048 0.60 1.10 2.14 No Landfill 2.940261 2.940261 2.940261 2.940261 2.940261 2.940261 2.940261 2.940261 2.940261 0.60 1.10 3.09 No Pipeline 1.702100 1.702100 1.702100 1.702100 1.702100 1.702100 1.702100 1.702100 1.702100 0.60 0.70 - N/A Page 1502 of 1679 CSD 6-2025 Appendix 3 February 5, 2025 Performance Measures Table 1 below provides the measure of total property taxes for the median household incomes in Niagara verses the BMA study average for both 2024 and 2023, while Table 2 compares the year over year change in average household income between Niagara and the BMA study average. As can be noted, the variance between the Region and BMA averages has grown from 2023 to 2024. Note that the study results are based on 2024 rates, and therefore are not impacted by 2025 tax policy decisions and approved budgets. Table 1 – BMA Study Compared – Total Property Taxes and Municipal Burden Tax Burdens Category Niagara Average* 2024 Study Average 2024 Niagara Average* 2023 Study Average 2023 Total Property Taxes as % of Hhld. Income 4.15% 3.63% 4.09% 3.59% Total Municipal Burden: Taxes and W/WW as % of Hhld. Income 5.35% 4.90% 5.24% 4.80% *Calculated using a simple average of all LAMs Table 2 – Niagara Avg. Household Income vs BMA Study Compared BLANK 2024 2023 % Increase Niagara Average Household Income $116,923 $113,438 3.07% Survey Average Household Income $124,639 $121,388 2.69% The combined Niagara Region, Local Area Municipalities, and education tax levy compares competitively to the BMA study average for 121 Ontario Municipalities surveyed. Total taxes as classified by BMA are in the mid-range tax burden for all but the Residential, Standard Industrial, Hotels and Walk-up multi-residential which are in the high-range. The Region is above the study average in eight categories per Table 3 below. Page 1503 of 1679 CSD 6-2025 Appendix 3 February 5, 2025 Table 3 – Property Tax Burden by Property Class verses BMA Average Property Class Property Type Rank Metric Niagara Average*$ Study Average $ Variance $ Variance % Compare to Study residental Residential residental Bungalow High Tax/ Unit 4,381 3,971 410 10.32% Above 2 Storey High Tax/ Unit 5,494 5,246 548 10.45% Above Executive High Tax/ Unit 7,832 7,336 496 6.76% Above Multi-Res multi-res Walk-Up High Tax/ Unit 1,932 1,568 364 23.21% Above Mid/High-Rise Mid Tax/ Unit 2,015 2,068 37 1.79% Above commercial commercial Commercial commercial Office Buildings Mid Tax/ Sq. Ft. 3.22 3.30 -0.08 -2.42%Below Shopping Mid Tax/ Sq. Ft. 4.55 3.99 0.56 14.04% Above Hotels High Tax/ Unit 2,132 1,742 390 22.39% Above Motels Mid Tax/ Unit 1,265 1,309 -44 -3.36%Below industrial Industrial Standard Industrial High Tax/ Sq. Ft. 2.09 1.68 0.41 24.40% Above Large Industrial Mid Tax/ Sq. Ft. 1.04 1.18 -0.14 -11.86%Below *Calculated using a simple average of all LAMs. Page 1504 of 1679 CSD 6-2025 February 5, 2025 Appendix 4 Subclass Property Tax Rate Reductions Program Summary In 2018, the Province of Ontario provided municipalities with a greater range of options to modify or eliminate the Vacant Unit Property Tax Rebate and Commercial/Industrial Vacant/Excess Land Subclass programs. The Region’s vacancy unit rebate program provided a 30% rebate starting in 2018, applicable to both commercial and industrial property classes if vacancies are experienced in that year. The Region’s vacant and excess land discount factor for commercial and industrial properties was 30% in 2018 (which would be applied to properties that are vacant or have excess land). Starting in 2019, the recommended program phase-out schedule would reduce this discount factor, until it reached 0% by 2024. Table 1 summarizes the phase-out schedule (and reductions) by year for both the Vacant Unit Rebate and the Vacant/Excess Land Reduction program: Table 1 – Commercial/Industrial Vacant/Excess Land Subclass program – phase out schedule Year Vacant Unit Rebate % Vacant/Excess Land Reduction % 2018 30% 30% 2019 20% 30% 2020 10% 30% 2021 0% 22.5% 2022 0% 15% 2023 0% 7.5% 2024 and onwards 0% 0% Page 1505 of 1679 CSD 6-2025February 5, 2025 Appendix 5 Table 1 - General Levy Municipality Interim Payment Due March 5, 2025 Interim Payment Due May 7, 2025 Final Payment Due August 6, 2025 Final Payment Due October 8, 2025 2025 Total Levy Fort Erie $ 8,496,813 $ 8,496,813 8,754,193 8,754,193 34,502,011 Grimsby $ 9,869,660 $ 9,869,660 10,286,406 10,286,406 40,312,131 Lincoln $ 8,058,220 $ 8,058,220 8,427,192 8,427,192 32,970,824 Niagara Falls $ 27,174,830 $ 27,174,830 28,922,688 28,922,688 112,195,034 Niagara-on-the-Lak $ 11,068,611 $ 11,068,611 11,791,689 11,791,689 45,720,598 Pelham $ 5,692,131 $ 5,692,131 5,966,696 5,966,696 23,317,654 Port Colborne $ 4,133,321 $ 4,133,321 4,437,913 4,437,913 17,142,467 St. Catharines $ 32,355,875 $ 32,355,875 34,405,980 34,405,980 133,523,709 Thorold $ 6,350,039 $ 6,350,039 6,673,659 6,673,659 26,047,396 Wainfleet $ 1,967,985 $ 1,967,985 2,061,679 2,061,679 8,059,328 Welland $ 11,177,596 $ 11,177,596 11,863,792 11,863,792 46,082,776 West Lincoln $ 4,062,355 $ 4,062,355 4,348,108 4,348,108 16,820,925 Regional Total Taxable Only 130,407,434 130,407,434 137,939,993 137,939,993 536,694,853 2025 Interim and Final Levy Payments and Dates Page 1 of 4Page 1506 of 1679 CSD 6-2025February 5, 2025 Appendix 5 Table 2 - Waste Management Special Levy Municipality Interim Payment Due March 5, 2025 Interim Payment Due May 7, 2025 Final Payment Due August 6, 2025 Final Payment Due October 8, 2025 2025 Total Levy Fort Erie $ 850,933 $ 850,932 866,651 866,651 3,435,166 Grimsby $ 618,513 $ 618,512 652,249 652,249 2,541,523 Lincoln $ 577,180 $ 577,181 541,594 541,594 2,237,549 Niagara Falls $ 2,174,732 $ 2,174,733 2,337,389 2,337,389 9,024,243 Niagara-on-the-Lak $ 493,567 $ 493,566 485,956 485,956 1,959,045 Pelham $ 399,748 $ 399,748 404,129 404,129 1,607,753 Port Colborne $ 540,663 $ 540,663 552,897 552,897 2,187,119 St. Catharines $ 3,350,010 $ 3,350,009 3,365,269 3,365,269 13,430,557 Thorold $ 572,188 $ 572,187 542,304 542,304 2,228,983 Wainfleet $ 163,688 $ 163,689 170,228 170,228 667,832 Welland $ 1,270,147 $ 1,270,148 1,290,333 1,290,333 5,120,960 West Lincoln $ 280,574 $ 280,575 291,418 291,418 1,143,985 Regional Total Taxable Only 11,291,943 11,291,943 11,500,415 11,500,415 45,584,715 Page 2 of 4Page 1507 of 1679 CSD 6-2025February 5, 2025 Appendix 5 Table 3 - Transit Special Levy Municipality Interim Payment Due March 5, 2025 Interim Payment Due May 7, 2025 Final Payment Due August 6, 2025 Final Payment Due October 8, 2025 2025 Total Levy Fort Erie $ 889,164 $ 889,163 1,197,990 1,197,990 4,174,307 Grimsby $ 589,023 $ 589,022 487,792 487,792 2,153,629 Lincoln $ 428,338 $ 428,338 504,118 504,118 1,864,912 Niagara Falls $ 4,157,089 $ 4,157,089 4,093,974 4,093,974 16,502,125 Niagara-on-the-Lak $ 761,359 $ 761,359 581,677 581,677 2,686,072 Pelham $ 193,639 $ 193,638 303,542 303,542 994,360 Port Colborne $ 275,027 $ 275,028 305,727 305,727 1,161,509 St. Catharines $ 5,068,239 $ 5,068,239 6,593,045 6,593,045 23,322,568 Thorold $ 558,448 $ 558,448 545,320 545,320 2,207,535 Wainfleet $ 65,989 $ 65,990 65,519 65,519 263,017 Welland $ 1,349,636 $ 1,349,636 2,037,342 2,037,342 6,773,955 West Lincoln $ 141,639 $ 141,639 134,165 134,165 551,607 Regional Total Taxable Only 14,477,590 14,477,589 16,850,209 16,850,209 62,655,596 Page 3 of 4Page 1508 of 1679 CSD 6-2025February 5, 2025 Appendix 5 Table 4 - Total General, Waste Management & Transit Levy Municipality Interim Payment Due March 5, 2025 Interim Payment Due May 7, 2025 Final Payment Due August 6, 2025 Final Payment Due October 8, 2025 2025 Total Levy Fort Erie $ 10,236,910 $ 10,236,908 $ 10,818,834 $ 10,818,834 42,111,484 Grimsby $ 11,077,196 $ 11,077,194 $ 11,426,447 $ 11,426,447 45,007,283 Lincoln $ 9,063,738 $ 9,063,739 $ 9,472,904 $ 9,472,904 37,073,285 Niagara Falls $ 33,506,651 $ 33,506,652 $ 35,354,050 $ 35,354,050 137,721,402 Niagara-on-the-Lak $ 12,323,537 $ 12,323,536 $ 12,859,322 $ 12,859,322 50,365,715 Pelham $ 6,285,518 $ 6,285,517 $ 6,674,366 $ 6,674,366 25,919,767 Port Colborne $ 4,949,011 $ 4,949,012 $ 5,296,536 $ 5,296,536 20,491,095 St. Catharines $ 40,774,124 $ 40,774,123 $ 44,364,294 $ 44,364,294 170,276,834 Thorold $ 7,480,675 $ 7,480,674 $ 7,761,283 $ 7,761,283 30,483,914 Wainfleet $ 2,197,662 $ 2,197,664 $ 2,297,426 $ 2,297,426 8,990,177 Welland $ 13,797,379 $ 13,797,380 $ 15,191,466 $ 15,191,466 57,977,691 West Lincoln $ 4,484,568 $ 4,484,569 $ 4,773,690 $ 4,773,690 18,516,517 Regional Total Taxable Only 156,176,967 156,176,966 166,290,616 166,290,616 644,935,164 Page 4 of 4Page 1509 of 1679 Page 1510 of 1679 Page 1511 of 1679 Page 1512 of 1679 Page 1513 of 1679 Page 1514 of 1679 Page 1515 of 1679 Page 1516 of 1679 Page 1517 of 1679 Page 1518 of 1679 Page 1519 of 1679 Page 1520 of 1679 Page 1521 of 1679 Page 1522 of 1679 Page 1523 of 1679 Page 1524 of 1679 Page 1525 of 1679 Page 1526 of 1679 Page 1527 of 1679 Page 1528 of 1679 Page 1529 of 1679 Page 1530 of 1679 Page 1531 of 1679 Page 1532 of 1679 Page 1533 of 1679 Page 1534 of 1679 Page 1535 of 1679 Page 1536 of 1679 Page 1537 of 1679 Page 1538 of 1679 Page 1539 of 1679 Page 1540 of 1679 Page 1541 of 1679 Listen, Learn, Lead A series by the Niagara Falls Anti-Racism Committee Listen, Learn, Lead is more than just a lecture series—it’s an opportunity to engage with thoughtful leaders, expand your knowledge, and ignite your potential as a leader. Whether you're looking to deepen your expertise, stay ahead in your field, or explore new perspectives, this series offers insightful talks on critical issues that impact our communities and industries. Join the Niagara Falls Anti- Racism Committee for an enriching experience where you'll not only listen to experts but also gain the tools and inspiration to take action, lead with confidence, and drive positive change in your professional and personal life. Don’t miss the chance to grow, connect, and lead the way forward. Date: March 27, 2025 Time: 6:00 PM – 7:00 PM Venue: Niagara Falls Exchange Address: 5943 Sylvia Place, Niagara Falls, ON Registration: Is recommended but not required Register here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/listen-learn-lead-a-series-by-the-niagara-falls-anti-racism-committee- tickets-1269230024169?aff=oddtdtcreator Page 1542 of 1679 UNITED AGAINST HATE CANADA February 26, 2025 A MESSAGE FROM MARVIN ROTRAND, DIRECTOR GENERAL UNITED AGAINST HATE CANADA WE CALL ON CANADIAN CITIES TO ADOPT “BUBBLE LEGISLATION” Dear Friends, A new strategy to foment hate in Canada has been the targeting of religious institutions and faith-based schools. Protesters chanting hateful slogans have on numerous occasions blocked access and egress to such institutions with the aim of disrupting worship, social activities and teaching. Most frequently targeted have been synagogues and Jewish private schools but there have also been many cases of protesters at Sikh gurdwaras and Hindu temples. There have been some arrests but police response has been tentative, despite many cases of overt hate that likely contravened the criminal code. The rules governing protests are. for many police departments, simply not clear enough. That has caused municipalities to consider a new type of legislation which would create a “bubble” or safe zone around such institutions. This would prevent protesters from coming within a certain distance of the institutions while preserving their right to protest. Mayor Steven Del Duca brought such a bylaw to Vaughan City Council in June 2024 making it the first municipality to adopt such a municipal initiative. Entitled “The Protecting Vulnerable Social Infrastructure Bylaw”, Vaughn Council legislated that: “Organizing or participating in a nuisance demonstration within 100 metres of the property line of any vulnerable social infrastructure (such as a place of worship, school, childcare centre, hospital or congregate care facility) is prohibited in Vaughan.” …/2 Page 1543 of 1679 2 The by-law is not intended to prohibit peaceful gatherings, protests or demonstrations, including any such activities that occur as part of a labour union strike. The by-law is intended to protect everyone in Vaughan – all while balancing the fundamental importance of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, with the safety and well-being of community members accessing vulnerable social infrastructure. To give the bylaw teeth, Vaughan Council decided to impose a hefty fine for contravening it: Fines The maximum fine for violating the Protecting Vulnerable Social Infrastructure By-law is $100,000. Vaughan’s bylaw may be read here: https://www.vaughan.ca/residential/by-laws-and-enforcement/protecting-vulnerable- social-infrastructure-by-law Vaughan’s example was followed by the City of Brampton. Together, these two major communities north of Toronto are home to a combined population of over 1.1. million persons. Brampton adopted its own “bubble zone bylaw” in November 2024. It too aimed at preventing nuisance demonstrations outside place of worship and was provoked by clashes at gurdwaras and temples within the municipality. Last December 18, Toronto City Council took a very important step toward preventing hateful rallies that target minority groups. The Council adopted a thoughtful document entitled Policy Framework - City Response to Demonstrations and mandated the City Manager to initiate consultations that will lead, in the words of the motion, to a: ...."by-law, with an emphasis on protecting vulnerable institutions such as places of worship, faith-based schools and cultural institutions, that supports the City's commitment to keeping Torontonians safe from hate and protects Charter rights that address impacts of demonstrations that target people based on their identity." Canada's current anti-hate laws are cumbersome and not always effective. Legislation such as bubble zone bylaws can immediately help prevent the worst cases of intimidation of religious minorities. We anticipate such a motion in Toronto in April or May and should that be adopted, the question will arise as to whether Canada’s other large cities should follow suit. …/3 Page 1544 of 1679 3 Canada already has a form of “bubble legislation” in place as there are laws outlawing protests at clinics. Several provinces have long had laws protecting the space around abortion clinics. Ontario passed its own abortion clinic bubble zone law in 2017, to prevent harassment outside abortion clinics, hospitals, doctors’ homes and offices. That law bars protesters from standing within 50 metres from the clinics while distributing pro-life pamphlets, harassing patients, or carrying graphic posters. British Columbia has had similar rules for decades. Courts have ruled these laws are constitutional. Moreover, during the pandemic, provinces expanded the no protest zones by including hospitals and even schools to prevent anti-vaccine protesters from harassing health care workers. We are seeking bubble legislation at the federal level and in the interim seeking that similar protection be adopted by provincial and municipal governments. That is why at the Quebec Regional Meeting of the National Forum to Combat Antisemitism held February 24, that United Against Hate Canada urged that Mayoralty candidates in this November’s Montreal municipal election commit to the adoption by the City of Montreal of such a bubble bylaw to protect vulnerable institutions and faith-based schools. We also urged the National Forum that meets in Ottawa on March 6 to endorse the bubble legislation strategy and invited all levels of Government to quickly act to put such laws and bylaws in place. United Against Hate Canada endorses the remarks of Michelle Stock, Vice President, Ontario, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, who made the following statement in a news release issued last December 19 in regard to the Toronto Council debate the day before: These remarks are as pertinent in most Canadian cities as in Toronto. “For more than a year, demonstrations marked by antisemitic chants, hateful signs, and physically intimidating behaviour have targeted synagogues, schools, and community centres in Toronto and the GTA. By setting up their protests near these specific institutions, protesters are preventing seniors from attending synagogue. They are yelling vile words at children trying to learn math or English and harassing those accessing services for developmental disabilities. Their actions are intended to intimidate the Jewish community, leaving many fearful of gathering and going about daily life. No child should have to experience this. No reasonable person can argue that a school is an appropriate venue for such demonstrations.” …/4 Page 1545 of 1679 4 Such bylaws would afford protection for all religious minorities. We invite organizations representing different minorities to ally. A combined demand of Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Christians, Jews and others will certainly be heard. We are hopeful that cities across the country will be sensitive to the needs of targeted communities and rapidly enact bubble bylaws. We ask readers of this memo to contact their elected officials at all three levels of Government and ask why we are seeing such slow movement on a strategy that can effectively blunt hate. Candidates for election at any level of government should be asked to clarify their positions on bubble legislation. We believe the public overwhelmingly supports such action. Yours truly, Marvin Rotrand Director General United Against Hate Canada Page 1546 of 1679 February 24, 2025 UNITED AGAINST HATE CANADA BRIEF TO THE QUEBEC REGIONAL MEETING - NATIONAL FORUM TO COMBAT ANTISEMITISM TABLED BY GEMMA RAEBURN ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD AND DIRECTOR GENERAL Dear Friends, United Against Hate Canada is a national human rights organization. Our mission statement outlines our main goals as: - promoting cross cultural communication with a focus on dialogue between different religious and racial minorities; - combatting the unprecedented upsurge in antisemitism witnessed in Canada over the past months; - promoting dialogue between Jews and Muslims in Canada; - highlighting the contributions of the many diverse communities to Canada’s well being and success including promoting the heritage months of racial and religious minorities. Our Board reflects Canada’s diversity. Board members hail from many faiths and origins. While we are not a Jewish organization, we have been appalled by the unprecedented wave of antisemitism witnessed in Canada over the past sixteen months. Many of our interventions have focused on promoting public awareness of antisemitism and working with all three levels of government and law enforcement to combat it. Over the past year, we have strongly advocated for a second national summit to fight antisemitism along the lines of the first summit held in July 2021. Our advocacy led to dozens of motions of support for our position by municipalities right across Canada including here in Cote Saint Luc. We thank Mayor Brownstein for his leadership in publicly and vocally standing up to hatred aimed at the Jewish community. We worked with the Senate and a motion we helped craft calling for a second summit was unanimously adopted. We thank Senators Leo Housakos and Pierre J. Dalphond for being our voice and moving the motion as well as Senators Marc Gold and Don Plett for working to ensure that the vote was unanimous. The Government of Canada has now convened a national forum to combat antisemitism. It will meet in Ottawa on March 6 and we understand that the deliberations of regional meetings such as this one will aid in building the forum agenda and guiding the discussion. We thank Member of Parliament Anthony Housefather for his work to confront antisemitism and for chairing this important Quebec meeting. …/2 Page 1547 of 1679 2 We suggest that the recommendations that need to flow from the forum be along two tracks; establishing new policies and strategies and also ensuring better implementation of tools that already exist. Our recommendations thus will be divided into several distinct sections. We begin with discussion of a report that is already public and then proceed to recommendations that are specifically aimed at Montréal and the province of Quebec. The avenues to follow have already been eloquently articulated by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in its report tabled in the House of Commons on December 10. We support all 19 recommendations that were made. The document should serve as a guidepost for rapid Government action. Today, to begin, we want to focus on three of the subjects advocated in the Standing Committee’s report; those being the IHRA definition, the prosecution of hate crimes and the strengthening of the ability of police to react to hate. RECOMMENDATIONS: SECTION I FOLLOW UP REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS (Focus on IHRA definition, Criminal Code and Police Resources). We ask that this meeting request that the national forum endorse the Standing Committee’s report. The Standing Committee pointed out the importance of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism and noted that much more needs to be done to disseminate and use it. The IHRA definition, as it is commonly referred called, has been adopted by Canada and dozens of other countries but has yet to be properly implemented through the whole of Government although first steps toward doing so began with Prime Minister Trudeau’s pledge at the October 2021 Malmo International Forum to Combat Antisemitism. Canada is on the record pledging the following: “We pledge to continue supporting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and to promoting the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. • We will continue to enhance the adoption and implementation of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. • We will encourage mainstreaming the implementation of the definition to dovetail with the Canadian adoption of the IHRA definition in June 2019, as part of Canada’s federal anti-racism strategy (2019-2022). • We will work internationally to encourage broader cross-regional representation at the IHRA, toward a more inclusive organization." …/3 Page 1548 of 1679 3 We agree with the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights which states that the IHRA definition is the clearest and most easily comprehensible definition of antisemitism. Aside from nations, the definition has been adopted by hundreds of municipalities, provinces and states and an even greater number of civil society organizations including businesses, social and cultural organizations, sports clubs and religious organizations. Among the religious organizations adopting the IHRA definition is the Global Imam’s Council (GIC), the world’s largest non-governmental organization of Imams. The GIC’s support underscored that the vocal opposition to IHRA is actually quite marginal, often promoted by groups financed by malign foreign actors and largely composed of those who deny that Jews are indigenous to Israel, the land where they have dwelt for millennia. Regarding IHRA, the Standing Committee recommended the following: Recommendation 7 That the Government of Canada, respecting the jurisdiction of, and in consultation and collaboration with, the provinces and territories, support the further adoption and implementation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism by governments and institutions across the country, including by: • encouraging university administrations to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and to implement the definition using the IHRA handbook provided by the Government of Canada as a resource; • encouraging university administrations to appoint special advisors on antisemitism trusted by Jewish organizations who recognize the IHRA definition of antisemitism; and • encouraging the integration of the IHRA definition of antisemitism into Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) training for all sectors, including universities, law enforcement and prosecution services. Recommendation 8 That the Government of Canada, in line with its commitment to build strong communities and celebrate multiculturalism, and respecting the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, provide funding to develop a five-year program to enhance the literacy of post-secondary students regarding the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. …/4 Page 1549 of 1679 4 Our comments are as follows: We note that six provinces have also adopted the IHRA definition being Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador. Despite most members of Quebec’s National Assembly publicly supporting the definition it has not been adopted in our province. An effort to bring it to a vote in 2021 was blocked by the lack of unanimity required as the Québec Solidaire party refused consent. We believe this regional meeting should demand that Premier Legault bring a Government motion to adopt the IHRA definition to the National Assembly. We also urge a national effort to convince British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to add their voices by adopting the IHRA definition. For us, applying the IHRA definition throughout the civil service, government agencies and law enforcement would allow stakeholders to better recognize and react to antisemitism. IHRA is also an international organization engaged in important work of Holocaust remembrance. It is currently chaired by the United Kingdom. Israel will assume the Presidency soon for 2025-2026 with Argentina chairing in 2026-2027. We recommend that the Government of Canada seek the 2027-2028 or 2028-2029 Presidency of IHRA. A second key avenue proposed by the Standing Committee deals with enforcing our hate laws. In that regard the Standing Committee recommends: Recommendation 11 That the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada engage with their provincial and territorial counterparts to encourage the establishment of Crown prosecution positions dedicated to hate crimes prosecutions. Recommendation 15 That the Government of Canada consider removing the requirement to obtain the consent of the provincial Attorney General in order to prosecute certain hate crimes. Our comments are as follows: Canada’s hate laws are rarely invoked. The bar to lay charges under section 319 of the criminal code is so high as to discourage its use. The requirement of the consent of the provincial Attorney General further discourages the Crown from using sections 1 through 3 of this article. Recent amendments added section 319.2.1 criminalizing Holocaust distortion and denial. …/5 Page 1550 of 1679 5 While the intention is laudable, there is a glaring loophole as article 319.3b allows claiming that religious belief is a defence to Holocaust distortion and denial. There needs to be immediate action to actually make the prosecution of hate crimes possible in Canada. The number of prosecutions in any given year rarely exceed the fingers of one hand yet the statistics show a crisis of hate in Canada with an explosion of incidents. Finally in regard to the work of the Standing Committee, we broach a third topic, the strengthening of law enforcement in the face of hate. We recommend that the Standing Committee’s Recommendation 15 receive particular support from the National Forum. We also call for support of the proposal currently tabled in the House of Commons for the removal of article 319.3b. In terms of police departments, the Standing Committee recommends the following: Recommendation 13 That the Government of Canada provide additional funding, support and training for police hate crimes units and prosecutors and assistance to local police to establish hate crimes units or bolster them. Recommendation 14 That the Government of Canada move to create a national anti-hate fund to support initiatives at the provincial, territorial, and municipal level, which may include enhanced approaches to crime prevention and programs to reduce antisemitism. Recommendation 17 That the Government of Canada work with police forces across the country to develop a standardized definition of “hate crime” and “hate incident.” Our comments are as follows: We urge that in support of the Standing Committee’s Recommendation 14 that the IHRA definition become part of the curriculum of police technology studies in Quebec colleges as well as at the police academy in Nicolet. Every major police department should be required to have a hate crime unit. For smaller forces where the financial burden of maintaining an effective hate squad unit is impractical, the provinces should be required to provide a central resource possibly in collaboration with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police outside Quebec and Ontario and the Sûreté du Québec and the Ontario Provincial Police. …/6 Page 1551 of 1679 6 Our assessment however is that the RCMP has inadequate resources to provide effective hate crime services. Our experience also has been that the Montréal police department’s hate crimes unit is extremely dedicated but far too small to effectively respond to the tidal wave of antisemitism witnessed since October 2023 in the agglomeration. We urge that more officers and resources be allocated to the SPVM on an ongoing basis and that the police department follow the strategies successfully used by New York during the outbreak of anti-Asian racism during the COVID pandemic and of Toronto in light of heightened antisemitism by temporarily transferring officers to an anti-hate task force aimed at rapidly addressing hateful incidents targeting an identifiable community. However, the Standing Committee’s Recommendation 17 outlines an evident problem. Clear cut cases of hate crimes can be interpreted differently among police forces. A standard understanding of what is a hate crime is vital. This recommendation addresses that major issue. However, as written it does not provide a role for civil society. We urge that civil society organizations representing communities targeted by hate be part of the process of consultation in the effort to standardize the definition of what is a hate crime and a hate incident. In this regard, it would aid the process to publish the current guidelines used by the provincial and territorial attorney generals to help clarify whether there are major disparities from one jurisdiction to another in defining hate. Earlier this month Baltej Singh Dhillon, the first turbaned Sikh to become a RCMP officer, was appointed to become a Senator in Canada. Baltej Singh Dhillon is a retired career police officer, a community leader, and a lifelong advocate for diversity and inclusion. In 1991, he made history as the first RCMP officer to wear a turban. He went on to have a successful 30-year career with the RCMP, playing a key role in several high-profile investigations. Since 2019 he served with British Columbia’s anti-gang agency. Only 33 years ago police uniform rules were rigid and essentially excluded religious minority members who may have had all the qualifications needed for a career in policing except for their inability to wear every part of the standard uniform. The rules, written for a different century, essentially excluded faith communities as well as establishing obstacles regarding height, weight etc. for women. Today things are different. Sikhs serve with distinction in many Canadian police departments. They also serve in some parts of the United States such as in New York City where the more than 100 Sikh officers have formed their own Sikh Officers Association. …/7 Page 1552 of 1679 7 In fact, police departments everywhere outside Quebec are modifying uniform rules to better reflect a more diverse society. The minor change made in regard to Balteej Singh Dhillon to the RCMP uniform rule has allowed the application of qualified candidates who would otherwise not be hired, thus strengthening the force and prodding other police departments over the subsequent decades to do the same. This has reinforced Canada's image as a tolerant, welcoming and multicultural country. It has opened the door to opportunity to many who have seized and built successful careers that would otherwise have been barred to them. The hiring of Baltej Singh Dhillon quickly provoked other changes to uniform rules. Several major police departments have approved the wearing of hijabs that would permit the hiring of qualified Muslim women candidates. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Ontario Provincial Police have an approved kippah that can be worn by observant Jewish officers. Several municipal police departments have followed suit. Quebec's Bill 21, however, bars police departments from emulating these changes that have proven so positive elsewhere. We thus urge police departments in Quebec to develop a plan to hire otherwise qualified candidates who wear religious symbols due to their deeply held faith and who are barred from being hired by the requirements of Bill 21 in anticipation of a day when that bill may be amended or repealed or struck down by the courts. RECOMMENDATIONS: SECTION II MANDATORY HOLOCAUST EDUCATION A study by Reality Check Research indicates that where the teaching of the Holocaust is mandatory, hate crimes against all racial and religious minorities decreases. Permit us to provide the Abstract from this report tabled in August 2023: Holocaust education appears to reduce hate crimes against a wide range of minority groups in America, as well as affecting those personal qualities most likely to impact the commission of hate crimes. In desk research based on publicly available data from the FBI Hate Crimes Database, Holocaust education is highly correlated to a reduction in hate crimes against Black communities even more than against Jewish communities, with significant decreases also apparent with respect to Muslims, LGBTQ+, Hispanics, Asians, Americans with Disabilities and Native Americans. Findings are further supported by field research: a survey of 1,496 Americans ages 18-40. Specifically, the field research shows significant increase in warmth toward all studied minority groups and significant impact on the personal qualities related to the commission of hate crimes and to harmonious function society. Strong correlations across a variety of lines of inquiry and methodologies are highly suggestive of a causal connection. RealityCheck Research, August 2023 …/8 Page 1553 of 1679 8 Our comments are as follows: Ontario is the gold standard in Canada requiring Holocaust education in high school and now as part of an age-appropriate module taught in Grade 6. As the then Minister of Education of Ontario pointed out in 2022, too many Canadian students are unaware of the Holocaust or are susceptible to misinformation online denying this most horrific chapter of human history. Moreover, Education Ministers are now acting. Six provinces have committed to better, earlier and mandatory Holocaust education. As of the coming school year the teaching of the Holocaust will be mandatory in all provinces except Quebec, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador. In calls we recently held with officials in the Ministries of Education, the latter two provinces indicated an effort to improve their Holocaust curricula for 2026. That leaves Quebec as a serious outlier. In this province materials available in high school have been improved via the partnership between the Ministry of Education and the Foundation for Genocide Education. However, it is still possible for students to graduate in Quebec with no Holocaust instruction whatsoever. United Against Hate Canada recently reissued its demand that all provinces emulate Ontario and the five other provinces that will upgrade their Holocaust instruction this year. We urge this meeting to jointly address a demand to Education Minister Bernard Drainville that Quebec make Holocaust education compulsory. We urge the Council of Ministers of Education at their next meeting to work with schools to develop effective methods to combat antisemitism and implement mandatory and consistent Holocaust and genocide courses of study while addressing the surge of antisemitic incidents on Canadian university campuses. RECOMMENDATIONS: SECTION III RESTORING THE JEWISH COMMUNITY'S SENSE OF CONFIDENCE IN MONTRÉAL'S CITY ADMINISTRATION The Agglomeration of Montréal comprises more than 2 million persons with 87% residing within the boundaries of the City of Montréal. The Jewish community can be found right through the agglomerations, comprising a large part of the population of the municipalities of Cote St. Luc and Hampstead. But Montréal is the historic home of Montréal’s Jewish community and today still comprises a large percentage of Jews living in Quebec. Montréal boroughs such as Côte-des-Neiges – Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and Plateau Mont-Royal are home to significant Jewish communities as well as hosting major Jewish institutions. Several Jewish schools, synagogues and community centres in these Boroughs have unfortunately been targeted by antisemitic violence since October 2023. …/9 Page 1554 of 1679 9 By and large there is a sentiment in Montréal’s Jewish community that it has been abandoned by the Plante administration that governs at City Hall. Over the past months prominent commentators have accused Montréal Mayor Valérie Plante of letting chaos erupt in Montréal by condoning a police strategy to tolerate the illegal behaviour of masked protesters. The Mayor has been accused of setting the tone by urging police not to intercede despite intimidation and violence, ostensibly to protect “free speech”. Hate targeting Jews is not confined to Montréal. Statistics Canada notes that in 2023, Jews comprised 70% of all police reported hate crimes targeting a religious minority. B’nai Brith’s 2023 audit of antisemitic incidents showed a horrific 106% jump in hate incidents targeting Jews year over year. We fear the 2024 numbers will dwarf those registered in 2023. However, the almost daily reports of antisemitic incidents in Montréal have placed our city in a class by itself. Harassment and violence targeting Jewish students on our college campuses has become almost normalized. The occupation of the McGill campus and the offer of Montréal’s Mayor to mediate with the university on behalf of the virulently anti-Israel pro-Hamas demonstrators illegally occupying the campus shocked the community. That came on the heels of Mayor Plante defending Bochra Manaï, the municipality’s anti-racism Commissioner, who posted anti-Israel statements on her social media and attended a rally where a local Imam called for the death of the Jews. That rally was denounced by Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Legault as antisemitic. It underscores the depth of the problem in Montréal. Former federal leader of the Official Opposition Thomas Mulcair, today a well-known journalist and commentator in Montréal, has stated that violent protesters are emboldened by the lack of a Montréal police response and that posture emanates from the Mayor’s office. We believe there is a crisis of confidence. The public does not believe that the City administration has seriously addressed nor will address antisemitism going forward. The case of Councillor Alexander Norris, Mayor Plante’s House Leader at City Council, who endorsed the Boycott, Diverse and Sanction movement and publicly supported anti--Israel positions speak volumes. It took major protests from Jewish organizations for Plante to shift Norris from his Majority Leader job to other well remunerated but less visible posts in her administration. In January 2024, nine elected officials including MP Anthony Housefather, MNAs Elisabeth Prass and Michelle Setlakwe, Councillor Sonny Moroz (Montréal’s only Jewish Councillor) as well as all the Mayors of the west end suburbs issued an action plan to combat antisemitism. …/10 Page 1555 of 1679 10 It was attacked by Gracia Kasoki Katahwa, the Mayor of Côte-des-Neiges – Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and a member of Plante’s party, who publicly lambasted the plan’s proposal that in light of the shooting and arson attacks, that Jewish institutions be able to use trained, licensed armed security guards. More than a year later, Gracia Kasoki Katahwa, the Mayor of a Borough that has seen so many antisemitic incidents, remains mute as to what needs to be done to keep the local Jewish community safe. As an organization, United Against Hate Canada rarely takes overt political positions, but we are calling for the defeat of Projet Montréal. Its total lack of empathy for the Jewish community should be one of the prime reasons for its defeat. The Jewish community can play a major role in ensuring a change of leadership at City Hall. We have grave doubts that Projet Montréal will change its orientation even though it will soon choose a successor to replace Plante. We leave it to individual groups to decide whether they will publicly endorse a call for voters to defeat the Project Montréal administration, given its record in turning a blind eye to antisemitism. Our recommendations are as follows: In view of the upcoming November 2 Montréal municipal election, we urge all major Jewish organizations to issue a joint survey asking that all major Mayoralty candidates explain how they will work to blunt antisemitism in the city and reconfigure the approach of the police department so that it will use existing tools to arrest those contravening the criminal code. We urge that Mayoralty candidates be asked to commit, if elected, to having the municipality adopt the IHRA definition. It should be noted that such a motion presented in 2020 by Councillors Lionel Perez and Marvin Rotrand was blocked by the Plante administration. On December 18 Toronto City Council took a very important step toward preventing hateful rallies that target minority groups. The Council adopted a thoughtful document entitled Policy Framework - City Response to Demonstrations and mandated the City Manager to initiate consultations that will lead, in the words of the motion, to a: ...."by-law, with an emphasis on protecting vulnerable institutions such as places of worship, faith-based schools and cultural institutions, that supports the City's commitment to keeping Torontonians safe from hate and protects Charter rights that address impacts of demonstrations that target people based on their identity." ... Toronto Council noted that demonstrations held immediately in front of synagogue entrances, faith-based schools, Jewish community centres and at campus buildings where Jewish students and organizations meet were essentially acts of intimidation. …/11 Page 1556 of 1679 11 Canada's anti-hate laws are cumbersome and not always effective. A clearly stated bylaw will help. Such bylaws, often referred to as Bubble Zone bylaws, can immediately help prevent the worse cases of intimidation of the Jewish community. We urge that Mayoralty candidates be asked to commit to the adoption by the City of Montréal of such a bylaw to protect vulnerable institutions and faith-based schools. We also urge municipalities within the Agglomeration to adopt similar bylaws for their territory. In that regard, we invite Jewish community organizations and other interested stakeholders to jointly write the suburban municipalities to ask them to propose such Bubble Zone bylaws. Given police statistics released show that there have been more police reported hate crimes and incidents targeting Jews than all other racial and religious minorities combined in the past year, reaching record numbers, clearly the City of Montréal needs an antisemitism strategy. We urge the Mayoralty candidates to commit to the establishment of an antisemitism task force. We also urge the next Mayor to nominate a member of City Council as liaison with the Jewish community. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. We ask that this meeting request that the national forum endorse the Standing Committee’s report. 2. We believe this regional meeting should demand that Premier Legault bring a Government motion to adopt the IHRA definition to the National Assembly for a vote. 3. We also urge a national effort to convince British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to add their voices by adopting the IHRA definition 4. We recommend that the Government of Canada seek the 2027-2028 or 2028- 2029 Presidency of IHRA. 5. We recommend that the Standing Committee’s Recommendation 15 receive particular support from the National Forum. 6. We also call for support of the proposal currently tabled in the House of Commons for the removal of article 319.3b. …/12 Page 1557 of 1679 12 7. We urge that in support of the Standing Committee’s Recommendation 14 that the IHRA definition become part of the curriculum of police technology studies in Quebec colleges as well as at the police academy in Nicolet. 8. We urge that more officers and resources be allocated to the SPVM on an ongoing basis and that the police department follow the strategies successfully used by New York during the outbreak of anti-Asian racism during the COVID pandemic and of Toronto in light of heightened antisemitism by temporarily transferring officers to an anti-hate task force aimed at rapidly addressing hateful incidents targeting an identifiable community. 9. We urge that civil society organizations representing communities targeted by hate be part of the process of consultation in the effort to standardize the definition of what is a hate crime and a hate incident. In this regard, it would aid the process to publish the current guidelines used by the provincial and territorial attorney generals to help clarify whether there are major disparities from one jurisdiction to another in defining hate. 10. We thus urge police departments in Quebec to develop a plan to hire otherwise qualified candidates who wear religious symbols due to their deeply held faith and who are barred from being hired by the requirements of Bill 21 in anticipation of a day when that bill may be amended or repealed or struck down by the courts. 11. We urge this meeting to jointly address a demand to Education Minister Bernard Drainville that Quebec make Holocaust education compulsory. 12. We urge the Council of Ministers of Education at their next meeting to work with schools to develop effective methods to combat antisemitism and implement mandatory and consistent Holocaust and genocide courses of study while addressing the surge of antisemitic incidents on Canadian university campuses. 13. In view of the upcoming November 2 Montréal municipal election, we urge all major Jewish organizations to issue a joint survey asking that all major Mayoralty candidates explain how they will work to blunt antisemitism in the city and reconfigure the approach of the police department so that it will use existing tools to arrest those contravening the criminal code. 14. We urge that Mayoralty candidates be asked to commit, if elected, to having the municipality adopt the IHRA definition. 15. We urge that Mayoralty candidates be asked to commit to the adoption by the City of Montréal of such a bylaw to protect vulnerable institutions and faith-based schools. …/13 Page 1558 of 1679 13 16. We also urge municipalities within the Agglomeration to adopt similar bylaws for their territory. 17. We urge the Mayoralty candidates to commit to the establishment of an antisemitism task force. 18. We also urge the next Mayor to nominate a member of City Council as liaison with the Jewish community. In closing, we note that laws and regulations dealing with equity generally do not recognize Jews as a distinct group. Thus, while being the most targeted, Jews are often not addressed by laws and programs aimed at promoting diversity and rooting out systemic discrimination and hate. Both the province and Quebec municipalities need to address this failing which leads both to an underrepresentation of Jews in the civil service and a too often incoherent and tardy response when the Jewish community is targeted. We appreciate the opportunity today to share these proposals with this assembly and we trust that the work of the National Forum will quickly lead to a truly robust response to antisemitism. We would very much like to hold a summit in 2026 which could review the implementation of the Forum’s work, and which could give voice to the broader public which was unable to contribute to the Forum. Yours truly, Gemma Raeburn Board Member On Behalf of Marvin Rotrand Director General United Against Hate Canada Page 1559 of 1679 COPIE CONFORME / CERTIFIED TRUE COPY ____________________________________________ PASCALIE A. TANGUAY, AVOCATE GREFFIÈRE / CITY CLERK 250216 P a g e 1 | 3 RÉSOLUTION NO 250216 SÉANCE ORDINAIRE DU CONSEIL MUNICIPAL DE LA VILLE DE CÔTE SAINT-LUC TENUE LE 10 FÉVRIER 2025 RESOLUTION NO 250216 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CÔTE SAINT-LUC CITY COUNCIL HELD FEBRUARY 10, 2025 Membres du Conseil présents / Council members present : Le maire / Mayor : Mitchell Brownstein, B. Comm., B.D.C., LL.B. Les conseillers / Councillors : Lior Azerad Sidney Benizri Dida Berku, B.C.L. Mike Cohen, B.A. Steven Erdelyi, B.Sc., B.Ed. Mitch Kujavsky, B. Comm. Oren Sebag, B.Sc. RN MBA Andee Shuster RÉSOLUTION APPELANT LA COMMUNAUTÉ INTERNATIONALE À FAIRE DAVANTAGE POUR RÉTABLIR LA PAIX ET LA SÉCURITÉ EN HAÏTI ATTENDU QUE le Canada accueille une des plus importantes diasporas au monde, avec plus de 180 000 personnes, dont environ 160 000 habitent au Québec, principalement dans la Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal; ATTENDU QUE Jovenel Moïse, 43e président d’Haïti, a été assassiné le 7 juillet 2021, ce qui déclencha une période de violence et d’instabilité qui a entraîné la mort de milliers de personnes. Des bandes armées ont attaqué l'infrastructure démocratique du pays et pris le contrôle d'une grande partie de Port-Au-Prince, la capitale, et de nombreuses régions rurales; ATTENDU QUE dans la période du 6 au 11 décembre 2024, plus de 207 personnes ont été massacrées brutalement dans le quartier Wharf Jérémie de Cité Soleil, un des secteurs les plus pauvres de Port-au- Prince, selon un rapport des Nations Unies; ATTENDU QUE le Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies aux droits de l'homme a annoncé récemment que l’an dernier en Haïti au moins 5 601 personnes ont été tuées, victimes de la violence des gangs; ATTENDU QU’au cours des derniers mois, la situation en Haïti s’est encore détériorée, entraînant le déplacement de pas moins d’un million de personnes à RESOLUTION CALLING FOR THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO DO MORE TO RESTORE PEACE AND SECURITY IN HAITI WHEREAS Canada is home to one of the largest Haitian diasporas in the world, numbering more than 180,000 persons of whom some 160,000 reside in Quebec, mostly within the Montreal Metropolitan Community; WHEREAS Jovenel Moïse, the 43rd president of Haiti, was assassinated on July 7, 2021, unleashing a period of violence and instability that has led to thousands of persons being killed as armed gangs have attacked the nation’s democratic infrastructure and taken control of much of Port-Au-Prince, the capital, and large parts of the countryside; WHEREAS on December 6-11, 2024, over 207 people were brutally massacred on in the Wharf Jérémie section of Cité Soleil, one of the poorest neighbourhoods of Port-au-Prince, according to a report from the United Nations; WHEREAS the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights recently announced that at least 5,601 people were killed in gang violence in Haiti last year; WHEREAS in the past months the situation in Haiti has deteriorated further, displacing as many as a million Page 1560 of 1679 COPIE CONFORME / CERTIFIED TRUE COPY ____________________________________________ PASCALIE A. TANGUAY, AVOCATE GREFFIÈRE / CITY CLERK 250216 P a g e 2 | 3 l’intérieur du pays, dont un grand nombre ont cherché refuge en République dominicaine; ATTENDU QUE la République dominicaine a réagi en expulsant des milliers de personnes, en violation probable des obligations en vertu du droit international d’accueillir et de protéger les réfugiés; ATTENDU QUE les gangs ont perpétré d’autres attaques, fermant des hôpitaux, des bâtiments gouvernementaux et l’aéroport de Port-Au-Prince; ATTENDU QU’une Mission multinationale d’appui à la sécurité dirigée par le Kenya est arrivée en Haïti au début de 2024 avec pour mandat de rétablir la sécurité publique, et qu’elle a été incapable de le faire puisque son mandat d'engagement a été limité et l'insuffisance de son armement l'a obligée à battre en retraite face aux gangs mieux armés; ATTENDU QUE Leslie Voltaire, actuel président du Conseil présidentiel de transition, a lancé un appel au secrétaire général António Guterres pour que la Mission multinationale d’appui à la sécurité actuelle soit transformée en une mission officielle de maintien de la paix des Nations Unies, invoquant l’urgence de la situation en Haïti; ATTENDU QUE la Ligue des noirs du Québec et l’organisme Unis contre la haine Canada ont appelé le Canada à faire davantage pour aider Haïti, notamment par l’intermédiaire du bureau de Bob Rae, représentant permanent du Canada auprès des Nations Unies; Il fut PROPOSÉ PAR LE CONSEILLER STEVEN ERDELYI APPUYÉ PAR LA CONSEILLÈRE ANDEE SHUSTER ET RÉSOLU: «QUE le conseil municipal de la Ville de Côte Saint-Luc (« Conseil ») appuie les demandes du Conseil présidentiel de transition pour que la Mission multinationale d’appui à la sécurité multinationale devienne une Mission officielle de maintien de la paix des Nations Unies; QUE le Conseil soutienne l'appel du Haut- Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés demandant que la République dominicaine cesse persons internally with many seeking safety in the Dominican Republic; WHEREAS the Dominican Republic has reacted by deporting thousands, in likely contravention of its treaty obligation under international law to shelter and protect refugees; WHEREAS the gangs have launched further attacks, closing hospitals, government buildings and the airport in Port-Au-Prince; WHEREAS a Multinational Security Support mission led by Kenya, which arrived in Haiti in early 2024 with a mandate to restore public security has been unable to do so as it has a limited mandate of engagement and inadequate armaments have seen it forced to retreat in the face of the better armed gangs; WHEREAS Leslie Voltaire, the current president of the Transitional Presidential Council has appealed to Secretary-General António Guterres asking that the current Multinational Security Support mission be transformed into an official United Nations peacekeeping mission, citing the urgency of Haiti’s situation; WHEREAS the Black Coalition Quebec and United Against Hate Canada have issued an appeal for Canada to do more to aid Haiti, including through the office of Bob Rae, Canada’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations; It was MOVED BY COUNCILLOR STEVEN ERDELYI SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR ANDEE SHUSTER AND RESOLVED: “THAT the Côte Saint-Luc City Council (“Council”) supports the demands of the Transitional Presidential Council that the Multinational Security Support mission be transformed into an official United Nations peacekeeping mission; THAT Council supports the call of the United Nations Commissioner on Refugees demanding that the Dominican Republic stop deporting migrants and asylum seekers to Haiti amid the surge of gang violence; Page 1561 of 1679 COPIE CONFORME / CERTIFIED TRUE COPY ____________________________________________ PASCALIE A. TANGUAY, AVOCATE GREFFIÈRE / CITY CLERK 250216 P a g e 3 | 3 d'expulser les migrants et les demandeurs d'asile vers Haïti dans la flambée de violence des gangs; QUE le Conseil presse le gouvernement canadien d’accroître son aide humanitaire en Haïti et s’engage à n’expulser aucun réfugié haïtien jusqu’au rétablissement d’un environnement stable et sécuritaire dans le pays; QUE le Conseil charge sa greffière d’envoyer une copie de la présente résolution au premier ministre du Canada, à la ministre canadienne des Affaires étrangères, au député de Mont-Royal à la Chambre des communes, ainsi qu’à toutes les municipalités du Québec sur l’ile de Montréal.» ADOPTÉ À L’UNANIMITÉ THAT Council urges the Canadian Government to augment its humanitarian aid to Haiti and pledge not to deport any Haitian refugees until the restoration of a stable and safe environment in the country; THAT Council directs its clerk to send copies of this resolution to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Member of Parliament for Mount Royal, as well as all Quebec municipalities on the Island of Montreal.” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Page 1562 of 1679 '6uo1aq 01 mad 2 uedsmd o1 eaeld'9 ’Mom 01 eoe1dv Nouloouguouqup)5 El eo'uloauu M pue fuogmLu 8L$19 Pen]BA 3!SZOZJO}UJBJBOJdlendeoS‘UIOOUHJOUMOL9L“SVEIEIEIHMCINV pue isluewlseAu!pue SLueJBOJdSJnlonJlser!pue [endeo uBnOJqJ,Jemod Bugseqomd lueoggu?gs ssessod seguedgogunw SVEIEIEIHMCINV pue fesuodseJ epeueo weal peuun 9 Jo;uoddns Jno Jego 01,qng pue mone; mumuooe|9!1U910demAqpeloedw!Alloeupsq mmsenuedpwnw SVEIEIEIHMan pue 393,913pelgun eq;pue epeueo qloq u!Auuqmsu!ogwouooe pue 898801 qOImesmu?w01 peel ?nenuelodplnoo 8mm uonsSVEIHEIHMan pue fspoo?uegpeueo uo Hue],(yoga e esoduJ!OJ,su9|d peounouue seq ‘dLunJip|euoa ‘391213peuun em,,to luepgseJd qu,SVEIEIEIHM BAeJerBd 'Cl'l‘Jomounoo Aqpepuooeg 59.1aneuquomounog Aq perw VL'QZOZ'OH :JequmN uonnlosea :steJ,'s'n pesodOJd 01esuodseJ ‘BpBUBQ weal,e J041Joddn3Bunge?eJ uonoLu Bug/mono;qu,passed ‘gzoz ‘9 uOJew uo pleq Bunsewuounoo 31,!1,9 quoun ,Lo umoi em,40 UO!1€JOdJOQem,40 ”ounog new,pesgApe eq eseeld ‘neepmi JSISWHNewud .1930 5mm;'s'n pasoama o1asuoaseJ‘epeueo meal,e .10;uoaans—uonnlosau ”aunog quoun JO umol :33 zvoVL)!NO ‘emeuo 199118u016que/v\08 Jelswlw ewud euuo90940 neepmi unsnr‘Jelsgulw ewud 'uoH msga 20'05'|Jea®neepn11'unsn_l 5'1IVINEVIA.LNHS 9202 ‘17LIOJBW 9028-899'906 l?l BUTNO'EITIIASWVEIEI OHEOIAHEISHinOS 008*] 111031111 40umoiPage 1563 of 1679 '?uo1eq 01 aoelde uadsmd 0),mad 2 'M015 0;mad v Nouloouruoumoip)x [I eo‘uloauu —-—-————.__._._._._________________ epeueg 4o191,3!qu eLung . :uonmoseJ JB|!LU!S JO ewes em esmpue 01 1,39an1 e Lug/m Buole‘suonezguemo Bug/mono; 9W,01uonnloseJ SN]:PJBNUO}X1910UMOJ.eql J_VHJ.GEA'IOSEIH HEHLHFH.Ll38 pue fspoo?uegpeueo uo pesodw! eq sgue],[euongppe plnous $91213 peuun sq),wOJ;seseqomd BugpgomaUJOJ;senuedgogunw lueAeJdplnom mu;SJngJeq Aue eleugume on,SILUSUJUJSAOB[2!0U!AOJd DUEIBJGPG}9H13951“|!3un03 UIOOUHJOUMOJ.9H1.LVHl OEA'IOSEH HEIHLHIH pue fSJngJeq epeJl [BlOUlAOJdJGlUl,lo |BAOLueJ sq],pJeMOJ,mom0),s1ueLuUJer?legougAOJd DUB[919F3949‘41U0 SllBO[gounog uIOOUFIJOUMOJ.9”}.LVHJ.GEA'IOSEH HEHlanl pue fsesseugan pue SJewnsuoo uegpeueo 1091onmmmm,semseew uo senuedgogunw Lug/meleJoqenoo 01 SlUSLUUJeAOB|€!OU!AOJd PUBl919p949H1U0 $1193 l!0un00 UIOOUH40 UMOJ.el-lllVHJ.GSA-10338 HEHLHnd pue fseAnemu!pue su?gedweo 1900}anOJqJ,‘elqgssod JeAeJeqM ‘Awouooe uegpeueg em,uoddns 01~|edgogunw pue ‘|B!0U!AOJd‘IeJepe;—1uewUJe/\06 ,Lo sleAe|"e BUWOAU!page museum 9 SGSJOPUell3un00 UIOOUH40 UMOJ.9H1.LVHJ.CEIA'IOSEIHHEHLanl .Ll 38 pue fsesseugan pue SJeLunsuoo ueouewvpue umpeueo qloq uueq 3;;ngnew,ezgu?ooeJ 01 SJexeLu-uogsgoep Jo;SUHBOOApEu!epeueg Luee J.Lug/mspuels |!3un00 UIO3U!_|40 UMOJ.31-11ilVHi GEA'IOSEH ll 38 ‘EHOAEHEHJ.‘MON pue fqloL Memqed uo peAOJddB sdmqu Jomounoo pue eoosgs Jo/(ew Aq peruJ “sgue _1_,,palm seuueqleg '13 ,to Aug eq;uJOJ;uonowe pue “uonnloseaepeueoAna”pennue QZ'LOWGV uol?unmg ,10 Aug sq),uJOJ;wnpueJOLuew UOHOWem peAgeoeJ 39H HOUHOOUIOOUH,lO UMOJ.9L“SVEEEIHM CINV pue feouepgn?|B!OU!I\OJdpue maps;01 £319qu pue slueLueeJ?eepeJJ,un A|dLuoomu;seouoeJdluewemomdanOJqJ,yoga epeueo wee J.em,0),elnqmuoo ueo sennedgogunw SVEIHEHMGNV pue fsweweeJ?easap,0],sewed 912 mu;semunooLUOJ;SJenddns01 Auunuoddo[enbe epgAOJd01semledgogunwpe?emooue Aueuompen,eAeq sweweeJBespan,SVEIHEIHMGNV pue fuuegpeueg Ana“1 03,suegpeueg Sug?eJnooue eJe SJepBel |B!OU!AOJdpue leJepe;SVEIEEIHMQNV pue isms/?0L 1,er em,Jer eJmonJlseJm!u!uogugq052$pue uomgq09z$ueeNueq 183AU!o;peloedxe eJe senuedgogunw oueluo ‘(Qwv)ouewo JO 39!1!I9d!3!unW}0 UOHBPOSSV9H1 wOJ}amp 01 5U!P10309‘SVEUEHMCINVPage 1564 of 1679 '?uolaq 01 9321c!e uadsmd 0),mad a mom 01 aoeldV Nouloauruoumoip)5 ?ea'uloauu___________ segmedgogunweer [2001 uog?ea BJe?egN deW pue SdW eJe?egN segmedgogunw uegpeueo ;o U0!1€J9p9:|sup,;0 SJerw Aug Egg snoneQ SJerw Aug Eggouewo senuedgownw uegpeueg ;o U0!1BJ9p8_—_| ouemo;o senuedgogunw ;o uonegoossv ouewo4oJegLueJd SJepee‘l 1(qu |eJepe:|'0'0 dpmr ){J9|Q umoi sop)“; 'peu6!SJepun sq],loeluoo 01 eleuseq 10u op eseeld ‘uoneuuow!|euongppe Aue ngnbeJ noA ,u GEIIHEIVO senuedgogunw eer leoo-l . uol?eaBJe?egN . delN pue SdW EJe?egN . senuedgogunw uegpeueg 4o uoneJepej equo SJo/(ew A113Egg . snaneoSJerw A143?gg ouewo . senuedgogunw uegpeueg ,to uoneJepezl . O!J€1UO;O semledgogunw4o uouegoossv . ouewo,lo J9!Lue.lc|. SJepee‘l 1(qu [amped ”v .Page 1565 of 1679 A Great City … For Generations To Come PLANNING, BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT Inter-Departmental Memo To: Mayor James M. Diodati & Members of Council From: Mackenzie Ceci, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner (Current Development) Date: March 18th, 2025 Re: Supplemental Information Regarding By-law No. 2025-029 AM-2024-005 – Official Plan & Zoning By-law Amendment Application Location: 4709, 4725 and 4745 Bender Street, 5655 Ontario Avenue and Air Rights Over a Portion of Ontario Avenue and Lands on the Southwest Corner of Palmer Avenue and Bender Street Applicant: Great Lakes Entertainment Canada Ltd. ( Wynn Xie) Agent: GSP Planning (Craig Rohe) On November 12th, 2024, City Council approved the recommendations of Report No. PBD-2024-50 to facilitate the construction of a 17-storey, 393-unit hotel and attraction on the subject lands, which include 4709, 4725 and 4745 Bender Street, 5655 Ontario Avenue, and air rights over a portion of Ontario Avenue and lands on the southwest corner of Palmer Avenue and Bender Street. Upon preparing the by-laws to amend the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law No. 79- 200, Staff identified typographical errors on the architectural plans as it relates to the number of storeys of the proposed building. More specifically, the ground floor and above grade parking levels were mislabelled by the applicant on the architectural plans. This resulted in the mislabelling of the storeys above and yielded a total of 17 storeys, as shown on Schedule 1, which was presented to City Council and the public at the time of the Public Meeting and Recommendation Report. Upon correcting the labels, a total of 18 storeys were identified, as shown on Schedule 2. Staff note that the plans and studies that were completed by the applicant in support of the applications and presented to City Council and the public had always reflected an 18-storey building. As such, the reference to an additional storey has no impact on massing, shadowing, or wind conditions. Further, the overall height of the building remains unimpacted, which is evident upon comparing Schedules 1 and 2. For this reason, Staff recommend that City Council passes By-law No. 2025-029 on this evening’s agenda, which proposes to amend Zoning By-law No. 79-200 for the purpose of facilitating the development of an 18-storey, 393-unit hotel and attraction on the subject lands. Staff note that By-law No. 2025-028 to amend the City’s Official Plan was approved by City Council on February 25th, 2025. MC Page 1566 of 1679 HIGHWAY 420ONTARIO AVE.PALMER AVENUE177.40P2182.40P N1185.40GROUND FLOOR191.40PARKING N2197.45LEVEL 3200.50LEVEL 4205.00LEVEL 5214.00LEVEL 6223.00LEVEL 7226.35LEVEL 8239.75LEVEL 12243.10LEVEL 13246.45LEVEL 14249.80LEVEL 15253.15LEVEL 16256.50LEVEL 17259.85ROOF263.85MPH ROOF229.70LEVEL 9233.05LEVEL 10236.40LEVEL 11188.40PARKING N1194.40LEVEL 2182.80P S1185.70PARKING S1188.60PARKING S2191.50PARKING S3400033503350335033503350335033503350335033503350900090004500305030503000300030003000500074.45 m82.45 mDATEPROJECTSCALEArchitects Inc.TAES98 SCARSDALE ROAD,TORONTO, ONTARIO, M3B 2R7T: 416 800 3284F:416-800-3485 1 : 35005/16/22A-201EAST ELEVATIONICE SCULPTURE CENTREBENDER STREET, NIAGARA FALLST2019025SCHEDULE 1Page 1567 of 1679 HIGHWAY 420ONTARIO AVE.PALMER AVENUE177.40LOWER STREET LEVEL182.40P N1185.40ENTRANCE LEVEL191.402ND FLOOR197.454TH FLOOR200.505TH FLOOR205.006TH FLOOR214.007TH FLOOR223.008TH FLOOR226.359TH FLOOR239.7513TH FLOOR243.1014TH FLOOR246.4515TH FLOOR249.8016TH FLOOR253.1517TH FLOOR256.5018TH FLOOR259.85ROOF263.85MPH ROOF229.7010TH FLOOR233.0511TH FLOOR236.4012TH FLOOR188.40GROUND FLOOR194.403RD FLOOR182.80STREET LEVEL185.70PARKING S1188.60PARKING S2191.50PARKING S3400033503350335033503350335033503350335033503350900090004500305030503000300030003000500074.45 m(BENCHMARK LVL FOR HEIGHT CALCULATION)DATEPROJECTSCALEArchitects Inc.TAES98 SCARSDALE ROAD,TORONTO, ONTARIO, M3B 2R7T: 416 800 3284F:416-800-3485 1 : 35005/16/22A-203EAST ELEVATIONICE SCULPTURE CENTREBENDER STREET, NIAGARA FALLST2019025SCHEDULE 2Page 1568 of 1679 1 Heather Ruzylo Subject:-Application for Municipal Significance From: Clerk <clerk@niagarafalls.ca> Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 10:58 AM To: Michelle Begin <MBegin@Pathstone.ca> Cc: Heather Ruzylo <hruzylo@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]-Application for Municipal Significance Michelle, We can bring forward your request to City Council at their next meeting taking place on Tuesday March 18th. Staff can recommend that Council declare the event as being one of Municipal Significance in order to facilitate the planning of The Hope Gala. We will follow up after the meeting with further details. Bill Matson | City Clerk | Director of Clerks Services | City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street | Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5 | (905) 356-7521 ext 4342 | Fax 905-356-9083 | billmatson@niagarafalls.ca From: Michelle Begin <MBegin@Pathstone.ca> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2025 10:23 AM To: Clerk <clerk@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: [EXTERNAL]-Application for Municipal Significance Importance: High Hello - I'm not sure where to send this so I'm hoping you can help me. Pathstone is hosting their annual gala - The Hope Gala - on June 14th at the Fallsview Casino Resort. The application for our special occasions permit requires a municipal resolution or a letter from a delegated municipal official (e.g. municipal clerk) designating the event as "municipally significant". Please see attached application and let me know if I've reached the right department or if you can advise next steps. Thanks very much! MICHELLE BEGIN (she/her/elle) Manager of Marketing & Community Development Page 1569 of 1679 2 1338 Fourth Avenue (The Branscombe Centre) St.Catharines, ON L2S 0G1 c. 905-933-6485 o. 905-688-6850 x 198 Follow us on social media @pathstonemh www.PathstoneFoundation.ca CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 1570 of 1679 Pathstone’s The Hope Gala – Municipal Significance Application February 26, 2025 Organization: Pathstone Foundation / Mental Health Contact Person: Michelle Begin Contact Address: 1338 Fourth Avenue, St. Catharines, ON L2S 0G1 Contact Phone: 905-688-6850 x198 Contact Email: mbegin@pathstone.ca Name of Event: The Hope Gala Date of Event: Saturday, June 14th, 2025 – 6pm to 11pm Summary of Event: Pathstone Mental Health is proud to present The Hope Gala, our signature annual fundraising event, held in partnership with Fallsview Casino Resort. This prestigious and highly anticipated event brings together community leaders, businesses, and supporters for an elegant evening dedicated to raising critical funds for children’s mental health services in Niagara. The Hope Gala is a ticketed event, offering both sponsorship tables and individual ticket sales, with a maximum attendance of 700 guests. The event features an exclusive cocktail reception, a three-course plated dinner, silent and live auctions, and an inspiring celebrity keynote address. This year, we are honored to welcome Ashley Judd, an internationally recognized speaker and advocate for mental health and wellness. All proceeds from The Hope Gala directly support Pathstone Mental Health, ensuring that children and families across Niagara have access to vital mental health programs and services. With demand for mental health support at an all-time high, this event plays a crucial role in funding essential therapies, crisis intervention, and outreach programs that benefit our community. The Hope Gala is recognized as a premier philanthropic event in Niagara, drawing significant regional and national attention. In addition to providing a platform for awareness and advocacy, this event stimulates the local economy through venue partnerships, hospitality services, and vendor participation. We respectfully submit this application for Municipal Significance with the City of Niagara Falls and the Niagara Region, recognizing The Hope Gala’s vital contribution to our community’s well-being and the local economy. For any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Marketing and Promotions: Both paid and organic promotions will created to market this event and its vendors: • News Release sent out to over 65 media contacts from Niagara through to Toronto • E-blast to Pathstone donors – 3,100 unique addresses • Social Media Post, Tags and Shout Outs to our participating vendors and sponsors • PAID Social Media Campaign Attached: Ballroom Floor Plan Page 1571 of 1679 Historic Drummondville BIA HISTORICDRUMMONDVILLE.COM historicdrummondville@gmail.com Members of Council Bill Matson, City Clerk City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen St. Niagara Falls, ON L2E 2L1 Regarding: Main & Ferry BIA 2025 Budget Dear Members of Council: The Main & Ferry BIA held their AGM on Wed. March 5 2025 and approved this year's budget. While their focus is on beautification of their small business district, the Board is committed to providing improvements to their streetscaping this year. Over the past several years, money was reserved for streetscape improvements and for this reason the members voted to offset their expenses this year by using $50,000 reserve for their streetscape improvements in 2025. While the business members are in full support to give a hands up for those in our community who require the shelter, there are many other individuals who make their own choices by living/sleeping on the streets. In particular this past winter weather has resulted in our businesses reporting back of people sleeping on their doorsteps and leaving behind a mess to be cleaned up once they move on in the morning. The BIA members voted to work in cooperation with the city and the region in cleaning up the garbage that is left behind by people in the area. There have been many changes in the Main & Ferry BIA with the success of the new Exchange, the relocation of the Farmers Market to a seasonal market at the MacBain Centre, plus a significant number of new service businesses that have opened up in the Historic Drummondville District resulting in a busy business shift for the area. The Main & Ferry BIA 2025 Budget outlines the details of their 2025 budget for Council's approval. Thank you to Council and staff for their continual support of the Main & Ferry business district. Regards, Ruth-Ann Nieuwestegg Chair Main & Ferry BIA Page 1572 of 1679 Historic Drummondville BIA HISTORICDRUMMONDVILLE.COM historicdrummondville@gmail.com 2025 PROPOSED BUDGET Main & Ferry BIA 2025 Levy Administration All Tax Bookkeeping Services $ 1,500.00 General Admin. Canada Post etc. $ 1,000.00 Audit KPMG $ 4,000.00 Insurance $ 2,500.00 Consultant (Staff) $ 10,000.00 Banking Fees $ 100.00 HST $ 2,538.90 Total $ 21,638.90 Marketing Website Domain Annual Fee $ 430.00 Total $ 430.00 Street Scaping / Beautification Hanging Flower Baskets (100) $ 10,400.00 Seasonal Maintenance (watering, fertilizing, pruning etc) $ 13,281.00 Flower Beds (8) planting, watering, maintenance $ 14,068.00 Fall & Spring Clean Up $ 4,000.00 Perennial/Shrub Plants & Labour $ 7,516.00 HST $ 7,389.75 Additional Streetscaping $ 20,000.00 Total $ 76,654.75 Totals $ 98,723.65 Taken From Reserves $ 50,000.00 Total BIA Levy $ 48,723.65 2025 Levy - Annual $686.25 Payments Based on 71 properties $686.25 Page 1573 of 1679 Historic Drummondville BIA HISTORICDRUMMONDVILLE.COM historicdrummondville@gmail.com Page 1574 of 1679 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2025-029 A by-law to amend By-law No. 79-200 to permit the use of the Lands for an 18-storey mixed-use building with a hotel and tourist attractions, subject to a 4-year sunset clause and the removal of a Holding (H) symbol (AM-2024-005). THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Lands that are the subject of and affected by the provisions of this by-law are described in Schedules 1 and 2 of this by-law and shall be referred to in this by- law as the “Lands”. Schedules 1 and 2 are a part of this by-law. 2. The purpose of this by-law is to amend the provisions of By-law No. 79-200, to permit the use of the Lands in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by that by-law. In the case of any conflict between a specific provision of this by-law and any existing provision of By-law No. 79-200, the provisions of this by-law are to prevail. 3. Notwithstanding any provision of By-law No. 79-200 to the contrary, the following uses and regulations shall be the permitted uses and regulations governing the permitted uses on and of the Lands. 4. The permitted uses shall be the uses permitted in the TC zone. 5. The regulations governing the permitted uses shall be: (a) Minimum lot area The whole of Parcel TC(H)-1270, save and except for any part required for road widening (b) Front lot line For the purposes of this by-law, Bender Street shall be deemed to be the front lot line (c) Maximum lot coverage 98% (d) Location of the various components of the building or structure on the Lands, their maximum height and maximum number of storeys and minimum yards Refer to the plan on Schedule 2 of this by-law and clauses (e) and (f) of this section (e) Maximum height of buildings or structures 71.5 metres and a maximum of 18 storeys, as measured from Geodetic Survey of Canada Page 1575 of 1679 2 elevation 188.4 metres, not including the required roof feature (f) Roof feature A building having a height greater than 12 metres shall have a roof feature which has a minimum height of 4 metres. The roof feature shall be a distinct architectural element of the building and shall not include a place of occupancy (g) Minimum number of loading spaces 3 (h) The balance of regulations specified for a TC use. 6. For the purposes of this by-law: “Roof feature” means a distinct architectural element erected immediately above the top storey and provided for the purpose of enhancing the design of a building and may enclose any roof mounted mechanical equipment, mechanical penthouses, or other similar elements. Notwithstanding Section 4.7 of By-law No. 79-200, and except for any flagpoles, or other similar decorative roof features, and radio, telephone, television or telecommunication towers or antennae, no water tank, elevator or other mechanical penthouse shall have a height greater than the roof feature. 7. All other applicable regulations set out in By-law No. 79-200, as amended, shall continue to apply to govern the permitted uses on the Lands, with all necessary changes in detail. 8. No person shall use the Lands for a use that is not a permitted use. 9. No person shall use the Lands in a manner that is contrary to the regulations. 10. The Holding (H) symbol that appears on Schedule 1 attached hereto is provided for in the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan pursuant to Section 36 of the Planning Act. No person shall use the Lands described in section 1 of this by-law and shown hatched and designated TC(H) and numbered 1270 on the plan Schedule 1 attached hereto for any purpose, prior to the H symbol being removed pursuant to the Planning Act. Prior to the H symbol being removed, the landowner or developer shall: • Submit an updated Quantitative Wind Study to the satisfaction of the City, demonstrating no unsafe wind conditions and the mitigation of uncomfortable wind conditions and/or the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures; and Page 1576 of 1679 3 • Execute any necessary agreements with appropriate landowners where any mitigation measures required by the updated Quantitative Wind Study are located on any lands other than the Lands. 11. The provisions of this by-law shall be shown on Sheet D4 of Schedule “A” of By- law No. 79-200 by designating the Lands from TC to TC(H) and numbered 1270. 12. Should the owner of the Lands not execute a Site Plan agreement within 4 years of this by-law coming into effect, then the zoning of the lands zoned TC(H)-1270 shall be of no force and effect, and the zoning of the Lands will revert to the Tourist Commercial (TC) zone. 13. Notwithstanding clause 12 above, the approval of this by-law may be extended by 2 years at the discretion of the General Manager of Planning, Building and Development. 14. Section 19 of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by adding thereto: 19.1.1270 Refer to By-law No. 2025-029. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 18th day of March, 2025. ....................................................................... ..................................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 1577 of 1679 Page 1578 of 1679 Page 1579 of 1679 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2025-031 A by-law to provide for the adoption of Amendment No. 180 to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan (AM-2025-001). THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANNING ACT, 1990, AND THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF NIAGARA ACT, HEREBY ENACT AS FOLLOWS: 1. The attached text constituting Amendment No. 180 to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan is hereby adopted. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council Passed this 18th day of March, 2025. ……………………………………………….. ………………………………………… WILLIAM G. MATSON, ACTING CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 1580 of 1679 PART 1 – PREAMBLE (i) Purpose of the Amendment The purpose of the amendment is to establish Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals as a home occupation that may be permitted on Residential lands through an implementing zoning by-law. (ii) Location of the Amendment The amendment applies to lands designated “Residential”, as shown on Schedule “A” to the Official Plan – Future Land Use. (iii) Details of the Amendment Text Change PART 2 – LAND USE POLICIES is amended by amending Subsection 1.3. Definitions for “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation” and “Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental” are added to APPENDIX 1 – DEFINITIONS. (iv) Basis of the Amendment Bed and Breakfasts are a home occupation that may be permitted on Residential lands through an implementing zoning by-law where they are limited in number of guest rooms to be compatible with the residential neighbourhood. The amendment will facilitate the compatible incorporation of Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals as a similar land use and home occupation as Bed and Breakfasts within residential areas within the urban area boundary. PART 2 – BODY OF THE AMENDMENT All of this part of the document entitled PART 2 – BODY OF THE AMENDMENT consisting of the following text and attached map, constitute Amendment No. 180 to the Official Plan of the City of Niagara Falls. DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT The Official Plan of the City of Niagara Falls is hereby amended as follows: 1. Part 2, Section 1.3 is amended by adding the words: i. “and Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals” after “Bed and Breakfasts” and before “, may be permitted”; and ii. “/bedrooms” after “guest rooms” and before “to be compatible” so that it reads: Page 1581 of 1679 “1.3 Home occupations, including owner occupied Bed and Breakfasts and Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals, may be permitted through an implementing zoning by-law where they are limited in number of guest rooms/bedrooms to be compatible with the residential neighbourhood. Zoning by-law amendment applications to increase the size of such uses will be carefully considered to minimize potential disturbances to adjacent properties and to protect the character and identity of the overall neighbourhood.” 2. Part 2, Section 1.3 is amended by adding the following subsection: “1.3.1 An undue concentration of Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals is to be avoided to reduce the impacts on the character of the residential nature of the area and residential enjoyment of permanent residents. To ensure lands designated Residential meet the primary purpose of providing dwellings for a range of households, Council may consider limiting the location and number of Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals as a result of monitoring the number of licences issued annually. 3. The following definitions are hereby added alphabetically to APPENDIX 1 – DEFINITIONS: “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation” – means an Owner Occupied Short- Term Rental or a Bed and Breakfast but shall not include a Vacation Rental Unit. “Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental” – means a home occupation in a dwelling unit within or accessory to a Principal Residence that is rented out by the Owner to a single group of the travelling public for a period of 28 consecutive days or less and is licensed by the City of Niagara Falls to carry out a business. Page 1582 of 1679 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2025-032 A by-law to amend Zoning By-law No. 79-200 to introduce new definitions and regulatory provisions respecting Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations in residential zones (AM-2025-001); WHEREAS it is the express intention of the Council of the City of Niagara Falls to amend By-law No. 79-200 to add “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation” as a permitted use in residential zones within the City of Niagara Falls; AND WHEREAS it is the express intention of the Council of the City of Niagara Falls that the permitted use “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations” in residential zones shall be conditional upon the owner of the property, obtaining a license from the City of Niagara Falls and maintaining that license in good standing and that no property, other than a property that has been zoned by a site specific by-law enacted by this Council as of the date of the passing of this by-law, shall be found to have the permitted use “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations” as of right; AND WHEREAS the Council of the City of Niagara Falls is aware of the presence of permitted uses within residential zones that may fall within the ambit of the definition of “Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation” set out in this by-law that are in operation as of the date of the passing of this by-law; AND WHEREAS it is the express intention of the Council of the City of Niagara Falls that this by-law shall have no impact of any nature or kind upon the rights of operators of permitted uses that may fall within the ambit of the definition of “Bed and Breakfast” as set out in By-law No. 79-200 existing as of the date of the passing of this by-law. AND WHEREAS permitted uses in residential zones that may fall within the ambit of the definition of “Bed and Breakfast” as set out in By-law No. 79-200 do not, and never have, included the right to operate a “Bed and Breakfast” in the absence of a license for that operation issued by the City of Niagara Falls that is, and has been, maintained in good standing; THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by adding the following definitions alphabetically: “OWNER OCCUPIED” means a Principal Residence occupied, on a full-time basis, by the registered Owner of the property on which the Principal Residence is located as recorded and maintained in the records of the Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Niagara South; Page 1583 of 1679 "OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION" means an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental or a Bed and Breakfast but shall not include a Vacation Rental Unit; “OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM RENTAL” means a home occupation in a dwelling unit within or accessory to a Principal Residence that is rented out by the Owner to a single group of the travelling public for a period of 28 consecutive days or less and is licensed by the City of Niagara Falls to carry out a business. “PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE” means an Owner’s permanent place of residence, pursuant to the Income Tax Act. 2. That SECTION 2 – DEFINITIONS of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by amending the following definitions: a) “BOARDING OR ROOMING HOUSE” is amended by adding the words “Bed and Breakfast, Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental” between the words “home for the aged” and “or other establishment”, so that it reads: "BOARDING OR ROOMING HOUSE" means a building in which the proprietor supplies for gain, directly or indirectly, lodging with or without meals to three or more persons other than the proprietor but does not include a tourist establishment, hotel, hospital, home for the aged, Bed and Breakfast, Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental or other establishment otherwise classified or defined in this By-law; b) “HOME OCCUPATION” is amended by adding the words “, including but not limited to Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations” after the words “private residence”, so that it reads: "HOME OCCUPATION" means any occupation, except the keeping of boarders or roomers, which is carried on within a dwelling or dwelling unit in compliance with the provisions of this Bylaw, and which is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of such dwelling or dwelling unit as a private residence, including but not limited to Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations. 3. That Table 1 of clause (a) of Section 4.19.1 of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by adding the following Class of Use and Minimum Parking Space Requirements: Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental 1 parking space for up to 2 bedrooms, and 1 additional parking space for 3 bedrooms, which may be provided in tandem. Page 1584 of 1679 4. That SECTION 4 – GENERAL PROVISIONS of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by amending Section 4.37 as follows: a) That Section 4.37 be renamed to “OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM ACCOMMODATION” and the following preamble be added: “An Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation shall comply with the following provisions:” b) That the following subsection 4.37.1 Bed and Breakfast be added immediately following the preamble with all applicable regulations for a Bed and Breakfast to be renumbered under Section 4.37.1 so that it reads: “4.37.1 Bed and Breakfast (a) A bed and breakfast must be located in the dwelling or dwelling unit that is the primary residence of the owner; (b) The maximum number of guest rooms permitted in a bed and breakfast in a dwelling or dwelling unit in a R1A, R1B, R1C, R1D, R1E, R1F, R2, R3, TRM, DC, DTC, A, R and DH zone shall be 3; (c) The maximum number of guest rooms permitted in a bed and breakfast in a dwelling or dwelling unit in a GC, CB and TC zone shall be 6; (d) A bed and breakfast shall require a licence issued by the City of Niagara Falls and the municipal licence of a bed and breakfast must be kept current and maintained in good standing; (e) The maximum number of guests permitted to stay in a guest room shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, and the regulations promulgated thereunder; (f) Subject to clause (g) of section 4.37, every reference to a zone in clauses (b) and (c) of section 4.37 shall be deemed to include any zone described in section 19 of the by-law that is derived from the zones listed in clauses (b) and (c) of section 4.37; (g) Existing tourist homes and any other permitted uses that fall within the ambit of the definition of a bed and breakfast as set out in this by-law shall henceforth be referred to as a bed and breakfast, but in all other respects shall continue to be governed by the site specific regulations that govern their permitted use on the effective date of this amendment to the by-law; Page 1585 of 1679 (h) Parking and access requirements shall be in accordance with section 4.19.1.” c) That the following subsection be added: “4.37.2 Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental (a) A maximum of one Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental shall be permitted within or accessory to a permitted detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, duplex dwelling or townhouse dwelling that is the principal residence of the owner. (b) Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals are permitted within the R1A, R1B, R1C, R1D, R1E, R1F, R2, R3, R4, and TRM Zone in accordance with subsection 4.37.2 (a), above. (c) The maximum number of bedrooms permitted in an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental shall be 3; (c) The number of guests permitted to stay in an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23, as amended, and the regulations promulgated thereunder to a maximum of 6 guests; (d) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental shall require a license issued by the City of Niagara Falls, that must be kept current and maintained in good standing; (e) The Owner must be present on the property for the entire duration of the rental period; (f) Every reference to a Zone in clause (b) of section 4.37.2 shall be deemed to include any zone described in Section 19 of the by-law that is derived from the zones listed in clause (b) of section 4.37.2. (h) Parking and access requirements shall be in accordance with section 4.19.1.” 5. That SECTION 5.5 HOME OCCUPATIONS of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by adding the following subsection: “5.5.1 Notwithstanding Section 5.5, Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations are considered home occupations and shall be permitted in accordance with Section 4.37.” 6. That SECTION 7.1.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended as follows: a) That section (e) is amended by adding “.1” after “4.37” so that it reads: “(e) A bed and breakfast in a detached dwelling, that complies with the Page 1586 of 1679 provisions set out in section 4.37.1” b) That the following subsection be added: “(g) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” 7. That SECTION 7.2.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended as follows: a) That section (e) is amended by adding “.1” after “4.37” so that it reads: “(e) A bed and breakfast in a detached dwelling, that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.1” b) That the following subsection be added: “(g) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” 8. That SECTION 7.3.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended as follows: a) That section (e) is amended by adding “.1” after “4.37” so that it reads: “(e) A bed and breakfast in a detached dwelling, that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.1” b) That the following subsection be added: “(g) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” 9. That SECTION 7.4.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended as follows: a) That section (e) is amended by adding “.1” after “4.37” so that it reads: “(e) A bed and breakfast in a detached dwelling, that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.1” b) That the following subsection be added: “(g) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” 10. That SECTION 7.5.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended as follows: a) That section (e) is amended by adding “.1” after “4.37” so that it reads: “(e) A bed and breakfast in a detached dwelling, that complies with the Page 1587 of 1679 provisions set out in section 4.37.1” b) That the following subsection be added: “(g) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” 11. That SECTION 7.5A.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended as follows: a) That section (e) is amended by adding “.1” after “4.37” so that it reads: “(e) A bed and breakfast in a detached dwelling, that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.1” b) That the following subsection be added: “(g) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” 12. That SECTION 7.7.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended as follows: a) That section (g) is amended by adding “.1” after “4.37” so that it reads: “(g) A bed and breakfast in a detached dwelling, that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.1” b) That the following subsection be added: “(i) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” 13. That SECTION 7.8.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended as follows: a) That section (i) is amended by adding “.1” after “4.37” so that it reads: “(i) A bed and breakfast in a detached dwelling, that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.1” b) That the following subsection be added: “(k) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” 14. That SECTION 7.9.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by adding the following subsection: “(i) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” Page 1588 of 1679 15. That SECTION 7.16.1 PERMITTED USES of By-law No. 79-200 is amended by adding the following subsection: a) That section (g) is amended by adding “.1” after “4.37” so that it reads: “(g) A bed and breakfast in a detached dwelling, that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.1” b) That the following subsection be added: “(i) An Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental that complies with the provisions set out in section 4.37.2.” Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 18th day of March, 2025. ....................................................................... .................................................................. WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 1589 of 1679 1 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2025-033 A by-law to amend the City’s Vacation Rental Unit and Bed and Breakfast Establishment Licensing By-law No. 2021-57 to include Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals. WHEREAS Section 8 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended hereinafter referred to as the “Municipal Act” provides that a municipality has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising the authority under the Act; AND WHEREAS Section 8 (3) of the Municipal Act, authorizes a municipality to provide for a system of licences; AND WHEREAS Section 9 of the Municipal Act, provides that Section 8 and Section 11 shall be interpreted broadly so as to confer broad authority on municipalities to: (a) enable municipalities to govern their affairs as they consider appropriate; and (b) enhance their ability to respond to municipal issues; AND WHEREAS Section 11 (2), paragraph 6 of the Municipal Act, authorizes a municipality to pass a by-law respecting the health, safety and well-being of persons; AND WHEREAS Section 151 of the Municipal Act, provides that a municipality may provide for a system of licences with respect to a business and may: (a) prohibit the carrying on or engaging in the business without a licence; (b) refuse to grant a licence or to revoke or suspend a licence; (c) impose conditions as a requirement of obtaining, continuing to hold or renewing a licence; (d) impose special conditions on a business in a class that have not been imposed on all the businesses in that class in order to obtain, continue to hold or renew a licence; (e) impose conditions, including special conditions, as a requirement of continuing to hold a licence at any time during the term of the licence; and (f) licence, regulate or govern real and personal property used for the business and the persons carrying it on or engaged in it; AND WHEREAS Section 23.1 of the Municipal Act, authorizes a municipality to delegate its powers and duties; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls enacted By- law No. 2021-57 on May 11, 2021 to regulate and license Vacation Rental Units and Bed and Breakfast Establishments within the City of Niagara Falls; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls approved Council Report PBD-2025-16 on March 18, 2025, to allow for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas; Page 1590 of 1679 2 AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls deems it necessary and expedient to amend By-law No. 2021-57 to include Owner Occupied Short- Term Accommodations in the City of Niagara Falls; THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1) That Section 1. DEFINITIONS of By-law No. 2021-57 is amended by adding the following definitions alphabetically: i) "Duplex Dwelling" means a building divided horizontally into two primary dwelling units, each with an entrance to the exterior that is independent or through a vestibule; ii) “Lodging Unit” means a dwelling or dwelling unit provided for rent or hire, which is designed to be used as sleeping accommodation for the travelling or vacationing public; iii) “Owner Occupied” means a Principal Residence occupied, on a full-time basis, by the registered Owner of the property on which the Principal Residence is located as recorded and maintained in the records of the Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Niagara South; iv) "Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation" means an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental or a Bed and Breakfast but shall not include a Vacation Rental Unit; v) “Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental” means a home occupation in a dwelling unit within or accessory to a Principal Residence that is rented out by the Owner to a single group of the travelling public for a period of 28 consecutive days or less and is licensed by the City of Niagara Falls to carry out a business;” vi) "Semi-Detached Dwelling” means a building divided vertically into two primary dwelling units, each with an independent entrance to an exterior. (from Zoning Bylaw) 2) That Section 1. DEFINITIONS of By-law No. 2021-57 is amended by deleting the definition for “Bed and Breakfast Establishment” and replacing it as follows: “Bed and Breakfast” means a home occupation that provides guest rooms and breakfast to the travelling and vacationing public and is licensed by the City of Niagara Falls to carry on business; 3) That Section 1. DEFINITIONS of By-law No. 2021-57 is amended by deleting the definitions for “Guest Room”, “Home Occupation”, “Licence”, “Owner”, “Principal Residence” and “Vacation Rental Unit” and replacing them as follows: “Guest Room” means a room or suite of rooms which is capable of being rented separately to the travelling and vacationing public and does not have any cooking facilities; Page 1591 of 1679 3 “Home Occupation” means any occupation, except the keeping of boarders or roomers, which is carried on within a dwelling or dwelling unit in compliance with the provisions of this Bylaw, and which is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of such dwelling or dwelling unit as a private residence, including but not limited to Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations. “Licence” means a City of Niagara Falls business licence issued pursuant to the City’s Licensing By-law; “Owner” means the owner of a lot as recorded in the records of the Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Niagara South maintained in that Office for that lot; “Principal Residence” means an Owner’s permanent place of residence, pursuant to the Income Tax Act; “Vacation Rental Unit” means the commercial use of a detached dwelling or dwelling unit that is available for rent in its entirety for a period of 28 consecutive days or less, to provide temporary lodging to a single group of the travelling and vacationing public and is licenced by the City of Niagara Falls to carry out business; 4) That Section 2. GENERAL AND PROHIBITIONS of By-law 2021-57 is amended as follows: i) Subsection 2.2, is deleted and replaced as follows: “This by-law may be referred to as the “Vacation Rental Unit and Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation Licensing By-law”. ii) Subsection 2.3 is deleted and replaced as follows: “No Person shall own or operate or permit the operation of a Vacation Rental Unit without a current valid licence.” iii) Subsection 2.4 is deleted and replaced as follows: “No Person shall own or operate or permit the operation of an Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation without a current valid licence.” iv) Subsection 2.5 is deleted and replaced as follows: “No Person shall own or operate a Vacation Rental Unit or an Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation other than in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence, the terms and conditions of this By-law.” v) Subsection 2.7 is deleted and replaced as follows: “No Person shall advertise, promote, broker, or offer for rent an Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation without a current valid licence.” Page 1592 of 1679 4 vi) Subsection 2.15 is deleted and replaced as follows: “No Person licensed under this By-law shall, because of race, colour, creed, gender or sexual orientation, discriminate against any member of the public in the carrying on, conducting or operating of an Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation or a Vacation Rental Unit. vii) A new subsection 2.16 is added as follows: “No Person renting an Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation shall sublet the accommodation to another person or party, meaning an Owner Occupied Short Term Accommodation contract is non-transferable. 5) That Section 11 AUTOMATIC INITIATION OF REVOCATION AND REFUSAL TO RENEW of By-law No. 2021-57 is amended as follows: i) Subsection 11.1 is deleted and replaced as follows: “A Licence Issuer shall refuse to issue or revoke an Owner Occupied Short- Term Accommodation licence or a Vacation Rental Unit licence in accordance with the provisions of this By-law where the City has determined three (3) valid violations have occurred or three (3) convictions have been registered and occurred at the property within a one (1) year period.” 6) That Schedule B to By-law 2021-57 is repealed and that Schedule B attached hereto shall be inserted in lieu thereof. 7) All other applicable provisions and regulations set out in By-law No. 2021-57 shall remain the same and shall continue to apply, with the necessary changes in detail. 8) That the City Clerk is authorized to effect any minor modifications, corrections or omissions solely of an administrative, numerical, grammatical, semantical or descriptive nature to this by-law after the passage of this by-law. 9) This By-law will become effective on April 10th, 2025 (the “Effective Date”), subject to no appeals being received on Official Plan Amendment No. 180 or Zoning By-law Amendment AM-2025-001. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 18th day of March, 2025. ....................................................................... ..................................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 1593 of 1679 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS SCHEDULE B TO BY-LAW 2021-57 as amended by BY-LAW 2025-033 1. In addition to the licensing requirements set out in Section 3.1 of this By-law an Applicant for an Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation Licence shall submit the following as required below: (a) Confirmation from the Fire Chief dated within the previous sixty (60) days stating the premises are in compliance with the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, and the policies of the Niagara Falls Fire Department respecting an Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation; (b) If the premises is on private water supply and/or sewage disposal, a certificate from the Medical Officer of Health dated within sixty (60) days stating that the premises has services adequate for the Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation. (c) A certificate from the Medical Officer of Health dated within sixty (60) days stating that the premises has been inspected and is in compliance with the Health Protection and Promotion Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 7, as amended, and its regulations. (d) A site plan and floor plans outlining the portion of the premises to be used as an Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation and demonstrating the premises: i) conforms with the City’s Zoning By-law. (e) Certificate from the Electrical Safety Authority dated within the previous 2 years stating the premises are in compliance with the Electrical Safety Code; 2. In addition to the licensing requirements set out in Section 3.1 of this By-law the issuing of an Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation Licence or renewal of an Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation Licence is subject to the following: (a) Documentation that the owner uses the premises as its principal residence; (b) Proof of insurance by way of certificate of insurance showing a minimum limit of two million dollars ($2,000,000) in commercial general liability for an Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation for the term of the licence with an endorsement that notice in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to cancellation, expiration, or variation thereof will be given to the City by the insurance underwriter. 3. In addition to the licensing requirements set out in section 3 of this By-law the issuing of an Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation Licence or renewal of an Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation Licence is subject to the following: (a) Compliance with the: i) City’s Zoning By-law; ii) Fire Protection and Prevention Act; iii) Building Code Act. Page 1594 of 1679 2 TERMS AND CONDITIONS 4. A Licensee of an Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation shall: (a) be on site at the premises during the stay of a Renter; (b) display the licence in a conspicuous place on the licensed premises in close proximity to the entrance of the premises and visible to the public at all times; (c) display the licence in a prominent place on the interior of the licensed premises; (d) display a statement of the fee to be charged for each guest room and the check- out time in a prominent place on the interior of the licensed premises and in each guest room; (e) post the Fire Safety Instructions that is plaqued or framed, that depicts the location of each bedroom, smoke alarm, extinguisher, exit/egress doors or windows on the premises to the satisfaction of the City. (f) be responsible for the operation of the premises, the conduct of the renter and the occupants of the premises. 5. Every person who owns or operates an Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation shall: (a) operate the premises in accordance with the City’s: i) Property Standards By-law; ii) Zoning By-law; iii) Sign By-law; iv) Litter, Maintenance of Lands By-law; v) Noise By-law; vi) any other By-laws; vii) any Federal and Provincial legislation; (b) keep a register that keeps record of the following: i) name and home address of the Renter; ii) the date of entry; iii) the length of stay of a Renter; (c) maintain the records required by subsection (b) for a minimum of two (2) years; (d) include the current Licence Number on all: i) advertisement and promotional materials; ii) website; iii) contracts and agreements entered into with a Renter. Page 1595 of 1679 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2025-034 A by-law to fees and charges for various services, licences and publications for the City of Niagara Falls. WHEREAS it has been the municipality’s practice to consolidate fees and charges in a booklet for the ease of the public; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls approved Council Report PBD-2025-16 on March 18, 2025, to allow for Owner Occupied Short- Term Rentals in residential areas; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls deems it necessary and expedient to amend By-law No. 2024-113 to include Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations in the City of Niagara Falls; AND WHEREAS all the charges contained within the by-law and booklet were previously approved by Council; AND WHEREAS a copy of this by-law, in the form of a booklet, will be available at City Hall for public consumption. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. By-law 2024-113 is amended by deleting Schedule A and that Schedule A attached hereto shall be inserted in lieu thereof. 2. That By-law 2024-113 is hereby repealed. 3. This By-law will become effective on April 10th, 2025 (the “Effective Date”), subject to no appeals being received on Official Plan Amendment No. 180 or Zoning By- law Amendment AM-2025-001. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 18th day of March, 2025. WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 1596 of 1679 Schedule of Fees January 1, 2025 1 Page 1597 of 1679 3-4 Finance Water Rates 5 Water/Tax fees 6 Legal 7 Business Development 7 Planning, Building & Development Planning Official Plan Amendment/Zoning by-law Amendment/Site Plan Amendment 8 Committee of Adjustment/Publications/CIP's/Short-Term Rentals 9 Building Occupancies 10-11 Building Stand Alone Permit Fees 12-13 Demolition/Administration Fees 14 Sign/Pool Permits, Deposits, Lot Grading, Refunds 15 Municipal Enforcement & Property Standard Fees/Other Applicable Fees 16 Development Charges 17 Parking 18 Municipal Works Water/Sewer Fees 19-20 Subdivision & Vacant Land Condominium and Deposits/Administrative Fees 21 Forestry/Curb & Sidewalk Alterations 22 Traffic 23 Fire Inspections/Approvals/Permits/Products/Misc.24-25 Training/Public Education Services/Fire Protection Services 26 Cemeteries Interment Rights/Fees/Services 27 Dis-Interment Services/Administration Services 28 Products/Memorial Program/Foundation/Marker/Installation Services 29 Notes 30 Recreation, Culture & Facilities Ice/Floor Rentals 31 Special Event Rental Rates 32 Room Rentals (MacBain Community Centre)33 MacBain Community Centre - Indoor Play Structure/Birthday Parties 34 Older Adults (MacBain Community Centre) Program & Rental Fees 35 Aquatics (MacBain Community Centre) 36 Room Rentals (Gale Centre/Chippawa Arena)/Public Skating 37 Playing Fields 38 Museum Fees 39-40 Niagara Falls Exchange Fees/Rentals 41-42 Clerks Department Table of Contents 2 Page 1598 of 1679 Licence $ Rate $ HST Expiration Date Amusement Place, etc. 45.00 N/A April 30 Auctioneers 65.00 N/A December 31 Bake Shops 30.00 N/A December 31 Barber Shops, Hair Dressing & Esthetician Establishments 30.00 N/A December 31 Bill & Sign Posting and Installation 100.00 N/A December 31 Billiard, Bagatelle & Pool Establishments 70.00 N/A December 31 Billiard, Bagatelle & Pool Establishments - plus rate per table 20.00 N/A December 31 Bowling Alleys - per lane 20.00 N/A December 31 Butchers 30.00 N/A December 31 Camping Establishments 110.00 N/A December 31 Commercial Parking Lots 100.00 N/A December 31 Driving Schools 60.00 N/A December 31 Driving Instructors 25.00 N/A December 31 Exhibitions, etc. 45.00 N/A December 31 Flea Markets for first 3 consecutive days 650.00 N/A December 31 Flea Markets - additional rate per day 100.00 N/A To a maximum of $1,150 in one calendar year Food Premises 30.00 N/A December 31 Laundrymen, Laundry Companies, Dry Cleaners, etc. 30.00 N/A December 31 Motels per room 40.00 N/A April 30 Motels Plus rate per room 5.00 N/A April 30 Pawn Brokers 110.00 N/A December 31 Pedlars - Resident 110.00 N/A December 31 Pedlars - Non-resident 650.00 N/A December 31 Photographers - Resident 65.00 N/A December 31 Photographers - Non-resident 140.00 N/A December 31 Public Garages 30.00 N/A December 31 Public Auto Service Stations 30.00 N/A December 31 Public Hall Grade 1 - Capacity 1,000+45.00 N/A December 31 Public Hall Grade 2 - Capacity 600-999 40.00 N/A December 31 Public Hall Grade 3 - Capacity 300-599 35.00 N/A December 31 Public Hall Grade 4 - Capacity 299-under 30.00 N/A December 31 Refreshment Vehicles - Motorized 185.00 N/A April 30 Refreshment Vehicles - Non-Motorized 100.00 N/A April 30 Restaurants 40.00 N/A December 31 Specific Location Daily Sales - Resident 150.00 N/A To a maximum of $1,000 in one calendar year Specific Location Daily Sales - Non-Resident (for 1st day)500.00 N/A N/A Plus additional rate per day 100.00 N/A N/A Charitable Groups - for first 3 days 325.00 N/A To a maximum of $575 in one calendar year Plus additional rate per day 50.00 N/A N/A Tattoo and Body Piercing Parlours 100.00 N/A December 31 Theatres 110.00 N/A December 31 Tourist Homes, Bed & Breakfasts 65.00 N/A April 30 Second Level Lodging 200.00 N/A December 31 Group Homes 25.00 N/A December 31 First year Administrative Fee on all Licences 25.00 N/A N/A Clerks Department 3 Page 1599 of 1679 Marriage Licence Fees $ Rate $ HST Expiration Date Marriage Licence (payable at the time of application)160.00 N/A N/A Seasonal Business Services Licences $ Rate $ HST Expiration Date Seasonal Business Services Licence 1,200.00 N/A Valid from Victoria Day weekend until Canadian Thanksgiving Monthly Seasonal Business Service Licence 300.00 N/A Valid for four (4) consecutive weeks. Civil Marriage Ceremony Fees $ Rate $ HST Total FOR RESIDENTS OF NIAGARA FALLS: Civil Marriage in or at City Hall i.e. Council Chambers during business hours $200.00 City Administration Fee (non-refundable) $250.00 Officiant fee(1) 450.00 58.50 508.50 FOR NON-RESIDENTS OF NIAGARA FALLS: Civil Marriage in or at City Hall i.e. Council Chambers during business hours $500.00 City Administration Fee (non-refundable) $250.00 Officiant fee(1) 750.00 97.50 847.50 FOR RESIDENTS OF NIAGARA FALLS: Civil Marriage off- site in Ontario and/or outside of business hours $200.00 City Administration Fee (non-refundable) plus $250.00 Officiant fee(2) 450.00 58.50 508.50 FOR NON-RESIDENTS OF NIAGARA FALLS: Civil Marriage off-site in Ontario and/or outside of business hours $500.00 City Administration Fee (non-refundable) plus $250.00 Officiant fee(2) 750.00 97.50 847.50 Rehearsal Fee(1)(2) (plus Officiant expenses)75.00 9.75 84.75 Witness Fee (Municipal Staff - per employee) during business hours (if required)25.00 3.25 28.25 Cleaning Fee (if required)100.00 13.00 113.00 Milage/Expenses - outside of business hours: mileage charge at current rate as approved by Council; applicable expenses as agreed upon by both parties, i.e. meals, accomodations (1) Where a ceremony is performed by a Marriage Offciant who is an employee of the City, the Marriage Officiant Fee is retained by the City of Niagara Falls (2) Payment of the City's portion of applicable fees is mandatory and shall not be waived by the Clerk or Designated Officiant. The Marriage Officiant may , at their sole discretion, waive the portion of the fees (Officiant/Mileage/Expenses) which would otherwise be payable to them (3) All applicable insurance coverage shall be the responsibility of the couple and the City shall be provided with the applicable documentation, including the use of City Hall. Additional Notes: 1. Additional rental fees may apply for the use of other locations outside of City Hall. Bookings for any other facility is the responsibility of participants to make appropriate arrangements and payment for a facility to be utilized for the Marriage Ceremony. 2. Fees do not include the Marriage Licence Fee which is established by by-law and my be amended from time to time. 3. All marriage ceremonies shall be performed in accordance with the City's Civil Marriage Soleminization Policy. Vacation Rental Units/Bed & Breakfast $ Rate $ HST Total Vacation Rental Units/Bed & Breakfast - new licence or ownership change*500.00 N/A 500.00 Renewal of Vacation Rental Unit or Bed & Breakfast (annual)*250.00 N/A 250.00 *this fee includes the Fire Inspection Fee Council Code of Conduct $ Rate $ HST Expiration Date Filing Fee 500.00 N/A N/A Note: In the event that the Integrity Commissioner determines that a complaint is frivolous, vexatious, contains sufficient grounds to support an investigation, or that it is determined that no violation occurred, that the complainant shall forfeit the filing fee of $500. If the Integrity Commissioner finds there are sufficient grounds to support an investigation, 50% of the filing fee shall be refunded. Clerks Department 4 Page 1600 of 1679 Water Rates Consumption Charge Water Sewer Rate Table for Monthly Service Charges Meter Size Water $ Fee Sewer $ Fee 15 millimeters (5/8")22.64 27.19 18 millimeters (3/4")22.64 27.19 25 millimeters (1")35.09 42.15 37 millimeters (1 1/2")87.17 104.69 50 millimeters (2")164.15 197.14 75 millimeters (3")316.99 380.68 100 millimeters (4")549.06 659.40 150 millimeters (6")1,075.49 1,291.61 200 millimeters (8")1,794.36 2,154.94 250 millimeters (10")2,575.51 3,093.06 Flat Rate Table for Monthly Service Charges Flat Rate Monthly Charges Water $ Fee Sewer $ Fee Monthly Charges 51.64 58.13 Flat Rate New Construction Monthly Charges Water $ Fee Sewer $ Fee New Construction Monthly Charges 25.90 26.99 Residential Reluctant Monthly Charges Water $ Fee Sewer $ Fee Reluctant Monthly Charge 154.92 174.39 *Rates displayed assumes payment on or before due date. Payments received subsequent to due dates are subject to a Late Payment Charge of 1.25% to be added to the water account at the beginning of each month. The Municipal Act provides the City with the authority to transfer unpaid water/sewer charges to the property tax account of the owner. A processing fee of $30 is charged on each account transferred to taxes due to non-payment. Finance Rate $1.394 per cubic meter $1.713 per cubic meter 5 Page 1601 of 1679 Water $ Fee $ HST $ Total New Account Set Up Fee 30.00 N/A 30.00 Collection Charge - overdue water bills 30.00 N/A 30.00 Water Information per property 20.00 N/A 20.00 Meter Data Fee 30.00 N/A 30.00 Administration Fee for Water Arrears Transferred to Outside Collection Agency 30.00 N/A 30.00 Water Bill Reprint 20.00 N/A 20.00 Water Bill Statement of Account - Current Year no charge N/A 0.00 Water Bill Statement of Account - One Year & Prior 15.00 N/A 15.00 Transfer Fee between accounts (first time free)20.00 N/A 20.00 Transfer to /from tax (first time free)20.00 N/A 20.00 Refund on Credit on Water Account (first time free)20.00 N/A 20.00 For water shut-off fees, please refer to our Municipal Works: Water fees on page 20. Tax Information $ Fee $ HST $ Total Tax Certificate per property 75.00 N/A 75.00 Tax Information per property 45.00 N/A 45.00 Registration Fees - Mortgage Letter 50.00 N/A 50.00 Registration Fees - Debt Farm Letter 50.00 N/A 50.00 Registration Fees - Final Letter 50.00 N/A 50.00 Interest/Penalty on Tax Arrears 1.25%N/A 1.25% Extension Agreements 500.00 N/A 500.00 Personal Tax Information Copy - Current Year no charge N/A no charge Personal Tax Information Copy - One Year and prior 15.00 N/A 15.00 Personal Tax Information Copy - Prior to 1990 100.00 N/A 100.00 Mortgage Company Administration Fee 15.00 N/A 15.00 Tax Bill Reprint 20.00 N/A 20.00 Transfer Fee to tax account - internal (arrears transfer fee to tax account)30.00 N/A 30.00 Transfer Fee to tax account - external 50.00 N/A 50.00 Refund Credit on Tax Account (first time free)20.00 N/A 20.00 Transfer to/from water account (first time free)20.00 N/A 20.00 Transfer to/from tax account (first time free)20.00 N/A 20.00 Tax Reminder Notices 5.00 N/A 5.00 Licences $ Fee $ HST $ Total Dog Licence - Neutered 20.00 N/A 20.00 Dog Licence - Non-Neutered 40.00 N/A 40.00 Miscellaneous $ Fee $ HST $ Total Returned Cheque Fee - per account 40.00 N/A 40.00 Ownership Change Request 20.00 N/A 20.00 Rush Tax Certificates 125.00 N/A 125.00 New Roll Creation 40.00 N/A 40.00 Information Systems - GIS $ Fee $ HST $ Total Owner requested civic address changes 314.29 40.86 355.15 Finance 6 Page 1602 of 1679 Description $ Fee*$ HST $ Total Preparation of Subdivision Agreement 3,500.00 N/A 3,500.00 Preparation of Development Agreement 3,500.00 N/A 3,500.00 Preparation of Condominium Agreement 3,500.00 N/A 3,500.00 Preparation of Site Plan Agreement 1,500.00 N/A 1,500.00 Preparation of Amending Site Plan Agreement 650.00 N/A 650.00 Preparation of Section 37 Agreement 1,000.00 N/A 1,000.00 Preparation of Conservation Easement Agreement 750.00 N/A 750.00 Preparation of Encroachment Agreement 500.00 N/A 500.00 Preparation of Easement Agreement 500.00 N/A 500.00 Preparation of Lease/Licence Agreement with the City 500.00 65.00 565.00 Preparation of Release of Easement 150.00 N/A 150.00 Preparation of Amending Encroachment Agreement/Assignment of Encroaching Agreement 250.00 N/A 250.00 Preparation of Registration Document for Part Lot Control By-Law 200.00 N/A 200.00 Preparation of Registration Document for Deeming By-law 200.00 N/A 200.00 Preparation of Registration & Discharge for Property Standards Order 150.00 N/A 150.00 Preparationof all other Agreements 1,500.00 N/A 1,500.00 Preparation of Release and/or Discharge of Agreement 150.00 N/A 150.00 Processing of Air Rights Easement 500.00 N/A 500.00 Processing of Conveyance of Lands for Road Widening/Daylighting Triangle 250.00 N/A 250.00 Processing of Dedication/Lifting of Reserve Blocks 250.00 N/A 250.00 Processing of request to Encroach on City Owned Property - Residential 250.00 N/A 250.00 Processing of request to Encroach on City Owned Property - Commercial 500.00 N/A 500.00 Request to Purchase Property that has not been previously declared surplus 500.00 N/A 500.00 Deposit for Appraisal & Reference Plan costs associated with approved purchase of property that has not been previously declared surplus 5,000.00 N/A 5,000.00 Processing of Request to Lease/Licence City Owned Property 500.00 N/A 500.00 Preparation of Registration Document for All Other Agreements 200.00 N/A 200.00 Processing of Request for an Easement over City Lands 500.00 N/A 500.00 Preparation of Amending Subdivision Agreement, Amending Condominium Agreement or Amending Development Agreement 1,500.00 N/A 1,500.00 Preparation of Amending Section 37 Agreement 750.00 N/A 750.00 Preparation of Registration Document for All Other Agreements 200.00 N/A 200.00 *The above fees are subject to Applicable Disbursements and Registration Costs and are at the discretion of the City Solicitor Description $ Fee*$ HST $ Total Stanley Ave. Business Park Assoc. Annual Sign Fee for Third Party Advertising (for 4 panels)500.00 65.00 565.00 Term: October 1, 2024 to September 30, 2025 Payment Due Date: September 1, 2024 Legal Business Development 7 Page 1603 of 1679 Official Plan Amendment $ Fee*$ HST $ Total Major (review of 4 or more studies)16,707.00 N/A 16,707.00 Standard 10,610.00 N/A 10,610.00 More than two (2) submissions of plans & studies for review $1,587.00 for each subsequent submission N/A $1,587.00 for each subsequent submission Aggregate Resource Extraction Full Cost Recovery ($16,707.00 deposit) N/A Full Cost Recovery ($16,707.00 deposit) Preconsultation $ Fee*$ HST $ Total Preconsultation Fee (consent) 1,586.00 N/A 1,586.00 All other applications (includes concurrent consent & site plan requests) 3,070.00 N/A 3,070.00 More than two (2) submissions of a concept for review/preparation of a second checklist $1,586.00 for each subsequent submission N/A $1,586.00 for each subsequent submission Zoning By-Law Amendment $ Fee*$ HST $ Total High Rise Hotels 19,615.00 N/A 19,615.00 Complex (review of 4 or more studies required for the application)18,035.00 N/A 18,035.00 Standard 13,257.00 N/A 13,257.00 Minor 8,271.00 N/A 8,271.00 Request for a Minister's Zoning Order (MZO)/Review of Ministry Initiated MZO 13,257.00 N/A 13,257.00 Request to lift a Holding (H) Regulation 2,225.00 N/A 2,225.00 More than two (2) submissions of plans & studies for review $1,586.00 for each subsequent submission N/A $1,586.00 for each subsequent submission Official Plan & Zoning By-Law Amendment (Combined)$ Fee*$ HST $ Total High Rise Buildings (greater than 10 storeys) 26,523.00 N/A 26,523.00 Combined Major (4 or more full studies required for review of the application) 22,279.00 N/A 22,279.00 Combined Standard 16,975.00 N/A 16,975.00 More than 2 submissions of plans & studies for review $2,647.00 for each subsequent submission N/A $2,647.00 for each subsequent submission Site Plan Amendment $ Fee*$ HST $ Total High Rise Buildings (greater than 10 storeys)12,195.00 N/A 12,195.00 All Other Lands 9,013.00 N/A 9,013.00 Amendment to Site Plan Agreement 3,390.00 N/A 3,390.00 Site Plan Resubmission (after 2 submissions within 1 year of original application) $3,390.00 for each subsequent submission N/A $3,390.00 for each subsequent submission Plan of Subdivision $ Fee*$ HST $ Total Draft Plan (Base fee)14,740.00 N/A 14,740.00 Plus per dwelling unit fee 26.00 N/A 26.00 Modifications to Draft Plan Approval 3,925.00 N/A 3,925.00 Extension to Draft Plan Approval 2,122.00 N/A 2,122.00 More than two (2) submissions of plans & studies for review 9,013.00 N/A 9,013.00 Plan of Condominium $ Fee*$ HST $ Total Vacant Land (base fee)12,731.00 N/A 12,731.00 Plus per dwelling unit fee 26.00 N/A 26.00 Conversion 12,731.00 N/A 12,731.00 Standard/Common Element 11,237.00 N/A 11,237.00 Extension of Draft Plan 2,122.00 N/A 2,122.00 Modification of Draft Plan - Vacant Land Condominium 3,708.00 N/A 3,708.00 Modification of Draft Plan - Standard/Conversion 3,708.00 N/A 3,708.00 Exemption to Condominium Draft Plan Approval 3,183.00 N/A 3,183.00 More than two (2) submissions of plans & studies for review $7,416.00 for each subsequent submission N/A $7,416.00 for each subsequent submission Part Lot Control $ Fee*$ HST $ Total Part lot control semi-detached/on-street townhouse units for the first lot/block 1,586.00 N/A 1,586.00 Part Lot Control - each additional lot/block 525.00 N/A 525.00 Part Lot Control - all other types for the first lot 2,225.00 N/A 2,225.00 Deeming by-law (no fee when combined with a zoning amendment)1,267.00 N/A 1,267.00 Public Notification $ Fee*$ HST $ Total Mailing Re-notification 425.00 N/A 425.00 Reassessment requiring a further report 1,061.00 N/A 1,061.00 Newspaper re-notification ($600 deposit payable with application)Actual Cost N/A Actual Cost Notes: Additional fees are required for Regional Planning review of most applications. Additional fees may be required for Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and Regional Niagara Health Department review, where applicable. Notes: Additional fees from the Legal Department are required for applications requiring agreements and registrations of some by-laws. Planning, Building & Development Municipal Works - Administration Fee - 3.75% and Inspection Fee-3.10% (on construction value) Municipal Works - Administration Fee - 3.75% and Inspection Fee-3.10% (on construction value) 8 Page 1604 of 1679 Committee of Adjustment $ Fee $ HST $ Total Consent Application 4,130.00 N/A 4,130.00 Each application consent application for the same lands 948.00 N/A 948.00 Consent Application to separate two existing units 3,811.00 N/A 3,811.00 Change of Conditions 795.00 N/A 795.00 Minor Variance 2,205.00 N/A 2,205.00 Re-notification/Rescheduling (consent/minor variance)425.00 N/A 425.00 Concurrent Consent/Minor Variance Application 4,955.00 N/A 4,955.00 Additional Fee for calling of a Special Meeting to address an application 580.00 N/A 580.00 Sign By-Law $ Fee $ HST $ Total Sign by-law Variance (no fee when combined with a zoning amendment)2,431.00 N/A 2,431.00 Sign by-law Amendment (no fee when combined with a zoning confirmation letter) 6,470.00 N/A 6,470.00 Sidewalk Cafes $ Fee $ HST $ Total Application for Sidewalk Café - 3 year licence (as per Council October 1, 2024)200.00 N/A 200.00 Sidewalk Café Licensing Fee per annum (to a maximum of $2,500) $15.00/m² of licensed area N/A $15.00/m² of licensed area Annual Sidewalk Café - Renewal fee 150.00 N/A 150.00 Compliance Letters $ Fee $ HST $ Total Site Plan Compliance Letter (no fee when combined with a zoning confirmation letter)240.00 N/A 240.00 Environmental Request Letter (no fee when combined with a zoning confirmation letter)240.00 N/A 240.00 Zoning Confirmation Letter 240.00 N/A 240.00 Zoning Review for Building Permit 240.00 N/A 240.00 Compliance Letter (for real estate/legal transactions)240.00 N/A 240.00 Heritage Status Inquiry 240.00 N/A 240.00 Telecommunication Tower Review 1,370.00 N/A 1,370.00 Publications $ Fee $ HST $ Total Official Plan 42.00 5.46 47.46 Zoning By-Law 79-200 (as amended) 42.00 5.46 47.46 Photocopying - 4 pages or more - black & white 0.28 0.04 0.32 Community Improvement Plans $ Fee $ HST $ Total Printed copy of CIP 10.00 1.30 11.30 Short-Term Rentals $ Fee $ HST $ Total Vacation Rental Units, Bed & Breakfast or Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals- new licence or ownership change*500.00 N/A 500.00 Renewal of Vacation Rental Unit, Bed & Breakfast or Owner Occupied Short- Term Rentals (annual)*250.00 N/A 250.00 Planning, Building & Development *this fee includes the Fire Inspection Fee 9 Page 1605 of 1679 Minimum Building Permit Charge 239.00 NEW BUILDINGS Group A - Assembly Occupancies Permit Fee per m2 All Recreational Facilities, Schools, Daycare Facilities, Libraries, Places of Worship, restaurants (finished), Theatres, Arenas Gymnasiums, Transit Stations, Bus terminals, Indoor Pools, and all other Group A Buildings 29.59 Open Public Swimming Pool 2,121.80 Flat fee Portable Classroom 970.72 Flat fee Assembly Building Shell 23.67 Assembly Building Interior Finish 12.61 Group B - Institutional Occupancies Permit Fee per m2 Institutional, Hospital, Medical Care Facilities, Nursing Homes, and all other Group B Buildings 29.59 Institutional Building Interior Finish 12.61 Group C - Residential Occupancies Permit Fee per m2 Single, Semi-Detached, Duplex Dwellings, Detached Accessory Dwelling Units 18.04 Townhouses, Row Housing 18.04 Stacked Townhouses, Multiple Dwellings up to fourplex 18.04 Hotel, Apartment buildings - 6 stories or less 19.72 Hotel, Apartment buildings - 7 stories or more 18.04 Motels, Boarding, Lodging or rooming house 19.72 Interior renovation, Finished basement, Interior accessory dwelling units 10.61 Heated additions to a house 18.04 Unheated additions to a house 12.82 Accessory Building (garage or shed)7.43 Attached Garage/Carport to an existing house 17.13 Covered Deck/Porch 7.43 Uncovered Deck/Porch 239.00 Flat Fee Mobile Homes 340.00 Flat Fee plus Uncertified Mobile Home (foundation included)6.82 Mobile Home Foundation 1.96 Group D - Business & Personal Service Permit Fee per m2 Office, Medical Building, Financial Institution and all other Group D Buildings Complete 29.59 Office, Medical Building, Financial Institution and all other Group D Buildings Shell 23.67 Office, Medical Building, Financial Institution and all other Group D Buildings Interior Finish 12.61 Group E - Mercantile Occupancies Permit Fee per m2 Retail Building Complete 29.59 Retail Building Shell 23.67 Retail Building Interior Finish 12.61 Restaurants Interior Finish (not greater than 30 persons)12.61 Planning, Building & Development 10 Page 1606 of 1679 Group F - Industrial Occupancies Permit Fee per m2 Industrial Buildings Complete 15.61 Industrial Buildings Shell 12.49 Industrial Buildings Interior Finish 9.38 Gas Bar Canopies 13.39 Car Washes 13.39 Parking Garage (underground, open air)8.43 Farm Buildings 5.92 Green Houses non-residential 5.92 Site Services Plumbing Construction Outside of Building Permit Fee Sanitary and Storm Piping 239.00 Flat Fee Sanitary and Storm Piping 37.00 per additional 15m Manholes, catch basin 239.00 Flat Fee Domestic Water Supply 106.00 first 15m Domestic Water Supply 37.00 per additional 15m Fire Services Main 106.00 first 15m Fire Services Main 37.00 per additional 15m Geothermal for Houses 265.00 Flat Fee Geothermal Single for all other 265.00 Flat Fee Planning, Building & Development Page 1607 of 1679 Building Stand Alone Permits for Alterations, Renovations & Repair Building Improvement Permit Fee Demising Wall 239.00 Flat Fee Building Envelope Replacement (Roofing, cladding, windows, waterproofing, etc.)398.00 Flat Fee Foundation Replacement 3.21 per sq. m Roof Structure Replacement 398.00 Flat Fee Concrete Restoration 398.00 Flat Fee Plumbing Building Construction Permit Fee Plumbing Systems Alterations 239.00 Flat Fee Grease, Oil Interceptor 239.00 Flat Fee Backflow valve, Backflow preventer, sump pumps 239.00 Flat Fee Replacement of Domestic Water lines and risers 239.00 Flat Fee Weeping Tile Replacement 239.00 Flat Fee Plumbing Fixtures 239.00 Flat Fee Fire Protection System & Life Safety Systems Permit Fee Electromagnetic Lock/Electric Strikes 239.00 Flat Fee Fire Alarm System 292.00 Flat Fee Fire Alarm Annunciator Panel 292.00 Flat Fee Life Safety Devices 292.00 Flat Fee Sprinkler System 292.00 Flat Fee Standpipe System 292.00 Flat Fee Mechanical System Permit Fee Commercial Cooking Exhaust System 292.00 Flat Fee Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning Roof Top Units (per unit)292.00 Flat Fee Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning Duct Work (per area)8.38 per sq. m Furnace or Hot Water Tank Replacement Unit (per unit)239.00 Flat Fee Boiler Replacement unit 239.00 Flat Fee Spray Booth 292.00 Flat Fee Miscellaneous Works Permit Fee Stages 318.00 Flat Fee Fire Place or Wood Stove 239.00 Flat Fee For categories not listed $15 per $1,000 of valuated construction cost or portion thereof Shoring 30.77 per linear metre Under Pinning 30.77 per linear metre Storage Rack as per 3.16 318.00 Flat Fee Roof Anchors 318.00 Flat Fee Re-Roofing of Buildings other than houses 398.00 Flat Fee Tiny Homes 12.82 per Sq. m Site Grading for Residential developments that are 10 units or less 318.00 Flat Fee Certified Model Homes Service 318.00 Flat Fee Trailer (construction site trailer, sea container)239.00 Flat Fee Designated Structures Permit Fee Communication Tower 318.00 Flat Fee Retaining Wall 318.00 Flat Fee Silo 318.00 Flat Fee Pedestrian Bridge/Walkway 318.00 Flat Fee Outdoor Public Spa 504.00 Flat Fee Outdoor Public Swimming Pool 504.00 Flat Fee Planning, Building & Development 12 Page 1608 of 1679 Satellite Dish 318.00 Flat Fee Designated Structures cont'd Permit Fee Air Supported Structure, Tent, Temporary Fabric Structure 318.00 Flat Fee Roof Sign with Face over 10m2 318.00 Flat Fee Pylon Sign over 7.5m in height 318.00 Flat Fee Projection Sign over 115kg in weight 318.00 Flat Fee Solar Panels 371.00 Flat Fee Crane Runway 318.00 Flat Fee Exterior Storage Tank 318.00 Flat Fee Wind Turbine Generator having a rated output more than 3kW 371.00 Flat Fee Conditional Permits Permit Fee Conditional Permit Agreement 530.00 Flat Fee Conditional permit Security Deposit (% of construction cost of phase being built)10% Condition Permit Stages: Site Servicing (% of construction cost of phase being built)100% Substructure (% of construction cost of phase being built)15% Superstructure (% of construction cost of phase being built)55% Building Envelope (% of construction cost of phase being built)80% Building Interior (% of construction cost of phase being built)100% 13 Page 1609 of 1679 Demolition Residential - Single, Semi-detached, Duplex Dwellings, Townhouses, Row Housing Accessory Structure All other buildings-with gross floor area equal to or less than 600 m2 All other buildings-with gross floor area greater than 600 m2 Administration Fee Occupancy of an unfinished building (apartment residential & mult- storey commercial per floor or unit charge) Occupancy of an unfinished building for all other (per floor or unit charge) Fast Track Permit - please refer to Phase 1 Fast Track program details Limiting Distance Agreement Alternative Solution (minimum 4 hours) Suspended or Cancel Permit Change of Use of Permit with no construction Compliance Letters (from Building Services regarding building permit information) Transfer of Permit Ownership Additional Plan Review Not-ready inspection Contruction without a Permit After hour Inspection Permission to defer Permit Revocation Amendment to Permit Administration Pre-Application Review Amendment to a Conditional Permit Agreement Partial Permit Permit Application Extension 911 Rural Address Sign NSF Cheque Service Charge (per property) Administration Fee for unpaid building permit fees transferred to property taxes Zoning Review for Building Permit Administration Fee for missed payment of Development Charges payable by installments as per Section 26.1 of the Development Charges Act Administration Fees (with HST applicable)Fee HST Total Liquor Licence Clearance Letter *Note: Fire Services portion is also payable. Please refer to Fire Services Department fee section for the applicable charge. 238.70 31.03 269.73 Building File Search (per hour/property) *subject to Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act 36.05 4.69 40.74 Photocopies (per page) - letter size 0.69 0.09 0.78 Photocopies (per page) - legal size 0.92 0.12 1.04 Photocopies (per page) - ledger size 1.36 0.18 1.54 Copies of Large Plans (per plan) - black & white 4.56 0.57 5.13 Copies of Large Plans (per plan) - colour 9.12 1.19 10.31 240.00 Flat Fee 36.00 Flat Fee 26.00 Flat Fee 133.00 per hour 239.00 Flat Fee 239.00 Flat Fee 239.00 Flat Fee 1,061.00 Flat Fee 133.00 per hour 239.00 Flat Fee Permit Fee 159.00 Flat Fee 0.40 per sq. m. 0.40 per sq. m. Fee Planning, Building & Development 550.00 Flat Fee 133.00 per hour 239.00 Flat Fee 133.00 per hour 2x Permit Fee 159.00 per hour 239.00 Flat Fee 239.00 Flat Fee 239.00 Flat Fee 239.00 Flat Fee 133.00 per hour 133.00 Flat fee 239.00 Flat Fee 210.00 Flat Fee See Conditional Permit 14 Page 1610 of 1679 Sign Permits under Sign By-law Signs - under 10 m2 Signs - 10 m2 or more Pool Permit under Pool By-law Deposit Seasonal - Above Ground 500.00 In Ground 750.00 Deposits Single permit: detached dwelling, semi-detached dwelling, duplex, triplex, fourplex, townhouse (per dwelling) Addition(s) to buildings described above where excavation is required Demolition Project Miscellaneous construction accessory to the buildings described above with a construction value greater that $3,500.00 Construction projects other than those described above involving buildings or additions where a site plan IS required Construction projects other than those described above involving buildings or additions where a site plan IS NOTrequired Conditional Building Permit Deposit (minimum $5,000.00) Move a Building Lot Grading Any type of dwelling in a plan of subdivision that has NOT already been assumed by the City Any type of dwelling proposed to be placed on an infill lot Refunds Where only administrative functions have been completed (application received, cost analysis and application is entered into a Building Where only administrative and zoning functions have been completed Where only administrative and zoning & plans examination functions have been completed Where the permit has been issued and field inspections have yet to be performed, subsequent to permit issuance Other Applicable Fees Item $ Fee $ HST $ Total Water Meter 5/8" Positive Displacement Complete Water Meter 5/8" x 3/4 Positive Displacement Complete Water Meter 3/4" Positive Displacement Complete Water Meter 1" Positive Displacement Complete Water Meter 1.5" Positive Displacement Complete 232.00 Flat Fee 50% Stage of Permit NOTE: Where the calculated refund is less than the minimum permit fee appllication to the work, no refund shall be made of the fees paid. Where a request for refund is made twelve (12) months or more after the issuance of the permit, there shall be no fees refunded % of Fees Paid 90% 80% 60% 10% of construction value (minimum of $5,000) Value 1,000.00 per dwelling 750.00 1,000.00 Please see fees on page 20 (New Install Meter costs) Planning, Building & Development 1,500.00 per dwelling 500.00 1,250.00 2,500.00 232.00 Flat Fee Permit Fee Value 1,000.00 per dwelling 750.00 Permit Fee 232.00 Flat Fee 361.00 Flat Fee Note: Refer to Designated Structures Fee Section for signs designated under the Ontario Building Code 77.00 Flat Fee 15 Page 1611 of 1679 Municipal Enforcement Services Fee HST Total Sign Removal Administration Fee 77.25 N/A 77.25 Litter By-law Administration Fee 309.00 N/A 309.00 Fence Variance 309.00 N/A 309.00 Dangerous Dog/Muzzle Order Appeal 309.00 N/A 309.00 Municipal Enforcement Services - Property Standards Fee HST Total Ceriticate of Compliance 257.50 N/A 257.50 Discharge of an Order registered on title 618.00 N/A 618.00 File of Notice of Appeal 515.00 N/A 515.00 Vacant Building Registration Fee 1,000.00 N/A 1,000.00 Vacant Building Administration Fee (one time)350.00 N/A 350.00 Vacant Building Registry Change of Ownership fee 100.00 N/A 100.00 Enforcement Fee (ongoing non-compliance)300.00 N/A 300.00 Planning, Building & Development - Municipal Enforcement 16 Page 1612 of 1679 https://niagarafalls.ca/city-hall/building/development-charges.aspx Please see DC by-laws 2024-053, 2024-054, 2024-056 Schedule of Development Charges effective July 8, 2024 Planning, Building & Development 17 Page 1613 of 1679 Permits $ Fee $ HST $ Total Commercial Vehicle (loading permit annually) - first such vehicle 82.50 10.73 93.23 Commercial Vehicle (loading permit annually) - second such vehicle- under the same registered owner as first permit 27.50 3.58 31.08 Commercial Vehicle (loading permit annually) - each additional such motor vehicle under the same registered owner as the 1st and 2nd permits 16.50 2.15 18.65 Oversize/overweight load permit - single trip 82.50 10.73 93.23 Oversize/overweight load permit - annually 220.00 28.60 248.60 On-street overnight parking permit - annually 110.62 14.38 125.00 Newspaper box permit - annually 33.00 N/A 33.00 Parking meter bagging (per meter per day) - standard daily route for bagged 11.00 1.43 12.43 Residential on-street permit/replacement cost 16.50 2.15 18.65 Residential Convenience pass 35.00 4.55 39.55 Parking Lots - Municipal Parking $ Fee $ HST $ Total Lot 2 - per month 40.04 5.21 45.25 Lot 2 - per hour 1.11 0.14 1.25 Lot 3 - per month 40.04 5.21 45.25 Lot 3 - per hour 1.11 0.14 1.25 Lot 4 - per hour 2.65 0.35 3.00 Lot 4 - per 8 hours 10.62 1.38 12.00 Lot 5 - per hour 2.65 0.35 3.00 Lot 5 - per 8 hours 10.62 1.38 12.00 Lot 7 - per month 40.04 5.21 45.25 Lot 8 - per month 40.04 5.21 45.25 Lot 9 - per month 40.04 5.21 45.25 Lot 9 - per hour 1.11 0.14 1.25 Lot 12 - per month 40.04 5.21 45.25 Lot 12 - per hour 1.11 0.14 1.25 Lot 13 - per month 25.00 3.25 28.25 Lot 13 - per hour 1.11 0.14 1.25 Lot 14 - per month 25.00 3.25 28.25 Lot 14 - per hour 1.11 0.14 1.25 Lot 15 - per month 40.04 5.21 45.25 Lot 16 - per hour 4.43 0.57 5.00 Lot 16 - per month 34.96 4.54 39.50 Lot 17 - per month 40.04 5.21 45.25 Lot 18 - per hour 2.65 0.35 3.00 Lot 18 - per 8 hours 10.62 1.38 12.00 Lot 18 - per month 50.00 6.50 56.50 Lot 19 - per month 40.04 5.21 45.25 Lot 19 - per hour 1.11 0.14 1.25 Lot 20 - per hour 2.65 0.35 3.00 Lot 20 - per 8 hours 10.62 1.38 12.00 On-street rate - commercial/business 1.77 0.23 2.00 On-street rate - hospital 1.77 0.23 2.00 On-street rate - tourist 3.10 0.40 3.50 Parking Lot Replacement Cost: 1-15 days Parking Lot Replacement Cost: 16-31 days *Note: Municipal Parking is regulated with a dynamic rates bylaw that can fluctuate to meet the needs and demands and events of the area and may not reflect the rates listed in this schedule. Planning, Building & Development - Parking Full cost of lot Half cost of lot 19 Page 1614 of 1679 Private Sewer Lateral Cleaning $ Fee $ HST $ Total Monday to Sunday (exclusive of observed holidays) between 8:00am and 7:00 pm 204.67 N/A 204.67 Monday to Sunday (exclusive of observed holidays) between 7:00 pm and 8:00 am 450.21 N/A 450.21 Observed Holiday 542.40 N/A 542.40 "No action", cancellation or false alarm (exclusvie of observed holidays) between 8:00 am and 7:00 pm 85.00 N/A 85.00 "No action", cancellation or false alarm (exclusvie of observed holidays) between 7:00 pm and 8:00 am 95.00 N/A 95.00 Video inspection of a private sewer service (only during times as per line 1 above) free once annually. All other requests will be charged as per lines 1 and 2 above one free annually N/A one free annually Copy of DVD of video 9.09 1.18 10.27 High pressure flushing of sewer lateral from maintenance hole/property line at City's direction or requirement New Install Meter Costs $ Fee $ HST $ Total 5/8" Positive Displacement Complete 640.24 83.23 723.47 5/8" Positive Displacement Meter Only 329.20 42.80 372.00 5/8" x 3/4" Positive Displacement Complete 640.24 83.23 723.47 5/8" x 3/4" Positive Displacement Meter Only 329.20 42.80 372.00 3/4" Positive Displacement Complete 710.92 92.42 803.34 3/4" Positive Displacement Meter Only 390.08 50.71 440.79 1" Positive Displacement Complete 859.82 111.78 971.60 1" Positive Displacement Meter Only 534.08 69.43 603.51 1.5" Positive Displacement Complete 1,440.22 187.23 1,627.45 1.5" Positive Displacement Meter Only 936.68 121.77 1,058.45 NEW: 2" MACH 10 Ultrasonic Meter 1,761.72 229.02 1,990.74 NEW: 3" MACH 10 Ultrasonic Meter 4,746.77 617.08 5,363.85 NEW: 4" MACH 10 Ultrasonic Meter 6,069.48 789.03 6,858.51 NEW: 6" MACH 10 Ultrasonic Meter 9,242.77 1,201.56 10,444.33 NEW: 8" MACH 10 Ultrasonic Meter 13,203.77 1,716.49 14,920.26 NEW: 10" MACH 10 Ultrasonic Meter 16,370.69 2,128.19 18,498.88 NEW: 12" MACH 10 Ultrasonic Meter 19,542.29 2,540.50 22,082.79 6 x 8" compound 4" to 10" protectus R900 Wall Mount Transmitter 391.68 50.92 442.60 R900 Pit Mount Transmitter 480.61 62.48 543.09 R900 RF Pit Mount Antenna 204.38 26.57 230.95 Wire Replacement 100.00 13.00 113.00 Fail to be ready for pre-scheduled meter repair by City staff Water $ Fee $ HST $ Total Bulk Water Rate (per cubic meter)2.30 N/A 2.30 Bulk Water Distribution System - purchase card 15.00 N/A 15.00 Installation of Water Service - any size City supervised tapping fees: 3/4"-5/8" up to & including 2" service 144.46 N/A 144.46 City supervised tapping fees: 4" and up 488.25 N/A 488.25 Fail to be ready for appointment 85.00 N/A 85.00 Charge for application to change meter size 150.00 N/A 150.00 City supervised tapping fees: afterhours: fee per size (above) + applicable overtime at cost Municipal Works At cost Actual Costs Actual Cost Actual Cost Actual Cost Note:All work is invoiced to requester after work is complete. Payment can be made by cash, cheque or credit online 20 Page 1615 of 1679 Water, Cont'd Water $ Fee $ HST $ Total Exercise & Operate Curb Stop or Property Valve 81.46 N/A 81.46 3rd Party Meter Testing/Verification (up to 1")265.46 N/A 265.46 Water Meter Tampering Fee (plus new install meter cost & estimated water theft)500.00 N/A 500.00 Water Meter Inspection 50.00 N/A 50.00 Hydrant Flushing/Testing: per hydrant 81.46 N/A 81.46 Sanitary Sewer Diversion Rebate Application 150.00 N/A 150.00 Arrears Disconnection or Connection Fee 100.00 N/A 100.00 Shutting off or turning on water supplyduring normal working hours 92.87 N/A 92.87 Shutting off or turning on water supply outside normal working hours 219.55 N/A 219.55 Miscellaneous - Water/Wastewater $ Fee $ HST $ Total Water & Wastewater backflow and meter rental fee 150.00 N/A 150.00 Charge after 14 days and every additional 14 days thereafter 150.00 N/A 150.00 Administrative - Invoicing 50.00 N/A 50.00 Notes: Charge for meters found on By-pass: a) By-pass opened with the consent of the City will be charged using the average estimated daily consumption based on annual consumption x number of days on by-pass b) By-pass opened or meter removed, tampered or illegal will be charged (a) x 3 penalty rate. c) If no previous consumption is recorded, a similarly sized meter/similar use will be used at the Engineer's discretion to calculate average daily consumption and charge at (b) rate. Water Meter Tampering is a $500.00 fee, plus the cost of the water meter replacement and the estimated consumption loss. For the purpose of this by-law, normal working hours shall mean Monday to Friday (exclusive of observed holidays) between 7:00 am and 2:00 pm. Municipal Works Meter loaned with Back Flow Preventor for approved hydrant consumption: Damage to meter or backflow preventor cost. 21 Page 1616 of 1679 Subdivision & Vacant Land Condominium and Deposits $ Fee $ HST $ Total Administration Fee (on construction value)3.75%N/A Varies Inspection Fee (on construction value)3.10%N/A Varies Pre-Servicing Agreement Fee 500.00 N/A 500.00 Street Lighting Inspection Fee (ea. Lights, 3rd Party Inspection)160.00 N/A 160.00 Boulevard Street Tree Fee (ea)600.00 N/A 600.00 Cash in-lieu of Survey Monumentation (see below) Vertical Monumentation < 10 Ha 600.00 N/A Varies 10 Ha to 20 Ha 1,200.00 N/A Varies Each Additional Ha 600.00 N/A Varies Horizontal Monumentation < 5 Ha 400.00 N/A Varies 5 Ha to 10 Ha 800.00 N/A Varies Each Additional Ha 400.00 N/A Varies Lot Grading Deposit (ea. Lot/Unit - Max $50,000.00)1,000.00 N/A Varies As Constructed Plan Deposit (ea. Lot/Unit - Max $20,000.00)1,000.00 N/A Varies Administrative $ Fee $ HST $ Total Full Size Prints - Black & White 4.42 0.57 4.99 Full Size Prints - Colour 8.85 1.15 10.00 Photocopies (per page): Letter (colour)0.50 0.07 0.57 Photocopies (per page): Legal (colour)0.75 0.10 0.85 Photocopies (per page): Ledger (colour)1.00 0.13 1.13 Photocopies (per page): Letter (black & white)0.30 0.04 0.34 Photocopies (per page): Legal (black & white)0.40 0.05 0.45 Photocopies (per page): Ledger(black & white)0.50 0.07 0.57 Letters of Compliance 200.00 26.00 226.00 Road Occupancy Permit $ Fee $ HST $ Total Application - Road Only (plus applicable security deposit) - includes administration and inspection 350.00 N/A 350.00 Application - Water (plus applicable security deposit) - includes administration and inspection 600.00 N/A 600.00 Application - Sewer (plus applicable security deposit) - includes administration and inspection 600.00 N/A 600.00 Application - Sewer & Water (plus applicable security deposit) - includes administration and inspection 950.00 N/A 950.00 Detailed Traffic Control Plan and/or Detour Route Plan Review 150.00 N/A 150.00 Additional Inspection Fee (on construction value)3.10%N/A Varies Site Alteration Permit $ Fee $ HST $ Total Application (plus applicable security deposit)200.00 N/A 200.00 Municipal Works 22 Page 1617 of 1679 Forestry - City Tree Removal Request $ Fee $ HST $ Total City tree removal application fee *removal request only, no guarantee of approval 125.00 N/A 125.00 City tree removal (plus $1,200 contribution to 2:1 replanting elsewhere) Curb & Sidewalk Alterations $ Fee $ HST $ Total Curb Cut per meter (minimum cut fee $200.00)97.23 12.64 109.87 Sidewalk Repair per square meter 220.47 28.66 249.13 Curb Repair per linear meter (minimum repair fee $200.00)210.09 27.31 237.40 Sanitary, Storm or Water Model - Assessments $ Fee $ HST $ Total Small scale development and simple modeling 1,925.00 250.25 2,175.25 Mid-scale development and medium complexity modeling 3,500.00 455.00 3,955.00 Large scale development and high complexity modeling 7,000.00 910.00 7,910.00 Special modeling services Parkland $ Fee $ HST $ Total Parkland Gate Installation Application 1,000.00 N/A 1,000.00 Parkland Access Permit (plus applicable security deposit)250.00 N/A 250.00 Municipal Works Case by case pricing At cost *Notes: The request for removal of a City tree is reviewed on a case-by-case basis and further requires a submission of a formal application. In effort to reserve our current tree canopy, all requests will be reviewed directly by the Forestry Supervisor. Trees approved for removal for reasons other than tree health shall be accompanied by a contribution to 2:1 replanting as per Forestry Policy 314.01. 23 Page 1618 of 1679 Traffic/Engineering Information $ Fee $ HST $ Total 8 hour intersection traffic count - per location 315.00 40.95 355.95 24 hour automatic traffic recorder (ATR) - per location 135.00 17.55 152.55 24 hour speed study (ATR) - per location 250.00 32.50 282.50 4 day automatic traffic recorder (ATR), speed/volume/class - per location 400.00 52.00 452.00 7 day automatic traffic recorder (ATR), speed/volume/class - per location 700.00 91.00 791.00 Disabled Parking Sign 40.00 5.20 45.20 Disabled Parking tab - ($300 fine)20.00 2.60 22.60 Six foot telespar post & base 60.00 7.80 67.80 Ten foot telespar post and base 70.00 9.10 79.10 "Slow down" lawn sign and base 25.00 3.25 28.25 24 hour automatic traffic recorder (ATR) - season - approx. 150 locations 1,500.00 195.00 1,695.00 Permits $ Fee $HST $Total Special Event Application (small)200.00 26.00 226.00 Special Event Application (medium)500.00 65.00 565.00 Special Event Application (large)750.00 97.50 847.50 Oversize/overweight load permit - single trip 100.00 13.00 113.00 Oversize/overweight load permit - annually 300.00 39.00 339.00 Municipal Works - Traffic 24 Page 1619 of 1679 Inspection/ Fire Prevention Services $ Fee $ HST $ Total Private Home Day Care, Respite Homes 175.00 22.75 197.75 Licensed Day Care 250.00 32.50 282.50 Boarding Room & Lodging & Bed & Breakfast 225.00 29.25 254.25 Residential: 1-3 units (includes single family dwelling, duplex and triplex)250.00 32.50 282.50 Multi-Units: Apartments 1-4 units 350.00 45.50 395.50 Multi-Units: over 4 units, rate per unit 75.00 9.75 84.75 Hotels/Motels: 1-10 units 450.00 58.50 508.50 Hotels/Motels: over 10 units, rate per unit 75.00 9.75 84.75 General Inspections during regular hours/hour 61.04 7.94 68.98 After hours Inspection/Plans Review (minimum 4 hours) per hour 125.00 16.25 141.25 Commericial & Industrial less than 1,000 square meters 250.00 32.50 282.50 For each additional 1,000 square meters 75.00 9.75 84.75 Re-inspection fee for outstanding violations for the second and each subsquent re-inspection 100.00 13.00 113.00 Care/vunerable Occupancies 100.00 13.00 113.00 Municipal Licensing Re-inspection 61.04 7.94 68.98 Unsafe Building Order Compliance Inspection 350.00 45.50 395.50 FPO Response & Remediation of Hazard Fee/hr 61.04 7.94 68.98 Preconstruction consultation 61.04 7.94 68.98 Note: Requested inspection, outside of regular business hours, on weekends or holidays, is $150.00 per hour, with a minimum fee of $300.00 Approvals/Permits $ Fee $ HST $ Total General File Search 100.00 13.00 113.00 Occupant Load Signs 61.04 7.94 68.98 Reproduce Existing Documents 60.00 7.80 67.80 Fire Safety Plan Review & Approval - per submission 61.04 7.94 68.98 ULC Integrated Life Safety System Test Approval 61.04 7.94 68.98 3D Rendering of Buildings or Fire Scene 350.00 45.50 395.50 Hose Removal Approval and Inspection (per hose cabinet fee of $15/hose + HST)250.00 32.50 282.50 Letters & Produce Incident Reports to Insurance 105.00 13.65 118.65 Liquor Licence Approval Letter 160.00 20.80 180.80 Special Events (approval letter)70.00 9.10 79.10 Fireworks/Pyrotechnics (approval letter)70.00 N/A 70.00 Fireworks Vendor Permit 70.00 N/A 70.00 Designation of Fire Access Routes 150.00 N/A 150.00 Fire Code Alternative Solution Review 500.00 65.00 565.00 Products $ Fee $ HST $ Total Security Key Boxes 231.00 30.03 261.03 Fire route signs 35.00 4.55 39.55 Lock for fire safety plan box 20.00 2.60 22.60 Providing & installing carbon monoxide alarm installation 35.40 4.60 40.00 Providing & installing combination smoke/carbon monoxide alarm 35.40 4.60 40.00 Providing & installing a listed smoke alarm 15.00 1.95 16.95 Fire 26 Page 1620 of 1679 Miscellaneous $ Fee $ HST $ Total Plan examinations, per $1 of permit value 0.10 N/A 0.10 Zoning amendments, per $1 of application fee 0.10 N/A 0.10 Site plan review, per $1 of application fee 0.10 N/A 0.10 Committee of Adjustments, per $1 of application fee 0.10 N/A 0.10 Subdivision Plans, per $1 of application fee 0.10 N/A 0.10 Fee to expedite services 50% if current applicable service fee in addition to regular fee 27 Page 1621 of 1679 Training/Public Education Services $ Fee $ HST $ Total Fire Safety Training - Business (minimum of 4 hours) per hour 61.04 7.94 68.98 Fire Safety Training - non-profit group Supervision of Fire Drills - Business - per Fire employee (minimum 1 hour)61.04 7.94 68.98 Supervision of Fire Drills - non-profit group Fire Extinguisher Training Base Price 250.00 32.50 282.50 Fire Extinguisher Training per person 10.00 1.30 11.30 Fire Ground Training Use: Tower with live burn props - 8 hours (after 8 - hours will be prorated)2,042.40 265.51 2,307.91 Tower with live burn props - 4 hours (after 4 - hours and less than 8- hours will be prorated)1,185.20 154.08 1,339.28 Training Ground with no burn props - 8 hours 500.00 65.00 565.00 Training Ground with no burn props - 4 hours 250.00 32.50 282.50 Auto Extrication - per vehicle 250.00 32.50 282.50 Apparatus required/day Fire Safety Training/Public Education Services $ Fee $ HST $ Total Title searches Corporate profiles Cost of Prosecution Services Fire investigation - contracted services cost recovery Fire suppression - contracted services cost recovery Fire inspection support (fire alarm/sprinkler, etc) Cost to secure vacant building Fire Protection Services $ Fee $ HST $ Total Failure to comply with an Ontario regulation causing an Emergency Reponse O. Reg.201/01 Fire Department vehicle per hour or part thereof Non-resident motor vehicle response - per apparatus for 1st hour or part thereof Non-resident motor vehicle response - per apparatus for each additional half hour or part thereof Response for open air burning - per apparatus for the 1st hour or part thereof Response for open air burning - per apparatus for each additional half hour or part thereof. Response & remediation - grow operations/drug lab Response for rescue as result of trespass/stunting/misadventure Response for malicious complaint/false reporting Response for fireworks complaint in contravention of by-law Vacant building response - per apparatus for the 1st hour or part thereof After hours services (per person/per hour)91.56 11.90 103.46 Delayed response from Property Keyholder Risk Safety Management Plan (RSMP) Review - Propane $ Fee $ HST $ Total Existing facility - 5,000 USWG or less 250.00 32.50 282.50 New/modified facility - 5,000 USWG or less 500.00 65.00 565.00 Existing facility - more than 5,000 USWG 1,250.00 162.50 1,412.50 New/modified facility - more than 5,000 USWG 2,500.00 325.00 2,825.00 Preventable False Alarms $ Fee $ HST $ Total First two alarms, written warning Subsequent Alarms **MTO rate is an established fee used by Fire Departments to cost recover **current MTO Rate **current MTO Rate **current MTO Rate **current MTO Rate **current MTO Rate **current MTO Rate **current MTO Rate **current MTO Rate **current MTO Rate **current MTO Rate Fire no charge no charge as billed to the department as billed to the department **current MTO Rate as billed to the department as billed to the department as billed to the department No charge **current MTO Rate **current MTO Rate as billed to the department as billed to the department **current MTO Rate 28 Page 1622 of 1679 Interment Rights (Lot Sales)Total Fee HST Total Charge Adult Single Lot 2,732.58 355.24 3,087.82 Child/Infant Single Lot - size 4'x5'1,287.86 167.42 1,455.28 Child/Infant Single Lot - with granite memorial/keepsakes storage 3,713.15 482.71 4,195.86 Cremation Lot - Single lot 571.18 74.25 645.43 Cremation Plot - Four lots 1,896.75 246.58 2,143.33 One Time Care & Maintenance Fee 309.00 40.17 349.17 Interment Rights (Niche Sales)Total Fee HST Total Charge Niche Level A & B Single Niche Stamford Green only 871.92 113.35 985.27 Double Niche 2,019.16 262.49 2,281.65 Triple Niche Stamford Green only 2,891.07 375.84 3,266.91 Niche Level C - G Single Niche Stamford Green only 1,101.36 143.18 1,244.54 Double Niche 2,294.49 298.28 2,592.77 Triple Niche Stamford Green only 3,395.85 441.46 3,837.31 Interment Rights (Niche Sales-Estate)Total Fee HST Total Charge Two Niche Unit (4 Urn Limit)5,171.89 672.35 5,844.24 Four Niche Unit (8 Urn Limit)10,343.78 1,344.69 11,688.47 Interment & Inurnment Service Fees Total Fee HST Total Charge Adult Casket Burial 1,760.37 228.85 1,989.22 Adult Double Depth Casket Burial 2,434.77 316.52 2,751.29 Child/Infant Casket Burial 829.66 107.86 937.52 Cremains Urn Burial 556.99 72.41 629.40 Oversized Urn Burial (Companion & Urn Vaults)835.52 108.62 944.14 Cremains - SCATTERING - REMEMBRANCE GARDENS 284.35 36.97 321.32 Cremains - SCATTERING - OTHER 142.17 18.48 160.65 *Care & Maintenance - Scattering 30.00 3.90 33.90 Interment Cancellation - Casket (if not already open)417.22 54.24 471.46 Interment Cancellation - Urn (if lot/niche already open)208.62 27.12 235.74 Interment Services (Niche Inurnments)Total Fee HST Total Charge Single Inurnment 438.69 57.03 495.72 Double Cremain Inurnment*94.94 12.34 107.28 Dis-Inter Niche Urn 208.62 27.12 235.74 *Adminstration fee for the additional cremated remain inurnment/interment if taking place at the same time. Cemetery Fees 29 Page 1623 of 1679 Dis-Interment Services Total Fee HST Total Charge Adult Casket Dis-interment only*2,980.15 387.42 3,367.57 Adult Casket Dis-interment & Re-interment 5,096.90 662.60 5,759.50 Cremain Urn Dis-interment Only*838.80 109.04 947.84 Cremain Urn Dis-interment & Re-Interment 1,420.96 184.72 1,605.68 Infant Casket Dis-interment Only*1,145.41 148.90 1,294.31 Infant Casket Dis-interment & Re-interment 2,025.60 263.33 2,288.93 *remains are removed from Municipal Cemetery Interment Surcharges Total Fee HST Total Charge Late Arrivals - after 3:00 pm Mon-Sat, Sun & Holidays (each 1/2 hour)131.87 17.14 149.01 Sunday & Holiday Casket Burial - scheduled between 11:00 am & 2:00 pm 1,002.17 130.28 1,132.45 Sunday & Holiday Cremains Burial - scheduled between 11:00 am & 2:00 pm 501.10 65.14 566.24 Tent Rental (All Interment Services)149.16 19.39 168.55 Less than 8 working hours casket burial order 316.49 41.14 357.63 Less than 8 working hours cremains burial order 158.24 20.57 178.81 Administration Services Total Fee HST Total Charge Cemetery Administrative fee 94.94 12.34 107.28 Interment Rights Replacement/Duplicate 47.46 6.17 53.63 Cremains Urn Burial - double (admin fee) *companion urn*94.94 12.34 107.28 Cemetery Records Search (charge per hour)47.46 6.17 53.63 Cemetery Fees Dis-Interment & Administrative Service Fees 30 Page 1624 of 1679 Niche & Memorial Products Total Fee HST Total Charge Bronze Wreath (Maplegrove) 1,034.24 134.45 1,168.69 Glass - Single Niche - Stamford Green 103.42 13.44 116.86 Glass - Double Niche - Stamford Green 206.84 26.89 233.73 Glass - Triple Niche - Stamford Green 257.80 33.51 291.31 Bronze Name Plate - Remembrance Garden/Memorial Woods 360.50 46.87 407.37 Bronze Plate - Single Niche - Stamford Green 775.67 100.84 876.51 Bronze Plate - Double Niche - Stamford Green 1,551.36 201.68 1,753.04 Bronze Plate - Triple Niche - Stamford Green 2,327.03 302.51 2,629.54 Granite Plate Etching Service 750.00 97.50 847.50 Cremation Keep Sakes - Pendant 110.33 14.34 124.67 Cremation Keep Sakes - Pendant with Fingerprint 168.68 21.93 190.61 Key FOB (extra) Stamford Green 20.67 2.69 23.36 Cemetery & Park Memorial Program Total Fee HST Total Charge Brushed Metal Memorial Tag 3x5 - added to bench or tree 50.00 N/A 50.00 Brushed Metal Memorial Tag 4x6 - added to bench or tree 75.00 N/A 75.00 Aluminum Memorial Plaque 4x6 - added to bench or tree 175.00 N/A 175.00 Aluminum Memorial Plaque 6x8 - added to bench or tree 250.00 N/A 250.00 Aluminum Memorial Plaque 8x10 - added to bench or tree 325.00 N/A 325.00 Aluminum Memorial Plaque 8x10 - with metal stand installed beside bench 650.00 N/A 650.00 Bronze Memorial Plaque 8x10 - with metal stand installed beside bench 850.00 N/A 850.00 Bronze Butterfly 379.04 N/A 379.04 Memorial Tree 810.00 N/A 810.00 Memorial Bench 2,864.43 N/A 2,864.43 Life's QR - Heart Plaque 225.00 29.25 254.25 Life's QR - 2x2 Plaque 250.00 32.50 282.50 Life's QR - 4x4 Plaque 275.00 35.75 310.75 Life's QR - 4x4 Tree Stake 300.00 39.00 339.00 Foundation /Marker/Installation Services Total Fee HST Total Charge Foundation Installation - up to 36"870.27 113.14 983.41 Foundation Installation - 36" to 48"1,002.04 130.27 1,132.31 Foundation Installation - 49" to 60"1,334.65 173.50 1,508.15 Foundation Installation - 61" to 72"1,466.71 190.67 1,657.38 Foundation Installation - 73" to 90"1,660.35 215.85 1,876.20 Veteran Upright Marker Setting 587.39 76.36 663.75 Small Flat Marker Setting under 172 square inches 212.79 27.66 240.45 Large Flat Marker Setting over 172 square inches 372.82 48.47 421.29 Corner Markers Setting (per set of 4)212.79 27.66 240.45 Foundation Removal 500.00 65.00 565.00 Cemetery Cremation Vault 664.35 86.37 750.72 Cemetery Traditional Vault 1,539.85 200.18 1,740.03 Prescribed Marker Care & Maintenance Fee Total Fee HST Total Charge Flat Marker Over 172 square inches 100.00 13.00 113.00 Prescribed Provincial Licensing Fee Total Fee HST Total Charge Provincial Licensing Fee 30.00 3.90 33.90 Cemetery Fees Memorial Products & Services Foundation Fees CUSTOM - Memorial Bench with Memorial Plate Installed on Back of Bench (please contact Cemetery office) 31 Page 1625 of 1679 3) Sunday & statutory holiday interment services may be scheduled between 11:00 am & 2:00 pm. An interment surcharge will apply. 4) A "scheduled" funeral late arrival & other interment surcharges will apply as indicated in the Cemetery Fee Schedule - "Interment Surcharges" 5) Funeral late arrivals (arriving after the scheduled time) will be subject to an additional fee. 6) Funeral Directors are responsible for advising families, in advance, of potential late charges & applicable surcharges. 7) Dis-interments may be scheduled from May 1st to November 1st only and at the discretion of the Cemetery Manager or designate. 8) The Funeral Director is responsible for scheduling & all related costs for disinterments including: casket/urn/vault/removal vault/urn unsealing & resealing Niagara Regional Health Unit Approval and Attendance 9) One time care & maintenance fee is charged per interment (fully body or cremation) that takes place in a lot (grave) that was purchased prior to 1955. B) Interment Right Sales 1) The Interment Rights Holder owns the interment rights to a single lot, plot and/or niche. The Interment Rights Holder must abide by the regulations stipulated in the Cemetery by-law, including the installation of a monument, maintenance of a flowerbed or other memorialization. 2) The Interment Rights Holder may transfer, exchange or sell-back a plot, single lot or niche at any time before an interment takes place. If the above Interment Rights have not been used, the purchaser may, in writing to the City within thirty (30) days from the signing of the contract, cancel this contract and receive a full refund. Following thirty (30) days, the purchaser may be eligible for a full refund less the Care & Maintenance Fees. C) Resale/Transfers The Rights Holder may resell unused lots/plots/niches to the City of Niagara Falls for a refund of the current Cemetery Fee. Rights Holder may also resell unused lots/plots/niches privately. The City reserves first right of refusal for all resell/sell back of Interment Rights (i.e. lots, plots and niches). All documents pertaining to the original sale must be returned to the Cemetery Office. An administration charge will apply, in accordance with the current Cemetery Fees Schedule. D) Payment Interment Rights (lot sales) must be paid in full before any burial and/or memorialization can take place. Payment for a burial service (casket, cremation, niche, scatter) is due the day of the service. Credit card, debit, cheque are the only acceptable methods of payment. E) Inquiries All inquiries or concerns should be received in person at the Fairview Cemetery office, on Stanley Ave., Monday through Saturday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, or by calling (905) 354-4721 Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. Saturday appointments must be made at least 48 hours in advance. Mark Richardson, Manager of Cemetery Services. 2) Monday to Saturday Interment Services (except on Statutory or City Holidays) may be scheduled between 9:00am and 3:00 pm only Cemetery Fees Memorial Products & Services Notes: A) Interment/Disinterment Services 1) All committal services scheduling is at the approval of the Cemetery Services based on location, weather, staff availability & the number of services requested. 32 Page 1626 of 1679 Note: Commercial Groups/Community Groups Non-profit: Prime hours are Monday-Friday 5:00 pm-11:00 pm, Saturday-Sunday 7:00 am to close Non-prime hours are Monday-Friday 7:00 am - 5:00 pm and 11:00 pm - 12:00 am Statutory Holidays are charged at prime rates Summer ice rates are applicable from May 1st through August 31st Exact dates of opening & closing to be determined each year Cancellation Fee $ Fee $ HST $ Total Arenas, playing fields, Older Adult Centre and MacBain Community Centre rentals 22.07 2.87 24.94 Ice/Floor Rentals (Fall/Winter - effective September 1 - April 30)$ Fee $ HST $ Total Adult Ice rental - prime time 232.37 30.21 262.58 Adult Ice rental - non-prime time 125.39 16.30 141.69 Youth Ice rental - prime time (resident)160.87 20.91 181.78 Youth Ice rental - non prime time 102.65 13.34 115.99 Youth tournament prime time (non-tenant)188.88 24.55 213.43 Ice Training (non prime time only, 5 skater maximum)64.86 8.43 73.29 Education rate (all elementary schools)60.31 7.84 68.15 Floor Rental - adult 82.40 10.71 93.11 Floor Rental - youth 74.16 9.64 83.80 Ice/Floor Rentals (Spring/Summer - effective May 1 - August 31)$ Fee $ HST $ Total All users - prime time 223.43 29.05 252.48 All users - non prime time 159.85 20.78 180.63 Tenant Groups - prime time 193.85 25.20 219.05 Tenant Groups - non prime time 131.75 17.13 148.88 Youth tournament (non-tenant) prime time 180.14 23.42 203.56 Education rate (all schools)60.34 7.84 68.18 Floor rental - adult 82.40 10.71 93.11 Floor rental - youth 74.16 9.64 83.80 Recreation, Culture & Facilities 33 Page 1627 of 1679 Parking Lot Rentals $ Fee $ HST $ Total King Eddy - Full Day (4-12 hours)500.00 65.00 565.00 King Eddy - Half Day (4 hours or less)250.00 32.50 282.50 Gale Centre Parking Lot A - Full Day (4-12 hours)1,000.00 130.00 1,130.00 Gale Centre Parking Lot A - Half Day (4 hours or less)500.00 65.00 565.00 Gale Centre Parking Lot B - Full Day (4-12 hours)500.00 65.00 565.00 Gale Centre Parking Lot B - Half Day (4 hours or less)250.00 32.50 282.50 MacBain Centre Parking Lot A - Full Day (4-12 hours)500.00 65.00 565.00 MacBain Centre Parking Lot A - Half Day (4 hours or less)250.00 32.50 282.50 MacBain Centre Parking Lot B - Full Day (4-12 hours)500.00 65.00 565.00 MacBain Centre Parking Lot B - Half Day (4 hours or less)250.00 32.50 282.50 MacBain Skatepark Lot - Full Day (4-12 hours)250.00 32.50 282.50 MacBain Skatepark Lot - Half Day (4 hours or less)125.00 16.25 141.25 Chippawa Arena - Full Day (4-12 hours)250.00 32.50 282.50 Chippawa Arena - Half Day (4 hours or less)125.00 16.25 141.25 Chippawa Lions Park Lot - Full Day (4-12 hours)250.00 32.50 282.50 Chippawa Lions Park Lot - Half Day (4 hours or less)125.00 16.25 141.25 Park Rentals*$ Fee $ HST $ Total Chippawa Lions Park - Community Park 75.00 9.75 84.75 City Hall Centennial Square - City-Wide Park 75.00 9.75 84.75 Cummington Square - City-Wide Park 60.00 7.80 67.80 F.H. Leslie Park - Community Park 75.00 9.75 84.75 George Bukator Park - City-Wide Park 60.00 7.80 67.80 John N. Allan Park - Community Park 75.00 9.75 84.75 Lundy's Lane Battlefield Park - City-Wide Park 75.00 9.75 84.75 Special Events Park Rentals 75.00 9.75 84.75 *Not including athletic fields Recreation, Culture & Facilities Special Event Rental Fees Page 1628 of 1679 MacBain Community Centre Room Rental Fees Rooms for Rent (Regular & Out of Town) $ Hourly Rate $ HST $ Total $ Day Rate $ HST $ Total Multi-Purpose Room A 27.56 3.58 31.14 137.80 17.91 155.71 Multi-Purpose Room D 66.15 8.60 74.75 330.75 43.00 373.75 Multi-Purpose Room E 66.15 8.60 74.75 330.75 43.00 373.75 Multi-Purpose Room D/E (together)132.30 17.20 149.50 661.50 86.00 747.50 Multi-Purpose Room F 52.50 6.83 59.33 262.50 34.13 296.63 Community Board Room 27.56 3.58 31.14 137.80 17.91 155.71 Coronation Room 66.15 8.60 74.75 330.75 43.00 373.75 Second Floor Meeting Room 21.00 2.73 23.73 105.00 13.65 118.65 Rooms for Rent (Non Profit ) $ Hourly Rate $ HST $ Total $ Day Rate $ HST $ Total Multi-Purpose Room A 13.78 1.79 15.57 68.90 8.96 77.86 Multi-Purpose Room D 33.08 4.30 37.38 165.40 21.50 186.90 Multi-Purpose Room E 33.08 4.30 37.38 165.40 21.50 186.90 Multi-Purpose Room D/E (together)66.15 8.60 74.75 330.75 43.00 373.75 Multi-Purpose Room F 26.25 3.41 29.66 131.25 17.06 148.31 Community Board Room 13.78 1.79 15.57 68.90 8.96 77.86 Coronation Room 33.08 4.30 37.38 165.40 21.50 186.90 Second Floor Meeting Room 10.50 1.37 11.87 52.50 6.83 59.33 $ Fee/hr $ HST $ Total 71.66 9.32 80.98 35.83 4.66 40.49 115.76 15.05 130.81 63.39 8.24 71.63 Day Rate 868.22 112.87 981.09 $ Fee/hr $ HST $ Total 35.84 4.66 40.50 17.91 2.33 20.24 57.89 7.53 65.42 24.81 3.23 28.04 $ Fee/hr $ HST $ Total 10.00 1.30 11.30 15.00 1.95 16.95 Walking Track 50.00 6.50 56.50 8.85 1.15 10.00 4.42 0.58 5.00 6.19 0.81 7.00 MacBain Community Centre - DAY PASS - Valid for public swimming and drop in gym times Program Fees $ Fee/hr $ HST $ Total Child/Youth (4-17)/Senior (60+)8.85 1.15 10.00 Adult 13.27 1.73 15.00 Family 22.12 2.88 25.00 Drop in programs (excluding aquatics, indoor play structure & racquet sports)4.43 0.58 5.00 Day Camp Registration (basic)235.00 N/A 235.00 Before Care 20.00 N/A 20.00 After Care 20.00 N/A 20.00 Youth Recreation, Culture & Facilities Gymnasium MacBain Comm. Centre Rental Fees (not for profit) Youth 1/3 gym Adult Adult 1/3 gym Gymnasium Youth Youth 1/3 gym Adult Adult 1/3 gym MacBain Community Centre Rental Fees (for profit) Per pass MacBain Community Centre Rental Fees Drop in Fee for Squash & Racquetball (prime: after 5:00pm & weekends) - per person Per pass Squash Courts (per hour)Youth/Older adult non-prime Adult weekends Equipment Rental Drop in Fee for Squash & Racquetball (non-prime: before 5:00pm on weekdays) - per person Per week Per week Per week Per pass Per pass 35 Page 1629 of 1679 Indoor Play Structure $ Fee $ HST $ Total Hourly NFP Rental 150.00 19.50 169.50 Drop in 6.19 0.81 7.00 Drop in 13.27 1.73 15.00 Birthday Parties $ Fee $ HST $ Total 75.00 9.75 84.75 100.00 13.00 113.00 250.00 32.50 282.50 200.00 26.00 226.00 50.00 - 50.00 30.00 3.90 33.90 21.43 2.79 24.22 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 20.00 2.60 22.60 30.00 3.90 33.90 40.00 5.20 45.20 80.00 10.40 90.40 8.00 1.04 9.04 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 10.00 1.30 11.30 15.00 1.95 16.95 20.00 2.60 22.60 40.00 5.20 45.20 5.00 0.65 5.65 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 10.00 1.30 11.30 Recreation, Culture & Facilities per child per family Birthday Party Cleaning/Damage Deposit Refund - Program Only Room only Fees Fees Per Hour Room & 1/3 Gym Room & 1/3 Gym and Play Structure Room & Play Structure Refunds (for all registrations) Crafts Refund - Administration Fee MacBain Community Centre Storage (for profit) Locker Box per month Small Cabinet - unlocked per month Small Cabinet - locked per month Large Cabinet - locked per month Small Cabinet - locked per month Large Cabinet - locked per month Storage Closet/Rooms - locked per square foot/per year Storage Closet/Rooms - locked per square foot/per year MacBain Community Centre Storage (not for profit) Locker Box per month Small Cabinet - unlocked per month Page 1630 of 1679 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 25.22 3.28 28.50 1.55 0.20 1.75 2.83 0.37 3.20 2.58 0.34 2.92 5.15 0.67 5.82 4.12 0.54 4.66 5.15 0.81 5.96 5.67 0.74 6.41 7.21 0.81 8.02 6.18 0.81 6.99 4.12 0.54 4.66 5.15 0.58 5.73 4.12 0.54 4.66 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 27.43 3.57 31.00 31.86 4.14 36.00 49.56 6.44 56.00 58.41 7.59 66.00 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 4.42 0.57 5.00 3.54 0.46 4.00 5.31 0.69 6.00 4.42 0.57 5.00 6.19 0.81 7.00 4.87 0.63 5.50 MacBain Community Centre - Adult Fitness Program Fees Drop in Adult Fitness Registered Adult Fitness - 60+ member Yoga Adult Fitness Yoga Adult Fitness - 60+ member Drop in Adult Fitness - 60+ member Registered Adult Fitness Twelve Month Membership - Resident Twelve Month Membership - Non-Resident Yoga - 60+ Non-Member Bingo - non-member Yoga - 60+ Member Six Month Membership - Resident Six Month Membership - Non-Resident Pickleball Lessons Recreation, Culture & Facilities Program Fees Program Fees Program drop in MacBain Community Centre - Older Adults 60 plus MacBain Community Centre - Older Adults 60 plus Memberships Pickleball - Drop in - Non- Member TRX = 60+ Member - Off Peak Pickleball - Drop in - Member Fitness class drop in (including Zumba/Clogging/Short Mat) Bingo - member Fitness pass (10 punches) Meditation Watercolour Instruction 37 Page 1631 of 1679 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 3.54 0.46 4.00 4.42 0.58 5.00 3.98 0.52 4.50 8.85 1.15 10.00 13.27 1.73 15.00 61.95 8.05 70.00 119.47 15.53 135.00 79.65 10.35 90.00 6.19 0.81 7.00 4.42 0.58 5.00 180.00 23.40 203.40 240.00 31.20 271.20 60.00 7.80 67.80 Lane Rental (per hour)20.00 2.60 22.60 150.00 19.50 169.50 200.00 26.00 226.00 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 87.50 N/A 87.50 109.50 N/A 109.50 127.60 N/A 127.60 178.00 23.14 201.14 288.40 N/A 288.40 4.42 0.58 5.00 5.31 0.69 6.00 7.87 1.02 8.89 8.56 1.11 9.67 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 40.00 N/A 40.00 47.75 N/A 47.75 57.40 N/A 57.40 122.60 N/A 122.60 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 135.00 N/A 135.00 155.00 N/A 155.00 155.00 N/A 155.00 300.00 N/A 300.00 90.00 N/A 90.00 115.00 N/A 115.00 90.00 N/A 90.00 225.00 N/A 225.00 Standard First Aid Recert Instructors No Charge Bronze Cross National Lifeguard National Lifeguard Recert Standard First Aid Aquatics Certification Course Fees Bronze Star Bronze Medallion Adult Lane Swim/Public Swim Recreation, Culture & Facilities MacBain Community Centre - Indoor Aquatics Program Fees Child/Youth Family (2+3) Adult Senior AdultSix Month Membership Child Senior Leisure Swim Family (2+5) Birthday Party Pool & room Pool & gym Fitness Classes Drop in - Adult Drop in - Older Adults 60+ Both pools 1-30 people Both pools 31-100 peoplePool Rental (per hour) with Slide (additional) 1-10 people/hour Private Private Swimming Lessons - Indoor (10 lessons) 30 minutes 45 minutes 60 minutes Adult Lessons Drop-in Aqua Fitness 60+ Member Drop-in Aqua Fitness 60+ Non-Member Aqua Cycle 60+ Member Aqua Cycle 60+ Non-Member 30 minutes Swimming Lessons - Outdoor (5 lessons) 45 minutes 60 minutes 38 Page 1632 of 1679 Gale Centre/Chippawa Room Rental Fees Memorial Room $ Hourly Rate $ HST $ Total $ Day Rate $ HST $ Total Not for profit Community Group 51.50 6.70 58.20 300.00 39.00 339.00 For profit Commercial Use 103.00 13.39 116.39 500.00 65.00 565.00 Birthday Parties - per booking 77.25 10.04 87.29 N/A N/A N/A Boardrooms $ Hourly Rate $ HST $ Total $ Day Rate $ HST $ Total Community Group N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Commercial Use 25.75 3.35 29.10 128.75 16.74 145.49 Chippawa Community Room $ Hourly Rate $ HST $ Total $ Day Rate $ HST $ Total Community Group 35.00 4.55 39.55 200.00 26.00 226.00 Commercial Use 50.00 6.50 56.50 300.00 39.00 339.00 Birthday Parties - per booking (3hrs with ice booking only)77.25 10.04 87.29 N/A N/A N/A Note: per day is for an 8 hour period. Special provisions for tournaments can be made through contract rental. The Special Event rental rates are for the basic use and services of the facility only. Additional charges will be added for staff, equipment rental and any other facility requirements that are requested. Organizations serving alcoholic beverages must comply with the City's Alcohol Risk Management Policy. $ Fee $ HST $ Total 3.54 0.46 4.00 2.65 0.34 2.99 8.84 1.15 9.99 2.95 0.38 3.33 Seniors (60 years & over) Recreation, Culture & Facilities Public Skating Adult (16 years and over) Child/Student (15 years and under) Family Pass (2 adults, 3 children) 39 Page 1633 of 1679 Playing Fields $ Fee $ HST $ Total 83.29 10.83 94.12 103.26 13.42 116.68 120.28 15.64 135.92 155.03 20.15 175.18 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 28.80 3.74 32.54 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 5.00 0.65 5.65 11.50 1.50 13.00 12.75 1.66 14.41 20.00 2.60 22.60 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 3.89 0.51 4.40 7.77 1.01 8.78 8.88 1.15 10.03 17.76 2.31 20.07 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 2.78 0.36 3.14 5.55 0.72 6.27 6.66 0.87 7.53 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 55.50 7.22 62.72 111.00 14.43 125.43 77.70 10.10 87.80 222.00 28.86 250.86 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 23.29 3.03 26.32 38.83 5.05 43.88 77.63 10.09 87.72 37.46 4.87 42.33 Niagara Falls Youth Users Qualify for a reduced rate: 50% off the regular hourly rate 1. Niagara Falls based youth organization 2. Registered youth sport with an Ontario governing body 3. Documentation must be provided to staff for approval Recreation, Culture & Facilities Multi-Purposes Articial Turf Field Residential minor/youth sport organization Non-residential minor/youth sport organization Resident Adult not-for-profit, sport organization Non-resident adult Playing Fields Non-resident Adult not-for-profit, sport organization Track - exclusive use (Oakes Park) per day A Category Playing Fields per hour Resident youth Non-resident youth Resident adult Tournament Day Rate (day=10 hours/field) B Category Playing Fields per hour Resident youth Non-resident youth Resident adult Non-resident adult C Category Playing Fields per hour Resident youth Non-resident youth Resident adult Lighting - one hour Lighting - two hours Lighting - per four hour block Lighting (youth per evening) Resident youth Non-resident youth Resident adult Non-resident adult Lighting 40 Page 1634 of 1679 Museum Fee Schedule $ Fee $ HST $ Total 5.31 0.69 6.00 4.42 0.57 4.99 no charge no charge no charge 17.70 2.30 20.00 66.37 8.63 75.00 44.25 5.75 50.00 66.37 8.63 75.00 10.62 1.38 12.00 8.85 1.15 10.00 35.40 4.60 40.00 $ Fee $ HST $ Total no charge no charge no charge $ Fee $ HST $ Total 5.31 0.69 6.00 2.65 0.35 3.00 3.54 0.46 4.00 6.19 0.81 7.00 4.42 0.57 4.99 8.85 1.15 10.00 2.65 0.34 2.99 221.24 28.76 250.00 132.74 17.26 150.00 13.27 1.73 15.00 8.85 1.15 10.00 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 17.70 2.30 20.00 0.17 0.02 0.19 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 22.12 2.88 25.00 35.40 4.60 40.00 $ Fee $ HST $ Total No charge No charge No charge 44.25 5.75 50.00 Educational Programs (minimum 15 participants) Recreation, Culture & Facilities Niagara Falls History Museum Attendance Adults (20+) Students (6-19 years old or with valid ID) 5 years old and under Virtual School Educational Tour Family (up to 5 people - maximum 3 adults) Virtual Tour Group Battle Ground Hotel Museum & Willoughby Historical Museum Admission by donation Customized Virtual School Educational Tour Historic Walking Tours (Adult) Historic Walking Tours (Student) Historic Walking Tours (Family) Photographic Reproductions School Program (approx. 90 minutes)/student School - self guided tour/student 45 minute museum or Battlefield experience (school)/student 45 minute museum or Battlefield experience (group)/person 90 minute museum or Battlefield experience (school)/student 90 minute museum or Battlefield experience (group)/person Additional Tour of Battle Ground Hotel/person Full day Educational Outreach Half day Educational Outreach Full day School Program Half day School Program Research request/first hour Research request - additional research/hour Digital Image Photocopy (black & white) Membership Individual membership/year Family membership/year Other 41 Page 1635 of 1679 Museum Fee Schedule $ Fee $ HST $ Total 60.00 7.80 67.80 110.00 14.30 124.30 60.00 7.80 67.80 110.00 14.30 124.30 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 35.00 4.55 39.55 80.00 10.40 90.40 35.00 4.55 39.55 80.00 10.40 90.40 Community Makers are Niagara Regional Not-for-Profit organizations or Niagara Regional based artists putting on an event that is artistic in nature (Performance Art, Workshop, Presentation, etc.). This does not include trade shows or retail events unless artistic in nature. Public must be invited. Minimum of 2 hour rentals in the Museum $ Fee $ HST $ Total 75.00 9.75 84.75 125.00 16.25 141.25 Sherman Zavitz Theatre/hour after operating hours Community Maker Rentals Sherman Zavitz Theatre/hour Niagara Falls Hydro Corporation Courtyard/hour after operating hours Recreation, Culture & Facilities Rentals Sherman Zavitz Theatre/hour Sherman Zavitz Theatre/hour after operating hours Niagara Falls Hydro Corporation Courtyard/hour Niagara Falls Hydro Corporation Courtyard/hour Other Dishes (0-30 ppl) Dishes (31+ppl) Niagara Falls Hydro Corporation Courtyard/hour after operating hours 42 Page 1636 of 1679 Niagara Falls Exchange $ Fee $ HST $ Total 116.15 15.10 131.25 162.61 21.14 183.75 603.98 78.52 682.50 836.28 108.72 945.00 929.21 120.80 1,050.01 1,393.80 181.19 1,574.99 1,858.41 241.59 2,100.00 557.52 72.48 630.00 1,022.12 132.88 1,155.00 185.84 24.16 210.00 44.25 5.75 50.00 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 20.00 2.60 22.60 40.00 5.20 45.20 75.00 9.75 84.75 420.00 54.60 474.60 670.00 87.10 757.10 780.00 101.40 881.40 1,280.00 166.40 1,446.40 1,780.00 231.40 2,011.40 44.25 5.75 50.00 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 398.23 51.77 450.00 26.55 3.45 30.00 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 265.49 34.51 300.00 26.55 3.45 30.00 Commericial Membership (see website for restrictions) Weekly Woodworking Shop Membership Rates & Other Fees Daily Annual 10 x 10 Annual 10 x 10 with storage Annual 20 x 10 Annual Hotdesk Cost to replace lost access key Annual Hotdesk with storage Monthly Six Months Six Months with storage Hotdesk (3 months) Annual with storage Annual Six months 10 x 10 with storage Recreation, Culture & Facilities Artist Studio Membership Rates & Other Fees Monthly 10 x 10 Monthly 10 x 10 with storage Six months 10 x 10 Market Stall/daily Cost to replace lost access key Farmers' Market - Saturdays Summer/Fall (May-October) Market Stall/season Market Stall/daily Market Stall/season Farmers' Market - Saturdays Winter/Spring (November-April) 43 Page 1637 of 1679 Niagara Falls Exchange $ Fee $ HST $ Total 100.00 13.00 113.00 125.00 16.25 141.25 150.00 19.50 169.50 175.00 22.75 197.75 50.00 6.50 56.50 75.00 9.75 84.75 50.00 6.50 56.50 75.00 9.75 84.75 100.00 13.00 113.00 300.00 39.00 339.00 $ Fee $ HST $ Total 60.00 7.80 67.80 85.00 11.05 96.05 110.00 14.30 124.30 135.00 17.55 152.55 30.00 3.90 33.90 50.00 6.50 56.50 30.00 3.90 33.90 50.00 6.50 56.50 200.00 26.00 226.00 200.00 26.00 226.00 100.00 13.00 113.00 250.00 32.50 282.50 Community Makers are Niagara Regional Not-for-Profit organizations or Niagara Regional based artists putting on an event that is artistic in nature (Performance Art, Workshop, Presentation, etc.). This does not include trade shows or retail events unless artistic in nature. Public must be invited. Minimum of three (3) hour rentals of the Market Hall $ Fee $ HST $ Total 10.00 1.30 11.30 20.00 2.60 22.60 100.00 13.00 113.00 5.00 0.65 5.65 300.00 39.00 339.00 5.00 0.65 5.65 50.00 6.50 56.50 75.00 9.75 84.75 100.00 13.00 113.00 Roller skate rental - up to 40 participants One Day Parking Passes for area parking Pipe & Drape/one time charge Games package (includes 2 cornhole games & giant jenga) Wedding Alter Other Corkage Fee Labour for corkage fee/hr/person Comfort Lounge Rental (per set - couch, 2 chairs, 1 table) Linens rental (table cloths, napkins, overlays)/item Wilma Morrison Courtyard/hour after operating hours Recreation, Culture & Facilities Rentals Market Hall/hour Market Hall/day after operating hours (and statutory holidays) Wilma Morrison Courtyard/hour Market Hall with patio/hour Market Hall with patio/hour after operating hours Historic Drummondville Square/hour Historic Drummondville Square/hour after operating hours Parking Lot/hour Indoor stage rental Parking Lot/hour Indoor stage rental Community Makers Rentals Market Hall/hour Market Hall with patio/hour Wilma Morrison Courtyard/hour Wilma Morrison Courtyard/hour after operating hours Historic Drummondville Square/hour Historic Drummondville Square/hour after operating hours Studio Gallery/month Atrium Gallery/month Market Hall/day after operating hours Market Hall with patio/hour after operating hours 44 Page 1638 of 1679 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2025 – 035 A by-law to amend By-law No. 2024-045 as amended by By-law 2025-018 to establish Administrative Penalties (Non-Parking) for By-law No. 2004-105 (as amended by By-law No. 2005-73, By-law No. 2007-28 and By-law No. 204-155); By-law No. 2007-41; By- law No. 2001-31 (as amended by By-law No. 2021-57 and By-law No. 2021-99). WHEREAS Section 434.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25 (the “Municipal Act”) authorizes a municipality to require a person, subject to such conditions as the municipality considers appropriate, to pay an administrative penalty if the municipality is satisfied that the person has failed to comply with a by-law of the municipality passed under the Municipal Act, in order to assist the municipality in promoting compliance with its by-laws; AND WHEREAS the City of Niagara Falls considers it desirable to designate certain by- laws or parts of such by-laws to which administrative penalties under section 434.1 of the Municipal Act shall apply; AND WHEREAS the City of Niagara Falls considers it desirable to amend such designated by-laws to provide for the application of administrative penalties under section 434.1 of the Municipal Act; AND WHEREAS Council has approved Official Plan Amendment 180 and Zoning By- law Amendment AM-2025-001 to allow for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in residential areas through Report PBD-2025-16; AND WHEREAS The Council of the Corporation of the city of Niagara Falls deems it necessary and expedient to amend By-law 2024-045 as amended by By-law 2025-018 to include Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals in the City of Niagara Falls; The Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls enacts as follows: 1. That PART II – DEFINTIONS of By-law 2024-045 is amended by adding the following definitions alphabetically: i. "Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation" means an Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental or a Bed and Breakfast but shall not include a Vacation Rental Unit; ii. “Owner Occupied Short-Term Rental” means a home occupation in a dwelling unit within or accessory to a Principal Residence that is rented out by the Owner to a single group of the travelling public for a period of 28 consecutive days or less and is licensed by the City of Niagara Falls to carry out a business;” Page 1639 of 1679 2. That Schedules A and B of By-law No. 2024-045 as amended by By-law No. 2025- 018 are repealed and that Schedules A and B attached hereto shall be inserted in lieu thereof. 3. All other applicable provisions and regulations set out in By-law No. 2024-045 shall remain the same and shall continue to apply, with the necessary changes in detail. 4. That the City Clerk is authorized to effect any minor modifications, corrections or omissions solely of an administrative, numerical, grammatical, semantical or descriptive nature to this by-law after the passage of this by-law. 5. This By-law will become effective on April 10th, 2025 (the “Effective Date”), subject to no appeals being received on Official Plan Amendment No. 180 or Zoning By- law Amendment AM-2025-001. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 18th day of March, 2025. ....................................................................... .................................................................. WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 1640 of 1679 SCHEDULE “A” CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY BY-LAW DESIGNATED BY-LAW PROVISIONS General Prohibitions and related Administrative Penalties (for all Designated By- laws): Failing to comply with an order. $500 Preventing, hindering or obstructing an Officer. $400 Attempting to hinder or obstruct an Officer. $400 Hinder or obstruct any person exercising power or duty under the Designated By-law. $400 Attempt to hinder or obstruct any person exercising power or duty under the Designated By-law. $400 NOISE CONTROL BY-LAW NO. 2004-105 (as amended by By-law No. 2005-73, By- law No. 2007-28 and By-law No. 2014-155) For the purpose of PART III of this By-law: (a) Column 1 in the following table lists the provisions in the Noise Control By-law No. 2004-105, as amended, that are hereby designated for the purposes of section 434.1 of the Municipal Act; (b) Column 2 in the following table sets out the short form wording to be used in a Penalty Notice for the contravention of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (c) Column 3 in the following table sets out the Administrative Penalty amounts that are payable for contraventions of the designated provisions listed in Column 1. Item Column 1 Designated Provision Column 2 Short Form Wording Column 3 Administ rative Penalty General Prohibition 1 Section 2 Cause or permit noise or vibration disturbance that interferes with peaceful enjoyment. $300 Page 1641 of 1679 Section 3, Schedule 2 Specific Prohibitions 2 Subsection 1. Revving of an engine or motor. $300 3 Subsection 2. Operation of a motor vehicle in such a way that the tires squeal. $300 4 Subsection 3. Operation of a motor vehicle, engine, motor, construction equipment or pneumatic device without an effective exhaust, intake-muffling or other sound attenuation device, which device is in good working order and in constant operation. $300 5 Subsection 4. Operation of a conveyance or a motor vehicle, with or without a trailer, resulting in banging, clanking, squealing or other sounds due to improperly-secured loads or equipment, or inadequate maintenance. $300 6 Subsection 5. Operation of a motor vehicle horn or other warning device except where required or authorized by law or in accordance with good safety practices. $300 Section 4.1, Schedule 3 Time and Activity Prohibitions 7 Subsection 1. Persistent barking, whining, calling or other similar sound made by any domestic pet or other animal kept or used for any purpose other than agriculture, at any time. $300 8 Subsection 2. Persistent yelling, shouting, screaming, whistling, hooting or singing, at any time. $300 9 Subsection 3. Activation of a security alarm resulting in sound for a duration in excess of five minutes, at any time. $300 10 Subsection 4. Operation of construction equipment in connection with construction between 7:00 p.m. one day and 7:00 a.m. the next day, 9:00 a.m. on a Holiday. $300 Page 1642 of 1679 11 Subsection 5. Operation of any power device or non-power device or tool for domestic purposes, except snow blowers, between 9:00 p.m. one day to 7:00 a.m. the next day, 9:00 a.m. on a Holiday. $300 12 Subsection 6. Operation of solid waste, refuse or recyclable bulk-lift or refuse-compacting equipment between 9:00 p.m. one day to 7:00 a.m. the next day, 9:00 a.m. on a Holiday, excluding the exempted areas as set out in Schedule 1 of the By-law. $300 13 Subsection 7. Operation of an engine or motor which is used in or is intended for use in, a toy or a model or replica of any device, which toy, model or replica has no function other than amusement and which is not a conveyance, between 9:00 p.m. one day and 7:00 a.m. the next day, 9:00 a.m. on a Holiday. $300 14 Subsection 8. Vehicle repairs, between 9:00 p.m. one day and 7:00 a.m. the next day, 9:00 a.m. on a Holiday. $300 15 Subsection 9. The loading, unloading, delivering, packing, unpacking or otherwise handling of any containers, products or materials between 9:00 p.m. one day to 7:00 a.m. the next day, 9:00 a.m. on a Holiday, excluding the exempted areas as set out in Schedule 1 of the By-law. $300 16 Subsection 10. The use of any electronic device or group of connected electronic devices incorporating one or more loudspeakers or other electro-mechanical transducers and intended for the production, reproduction or amplification of sound between 9:00 p.m. one day to 7:00 a.m. the next day, 9:00 a.m. on a Holiday, excluding the exempted areas as set out in Schedule 1 of the By-law. $300 17 Subsection 11. The playing of music between 9:00 p.m. one day to 7:00 a.m. the next day, 9:00 a.m. on a Holiday, excluding the exempted areas as set out in Schedule 1 of the By-law. $300 CLEAN YARD BY-LAW NO. 2007- 41 Page 1643 of 1679 For the purpose of PART III of this By-law: (a) Column 1 in the following table lists the provisions in the Clean Yard By-law No. 2007- 41 that are hereby designated for the purposes of section 434.1 of the Municipal Act; (b) Column 2 in the following table sets out the short form wording to be used in a Penalty Notice for the contravention of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (c) Column 3 in the following table sets out the Administrative Penalty amounts that are payable for contraventions of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (d) Sections 446 and 434.2 of the Municipal Act, apply to the enforcement of this By-law, providing that in the case of a default by a person being directed or required to comply with the By-law, the City may enter upon the land at any reasonable time and comply with the By-law at the Person’s expense, add the costs of complying with the By-law and any unpaid Administrative Penalty, including any administrative fees, to the tax roll, and collect both added amounts from the person in the same manner as property taxes. Item Column 1 Designated Provision Column 2 Short Form Wording Column 3 Administrative Penalty 1 Section 2(1) Failure to keep drain in operative state. $250 2 Section 2(2) Failure to alter drain as required. $250 3 Section 3 Throw or deposit refuse on private or public land. $250 4 Section 4 Failure to provide sanitary disposal of sewage and drainage. $250 5 Section 5(1) Failure to keep land free and clear of refuse. $250 6 Section 5(2) Failure to cover refuse as may be prescribed by the Manager in writing. $250 7 Section 6 Storing vehicle for wrecking or dismantling them, or salvaging parts for sale or other disposal. $250 8 Section 7 Parking or storing any vehicles on non- surfaced parking area. $250 9 Section 8 Grass not kept less than 20 cm in height. $250 Page 1644 of 1679 10 Section 14(2) Fail to comply with an Order. $500 REGULATE AND LICENSE VACATION RENTAL UNITS AND OWNER OCCUPIED SHORT-TERM ACCOMODATIONS BY-LAW NO. 2001-31 (as amended by By-law No. 2021-57 and further amended by By-law No. 2021-99 and By-law No. 2025-033) For the purpose of PART III of this By-law: (a) Column 1 in the following table lists the provisions in the Regulate and License Vacation Rental Units and Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodations By-law No. 2001-31, as amended, that are hereby designated for the purposes of section 434.1 of the Municipal Act; (b) Column 2 in the following table sets out the short form wording to be used in a Penalty Notice for the contravention of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (c) Column 3 in the following table sets out the Administrative Penalty amounts that are payable for contraventions of the designated provisions listed in Column 1. (d) All Administrative Penalty amounts in this section are per diem, meaning that they are charged once per day of a continuing contravention. Item Column 1 Designated Provision (By-law 2021-57) Column 2 Short Form Wording Column 3 Administrative Penalty 1 2.3 Own or operate, or permit the operation of a Vacation Rental Unit without a current valid licence. $1000 per diem 2 2.4 Own or operate, or permit the operation of an Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation without a current valid licence. $1000 per diem 3 2.5 Own or operate a Vacation Rental Unit or an Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation other than in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence, the terms and conditions of this By-law. $1000 per diem Page 1645 of 1679 4 2.6 Advertise, promote, broker, or offer for rent or lease a Vacation Rental Unit without a current valid licence. $1000 per diem 5 2.7 Advertise, promote, broker, or offer for rent an Owner Occupied Short-Term Accommodation without a current valid licence. $1000 per diem 6 2.8 Alter or modify or permit the alteration or modification of a licence. $1000 per diem 7 2.9 Use or attempt to use a licence issued to another Person. $1000 per diem 8 2.10 Own, operate or carry on any business in any other name other than in the name that appears on the licence. $1000 per diem 9 2.11 Knowingly makes a false statement in an application, declaration, affidavit or paper writing required by By-law or the City. $1000 per diem 10 2.12 Contravene any provision set out in this By- law, any other municipal by-law, federal or provincial Act, statute, or any other legislation applicable to the licensed premises. $1000 per diem + one-time charge of all legal fees and disbursements incurred by the City in any resulting prosecution 11 2.13 Remove an order or placard posted on the premises under this By-law, except an Officer. $1000 per diem 12 2.14 Own, operate or carry on any business while a licence is under an administrative suspension. $1000 per diem 13 2.15 Discriminate against any member of the public in the carrying on, conducting or operating of an Owner Occupied Short- Term Accommodation or a Vacation Rental $1000 per diem Page 1646 of 1679 Unit on the basis of race, colour, creed, gender or sexual orientation. PROPERTY STANDARDS BY-LAW 2015-101 For the purpose of PART III of this By-law: (a) Column 1 in the following table lists the provisions in the Property Standards By-law 2015-101 that are hereby designated for the purposes of section 434.1 of the Municipal Act; (b) Column 2 in the following table sets out the short form wording to be used in a Penalty Notice for the contravention of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (c) Column 3 in the following table sets out the Administrative Penalty amounts that are payable for contraventions of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (d) Sections 446 and 434.2 of the Municipal Act, apply to the enforcement of this By-law, providing that in the case of a default by a person being directed or required to comply with the By-law, the City may enter upon the land at any reasonable time and comply with the By-law at the Person’s expense, add the costs of complying with the By-law and any unpaid Administrative Penalty, including any administrative fees, to the tax roll, and collect both added amounts from the person in the same manner as property taxes. Item Column 1 Designated Provision Column 2 Short Form Wording Column 3 Administrative Penalty Section 2.1 Maintenance of Yards and Exterior Paths of Travel 1 Section 2.1.1 No yard shall contain dilapidated, collapsed or partially constructed structures which are not currently under construction. $350 Section 2.3 Retaining Walls and Accessory Structures 2 Section 2.3.1 All retaining walls and accessory buildings shall be kept in good repair and free from health and safety hazards and shall be protected by paint, preservative or other weather resistant material. $350 Section 2.4 Pest Prevention Page 1647 of 1679 3 Section 2.4.1 All buildings shall be kept free of conditions that would permit or cause an infestation of rodents, vermin and insects. Methods used for exterminating rodents, vermin or insects shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Protect Act, the Pesticides Act and any other applicable regulations, acts or municipal by-laws. $350 Section 3.5 Heating and Cooling Systems 4 Section 3.5.1 Every dwelling unit shall be provided with a heating system capable of continuously maintaining an indoor air temperature of not less than: (1) 22°C [72°F] in all habitable rooms and interior living spaces (excluding attached garages); (2) 22°C [72°F] in unfinished basement spaces; and (3) 15°C [59°F] in heated crawlspaces. $350 Section 7.2 Landlord Responsibilities 5 Section 7.2.1 Every landlord shall provide adequate vital services to each of the landlord’s occupied residential rental units, and no landlord shall cease to provide a vital service for a residential rental unit if it is occupied by the tenant. $500 Section 9.1 Obligations and Prohibitions 6 Section 9.1.1 No Owner or occupant of property shall use, occupy, allow, permit or acquiesce in the use or occupation of the property unless such property conforms to the standards prescribed in this by-law. $450 7 Section 9.1.2 No person, being the Owner, tenant or occupant of a property, shall fail to maintain the property in conformity with the standards required by this by-law. $450 Page 1648 of 1679 8 Section 9.1.7 Failure to comply with an Order under this by- law. $500 PUBLIC NUISANCE BY-LAW NO. 2009-73 For the purpose of PART III of this By-law: (a) Column 1 in the following table lists the provisions in the Public Nuisance By-law No. 2009-73 that are hereby designated for the purposes of section 434.1 of the Municipal Act; (b) Column 2 in the following table sets out the short form wording to be used in a Penalty Notice for the contravention of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (c) Column 3 in the following table sets out the Administrative Penalty amounts that are payable for contraventions of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (d) Sections 446 and 434.2 of the Municipal Act, apply to the enforcement of this By-law, providing that in the case of a default by a person being directed or required to comply with the By-law, the City may enter upon the land at any reasonable time and comply with the By-law at the Person’s expense, add the costs of complying with the By-law and any unpaid Administrative Penalty, including any administrative fees, to the tax roll, and collect both added amounts from the person in the same manner as property taxes. Item Column 1 Designated Provision Column 2 Short Form Wording Column 3 Administrative Penalty 1 Section 2.1 Urinate/defecate/vomit/spit in a public place $500 2 Section 2.2 Knock over a Canada Post mailbox / newspaper box / bench / fence/ blue box / garbage can or other structure or object in a public place $400 3 Section 2.2 Attempt to knock over a Canada Post mailbox / newspaper box / bench / fence / blue box / garbage container or other structure or object in a public place $400 4 Section 2.3 Loiter in a public place $500 5 Section 2.4 Participate in a fight in any public place $500 Page 1649 of 1679 6 Section 2.5 Mark or apply graffiti on any public place, including signs, or private property $500 7 Section 2.6 Leave / throw / deposit any bottles / glass or other materials on public or private property $500 8 Section 2.7 Cause, permit or allow large doors or garage type doors of premises serving alcohol to remain open after 11:00pm $450 CONSOLIDATED LICENSING BY-LAW NO. 2001-31 PROHIBITIONS AGAINST ILLEGAL PEDDLING & SOLICITATION For the purpose of PART III of this By-law: (a) Column 1 in the following table lists the provisions in the Consolidated Licensing By- law No. 2001-31 that are hereby designated for the purposes of section 434.1 of the Municipal Act; (b) Column 2 in the following table sets out the short form wording to be used in a Penalty Notice for the contravention of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (c) Column 3 in the following table sets out the Administrative Penalty amounts that are payable for contraventions of the designated provisions listed in Column 1. Item Column 1 Designated Provision Column 2 Short Form Wording Column 3 Administrative Penalty 1 Section 3 Operate any trade, calling, business or occupation without a licence. $500 2 Schedule 11, Section 8(5) Solicit on a highway on behalf of a commercial parking lot $500 REQUIRE ADEQUATE HEAT – RENTAL – BY-LAW NO. 93-242 For the purpose of PART III of this By-law: (a) Column 1 in the following table lists the provisions in the Require Adequate Heat – Rental - By-law No. 93-242 that are hereby designated for the purposes of section 434.1 of the Municipal Act; Page 1650 of 1679 (b) Column 2 in the following table sets out the short form wording to be used in a Penalty Notice for the contravention of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (c) Column 3 in the following table sets out the Administrative Penalty amounts that are payable for contraventions of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (d) Sections 446 and 434.2 of the Municipal Act, apply to the enforcement of this By-law, providing that in the case of a default by a person being directed or required to comply with the By-law, the City may enter upon the land at any reasonable time and comply with the By-law at the Person’s expense, add the costs of complying with the By-law and any unpaid Administrative Penalty, including any administrative fees, to the tax roll, and collect both added amounts from the person in the same manner as property taxes. Item Column 1 Designated Provision Column 2 Short Form Wording Column 3 Administrative Penalty 1 Section 2 Failure to provide adequate and suitable heat in a dwelling unit. $500 CONTROL IDLING OF VEHICLES BY-LAW NO. 98-217, as amended by BY-LAW NO. 99-217 For the purpose of PART III of this By-law: (a) Column 1 in the following table lists the provisions in the Control Idling of Vehicles By- law No. 98-217 that are hereby designated for the purposes of section 434.1 of the Municipal Act; (b) Column 2 in the following table sets out the short form wording to be used in a Penalty Notice for the contravention of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (c) Column 3 in the following table sets out the Administrative Penalty amounts that are payable for contraventions of the designated provisions listed in Column 1. Item Column 1 Designated Provision Column 2 Short Form Wording Column 3 Administrative Penalty 1 Section 2(1) Permit vehicle to idle longer than 3 minutes $350 PLAYING OF BAND AND MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS ON CITY PROPERTY, BY-LAW NO. 99-16 Page 1651 of 1679 For the purpose of PART III of this By-law: (a) Column 1 in the following table lists the provisions in the Playing of Band and Musical Instruments on City Property By-law No. 99-16 that are hereby designated for the purposes of section 434.1 of the Municipal Act; (b) Column 2 in the following table sets out the short form wording to be used in a Penalty Notice for the contravention of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (c) Column 3 in the following table sets out the Administrative Penalty amounts that are payable for contraventions of the designated provisions listed in Column 1. Item Column 1 Designated Provision Column 2 Short Form Wording Column 3 Administrative Penalty 1 Section 2 Playing a musical instrument on a highway, park or public place $450 SWIMMING POOL BY-LAW NO. 2014-58 For the purpose of PART III of this By-law: (a) Column 1 in the following table lists the provisions in the Swimming Pool By-law No. 2014-58 that are hereby designated for the purposes of section 434.1 of the Municipal Act; (b) Column 2 in the following table sets out the short form wording to be used in a Penalty Notice for the contravention of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (c) Column 3 in the following table sets out the Administrative Penalty amounts that are payable for contraventions of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (d) Sections 446 and 434.2 of the Municipal Act, apply to the enforcement of this By-law, providing that in the case of a default by a person being directed or required to comply with the By-law, the City may enter upon the land at any reasonable time and comply with the By-law at the Person’s expense, add the costs of complying with the By-law and any unpaid Administrative Penalty, including any administrative fees, to the tax roll, and collect both added amounts from the person in the same manner as property taxes. Item Column 1 Designated Provision Column 2 Short Form Wording Column 3 Administrative Penalty Page 1652 of 1679 1 Section 2.1.1 No person shall excavate for, or erect, or cause or permit excavation for, or erection of, any outdoor swimming pool and/or swimming pool enclosure without first obtaining a permit from the Chief Building Official. $400 2 Section 3.1.1 An outdoor swimming pool or private spa shall not be located within any front yard. $200 3 Section 3.1.2 (residential) An outdoor swimming pool shall have no interior wall surface located within 1.8m [5.9 ft.] of the main wall of any dwelling on such lot or on any adjoining lot. $250 4 Section 3.2.1 (non- residential) An outdoor swimming pool shall have no interior wall surface located within 1.8m [5.9 ft.] of the main wall of any primary building on such lot or on any adjoining lot. $250 5 Section 4.1.1 The owner of any lands on which an outdoor swimming pool is located or erected shall erect a swimming pool enclosure around the entire swimming pool area, in accordance with the provisions of this by-law. $400 6 Section 4.1.2 The height of a swimming pool enclosure required by this by-law shall be a minimum of 1.07m [42 in.] in height, as measure from ground level at the exterior face of the enclosure. $350 7 Section 4.5.4 No person shall keep an outdoor swimming pool or private spa unless it is maintained in good repair and working condition. $250 8 Section 4.5.5 No person shall cause or permit an outdoor swimming pool or private spa to contain standing water for a period in excess of three (3) days. $250 FENCE BY-LAW NO. 2005-70, as amended by BY-LAW NO. 2014-153 For the purpose of PART III of this By-law: Page 1653 of 1679 (a) Column 1 in the following table lists the provisions in the Fence By-law No. 2005-70, as amended by By-law No. 2014-153 that are hereby designated for the purposes of section 434.1 of the Municipal Act; (b) Column 2 in the following table sets out the short form wording to be used in a Penalty Notice for the contravention of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (c) Column 3 in the following table sets out the Administrative Penalty amounts that are payable for contraventions of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (d) Sections 446 and 434.2 of the Municipal Act, apply to the enforcement of this By-law, providing that in the case of a default by a person being directed or required to comply with the By-law, the City may enter upon the land at any reasonable time and comply with the By-law at the Person’s expense, add the costs of complying with the By-law and any unpaid Administrative Penalty, including any administrative fees, to the tax roll, and collect both added amounts from the person in the same manner as property taxes. Item Column 1 Designated Provision Column 2 Short Form Wording Column 3 Administrative Penalty 1 Section 3.1 No person shall erect, or caused to be erected, or maintain or cause to be maintained, any fence within the municipality unless such fence is a lawful fence. $350 2 Section 4.1 No fence shall be maintained, or caused to be maintained, in a damaged or disrepaired state of condition by reason of fire, decay or otherwise and all fences shall be constructed or caused to be constructed in a sound manner and shall be straight and true. $350 3 Section 6.1 Subject to section 5 of this By-law, no fence of a height greater than 1 metre above the adjoining ground level, shall be erected or maintained, or caused to be erected or maintained, in any front yard, provided, however, that the portion of any such fence erected or maintained along the side or rear lot line of the rear yard of any adjoining property may be of a height not greater than 2.5 metres. $300 4 Section 7.1 Subject to section 5 of this By-law, no fence of a height greater than 2.5 metres above the adjoining ground level, shall be erected or $300 Page 1654 of 1679 maintained, or caused to be erected or maintained, in any rear yard, provided, however, that the portion of any such fence erected or maintained along the side lot line of the front yard of any adjoining lot shall not be of a height greater than1 metre unless such fence is erected or maintained in the rear yard of a corner lot along the side lot line of the front yard of an adjoining property, in which case the fence may be erected or maintained to a height not greater than 2.5 metres. SIGN BY-LAW NO. 2021-24 For the purpose of PART III of this By-law: (a) Column 1 in the following table lists the provisions in the Sign By-law No. 2021-24 that are hereby designated for the purposes of section 434.1 of the Municipal Act; (b) Column 2 in the following table sets out the short form wording to be used in a Penalty Notice for the contravention of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (c) Column 3 in the following table sets out the Administrative Penalty amounts that are payable for contraventions of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (d) Sections 446 and 434.2 of the Municipal Act, apply to the enforcement of this By-law, providing that in the case of a default by a person being directed or required to comply with the By-law, the City may enter upon the land at any reasonable time and comply with the By-law at the Person’s expense, add the costs of complying with the By-law and any unpaid Administrative Penalty, including any administrative fees, to the tax roll, and collect both added amounts from the person in the same manner as property taxes. Item Column 1 Designated Provision Column 2 Short Form Wording Column 3 Administrative Penalty 1 Section 3.3.1 Except for signs referred to in section 3.5.1, no person shall erect, display or maintain a sign on private property unless a permit is obtained under the provisions of this By-law prior to the erection for that sign. $450 2 Section 3.6.1 Any sign not expressly permitted by this By- law is prohibited and without limiting the $400 Page 1655 of 1679 generality of the foregoing, the following signs are specifically prohibited: (a)A sign located on or over public property; (b)Bench sign; (c)A sign located so as to obstruct the view of any pedestrian or motorist so as to cause an unsafe condition; (d)A sign attached to or displayed on a vehicle or trailer which is parked or located for the primary purpose of displaying the sign or advertisement; (e)A sign which obstructs or is located in a parking space that is required to enable the premises upon which the portable or temporary sign is located to comply with the requirements of a City of Niagara Falls Zoning By-law; (f)A sign located in a daylight triangle; (g)An inflatable sign; (h)No sign located within 30 metres of an intersection shall contain any green or red lettering or graphics that are illuminated or flashing; (i)Any sign which violates in any way any statute, regulation or by-law of the Government of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the Region or the City. 3 Section 4.1 No sign shall be located so as to obstruct the view of the movement of traffic or pedestrians upon any street or railway crossing to persons using or seeking to use the street or railway crossing or of the view of any traffic signal located on or near the street, lane, highway or railway crossing. $400 4 Section 4.2 Except where otherwise permitted, no sign shall be fixed, attached to or painted onto a fence, board, tree, transit shelter, splash $400 Page 1656 of 1679 guard, safety or guard rail, utility pole, street furniture, trash or recycling bin. 5 Section 4.7 A sign must be located or displayed at a location where that type of sign is permitted and must comply with the regulation applicable to that type of sign in that location. $350 ANIMAL CONTROL BY-LAW NO. 2019-35 For the purpose of PART III of this By-law: (a) Column 1 in the following table lists the provisions in the Animal Control By-law No. 2019-35 that are hereby designated for the purposes of section 434.1 of the Municipal Act; (b) Column 2 in the following table sets out the short form wording to be used in a Penalty Notice for the contravention of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (c) Column 3 in the following table sets out the Administrative Penalty amounts that are payable for contraventions of the designated provisions listed in Column 1; (d) Sections 446 and 434.2 of the Municipal Act, apply to the enforcement of this By-law, providing that in the case of a default by a person being directed or required to comply with the By-law, the City may enter upon the land at any reasonable time and comply with the By-law at the Person’s expense, add the costs of complying with the By-law and any unpaid Administrative Penalty, including any administrative fees, to the tax roll, and collect both added amounts from the person in the same manner as property taxes; (e) The provisions listed below are only a select few of the set fine provisions from Schedule G of the Animal Control By-law No. 2019-35. The balance of the set fine provisions from the By-law that are not specifically referred to below in the Penalty provisions continue to apply and will undergo the enforcement provisions of the said By- law. Item Column 1 Designated Provision Column 2 Short Form Wording Column 3 Administrative Penalty 1 Section 3.1.1 Failing to register a dog with the City. $100 2 Section 3.4 Failing to renew a dog registration with the City. $100 Page 1657 of 1679 3 Section 3.16 Permitting a dog to run at large $150 4 Section 3.32 Permitting a dog to (bite/attack/chase) a person $250 5 Section 3.32 Permitting a dog to (bite/attack/chase) an animal $250 6 Section 3.34 Failing to comply with a notice respecting a dangerous dog $500 7 Section 3.40 Failing to immediately remove dog feces $100 8 Section 3.42 Keeping more than three (3) dogs over ten (10) weeks of age on a premises $150 9 Section 4.16 Permitting livestock to run at large $300 10 Section 4.38 Owner-(allow/permit) persistent barking by any domestic pet $200 11 Section 4.38 Owner-(allow/permit) persistent whining by any domestic pet $200 12 Section 4.38 Owner-(allow/permit) persistent calling by any domestic pet $200 13 Section 4.39 Owner- fail to comply with Regulations in Schedule “D” as it pertains to the keeping of Chickens $250 14 Section 4.42 Permitting a cat to run at large $150 15 Section 4.51 (Keep/Permit to be kept/Harbour) more than three cats on a premises $150 16 Section 5.4 Obstructing an officer in the execution of (his/her) duties $300 SCHEDULE “B” CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY BY-LAW NON-PARKING Page 1658 of 1679 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES Item No. COLUMN 1 Administrative Fee COLUMN 2 Amount 1 Late Payment Fee $25.00 per month of delay 2 Screening No Show Fee $50.00 3 Hearing No Show Fee $100.00 4 Land Title Searching Fees $55.00 Page 1659 of 1679 Niagara Falls By-law No. 2025-036 A By-law to amend By-law 2025-009 to establish a Municipal Accommodation Tax. WEREAS The Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls has passed a by-law to impose a tax in respect of the purchase of transient accommodation. AND WHEREAS the City of Niagara Falls considers it desirable to amend this by-law to include Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals as an additional class of short-term accommodations. AND WHEREAS Council has approved Official Plan Amendment 180 and Zoning By- law Amendment AM-2025-001 to allow for Owner Occupied Short-Term Rentals through Report PBD-2025-16; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls enacts as follows: 1. SECTION 1, Definitions of By-law 2025-009 is amended as follows: i) Subsection 1.1.2(1) under the definition of an “Accommodation Property” is deleted and replaced as follows: “a hotel, motel, inn, bed and breakfast, owner occupied short-term rental, whole home vacation rental, vacation rental unit or other such lodging; and” 7) All other applicable provisions and regulations set out in By-law No. 2025-009 shall remain the same and shall continue to apply, with the necessary changes in detail. 8) This By-law will become effective on April 10th, 2025 (the “Effective Date”), subject to no appeals being received on Official Plan Amendment No. 180 or Zoning By- law Amendment AM-2025-001. Read a First, Second and Third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this 18th day of March, 2025. ....................................................................... .................................................................. WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 1660 of 1679 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2025 - 037 A by-law to amend By-law No. 2002-081, being a by-law to appoint City employees, agents and third parties for the enforcement of provincial or municipal by-laws. THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1 . By-law No. 2002-081 is amended by deleting Schedule “D1” and that Schedule “D1” attached hereto shall be inserted in lieu thereof. Read a first, second, third time and passed. Signed and sealed in open Council on this 18th day of March, 2025. ............................................................... ........................................................... MARGARET CORBETT, DEPUTY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 1661 of 1679 SCHEDULE “D1” CANADA ONE OUTLET MALL 1. Parking By-law Enforcement Officers on private property: Chris Burian Abhaypartap Singh Chahal Steven Cober Kinjalk Jain Arjunjit Kaloya Harmandeep Kaur Sophie Laroque Jesse Mallabar William McMillan Anthony Orji Bharpoor Singh Gagan Singh Karandeep Singh Pushmeet Singh Sandeep Singh Jeonghwa Son Alexandria Trelford Page 1662 of 1679 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2025 - 038 A by-law to set and levy the rates of taxation for City purposes, for Regional purposes, and for Education purposes for the year 2025. WHEREAS Section 312 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. c.25 provides that the Council of a local municipality shall pass a by-law to levy a separate tax rate on the assessment in each property class; AND WHEREAS the assessment of classes of rateable property described as residential/farm, multi residential, commercial, industrial, pipeline, farmland, managed forest and large industrial, as defined in the Assessment Act, and regulations thereto, have been determined on the basis of the aforementioned property assessment rolls; AND WHEREAS the tax ratios and the tax rate reductions for prescribed property classes for the 2025 taxation year have been set out in By-law 2025-04 of the Regional Municipality of Niagara, dated 20th day of February 2025; AND WHEREAS the tax rates and tax levies for purposes of the Regional Municipality of Niagara for the 2025 taxation year have been set out in By-law 2025-03 of the Regional Municipality of Niagara, dated 20th day of February 2025; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls has adopted estimates of all sums required to be raised by it during the year 2025; AND WHEREAS the tax rates on the aforementioned property classes and property subclasses have been calculated pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act, 2001, and applicable regulations in the manner set out herein; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The assessments for the City of Niagara Falls on which the sums required for the year 2025 are to be levied for the various purposes hereinafter set forth are as follows: Page 1663 of 1679 Assessment Category Assessment Amount General Assessment Amount Urban Service Area Residential/Farm 9,607,140,842.00 9,064,384,045.00 Multi-Residential 337,917,289.00 336,034,289.00 New Multi-Residential 57,602,500.00 57,602,500.00 Commercial: Taxable General 11,915,000.00 11,915,000.00 Taxable Full 2,137,393,193.00 2,071,630,693.00 Excess Land 31,671,953.00 28,667,153.00 Vacant Land 119,974,400.00 118,648,500.00 Office Building 10,883,100.00 10,883,100.00 Shopping Centre 228,287,849.00 228,287,849.00 Shopping Centre- Excess Land 872,061.00 872,061.00 Parking Lot 80,718,300.00 79,748,300.00 Landfill 3,152,500.00 - Industrial: Taxable Full 118,389,092.00 103,917,692.00 Excess Land 5,793,957.00 4,476,357.00 Vacant Land 30,588,100.00 25,924,300.00 Pipelines 46,664,000.00 30,116,000.00 Farmlands 82,377,598.00 1,915,100.00 Managed Forest 1,832,500.00 - Aggregate Extraction 3,069,200.00 - Farmlands awaiting development 1 - - 2. There shall be levied and collected by taxation in the City of Niagara Falls for the year 2025 for the several purposes and in the manner hereinafter provided, the several sums and amounts following and for such purposes the several rates hereinafter mentioned are hereby imposed, namely: (a) in the whole of the City of Niagara Falls: (i) for the general purposes, including items of civic expenditure, except those hereinafter specifically mentioned, the sum of $104,540,155 which includes the amount of $9,024,243 for waste management services; (ii) for capital purposes the sum of $2,275,647; (iii) for public and separate school board purposes the sum of $40,118,584; Page 1664 of 1679 (iv) for the purpose of The Regional Municipality of Niagara the sum of $112,195,034; (v) for the purpose of Transit services the sum of $16,502,125; and (b) in Urban Service Areas: (i) for urban service purposes the sum of $3,077,771 3. The tax rate schedule set out in Schedule “A” is hereby adopted to be applied against the whole of the assessment for rateable property. 4. Every owner shall be taxed according to the tax rates in this by-law and such tax shall become due and payable for 2025 only, for, (a) Residential, Pipeline, Farmland and Managed Forest Assessments on June 30, 2025 and September 30, 2025, and (b) Commercial, Industrial and Multi-Residential Assessments on August 29, 2025 and October 31, 2025. 5. The Treasurer is hereby authorized and required to make, prepare and certify a Tax Roll in accordance with the requirements of this By-law and other applicable law. 6. It shall be the duty of the Tax Collector to pay into the hands of the Treasurer of the City of Niagara Falls all sums of money that may be collected by him under the authority of this by-law and to make a return of his or her Roll on or before the 31st day of December 2025. 7. This by-law shall come into force and effect immediately upon passing thereof. 8. Schedule “A” attached to this By-law shall form part of this By-law. Passed this 18th day of March, 2025 ......................................................................... .................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR First Reading: March 18, 2025 Second Reading: March 18, 2025 Third Reading: March 18, 2025 Page 1665 of 1679 Schedule "A" CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS 2025 Tax Rates Assessment General Rates Urban Service Area Urban Service Area Total Property Class Code City City Capital Levy Waste Mgmt. Transit Region Schools Total Residential/Farm RT 0.585386% 0.014775% 0.058591% 0.107141% 0.728438% 0.153000% 1.647331% 0.021060% 1.668391% New Multi- Residential NT 0.585386% 0.014775% 0.058591% 0.107141% 0.728438% 0.153000% 1.647331% 0.021060% 1.668391% Multi-residential MT 1.153211% 0.029106% 0.115424% 0.211068% 1.435023% 0.153000% 3.096832% 0.041489% 3.138321% Commercial -Occupied CT/CM 1.015587% 0.025633% 0.101650% 0.185879% 1.263767% 0.880000% 3.472516% 0.036537% 3.509053% -Excess Land CU 1.015587% 0.025633% 0.101650% 0.185879% 1.263767% 0.880000% 3.472516% 0.036537% 3.509053% -Vacant Land CX 1.015587% 0.025633% 0.101650% 0.185879% 1.263767% 0.880000% 3.472516% 0.036537% 3.509053% Commercial Other -Occupied DT/GT/ST 1.015587% 0.025633% 0.101650% 0.185879% 1.263767% 0.880000% 3.472516% 0.036537% 3.509053% -Excess Land DU/SU 1.015587% 0.025633% 0.101650% 0.185879% 1.263767% 0.880000% 3.472516% 0.036537% 3.509053% Commercial Small Scale On- Farm C7 1.015587% 0.025633% 0.101650% 0.185879% 1.263767% 0.220000% 2.812516% 0.036537% 2.849053% Landfill HT 1.721189% 0.043442% 0.172273% 0.315023% 2.141798% 0.880000% 5.273725% N/A 5.273725% Industrial -Occupied IT/LT 1.539566% 0.038858% 0.154094% 0.281781% 1.915792% 0.880000% 4.810091% 0.055389% 4.865480% -Excess Land IU/LU 1.539566% 0.038858% 0.154094% 0.281781% 1.915792% 0.880000% 4.810091% 0.055389% 4.865480% -Vacant Land IX 1.539566% 0.038858% 0.154094% 0.281781% 1.915792% 0.880000% 4.810091% 0.055389% 4.865480% Pipelines PT 0.996386% 0.025148% 0.099728% 0.182365% 1.239874% 0.880000% 3.423501% 0.035847% 3.459348% Farmland FT 0.146347% 0.003694% 0.014648% 0.026785% 0.182110% 0.038250% 0.411834% 0.005265% 0.417099% Managed Forests TT 0.146347% 0.003694% 0.014648% 0.026785% 0.182110% 0.038250% 0.411834% 0.005265% 0.417099% Farmland Awaiting Development I C1 0.439040% 0.011081% 0.043943% 0.080356% 0.546329% 0.114750% 1.235499% 0.015795% 1.251294% Aggregate Extraction VT 1.252755% 0.031619% 0.125388% 0.229287% 1.558892% 0.511000% 3.708941% N/A 3.708941% Page 1666 of 1679 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2025-040 A by-law to delegate Budget Spending and Signing Authority to Officers and Employees of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls. WHEREAS Section 290(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended (the “Municipal Act”) requires a local municipality in each year to prepare and adopt a budget including estimates of all sums required during the year for the purposes of the municipality; AND WHEREAS Section 227(a) of the Municipal Act states that it is the role of officers and employees of the municipality to implement Council’s decisions and establish administrative practices and procedures to carry out Council’s decisions; AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 23.1 of the Municipal Act, Council deems it necessary to delegate authority to officers and employees of the Corporation to spend funds approved by Council in the annual budget. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That Council adopts the Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy attached as Schedule “B” to this By-law. 2. That Council delegates the authority to spend monies approved by Council up to the amounts specified for each level outlined in Schedule “A” to this By-law and in accordance with the Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy attached at Schedule “B” to this By-law. 3. That by-law 2019-093 is repealed in its entirety. 4. That this By-law shall come into force and effect on the date of passage hereof. Read a first, second and third time; passed, signed and sealed in open Council this day of March 18, 2025. ..................................................................... .................................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 1667 of 1679 SCHEDULE “A” Organizational Levels for Spending and Signing Authority based on Approved Budgets The table below identifies organizational levels and the assignment of positions within each level that Council has delegated Spending and Signing Authority and the scope of the Spending Authority. Level Position Spending and Signing Authorization Limit (excluding taxes) Scope 1 Chief Administrative Officer, Treasurer/Director of Finance Limited to Council Approved Budget or Council Resolution All budget areas 2 Division Head $1,000,000 Designated Budget Area(s) 3 Department Head $100,000 Designated Budget Area(s) 4 Budget Owner (Cost Centre Manager/Section Head) $50,000 Designated Budget Area(s) Page 1668 of 1679 SCHEDULE “B” BUDGET SPENDING AND SIGNING AUTHORITY POLICY Number: CS-FIN-038 Category: Corporate Policy Division - Department: Corporate Services - Finance Related Policies: Procurement Policy Authority: Council Report CS-2025-24, Bylaw 2025-040 Approval Date: March 18, 2025 Effective Date: March 24, 2025 Revision Date(s): N/A 1. PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of CS-FIN-038 Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy is to: a) Establish guiding principles for the delegation of Spending Authority and Signing Authority within the City to authorize Staff to expend funds approved by Council, b) Ensure that all Staff positions with delegated Spending Authority and Signing Authority understand their fiduciary responsibilities to the City. Policy Statement 1.2 Council has the ultimate authority to approve all municipal expenditures. In order to efficiently carry out the responsibilities of the City, Council needs to delegate this authority to staff. This policy authorizes delegation of various levels of budget Spending Authority (financial transactions) and Signing Authority (non- financial transactions) to designated positions. 1.3 This Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy is meant to supplement and be followed together with the Purchasing Authority definition and guidelines referred to in the City’s Procurement Policy. Page 1669 of 1679 2. APPLICATIONS/SCOPE This policy applies to all Staff with delegated Spending Authority and Signing Authority to aid in the administration and operation of the City. 3. DEFINITIONS In this policy: “Approved Budget” means any budget approved by Council for the given fiscal year. “Budget Owner” means an individual, often a division, department or section head, responsible for managing, overseeing and ensuring the appropriate allocation and use of funds within a designated budget. This role involves Budget Development, Resource Allocation, Monitoring and Control, Approval Authority, Reporting and Accountability and Compliance and Oversight as defined below: “Budget Development” means collaborating with other municipal officials and stakeholders to develop budget proposals that align with municipal goals and priorities. “Resource Allocation” means ensuring funds are allocated efficiently to various projects, programs and services within their jurisdiction. “Monitoring and Control” means tracking expenditures and revenues to ensure they are within the Approved Budget, identifying variances, and taking corrective actions as necessary. “Approval Authority” means authorizing expenditures and financial commitments within a Budget Owner’s approved budgetary limits. “Reporting and Accountability” means providing detailed financial reports to municipal council, committees, and other stakeholders, as requested and being accountable for budget performance. “Compliance and Oversight” means ensuring all financial activities adhere to municipal policies, provincial regulations, and other relevant guidelines. “Chief Administrative Officer or CAO” means the Chief Administrative Officer of the City “City” means the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls. “Cost Centre” means a department or section within the City used to track and manage revenues and expenses. “Cost Centre Manager/Section Head” see Budget Owner definition. Page 1670 of 1679 “Council” means the elected or appointed Council of the City. “Department” means an area of operation within the City, provided with a Budget to deliver Goods, Services and Construction. “Department Head” means the head of a Department within a City Division. “Designated Budget Area(s)” means specific Cost Centres, Departments or Divisions assigned to a Budget Owner. “Division” means a Division of the City which includes any Departments within that Division. “Division Head” means the head of a City Division. “Financial Transaction” means a transaction for the investment, commitment or expenditure/receipt of funds, forgiveness of debt or provision of goods or services by the City. “Officially Appointed” means formally designated or assigned to a position by the Human Resources Department. “Purchasing Authority” means the authority delegated to designated employees to initiate and administer the purchase of Goods, Services and Construction up to the prescribed thresholds in accordance with the City’s Procurement Policy and the City’s Procurement Procedures. “Signing Authority” means the authority to sign legal documents such as purchase orders, contracts, and other non-monetary agreements on behalf of the City. “Signing Officer” means Staff occupying an organizational position that has been delegated Spending Authority and/or Signing Authority. “Spending Authority” means the authority to approve Financial Transactions. “Staff” means officer(s) or employee(s) of the City. “Temporary Planned Absence” means a situation where a Staff member is scheduled to be away for a specific period, with prior notice or approval. “Vendor” means any person or enterprise supplying goods or services to the City. Page 1671 of 1679 4. POLICY 4.1 Delegated Spending and Signing Authority 4.1.1 The Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as amended (“Municipal Act”) directs Council to adopt an annual budget including all sums required during the year to run its operations including capital projects, debt financing and amounts required by other bodies. Council approves the City’s capital and operating budgets and directs Staff to implement the programs and services as approved. Council may also authorize specific expenditures by resolution of Council for items not included in the annual budgets. 4.1.2 Pursuant to Section 23.1 of the Municipal Act, Council can delegate its authority to spend monies to Staff through the adoption of a by-law that outlines the specific level of delegation and any corresponding restrictions. 4.1.3 Delegated Spending Authority entitles Staff to initiate or authorize the spending of funds. Delegated Signing Authority provides Staff with the authority to sign legal documents such as purchase orders, contracts, and non-monetary agreements on behalf of the City. All purchases must be authorized by a person with Spending Authority as set out in Appendix 1 of this policy before the purchasing process can be initiated. Purchases can be initiated by individuals who have been assigned Purchasing Authority as per the Procurement Policy. 4.1.4 Each designated position with Spending Authority can approve spending in their designated budget areas up to the maximum amount indicated in Appendix 1. 4.1.5 This Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy does not apply to the following delegated authorities: a) Authority inherently granted by a Staff’s position, role and title at the City in accordance with the Municipal Act; b) Banking signing authorities; c) Investment trading; and d) Debt arrangements. 4.1.6 Non-compliance of this Policy will be subject to a review by the City, following which the City will take necessary corrective action which may lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment. 4.1.7 Delegated Spending Authority cannot be further delegated, however, a Staff member who has been Officially Appointed in an “acting” capacity assumes the Spending Authority of that position. 4.2 Emergency Spending Authority Page 1672 of 1679 4.2.1 In specified circumstances the City may be required to respond to an emergency, which includes without limitation: a) Where an emergency is declared pursuant to the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, 1990; b) An event or circumstance where the City’s municipal emergency Control Group established under the Act has been activated; c) There is an imminent or actual danger to the life, health or safety of an official or an employee while acting on the City’s behalf; d) There is an imminent or actual danger to destruction of real or personal property belonging to the City; or e) When immediate procurement of Goods or Services is essential or necessary to: i. Prevent or alleviate serious delay, a threat to public health, safety or welfare, ii. Prevent the disruption of essential Services, or iii. Prevent damage to public property. 4.2.2 Where an applicable state of emergency has been declared, the Chief Administrative Officer may authorize unbudgeted Spending Authority. Such Chief Administrative Officer authorization will be terminated upon termination of the state of emergency. 4.2.3 Any Department Head shall be authorized to make Emergency Purchases in excess of $50,000 upon approval of the general manager of the Division, the general manager of Corporate Services and the CAO. 4.2.4 All requests for Spending Authority must follow the chart in Appendix 1 and be approved by the CAO or applicable general manager. The chart in Appendix 1 lists the maximum amount of Spending Authority for each category. These amounts are not to be exceeded. All limits in Appendix 1 must fall within the Spending Authority’s designated budget areas as approved by Council. 4.2.5 The Director of Finance/Designate maintains a complete listing of all staff spending authority limits. Page 1673 of 1679 4.3 Conflict of Interest 4.3.1 Any Signing Officers who find themselves in an actual, perceived, or potential conflict of interest must disclose the matter to their direct supervisor and their general manager before exercising Spending and/or Signing Authority. 4.3.2 The Signing Officer and their direct supervisor and general manager is also responsible for advising the Director of Finance/Designate of any Financial Transaction or documents that may be of potential public interest regardless of value, including Financial Transactions or documents that present unusual risks, might bring the activities of the City under public scrutiny and/or, those involving controversial matters. 4.4 Absence of Signing Officers 4.4.1 If a Signing Officer is not available and a temporary Signing Officer has not been appointed, Spending and Signing Authority advances upward in accordance with the organization levels set out in Appendix 1 – Organizational Levels for Spending and Signing Authority based on Approved Budgets. 4.4.2 To cover Temporary Planned Absences Spending or Signing Authority can be temporarily assigned in accordance with the organization levels set out in Appendix 1 – Organizational Levels for Spending and Signing Authority based on Approved Budgets: i. A Signing Officer at organization levels 1 to 3 can temporarily assign Spending or Signing Authority to another Signing Officer at an organizational position at the same level, any level above or one level below for a temporary period subject to restrictions set out in section 4.4 of this policy. ii. A Signing Officer at organization level 4 can temporarily assign Spending or Signing Authority to another Signing Officer at an organizational position at the same level or any level above for a temporary period subject to restrictions set out in section 4.4 of this policy. 4.4.3 To temporarily assign Spending or Signing Authority to cover planned absences complete the necessary delegation steps in the City’s enterprise resource planning system. 4.4.4 When Spending or Signing Authority is assigned temporarily to another employee, the Signing Officer must: a) Ensure that the temporary assignment complies with this policy and any related directives or procedures issued by the City. b) Ensure that the temporary Signing Officer has the skill and knowledge necessary to effectively apply Spending and Signing Authority. Page 1674 of 1679 c) Ensure that the application of Spending or Signing Authority by the temporary Signing Officer is appropriate and reviewed as necessary. 4.5 Responsibilities Signing Officers 4.5.1 When exercising Spending Authority, Signing Officers must ensure that: a) The value of each Financial Transaction is within the scope of Council approved operating and capital budgets allocated to Cost Centres within the Signing Officer’s portfolio and monetary limits set out in Appendix 1. b) The related Financial Transaction complies with: i. The City’s policies, applicable laws and regulations, and ii. The terms and amounts that have been negotiated and agreed to by the City. c) Where applicable, goods have been received, services rendered, or in the case of other payments, that the Vendor is entitled to or eligible for payment by the City. d) They are free of any real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest relating to the Financial Transaction. e) No person is permitted to approve his or her own personal expenses, or any expenses in which the person has a conflict of interest. f) Transactions are not split for the purpose of meeting a financial spending Approval Authority level. 4.5.2 When exercising Signing Authority, Signing Officers must ensure that: a) Any related Financial Transactions have been: i. Authorized for Spending Authority by a Signing Officer in accordance with this policy, and ii. Processed in accordance with procedures established by the Finance Department b) The related Financial Transaction complies with: i. The City’s policies, applicable laws and regulations, and ii. The terms and amounts that have been negotiated and agreed to by the City. Page 1675 of 1679 c) Adequate documentation supports the application of Spending Authority. d) Documents have been reviewed by responsible organizational position(s), for legal, financial, risk or administrative implications. e) Where applicable, goods have been received, services rendered, or in the case of other payments, that the Vendor is entitled to or eligible for payment by the City. f) They are free of any real, potential or perceived conflicts of interest relating to the Financial Transaction. Finance Department 4.5.3 The Finance Department is responsible for: i. Administering this policy. ii. Maintaining a complete listing of all Staff spending authority limits. User Departments 4.5.4 The User Departments are responsible for: i. Adhering to this policy. 5. REVIEW 5.1 The Director of Finance/Designate will review this policy at least once every five (5) years. Next review date: March 2030 Page 1676 of 1679 Appendix 1 – Organizational Levels for Spending and Signing Authority based on Approved Budgets The table below identifies organizational levels and the assignment of positions within each level that Council has delegated Spending and Signing Authority and the scope of the Spending Authority. Level Position Spending and Signing Authorization Limit (excluding taxes) Scope 1 Chief Administrative Officer, Treasurer/Director of Finance Limited to Council Approved Budget or Council Resolution All budget areas 2 Division Head $1,000,000 Designated Budget Area(s) 3 Department Head $100,000 Designated Budget Area(s) 4 Budget Owner (Cost Centre Manager/Section Head) $50,000 Designated Budget Area(s) Page 1677 of 1679 Appendix 2 – Spending/Signing Authority Agreement First Name: Enter your first name Last Name: Enter your last name Position: Enter your position title Division: Select your Division. Department: Select your Department. Spending Authorization Limit: Choose an item. Effective Date: Enter the effective date Spending/Signing Authority is granted. Sample Signature: Sample Initial: Designated Budget Area(s) (Cost Centres) Enter applicable cost centre(s) or applicable dept. or division, i.e. CC133005 or “All Municipal Works Division”, or “All Transportation Department”. Statement of Agreement I hereby acknowledge that I have reviewed and understood the Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy (CS-FIN-038) and the Budget Spending and Signing Authority By-law 2025-040. Furthermore, I hereby agree to abide by the Budget Spending and Signing Authority Policy and the corresponding Budget Spending and Signing Authority By-law to authorize spending only within the maximum values and within the budget areas stipulated above. _______________________________ _______________________ Budget Owner Date Approved by: Name Position Signature Date Manager Enter Name Enter Position Enter date. General Manager Enter Name Enter Position Enter Date Page 1678 of 1679 CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS By-law No. 2025 - 041 A by-law to adopt, ratify and confirm the actions of the City Council at its meeting held on the 18th day of March, 2025. WHEREAS it is deemed desirable and expedient that the actions and proceedings of Council as herein set forth be adopted, ratified and confirmed by by-law. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The actions of the Council at its meeting held on the 18th day of March 2025 including all motions, resolutions and other actions taken by the Council at its said meeting, are hereby adopted, ratified and confirmed as if they were expressly embodied in this by-law, except where the prior approval of the Ontario Municipal Board or other authority is by law required or any action required by law to be taken by resolution. 2. Where no individual by-law has been or is passed with respect to the taking of any action authorized in or with respect to the exercise of any powers by the Council, then this by-law shall be deemed for all purposes to be the by-law required for approving, authorizing and taking of any action authorized therein or thereby, or required for the exercise of any powers thereon by the Council. 3. The Mayor and the proper officers of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the said actions of the Council or to obtain approvals where required, and, except where otherwise provided, the Mayor and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute all documents arising therefrom and necessary on behalf of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls and to affix thereto the corporate seal of the Corporation of the City of Niagara Falls. Read a first, second, third time and passed. Signed and sealed in open Council this 18th day of March, 2025. ........................................................ ……........................................................... WILLIAM G. MATSON, CITY CLERK JAMES M. DIODATI, MAYOR Page 1679 of 1679