Additions 2009/04/20 ~
ADD9~°10~?S TO COIDNCIL, IVIONDAY, APR9~ 20, 2009
COMMUNITV SERVICES _ _ - -
1. Resolution to go In Camera
2. People Mover Project Presemtatioro
a) Opinion letter from WeirFoulds LLP
b) Past report and minutes re: People Mover
c) Power point presentation
d) Various letters of support
2. TS-2009-02 - Tourist Area Parkir~g Deraiand Study
a) Correspondence from Italia Gilberti, Broderick & Partners.
b) Correspondence from Rocco Vacca, Sullivan Mahoney.
c) Copy of power point presentation
COUNCIL
BY-LAWS
1. By-law 2009-60
a) Correspondence from Dan and Betty Trabucco
, ~
{
je9~i
The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Resolutflon
r~~.
1VlovecY by
Secoa~deci by
W~IE~AS all meetings of Council are to be open to the public; and
W~E~AS the only time a meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject
matter falls under one of the exceptions under s. 239(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001.
'd'HE~FO~ ~E Y'I' ~SOb.V~~ ~'~A~' on Apri120, 2009 Niagara Falls Council will go into
a closed meeting prior to Community Services Committee to consider a matter that falls under the
subject matter of 239(2)(~ of the Municipal Act, 2001, to receive advice that is subject to solicitor-
client privilege and s. 239 (2)(a) security of the property of the municipality.
AN~ 'g'flne Seal of the Corpora~ioan be he~eto aff xec~.
Il~~AN g~~'~Il~A ('g'lE~) SAI,c~
~~~'x ~A~o~
a _
£(4/20/2009) ~Dean lorfida People Mover " Page 1'~
Froan: Dean Iorfida
To: council@niagarafalls.ca
~ate: 4/20/2009 2:22 PM
Sub~e~: People Mover
AttacE~rr~ee~ts: WeirFoulds Opinion Letter dated Mar. 13, 2009.pdf; People Mover Minutes.pdf
; People Mover.pdf
CC: Teresa Fabbro
The attached will be provided to Council this afternoon.
For clarification, today's People Mover report is a status update. It is for information and in keeping with the October
direction of Council (attached reports and minutes are attached).
The Legal Opinion letter is provided for Council's information. (I appreciate that you will not have an ample opportunity to
digest it).
Thanks
Dean
"Ed Lustig" <elustigC~broderickpartners.com> 4/20/2009 11:39 AM
Dean:
Attached is the Opinion letter from WeirFoulds
Regards
Ed
~~s & So~~~,to~ We~FouldsL~
March 13, 2009 Bradiey N. Mc~ellan
7: 41 &947-5017
bmclellan@weirfoulds.com
PRIVlLEGED AMD CONFIDEIVTIAL File 10278.00001
City of Niagara Falls
; c/o Mr. David Schram
Urban & Environmentaf Management Inc.
4701 St. Ciair Avenue
Suite 301
Niagara Falls, OFl L2E 3S9
Dear Sirs:
Re: Niagara Fai(s re People Mover Project
You have asked for our opinion as to whether the RFP process initiated by the Request For
Work Program Proposals ("RFP 1") can now be terminated ~y the Participants under the
circumstances set out, below. In this opinion, any capitalized words which are defined in RFP 1
and which are not otherwise defned in this letter shall have the meaning ascribed to them in
RFP 1.
Assumptions
~ Based on communications we have had over the past several months with People Mover
Project consultants, we are assuming the following in providing this opinion to you: -
' 1. The alignment for the People Mover System that is now being considered is much
different than the alignment set out in the Environmental Assessment Approval and
i contemplated by the Participants both at the time of RFP 1 and in planning work
' conducted by the Participants subsequent thereto.
~
2. The vehicles and infrastructure now being considered for the People Mover System are
much different than the vehicles and infrastructure previously considered by the
~ Participants. For example, the vehicles will probably be "rubber tyre" vehicles. This
~ represents a much different type of vehicle than previously contempfated,
~
i 3. It is uncertain whether the Niagara Parks Commission will continue to run its own
existing People Mover System through the Niagara Parks Commission lands.
~ The Exchange Tower, Suite 1600 P.O. Box 480, 130 King Street West Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5X 1J5 T: 416-365-1110 F: 4ifi-365-1876
www.weirfoulds.com
d
B~rs & Sol(cftors v. V11 ~o l.i.~l..L1~L~
4. Niagara Transit will probably be the aperator of this more limited People Mover System,
, instead of there being a private sector operator, as had been envisioned by RFP 1 and
the Participants,
I
5. The anticipated ridership numbers under the System now being considered will be much
lower because of the nature of the new alignment, the frequency of service, the number
of stops, and the type of vehicle and related system infrastructure to be used.
6. The System now being considered is more similar to the existing Niagara Transit
service, together with tour bus services operated by sorne local hotels, than the more
extensive and innovative System contemplated in RFP 1.
' 7. The only private sector involvement in the development, operation and maintenance of .
the System will probably be the private sector company chosen to supply the buses
through a procurement process and some limited design and con5truction of
infrastructure necessary for this significantly less complex and smaller scale alignment
and system. This is considerably different from the design, buifd, finance, operate and
maintain approach, by way of a public-private partnership, contemptated by RFP 1.
8. Although the Province of Ontario has recently discussed with the City the possibility of
Provincial funding being made available to the City to construct a transit link from the
~
i train station in Niagara Falls to the Casino district,
(a) there has been no formaf announcement of such funding;
(b) a funding agreement has not been presented to the City;
i (c) the discussions with the Province are preliminary and tentative only;
~ (d) the Province has said that any funding would be for the link to the train station,
not for the System contemplated in RFP 1;
, (e) the link to the train station was not part of the Project ~nvironmental Assessment
Approval; and
(fl the link to the train station was not part of the System contemplated by RFP 1.
2
Bar~ & Solicitors 1' d ~]~'F~u~d~.SLLP
RFP 1
Under RFP 1, the Participants reserved to themselves the right not to proceed with the Project,
In particular, section 6.4 of RFP 1 provided as follows:
"6.4 - Rights of Participants
Notwithstanding anything else in this RFP 1, the Participants have
~`t the unilateral and exclusive right to change the dates, schedules,
deadlines, process, and requirements described in this RFP 1 by
issuance of a written addendum to this RFP 1 or to not short-list
any of the Qualified Respondents, or to reject any or all of the
submissions from Qualified Respondents, to disqualify any
Qualified Respondent, o c ~el this RFP 1, or to elect not to
.
proceed„~euth the_Ptoj~ct.f~tr._any rea~gn.,~,rhafsoeuer.,~-.~.each-case
without any liability for costs,_.expens.es or damages,_in.cUrred.-nr
suffered by any Qualified Respondent.
Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Participants
reserve the right to short-list or reject any submission whether or
not completed properly and whether or not it contains all required
information. The Participants are not bound to evaluate or short-
fist any of the responses received from Qualified Respondents.
Following receipt of the submissions under this RFP 1, the
Participants may proceed in their sole and absolute discretion, as
they determine. This _RFP 1 does not constitute an_,offer by the
-
,Participants. __.Receipt of su~mTssions ~by the Parti~ipants_and...._.._._
_
short-listing of any Qualified Respondents confers no rights:under_
_
this submission rior obligates the Participants in any manner."
Under section 6.10 of RFP 1, it was made clear that each Qualified Respondent was
responsible for all of the costs and expenses of its participation in the RFP 1 process.
Furthermore, section 6.10 stated that the Participants would not be liable to pay any Qualified
Respondent's costs or to reimburse or compensate any Qualified Respondent in any manner
whatsoever or under any circumstances, including because of any change or delay to the
schedule or in the event of rejection of any or all proposals or the cancelfation of RFP 1.
Section 6.8 of RFP 1 also stated that nothing that was contained in RFP 1 or in the Information
(that Qualified Respondents either received or were entitled to review) was to be relied upon by
any of the Qualified Respondents as a promise or representation as to the future.
3
Ba~ & Solicitors ! 1' Vil ~~~11~117~P
It is also signi~cant that, under RFP 1, there was no particular alignment that had been chosen
and the Participants stated that they were interested to see which particular alignments
Qual~ed Respondents might suggest. Also, under section 2.3 of RFP 1, the Qualified
Respondents were permitted to review the NPC Master Plan.
Accordingly, there was a broad discretion given to the Participants under RFP 1 whether to
proceed with the Project or not and there were broad rights given to the Participants under RFP
1 to terminate the process and not proceed with the Project.
Good Feith
A concem that always needs to be addressed when a public sector entity proposes to terminate
an RFP process is whether, in spite of all such protective language in an RFP, the public sector
entity coufd be exposed to liability at the instance of one of the proponents in the RFP process.
In our opinion, there is an overriding obligation on all RFP issuers to proceed in good faith
during the RFP process and to treat the proponents fairly. In our opinion, it would be important
for the Participants to be able to establish that they have proceeded in good faith and fairly
since the issuance of RFP 1 and are terminating the RFP process in good faith. We have
assumed that there is nothing that we are unaware of in this regard that could prevent the
Participants from being able to establish this. In this regard, we believe that the Participants
would take the position that matters have changed significantly since the issuance of RFP 1 a
little over 5 years ago and the Project contempfated by RFP 1 is simply not a project that the
Participants can any fonger proceed with, given all that has taken place. For instance, the
Participants concluded that it was simply not feasible economically to have a fully-Iooped
alignment that would travel through the top of the escarpment and the Niagara Parks
Commission lands and utilize a single type of vehicle. The phased approach that the
Participants then investigated also is one that is not certain enough and it also does not have
the economic viability that would be necessary in order to proceed as originally contemplated.
In this regard, we believe that the Participants did, periodically, have meetings with the Qualified
Respondents, after the completion of the RFP 1 process, and updated them as to what the
Participants were looking at and what the status of the proposed Project was. It is instructive in
this regard that the Qualified Respondents all expressed a concem during this time period about
the type of vehicle suggested by the NPC and that there not be "force-off stops" within the NPC
lands, as was being suggested by the NPC.
The only other claim that we can think that a Qualified Respondent might make if the process
and the Project were now cancelled, would be a claim for compensation for its out-of-pocket
costs, on the basis that the Participants should have done further investigation and due
diligence prior to issuing RFP 1, in terms of whether the Project as contemplated by RFP 1 was
4
Bar~ & SolicRors WeirFould.s~'~
a project that could be pursued. We assume that the Participants would be able to respond to
such an argument by establishing that they were hopeful, at the time RFP 1 was issued in
December 2003, that the Project could be undertaken and that it was reasonable on their part to
feel that the Project would proceed, subject to the matters and conditions set out in RFP 1 and
subject to the submission of an acceptable proposal under RFP 2, and that the decision to
cancel the process now is being made in good faith.
O~inion
Subject to and based on the foregoing, in our opinion the Participants have the right under RFP
1 to terminate the RFP 1 process and, if a claim is made against the Participants by one or
more of the Qualified Respondents arising from the termination of the RFP process, the
Participants would have a good defence to any such claim. ~
This opinion may only be relied upon by the City of Niagara Falls and cannot be provided to or
relied upon by any other party without our prior written consent.
Yours truly,
~
WeirFoulds LLP
BNM/cmf-m
1086891.2
5
- $ - October 6, 2008
Council Minutes
RATIFICATION OF COAAMUPVITY SERVICES COAflMITTEE MATTERS
ORDERED on the motion of Counciilor loannoni, seconded by Councillor Diodati that
the actions taken in Community Services Committee, on October 6, 2008 be approved.
1. The minutes of the September 22, 2008 meeting be approved,
2. MWI-2008-58
UUeightman Bridge Structural Rehabilitation - Status Report
That Council approve the proposed staging of construction on Weightman
Bridge, allowing it to stay open to two lanes of traffic and one sidewalk for
pedestrians, for reasons as outlined in this report.
That Council approve the postponement of construction of fhe proposed Bridge
Rehabilitation from 2009 to 2010.
That Council authorize the engagement of Rankin Construction Inc. to undertake
the proposed minor remedial repair works.
3, AAW-2008-59
Weightman Bridge VUatermain Relocation - Status Report
That Council approve the implementation of the recommended preferred
alternative from the consultant (R.V. Anderson Associates Limited) investigation
following the Municipal Class EA process for the replacement/relocation of the
existing watermains on the Weightman Bridge.
That Council approve the proposed scheduling and phasing of the construction
of the recommended new watermain loop into Chippawa along Stanley Avenue
and Lyons Creek Road as outlined in this report.
4. NIW-2008-61
Building Canada Fund
That the City submit the Museum Legacy Project for the Building Canada Fund
and that the resolution appearing tonight be approved.
5. R-2008-39
Centennial UVater NAolecule Update
That staff investigate the possibility of moving the Centennial Water Molecule
back to City Hall.
6. TS-2008-05
Portage Road between Church's Lane and Mountain Road
Tra~c Calming Follow-up Review
That this report be received for the information of the Committee.
7. TS-2008-21
1lVoodbine Street - Traffic Calming Review
That the following report be received for the information of tfne Committee.
8. CAO-2Q08-05
People IVlover Project Update
That the City continue to dedicate the necessary resources to meet the June 30,
2009 Canada Strategic Infrastruc#ure Fund deadline for the People Mover
Project.
J' :
~ , Uctaber 6, 2008 CAO-2008-05
~
' s~~~ .
;
~I ~
Councillor Carolynn loanonni, Chair
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
~c~a~~.~~~~~~ r~~~~~ ~r~~~
Members: ~~~a~t~ ~s~ ~~~~~i~~~ ~~d
r~~~f~~~ b~~ ~~a~~~~E
R~: cAO-zoos-as
~eople EVlover 9~~ojec~ l~pdate
RECOtIf16VlE~9DATlON:
That the City continue to dedicate the necessary resaurces to meet the June 30, 2009
Canada Strategic infrastructure Fund d~adfine for the Peopie Mover Project.
BACKGROUIVD
City Council will recall that staff provided an update #o CounciJ on the Niagaca Fafls People
Mover Project on May 12, 2008. At that fime, Council authorized staff to continue working
with the People Mover Projec# tv investigat~ fhe feasibility of a phased appraach to
providing fhe Request for Proposals 2(RFP2).
Follawing CounciJ's approval, the consultant team developed five (5) al#ernative phase one
alignmen#s, taking into consideration the original objectives ofthe Project. This information
has now been shared with various interested parties including the Stakeholders Liaison
Committee (SLC}, Ontario Lottery & Gaming (OLG} and Falls Management ComK~any
(FMC), the Federal Government and thE three qualified bidders.
Stakeholders
The SLC consists of key members of #he tourism business community along with
representatEOn from the five (5) BIA groups, whose purpose is to represent the tourism
industry on this Project. The Project ConsultantTeam and staffmetwith the SLC on June
17, 2Q08 to discuss the phased approach and possible phase one aiignments. The Project
Consultant Team presented the five (5) possible alternati~es and reques#ed feedback.
4ffice of thc Administrator
October 6, 2008 - 2- CAO-2008-05
A second meeting with the various interested stakeholders including representatives from
OLG and FMC was held on August 29, 2008.
Although various stakeholders have expressed disappointment that a fully looped sys#em
would nat be moving forward at this time, the prevailing opinion is the need ta have a
system in place as soon as possible to deal with ongoing congestion and service issues.
The SLC is prspared to support a phased implementatian approach.
The stakeholders responded to the consultants' presentations with a modification of the
consultant's proposal, outlined in the attached letter from Harry Oakes, The suggested
alignment would operate within the existing road network with design enhancements to key
. intersections to improve traffic movement. Although not a fully looped system within the
Park, it was emphasized that a phased system would only be efFective if it also entered the
Park to drap tourists at Table Rock and possibly Maid of the Mist. The 20 private shuttles
that are now operating from the major hotels to the Table Rock location in the Niagara
Parks would be replaced in the praposal, eliminating congestion and duplication of service.
The system must also conveniently move tourists to all demand generators including the
Falls, as mentioned, the two casinos and other attractions. As a result of the above, the
goal would be to develop a full two-way Ioop running along Victaria Avenue, Cfark Avenue,
Robinson Street and Fallsview Boulevard with connections for the Lundy's Lane shuttle
and to Table Rock. The former raii line right~of-way would not be required in this scenario, ~
however, the goal of congestion relief would still be achievable.
While the comments made in the attached letter did not receive unanimity, the major+ty of
the SLC was in support. Althaugh to date the SLC has worked on a premise of a
consensus, with deadline pressures, there comes a pointwhere a majority opinian has to
rule the day.
As a result of the SLC feedback, the consulting team was directed to prepare a work plan
and budget to examine the feasibility of the suggested rpute. The work plan would have
to considerthe implications Qf the Environmental Assessment (EA), the RFP2 and ridership
projections. The Project consultants have completed the work plan and budget. They
have been submitted to OLG for review and approval on September ~ 9, 2008. As of the
writing of this report, we have not received direction from the QLG to move forward.
OLGlFMC
Part of the successful bid for the permanent casino in Niagara Falis by ~MC included a
commitment to provide a financial cvntribution of up to $15 million for the deveiopment of
a people mover system. $7.5 million of this commitment was utilized for the purchase of
the abandoned rail corridor. OLG/FMC have alsa continued to support the project and, to
date, have contribu#ed approximately $2 million toward the Praject, which inciudes th~
Request for Quotation (RFQ), RFP1 process, the current RFP2 process, ridership and
revenue study, parking study, visitation study, as well as updates to those studies.
QLG/FMC is anxious to see the Project mo~e forward to the construction stage and,
althaugh they are disappointed that a fuJly-loaped systern will not go forward at this time,
they have expressed their support of a phased approach. However, they have also
requested that a target date be established for a contract to be awarded to a private sector
partner.
October 6, 2008 - 3- CAO-2408-05
Although the OLG has continued to be supportive of the praject, with them "foofing the bill",
even minor matters have required their sign off, Needless to say this has lead to a
protracted and cumbersome process. Although th~ municipality has no intention to
contribute to the "hard" infrastructure costs, with deadlines approaching, it wauld be
prudent for the Council to aliocate $25,000 to the project at this time. These rimonies would
help expedite matters in the face of the looming deadline that is outlined later in the report.
~6dc9ers
Council is aware the number of qualified bidders was narrowed down to three groups, The
Project Cansultant Team has continued to update the three qualified bidders and has
provided apportunities for them to comment on the progress of the Project. ~n June ~ 7,
2008, a meeting was held with the bidders to advise them of the decision to move forward
with a phased approach and ta seek their feedback.
Althaugh they were also disappointed that a fully looped system could not move farward
at this time, they reafiFirmed their interest in the project.
Fec~eral Governrnent
The Federal Gvvernmsnt has a significant role to play in the success of a People Maver
System. For a number of years, federal funding of up to $25 million has been held in
abeyance for this Project. Updates and discussians have been ongoing since the apprava!
of this funding and, on June 20, 2008, a fetter was received from the Minister of
Transporta#i~n, Infrastructure and Communities, Lawrence Cannon, expressing th~
fVlinistry's desire to have the project mave forward to the construction phase. Specifically,
thsy indicated that they wanted the City, to be in a positi4n to sign a Contribution
Agreement by the end of June 2009. In order to do this, a private sectar par~ner would
have to be chosen as a result of the RFP2 process being completed, In the absence of
a Contributian Agreement, the $25 million funding wauld rto longer be avaifable and the
Project will be considered withdrawn from consideration under the Canada Strategic
Infrastructure Fund (CSIF).
Further discussion with Minister Cannon's office has indicated that time lines could be re-
evaluated in the new year and based on progress, the June date may be extended. It is
also important for the City to reemphasize to the Federal Government that while
circumstances may have changed, the abjectives as outlined in the original application,
have not changed - the People Mover is still a high priority f~r the City and tourism.
CONCL9JS101V
The People iVlover Project is a complex initiative that has numerous technical, financial,
nperational and go~ernance issues to resolve. ~ne of the most significant chailenges is
the perceived n~ed to gain a unanimous consensus from the taurism stakeholders.
The City's role has always been identified as that of facilitator. Our commitment to date
is in the provision of resaurces ta manage and co-ordinate the Project #hrough the
cansulting team and clerical support.
October 6, 2008 - 4- CAO-2008-05
The People Mover Praject is at a critical stage in its development. If the People Mover is
ta become a reality the following issues must be resolved by June 2009:
~ Council accept the wishes of the majority of the SLC regarding alignment;
~ Complete a revised business plan in support of the Project;
~ Undertake a technical assessment of the pre#erred alignment ta assess the
engineering, transportation and traffic operations;
• Identify the enviranmental approval process having regard for Provincial EA and
the Canadian ~nvironmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) requirements;
° Negotiate new terms with the Federal Government regarding the $25 million
commitment;
• Complete the RFP2 process id~ntifying the project implementatinn program;
• Select a private sector partner;
' ~ f~.
RespectfulEy submitted:
Joh acDonald, Chief Administrative Officer
~?oa~~r~ Ea99s 9~eop0e Move~
~~o~ec~ ~~~a~e
City of Niagara Falls
Community Services
April 20t" 2009
9~~~~ose of SVBee~on~
• Project Update
- Rubber Tired Alignment
- Ridership & Revenue
- Visitation Estimates
• Technology Selection
• Project Priorities
• ~mplementation Schedule
1
~~o~ec~ ~pdate
Oc~obe~ 6t" 2008 GV~eeting
• Council Direction to Proceed with Phased
Approach
• Consensus of Stakeholders & Steering
Committee
- Flexible, At-Grade System Required
- Expedited Implementation Schedule
- Rubber Tired System on Public Streets
- Year-Round Service to as Many Attractions as
Possible
- Service to New Convention Centre
- Service to Falls (Table Rock) Essential
Projec~ ~ta~us to Aprol 2009
• Phase One Rubber Tired Alignment Proposed
• Ridership & Revenue Forecasts Updated
• Preliminary Technical Assessment of Alignments &
Intersections
~ Ongoing Consultation with NPC - Phase One would
Replace and Expand NPC People Mover System
• Possible Private Sector Financing of Bus Nraintenance
Facility
• Ongoing Discussions with Federal and Provincial
Governments for Further Capital Funding
2
~eop~e BV~ove~ ABa~~~e~~
• Rubber Tired Technology
• Replace and Expand NPC People Mover
System, Niagara Transit Routes and Hotel
Shuttles
• Operating on City Streets and in Queen
Victoria Park
~ Provide Service to nllost Major Attraction
including New Convention Centre (2011)
• Linkages to Lundy's Lane, NPC Attractions
North of Victoria Avenue
• Year Round & Seasonal Routes
<~~~UAT° ZL T > I-~~.. i ! ~ ~F{ \ . 1J~ J_ -r')t i it
C
[R tl;~~~~i~
~ ~t 4 a ~ ~ ~4 1~1~41~ k~i~ F ~r~s ~
~ i ~i ~ ~ M ~ ~Ify SIj ` _
S f4 K 1 ~ ~ ' ~ A`
~ I 9~6~ ~4~~} d • r~. t fy f ft~
; : / ~ . .
{~ii1' ~~7 k S ~ ~I w}~• i~~~`..{~ L H i ~ ~
qlJ ~ IS ~ L \ . r ~ ~ 2It~
F t ~ S- ~ {
I~ :3~~ 4 ~ ,9 ~ ~ I ~ .~-~x~ ~5~~ ,t;f7
~ i
i- - ~y~
I Y'" J ~ Ila~ 3§+ l~,~~
~
~ '}~-~~,~~'c 4
` ~~,,,~.t J ~ ~nr~{~I,k~~~'~'4~t~ .~L~ i - .
f ~=2 -q
Ey N . k ~ , t ~ r ~ ~
~ ~ l,~ ~~i
\~t~': € ~ / ii~' ~F ~i~a _ d_.
I ( ff _ .n E~k x ~ & ~
y i 6~
I~ : .~zs ~ ~ ~9
6k, ~ ~ ' ~~Y l
I ...o.b~~ b ..Ly ~ 4'
, ~ ~ ~ ~ , , ,
y`r' ~ • y~~~ ~
~ i f ;"w'~~
~ ~ f~t~~ tzls~ ~ ~~:~'-ai3
\
~ ~ ~ ~
I ~ t
.a~e
~.uvre. e
~ q ~er cW~~ .~wmua~a.nm .
~ a.m,..,~ o.vww.~`~
~
~ P ~~ipDw~e ~ N
~
3
Rode~shop ~ ~eve~~e ~o~ec~s~
• Key Assumptions Include QVP Routes, No Hotel
Shuttles and High Level of Service
• Did IVot Consider Fare Sensitivities
• QVP is Essential for Ridership
- Rapidsview, Table Rock and Nlaid of the Mist
• Casino to Casino Ridership is Important
• Upwards of 30,000 Riders on Peak Days
• Further Refinement of Forecasts, Consideration
of Extended Routes
Boarding Counts Nlagare People Mover System Year 2025 oaozcs
STOP STOP MAME F~UTE DY OFF LOAD
~ 1C. (;onvxnti:~nCntr ReA1 7fit 0 ciA
tE ~uiiri5l Hx~t 9fs5 0 1,'2fi]
77 FaNSViewCasino Redt 29d5 G 4.275
18 Sk lon Retl 1 4'LU 296 4.433
13 Viclnria Ave Rx:l 1 252 573 4109
20 Glifton Hill Red t 1.;Ot I 169 3A06
27 Nin~ eia Casinu Rnd 1 'L 986 2.8AA 2796
2't FnIIsAv FleAI 192H 531 4260
23 Mnid ul Ihe IJixl Red t 7fK 121 n 2f8
2S []uoen Vi<PI Pnd t G 378 3~+61
25 'falNx Hock Ned 1 0 6,232 0
R11 Tnlal 1 L205 12.2G5
25 TableRuW~ ReA2 175 0 0
27 Ou~en Vic Pl Red'L t05 0 '.17
2d FTNaviewCasino ReJ2 U 175 117
29 Dunn St Flxd'e 6 0 217
30 C:unvxnlinn I;nlr ReJ 2 0 105 C
R12Tolnl '2N0 2eU
fled Llfle Total Ridershl 12.485 11.4~5
t Convnminn Cnlr 91urt 'l_.33] U 3.:S2A
Mxr~naland Dlue t,SSti 1 a65 2,IIJ9
Tr~ Icfte ~srie•.~~u.~ t.krine:nMS!c~ 569
3(;hi>>ewa ~ 91ue D 0 I 299~
d R~:iAsview ~ Blua 2.135 0~ 3770
5 Gianliousx Blux 937 3n3 ba96
E TahleRn<* Bl~w fi,Jfi~ 2.UtN 5,115U
7 OuxnnVicPl ~Blue 150 Ifil 595fi
L~ Marcl al lha Mis1 I D!ue lUe 2,u60 5.4?7
5 Clil;on Hill I Blua 3,H75 d,371 fi,513
1U Vicluri~ Avx Plue IIKJ 1 0~0 fi,3]5
7t Sk lon Blue ~20 1,915 6.145
12 FnllsvinwCnslnn Blue 0 2,493 3,722
13 D~inn51 Hhix C 729 0
74 ConvenllonCnlr Bhre 0 2.49f U
B11 Tutal 1f~.oSA 19.U54
Blue Llne To~alRldershl i7.4;x; ~7,4s6
TOTALiRANSIT5V5TEM dueBCw~d.^.gs 37,539 37,539
51+rt1'meirun4ri 7.558 1,558
Ta'alBmTnP~ 29~981 29.9B7
4
VBSat~$80~ ~St@~~t~S
(200~-2020)
• lJpdate of January 2007 PKF Report
• Decline in l~S Visit~tion Since 2002 will
Continue
• 2007 Visitation Estimated at 10.1 million
Declining to 8.9 rnillion Predicted for 2009
• Recovery Forecasted by 2010 - 9.1 million
Visitors
• Forecast of Upwards of 12 million Visitors
by 2020
~eop~e Move~ ~~soness ~Aa~
• Commitment to Federal Government
• Assess Capital & Operating Costs of Proposed System
• Assumes That Tourism Industry Will:
- Purchase blocks of tickets
- Stop hotel shuttle services
- Establish privately funded stations
• Estimated Capital Cost of Rolling Stock, Station Upgrades and
Alignment Improvements - $20-$25 M
• Private Sector Responsible for Bus Maintenance Facility?
• System Operated by Niagara Transit
• Plan to be Reviewed by Council
5
~echr~o8ogy Se9e~~oo~
~ Rubber Tired Technology ~e~ision:
- Year Round Vehicle
- Passenger Comfort and Viewing
- Handicap Accessible
- Attractive and Branded
• Objective: Availability for 2010 Season
latest spring 2011
• Decision and ~ender IVo Later ~han
Summer 2009
Poct~~es o~ ~ossab9e Peopse ~ove~
VehocBes
~
~ .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . '
~ ~t ~ ~ ?xu:,~..
r{
~
_
zr~~~' Y. 1`.:. ~ L~ Y~
~ ~ l. ~
9i : .u~3A.m-
r . a~ _ ~
~
~ tl~
~
.o-~ .
i
. - ' ~ ~hx
r
~ g - zc
~r. _
1~~ ~ ~ ,
~ 1
a ~ - ~ ~ ~
- ~..~--~...;tlz~ S~ :^z
. 7~ ~L~N ~
~k~
~ ~ i ~r tK}:.
, ~ ~ ~ ':~~~~~a~~~
~ ~ u
.,--~,H ~
~ § ; y
~ x~~ µ . .
6
~
. .
~.,.•-R.,,•~~....~w::-
~
~ _
.
~ t~1~~ ~ ~ .
~r y
~ t'
~
f..~
.
~ ~ ~ a#~
_ ~ {
~:.~,s~:.:. ` $ ` z rrr, ~_~a„9 '
~~s,.._ s'~ .
aR~ ~g ~ ~ ~ ~ -
Nova Bus, Quebec
Low-floor articu/ated buses
~~..~t~9~°~ ~~1~5~~
• Discussions with Provincial and Federal
Governments to Financially Assist with a
Fixed Rail System
• ~hase Two
- Via Rail Station to Rapidsview
- Incline Upgrades
- Rubber Tyred Routes & Linkag.es
- Private Partner Required (New RFP Process)
. ~
E~~~~e P~ases
(co~ta~a~e~)
• Phase Three
- Complete "Loop" Through QVP
- Rubber Tired Linkages
P~ojec~ P~oo~a$oes
• Ensure Federal Commitment of $25 M
• Confirm Alignment
• Select & Procure Rubber Tired Technology
• Participation by NPC - Agreement with
Commission
• Commitment by Tourism Industry
- Establish People fVlover Stations
- Bulk Ticket Purchases
- Stop Hotel Shuttles in 2010
• Secure Additional Federal & Provincial funding
~ Vehicle Maintenance & Storage
8
~~p~eme~~a~ao~ Sc9~eduoe
• Objective Operating for 2010 Season latest Spring 2011
• Select Technology & Initiate Procurement - Summer
2009
• Decision - Vehicle Maintenance - Summer 2009
• Project Business Plan and Meeting with Federal
Representatives - June 2009
• Complete Supporting Design - Year End
- Ticketing Protocols
- "Agreements" with Tourism Industry
- Level and Scope of Service
9
~T~~ John Kernahan Direct:
1~~ Phone: 905/356-2241, ext. 225
Fax: 905/354-6041
S 1'~`~ E-Mail: jkernahan@niagaraparks.com
An agency o( [hc Governmen[ of On[ario sincc 1885
9 a~~ I . i, t?
~ ~y~c ~a
~4 ~~i
A ril 15 2009 , ~
3 i<<, - _r,js
p ~ y~ r~.~~~~9
. . . ~..Q_i
Mr. Serge Felicetti
City of Niagara Falls
City Hall, P.O. Box 1023
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
Re: People Mover Project
Dear Mr. Felicetti:
At its meeting of March 27t~' 2009, the Coinmission received an update regarding the City of
Niagara Falls People Mover Project. It reviewed and received two draft reports prepared for an
upcoming council meeting -"A Phased Approacl~/Implemei~tation of the Niagara Falls People
Mover System" and "The Niagara Falls People Mover Project - A Status Report". Following
this review, a motion was passed directing that staff advise the current People Mover Project
team memUers that the NPC is prepared to participate in the review and possible implementation
of the phased People Mover Project having immediate regard to Phase 1.
During the deliberations, it was apparent that the Com~nission felt that it was critical to the
success of the project that the $25 inillion grant previously approved by the Federal Govenuneilt
be sect~red. We are therefore prepared to advance the pi-oject development in a timely mamler in
an effort to assist the City in meeting its application deadlines.
I loolc forward to working with you and the team meinbers on this project.
Yours truly,
oh ernahan, P. Eng.,
JK/]c General Manager
cc: N. Muiphy
.Iim Williams 'g'IE~IE NgAGA~A IPA~S COIVIIVggSS~~N ,Iohn Kernahan
Chaii°maf~ P.O. Box 150, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada L2E 6T2 General Manager
Web Site: www.niagaraparks.com
Hilton
Nia~ara Falls
Fallsview
April 20, 2009
Mayor Ted Salci and Members of City Council
Ciry ofNiagara Falis
REs People Mover System, "Rubber Tire"
Dear Mayor Salci and Members of Gity Council;
I am very pleased to provide this letter of support for the proposed "Rubber Tire" People Mover System for tourism in the
city. Having .ctosely follo.wed the progress of t}~e People Ntover Gommittee since day one I have strongly believed in the
importance of transportation. to not.only our industry but more specificalty to our BIA, to our residents and to our
employees: Public transportation throughout the entire tourism cammunity is and will continue to be an inereasin~ly
e.ssential aspect af our business particularly ~vith the addition of the convention centre. A rubber tire system is the most
logicai method of providing our millions of visitors with a flexible, convenient and affordable transpartation system. In
addition, it allows for the important perception of a unified, single fare approach to transportation. Additionally, it wi(1
enhance the~aliility of ali areas of the community to grow and thrive as easy access becomes a viable option.
The relative ease of implementation, combined with the significantly lower costs compared to a fixed rail system is an
enormous advantage. Being a61e to utilize the $25 million Federal Government grant, together with the possibiliry of
having ihe system in place for 2010 season, are exciting prospects!
Beyond my belief that the "rubber tire" is the best approach, I have also believed that the system should be an extensian _
of th'e.current services providedby the City and Niagara Transit. With the bulk of the capital costs coming from Federal
grant, together witfi the projections for very high rider ship, particularly if the system includes participation with the
N.P:C; the outlook for a Positive cash flbw should be achieved with no additional financial burden. Also, the rubber tire
system will afford the opportunity for an implementation schedule reiative to the rider ship demand and routes can be
easily modified to adjust to our growing industry and community neecls.
I respectfully ask yo nd our City Council to accept the leadership.role in the•decision making process with regards to
this extremely ' p, nt initiative.
Than yo ,
V inc ico imo
Hilto Hot 1 arid S tes Niagara Falls/Fallsview
HiIlOI1L~121~.,'.11'1I'iiIIS I'AII5~'ICR' .
~3G1 Fall$~~ie~r f3oidevard ~
Niagara I~alls, (JN Ganada L2G 3V9
"t'e,{: ')07-354-788 ~ F.~z: ~IO~•i371-(i?O7 'I'c~ll Free: 1-~i00•339'5Q23
Reservu~iais: ~ti~tir~c.tiilton.r~nm ar 1-800-HIi.TO\'S
~ r
~ SI(,,/~Of1
~OIA/~I`
5200 Robinson Street
Niagara Falls, Canada L2G 2A3
Telephone 905-356-2651
Fax 905-356-8699 ~ ~
~s~'°°'a
~ ~
~
~ ~}2,' y~ r, f:.~. d
!i L.:~_..a ' 3T..S' S:,.A ~S 5
~
~ ~
~
April 20, 2009 "
,.-.1 . r. ~
i ~+~~a ~ _'~.~'i""~~ ~
~t~;;~~i~,~~~ ~R ,
VIA "FAX" ~
City of Niagara Falls
Community Services Department
Municipal Works
Atterotaou~: EVEavor ~'ecl SaVca a~od Merv~bers of Coa~~ce0
4310 Queen Street, P. O. Box 1023
Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6X5
Fax No. (905) 356-2354
Dear Sirs:
Re: Proposal respectinq the People Mover Svstem
We write regarding the current proposal to move forward with a phased approach to the
development of the People Mover System
The Yerich Group has supported the People Mover Project since discussions began in
1998 regarding an expanded system designed to include the entire tourist area of
Niagara Falls. While we are as disappointed as other stakeholders that the Project has
not moved forward as we would have wished, we continue to believe that an effective,
integrated transportation system is key to the future continued success of Niagara Falls
as a world-class tourist destination. As government funding for the Project is now
threatened unless we move forward immediately with some form of scaled-down
version of the People Mover System, it appears that a phased approach to development
of the System will be necessary.
Consequently, we are now offering our support in principle for the proposal to move
forward with a phased development of the People Mover System involving a rubber-tire
system using City streets as the first phase of the Project. We do so on the following
conditions:
(1) that there will be further discussions involving all stakeholders to develop the
details of the System, including proposed routes and destinations, and that all
stakeholders will have ample opportunity to offer input in this regard (we note
here that we do have some concerns regarding the route set out in the
~ , <
2
presentation made at the meeting on April 14t", 2009 which we will be prepared
to discuss in greater detail at the appropriate time;
(2) that support at this stage is without prejudice to any stakeholder's ability to offer
input and raise objections in connection with any studies or assessments
undertaken, or any approvals being sought, regarding the development of the
People Mover System;
(3) that there be an acknowledgement that the long-term goal of all stakeholders
continues to be to proceed with the development of some form of a fixed system
which involves the former railway right-of-way, and that there be a long-term plan
to proceed with subsequent phases of ths People Mover Project (subject, of
course, to continued stakeholder involvement at all stages of the Project).
We look forward to being able to offer our unconditional support to a final, detailed
proposal for the People Mover System when same is developed and in the meantime,
we will continue to work diligently with other stakeholders to move forward with this very
important project, and to deal constructively with any obstacles which may present
themselves along the way.
Yours very truly
656508 ONTARIO LIMITED and
1787411 ONTARIO LIMITED
o/a The Sk Tower
per:
G rge Y ch, Jr
Vice-President a General Manager
JVJJJVI ~ r., aw l~H1fCIV ~RUr i F'AGt b1
1
A(?r~~ 'l(i, ,?.O(:)~
M~yc~r T'Fr.l S~Ic;i ~:1+'ld Mt•~rnl:)F:t'; c~f (;it.y C~~~.~rir,il
ftity iJi` N~~)t;itC3 F~~I~!;
F2~~ "Ri.il~bCr Tiri," Pe,o1?,Ie.MavC'.f.`.y.y5l_"c`rn
Dctt~r M,jyc~r ~;.ilt.i ~arlli Mc~rntir~r.5 Of fwiCy C=C)l.irl(:il
I~rr~ vE~ry G71~;i,~>rl t~J prc>vicie this Ir.•~t:h~r pl ~;uppc>r1: tc.~r lhe:~ ~:~roE:>o~t:~ii "ft~ak)P~c~r 'firE~„ f'e~c:~~~lr~ MOvEtr SySCF~rn
f(~r (.:i1'y 1:OUri~,rr~. la;~vinr( SC!YV(;~(.~ f.7f'~ ~"fl(:' ~~!?1')~:)~F'. Mtavt'~ (:'i~rY1~1'~i~:ti,~:! cilflC;(? (~(iY OCN^, ~ N1ilVF`. Sil'fqCl~;?~~/ ~")(?~INVI;C;~
tf~~ti "'r~.~l~,l,,~~r firr." yY51!?~~1 i5 1:1~~~ f;>~~St: rrictfhc~~.1 c.>~ I'.)rc.~v~~'liri~:; ciur rr~illic~ns c:,t vi~,ilcir5 wirY~ ~ flc~xil~~lc~,
r,or~vr~n~r~nf r~i~ci °u~,i=~ FriE>n(ily'' t:r4ir~s~c:~rt,:at.ic>n syti~rtrr~.
'r'hF r'~Ic.~live f`il!i~ (:)I 1111~I~?~ll(~f1T..~li~~i~, cc>~rikrir~~d wit:h sit;r~ific~irn:lv Ic.~wc~r cc~srs (~'<)rnparcad to "fixr~c:i r~il„
5V~1'C!ITI~ i1!'L Yl~({(? i9C~V11'11:8~~C~S. 13(7iri~; ;3hIP. t0 utilit..f' Chn Gi15 n~illit~n ~p?(aE?f'ii~ CiQV(:?ff1fT1(ifl~ ~~1'~?Ilt, Pt)~?E!Cher
N(1'~'~1 t;flE~ ~l1~S51r)1~1~'Y t:)~ (1t7V1i1~ jYl~ tillSl:E3f11 ~1"1 ~'S~i~l"E' ('OC' 1:.~1(' ~O'~~:) !ik~Ia!'i(1f'1, i11'(~ f?KC:~~'lll~i ~)C'U~i~:.)(?Cl:~i!
Irl t7~riiri~;,r+ I:c) I~icali~_avirl~? 1:Y~i:)t 1"t~F' "rubf;~r`r iirt:'"' iS i:f~l~ k)r;!tif ~O(.)ru~ii(I'i, I f't~1vF~ d15[1 ~)F~li~avt^ci t,1i81 IYii~ SySIG'n'~
51~ca~,il~1 br.•7 ~~i'~ ~ xt~'n~i~•>ri pf (hE' Ci.irt`~!ft1: S(.`ruir~~,; {.~r~-,vif~rt~ I.~y liic! Cil.y ~nc:1 Ni~~;,~ra 'I'ransit. Wiih quUc of
i~'tN r:~pit.~~ (.c)~lti t:orriiri(~ ft)r 1V1(=` rr~~irr71 ~;rt~nl, lc>~;f,1r~f,r w~r.l, E;~roj.r.c:iiorir, fc~r v~~ry I'~iF;h rider!,I,i~~
(G~rrjvi(;lii'7(; ?.t~i~ 5y5tF~7t iriCli:iClt~~ ~:~~ar~ir:ip~~ti~~r1 witf~ ll'~f;~ N.I~' C.), If~t~ clUill7ult fC)r e ~ii.)tait:iuc~ i:c~;;h Plc~w ShUi.alll
1,>F exC~.~ll~~ni.. Al~;r.~, i:l,~~ .rul'~I'.i~_~r 1:ire~" sy~l:t~rr~ will t~fforcl th~~ ci~~~:~c~rfi.ini~:y for ~r~ irr~~alfcmf:~nt.~lt:i~~r~ (c:dr~i1:~3~
oUrl;ay ar~cl c.>'~t~rc~tic~~~~il) sc:hi~>di~lc> r~l~~~ivr~ ~:c:, rfilcr~:;hir~ ci~~n~~a~~i~:i
I ri~5pcac1l~.iily <a~,k yc~u ~~ric:1 i:~~.ir C~iy C_~:~~,u~~;il tc.~ ,~cr..r:>~.~t ~r~r-~ ~r.-~~-id~:~r~,hi~:~ rt:~ic~ u~ I.I,c~ ~:Ic.~e:i~ci~ri rri,al<in(; P~c~c;.e~.~+
wilh n:~~;~rc.i~. tc~ ~:t7i;; rxtrernc~iy ir„~;7c;~rt~~nt i'~rc:~jr~c:~.
rl,i~nk yvi.,.
I2(:~~~:~~r~i~i11y.5i,Ibn~iil:l.Nd, .
,
,
Cc.ri .l, C:;;~~lt:. .
I~~et VUn~;tr+rn C~im Cr01''t tic>t;~,l
npr, I1. LUUy l~ 19rivl No. I IZ7 r. I
CONFERENCE RESQRT AND SPA
April 17, 2009
Mayor Ted Salci and Members of City Council
City of Niagara Falis
Re; People Mover Svstem
Dear Mayor Salci and Members of City Council,
I am very pleased to provide this letter of support for the proposetl rubber tire People Mover system for our
City. . Having closely followed the progress of the People Mover Committee since day one, I have strongly
believed in the importance of transportatio?i ko n~t an(y to our industry but rnore particularly to our BIA as
well as to our residents and employees. Public transportation fhroughout the entire tourism community is
and will continue to be an increasingly integral aspect of.our business particularly with the addition of the
convention centre. A rubber tire system is the most logical method of providing our millions of visitors with a
flexible, convenient antl affortlable transportation system, In addition, it allows for the important perception
of a unifled, single fare approach to transportation. In addition it wi(I enhance the ability of all areas of the
community to grow and thrive as easy access becomes a viable option.
The telative ease of implementation, combined with the significantly lower costs compared to a fixed rail
' system is an enormo~s advantage. Being able to utilize the $25 million F'ederal Govemment grant, togefher
with the possibility of ~having 4he system in place fc~r the 201p season, are excitir~g praspects! ,
In adtlition to believing that the rubber tire is the best approach, I hav~ also believed that the system should
be an extension of the current services provided by the City and Niagara Transit. With a bulk of the capital
costs coming from ihe Federal grant, together with projectlons for very high rider ship, particularly if the
System includes participation with the N.P.C., the outlook for a positive cash flow shvultl be achieved with
no additional financial burden. Also, the rubber tire system will afford the opportunity for an implementation
schedule relative to rider ship demand and rouies can be easily modified to adjust to our growing industry
antl community needs.
I respectfully ask you.and our City Council to accept the leader~hip role in the decision making process with
regartls to this extre~nely important initiative.
Thank you, -
Tish DiBellonia
Americana Conference Reso~t and Spa
844-4 Luncly's Lane, Nia~ara Falls, Orltario, Canada L2H l H4
T~l: ~U5~35G-8444 • Fax: ~05~356-8576 • Toll Free: 1-8Q0-263-3508
www, american~niagara,com
I
E~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ R~s~~~s
Ce~mfort Inn o Boston Pi~za ~ Kelse~~'s ~ Tim 13orto»'s ~ 1~'end~~'s
Skyl4heel o Movieland ~ Great Canadian Mid«~y o Dinosaur GoIE o G,ila~y Goll
Rumours ~ Canada Trading Co. ~ Strilte ~ Ndge Tactorv
April 20, 2009
Mayor Ted Salci and Members of Council
City of Niagara Falls
43~0 Queen St.
Niagara Falls, Ontario
Members
Re: Peopfe Mover System
Having participated in the People mover system development process
over the past 20 years I wish to forward my position of support for the current two
phase approach with a more realistic interim implementation plan and the option
to consider a longer-term vision build out.
The current phase I proposed would consolidate and enhance the existing
transportation network available in town today including: Niagara Parks, Niagara
Transit and various hotel shuttle systems. The consolidation would create a
seamless Niagara Falls system providing immediate benefit to our visitors.
As we face challenging business conditions due to macro economic
conditions and new passport requirements our only option is to focus on
improving the visitors Niagara Falls experience. I believe a Niagara Falls
transportation system will create a larger destination image extending the visitors
length of stay resulting in corresponding expenditure increase.
With a more realistic business plan and short-term implementation option I
would request that council continues their long-standing support for the Niagara
Falls People Mover System.
Sincerely Yours
~
Harry N. C?akes
President
I-IQCO Limited ~=i960 C6fton Hill • P.O. Bo~ 60 o N11~1C1 F1II5 ~ Ontario ~ Cai~ada • L3L CSS
Teleplione: )0}35i-i911 ~ ~~vw,cliftnnfiill.com ~ Fas: 90537~-5'38
j(4/20/2009) Teresa Fabbro - Re: Fwd: peopfe mover Page 1 I
From: Teresa Fabbro
To: Dean lorfida
Subject: Re: Fwd: people mover
> Serge Felicetti 4/20/2009 2:01 PM
"Sue McDowell" <suemcdowell(c~fallsviewboulevard.com> 4/20/2009 1:58 PM
Please see the note below from Frank LaPenna, chair of Victoria centre BIA.
Sue McDowell
Executive Director
Victoria Centre BIA
P.O. Box 841
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6V6
tel: 905 358 7137 fax: 905 358 5891 cell: 905 348 4880
Visit our website <http://www.TopOfCliftonHill.com>
www.TopOfCliftonHill.com
If you look like your passport picture...you probably need the trip!!
Dear Mayor Salci & members of City Council:
In following up after Tuesday's People Mover meeting we would like to thank
John MacDonald in his efforts to move this forward.
The Victoria Centre BIA supports in principle the concept and phase one
approach to the people mover project.
We look forward to working with the staff & consultants in developing this
as well as input on the details of the stops & route as we move further
along.
Sincerely,Frank LaPenna
Chairman
Victoria Centre BIA
17-Apr-2009 04:lipm From-Brodarick ~ Partners 9p5 356 6904 T-972 P.Od2/002 F-734
onnni3 i ~n~ nrvu suuu iuna
I. ~rocf~ri~;k~P~rtr~~rsLL~
~ Effective legal service in ~fiag'ara sincea.g51.
q6z50ntario Ave.
P, o, gox sg~ April 17, 2009
NiaBara Faus, ON
csnada i2E ~v~ '~le Corparation of th~ City of N iag~rra Falls
P.O. Box 1 U23
431 Q Queen Stre4t
905•356.z621 N IAGAFtA FALLS, ~ntario
1.2E fX5
r~„ go5.~~b.6goq
Att~:ntion: Cauncillar Carolyr~n Iaannoni, ~hAir
Memb<:rs of the Community Servicc:s Committee
broderlckpartners.tom
Dear Mrs. YQannoni:
~te: 'I'5-3009~02
''g"'maaa~ast Area ~arkn~g T9ett~aa~c4 S~d~
1.1. Broderick As yvu are avvare, the undersig~ed aets as solicitor ior the Fallsview BIA and Vict~ria Centre
Q~C,~ LS.M.
,~,~~~„~~~na~~ ~jA, as wcll as some oF th~ mernbers of thc~se SIAs. ~JVe have unly v~ry recerttly rece~ve
CryIL I.RI~TIaw srEniuiST
a eopy of the al~ove no~zd report, and wc have not yet had an opporkunity to review same wiCh
W. A. Am~dio dUP C11~tltS.
1. s. Hapkins rhe repo~: is the result of a study undertaken over several years and will ali'cct tourist
C~.A. Kirkham stakehalders and their operations. Althaugh the report requ~sts Staff ta proce~:d rvittl the
public process ta amend flie Zonin~ By-IAw and the Official Plan and incocpor~tc the new
f. AA. Gllbertf standards as set in the said r~port, we have signilicant concerns th~t vcre would like co discuss
P~.ukNilN ITAtIAN ¢FRENCH
with owr clients, who wi11 be ai'~ected. by die study results, and wc bel ieve our clicnts wnuld
R. B. Burns likz to voioe t~1eir concerns to your Committ~e before the public process begin~.
P ~~~~g We kindly re~ue~t that you receive t11e Tourisc Area P~rking Demand Study and forwa~•d
M. bfGfrolama ~~mc~ to the various BIAs and request thcir comme?ZCS BEFORE praceading with khe public
process, and th~rafore cEefer proce~din~ with thz Zoning ~y-law and ~'Jfficial Plan
Arnendn~ent processes.
D. F Marinelli
c~sas-19a~) We thank you I'or your attention herein.
Ynurs very truly,
A~N~
fl A~.Y . ~9~"~'~
IMG'avs
ee. Mr. Dean larfida
Ms. Sue McL'iowel!
17-Apr-2009 04:10pm From-Broderick & Partners 905 366 69~4 T-9T2 P.QO1/002 F-734
uni~n~~ ~ L,pa nlvu ~v1161 Iul{a .
~ ~ ~r~derick~&~a~t~er~LL~
~
~ EfF~ctive leg~) service in Niagar~ sinee ~9~i.
ApriV 'E 7, ~~Q~
4626 ON'PflR10 AVE.
P.O.B(IX887 ~E~~~:~Pt~~6 $R~tGV~61~~$$0~~
u~
u~ac~nR.nr~r,~s.oN ~OVER SH~~T ~
r'-:•
GAfliA~AI,2E6V6 ~~~~F~~`A~1V~
r~-+
a,
~~9~ The following maturial fs lnt~nded for use oniy by the ~ndividual to whom ir is specifically address~id
and shauld not be ~ead by, or deliverad to, any other person. 5uch material rnay cantain privileyscl
FAR(9~86B•B904 qr confidantial information, the dis~losure or othee use of uvhich by other than the inten4ied
recipient may result in the 17re8ch of cq~in laWS or the infringement of ri~hts af third parties:-••:If
braderkkparlners.eom yQU haVe received this teleoapy !n errar, please notify us immediacely. We thank yau in ad~a~~~
for you? co•operation a~d.a9sistance. i~.
a..r. ~ton~ucx ~a~oe: pean 9orfida, Ciry Clerk
~„'~a~; Firrn: The Co~rpp~~tla~ of the ~ity of Naagsra Fatls
Givq Lldgadoa ~aalaUet
'Palecopier No. ~05-366-9083
w.a. ~n~anao
J.A' AOPKANS F9iOl~1: ITAL@A IUi. GIL~ERT9
B.d.
&~I,HERTI T~lacopier Na. (9~5} 556-6904 •
Floent In I~lkpn & Peened
~~s Yotal EVumber a~ 9~e~ges, prt~l~ading ahis Cover page: 2
E.P. ¢~osraa 6~ Y~U EXP~~t~nl~~ PRC~~LEMS IIV RE~EtVING. ~~EAS~ CA~.I. 4JS AT:
Dl6lttOLAAdO
1~~51 356~262'G AIVp 4#SK ~~R: AAII'~'A
F. R9A8l11fE~6.I COM~II~fVT$:
(18d5 -1$$7}
P@eas~ f~c0 atta~he~ co~responde~ce u~eB~ti~~ ~h~ To~rist Aee~ p~rking
~ervaa~d Sta~sGy. 9(ie~dly a~~r~ra~e to t~al6v~~ ~~~py tm ~~~~acu@lor Vo~o~roonu,
N9erra9~~~s af tt~~ ~~~roaveu~au~y ~~rvic~s Coammnu~t~a a~o~ a~her ~lle~b~rs of
Cma~~p~aG.
T~~~k yo~o
~ .....sa Fabbro.y- TS 2009-02 _ , ~
'mV4/20/2009 Tere . ~
Page 1
From: "Rocky Vacca" <rvacca@sullivan-mahoney.com>
To: <mtikky@niagarafalls.ca>
CC: "Dean lorfida" <diorfida@niagarafalls.ca>, "Karl Dren" <kdren@niagarafal...
Date: 4/20/2009 11:26 AM
Subject: TS-2009-02
Attachments: 20090420111751294. pdf
Attached please find correspondence which we would kindly ask that you
deliver to the Chair and Committee members prior to this afternoon's
Committee meeting. Thank you for your assistance.
Regards,
Rocco (Rocky) Vacca
Partner
Sullivan Mahoney LLP
Lawyers
4781 Portage Road
Niagara Falis, Ontario
L2E 661
(905) 357-0500
(905) 357-0501(facsimile)
This communication is intended only for the named recipient(s) and is
private, confidential or privileged. Any unauthorized use or disclosure
of this communication is prohibited. If you received this communication
in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, by
telephone at 905-357-0500 or by contacting lawyers@sullivar~mahoney.com
and immediately deleting the communication from any computer. Thank
you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ruth Hope [mailto:rhope@sullivan-mahoney.com]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 11:18 AM
To: Rocky Vacca
Subject:
This E-mail was sent from "RNP691 F59" (Aficio MP C4500).
Scan Date: 04.20.2009 11:17:51 (-0400)
Queries to: copier@sullivanmahoney.com
~ ~ •
•
I
Please renlv to the Niagara Falls Of~ce ~I
~
Apri120, 2009
Carolyn Ioannoni, Chair and Members
of the Community Services Committee
4310 Queen Street
NIAGARA FALLS, ON
L2E 6X5
DOar Chair Ioannoni & 1Vlembers:
Re: TS-2009-02 'g'oua~HSt Parking gDeanand Study
As you are aware, we act as solicitors for Niagara 21 St Group Inc.
We have had a brief opporlunity to review Report TS-2009-02 and are requesting that only j
recommendation #1 in the report be adopted at this time. Further, we are requesting that staff be
directed to circulate the ConsultanYs study to the stakeholders and to consult with the stalceholders
prior to proceeding with any public process.
i
We can advise that the recommendations of the study, a copy of which has not been provided to the ~
stalceholders, severely impacts our client's future development plans. In addition, the proposed new
parking standards and the proposed elimination of the opportunity to submit parking demand studies to
rationalize further reductions will create inequality based on the following: i
(a) Council's decision a few months ago in respect to the Piligram Motor Inn site on
Clifton Hill which approved parking ratios which are substantially lower than that
which is being recommended in report TS-2009-02 (based upon a Parlcing Demand
Study using Septembar 2007 field data rather than July and August of 2006 and 2007
field data. as in the study currently being advanced); and
(b) By-law 81-199 which since August 31, 1981 has exempted properties on both sides of
Ferry Street from north of Clark Street (immediately next door to our client's
Courtyard Marriott property) to Allendale Avenue from the parking requirements save
and except for hotel/motel uses;
40 Quem St~eet, P. 0. flox I360, Sc Cathazinu, Oncuio L2R 6Z2 Telephone: 905-688-6655, Facsimile: 905•688-58I4
478I Poaage Road, Niagua Falls, Oncazio LZE 6BI Tdephone: 905-357-0500, Facsimile: 905-357-OSOI
rv~vw.sullivan-mahoney.com
VF. Muratori, Q.C. P.B, Bedud T.A. Richazdsa~ P1vf. Sheehvi W.S. McKaig J. Dallal D.A. Goslin
J.M. Goali R.B. Cullimn J.R. Bush . P.A. Mahoney S.A. Macdonald M.J. Bonomi G.W. McCum
S,J. Pcani C, D'Angdo R. Vacca T. Wall K.A. Book B,J. Ttoup S. Mackay
M,F. Lescak N.L. Paducaru L.K.Pazaons C.J. Bitde P.H.Lawxmce J.P. Maloney S.E.Wells i
Of Coimsel (Commuci~l Law): M.D. Kriluck ~
Page 2
We are hopeful that new parking ratios, which are long over due, will be achieved through a process of
communication, consultation and consensus as our client and other stakeholders have become
accustomed to in past dealings with the City.
We thank you in advance for your consideration of our concerns in this matter.
Yours very truly,
SULLIVAN MAHONEY LLP
per:
,r ~
; ~
r
Rocco Vacca
RV:rhh
~
~
i
i
i
'
~
f
April 15, 2009
Dan & Betty Trabucco
P.. O„ Box 172
St. Davids, ON
LOS 1 PO
City o€ Niagara Falfs
4310 Queen St.,,
Niagara Falls, ON L2E 6X5
Attention; City Council and Mr~„ Dean lorfida, City Clerk,
Via e-mail: diorFida(a~niagarafalfs.ca;
Dear Council members and Mr~, la~da:
Re: Prmposed O~FBciaV P9~n and Zo~ireg By-Law Amerodmen$
Buttrey Str~eet A?rea of t6~e Elgin Industrt~ia9 District
We are the owners of a 4 unit apartment building at 4514 Ferguson Street, on the
corner of Broughton Ave, in Niagara Falls.
Further to your letter received Tues., April 14, 2009, we are opposed to having the
zoning of our ~roperty changed from light industrial to residential„
Should you have any questians please do not hesitate to contact us @ 905-262-5165.,
Yo rs tr ,
Dan ~ Betty Trabucco
cc: tfabbro _niagarafafls.ca
t
c:lDocuments and SettingslBettylMy Documentslcitynf41509 &
z::lrental properties14514 fergusonlcitynf41509 wpd
i