The URL can be used to link to this page

2009/11/16COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE FIFTEENTH MEETING Monday, November 16, 2009 4:00 pomp City Hall, Committee Room #2A ~ H ~) Approval of the November 2, 2009 Community Services Minutes. 2) REPORTSo Staff Contact a) PD-2009-91 Alex Herlovitch lames Oswald Fence with Stone Wall 2922 St. Paul Avenue b) PD-2009-92 Alex Herlovitch Willoughby Township Hall Roof Repairs 11211 Sodom Road c) PRC-2009-33 Denyse Morrissey Playing Field User Fees d) TS-2009-41 Karl Dren Heikoop Crescent -Parking Review e) TS-2009-49 Karl Dren Crawford Street ° Parking Control Review f) TS~2009~-46 Kar9 ®ren 200:3 Motor 1/ehicle Collision Report: Presentation by: Marzenna Carrick and John ~rubieh ~) NFW BUSYNESS= 5) ADJ®URNMENTe MINUTES OF COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE Fourteenth Meeting Monday, November 2, 2009, Committee Room 2, 6:35 P.Mo PRESENT: Chair Councillor Victor Pietrangelo ; Mayor Ted Salci, Councillors: Jim Diodati, Shirley Fisher, Bart Maves, Wayne Thomson and Janice Wing STAFF: Ken Todd, Ed Dujlovic, Ken Burden, Todd Harrison, Alex Herlovitch, Geoff Holman, Dean lorfida, Ken Beaman, Lee Smith, Marzenna Carrick, Serge Felicetti, Trent Dark and Marianne Tikky e Steno. ABSENT: Councillors Carolynn loannoni and Vince Kerrio both absent due to family commitments. GUEST: Ateo "Red" Iseppon, R.R.#1 Mewburn Road. PRESS: Corey Larocque, Niagara Falls Review, Niagara This Week 1. MINUTES MOVED by Mayor Salci seconded by Councillor Thomson that the minutes of the October 19, 2009 meeting be approved as correct. That guest noted as John Fatheringham (Municipal Heritage Committee) was misspelled, correction: David Fotheringham Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council November 2, 2009. 2. REPORTS a) MW~2009~~0 Request f®r Infrastructure Impr©vements Mulhern Street MOVED by Councillor Thomson and seconded by Councillor Diodati that the Baldwin Avenue & Mulhern Street Watermain Replacement project identified in the 2009 Capital Budget be deferred pending the completion of the 10~year Infrastructure Needs Assessment. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council November 2. 2009. -2- b) MW-2009-82 Waterloo Drive Consulting Services MOVED by Councillor Thomson and seconded by Councillor Diodati that the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the required Consultant Services Agreement with AECOM Canada Ltd at an upset limit of $28,000. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council November 2, 2009. c) PD-2009-84 Commercial Building & Facade Improvement Applications Queen Street (4 properties) & Crysler Street (1 property) MOVED by Councillor Thomson and seconded by Councillor Diodati that Committee recommend approval of the applications for Facade and Commercial Building Improvement, subject to Historic Niagara meeting the Downtown CIP program requirements including the payment of all outstanding property taxes on the respective properties. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council November 2, 2009. d) PD-2009-85 Commercial Building & Facade Improvement Application 5844 Main Street MOVED by Councillor Thomson and seconded by Councillor Diodati; 1) That the Commercial Building & Facade Improvement Grant Application foe 5844 Ferry Street be approved subject to the owner satisfying the program requirements. 2) That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the grant agreement. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council November 2, 2009. e) PD-2009-87 Open Houses for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments MOVED by Councillor Thomson and seconded by Councillor Diodati that Council pass the revised Pre-consultation By-law appearing on the agenda to require an open house to be held for applications to amend the City's Official Plan and Zoning -3- By-law as part of a complete application. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council November 2, 2009. f) TS-2009-43 Erie Avenue ~ Parking Review MOVED by Councillor Thomson and seconded by Councillor Diodati that a "No Parking Passenger Drop Off Zone Only° zone be established on the west side of Erie Avenue from a point 29 metres south of Bridge Street to a point 41 metres south of Bridge Street. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council November 2, 2009. g) TS-2009-45 Peer Street Heavy Vehicle Restriction MOVED by Councillor Thomson and seconded by Councillor Diodati that heavy vehicles including buses be prohibited on Peer Street between Allendale Avenue and Main Street. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council November 2, 2009. h) TS-2009-44 Mewburn Road -Road Closure MOVED by Councillor Thomson and seconded by Councillor Moves that Council approve the by-law on tonight's agenda with the amendment to allow temporary passage of pedestrians and human powered vehicles. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council November 2, 2009. TS-2009e4~ Eastwood Crescent a Traffic ®perations Review MOVED by Councillor Thomson and seconded by Councillor Diodati that this report be received for the information of Committee. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council November 2, 2009. -4- 3) NEW BUSINESS: a) MOVED by Councillor Thomson and seconded by Councillor Fisher hat staff review the No Parking restrictions on the westside of Kalar Road to determine if on-street parking could be permitted in the winter months. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council November 2, 2009. b) MOVED by Councillor Thomson and seconded by Councillor Wing that staff investigate and report back to Council on the bike lane markers on St. Paul Avenue, St. Catharines. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council November 2, 2009. 4) ADJOURNMENT: MOVED by Mayor Salci and seconded by Councillor Thomson that the Community Services meeting be adjourned at 6:43 p.m. f~ Niagara~'alls REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair and Members of the Community Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Planning & Development SUBJECT: PD-2009-91 James Oswald House Stone Wall with Pence 2922 St. Paul Avenue PD-2009-91 November 16, 2009 RECOMMENDATION 1) That the Committee recommend to Council that it reconsider its August 10, 2009 decision (Option 5). 2) That the Committee recommend that Council approve Optiori~1', subject to an easement agreement with the owners of the James Oswald House 2922 St. Paul Avenue. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Options to preserve the stone wall and iron fence at the Oswald House on St. Paul Avenue have been discussed for a numberof years. Staff Report PD-2009-25and supplementary Report PD-2009-32 (attached) outlined an approach for the restoration of the stone wall and fence in a new location, approximately 1.5 m (4 ft) east of its current location, with approximately 2.7 m (9 ft) of the road allowance being deededto the property owners. Council directed staff to negotiate this option with the owners which was subsequently presentedin ReportPD-2009-57(attached)onAugust10,2009. Council did not adopt the recommendation of the report and directed that the fence be removed and the parts of the fence be offered to the owners of the Oswald House. On August 31, 2009, Council deferred any actions regarding the removal of the wall with fence until a public information meeting was held and a staff report submitted listing all of the options to be considered. A letter from David Fotheringham and Steven Bailey dated November 3, 2009 outlines the owners approach to preserve the fence which has afforded a further review. This report is a summation of the essential information about the issue, which along with the presentations of the public and the owners, should allow Council to be fully informed prior to making a decision. Notice of this meeting was advertised in the Niagara Falls Review and was circulated to the owners, to Kym Cody, (co-ordinator of the Petition - first page attached) and to the Friends of Stamford Village. BACKGIROUNt1 Staff has been working with the owners of the James Oswald House to develop some alternative courses of action with regard to the future disposition of the stone wall with iron fience that has been associated historically, physically and socially with the house for the last 150 years. It was originally placed there as a boundary fence separating the front yard of the James Oswald House from the road. The fence came to be situated on the road allowance in the 1920's when a widening was taken by the Province for then Highway 8. The fence is a local landmark and has been a significant part of the streetscape in that area. Fences are fragile parts of the history of a property and examples which remain are rare. This is among the few remaining features ofthe streetscape from the mid 1800's. When the house was designated itwas assumed that the fence belonged to the property of 2922 St. Paul Avenue. It was only when the current owners approached the City for a Designated Property Grant to assist in the restoration of the fence that the actual ownership of the fence was questioned as a survey showed that it was located on the St. Paul Avenue road allowance. Various options have been investigated by both the owners and municipal staff which are generally outlined in the following table. OPTION 1 Leave the fence in place on St. Paul Ave road allowance with a licence to encroach granted to the Oswald House owners. 3. Retain 1.5m (4 ft) for road allowance and close 2.7m (9 ft) of road allowance and convey to Oswald House owners and relocate wall with fence to new lot line 5. Removal of fence from City's Road allowance and offer component parts to Oswald House owners. * $3,000 /year for 3 years 2. Leave fence in place on St. 1 Paul Ave road allowance and close 4.0 m (13 ft) of 2 road allowance and convey if to the owners. 3 4. Move the fence back 4.0 m 1 (13 ft) from existing location onto Oswald House property PROS Fence remains in original location City has no further responsibility Owners responsible for conservationlprese rvation. 1 City relieved of encroachment. 2. Would allow for construction of municipal sidewalk and drainage works within the road allowance 2. 1 City would retain existing road allowance for future road widening. Encroachment on City Road allowance would be relieved. 1 Fence remains in original 1 location; 2. Owners responsible for conservatiorupreservation 2 City would retain existing 1 road allowance free and dear of any obstruction for future road widening. if required. CONS Easement agreement required between City and owners_ Fence may have to be moved at City cost in future if St. Paul Ave is widened. If road widened in future, fence would have to be moved and City would have to purchase portion of lands needed back from the owners. 1 Fence no longer in original location. 2. Expensive to disassemble and reconstruct in new location. 3 Cost - sharing of fence reconstruction 1 Fence no longer in original location. 2. Cost - sharing of fence reconstruction between City and owners. 3 Owners landscaping would be significantly compromised. Loss of a significant piece of local heritage FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS $16 003 by owner to restore wall & fence in place $ 6,000 by City Designated Property Grant* St. Paul (MHC Budget) $ 3 000 by City Designated Property Grant' Church s Lane (MHC Budget) + cost of Reference Plan by City (Legal Budget) $16,000 by owner to restore wall & fence in place $ 6.000 by City Designated Property Grant' St. Paul (MHC Budget) $ 3,003 by City Designated Property Grant' Church's Lane (MHC Budget) +cost of Reference Plan by City (Legal Budget) +cost to City to purchase future road widening, if needed (to be determined) $19,000 by City to move stone wall and erect on new foundation $ 6.000 by City Designated Property Grant* St. Paul (MHC Budget) $ 3,000 by City Designated Property Grant Church's Lane (MHC Budget) +unknown cost to owner to restore iron fence +cost to City to prepare Reference Plan (Legal Budget) $19,000 by City to move stone wall and erect on new foundation $ 6,000 by City Designated Property Grant St. Paul (MHC Budget) $ 3,000 by City Designated Property Grant" Church's Lane (MHC Budget) +unknown cost to owner to restore iron fence $ 5,000 by City to demolish /remove stone wall /son fence (Municipal Works New Sidewalk Budget) November 16, 2009 - 3 - ANALYSIS & RATIONALE PD-2009-9f A letter dated November 3, 2009 (attached), submitted by the owners outlines their interest in the fence. The letter in essence acknowledges that the fence is the property of the Oswald House and removes any previous debate as to who is the actual owner. The owners indicate that they are willing to restore the stone wall and fence in place and contribute $16,000 toward that work. The owners would also be applying for funding under the municipal Designated Property Grant program for assistance of $3,000 per year for 3 years as previously supported by the Municipal Heritage Committee (1 grant is being held in a City reserve account). The future grants would be subject to review and program availability. The owners also indicate that they were previously reluctant to spend money on the wall and fence when they did not own the ground on which it sits, but have now reached a level of comfort with this situation. The proposal laid out by the owners could be accommodated under Option 1 in the table. Under Option 1 the City would grant an easement agreement over part of the municipal road allowance which includes the standard indemnification clause. The City would assume the costs of the reference plan. The advantage of this situation is the existing road allowance stays intact. The City is not being asked to invest money in the removal or restoration of the wall beyond the eligible grants available under the Designated Property Grant program. By leaving the wall in its current location, it is possible to avoid the costs, previously reported, which would be necessaryto move the wall back 1.5 m (4 ft). This approach would be consistent with the Province's Eight Guiding Principles in Conservation that the original location of the heritage structure be respected and that it not be moved unless there is no other means to save it. There is sufficient room to install a municipal sidewalk between the curb and wall/fence, special care will be needed given the close proximity. The potential exists for awin/win situation where the fence is preserved, the owners assume the bulk of the cost to restore the wall with iron fence, the City's contributions are minimized and the fence remains a part of the streetscape and the history of Stamford Village for the benefit of the larger community. FINANCIAL/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Under Option 1, the costs to the City are minimized to a reference plan cost and designated property grants. There would be no expenditure for the relocation of the fence. The City Solicitor has provided a legal opinion that the part of the wall that is on the St. Paul Avenue road allowance was never designated as a heritage feature. It is recommended that should Council elect to take steps to preserve the subject part of the fence that by-laws be prepared to: 1) designate the part of the fence that is on the St. Paul Avenue road allowance, pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Aet; and 2) suspend the public right of passage over the area ofi the St. Paul Avenue road allowance that is required to preserve the subject fence and to provide the owner of 2922 St. Paul Avenue with undisturbed occupation of that part of the St. Paul Avenue road allowance that is enclosed by the fence. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The Council's strategic priorities provide ensuring the quality of our neighbourhoods, urban design and streets and sidewalks, among otherthings. City Council's Official Plan policies regarding Heritage Resources promote heritage preservation. November 16, 2009 - 4 - PD-2009-91 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Staff Report PD-2009-25 Staff Report PD-2009-32 Staff Report PD-2009-57 Email from Kym Cody, Co-ordinator of the Petition. Recommended by: Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning & Development Approved by: Ed Dujlovic, Executive Director, Community Services ,,F` i~ " i~ ! a Respectfully submitted: t~ ~ -~i e ~` ~ "' Ken7Todd, thief Administrative Officer P.Boyle Attach. S:IPDR120095PD-2009-91, Oswald House Fence, 2922 St Paul Ave.wpd LOCATION MAP '~~/~~' ;~1 L //J I CHURC_H'S I f -- - -- - '' ~ f c r ~ c ~ 1 r n i. m I ~_ l + ~- -__. _,, _. _. _. _.. .I,~ Ob A n m A l7 N 1 Location: 2922 St. Paul Avenue ~;~ s Assessment #: 272504000116500 1:NT5 K: \GIS_Requests\2009\Schedules\Zenl ngAM\2922_StPaulAVe\mapping.map LOCATION OF FENCE ~~ ~ ~ i ~ . S AREA ~ o7z SQ ~, i L ~ A~ a s 4 9 SQ ~ ~ ~ PROPERTY LINE ~0`~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~, ,L ~ ~-, ' ~ ~1 ,, Ks ~ ~~ '~ i a l ~~ ~ ~~ °' x~ i t j ~f ~ ~ I ~, 'i'' ~ FENCE ~ r~j~/~/~%.~;~ i ~ ~~ ~ - - -- -- --- i %~4/ ~4 i~a ~ '~ I La ~ ',~~Y ^~ % ~~ ~, I ~~ _~_._ -<,~~ it ~5 ~~ ~ i ~~~;~~ ~ a<% ~ _ ~ ~ ., I ~, ~~ ~ -; p I p y s <; „ , ~?~ ~, `~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ w. Q ' - ~~~ 1 4~T~ _. -1~ ~,: . i -- _ '~ ~g R ~„ _ ~.~ N Location: 2922 St. Paul Avenue ', s Assessment #: 272504000116500 1:NTS K: \GIS_Req uestr\2009\Schedules\20n1 ngAM\2922_StPaulAve\mapping. map April 20, 2009 +~~~~ 1®Tia~ara~aIls cnu~on Councillor Carolynn loannoni and Members of the Community Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Re: PD-200925 Matters Arising from Municipal Heritage Committee Regarding the Oswald House Fence 2922 St. Paul Avenue RECOMMENDATION: PD-2009-25 That the recommendation from the Municipal Heritage Committee {MHC) as contained in this report be considered. BACKGROUND: On February 25, 2009, Messrs. Fotheringham and Bailey made a presentation to MHC. It received the information and considered the condition of the structure and the responsibility of its care. Municipal Heritage Committee's Motion "1) That the stone wall and fence situated on the City's road allowance be restored by the City in its current location as it is a significant heritage element included in the Reasons for Designation and worfhy of preservation. 2) If not feasible to underfake restoration 'in situ' immediafefy, the fence be stabilized as soon as possible, " Discussion Points of the t~ommittee The Oswald House was constructed circa 1835 (see Location Map attached). The stone wall with iron fence are believed to have been constructed approximately 20 to 25 years later for the purpose of demarcating the property boundary along St. Paul Avenue and Church's Lane (see photograph 1). •;~ r 41 The property was designated by By-law No. 1978-70 (Appendix 1) which includes a reference to the wall with fence. At the time the by-law was passed, and until recently, it was believed that the wal4~vvith fence was on the property with the house. H~, a ~~ WOYIZL)t,~ TOgCI{tCY t0 SeYVQ dttY COlitttit[l111J~ i ommunity Services Department Planning & Development V 9 Apri! 20, 2009 - 2 - PD-2009.25 recent survey indicates the wall with fence along St. Paul Avenue is located 3.96 metres (13 feet) onto the road allowance. The structure is in poor condition and in need of repair and restoration. (Photographs 2,3 & 4) The owners of the dswald House, white having indicated in the past the desire to preserve the fence and pay for all or part of its restoration, do not wish to do so since they do not have clear title to the structure. It is the opinion of the Municipal Heritage Committee that the fence is a significant heritage feature that was included in the Reasons for designation at a time when very little detail of specific features was included in the by- laws. This fence is considered to be a rare feature as there are few remaining examples of cast iron fencing in the City and due to its longevity and existence in a prominent location. It has an aesthetic importance integral to the overall design and setting of the Oswald House. For these reasons, the Committee believes It would be appropriate to preserve this feature in its present locafian. CONCLUSION: The Commi#tee's preference is that the wall and fence be restored in place, but recognizing that full restoration at this time may not be within the City's budget. As an alternative, the Committee suggests stabilization of the wall should be undertaken so as to rectify pedestrian safety concerns and to slow further deterioration. Recommended by: ! C~ 1w~(\~ Alex Approved by: Ed Dujlovic, of Planning & Development Director of Community Services P.BOyIe/J. Barnsley:mb Attach. S:\PDR120091PU-2009-25, Matters Arising MHC, pswald House.wpd April 20, 2009 - 3 - PD-2009-25 April 20, 2009 - 4 - PD-2009-23 Figure 1 -August 29, 1927, Courtesy of Ontario Archives Figure 2 -James Oswald House 2006 s CITY 6F NIAGARA FALLS - )iy-Law No. 78 - 70 A by-law to designate the Oswald Resi dettre at 2922 Sl'. Fa u7. Avenue of architec tarsi value and o£ historic interest. ~ ~. WHEREAS The Ontario HeritageAct, Y974, authorizes Che Cquncil of a . municipaliEy to enact by-laws to designa Cereal property, iuclud i[tg all the buildings and struo tares thereon, to be of historic or architectural value or interest; AND WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of.NYaga ra Pa11s has caused to ba served upon the owner of the lands and prsmis as municipally known as 2922 St, Peu1 Avenue; commonly known as the pgwald Residence, upon The Ontario Heritage Pounds tioa, Not#ce of Yateation to so designate the aforess#d real property and has caused such Notice oP lnteatioa to ha published in a newspaper having general cixcula tioa is the muaicipa lity once£ox each o£ 3 coasaeutive weeks.; ' AND WHEREAS the..i~ea sons for desigaaT.ign era set oufi in Scfiedula "S" hereto; AND WHEREAS no Notice.o£ Objection to the proposed designation has Leon served upon the Clerk of the muaicipa lity. - - NOW TtiEREk'ORE THE COIINCTL OP THE CORPORATION OF THE C14'Y OP NLAGApA FALLS - ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: - ~ ~ .. 1. That the real property more particularly described in Schedule "A" hereto, knos~st as the Oawa Ld Residence at 2922 St. Paul Avenue be des igtta tnd as being of ereJti tectural value qr in teresta 2, The City So li citox is hsroby authorized ko~causa a copy of this by-7.aw .to be xagi skared against the property doacribed is Schedule "A" hereto ici~tho proper Lsnd Registry Office, - :~. `t'he Cify C%erk is hereby authorized fiq cause m Dopy o~f th is by°law n P,o be served upon the oss<tar of the afnresa id paopertg-and upon The Ontario Heritage Fouttda tivn and ko sears nokiea of this by~-,aw to be puh%f shed in a news paper having general ei rnula tion in the City of Niagara Fa 11s, ~~ ~Pa ssed this 17th day of .April , .. , 1978. i CLERK •••••• ••, E • jMYOR 6 Yne unc , .~ F ' First Reading: April 17 , 1978,Ci';y Of (v ia@ r '~ ~ ~~ ~,~ ~ ~ f %~~n - .~ OF ih9 Second Reading; April 17 1978.1, tea ~, ,,. ,~ ~ ~~'S l ? 3] Third Readings April i7 1978. .:~..,~.. ..~.-:. RY ,Law...ZB .70,,,....._.., Ui i^ So .. .. ._ ..... ~f '~./.~~ ". ~•=.f'~ ~-C:i BIB( . ///. .: v .fir.'+,f ..'rvji ALL AN- s1tiGUiAR that certain parcel or tzact of Land and premises, actuate, lying turd being itx the Citp of Niagara Palls, in the Regional ,iunicipality of Niagara (formerly in the Townshiy n£ Stamfford) and being composed o£ part of Township hots ~37 and 43 and pant of .the unopened road allowance between 'Township LOt3 36 and 3% and between Township Locs G3 and 44 in the said former - Township of Stamford, which said pazcal is ,more past icularly described in an~instrtavent registezed in the Land Begistxy Of£ice ~~ for the Registry Di~rision of Niagara South on t5te 8th day o.C 3tmo, 19%2 as Na. 165384. SCfiEDULE "B" . to CITY OF NIAGARA PAILS Byelaw No. 78 e 70 RIASONS POR RESIGNATION OE '1RE OSWAF.D RESIDENCE The £ormax Oswald Residence (c. 1835) is an excellent exampls - o£ Cha "Regency style" cottage built primarily in the decades - o£ theChirties and forties. of the Last century in Canada. ~n~ - - elaborate iron Eemca supported in stone, i~orted fzom England and remaining to-day in good condition surrounds tha yard on two aides. James Oswald was a prominent businessm-ee in the 'Niagara are:a,' having run the SVhirlpool House as an Inn, as well as a brewery _ on the road to 6C. David's. He was once accused of murdering one - - of the patzoms of his Inn but was acquitted when keis "victim^ ahowed up in court, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ „ e / r,-.: April 26, 2009 .~~ l~ia~ara~alls Councillor Carolynn loannoni and Members of the Community Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Members: Rey PD-2009-32 Municipal Staff Review Regarding the Oswald House Fence 2922 5t. Paul Avenue RECOMMENDATION: P~-Z009-32 That Council direct staff to work with the owners of 2922 St. Paul Avenue to close and add a portion of the road allowance to the adjacent land; relocate and restore the stone portion of the structure to those lands subject to the owners assuming responsibility for the restoration of the iron fence and ongoing maintenance, Alternatively, the wall with iron fence should be removed from the municipal road allowance. BACKGROUND: City staff has been in discussions (see Chronology attached) with the owners of the Oswald House (photograph 1) concerning the location and condition ofthe stone wail with fence for more than two years. The issue has been protracted due to the fact that this issue involves ownership issues, location constraints, heritage preservation issues and financial considerations. Various attempts to resolve the condition of the fence have been explored by staff. Initially Messrs. Bailey and Fotheringham approached the City seeking permission to permanently maintain the wall with iron fence in its current location on the road allowance. Staff offered an encrnachment agreement so they could ropair it. However, the encroachment agreement was unacceptable to thei-n because it contained a clause which would require that the fence be removed if the City ever needed that part of the read allowance for street improvements or widening. City staff then proposed moving only the wall onto their property, approximately 4.0 m (13 ft} east of the current location. This was not viewed as an acceptable alternative because it would impact on the landscaping of the front yard. City staff then proposed closing and conveying 2.5 m (8 ft) of the road allowance and moving the wall at a shared cost to that location and retaining 1.5 m (5.0 ft) as part of fhe road allowance. This option was also rejected by the owners of the Oswald House because of cost. / ~ r --- . '3~ .. ' Community Services Department Working Together do Serve Our Community i Pianning a Development April 20, 2009 - 2 - P17-200932 A legal opinion from the solicitor for the owners of the Oswald House (Appendix 1), suggests that the wall with fence is owned by fhe City. Therefore, Messrs. Bailey and Fatheringham believe responsibility for the maintenance of this heritage feature lies with the City. The City Solicitor acknowledges that while it could be argued that the fence belongs to the City owing to the happenstance that it is loco#ed on the road allowance, but that the fence serves no municipal purpose. The fence is there solely to serve and enhance the Oswald House and it could equally (and likely more convincingly) be argued that the fence is not the property of the municipality because the portion of the road where the fence is located was acquired by the Province by way of expropriation. The expropriation was far highway purposes. A fence in this location is contrary to the status of the property as a highway. While the wall with iron fence is listed in the reasons far designation of the Oswald House, it is also the opinion of the City Solicitor that the location of the structure being on the road allowance is not subject to the designation by-law because that by-law is not registered on title of the road allowance. Restoration in place is the preferred option of the Municipal Heritage Committee. Staff received a quote to restore only the stone wall of $25,000 (including new foundation whether in-place or relocated). The cost to restore the ironwork would be additional. Staff estimate it could cost a total of $38,185 to also restore both the stonework and the iron fence. Staff has not investigated what would be needed to stabilize the wall and fence features nor the associated costs. From a staff perspective there are some problems with restoring the wall in place. The stone wall is located on the edge of an existing manhole and sanitary sewer within the boulevard (Photograph 2). A municipal sidewalk is proposed to be constructed along this portion of St. Paul Avenue to complete the missing portion of sidewalk between Shane Court (in the north) and the sidewalk south of Church's Lane. Because the boulevard is higher than the wall and because of the location of the wall within the road allowance, installation of the sidewalk could affect the wall Dither through stormwater run-off ponding next to the fence or potential darnage #o the wall and fence by heavy equipment during sidewalk construction. While the City has a duty under the Provincial Palioy Statement to conserve significant built heritage resources, it also a duty to keep public highways free and clear of obstructions. In light of all of fhe above, staff is of the opinion fhat the best approach is to close the easterly Z.5 m (8 ft) of the road allowance and the lands be added to Oswald House property. The s#one wall should be moved and restored on these lands by the City. The restoration of the iron fence atop the wall should be the responsibility of the owners of the Oswald House. Photograph 3 depicts the lines in question. By moving the wall back 1.5 m {5 ft) east of the existing shrubs, it provides sufficient room to install the sidewalk and not encroach on the location of underground hydro services. It also protects the greatest amount of front yard landscaping for the Oswald House which is part of the historic character and setting associated with the heritage features. April 20, 2009 - 3 - PD-2009-32 CONCLUSION: The stone wall with iron fence is a recognizable heritage landmark on a prominent corner within the historic Stamford area. The wall with fence was initially built to enhance the property of the Oswald House and the municipal interest has come about by default because of expropriation of land (by the Province) for the road right-of-way. The City would like to reduce any liability associated with the structure and relocating it would resolve this aspect. Relocation of the wall with fence would allow for the installation of the sidewalk. The costs associated with moving and rebuilding the stone portion could come from both the sidewalk construction budget and the designated property grant reserve budget. The owners of the Oswald House should show good faith by participating in the restoration of the ironwork portion of the structure. 1f this position proves to be unacceptable to the owners of the Oswald House, the City should remove the stone wall with iron fence to reduce the liability associated with the condition of the wall and fence and to ensure the road right~of-way is free and clear for its intended purpose. Recommended by: ~"`"~ ~L~-i~~ Approved by: P.Boyle:op Attach. Alex Herlovitch, Dii~tor of Planning & Development Ed ulrector of Community Services S:1PDR120095PD-200932, Municipal Staff Review, Oswald House Fence, 2922 St. Paul Ave.wpd April 20, 2009 - 4 - PD-2009-32 Photograph 2 -Manhole cover Photograph 1 -House from St. Pauf Ave. April 20, 2009 - 5 - PD-2009-32 Photograph 3 -Property line -Service Locations -Proposed fence line auge,5r to, zoos ~I~~~~~~~~5 t~N~D~ Councillor Carolynn loannoni and Members of the Community Services Committee City of P~iagara Falls, enteric Members: fie: P®-2Q09~57 OswaBd Fiouse ~enoe 2922 Sto Paul Avenue RECOtN1~EP~®A3°ION: PD-2009.57 The re~commentlanon(s) contaoned in 4his report wire airrantlatlhycommrtt€Yn and _ratrfied by Gdy Council t the Committee c firm whether or not it wishes to proceed with the necessary legal steps close the road a wance, transfer the land to the abutting property owners and authorize expenditure to ocate the wall. That the committee approve the removal of the stone fence from the City road allowance BACKG620UiV0: and offer the material to the owners of 2922 St. Paul Avenue. At the April 2D, 2009 Community Services Committee the following motion was adopted: That staff work with the property owners to develop a compromise, with the City paying for the stone work and the property owners paying for the ironwork, and That staff report back to Council. Members will recall, the wall with iron fence currently rests on the road allowance of St. Paul Avenue. The wall and fence is a listed heritage feature in the designating by-law of the adjacent Oswald House, but technically is not designated because it is not on the same property. The structure is considered to be a liability due to its condition and location on City property. h~ order to commence talks with the owners of the Oswald house, it was necessary to determine the exact portion of road allowanoe'to be closed. Thus a draft reference plan was created and approved by Municipal Works and is now ready to be deposited at the Registry Office, It will be necessary to close that portion of the road allowance and transfer tl7e lands to the owners before moving the wall to this location. Staff have consulted with the owners and they have agreed, in principle, to the transfer of lands and the proposed new location of the fence; to assume responsibility for the cost of the restoration of the iron work as well as the future care and maintenance of the fence. Community Services Department WOrkirag Toget/:er l0 Serve Dur COmmuntty Planning & Deveiopmern , ,.. ., .-. ~ „• August 1D, 2009 - 2 - PD-20D9-57 A request for quotes was issued by the City for the removal and relocation of the stone wall to the new location in order to determine the costs to the City. The following quotes were received: Cedar Springs Landscape Group Ltd. - $27,500.00 Rempel Masonry Restoration Inc. ~ $25,000.00 It is anticipated that the funding would come from the Municipal Heritage Committee's Designated Property Grant program and the Municipal Works New Sidewalk Construction account. ALT~RN,4T9VES: In the event the Committee does not wish to authorize the expenditure of funds on the preservation of this heritage wall, two alternatives could be considered. 1. Do nothing -this option would leave the wall in its current location and condition. This carries with it a continued risk to the City that someone could be injured should the wall fall over while someone is next to it. 2. Remove the wall -this option would have the stone and iron work removed from the City road allowance, thus removing any liability. The stone and iron work could be re-used either in a municipal project (to be determined) or sold to a private individual. It would result in the loss of a heritage feature from a prominent corner in the City. COt~CLt9S106V: Staff was directed to work out a compromise with the owners. The owners have expressed their willingness to see the fence preserved and will assume responsibility to restore the iron work and long term maintenance if the Committee recommends and Council approves the above-noted expenditure. The closure of the road allowance, transfer of lands and relocation of the wall could all be achieved by this fall. This would have the effect of preserving a heritage feature in the City that is associated with the private property and removing a public liability. Municipal Heritage Committee has previously advised Council of its support for the retention of the wall and iron fence. Recornrnended by: Approved by: Ed Respectfully submitted: wic, Executive Director of Community Services id, Chief Administrative Officer Ken T P.BOyle:mb Attach. S:1PDR\2009\PD-2009-57, Dswald House Fence 2922 St Paul Ave.wpd Hiex hierlovitch, Director of Planning ~ Development To: Mayor Salci and Members of Council From: David Fotheringham & Steven Bailey Date: November 3, 2009 Subject: Oswald House Fence Semantics On November 2, the City Clerk wrote to some concerned citizens: that staff did not recommend and Council did not approve the demolition of the fence that what was approved was that the fence be removed and that the materials be offered to the property owners. Demolish is defined by Webster's New World Dictionary as "to pull or tear down". To my mind, removal of the fence is a euphemism for demolition but in deference to the City I will use the word remove when referring to the City's plan for the fence. Misconceptions I would like to start by clearing up three misconceptions that may exist with City staff. In his letter of November 2, the City Clerk made the following statement "the property owners wanted restoration of the fence but did not wish to pay for it because they did not have clear title to the structure". This statement is out of date and is an over simplification of our old position. In the spring of 2008, we decided to put aside our concerns about demolition and proceed with the repairs. Because of an increase in the cost of the repairs, we need more support from heritage grants than w€ did previously. Heritage grants are available to the owner of any designated property in Niagara Falls. Our 2008 repair plan was for us to contribute $16,000 over three years and for the City to provide three $:3,000 heritage grants. I have heard from others that city staff has indicated that we are OIL with removal of the fence. We oppose removal. We are willing to provide considerable financial support for its repair if we can find a solution that makes our investment in the fence sufficiently secure. If we cannot find a mutually agreeable solution, then we would reluctantly favour removal of that portion of the fence that is on the road allowance. We are concerned about safety issues, especially if a sidewalk is installed. Also, in its present condition the fence detracts from our property. If the City removes the road allowance portion of the fence, we would like to take the iron work to be used to restore the portion of the fence that is on our property. 1 ~ NOV 0~3 2009 fencecomserv091116 The City Clerk, in his letter of November 2, asked the following question, "should it (repair of the fence) be financed by the tax payers for the primary benefit of the property owner?" It is true that we would benefit aesthetically from repair of the fence but so would everyone who passes the property. I would like to point out repairing the fence is of no financial benefit to us. We have already spent tens of thousands of dollars in excess of the market value of our property. The $16,000 or more that we are prepared to spend will not be recovered when we sell it. Background One day, shortly after the Community Services Committee voted to remove the portion of the fence located on the road allowance, we bumped into Kym Cody on the street. When we gave her the news she was shocked and volunteered to circulate a petition asking council to preserve the fence in its current location. Kym and Laurel Campbell collected 650 signatures. We were amazed that most people to whom Kym and Laurel spoke cared about the fence. We were surprised that, of the people to whom we spoke, no one objected to the city spending money on the fence. The Oswald House is one of the few examples of elegant mid 19`h century domestic architecture left in Niagara Falls. Most of our existing heritage houses of the same period in the city were farm houses. James Oswald was a prominent and prosperous businessman. He built a house that reflected his position in the community. The fence was the crowning glory of his house. There would have been few others like it in the area. The Oswald House has been a landmark in the community since it was built. Even when it became run down, it remained a landmark. People in the neighborhood watched its rehabilitation with great interest. Many people thanked us for our efforts to bring the house back to its former glory. The house stands at the northern limit of historic Stamford. It announces to people entering the city from St. David's that they are entering a historic area. Once the fence is restored, the house will make this announcement louder and more clearly. Recent Y~istoyy It was our intention to have the repair of the fence well underway before we started the rehabilitation of the house itself in 2006. At that time, repair of the fence was going to cost about $13,000 and we earmarked $15,000 of our own funds for the project. We discovered, early in 2006, that 75 % of the fence was located on the road allowance. We tried to satisfy ourselves That our investment in the fence would be safe from demolition. We were unable to find sufficient comfort to proceed with the repairs. We decided, early in 2008, that we had been overly concerned about repairing the fence only to have the city demolish it. Unfortunately, the contractors with whom we had discussed the project were no longer available to do the work. We found new fencecomserv091116 conhactors. They estimated the costa $25,000. We decided to divide the project into three phases to be done in 2008, 2009 and 2010 so that we could apply for three heritage grants totaling $9,000. Our net cost would be $16,000, only slightly over our original $15,000 budget. MHC approved a $3,000 grant for 2008. This amount eventually was put into a reserve fund. Recent events have proved that our original fears regarding demolition were well founded. We are especially worried by a comment made to me in a telephone conversation with the City Solicitor in January 2009. He said that the city would likely remove the fence if we did not accept an offer to move the fence that was on the table at that time. This happened well before he raised the issue that there might be a problem with the designation bylaw. 1\Ton~Financial Parameters for Repair The fence should be left where it is in accordance with the Eight Guiding Principles of the Conservation of Historic Properties. Moving it adds another $22,000 to the cost of the project. In addition, moving the fence on Yco our property would require us to change the landscaping of our front garden which would likely cost $5,000. Neither we nor the city can justify this additional expenditure. We have never been told a compelling reason for moving the fence. We know that the city has a duty to keep the road allowance clear. No one has ever said that there was a plan to widen St. Paul Ave. Surely the city has the power to decide the heritage value of the fence out weighs the need to keep the road allowance clear when there are no plans to widen the road. There is a plan to add a sidewalk along St. Paul Ave. There is already a sidewalk beside the fence on Church's Lane. The distance between the fence and the curb on St. Paul Ave. is four feet greater than the distance on Church's Lane. The snow plow has never damaged the Church's lane portion of the fence. We are willing to proceed with the repairs with the fence remaining where it is and with no change to the road allowance. We would want the City to take all steps necessary to unsure that it is clear to all that the portion of the fence located on the road allowance is covered by the designation. We might require some additional reassurance as to the safety of the fence from demolition because of the comment made to me in January by the City Solicitor with regard to removal. As an alternative, the City could teansfer° the road allowance created by the expropriation to us or give us a long term lease. If this was done, we would give an easement to the city for present and future services. We would want the City to take all steps necessary to ensure that it is clear to all that the portion of the fence located on the road allowance is covered by the designation. We assume that the fence would be adequately protected. We understand that the City paid to move the Loretto fence when Stanley Ave. was widened. Neither the Loretto fence nor the buildings are designated. We would want the fence running north to south along St. Paul Ave to be completed in 2010. There will be an election in November 2010 and we do not want to have to deal with a new council on this matter. We are also concerned about the availability of the 3 fencecomserv091116 contractors with whom we aheady have a relationship if the work is done too far in the future. Financial Parameters for Repair The estimates that we obtained from the contractors in 2008 indicate that the cost of repairing the whole fence, of which 75% is on the road allowance, is $25,000. We are prepared to undertake the repair with the help of $9,000 of heritage grants. Under this plan the City's exposure is capped at $9,000. Our exposure is not capped at the remaining $16,000. The estimates are a year and a half old and do not take into consideration normal cost increases or the implementation of the harmonized sales tax in 2010. In addition, it is likely that there will be increases in the cost of repairing the stone work as its true condition is determined as work progresses. Back in 2008, we divided the work into three phases and hoped to be able to be eligible for three heritage grants. It is our understanding that a similar approach was previously acceptable for repair of a foundation. Originally, we planned to complete the three phases over three years (2008 to 2010). We, now, would like to complete phases one and two in 2010 with the help of the 2008 heritage grant which was approved and later moved into a reserve fund and a new grant for 2010. We would need a third grant in 2011 to complete phase three. Cost of Repair I have provided a spread sheet which summarizes the cost of repair. The total cost is $25,000. The City would pay $9,000 in heritage grants from the existing program. This amount is capped. We would pay $16,000. This amount is not capped and there will likely be cost overruns. We would pay 60% of the repairs for the portion of the fence located on the road allowance and 70% of the repairs for the portion of the repairs located on our property. ~nmmation We hope that Council can appreciate that the heritage value of the fence by far outweighs the $9,000 cost to the city and the future risk that 5t. Paul Ave. will need to be widened. 4 fencecomserv091116 OSWALD HOUSE FENCE REPAIR SUMMARY BY FENCE LOCATION AND ENTITY (after allocation of template cost) (replace medium and poor components) Year 2010 2011 Total Phase One Phase Two Total Phase Three - - - Road allowance fence - _ -. _ --- Home owners' cost 4,600 4,500 9,100 1,500 10,600 2008 city heritage grant 3,000 3,000 3,000 2010 city heritage grant 3,000 3,000 3,000 2011 city heritage grant 700 700 Total city heritage grant 3,000 3,000 6,000 700 6,700 Total cost 7,600 7,500 15,100 2,200 17,300 Home owners' fence Home owners' cost 5,400 5,400 2011 city heritage grant 2,300 2,300 Total cost 7,700 7,700 Total Project Home owners' cost 4,600 4,500 9,100 6,900 16,000 City grants otal cost 3,000 7,500 _ 3,000 %,500 6,000 15,10 3,000 __. 9,900 9,000 ~ 25,000 fencerepairrevsummary.xls summary 11/10/09 9:21 OSWALD HOUSE FENCE REPAIR SUMMARY BY FENCE LOCATION AND ENTITY (after allocation of template cost) (replace medium and poor components) Year 2010 2011 Totat Phase One Phase Two Total Phase Three ' Road allowance fence --- - Home owners' cost 60.5% 60.0% 60.3% 68.2% 61.3% 2008 city heritage grant 2010 city heritage grant 2011 city heritage grant Total city heritage grant 39.5% 40.0% 39.7% 31.8% 38.7% Total cost 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Home owners' fence Homeowners'cost 70.1% 70.1% 2011 city heritage grant 29.9% 29.9% Total cost 100.0% 100.0% Total Project Home owners' cost 60.5% _ 60.0% 60.3% 69.7% 64.0% City grants 39.5% 40.0% 39.7% 30.3% 36.0% I Otal Cost 100.©% 10©.0% 100.0% 100.0% 10©.(J% fencerepairrevsummary.xls summary 11/10/09 9:21 ~~~ (3 "~- I G9E [Js ~ 7 ~L~ To the Mayor and Council of the City of Niagara Falls: The Oswald house property, municipally known as 2922 St. Paul Avenue, is located on the Northeast corner of St. Paul and Churches Lane and has long been a cherished part of our community. The stone wall and decorative iron fence (the latter imported from England in the mid 1800s) set along south and west borders of the lot are an essential element of the character of this property, and for this reason were specifically mentioned in the 19'8 bylaw in which the Oswald House property received designation under The Ontazio Heritage Act. 'V`Je, the undersigned, hereby ask that the stone base and ornate iron fence be preserved together in their present, original location, and restored, so future generations can appreciate them also, as members of this community have done for over 150 years. Name (please print clearly) Address l ~Fsri1 let~-(~~PVK2~l~ /.,25 iC~IS~~O-r~ 1V%- /// ~ ~ ©l~ ~~ v ~ ~ n~ ~ ~ ~iErn (~~ _~AF'1 ~ l~r~ St~~~ ~-~~, ~ ~~zr.L~ ~P/Jr t'//K/~ lf31Z CJsSEC/ ~d°~lS~ sY ~i~~ /7`~? /1/, r-~ ~J~~~ ~' ~ ~ 0 ~-cu,, S ~ ~ ~ I a~oc.~ I ~- l~l~ f _.~_iT Niagara~alIs PD-2009-92 November 16, 2009 REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair and Members of the Community Services Committee Gity of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Planning & Development SUBJECT: PD-2009-92 Willoughby Township Flall Roof Reshingling 11211 Sodom Road RECOMMENDATION That Council consider the recommendation from the Municipal Heritage Committee to approve the re-shingling work proposed by Dominion Roofing for the former Willoughby Township Hall. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The former Willoughby Township Hall was designated under the Ontario Heritage Act in November 1996 under By-law No. 96-243. As a designated structure all works proposed on the heritage attributes of a building, which, in this case includes the roof, are required to be approved by the Municipal Heritage Committee. The matter of replacing the shingled roof on the Willoughby Township Hall was brought to the Municipal Heritage Committee by Domenic Minervini, Maintenance Supervisor Municipal Works. The Committee has approved this work as it is proposed that the existing shingles and roof vents are to be removed and replaced by similar shingles and roof vents. BACKGROUND The roof of the former Vllilloughby Township Hall is in need of a new roof as the existing roof is deteriorating. This work is part of the on-going maintenance of City Buildings. Due to fihe time of year and the need to have the roof work completed before the winter, the Municipal Heritage Committee was polled by telephone in regard to fhe proposed work. A majority of Committee members were in agreement that 'the proposed work was acceptable. ANALYSIS/RATIONALE One of the Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Built Heritage Properties states that there should be respect for original fabric. Repair with like materials. By replacing the existing asphalt shingles, with similar asphalt shingles, this principle is being respected. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS This work is contemplated in the Municipal Works maintenance budget for City owned buildings. November 16, 2009 - 2 - CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT PD-2009-92 The City's Official Plan policies regarding Heritage Resources promote heritage preservation and as such, the preservation of this heritage building will continue to preserve this part of the City's heritage for all residents. LIST OP ATTACHMENTS P None. Recommended by: Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning & Development Approved by: ~ ' Ed Dujlovic,;Executive Director, Community Services „~ ,~ ~ Respectfully submitted: a `~ ~ '~-~~]~~-~-~~ Ken odd, Chief Administrative Officer P,BOyIe S9PDRV2009VPD-2009-92, Willoughby Township HaII Roof Reshingling.wpd /~ Niagara~alls PRC-2009-33 November 16, 2009 REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair and Members of Community Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTEIJ BY: Parks, Recreation & Culture SUBJECT: PRC~2009~33 Playing Field User Fees RECOMMENDATION That Council approves playing field fees and guidelines as indicated in the report with the effective date of January 1, 2010. 2. That staff investigates the development of a Sport Tourism Policy for the City of Niagara Falls. 3. If any organization wishes to enter into a formal agreement with the City of Niagara Falls that staff is authorized to do so. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Most Ontario and Canadian municipalities charge user fees for athletic and sport fields based on the principle that user groups, sport organizations and/or other corporate users should contribute toward the cost of recreation service delivery by paying fees. The current practice in the City of Niagara Falls is to provide sports and athletic fields at no charge. The implementation of user fees commencing in 2010 is estimated to generate new revenue for the City of Niagara Falls of approximately .~i39,984 dollars, approximately 4% of annual operating costs for athletic fields. BACFCOR®UNpJ On January `i9, 2009, Council approved report Fk-2009-01, Playing 1=field Fees, thaf proposed a User Fee policy related to sports fields. On February 23, 2009, Council approved report R-2009-04, User Fees for Sports Playing Fields that outlined the proposed fees. On March 23, 2009, upon receiving deputations and correspondences from the affected groups, Council unanimously passed the following motion: "That Council defer the implementation of the Field User Fees for 2009 and form a Commiftee fo look at future fees." November 16, 2009 - 2 - PRC-2009-33 A Playing Field User Task Force was created with Councillors Pietrangelo and Diodati representing Council to review this issue. Each playing field organization was requested to send one representative to participate on the Playing Field User Group Task Force. Four Playing Field User Group Task Force meetings were held on June 16, 2009, July 16, 2009, August 27, 2009, and October 28, 2009. ANALYSIS/RATI®NALE The general purpose of the playing field user groups flask force meetings were to develop a field fee schedule for 2010 which would also be acceptable to the field user groups. The task force reviewed playing fees charged in other municipalities to better develop new playing fees for Niagara Falls. The fee schedule will be recommended to Council as part of the 2010 Operating Budget review. The user groups were resistant to user fees. The groups stated that the implementation of user fees would affect their budgets, the amount of money they need to raise in registration fees, and ultimately, participation rates. Through the User Fee Task Force meetings, a consensus was reached on the implementation of fees. Certain soccer and ball youth field organizations were acknowledged for their significant financial contributions toward park development over the years. Organizations such as Niagara United Soccer Club, Niagara Falls Soccer Club and the league at Don Johnson Park would be exempt from paying field user fees at their'home field' parks in recognition of their direct financial contributions to those specific park development costs. Although the original proposal was for some uniformity of charges assessed to the various user groups, it became apparent during the process that each sport or organization has its own unique circumstances and challenges. Participant ratesvarygreatly between different groups; some groups have strictly adult users; while others cater to youth. Some organizations are strictly not-for-profit, while others operate as a business. Finally, tournaments sponsored by different user groups cater to out-of-town participants, while certain groups are only dealing with local users. Adult tournament organizers commented on the economio impact of their weekend summer tournaments. Spori tourism programs in a number of Ontario municipalities provide a rebafe against field fees for tournaments. In same eases, organizers must complete applications after their event to validate the utilization of hotels for example to be eligible for a discount or refund of partial field fees. Staff will be campleting researoh and developing a Sport I ourism Policy for the City of Niagara Falls for consideration. November 16, 2009 - 3 - PRC-2009-33 2010 Fee Schedules Proposed: Recommendations from October 28 meeting (user groups) Youth per participant, includes practices, games, and tournaments $7.00 Senior per participant (new), includes practices, games, and tournaments __ - $7.OD _ Adult per team (new), includes practices and games, tournaments not included - - $100.00 Per Hour ®ptions -- A Category Playing Fields -- Resident youth - $5.00 Non- resident youth $12.00 Resident adult $1 D.00 Non-resident adult $30.D0 Commercial $40.00 6 Category Playing Fields Resident youth $4.00 Non- Resident youth $10.00 Resident adult $8.OD Non-resident adult $20.00 Commercial $30.00 C Category Playing Fields Residen4 youth no charge Non-resident youth __ __ __ - $4.5D Resident adult _. $5.00 ~ournament day Fate (day = 10 hours/per field) ___ - - Resident youth $25.00 Non- resident youth $75.00 Resident adult $25.00 Non-resident adult $120.00 Commercial $240.00 November 16, 2009 - 4 - PRC-2DD9-33 Playing Field User Groups and City staff have generally agreed to the following guidelines for the implementation of fees: 1. Playing Field user fees will increase 3% annually for the next five (5) years. 2. Field Lighting fees per hour will increase annually consistently with the increases charged to the City of Niagara Falls. 3. Capital improvements in sport parks will betaken into consideration the comments and input of the field user groups with Council having the final decision. 4. Organizations are free to select the fee payment model, whether per participant rate or per hourly field rate, based on what is most financially advantageous to their organization. During the discussions, a user group requested that it enter into a formal "agreement" with the City. The agreement would include the guidelines indicated in this report and any other items specific to that user group. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The estimated new revenues that would be achieved in the 2010 Operating Budget are approximately $39,984 or 4% of the annual operating costs for athletic fields. For a point of comparison, arena ice rental fees, based on the 2009 Budget, represent approximately 51 % of the annual operating costs of the existing three (3) arenas. Council could still consider any formal organizational requests for the `waiving of fees' in part or in full for parks and recreation services consistent with the current practices of the Corporation. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT One of the seven (7) strategic priorities, identified in 200y by Council, was to 'identify and evaluate alternative sources of revenue'. Given the fiscal challenges faced in 2010 and what is anticipated in future years, a review of potential new revenue sources was initiated in conjunction with the 2009 Budget. The City of Niagara Falls' Strategic plan for the Provision of Parks, t~ecreation, Ar'rs and Culture, Action Plan #5 states: "[develop policies to support service delivery". Currently, fees are charged for some recreation services such as arenas while other services where fees are standard charges in almost all other Ontario municipalities (e.g., playing fields) require no fees for use. The strategic plan referenced the inconsistency in the charging of fees and had also recommended the implementation of field fees for natural fields. November 16, 2009 - 5 - PRC-2009-33 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Meeting Notes from Playing Field User Fee Task Force meeting June 16, 2009 2. Meeting Notes from Playing Field User Fee Task Force meeting July 16, 2009 3. Meeting Notes from Playing Field User Fee Task Force meeting August 2y, 2009 ~}. Meeting Notes from Playing Field User Fee Task Force meeting October 28, 2009 Recommended by: Approved by: Denyse Morrissey Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture Ed Dujlovic . Executive Director, Community Services Respectfully submitted: n Todd ief Administrative Officer City of Niagara Falls, Parks, Recreation & Culture Playing Field User Group Task Force Tuesday, June 16, 2009 7:OOpm-8:30 pm MacBain Community Centre Coronation Room In Attendance: Councillor Jim Diodati and Councillor Victor Pietrangelo User Groups: Donna Mantesso, Niagara United Soccer; Roger Campbell, Premier Oldtimers Soccer; Bob Pysher, Greater Niagara Baseball Association; AI Greatix, Niagara Palls Men's Fastball League; Warren Swatman, Niagara Falls Slo Pitch League Recreation Committee Members: Mick Wolfe-Chair, Don Jackson, Dan Cummings PRC Staff: Denyse Morrissey, Kathy Moldenhauer, Rob McDonald Welcome and Introductions: Co-Chairs -Councillors Jim Diodati and Victor Pietrangelo Victor and Jim welcomed the user groups to the meeting. Over viewed the purpose of the meeting and to provide forum to listen to the input from the playing field user groups task force to assist and help in developing a recommended field user fee schedule and implementation strategy. The importance of generating new revenues to offset some of the cost to deliver field services by the City of Niagara Falls was noted. The review would also take into consideration thaC fees also do not remove the financial ability of a community field organization to be operational It was a priority Chat organizations remain viable and healthy. 2. Review Purpose of the Task Force, Council Reports, User Fee Policy: PRC Staff Staff referenced documents in the meeting handout package as listed: a. Report - R-2009-O1 _ Playing Field Fees January 19, 2009 Draft User Fee Policy attached Report ~- R-2009-0~! ~ User Foes for Sports Playing Fields February 23, 2009 c. Playing Fields User Fee Survey - updated November 2008 To be updated July 2009 d. SPN Tournament Rates in other Provinces -updated June 15 2009 City of Niagara Falls Strategic Plan Final Needs Assessment Report, August 2006 Section 4.0 Outdoor Playing fields, pages 13 - 26 • General background was provided regarding the direction to staff from Council, during the 2009 budget process to both enhance and find new sources of revenues. The particular financial challenges in 2009 (and expected for 2010 and 2011) and originally estimated budget shortfall of about $8.8 million was noted. Two reports to Council addressed the implementation of user fees. • Recommendation was a phased approach to field fees over 2009 and 2010. In 2009 adult and out of town rates, and in 2010 youth rates would be recommended as part aFthe 2010 budget process. Basic approach/assumption given the community development model or the 50/50 park development practice in the City of Niagara Palls was that oeganizations such as Niagara United Soccer Club, or Niagara Falls Soccer Club would not pay any fees or be waived when playing at the `home' respective parks. Noted that total financial commitment at Kalar Road Sports Park by Niagara United Soccer Club is about $1 million dollar. The financial contribution of Niagara Falls Soccer Club at Mitchelson was estimated about''/z million but would be confirmed by staff. Also the files would be reviewed to confirm and validate the financial contributions and to which park by GNBA for the next meeting. Draft User Fee policy was referenced. Guiding principles of the User Fee policy are: • Healthy Living -provide wide range of recreational activities and services • Quality -provide highest reasonable level of customer service and facility maintenance • Diversity -services need to reflect needs and interest of our community • Accessibility -programs and services provided in a safe and comfortable environment - to remove barriers for participation • Affordability -Recognize the importance of partnerships, maximize opportunities -Allocate limited resources to subsidize programs in low-income households, youth, seniors 3. Overview _ Strategic Plan (2006) recommendations and analysis ,PRC staff Extract pages from the Strategic Plan `Final Needs Assessment Report, August 2006 was provided. Generally the analysis had identified futw•e growth field sports included soccer while other field sports are experiencing decline. Responding to sport growth needs and development costs for soccer fields for example was noted; particularly developing a strategic approach to the opportunity to convert park space from one sport in decline to another in growth. PRC Strategic Plan had identified the need for a facility booking software to track and validate the usage of playing fields. PRC is now using "Class" facility booking sofrivare to book all playing fields, arenas and rentals including at the MacBain Community Centre and Coronation 50 Plus Centre. Class will be a key tool for data and financial analysis. 4. Municipal Playing field survey -comparison and fees in other communities November 2008 ° The rates, and structure/model charged for a number of other municipal playing fields were summarized from November 2008 review. ° Staff responded and estimated that 2009 new fees, based on a two year phased approach (as 09 did not include an youth related fees) for out of town youth, out of town adult a' tournaments, and resident adult or tournaments, would have generated about $80,000 in new revenues, noted that City of St. Catharines sport feld related fees are about $130,000 per year. ° Suggested that one option rather than a per field hourly rate fee being charged to an organizational (based on A, B or C field structure) is a set annual levy per registrant per youth organization. Benefit of this approach would allow costs to be fully known and planned for by the organization. For example GNBA estimated 540 participants. Niagara United Soccer Club has about 1400 members. • Organizations (youth) asked to provide what amount of a levy per registration would be acceptable. • Fundamental to a levy approach would be access and validation of organizational participants numbers by the City. • Staff will review what municipalities may have this model in place vs hourly fees for fields for the next meeting. • Comments regarding the about the f elds that had been itemized in the A, B, and C field classification categories were made by organizations. Specific comments regarding including Palmer Park and Patrick Cummings Park in the `A' schedule were noted. • Further discussion and evaluation of what fields are A, B and C would be needed with potential to adjust the listings. • Comment made from organizations that potential sale of Palmer Park with proceeds invested in the Patrick Cummings Park be considered; would also result in the relocation of Palmer Park users to PaU~ick Cummings should be considered. ° noted that current field users include community youth and adult organizations, as well as those users who would be deemed corporate or for profit users (whether resident or non resident) that also pay no field fees currently. General comment by some organizations that fees for out of town users, for profit, non residents etc should be implemented and is reasonable. ° Comment that ono adult organization does not object to user feos for adult user and the norm in other municipalities they play in; however important for youth to ensure that remains affordable, and keep kids active and healthy. ° Comment that many soccer tournaments in other communities (Hamilton, Dundas, Aneaster noted) have been cancelled due to increasing sport field fees. ° General comment that a separate rate for tournament pricing and options, given economic impact, could be a day rate rather than hourly per diamond rate. • It was questioned/suggested that a specific cost recovery percentage target of total operational costs from field fees be the basis of setting any fees rather than a review of what fees are charged in other municipalities; staff will provide additional information to respond to this suggestion at the follow-up meeting. • Need for staff to complete additional research on the vea of Sport Tourism as identified in the Strategic Plan. Other communities have Sport Tourism policies and grants/funds to encourage tournaments. In some municipalities the approach/policy is to provide financial rebates when tournament participants remit the forms/application that details the number of participants staying overnight at local hotels/motels etc. 5. 2010 Budget: new fees for sport fields _ process and timing Staff will begin preparing 207 0 City budget late August/ev~ly September 2009. As part of the 2010 operating budget, forecasting playing fields revenues and expenses would be a function of the budget process. Any new user fees will be included in the 2010 draft operating budget. Operating budget for athletic playing fields in 2009 is about $792,000. However this does not include a range of costs that are line items in other PRC budgets including the supervisor staff, management staff, and staff responsible for field bookings etc. 6. Action steps • User Groups consider reviewing with their board or directors or membership the originally recommended fee structure as deferred, including other options they would recommend that could include per registrant and what they would recommend, or per hour by field classification and how to implement. • Provide confirmation that if a per participant youth rate is the model used that youth organizations would provide the registration list and numbers for each organization. • Tournaments, including those run by youth organizations, are requested to share the details about the tournament budget (expenses and revenues) to provide general information on financial performance of the event and how much, if applicable, is donated from the tournament to focal charities. • Staff will contact municipalities (suggested up to 10) of similar population to Niagara Falls to request their detailing sport field operating costs and revenues. A draft recommended Held fee schedule will be presented for discussion at the July meeting. Staff suggested that a tour of playing fields/parks will be arranged by staff to assist in Finalizing the recommended field classifications (as A, B, C) were applicable and finalizing fee categories. 18Text IYIeetinge Thursdays Suly I6 'x:00 pm e 0:~0 pm NdacI3ain Gommunety Centre, Coronation Room, second floor 5:APennits12009AUser FeesUune 7 6 meeting notes.wpd City of Niagara Falls, Parks, Recreation & Culture Playing Field User Group Task Force Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:00 pm - 9 pm MacBain Community Centre Community Boardroom In Attendance: User Groups Anita Smith, Greater Niagara Baseball Association; AI Greatix and Rob Greatrix, Niagara Falls Men's Fastball League; W arren Swatman, Niagara Falls Slo Pitch League, Bill Miller, Slo-Pitch National, Tim Koabel, GNBA/Chippawa F.D. Recreation Committee Members: Mick Wolfe-Chair, Dan Cummings PRC Staff: Denyse Morrissey, Kathy Moldenhauer, Cynthia Roberts, DJ Brooks Regrets: Councillor Jim Diodati and Councillor Victor Pietrangelo User Groups Donna Mantesso, Niagara United Soccer Club; Bob Pysher, GNBA; Roger Campbell, Niagara Oldtimers Soccer Welcome and Introductions: Denyse Morrissey welcomed task force members, regrets from Councillor Jim Diodati and Councillor Victor Pietrangelo 2. RLN.C funding announcement The City of Niagara Falls will be receiving funding for six out of seven submitted projects. Projects to be completed by March 201 I . Report will be going to City Council August 10"' to outline approximate project implementation dates. Submitted projects were pulled from the 2009-2013 Capital budget projects, addendum projects. Projects would not have been completed for 2 -5 years if City did not receive RINC funding. 3. Discussion of items arising from June 16'" meeting a. Municipal fee schedule-perparticipanT rates was presented to attendees. Asdireetec staff researched municipalities which have implemented at per participant rate for youth sports. Youth pee participant athletic field rates were presented from Grimsby, Wainfleet and Fore Erie. Por participantrates could notbe found from other Ontario municipalities. The lowest rate is Fort Erie $4.00 which receives proceeds from OLG. Highest rate is Grimsby at $13.50. Staff recommended implementing Wainfleet's rate, $8.50 including tax. GNBA at this point agreed to help find financial transactions relating to monies that the GNBA put back into maintenance of Oakes Park. b. Registration Fees Charged by Other Organizations -comparison chart was presented to the attendees. This report showed the fees charged by City of Niagara Falls youth sport groups and compared those fees charged by other community sport -2- organizations. It was noted by PRC staff that while not currently being charged field user Pees local sports organizations charged on average more then other municipal sports organizations. c. Organizational Information -questionnaire. Asked task force members to complete ehe questionnaire if not submitted. If a per participant rate was, approved City would require registration numbers and list of participants from youth sport organizations. Revised Classification of fields was presented. At the June task force meeting discussion took place regarding Palmer and Patrick Cummings ball fields as they were listed as A fields. Revised chart listed the fields as B fields with Patrick Cummings fields moving back to A classification when the lights are installed. There were no immediate objections. Task force was informed youth would not be charged for C classified fields are neighbourhood fields. Board of Education fields and Optimist Park ball diatonds do not appear on the Classification list as they are not City owned. Groups were asked to provide feedback and if there were any clarifications or objections to let PRC staff know as soon as possible. e. Task force requested staff attempt to obtain budget information from other municipalities which details athletic field expenses and revenues. 2009 City of Niagara Falls PRC & City of St. Catharines Athletic Field Budget was presented to attendees. This comparison was used to discuss the ability of municipalities to recover some field maintenance expenses. City of Niagara Falls athletic field rate budget does noC include all of the associated staff costs. The presentation of these items came with a lot of discussion regarding the validity of user fees. User groups stated their disappointment with the lack of representation from City Council. Also, at this point it was recommended that the user group task force meeting not take place without the presence of a Council Member. 4. Presentation of User Fee DRAFT schedule. Both the hybrid model and the per hour model were presented. As mentioned at previous meeting user groups which have significantly contributed co the sport field development would not be charged user fees at their home facility. For example Niagara United Soccer Club would not be charged at the Girls Home for Soccer, Kolar Road facility. Niagara Falls Boys Soccer would not be charged at E. E. Mitchelson. Don Johnson League not be charged at Don Johnson park. Staff will meet with GNBA to research level of contribution for Oakes park ball diamonds. Task members discussed the variance between current ice rates and the proposed field rates. Users also mentioned [he level of service provided in arenas and at athletic parks. There was also talk about a grant application for economic impact rebates on field user fields. There were no action points on this due to lack of attendance from Council. Tournament organizers would -3- like to see a higher level of service provided during their event. User groups were asked to review this schedule and make recommendations as to what each group considered fair in terms of dollar amount. Members proposed meeting without staff to discuss reasonable userfees. 5. 2010 Budget draft is due mid September. User fee update report is scheduled to be presented at the September 1 d'" Council meeting 6. Action steps Staff: Using current draft user fee policy and current bookings in the class system create a cost scenario for all user groups. User Groups: Using current draft user fee policy adjust prices to what they feel is Pair and equitable for their group. Task force requested to contact Kathy Moldenhauer by August 21 with proposed fees. Next Meeting: Thursday, August 27, 2009 7:OOpm-8:30 pm MacBain Community Centre, community board room S:\Pcrmi[s\2009\Uscr Fees\Use~ Fec [ask forceVuly 16 mee[iug notes.wpd City of Niagara Falls, Parks, Recreation & Culture Playing Field User Group Task Force Thursday, August 27, 2009 MacBain Community Centre In Attendance: Councillor Jiin Diodati and Councillor Victor Pietrangelo User Groups: Bob Pysher, Greater Niagara Baseball Association; Al Greatix and Rob Greatrix, Niagara Falls Men's Fastball League; Warren Swatman, Niagara Falls Slo Pitch League; Bill Miller, Slo-Pitch National; Donna Mantesso, Niagara [Inited Soccer Club; Wayne Starlc, Optimist Club; Dom F,lia, First Niagara Oldtimers Recreation Committee Members: Mick Wolfe-Chair, Dan Cummings PRC Staff: Denyse Morrissey, Kathy Moldenhauer, Cynthia Roberts Regrets: User Groups: Roger Campbell, NiagaraOldtimersSoccer;TimKoabel,ChippawaF.D,Goodtimers The following handouts were distributed at the beginning of the meeting: • August 27, 2009 Meeting Agenda; • Proposed draft 2010 fee schedule, revised August 27, 2009; • Summary and Organization proposed fee chart based on proposed 2010 revised fee schedule and 2009 field requests; • R-2009-01-Playing Filed Fees Report; • City of Orillia, Economic Impact of Parlcs & Recreation Tournament Program 1. Welcome and Introductions: Councillor Jim Diodati and Councillor Victor Pietrangelo welcomed task force members. Jim Diodati provided a general overview of the fiscal stress the City is facing, the directions given to stafFby Council specific to generating new sources of revenues and this includes revenues from playing field feos. The fees charged for other recreation services in Niagara Falls were referenced and revenue sources through fees would provide some offset to the annual costs of operating and maintaining athletic fields and the amount oftax payer subsidy required. The implementation of fees is based on a fair and equitable approach and it was conveyed it is not the City's intention to put any sport organizations in a position that they are not able to operate. It was outlined that the general purpose of these meetings was to try to develop a field fee schedule for 2010 to be recommended to Council which would be acceptable to the groups and the City of Niagara Falls. -2- 2. Discussion of items arising from July 17th meeting. The drafC schedule of fees provided aC Che July 17`" meeting, was also provided by email following that meeting to all users. Each organization was asked to provide their comments or alternative schedule of proposed 2010 draft fees by August 20, 2009. Comments/responses from two organizations (])GNBA and (2) Niagara Falls Men's Fast Pitch were received. These two emails were included with August 27, 2009, meeting package which was distributed by email. 3. Revised draft 2010 schedule of field fees -August 27, 2009 Staff distributed a revised 2010 schedule of fees at the August 27, 2009, meeting and also attached the draft fee schedule fi~om the July 17, 2009 meeting. Staff indicated that reductions in the tournament per day per field rate had been incorporated into the August 27, 2009, draft (or $120/10 hrs or $12/hr compared to $170/10 hr or $17 hr). The 2010 recommended rate of $8.00 plus GST per youth for applicable youth organizations remained constanC. The per youth 2009 participant fees, before GST, in the Town of Grimsby at $13.50 per child, and the Town of Wainfleet of $81.0 per child were again referenced. It was noted that the July 17, 2009, draft fee schedule would generate estimated total revenue of $]23,800. The August 27, 2009, proposed draft fee schedule would generate estimated total new feel d fee revenues of approximately $98,500. This amount would be a cost recovery of approximately 12% toward Che 2009 budget far athletic field maintenance and operations of about $792,000. It was noted that based on the current arenas, the arena user fee revenues generally generate approximately 50% cost recovery of annual operations. Youth Organizations per paricipant rate -GNBA GNBAconveyed their organization has generally contributed around$S,000peryeartoward equipment or to general park improvements over the last 15 years. Based on the proposed fee of $8.00 per youth this is approximately $4,200 per year plus GST. The need for a new fee, with this estimated average annual contribution, was questioned by GNBA. The organization generally indicated they do not support a per participanC fee and prefer to make an annual contribution. The reason for the per participant rate and importance of establishing a reliable source of revenues for the City was noted by Councillors. It was noted that Che recommended 2010 per participant rate would be less per year using an amount of $5,000 per year. A youth organization using Che per participant rate can also easily budget for this cost or identify in their registration materials for example. It was conveyed that Councillors have had a few conversations with some with .parents in the community. When a per participant fee of $10.00 per year as an example was used, the general feedback was this is very reasonable and `not over the top'. 3- GNBA expressed their concerns about an annual per participant fee that could be increased 100% or more per year (or $10 the first year, $20 the second year, $30 the Chird year etc). The organization indicated they wanted assurances that future fee increases be guaranteed and requested an agreement be created specific to future fee increases. The organization also wanted to have input regarding where the per participant revenue or about $4,200 per year estimated would be spent each year. It was explained, that each year all the fees of the City of Niagara Falls are recommended to Council for appiaval, and this includes ice fees fox example. The process was over viewed and it was noted that generally ice fees increase in the range of 3% to 5% each year. For fees to increase 100% per year, is not consistent with fees review process, nor what has taken place over the past many years in other recreation services where fees are charged. 4. Tournaments The recommended tournament day rate for resident adult not for profit organizations was revised and lowered to $120.00 per day (10 hours) as compared to $170.00 per day. At the meeting, some organizations recommended this tournament per day rate for 10 hrs. be reduced to $50.00 per day per f eld or $5.00 per hour. Some organizations indicated the tournaments should pay $25.00 per 10 hours or $2.50 hour. A few user groups offered comments about the quality of field maintenance and the playing field maintenance levels and services provided for tournaments. A comment was made that field fees will create an expectation of a higher level of service from the City. Adult tournament organizers commented on the economic impact of their weekend summer tournaments. The programs in other municipalities which provide a rebate against field fees for tournaments was noted. Li some cases, organizers must complete applications after their event to validate the utilization of hotels for example to be eligible for a discount or refund of some field fees. The existing request process whereby organizations can request Council to waive or reduce fees was noted. Events that are fundraising events or support charities in Niagara Falls far example could also consider this and request City Council to reduce or waive future field fees. Staff will next incorporate the range of per tournament rates noted at this meeting or $50 per day, $40 per day, and $25 per day and summarize the revenue generation estimates with each scenario. This summary will be provided to the meeting participants in advance of the next meeting. -4- Follow up -proposed draft 2010 fee schedule, August 2%, 2009 All organizations were asleed to provide to formal comment on the draft schedule as circulated at this meeting. The revised fee schedule will be emailed, as an exae] spreadsheet, to task force members requesting their input by September 16, 2009. The information remitted by organizations by this date, will then be summarized in a spread sheet and will be emailed by September 25, 2009. Next Meeting Thursday, October 1, 2009 6:30 pn: to 8:00 pm MaeBain Community Centre Upstairs Coronation multi purpose room 5;\Permits\2009\User Fees\User Fee task force\P.ugust 27 meeting notes.wpd City of Niagara Falls, Parks, Recreation & Culture Playing Field User Group Task Force Wednesday, October 28 2009 MacBain Community Centre In Attendance. Councillor Jim Diodati and Councillor Victor Pietrangelo User Groups: Al Greatix and Rob Greatrix, Niagara Falls Men's Fastbal] League; Warren Swatman, Niagara Falls Sto Pitch League; Bill Miller, Slo-Pitch National; Donna Mantesso, Niagara United Soccer Club; Wayne Stark, Ron Cloutier, Optimist Club; Dom Elia, First Niagara Oldtimers; Tim Koabel, Chippawa F.D, Andy Maisilla, Jack Dobrint, Dianne Pleau, Jim Crabbe, Good timers; Dan Horton, John Bahry, Cathy Flacks, Niagara Girls Minor Softball City of Niagara Falls Staff: Fd Dujlovic, Ken Burden, Denyse Morrissey, Kathy Moldenhauer, Cynthia Roberts Regrets: User Groups: Roger Campbell, Niagara Oldtimers Soccer; Recreation Committee Members: Miclc Wolfe-Chair, Dan Cummings The following handouts were distributed at the beginning of the meeting: Proposed draft (by staff) 2010 fee schedule in follow-up to the October 26 2009; user group recommendations were itemized in the chart. Summary and Organization proposed fee chart based on proposed 2010 revised fee schedule and 2009 field requests; Welcome and Introductions Councillor Tim Diodati and Councillor Victor Pietrangelo welcomed task force members. Jim Diodati provided a general overview of the 2010 fiscal stress the City is facing, the directions given to staff by Council specific to generating new sources of revenues which includes revenues from playing field fees. Revenue sources through fees would providesome offset to the annual costs of operating and maintaining athletic fields and the amount of tax payer subsidy required. The implementation of fees is based on a fair and equitable approach and it was conveyed it is not the City's intention to put any sport organizations in a position that they are not able to operate. It was outlined that the general purpose of these meetings was to try to develop a field fee schedule for 2010 to be recommended to Council which would be acceptable to the groups and the City of Niagara Falls. 2. Discussion of User Fees Questions regarding the Niagara Sport Commission were raised specific to who is funding and what is the mandate of this organization. It was explained that Niagara Sport Commission is a new organization of Heart Niagara and the offices of Heart Niagara are also located the MacBain -2- Community Centre. It is not an organization of the City of Niagara Falls. HearC Niagara ,with Brock University received Trillium funding Yo establish the new organization. Adult tournament organizers commented on the economic impact of their weekend summer tournaments. The need for a Sport Tourism policy with a rebate program for the City of Niagara Falls was noted. Senior staff will be discussing the issue of Sport Tourism. The existing request process whereby organizations can request Council to waive or reduce fees was mentioned. Events that are fundraising events or support charities in Niagara Falls for example could also consider this and request City Council to reduce or waive future field fees. General discussion related to fees and the fact thaC the City charges for ice but does not charge for the use of playing fields. 3. Fee Option Schedule & Chart The drafC schedule of fees provided at the August 27th meeting was revised considering user group recommendations. Revised draft 2010 schedule of field fees -October 26, 2009 was distributed at the meeting and by email. Discussion took place regarding the per participant rate, the resident adult hourly rate and daily tournament rate. Following fees were recommended by the user groups at the meeting: youth per participant rate $7.00 Senior per participant rate $7.00 (new) Adult per team rate $100.00 (new) Adult Daily tournament rate $25.00/day/diamond location (based on ] 0 hours per day). The recommended tournament day rate for resident adult not for profit organizations was recommended to be lowered to $25.00 per day (10 hours) as compared to $75.00 per day. 4, Next Step A Playing Field User Fee report is expected to be presented to Counci] November 30'~ or in early December 2009. User soups can also request a deputation to address City Council and speak to the staff report. 5:\Permits\2009\User Fces\User Fee task force\agenda and meeting notes\October 28 meeting notes.wpd '' Niagara~'ull,s TS-2009-41 November 16, 2009 REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair Members of the Community Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Transportation Services SUBJECT, TS-2009-41 Heikoop Crescent Parking Review RECOMMENDATION That a permit parking zone be established on the south side of Heikoop Crescent between a point 120 metres east of Parkside Road and a point 136 metres east of Parkside Road. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The recommended permit parking zone will allow health care providers to park on the street throughout the day in front of one Heikoop Crescent residence. BACKGROUND On August 10, the Committee approved a no stopping restriction on both sides of Heikoop Crescent between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, Excluding Holidays, September 1 to June 30. This restriction applies to both the parents/guardians of children attending Loretto and Kate S. Durdan elementary schools, as well as local homeowners. ANALYSISlRATIONALNu One homeowner identified fhat the stopping prohibition will cause a hardship as They require health care providers to visit their home on a daily basis. These professionals have normally parked on the street during the specified time period as the driveway is occupied by the homeowner's vehicles. A residential permit parking zone in front of the residence will allow the homeowner or their guests to park on the street. ~fhe permit parking zone will not be subject to the days and hours restriction which is in effect for the remainder of the street. Permit parking control has been implemented in other areas of the City to ease the burden for families with special circumstances. The permit parking zone will only be valid to vehicles that belong to the health care providers, who would receive a generic permit entitling them to park within the permit zone. FINANCIAL/STAFFINGlLEGAL IMPLICATIONS The replacement of the parking signs is carried out by Transportation Services staff. The labour and material costs are accounted for in the Approved 2009 General Purposes November 16, 2009 -2- TS-2009-41 Budget. Cost studies estimate that the cost to replace the signs is approximately $250. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Study Area drawing. Recommended bye Karl Dren, Director of Transportation Services Approved bye Ed Dujlovic, Executive Director of Community Services T ji ~ ~ Respectfully submitted: ! \. a~ ~ d' '~ \~ ~ Y Ken Todd. Chief Administrative Officer J. Grubich rte.-~~'~ s ..i.::. - r ~ Y~ - N f ; ~N ; ~ O K `d .~ .~ , ~ r ^ ~./ ~-. • {n'; ^ ~^ }V/, ~ ~' ~, ~ r ~ ~ ~: ~ ^ s ~~ ~_ W ! ~ :. {. . `1 ^' ^ ~ ^ ~... s, ~ ~I .. • hi . ya~rl~ t .. @ V ~ ~ '7 Z ..n N w T- ^ d ~ CT ^ L" M ~, ~ ~ ~~~ _ ~> ~, ~ 1 ~' .. ~^ .~ ' ;1'r; ~ a~ ~.. .o m Q1 v 0 City Parking f ' i6~ -~l! ~ 'r .~ ` '~ ti ~~ y I r--. ~~. ~ ~a . ~ I' -i;, ~ ~ L s ,L _:~~ ~r O ~~ ® ~ i.. ~ N -` ,a N ~ ,,~~ ~~ o :~ ,.. O. O O r_z_ $, ~- r~ °w - - ~ r• ^r i a ~: ~ i. '~ `~~ ~~. 4 r~~ ,.*.. ~ r:- ? Parksid~'~'~~d Ji ~ f.Y ' l ~_,'~ J 9c ~. _ ~ ~~ ~c a ~ ~ ~o '~. .;.' # .. ^ ~t ~ a~ ~; ~ ~ ~~ :~ ~,~.. t }~' . - r,,,r. t•~~~ ~ . ? y . ~ ~ • • • ' ~. • a. c!~ 4~ t~ ~ r...:~as~`'~ ~ ' '` .. ~'~.~; n "~ ~ ,7 i ~ L .~ C~ ~~ t~ r~ ~ U G ~. ~~ ~,, w~ ~ CI) _~ > }': i .U (U ~~ U) U ~ (~ hJ ~ ~ t. ~) ~~ ~~, ~~ f~ r^. o ai ~. :T: I ~ . CtS r7) C~ C ; ~: _, U i f °~ co v L x U c ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~n ~> ~~ ~ -.`,~' ~ ~ :~, -~ ~~ ~ Q y ~ c~ w > ri. ~, ^ A d ^ ~R~ ~q aeo '~ r ® O ~ N ~ .,C I~ ~ ~., `\ .~. ~~ .~, ~, ,//'~ ~ TS-2009-49 ~1~~`ilPc`l~'1~1~~5 November 16, 2009 REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair Members of the Community Services Committee City of Niagara Falls SUBMITTED BYo Transportation Services SUBJECT: 752009-49 Crawford Street Parking Control Review RECOMMENDATION That the existing permit parking control on the north side of Crawford Street between Confederation Avenue and a point 90 metres east of Confederation Avenue be removed. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The removal of the existing permit parking control is supported by the majority of area residents. BACKGROUND The existing permit parking control on Crawford Street was implemented in 2005. It was recommended to deter patrons from the nearby plaza from infiltrating into the neighbourhood for parking. A request was received to remove the permit parking control, thus allowing anyone to be able to park on Crawford Street, as long as they abide by all parking/traffic bylaws. ANALYSIS/RATI(ONALI= Area residents were requested to provide their input Through a questionnaire which gave them the opportunity to camment on The preferred parking control that would most benefit their needs. A total of five (5) questionnaires were delivered and all five residents responded. Cif the responses received, 60% of respondents preferred to remove the existing permit parking control, while 40% preferred to maintain it. Based on the response rate, the statistical consensus was established with majority of respondents supporting the removal of permit parking control. Technical observations revealed a moderate parking activity in the area as residents are permitted to park on the north side of the road via the permit system. There are no safety concerns with the removal of the permit parking control. Investigation of the collision files revealed that there were no collisions reported in the study area during the previous three- yearperiod. Therefore, based on the results obtained from the parking questionnaires and the technical assessment of the area, it is recommended to remove the existing permit parking control. November 16, 2009 -2- TS-2009-49 FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The removal of all signs is carried out by Transportation Services staff. The labour and material costs are accounted for in the Approved 2009 General Purposes Budget. Cost studies estimate that the cost to remove the existing signs is approximately $100. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Study Area drawing. Recommended by: Karl Dren, Director of Transportation Services Approved by: Ed Dujlovic, Executive Director of Community Services d a Respectfully submitted: ~~~-'~'--'t-"~~`~`~ Ken odd, Chief Administrative Officer Tim Burshtein jj ., y'',~st ~ ~ ~ i III ~' ~ ~ ~ i ~ T i•. 4 ~ ~ ~I r~ a1 ~ ~ ~~1 ~ ; f t. .'1„Y„~_ ~ ~ r~; ~~ ,.fit :~~ ~. -` ` =-.,~ '~+#~_^[ antt~nd ah. b"ua~gl~~'. ~ cxa ~. '.~ ~..~ `C) i~ ` } _ ~.Y.. 4 ~;~.: ~ ~. ~v .. ~M '~ I ~~V' S~ ^ ' ~ •f ~ 1 p Cell F~ ~ ~ ~'r ~ ii fie n„~, .. I ~ ~S i 4 = Ll „~ - ~ s ~21j-". '. Uzi{ -'y :.' 4fsl '~® W . i LL' ~ .; ~~ ~ ~ ' II ~ a l> ~)yJ 'i '~' " ri_- ~V ii' War ' •~ ~ 4 anuatiti' uoi~~aapa~uo~ ~s;;' '` ~ •r •~j =s: ~ I ? ',d a •~' / ~~{ ~ ~ ~ ?~~~, ~'. ~J .~ w ~ • ~ 7V7~ ~~~~ ~^ ~ A ~ ' F ~. I ` i~~~ r ill O, ro- ti ~' ~ ~ U ,~ I a , ~ C ~. i"f f -:.~9 /. ~ ~4 r ~"~ ~I=l~:iC~l~1II~S TS-2009-46 November 16, 2009 REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair Members of the Community Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Transportation Services SUBJECT: TS-2009-46 2008 Motor Vehicle Collision Report RECOMMENDATIONS For the information of the Committee. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report is a summary of reportable motor vehicle collisions that occurred in 2008 on roadways under the jurisdiction of the City of Niagara Falls. Traffic collisions that occurred on Regional roads {such as Lundy's Lane, Montrose Road, etc.), Provincial roads (Highway 420, Queen Elizabeth Way, etc.), Federal roads (Rainbow Bridge, etc.), Niagara Parks Commission roads (Niagara Parkway, etc.) and on private property are not included in the analysis. This report also provides an analysis and recommended corrective measures for five intersections and mid-block locations that experienced the highest collision rates where at least three motor vehicle collisions had occurred. BACKGROUND The 2008 Motor Vehicle Collision Report is the first annual report to be prepared by the Transportation Services fJivision. Information for this report is derived from Provincial Traffic Accident Reports, which are investigated by, or reported to the Niagara Regional Police Service. ANAI~YSISIRATIONALH Since 2004, the City of Niagara Falls has had a 201% decrease in the amount of motor vehicle collisions that have been reported on the roads and intersections which the City owns and maintains. By comparison, the Niagara Region has had a 1904%decrease in the collision frequency for the same time period, for all the roads and intersections they maintain within Niagara Falls. Throughout the Niagara Region, there has been a 14.5% decrease in the total number of collisions on the regional road network. In April of this year, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario was recognized for achieving the highest road safety ranking in North America. The Ministry publishes an annual report summarizing collision data for all motor vehicle collision reports throughout the province, regardless on what jurisdiction it occurred on. The most recent edition of the report is for the year 2006. Comparing provincial statistics between 2004 and 2006, there has been 6.6% reduction (or 15,301 fewer collision in 2006 than two years previously) in the amount November 16, 2009 -2- TS-2009-46 of collisions within Ontario. Considering only the provincial highway system within the Niagara Region, such as the Queen Elizabeth Way, Highway 420, Highway 406, etc., there has been a 19.0% reduction in the collision frequency. The trend in which Niagara Falls has seen with the reduction in the collision experience within our jurisdiction since 2004 is consistent with our neighbouring municipalities and upper-tier road jurisdictions. The decrease in the collision experience on Niagara Falls roads may be partially attributed, but not limited to the following programs that the City undertakes: Transportation Services reviews and provides comments on all planning applications with recommendations as conditions of approval to ensure that the road network is able to safely accommodate new and redeveloped sites. In addition, site plan reviews focus on access management principles, provision to accommodate delivery trucks, garbage trucks, and buses entirely on the site, and the safe internal circulation of vehicles and pedestrians. Environmental Assessment studies include a safety component in the analysis. Four of the ten locations with the highest collision rates have already been investigated through the Environmental Assessment process. Recommendations to address the collision pattern have been included in the EA study results which are affirmed through the attached report; Staff has installed two radar display boards in areas that have been prone to speeding, to give motorists a reminder of their speed as they pass through the area; New traffic signal locations and upgrades to existing signalized intersections are equipped with light-emitting diode lenses, which are extremely bright and noticeable in all conditions, and pedestrian countdown signals, which gives pedestrians an indication of how much time remaining they have when crossing the street. Oversized street name signs allow motorists to discern the downstream crossroad street name so they can make their lane change safely well in advance of the intersection; Nighttime sign reviews have been carried out in the rural area to identify the condition of signs and whore signing improvements are necessary; Staff has embarked on a road safety review program to mitigafe locations (primarily rural areas) where a consistent collision pattern has been occurring; and, Staff has introduced a variety of Neighbourhood Traffic IVlanagement Programs to help residents combat adverse traffic conditions that occur within their neighbourhood. Speed control measures are conditions of subdivision approval, and are investigated on existing roads where there is a speeding problem. The calculation of collision rates is a quantitative measure that takes into consideration the number of collisions occurring at an intersection or road section relative to the traffic volume. Although this is an acceptable method of calculation, high collision rates are obtained on low volume roads where even only one collision has occurred. Therefore, data may suggest that mitigating measures are required on this type of road, where a collision pattern is not evident due to a singular event, as opposed to a high volume road with November 16, 2009 -3- TS-2009-46 multiple collisions whereby a pattern of collisions can develop. Therefore, for this analysis, locations that have experienced at least three motor vehicle collisions were rated, ranked and analysed to acquire the top five intersections and road segments which were analysed in depth for remedial measures to reduce the future collision occurrence. FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATI®NS The cost for the recommended improvements for each of the top five intersections and mid blocks is summarized below: Intersections: Portage Road at Valley Way -The cost to upgrade the red signal indications to LED display in all directions is estimated at $2,000. Funds have been allocated in the 2009 Operating Budget. Drummond Road at Dunn Street -The reconstruction to upgrade the traffic signal hardware and construct left turning lanes at this intersection has been adopted as per the Drummond Road EA. The works are planned to be carried out in conjunction with the overall reconstruction of Drummond Road tentatively scheduled to commence in 2010 and be completed in 2011. Funds have been allocated from the Infrastructure Improvement Fund. Centre Street at Ellen Avenue -The $15,000 cost of the overhead flashing beacon was included in the 2009 operating budget. The overhead beacon was installed in the spring 2009. Dorchester Road at Dunn Street -The cost to upgrade the red signal indications to LED display in the north/south directions is estimated at $1,000. Funds have been allocated in the 2009 Operating Budget. Dorchester Road at Morrison Street -The reconstruction of this intersection to include upgraded traffic signal hardware and additional through lanes is currently underway and is part of the Dorchester Road GR improvements. Funds have been included in the 2009 Capital Works budget. Mid Blocks: Drummond Road between Buchner Place and Lundy°s Lane - The planned reconstruction of the intersection of Drummond Road and Lundy's Lane is a part of the Drummond Road EA, and is tentatively scheduled for reconstruction in 2010/2011. Huggins Street between Marlborough Place and Portage Road -The painted white edge lines within the commercial district is estimated at $150. Funds have been allocated in the 2009 Operating Budget. Fallsview Boulevard between Ferry Street and Robinson Street -None. Drummond Road between Lundy's Lane and Summer Street -The planned reconstruction of the intersection of Drummond Road and Lundy's Lane is a part of the November 16, 2009 -4- TS-2009-46 Drummond Road EA, and is tentatively scheduled for reconstruction in 2010/2011. Main Street between Ferry Street and Summer Street -Cost studies estimate that the cost to manufacture and install the warning signs is approximately $250. Funds have been allocated in the 2009 Operating Budget. LIST ®F ATTACHMENTS 2008 Motor Vehicle Collision Report -Available on request. Recommended by: Karl Dren, Director of Transportation Services ~t Approved by: , Ed Dujlovic, Executive Director of Community Services Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer J Grubich