2007/04/30
.
-
SIXTH MEETING
Monday, April 30, 2007
From 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
City Hall, Committee Room #2A & B
1) Approval of the April 16, 2007 Community Services Minutes.
2) REPORTS: STAFF CONTACT:
a) BBS-2007-06 5125 MontroseRoad Shoppers Drug Mart
Sign By-law Variance Ed Dujlovic
b) MW-2007-33 Mechanic Street and Keller Street
Parking Control Review Ed Dujlovic
c) MW-2007-44 Residential Convenience Pass for On-street
2-Hour Parking at Parking Meters/Machines Ed Dujlovic
d) MW-2007-38 Rural Municipal Drain Maintenance Program Ed Dujlovic
3) NEW BUSINESS:
4) ADJOURNMENT:
, MINUTES OF COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, April 16, 2007, City Hall, Room 2 at 5:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chair - Councillor Carolynn Ioaunoni, Mayor Ted Salci, Councillor Jim
Diodati, Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Councillor Bart Maves, Councillor
Vince Kerrio, Councillor Wayne Thomson, Councillor Janice Wing,
Councillor Shirley Fisher.
STAFF: Jolm MacDonald, Ed Dujlovic, Ken Beaman, Lee Smith, Denyse Morrissey,
Ken Burden, Dean Iorfida, Trent Dark, Dale Morton, Serge Felicetti,
Mariaune Tikky- Secretary
GUESTS: Helen Henderson -.Chair Stamford Collegiate 150th Reunion Cb'mmittee.
PRESS: Rob Lapensee, Niagara This Week; Corey Larocque, Niagara Falls Review
MINUTES
It was ORDERED on the motion of Mayor Salci, seconded by Councillor Maves, that the April
2, 2007 minutes be approved.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to CounciI2007-04~16.
REPORTS
a) MW-2007-37 - Corwin Avenue Parking Review
It was ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Thomson and seconded by Councillor Fisher that
a "no parking, 6:00 a.m. - 9:00 a.m., except buses" restriction be installed on the west side of
Corwin Avenue between a point 18 metres south of Lundy's Lane and a point 36 metres southof
Lundy's Lane.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2007-04-16.
b) MW-2007-39 - Stamford Collegiate 150'h Reunion
Request for Transit Shuttle and Use of Municipal Parking Lots
It was ORDERED on the motion .of Mayor Salci and seconded by Councillor Thomson that a
grant be provided to cover the costs of the Niagara Transit charter fees for this event as well as
the use of the Municipal Parking Lots for the event days.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2007-04-16.
Community Services Committee -2- April 16, 2007 ,
c) BBS-2007-05 - Canadian Tire (Part Source)
6812 Lundy's Lane - Sign By-law Variance
It was ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Fisher and seconded by Mayor Salci that Council
approves the sign by-law variance for the Part Source Store.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2007-04-16.
NEW BUSINESS
a) It Wl!8 ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Fisher and seconded by Councillor
Thomson that staff prepare a report on a policy to cover costs for Council with respect to
printer supplies.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council 2007-04-16.
ADJOURNMENT
It was ORDERED on the motion of Councillor Maves, seconded by Councillor Pietrangelo the
regular meeting of the Community Services Committee be adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
Motion: Carried
It was ORDERED on the motion of Mayor Salci, seconded by Councillor Maves that Committee
be moved into an In-Camera Session.
Motion: Carried
, April 30,2007 BBS-2007 "()6
, -~
NiagaraFHlln~
Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: BBS-2007-Q6
5125 Montrose Road, Shoppers Drug Mart - Sign Variance
RECOMMENDATION:
That the sign variance be approved provided that the north facade sign is not illuminated
as outlined in this report.
BACKGROUND:
the Owners ofthe new Shoppers Drug Mart store, currently under construction atthe south
west corner of Montrose Road and Preakness Street, is seeking relief from the
requirements of the Sign By-law to permit oversized wall signs on three sides (north, east
and south) of the building, along with an increase in the maximum allowable number of
signs. The By-law permits wall signs equal to 25% ofthe wall area up to a maximum of 150
sq. ft. and a maximum of six (6) signs. The proposed signs for each wall are 220 sq. ft. and
are well below the 25% wall area. It should be nOted that the "draft" Sign By-law has no
maximum square foot requirements just the wall area percentage. The owners are also
proposing a total of nine signs for the building, whereas the By-law permits a maximum of
six. The three (3) additional signs will be placed, one on each of the three walls and are
reasonably small, being approximately 39 sq. ft. each. The proposed signage is in keeping
with their national advertising program and has little impact on the neighbourhood.
Plannina Deoartment Comments
. ,",;,tAt~{)):
1. The request for additional area and number()f,~l~~~'~pears to be minor in nature
and in keeping with the design of the buil<ti!lm'.&::;C'
',:,':',:y.s-
2. The additional area and number()},;:~t~n~ appears to be appropriate for the
development given the size ofJn~;,,~l:l;ilding and the exposure to Montrose Road.
However, the use of iIIumirlfl:~\~tl;:Pn' the north wall sign is of concern due to the
presence of the Townho "{onthe opposite side of Preakness Street. The signs
on this facade sho 'e illuminated so as to reduce the impacts on the
residents. I
;
i
April 30, 2007 -2- BBS.2007..()6
.
3. The request for additional area is in keeping With the provisions of the draft Sign By-
law.
4. The subject lands are designated Residential in the Official Plan. Neighbourhood
Commercial developments are to be designed such that they are compatible with
the surrounding residential land uses due to the close proximity of the latter.
Because of this, the draft Official Plan policies for signage speak to the need for
controls on signs due to potential impacts. As noted above, while the request for
additional area and number of signs is reasonable, the illumination of the signs on
the north facade may result in negative impacts for the residents living opposite the
site on Preakness Street.
In summary, the Planning staff has no objections to the request subject to the signs on the
north facade of the building not being illuminated.
..-
Approved by: i~)
Ed Dujlovic, Exe tive Director of Community Services
Respectfully submitted:
Joh cDonald, Chief Administrati e Officer
B.Judge
., "
L
1 26
t3(r."'Ce:l-,I~
~i.'-~~{O'b
.
I -=-~~~
.
r
~
.
-
,;,;' t
~ ~ ~'
t i
'1'
. l
,
, ."......
mtID.WUZI_at. .:J;ri
.....IUI!II
--~
~~-~'.,~-.":=';,;--.' -,:'-~, _. - ~
Lr.=~'IlIliIN"" - w.' ~
~-~~
r...
!i1 CI.
:~~~~.~~ /-
III=~
B~ ""Hili'~~ ~I'
fr."'"-"~' .- '". -- ..
,'~~ C1\.1lA1C11,'.:MiIi'.!III;Ilt,..1IHln:i ~~4k-
-.:..;.
.. ' '......
~ ~
~'1~~ @
1tJ-""t-
t . """.Il"-~
, ~ ....._4-
.
i ..........
0&:w,I"4 "cc:if1~-wel1U~
~ ?NT~wesr;REO~
__.C'_.,__.'_-,
. ;~P.:RtiAn_B>_
.~s~meE1"
~ Nt"'!l',lI\FlrI\r~:O;IU;
~-~ .7a2W
WS' ,~Kr9f:t
Ea.;,eYATidNS
~._,,,,,~~,,,,
R1PHTSIPEELEVATiON(FACING MONTRO:,l.EFlQA!:.>') -- P4RQ1
- .,
"'!(t. -
.......
........ ~
'~.IIlI!I.....
-'1->>~.""
)
L
~ 2 j
.1a::rl1$:IJ~:;t.$::N:'WICt..
.4 1IIIi4ir-
,.-.
-
".~","i.r~
. [='-~ t
.l
. rl t,~
. .
l ,1'
- .. ...
- .... ...
REARELEvAiioi\.l ~F'A.CII\iG PREAKNESSih, >
~,' ,D, .c cu. A -
---.........-
it-J,,j~J .:ili:, "jN~mt:f~ .~
.;O"g-,::?;:Cllif.tG.X!'.X n'Ij)' "'I.:~IH~"'.~ .... -,....."'Jo-i. _#:
.tt, '-*,.-r
....--- ~""'..:.,....:..-
~~ - _ _ '_, !M~
;0--'
~ r.....~ .~ ~ ~'i~~ @
~.,
'''='''''''~-
~ $HOrp_A
i . ,..,.....
~ D~.....a.~r:-tUcT1U.....
t ?NTAF\lQ~p.Et1~
~-.--,
, i=io..~ ''''K.'INTRO$illl)'tQ.iinl!!"
~8.ifO'J!!1rr
N~-r~_ONT'
l ............ 782W
......
;;..;;- ~ ~I__J..;~~
- L=l."~""'-.l"l-
'._''_ _ ~~__1I!i ell;vAli~s
LEFT'slDS SLEVA:nON .:#;;:~h!'-~--,_-'-' .'-'-
~-~_.-~IP" .......-li"_-_...
, ....."""""" P4R01
-- ,
..... ...-.
........;. -
- ,-~
~~.. --
"_~""'_Ill~
. 447' 1- - ~ \\ i\
' . ASCOT CIRCLE ~ /~- '~\
~,." ~\\
--- _/-;;
- ,
-- ,
~ /~ ~ \
-~ ~ ,
~ \
-''fI. ~ \ ~
.::.::.:-__ _~ .,G . IJ'.
~ _~ I" ,
~_.__ _ u_________________ __ __ _u_ /.;;;;~ nScp.i' -;<, \, o.
- - - - - ..,;;;;;,;;;,;;_._____.-.-____.-.-____.-.---uj" --____.-.-____.-.-____.-.-~ \.p.tl" G 'i". 11 \,
LANDSCAPING .' ",,~,
. Ol" to!
I - ~ ~, '
" , \
,. 9 o~ 4 \\
,
. ,~ ,22 (\)' -;<,. ',\
6 ,....- Te~1j';-----V~-' , - ......... \ \
...... <<:. I I ........ <:$I: \
I PROPOSED /' ~~~:_____.6n_J 'i' "-- '-'-'- . . \
i "..,. ~ ~"'...' GARBACE \
OTHER / / ... rgPOUREu -, - . . ENC'OSURE "
I /" N CONCRETE .... ......... . "'" \
t.5 / / - CURBU"C ......... ...... 'SCREEN WALL - \
I 13 TENANT ,/ // . ---" -----< FOR SE~~ C:ID:J [Ufj] \,
f' ., -, --- ; \
6,825 SQ.FT. : /1 .' ) b', -- ,
,'\ Ol - \ \
. _.n' ,/ '-- - 14 '--" ~ '-___ fl.
I ""tJ, . - '\
J 0 ,\
I! :' ~ ( "Ii; C!l ,\
J; J N ;{ <: \ I
I 1 ..: 'i - \
I ./ / 'I 16""1 10 ~l ~ \ r
I (I)' 0 1 0
I m:m~'7 LOADING/REFUSE BAY : . ;, "'. '" 11\ f- re
!"\ / . (;j Q, W
. ')! ' Ol 5 <<, W
: II') z' 0:( :
, 0,....' IV
, , 16 OJ ,u..
I : I 25 -0- ,19'-8 9" : f-
. ..n : ] i;> . PROPOSED I: b (/)
" ""tJ , , . 0 I"
~ I , - '" '. ',' " , ' . , ;., (/)
I !l PROPOSED ' " N ~ Q.. I ;; SHOPPERS ~ : :!! (/)
~ OTHER 16 - ;f" DRUG MART Ii: W
. .' -,' "., z '
I TENANT : ~ .-J ~it, 17,036 SQ.FT, II ~ 11 ~
6,825 SQ.FT, .., N w"" Ii!i!: We:(,
, II ~ I
. 16 P" I ')\ '!. ~l a::
I .' ,J' c..
o P ECAST ---.:.::::.-- I~ 'I I
I co ~ETE--- ,I :
8 :.. CURB I '
N I
. ,... ~ '
, . 19 · '
"----- ___________':.~ N D S CAP I N G :
- - - ----- ---- ----- -- ------ --- ----- . 'J'''-''''''-''''='''-''''''-~''l: / .
_ _ _ ________ 00
_.. _ _ _ _ , -------------..LA.tLQ~.9_~~!~_~ . SIGNAGE ~ ~
-- --.JI!. ~- ----. ./ ,/
~~_~~~~_ -~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_;; ~~~~~~~~~_ _~ ~~~~~~_n___n__~n_m_~_=_~_=_~_=_~=_~_=_~_ =_~_=_~_=_~____n_~_= ~__ ~ r
,
30'-0. 112'-0. lb'-~.
, MONTROSE ROAD
(REGIONAL ROAD No. 98)
, 502' _..z.
"8 . '
~
April 30, 2007 MW-2007-33
-~
Niagarapf!IID~
Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: MW.2007-33
Mechanic Street and Keller Street
Parking Control Review
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) That a "no parking, tow away zone" corner restriction be installed on the south
side of Mechanic Street from Keller Street to a point 20 metres east of Keller
Street.
2) That a "no parking, tow away zone" corner restriction be installed On the south
side of Mechanic Street from Macklem Street to a point 20 metres west of
Macklem Street.
3) That a "permit parking, tow away zone" restriction be installed on the south side
of Mechanic Street between a point 20 metres east of Keller Street and a point
20 metres west of Macklem Street.
4) That a "no parking, tow away zone" restriction be installed on the north side of
Mechanic Street between Macklem Street and Keller Street.
5) That a "no parking, tow away zone" corner restriction be installed on the east
side of Keller Street from Mechanic Street to a point 20 metres south of
. Mechanic Street.
6) That a "no parking, tow away zone" corner restri91J~.jjj;i~'eihstalled on the east
side of Keller Street from Portage Road to a p~t~ljb'metres north of Portage
Road. . ,.
- ~2,>'-'
7) That a "permit parking, tow awaY~R.~~~i~~triction be installed on the east side of
Keller Street between a point ~9<.'Jl~1Yes south of Mechanic Street and a point 20
metres north of Portage Ro~~{'.. .. .
'~!:l>';-"
8) That a "no parking, . y zone" restriction be installed on the west side of
Keller Street be echanic Streetand Portage Road.
Community Services Department
Transportation Services
-2-
BACKGROUND:
Staff has recently conducted a parking study on Mechanic Street and Keller Street.
The concern stemmed from Kingsbridge Park patrons utilizing on-street parking on
Mechanic Street. As Kingsbridge Park patrons are required to pay a fee for use of the
on-site parking facility from June until September, patrons may seek alternatives for
parking.
In the study area Mechanic Street is a local roadway consisting of two travel lanes, one
in each direction. The 200 metre section of Mechanic Street has a total often (10)
properties with frontage onto the roadway. On the north side, encompassing the entire
length of Mechanic Street is the Regional Niagara Waste Treatment Plant. The
roadway is 7.6 metres in width and currently contains a "no parking" restriction on the "
north side. A sidewalk for pedestrian use is present on the south side of the roadway.
Curbing is present on both sides. Keller Street is also a local type roadway with two
travel lanes, one in each direction. The 165 metre long roadway has a total often (10)
properties with direct frontage onto the roadway. A sidewalk is present on the east side
of Keller Street throughout its length. On the west side the sidewalk extends only 85
metres from Portage Road. The width of the roadway is 6 metres, anda "no parking"
restriction is present on the west side. There are no curbs on Keller Street.
Staff carried out technical studies on Mechanic Street and Keller Street to determine
whether parking revisions are required on the study roadways. During observations
parking activity was noted on both roadways. It was observed, however, that parked
vehicles belonged to construction workers performing maintenance operations on both
Keller Street and Mechanic Street. Measurements reveal that both roadway's widths
are insufficient to allow parking on both sides of the road, while permitting unimpeded
access for two-way traffic simultaneously. In addition, maintenance vehicle operations
will be hindered, and more importantly delays to emergency vehicle response time
would be experienced. It was also noted that the parking restriction signs on the north
side of Mechanic Street have been removed, possibly as a result of ongoing
construction, insinuating to motorists that parking on both sides is currently permitted.
Parking questionnaires were delivered to each property fronting both study roadways.
Through the questionnaire, property owners/managers or tenants had an opportunity to
comment on the type of parking control that would most benefit their situation. The
minimum criterion requires at least 60% of the residents petitioned to respond to the
questionnaires delivered. A total of ten (10) properties were petitioned on Mechanic
Street between Macklem Street and Keller Street, of which seven (7) (70%)
questionnaires were returned. A total of ten (10) properties were petitioned on Keller
Street between Mechanic Street and Portage Road, of which six (6) (60%)
questionnaires were returned. The questionnaire results are as follows:
Mechanic Street:
. Maintain the existing parking controls: 0 (0%)
. Remove the existing parking controls: 0 (0%)
. Add permit parking zone: 5 (50%)
. Add "no parking" restriction to south side: 1 (10%)
. Add "no parking" restriction from Monday to Friday, 8-4: 1 (10%)
. Modify to "no stopping" restrictions: 0 (0%)
. No response 3 (30%)
-3-
Keller Street:
. Maintain the existing parking controls: 2 (20% )
. Remove the existing parking controls: 0 (0%)
. Add permit parking zone: 1 (10%)
. Add "no parking" restriction to east side: 2 (20%)
. Add "no parking" restriction from Monday to Friday, 8-4: 1 (10%)
. Modify to "no stopping" restrictions: 0 (0%)
. No response 4 (40%)
On Mechanic Street a total of 7 respondents were in favour of implementing some kind
of parking restriction on their roadway. Of the 6 returned questionnaires from Keller
Street 4 were in favour of revisions to existing parking controls.
Based on the study results and questionnaire reSponses from Mechanic Street
residents, it is recommended that a "permit parking tow away zone" system be
implemented. It is also recommended that on the north side a "no parking tow away
zone" system be installed to deter motorists from parking on the restricted portion of
Mechanic Street. In addition, despite not achieving a consensus among the property
owners, it is recommended that on the east side of Keller Street a "permit parking tow
away zone" system be implemented as well, to ensure motorists do not shift their
parking habits from the neighbouring roadway. As on Mechanic Street this restriction
Will permit residents to park on their roadway by means of a parking permit. In addition,
the existing "no parking" restriction signs on the west side of Keller Street will also be
changed to "no parking tow away zone". Lastly, tow away zone corner restrictions will
be installed accordingly near intersections. These restrictions will ensure the
intersections are clear of parked vehicles which would potentially restrict visibility for
motorists proceeding through.
ApproVed by: f-~
Ed Dujlovic, Executive Director of Community Services
Respectfully submitted:
B.Skiba
V:\2007COUNCILI070430\MW-2007-33 Mechanic Street and Keller Street Parking Review.wpd
.
.
.
.
o. o.
April 30, 2007 -~ MW-2007-44
.
NiagaraPclfllD~
Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: MW-2OO7-44
Residential Convenience Pass for On-Street
Two (2) hour Parking at Parking Meters/Machines
RECOMMENDATION:
1) That a Residential Convenience Pass Program, for up to 2 hOurs parking at On-
Street parking meters/machines, be instituted, at a cost of $45.00 (plus taxes) per
month; and,
2) That this program be monitored and implemented on a trial basis for a one year
period.
BACKGROUND:
Council, along with staff periodically receive requests from residents, requesting an on-
street meter/machine pass. Therefore, Council has requested staff to investigate the .1
possibility of implementing a yearly residential parking meter pass program for the
residents of Niagara Falls, which would be similar to the one hour pass that has been
implemented in Niagara-on-the-Lake.
Parking in Niagara Falls operates as a Cost Centre approach to parking. This means that
only those who use the parking facilities, pay, resulting in the general taxpayer not haVing
to contribute to the operation in any way. In addition, surpluses{r~sE;l.rves) are dedicated
to th~ maintenance and rehabilitation of parking fa~i1ities'21~~eefmet~rs and off-street .
parking lots), the purchase of land for the estabhsh~,.new parking lots and the
construction of major parking facilities. Capital ii!l\f~{~~rational needs are based on
business case scenarios. ..);"r
.,.-.-~(:,'-.;;i)__.;>'j
<t4;}~{~~;fJ;;r' .-
The basic philosophy of on-street meter~.(2I;j~arf{ing ensures that there is tumover (short
term parking) for customers at the m911~c~i'ivenient locations adjacent to the businesses,
whil~, pay parking in parking lot '~l~~,;toaddress the demand for medium to long term
parking needs. ""
April 30, 2007 -2- MW-2007-44
,
Niagara-on-the-Lake's Parking Scenario:
0 The population of Niagara on the Lake (14,000) with approximately one-thousand
(1000) passes sold per year (7.1% of population).
0 There is an annual fee of $10.00 for each pass. This allows residents to utilize
meter spaces for one hour free. It is not without it's abuse, in that some permit
holders frequently stay longer that one hour.
0 In the Downtown there are a total of 792 metered parking spaces both On-street and
in parking lots, with 514 being yearly and 278 being seasonal (April to September).
All pay parking spaces are located in one geographic area
0 there is no enforcement Of parking meters from December through to the end :of
March
0 Five parking control officers monitor these areas in the peak season while two
officers monitor from October to November. They are monitored through
stemming/chalking tires.
0 Enforcement duties of officers are similar to Niagara Falls, however they do not
monitor overnight parking, pay/lease lots, ovemight permits or residential zones and
have fewer school zones (7) to monitor - time is available to officers to monitor/stem
vehicles for one hour pass use.
Niagara Falls' Parking Scenario:
0 Niagara Falls population of approximately 82,000. This would entail issuing more
than 5,800 permits if a similar response of 7.1 % comes from our public.
0 Currently, the City of Niagara Falls issues approximately 7,300 various types of
parking permits annually. The City currently utilizes one full time clerical position to
administrate the permit prOgrams. An additional 5,000-6,000 permits may require
additional clerical staff.
0 There are approximately 1,790 (on-street/parking lot) year round pay parking
spaces, situated in seven (7) various geographic locations (Downtown, Main Street;
Fallsview, Clifton Hill, Victoria Avenue, Chippawa, Hospital zone) All metered
spaces are monitored throughout the entire year.
0 A longer time frame for officers to monitor existing beats may result in illegally
parked vehicles remaining longer in parking spaces, reducing the turn over of
spaces required for businesses in high traffic areas.
0 A total of nine (9) parking control shifts to cover these areas.
0 Enforcement duties are similar to Niagara on the Lake's, however Niagara Falls
staff monitors overnight parking, schoolzones (34), residential/visitor permit areas
(46), monthly lease lots (16)
April 30, 2007 -3- MW-2007-44
. Facts about our Parking System
. The Parking Operation currently contributes in excess of $ 140,000.00 on a yearly
basis to the tax supported budget.
. The Parking Operation is currently self sufficient, in that it covers its own operating
expenses and contributes to a Parking Reserve Fund.
. The Parking Reserve Fund provides funds for maintenance of existing facilities,
construction and reconstruction of new and existing parking lots, the purchase of
new equipment, etc..
. In the Downtown"there is currently over one hundred (100) free two (2) hour parking
spaces, on all of the side streets, north of Queen Street to Park Street and south of
Queen Street to Huron Street.
. In the Historic Drummondville Area (Main Street) all of the Municipal Parking Lots
are currently free for all day parking.
. We have converted many of our on-street single space meters to multi-space pay
and display machines, which offer the convenience of payment by coin and credit
card. In 2007, we will complete year five (5) of a five (5) year parking meter
replacement program. Upon completion, the majority of paid parking will have the
flexibility of payment by coin and credit card
. We have a token program available, in whiCh we sell a $10.00 roll of tokens (25
cent per token equivalent) at a reduced rate of $9.00.
. In addition, our multi-space pay and display machines are capable of accepting
"Smart Cards", therefore, in the near future we will be able to offer these cards as
an alternative to the Residential Convenience Pass. The advantage to this
technology is that it may be able to be integrated with a Transit Pass, thereby,
offering additional convenience and flexibility to consumers.
Financial Impacts
NOTL is a small town which has only one (1) geographic area for parking. The
demographics for parking suggests that the majority of parking utilization in their Downtown
is tourist oriented. Their pay parking operation is focused around the tourist activities and
not around typical resident attractors, such as banks, legal and financial services, etc. In
the case of Niagara Falls, we have seven (7) geographic parking areas with a high number
of residents that frequent all of these areas based on typical residential attractors. On this
basis, there is potential to undermine the User Pay initiative and negatively impact the
parking operation.
Our projected operating surplus contribution for 2007, is approximately, $57,000.00. It is
important that new programs are supportive of the User Pay initiative, so as to not burden
the tax supported budget. It is also important new programs do not have a negative impact
on other programs such as the monthly lease parking lot program. Therefore it is important
to set any new program cost in line or higher than your highest monthly permit fee. In this
case it is $45.00 (plus taxes) per month.
April 30, 2007 -4- MW-2007-44
Based On the fact, that there could be 5,000 to 6,000 permits sold, ifthe permit was used ,
an average of only twice per month, based on 75 cents per hour, with one hour of use on
average, the total generated revenue that would be associated with this type of usage is
$90,000.00 to $108,000.00. This type of revenue loss would have a negative impact on
the 2007 budget and cause the parking Operation to operate in a deficit.
The Convenience Pass Pricing is based on the following:
. It will not have a negative financial impact on the user pay parking operation
program.
. It will not encourage monthly pass holders to choose the convenience pass over the
monthly lease lot parking because it is a lower cost.
. It will not encourage employees to utilize the pass, thereby monopolizing valuable
Customer parking spaces.
. The monitoring/administration may result in additional costs, thereby, securing the
appropriate funds to offset additional costs are vital.
Conclusion:
Our projected operating surplus contribution for 2007 is approximately $57,000.00. It is
important that new programs are supportive of the User Pay initiative, so as to not further
burden the tax supported budget. It is also important that new programs do not have a
negative impact on other programs such as the Monthly Permit Parking Lot program.
The introduction of this program with artificially low pricing may result in the parking
operation being forced to operate at a deficit. Therefore, setting the Convenience Pass
pricing at a level that will not undermine the Monthly Permit Parking Lot Program, is vital
to maintaining the success of the user pay parking operation program.
Finally, it should be remembered, that, this Convenience Pass Program is truly being
offered as a convenience of not having to worry about having change available, to
purchase time on the parking meter and not as a bonus or discount for parking.
Councils' concurrence with in this report would be greatly
appreciated.
Recommended by:
Respectfully submitted:
s. WheelerlK. Dren
S:\TPS\TPS 1.00 Admlnistration\TPS 1.06 Reports\2007 Community Services\04 Apr 30\MW-2007-44 On-Street Residential Convenience Pass.wpd
April 30, 2007 MW-2007-38
. -~
.
Niagarapf!lID~
Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members:
Re: MW-2007-38
Rural Municipal Drain Maintenance Program .
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That City Council reaffirm the use of The Drainage Act to secure access and
resolve drainage issues in the City's rural area, and further that,
2. The landowners be assessed for their portion of the costs as set out in The
Drainage Act.
BACKGROUND:
The City has developed a strategy to address flood prone areas in our rural community
based on a report prepared by Wiebe Engineering Ltd. in 1987 which was adopted by
Council. It identified twelve (12) areas where periodic flooding of the roadway occurred
to the point that it was impassable. To date, three (3) of these areas have been
improved with the construction of the drainage course through the provisions of the
Drainage Act.
This provincial legislation allows for the provision and maintenance of proper drainage
for those watercourses that transverse private rural lands. They act as storm water
outlets for agricultural lands which are critical in maximizing crop yields. The Drainage
Act is therefore an effective tool in securing a drainage outlet that provides an outlet for
both agricultural farm land and roadside ditches. Proper roadside drainage is integral in
maximizing the road's structural stability.
The Drainage Act provides for assessments to be paid by all landowners in the
drainage area based on a user pay basis. Those landowners that derive the most
benefit from the improvements are assessed the greatest share. The final assessment
considers available credits in the form of provincial grants and allowances for those who
qualify.
Council has directed staff in . '~t to investigate an alternative funding model to The
Drainage Act which invo _City paying the landowners assess men
Community Services Department
Municipal Works
April 30, 2007 -2- MW-2007-38
.
The City has developed a strategy to address flood prone areas in our rural community ,
based on a report prepared by Wiebe Engineering Ltd. in 1987 which was adopted by
Council. It identified twelve (12) areas where periodic flooding of the roadway occurred
to the point that it was impassable. Presently, three (3) of these areas have been
improved with the construction of the drainage course through the provisions of the
Drainage Act.
Council has directed staff to consider the landowner's request to investigate alternative
funding models to offset the landowners cost for improvement works to the Union
Marsh Drain. Report MW-2006-47 was prepared for Committee dated April 24, 2006
identifying the impact that this precedent would set. In addition to the initial increased
cost to the City, approximately $425,000.00, there area also procedural inconsistences
that may result in appeals by road authorities and other municipalities to the Court of
Revision or the Drainage Tribunal. This precedent would also result in the loss of
Ministry funding to the project in the form of grants and allowances which would then be
shifted to the municipality.
It is evident that this major shift in funding policy for these drain projects will have a
great impact on the City's current and future budgets for new construction and future
maintenance. The City will need to budget not only for City drains but also external
drain improvements in adjacent municipalities to which Niagara Falls is tributary.
Assuming that the budget for rural drain maintenance remains consistent, the expected ,
time frame to complete the improvement of the remaining drains would be prolonged
extensively.
Therefore, it is staffs recommendation that the current policy which is consistent with
provincial legislation, be maintained requiring the landowner to pay their net assessed
value which considers applicable grants and allowances. Council has provided
payment options over a longer time period with no carrying charges on previous drain
projects to assist landowners.
Council's concurrence with the above recommendation would be appreciated.
Recommended by: )
tive Director of Community Services
Respectfully submitted:
Attach:
R.Volpini
C:\Documents and Sellings\mt222\Local Sellings\Temp\XPgrpwise\MW~2007-38 - Rural Municipal Drain.2wpd.wpd
-
. Community Services Department MW-2006ill7
.
.
Municipal Works Ed Dujlovic
4310 Queen Street Director
P.O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
web site: www.clty.niagarafalls.on.ca
--
Tel.: (905) 356.7521
Fax: (905) 356-2354
E-mail: edujlovi@cily.nlagarafalls.on.ca
April 24, 2006
Aldennan Selina Volpatti, Chairperson The recommendation(s)
contained In this report we
and Mernbers of the Community Services Committee adopted in committee am
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario ratified by City Council
Members:
Re: MiW-lOlJU' - Union Marsh Drain Funding
RECOMMENDATION:
That this report be received and filed.
BACKGROUND:
At the April 3, 2006 Community Services Committee meeting, a motion was passed that staff
investigate alternative funding to offset property owner's costs for improvements to the Union Marsh
Drain. Past practice has been that property owners have been assessed for works carried out by the
City under the Drainage Act. In addition property owners in Niagara Falls have also been assessed
costs as a result of work carried out on drains in neighbouring municipalities that property owners
in Niagara Falls have received and benefitted from. The following chart lists the works that have
been completed recently within the City and neighbouring municipalities under the Drainage Act.
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS TEE CREEK -1995
City Road Allowance $145,760.00
Landowners - City $60,290.00
Total- City of Niagara Falls Assessments $206,050.00
NOTL - AIRPORT DRAIN MAINTENANCE - 1997
DRAIN NO.2
City of Niagara Falls Road Allowance $ 2,775.00
City of Niagara Falls Landowners $17,055.00.
Total - City of Niagara Falls Assessments $19,830.00
-
Working Together to Serve Our Community
Municipal Works. Fire SeNices . Parks, Recreation & Cuiture . Business Development. Building & By-Law Services
April 24, 2006 MW.2006-47
.
mOROLD- Allanport Drain Maintenance -1999 .
City of Niagara Falls Allowance $27,693,00
City of Niagara Falls Landowners $19,282.00
Total - City of Niagara Falls Assessments $46,975.00
CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS DRAIN NO.6 - 2002
City Road Allowances $22,900,00
Landowners - City $37,370.00
Total- City of Niagara Falls Assessments $60,270.00
NOTL - AIRPORT DRAIN MAINTENANCE - 2006
DRAIN NO.3
City of Niagara Falls Allowance $ 1,155.00
City of Niagara Falls Landowners $10,150.00
Total- City of Niagara Falls Assessments $11,305.00
Note: Landowners had the option of spreading the payment over ten years to the municipality on
their taxes interest free.
In addition to the work being proposed by the City on the Union Marsh Drain, the City is proceeding
with work on the Boyer's Creek Drain and Hunter's Drain under the Drainage Act. As indicated in
the 2006 Capital Budget the costs for Boyer's Creek is anticipated to be $580,000.00. The
preliminary assessment for the works is as follows.
. City of Niagara Falls Road Allowance $107,000.00
. AssesStt1ent other roads (Niagara Region & MTO) $121,100.00
. Assessment to Fort Erie Landowners $ 43,200,00
. Net Assessment to Niagara Falls Landowners $269,100.00
. Hunter's Drain
City Road Allowance $ 50,000.00
City Landowners $106,000.00
It is planned that the work for the two projects will be carried out in 2006.
At the Committee meeting the residents requested that the City pick up the entire costs of the
drainage works as they felt that part of their tax dollars is going to the construction of stonn sewers i
in the urban area of the City. Funding for stonn and drainage works is provided through the General
Tax Rate and the Urban Tax Rate. The General Tax Rate is applied to all properties in the City. In
addition to the General Tax Rate, those properties that receive an urban service the Urban Tax Rate
is also applied. The General Tax Rate provides funding for road side ditching, and funds the City's
assessment for work carried out under the Drainage Act. The Urban Tax Rate pays the Capital costs
for construction of new or replacement stonn sewers and the maintenance of stonn sewers.
Accordingly, the rural residents are not paying for the construction or maintenance ofstonn facjlities
in the built up area of the City, For example the Storm Sewer Separation Project on Stanley Avenue
.
. ,April 24, 2006 MW-2006-47
.
. . has been funded by taxes through the Urban Tax Rate and the Utility Budget respectively.
City staff did undertake a review of possible alternative funding methods. In addition to the City of
Thorold and the Town of Niagara- on- the-Lake the Town of Fort Erie and the City of Port Colbome
have also used the Drainage Act and have assessed private landowners for the works carried out. In
addition to the infonnation provided by the consultant working on the Union Marsh Drain, K Smart
Associates Limited, we also contacted Weibe Engineering and Spriet Associates who have worked
on City's Drainage Act projects as well as hundreds of others throughout Ontario. The consultants
have never encountered a project done under the Drainage Act where the municipality paid all of the
assessment from the municipality's budget. One consultant did indicate that in Grimsby, the Town
did pay for a portion of the landowner assessment. This was only for properties in the urban area
and the funding was provided via the storm sewer budget.
Concerns have been raised should the City proceed to offset the assessment against landowners in
the City of Niagara Falls. This may result in an appeal by other road authorities such as the Ministry
of Transportation and the Region of Niagara and in the case of Boyer's Creek those property owners
in the Town of Fort Erie. There could be difficulties before the Court of Revisions and the Drainage
Tribunal in regards to the division of costs. One possible way to minimize the matter would be to
provide a grant to property owners in the City of Niagara Falls only. i
Should Council wish to proceed in this manner it will have an impact on the City's current and future
budgets not only for the major clean out of the drains but future maintenance costs. Not only will
the City have to budget for its own projects initiated under the Drainage Act it will also have to
monitorneighbouring municipalities and the works that they will be undertaking under the Act and
the impact that it will have on landowners in the City and budget funds to cover their assessments.
The assumption of the costs to private landowners for drainage works is a major shift in current
policy and is contrary to the public survey. In the survey carried out by Leger Marketing the public
responded that, "within budgetary contexts, 62% want to maintain/increase services, with plurality
44% preferring to do so via User Fees." This policy shift also has an impact upon Local
Improvement. Currently, in those areas where the City undertakes a road reconstruction and the road i
does not have any cUIbs, the residents are offered the opportunity to install curbs at their costs.
Based on the above infonnation it is staff's recommendation that the current practice for the payment
of landowner assessment of works under the Drainage Act be maintained. As indicated private
property will be provided the option to pay for their assessment via their tax bills over ten years with
no fmancing charges.
Committee's concurrence with the above recommendation would be appreciated.
.;
Ed Dujlovic
Director of Municipal Works -