2010/04/120
w
Q
u.i
H:
c~_
cG
G
w
`~7
rw^
v d
~;
aN
ii
Q
O N
~
~
O
Z r
~
~
_
eL ~
w
5
C O
~
G II!
H
V
Q C
0
~
o ~~ -~
U 2
Q ~ Y
~
N
L.L
.`
+~
N
~
J
O~
v-
0 f0~
W Z
W
O0
N ~ ~~+,
~~-~ Z
y
Z
W O m
O
~ O
~ 0 L y_
N 0 0
~ o
7
C O+~
u ~ Q~0
U~
O ~ Z Q
~ c~ .Q N M
a.
0
w
a
w
w
F-
C
G
w
Yip
w
CC
C
.~
O ~
C
r
~ N
Z ~ ,V
r N
~~ ~+
7
~ ~ 0
~ C O
N
°
N
N
L
L
f6
0
L
0
0
Q
a
Q
H
V
0
1.~
LI.
N
~
C C U
~ ~
~ ~ o o
o
2 2 N i
~ ~ 2 ~
~ N N >( i
N a
i ~ ~ ~ Y
c~ c~ o o a
+~
L N
N~ ''~^^
LL VJ
,~ L
O y~y
-d
.C y 0
0 ~ +~
~ ~ 'N ~
OONO
N 00+`.~
~~ U~
T~m~~
O' O f~6~1
N ~ ~
°a~~~~
i ~ m0
~~~~,~E
~~~d
.. ..
e- Cad c~
N
~ ~
~ ~
0 r
^
VJ
C
~ '
N
\N /
y
V
C
Q N
~
~ 0
~ ~ ~
~~
~ ~
Y ~ Q~ ~ Q
0 ~ ~m
N U
•
D
0
U
~ ~ C
~
O ~
~
~ p1 pp~ C ~ O (A
MM
T W
O °j ~
Od °j ° 0 '~
O~U ~ ~ O
n1N (~
N
f~
r 3
a~w
°C7 ?
°s
~ Q 0 ~
NY oo
Na~~ O~ pfn
>>~ _a U~ Ud ~ ~ NotS N v,
> L 0.'S o2S LL > N D m (n N
~U ~~ ~~0~ ~U I-~
~.
.Q ..
U ..
'0 ..
N
w
V~
w
m
W
Z
w
Z
Q
.~. .~.
M ~
MINUTES ®F COMMUNITX SERVICES C®MMITTEE MEETING
Third Meeting
M®nday, March 22, 2010, Cor~rnittee R®®nn 2, 4:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Chair Councillor Carolynn loannoni -, Mayor Ted Salci, Councillors: Jim
Diodati, Vince Kerrio, Bart Maves, Wayne Thomson, Janice Wing, Shirley
Fisher and Victor Pietrangelo.
STAFF: Ken Todd, Ken Beaman, Lee Smith, Geoff Holman, Alex Herlovitch, Todd
Harrison, Serge Felicetti, Bill Matson and Marianne Tikky, Steno.
GUEST: Ron Craft, Canadian Niagara Hotels, Tony Zappitelli, Romzap Ltd, Eric
Marcon, 5905 Victoria Avenue (Howard Johnson), Jim DiBellonia,
Americana Resort.
PRESS: Corey Larocque, Niagara Falls Review, Gareth Vieira, Niagara This Week
1) MINUTES
MOVED on the motion of Mayor Salci, seconded by Councillor Thomson that the
minutes of the March 8, 2010 meeting be approved.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council March 22, 2010.
2) REP®RTS:
a) MW-2010-12
Distribution System Summary Report
MOVED on the motion of Councillor Thomson and seconded by Councillor Maves
that this report be received and filed.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council March 22, 2010.
b) PD-2010-24
Growth Plan Conformity Update
MOVED the motion of Councillor Thomson and seconded by Councillor Wing that
the Committee receive this report for information.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council March 22, 2010.
c) FS-2010-03
Report on False Alarm Billings
The representatives from the Americana Resort, Howard Johnson, Canadian
Niagara Hotels and Fallsview BIA advised Council of the following;
-2-
• Financially difficult times,
• Commercial properties being treated unfairly,
• Non-mechanical false fire alarms (malicious activation of alarm),
• Sensitive alarms (dust from changing out vacuum bag could set off
• alarm),
• Charges being laid to quickly
MOVED by Councillor Thomson and seconded by Mayor Salci that the false alarm
fees for the Americana Conference Resort and Spa be deferred and that staff meet
with the BIA executive to obtain input into the existing by-law.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council March 22, 2010.
d) FS-2010-01
Cost Recovery for Emergency Response Related Activity
MOVED by Mayor Salci and seconded by Councillor Wing that Council approve
enacting a by-law to recover costs associated with emergency response related
activities.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council March 22, 2010.
e) FS-2010-05
Contract Extension -Radio Project Manager
MOVED by Councillor Thomson and seconded by Councillor Pietrangelo;
1) That Council approve the expenditure of up to $48,816.00 to secure the
services of Lapp Hancock and Associates for the final phase of the
implementation of the new land mobile radio system.
2) That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute all related
agreements.
Motion: Carried
Action: Recommendation submitted to Council March 22, 2010.
3) A®J®URG~MEN~
MOVED by Mayor Salic, seconded by Councillor Maves that the Community
Services Committee adjourn and move into an In-Camera Session.
Motion: Carried
Conflict: Councillor loannoni -conflict on a In-Camera matter.
MW-2010-11
April 12, 2010
REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works Department
SUBJECT: MW-2010-11
Tender -Weightman Bridge Rehabilitation
Portage Road crossing the Welland River
From Macklem Street to Bridgewater Street
Contract # 2010-152-05
RECOMMENDATION
The contract be awarded to the lowest bidder Rankin Construction Inc. at the
tendered price of $ 3,845,766.50.
2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract
documents.
3. That Ellis Engineering Inc. be awarded the assignment of part-time construction
supervision and Contract Administration for this project in the amount of
$ 127,387.50.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Weightman bridge had been previously identified as a structure in need of either
repair, rehabilitation, or replacement due to deterioration in the condition of the existing
concrete deck, expansion joints and road surface. Council had previously approved the
recommended preliminary investigations, analysis and design, as well as the proposed
implementation plan to proceed with the identified structural rehabilitation of the existing
bridge. This project is part of the approved 2010 Capital Budget.
Tenders for this contract were opened on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 and the lowest bid of
$ 3,845,766.50 received from Rankin Construction Inc. is being recommended for
acceptance. It is also being recommended that the Engineering consultant currently
engaged to complete the investigation, analysis, design and specifications of the required
structural improvements, Ellis Engineering Inc., be retained to provide part-time
construction supervision and contract administration during construction in accordance with
a submitted proposal in the amount of $127,387.50.
April 12, 2010 - 2 -
BACKGR®UN®
MW-2010-11
The proposed Structural Rehabilitation of the Weightman Bridge (Portage Road crossing
the Welland River from Macklem Street to Bridgewater Street) has been an important
priority for implementation since the deteriorated condition of the bridge was initially
identified in 2005. A number of investigations and analyses have been undertaken in order
to determine the best plan to proceed with the rehabilitation, including the following:
• Abridge deck condition survey
• Abridge load capacity evaluation
• A repair/rehabilitation/replacement Analysis for the bridge
• A Public Information Centre held on August 19, 2008 to determine the preferred
implementation plan (two stage construction with the bridge remaining open vs. one
stage with the bridge being closed)
• A Environmental Assessment conducted to determine the preferred alternative to
address the existing utilities on the bridge, in particular the two existing aging cast
irons watermains hanging under the bridge
• Detailed design of the preferred bridge rehabilitation scheme based on the input
and data from the previous investigations
• Detailed design, approvals, tendering and construction of an alternative new
watermain supply route into the Chippawa area
The background history is further detailed in previously approved Report MW-2007-96.
The condition of the existing bridge has been monitored on a regular basis during the
process to track any further deterioration in its condition. Remedial repair works were
implemented in Octoberof 2008 underthe authority of Report MW-2008-58. The remedial
repairs were to provide the desired factor of safety to the existing bridge deck to allow the
Implementation of the full rehabilitation to take place in 2010. This planned rehabilitation
project should address the remaining structural concerns pertaining to the bridge and
provide an estimated structural component life span of 75 years.
The Tender Opening Committee, in the presence of the Manager of Clerk's Services, Mr.
Bill Matson, opened tenders on at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, March 23, 2010 for the above noted
contract.
Tender documents were picked up by ten (10) Contractors and four (4) bids were received.
Listed below is a summary of the totalled tendered prices, excluding GST, received from
the Contractors. The tenders were checked and the corrected bids are shown in bold and
marked with an asterisk (*).
1. Rankin Construction Inc. St. Catharines $ 3,845,766.50
2. ConCreate USL Bolton $ 3,893,630.00
3. Centennial Construction Niagara-on-the-Lake $ 4,442,713.24
$ 4,428,832.14*
4. Brennan Paving Ltd. Markham $ 4,712,800.00
April 12, 2010 - 3 - MW-2010-11
Construction Supervision & Contract Administration
Ellis Engineering Inc. provided an Engineering Fee proposal for Construction Inspection
and Contract Administration services during the implementation of this contract. This
proposal was requested from the consultant due to their involvement in the project to date
and because in-house staff do not have the specialized technical expertise to effectively
administer a bridge construction project. The attached proposal is for an upset limit of
$127,387.50, excluding taxes. The proposed scope of work is to provide a mix of full time
and part time Construction Inspection services based on Construction activities and staff
availability. Consultant senior staff involvement will also be keyed into critical components
of the construction process as well as to address any technical issues that arise. The
consultant has also been requested to act in the role of Payment Certifier to assess the
validity and assist in the processing of contractor claims for extra work/payment.
ANALYSIS/RATI®NALE
The lowest tender was received from Rankin Construction Inc. in the amount of
$3,845,766.50. This contractor has performed similar type projects within the City and the
Niagara Region. We are of the opinion that this contractor is capable of successfully
undertaking this project.
The Tender document included two optional items for the proposed top reinforcing of the
new bridge deck: coated structural steel and Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer (GFRP). The
option of the GFRP reinforcing was recommended by the design consultant as it can
provide an extended life cycle on the bridge deck of 75 years (vs 50 years for the steel
reinforcing). The initial capital cost is higher but the attached cost comparison report from
the consultant, based on the tendered prices from Rankin, indicates a net present value
cost savings in the order of $53,000 utilizing the GFRP.
The Engineer's estimate for this project was $ 3,700,000.00. Timing of tenders for
construction, when the planned schedule permits, can play an important role in how
competitive the market will be, based on prospective bidders work loads. In this case, due
to the preferred implementation methodology of maintaining traffic on the bridge during
construction, the schedule is fairly inflexible if the aim is to complete the project entirely
within one construction season. The project is scheduled to be completed by December
17, 2010 subject to weather delaying restoration works.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATI®NS
This project was approved in the 2010 Capital Budget. The approved expenditures in the
budget was $3,280,158, which was to be funded from the Gas Tax Reserve Fund
($3,087,571) and from Water Reserves ($200,000). The recommended submission of
$ 3,973,154.00 exceeds the budget approval by $692,996. Staff believe that this project
cannot be delayed, as it will be a multi year project with completion some time in 2011. As
a result, additional funding of $692,996 is required to allow the project to move forward.
One option would be to delay another approved project from the 2010 Capital Budget,
however staff recommends that this option not be taken as all of the projects are equally
essential.
April 12, 2010 _4_ MVN-2010-11
Alternatively, staff received confirmation subsequent to the development of the Capital
Budget that the Federal Gas Tax Grant has been announced at the same levels up to
2014. This project is consistent with the intended purposes of such funding and as a
result, the capital budget sheet for this project has been amended to show the new
construction costs and the use of 2011 grants to fund the project.
CITV'S STRATEGIC C®MMITMENT
Implementation of this Capital Project meets the intent of Council's Strategic Priorities to
establish infrastructure investment priorities, and to strengthen and promote economic
development within the City.
0_IST ®F ATTACHMENTS
- Ellis Engineering Inc. proposal for Contract Administration dated March 26, 2010
- Ellis Engineering Inc. Report on Cost Comparison between GFRP and Coated Steel
Reinforcing dated March 24, 2010
- Revised Capital Budget Sheet
Recommeroded by:
Geoff Holma ; ,Dire for of Municipal Works
Respectfully submitted:
Ken To d, Chief Administrative Officer
K. Schachowskoj
S:\REPORTS\2010 Reports\MW-2010-11 -Tender 2010-152-05 Weightman Bridge Rehabilitation.wpd
LOCATION MAC
WeagP~tman fridge Construction
~Il~~~~~~~~~~
L ,
~ ~. e, , .,C~. ~,
~ ~ LA ~ jb 4 L
~~ Qom. N Yom.. h q ~_ ! T ~' t`t ~ .~ r~~i Y ~~ ~ ~ ~ t ' '.
® , ~~' ~ ~.
~ ~ ~,~
~... i' t
.r ~. ~ ~~ ~ °' ~ , c~,~.. ~ ~~~~
- d < ~~- ~ ~ f~s1p',~ ~, ' M
M t ~ ,..
,~,.
.~
~. >~ ~,: z , . , ~~ sp k
- ~ -.~
_ mot. _: '~ ~ ~ r ~,~ ~~~ ~:. ~ ~ rte" i f ~ ~ V ~l ~.
~ - ~ P ~ r: X Fk~~t - -~ -R. t0 , ~ ~%~, c'.~ f r ~ fir. ~7'~~, _ .[ ~4 ?.~.~ .
Y { ._ t Y ~~~~'rl~l.` `fit x t~ .. ! ~f ~'~ 4p,FU l~~iY ~ ~\
y F ~s~{.'2.~ ~t•']°azi~~ r// ~'~~i 31 ~~t a,~-'~L-'~' _ i-\ f ,°c'V.'. _ ~~~z'
o Construction Area
2006 Aerial Photo
Metric Scale
1:1400
April 2010
K:\GIS_Requests\2010\Custom\Internal\Mun Works\WeightmanBridge.map
E~
March 26, 2010
E1J~~~
Engineering Inc.
'>('he City of Niagara )Falls
Municipal Works Department
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
ELLIS Engineering Inc
Consulting Engineers
44 Postmaster Drive
St. Catharines, Ontario,
L2N 7A6
Canada
Tel: (905) 934-9049
Fax:(905) 934-4424
email: elks@ellis.on.ca
Attention: Mr. Kent Schachowskoj, P.Eng.. Project Manager, Municipal Works
Reference: Proposal for Contract Administration and >(nspection for Contract No.
2010-152-05 Weightman Bridge Rehabilitation Portage Road
Crossing the Welland River From Macklem Street to Bridgewater
Street. ®ur File No. 357.
We are pleased to submit our proposal herein to provide consulting engineering services to
complete the Contract Administration and Inspection for the Rehabilitation of Weightman
Bridge (Structure No. S056B), on Portage Road over the Welland River, in the City of Niagara
Falls.
We understand that the project will be awarded very soon and that construction will start in
Apri12010 with a final completion date in December 2010. Our fees are based on 9 months (4
months full and 5 months part time) Contract Administration services in 2010. There is no
allowance for Contract Administration services in 2011.
On behalf of the City, we will ensure that the work conforms to the contract documents,
drawings and specifications. We will carry out the duties of "the payment certifier" pursuant
to he provisions of The Consti°uction Lien Act, S.O. 1983, Chapter 6.
The extent of our duties will be as follows:
General Administration
Advise the construction contractor on the consultant's interpretation of the drawings
and specifications and issue supplementary details and instructions during the
construction period, as required.
2. Review for City's approval the construction schedule proposed by the contractor and
cormnent on the procedures, methods and sequence of work.
.../2
Mr. Kent Schachowskoj, P.Eng., City of Niagara Falls. March 26, 2010. Page No. 2
3. Review shop drawings submitted for general compliance with the design
requirements. Arrange regular site meetings. Minutes to be prepared and distributed
to all parties within seven (7) days.
4. Consider and advise on alternative methods, equipment and materials proposed by
the contractor.
5. Advise on the validity of charges for additions or deletions and advise on the issue of
change orders, when requested, including the preparation of change orders.
6. Approve contractor's progress and final payment certificates.
7. Maintain adequate records related to the construction contracts including the issuance
of weekly working days statement.
8. Working Days form, Payment Certificates and Change Orders are to be prepared in
accordance with the City's Standards.
9. Modify contract drawings to show the `as-built' work and provide reproducible
copies of these drawings to the City.
10. Key personnel will make visits to the site at appropriate times during construction to
review general conformity of the work with plans and specifications.
11. Arrange for the testing and inspection of materials and work, by an authorized
inspection and testing company, where the construction contract calls for such
testing.
12. Attend job meetings as deemed necessary. Record and circulate minutes of the
meetings.
13. Report on the construction to the City with respect to progress, cost and schedules.
14. Obtain warranties and guarantees.
15. Provide a certificate of substantial performance and final completion.
16. Prepare final cost sharing schedule, if applicable.
Construction Inspection
Provide reference line and elevation to the contractor and, where necessary, check the
construction contractor's line and grade.
2. Report to the City and make recommendations if the design consultant determines
that the contractor is not carrying out his work in accordance with the contract
documents or that the contractor's work does not satisfy the intent of the design or
does not substantially conform with plans and specifications.
.../3
Nlr. Kent Schachowskoj, P.Eng., City of Niagara Palls. 1Vlarch 26, 2010. Page No. 3
3. Arrange for all necessary field testing and inspection .of materials and equipment
installed. Results of all tests are to be provided to the City promptly.
4. Investigate, report and advise on unusual circumstances, which come to the
consultant's attention during constilzction.
5. Carry out final inspection at the conclusion of the construction contract, at the end of
the maintenance period and as part of the acceptance program of the City.
6. Obtain and record field information of construction details for the modification of
contract drawings to show the work `as-built'.
7. Maintain sufficient data to determine periodic progress of the work.
8. Review construction contractor's request for payments as to progress, quantities of
work completed and materials delivered to the site and advise the City.
9. Prepare contractor's payment certificates.
Estimated Engineering Fees and Disbursements:
• Contract Administration: We propose to work within an engineering fee having an
upset limit of $127,387.50, as per the detailed breakdown attached. An allowance of
$1,000.00 per month has been included for disbursements.
We propose that the following disbursements be invoiced at cost:
• Mileage Charges: $0.45/km.
• Courier and Special Postage Charges.
• Printing: reports and drawings.
• Sub -Consultants, as required.
All proposed fees exclude G.S.T.
Personnel:
The following Key Personnel will be assigned to the project:
Person
Hourly
hate
• Brian Ellis, P. Eng, Principal Contract Administrator $130
• Duane VanGeest, Contract Administrators Assistant $65
• Kyle Yusek, Site Inspector $40
• J.P. Danko, Engineering Assistant, if required. $85
.../4
Mr. Kent Schachowskoj, P.Eng., City of Niagara Falls. March 26, 2010. Page No. 4
Schedule:
We are prepared to complete the work, as presented herein, up to Construction completion in
2010.
Insurance:
We confirm that Professional Liability Insurance coverage for Ellis Engineering Inc., in the
amount of $2,000,000 per claim and Commercial Genel•al Liability Insurance coverage of
$5,000,000 per claim, will be in place for this project.
Thank you for giving us this opportunity in providing our services, it is greatly appreciated.
Please do not hesitate to contact me to confirm any points.
Yours truly,
EY.LIS Engineering Inc.
~ r,
' ,~:.,,
s ,F j
t
Q r___.
Brian J.J. Ellis, P. Eng
President
Attached. Breakdown of Fee Estimates
and Quarek's Electrical Contract Administration Sei°vices ProBosal.
DATE OF ESTIMATE: March 26, 2010
~>rea~~®w>r~ of Esta>I>~ated Fees
Note: Fees do not include G.S.T.
WEIGHTMAN BRIDGE REHABILITATION -BRIDGE DECK REPLACEMENT
SITE NO. S056B
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
ESTIMATED PART TIME CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION FEES
BASED ON 9 MONTHS
Person Hours
City ®ff Nnag~ra F~ll~s
Hourly
Rate
CONSTRUCTION ADMIN. (4 MNTHS FULL TIME) KY 720 40
CONSTRUCTION ADMINSTRATION (15HRS / WK) DV 607.5 65
SITE VISITS, GENERAL OVERVIEW, MEETINGS BE 270.0 130
AND PAYMENT CERTIFICATION
DISBURSEMENTS ALLOWANCE:
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION ADMIN SERVICES
CONSTRUCTION REPORT AND AS-BUILTS
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING ALLOWANCE (SEE QUARTEK PROPOSAL ATTACHED)
TOTAL FEES FOR TOTAL DURATION OF 9 MONTHS =
$28,800.00
$39,487.50
$35,100.00
$9,000.00
$112,387.50
$5,000.00
$10, 000.00
$127,387.50
r~~~~ ~
~~ l
~; 9
Qua,u~tc~t ~~up
~~~.
• dP~if~ctS
c~sgitreers
:p?a~re
psi
~_. .:,
~~
I~J r0(i! ~~:i.
`E1'i ~ ~.~'.:~r
~~.~~xan
!J=r~aria iJS'jt)
'.fl% ~
' ~ 4u'i 9~A €€? 6
~s~~~~<
37~ ~ rg trice;
?art ia~ksrri r
tlzra-~n i~t41{d
1
5 MAR 2010
Project# 10388
Ellis Engineering Inc
44 Port Master Drive
St Catharines, ON
L2N 7A6
Attn: Mr. Brian Ellis P. Eng
Re: Proposal for Electrical Contract Administration
Weightman Bridge, Niagara Falls.
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your request for a proposal for the above mentioned project.
The following proposal for Electrical contract administration services is based
on our recent phone conversation.
Following are our proposed terms of reference.
Description of Services:
A -General:
Scope of Work;
During the construction phase we would administer the construction
contract generally as follows:
Pre-Construction:
Construction schedule will be reviewed.
Construction Period:
During the construction period, we will be responsible for attending site
meetings, review shop drawing, will monitor electrical portion of contract
and documentation, and will prepare supplementary instructions,
contemplated change orders, site instructions and notices of change.
Shop drawings will be quickly reviewed upon submittal.
Any changes resulting from site conditions or owners requests will be
expedited. Submissions from the contractor will be carefully reviewed and
disputed if they appear to be inappropriate.
Questions arising at the site will be dealt with quickly and, if necessary,
appropriate site instructions will be issued.
i * ~Q5 @l3 %Ge%
f.+ S~ ~35'rd41
Commissioning:
Commissioning phase will begin during the last third of the construction process, with a
review of design intent, and education of staff. As construction is completed,
components and subsystems will be tested as necessary by the contractor and
witnessed by Quartek and certifications secured.
Substantial Performance:
At the time of substantial performance, a deficiency inspection will be scheduled, with
monitoring of remedial measures as required. Construction Record documentation will
be prepared.
Final Completion:
Quartek will continue to monitor completion of deficiencies and outstanding items to
ensure that they are completed quickly and efficiently.
Post Construction:
Respond to queries and issues raised by the Maintenance or Administrative staff during
the first year. We would maintain contact during this year to see if any problems or
issues have arisen or have not been resolved. We prefer that all queries come through
your office but in the case that direct contact has been made with the contractor or any
sub-contractor we would request that we be informed at the same time of the problem
or issue for which this contact has been made. At the end of the year after Substantial
Completion, conduct an inspection with the contractor and staff and prepare a list of any
outstanding required warranty work and monitor this work to ensure completion.
Assumptions:
1. Construction period April 2010 to end of December 2010.
2. 2 site meetings per month (18 total).
B. Fees:
Our fees for the above will be: $7,200.00 (fixed fee) plus applicable taxes.
Reimbursable expenses (travel, printing, phone, fax, courier, etc.) will be charged at
cost, plus applicable taxes. Travel will be charged at $0.50 per kilometre. We suggest
that the following allowance be carried for our reimbursable expenses:
Reimbursable Expenses:
$750.00 (estimate)
For additional services due to changes to the scope of work, the following hourly rates
will be applicable:
Senior Engineer/Designer: $125.00/hr
Site supervisor: $90.00/hr
Engineer-in-training: $75.00/hr
CAD Technologist: $65.00/hr
Clerical: $45.00/hr
We trust that you will find the above proposal acceptable. Should you require any further
information at this time, or wish to discuss any aspect of our proposal, please contact us.
Should you wish to proceed with this work, we will provide you with our "Confirmation of
Assignment" so we may initiate this assignment.
Again thank you for this opportunity.
Yours truly,
Paul Uppal
Senior Electrical Designer
CC. Patrick MacNeill, P.Eng., President, Quartek Group Inc.
~.L..t~l
Engineering Inc.
March 24, 2010
The City of Niagara Falls
Municipal Works Department
4310 Queen Street
Niagara Falls, Ontario
L2E 6X5
ELLIS Engineering Inc
Consulting Engineers
44 Portmester Drive
St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
L2N 7A6
Tel: (905) 934-9049
Fax: (905) 934-4424
Email: ellis@ellis.on.ca
Attention: Ngr. Kent Schachowskoj, P.Eng..
Project Nganager, Ngunicipal Works
Reference: Weightman Bridge Tender Number 2010-152-05 -'g'ender Check Cost
Comparison between GFRP and Coated Reinforcing Steel bars.
We have reviewed the tenders opened for the above mentioned project and are pleased to submit
our cost comparison analysis between GFRP and Coated Steel Reinforcing for the top layer of the
concrete deck of Weightman Bridge.
In our letter dated August 18, 2008 we originally compared the cost of constructing the entire
concrete deck with GFRP or steel reinforcing. It was found that the favourable option was
dependent on the inflation of the material costs and it was recommend to tender the contract with
both GFRP and steel deck reinforcing bar items.
As noted in our letter dated August 18, 2008 the serviceable life of a steel reinforced deck is
generally around 50 years if properly maintained and the serviceable life of a GFRP reinforced
deck is predicted to be 75 years.
Table 1 compares the two options of supplying and install reinforcing in the top layer of the deck
based on Rankin Constniction's tender bid prices.
Table 1: Princi al Construction Cost to Su 1 and gnstall Top Layer of g~eck Reinforcing
Option Cost
Steel $79,960
GFRP $155,630
Construction Cost Difference
between Steel &GFRP $75,670
In comparing the principal amounts it is favourable to use steel reinforcing in the top layer of the
bridge deck as it is $75,670 less expensive than GFRP option.
In the analysis completed in August 2008, we estimated that the principle amount for using
coated reinforcing steel was $159,000 less expensive than using GFRP. The 2008 analysis
covered the cost of both top and bottom layers of deck reinforcing bar.
.../2
Kent Schachowskoj, P.Eng, City of Niagara Falls March 24, 2010- Page 2
To compare the current tender bid options an updated net present value analysis over 75 years
was completed. Tables 2 summarizes the principle construction cost of the project for the two
options based on Rankin Construction's tender bid price.
Table 2: Total contract cost for Steel and GEItP O tions.
O tion Total Cost
Total Contract Cost with Coated Steel Reinforcin $3,690,136.50
Total Contract Cost with GFRP Reinforcin $3,765,806.50
Princi le Difference: $ 75,670.00
The above amounts do not include GST
Table 3 summarizes the results of the updated present value sensitivity analysis based on the
total construction cost of the two options.
Table 3: Present Value Sensitivity Analysis
Option Discount hate
5.30%
2% 3% 4% (Recommended) 6%
1 $4,802,143 $4,414,361 $4,185,618 $3,999,276 $3,930,970
2 $4,890,749 $4,372,331 $4,109,720 $3,945,430 $3,898,070
Favoured
Option OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 2 OPTION 2 OPTION 2
Variation $88;606 -$42,030 -$75,898 -$_53,846 -$32,900
In comparing the principal amounts it is favourable to use steel reinforcing in the top layer of
the bridge deck as it is $75,670 less expensive than GFRP option. However, in the long term
(75 years) the net present value analysis shows that it is favourable to use GFRP reinforcing in
the bridge deck for the rehabilitation.
We recommend it would be favourable to proceed with the GRFP reinforcing option (Total
Contract Cost: $3,765,806.50). Using this option the initial cost of construction will be
increase by $75, 670. However, it is expected that the bridge will have a longer life span and
that over a 75 year period the net present value cost is expected to be $53,000 less.
Should you have any questions concerning this report, please contact the undersigned.
Yours truly,
E~,1LIS En(/g~ineering Inc.
I~ Y-..
r'~
E{7 } J
t f!/( ~ l£
~.
Brian J.J. Ellis, P.Eng.
Attached: Net Present Value Analysis (2 pages)
357 Weightman Bridge
Present Value Sensitivity Analsis
Name of Structure
Site Number
Discount Ratc
Life Cycle for Replacement
Construction Cost without Deck Reinforcing
1NPl"I -i- 7R.I:AT~IPNTS
TC? DETERMINE I'RL•SE;N'f WOR'fl[
Weightman Bridge Deck Replacement
0.053
7s
3,610,177
Treatment Description Corresponding
Alternate Life Cycle
(Years) Cost
1 ~ Deck Replacement (steeQ ~ ] ~ 50 ~ $3,690,137
2 ~ Deck Replacement (GFRP) ~ 2 ii 75 ~ $3,76s,807
3
i Minon Wearing Surface Rehabilitation ~ 1,2 ~ 15 ~ $57,500
4 ~ Concrete Patch Repair ~ 1,2 I 20 ~ $75,000
5 Major Wearing Surface Rehabilitation ~ 1,2 ~ 30 ~ $11s,000
6 ~ Futnre Bridge Deck Replacement (GFRP) ~ 1,2 ~ 75 ~ $3.765,807
~ ~ ~
1NPli'I ..,'.. SI:C;OND CYC1.F RF,P1..;~CF;A-11N"f
T{} DETERMINI3 RFSIDUAI_ VALt;E
Option Description Replacement Cost
Year
1 ~ Deck Rcplacement(steel) ~ 125 $3,765,807
2 ~ Deck Replacemeut(GFRP ~ 75 $3,765,807
i
kESII)iiAL 1•'A1,OFi CALCliLA~'fION~ 'IABLFi
Run By: DV
Date: 23-Mar-10
Option Replacement
Year Cost Residual Value at end
Year of 1st cycle Residual Value at Residual Value
end of 1st cycle at year Zcro
1 125 ~ $3,765,807 ~ s0 ~ $284,734 ~ ($3,481,072) -$72,374
75 ~ $3,76s,807 ~ O $3,76s,807 ~ 0~ 0
3 ~ 0 ~ $0 j -7s ~ $0 ~ 0~ 0
357 Weightman Bridge
Present Value Sensitivity, Analsis
I~Pi!T -3- COS f LJ:~-CA POC2 }iAC[~~I OPTION
Run By: DV
Date: 23-Mar- ] 0
Year Option ] Optimt 2 Option 3 Option 4
Treatment ~ Cost Treatment ~ Cost Treatment ~ Cost Treatment ~ Cost
0 1 ~ $3,690,137 2 ~ $3,765,807
5 ~ ~ I j
10 i I ~
15 3 ~ $57,500 3 ~ $57,500
20 4 ~ $75,000 4 ~ $75,000
20 ~ ~
25 ~ ~ ~ ~
30 5 ~ $ll5,000 5 ~ $115,000 ~ ~
35 ~ I
40 4 ~ $75,000 4 ~ $75,000
45 3 ~ $57,500 3 ~ $57,500
50 6 ~ $3,765,807
55
60 ~ 4,5 $190,000 j
65 3 ( $57,500
70 4 ~ $75,000
75 ~ 6 ~ $3,765,807
Otil'P111' DA"T'A FOR I~,AC1I Oi'PIOK'
Year OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 OPTION 4
Cost Pres.Value Cast Pres.Value Cost j Pres.Value Cost ~ Pres.Value
0 $3,690,136.50 ! $3,690,136.50 $3,765,806.50 $3,765,806.50 0 0 0 0
5 $0.00 50.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 0 0 0
10 $0.00 50.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 0 0 0
15 $57,500.00 $26,499.78 557,500.00 $26,499.78 0 0 0 0
20 $75,000.00 $26,698.93 $75,000.00 $26,698.93 0 0 0 0
20 $0.00 S0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 0 0 ~ 0
25 $0.00 S0.00 $0.00 1 $0.00 0 0 0 0
30 $ I ] 5,000.00 $24,425.68 $115,000.00 $24,425.68 0 0 0 0
35 $0.00 50.00 $0.00 $0.00 0 0 0 0
40 $75,000.00 59,504.44 $75,000.00 $9,504.44 0 0 0 0
45 $57,500.00 55,628.48 $57,500.00 $5,628.48 0 0 0 0
50 $3,765,806.501 $284,734.07 $0.00 $0.00 0 0 0 ~ 0
55 $0.00 50.00 $0.00 50.00 0 0 0 ~ 0
60 $0.00 50.00 $19Q,OOO.OOi 58,571.39 0 0 0 0
65 $57,500.00 S2,003.66 $0.001 $0.00 0 0 0 0
70 $75,000.00 52,018J2 $0.00 $0.00 0 0 0 0
75 $0.00 SOHO 53,765,806.50 $78,29430 0 0 0 0
Total Prescnt Value: 54,071,650 $3,945,430 $0 50
Residual Value : j ($72,374) $0 $0 SO
Nct Present Value : ~ $3,999,276 ~ $3,945,430 ~ $0 i $0
Prescnt Value Sensitivity Analysis
Option Discount Rate
530
2% 3% 4% (Recommended) 6%
I $4,802,143 $4,414,361 $4,185,618 $3,999,276 $3,930,970
2 $4,890,749 $4,372,331 $4,109,720 $3,945,430 $3,898,070
3 $0 50 $0 $0 SO
4 $0 50 $0 $0 $0
Favoured Option OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 2 OPTION 2 OPTION 2
Variation 588.(iOti -542,030 -S75,898 -553,84ti -532,900
Capital Budget Worksheet
2010
Department Municipal Works
Amended April 6, 2010
Capital Management Reference
Purchase
Improvement
Project Name Weightman Bridge Rehabilitation
Construction (new)
Project I.D. # R58 12-3-310058-030000
Development
Project Description Rehabilitation to the structure including deck, handrails, sidewalk and abutments.
CURRENT
ACTUAL
as of December 31, 2009
YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Opening Balance-Jan 01
(surplus)/deficit - 7,413 0 0 0 0
EXPENDITURES
Engineering
Fees/Design/Studies
Land/Building/Furniture/
Equipment
Construction
Road:
Storm Sewer;
Water
Sanitary Sewer;
Sitework/Landscaping
Contingency
Interest Expense
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
FUNDING SOURCES
Special Purpose Reserves
Gas Tax Reserve Fund
Transfer from Operating
Development Charges
Debentures
Land Sale Proceeds
Provincial/Federal Grants
External Contributions
Interest Earned
Other
TOTAL FUNDING SOURCES
Closing Balance-Dec 31
(surplus)/deficit
7,398 130,102
2,950,000 700,000
200,000
16 56 0 0 0 0
7,413 3,280,158 700,000 0 0 0
3,087,571 700,000
200,000
- 3,287,571 700,000 - - -
7,413 0 0 0 0 0
MW-2010-15
~~~~~~`~ `~~`~~ April 12, 2010
REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair
Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works Department
SUBJECT: MW-2010-15
Chippawa Boat Doclc -Update Report
RECOMMENDATION
That the report be received for the information of Council.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Chippawa Boat Dock located near the abutment of the Weightman Bridge was
installed a decade ago as a business development initiative of the Chippawa BIA. The BIA
has become defunct and issues concerning the ownership, maintenance and liability need
to be addressed. The local business community and residents have recently shown some
interest in reinstating the docks.
The City will be rehabilitating the Weightman Bridge this summer which would have
necessitated the removal of the docks, in any case, for this season. Staff is recommending
that we use this time to determine if a formal agreement can be arranged with local
interests.
BACFCGROUND
The Chippawa Boat dock was constructed in 1999 in an effort initiated by the Chippawa
Business Improvement Area (BIA) to provide access for local residents and tourists to the
Welland River for recreational purposes. The BIA ceased to exist in 2004 leaving the boat
dock as both an asset (financial) and a liability (risk) of City of Niagara Falls. Much of the
remaining structure has been salvaged due to the goodwill efforts of the owner of the
Riverside Inn (Mr. Sam Bielich). It has been made clear that Mr. Bielich no longer wishes
to take on this responsibility and recently portions of the dock were dismantled and stored
near the Chippawa Boat Ramp.
City Council, at its meeting on November 16'h, 2009, considered the staff
recommendations outlined in report PRC-2009-031 and directed staff to investigate the
best possible uses for the boat docks. Much of the discussion focused on three possible
options;
1. Expand the existing Municipal Boat Ramp,
2. Pursue interest from the Dock Owner's Association, or,
3. Advertise the docks for public sale.
Staff held a Public Meeting on February 23, 2010 at the Chippawa Lion's Club to gather
public feedback (see attachment 2). The majority of the participants expressed interest in
reinstating the boat dock subject to the resolution of a number of issues related to safety,
April 12, 2010 -2- MW-2010-15
ownership and maintenance. It was discussed that the formation of a citizen committee
or the reformation of the Chippawa BIA could be an effective way to address the issues
moving forward.
ANALYSIS AN® RATIONALE
The Chippawa BIA has not been functioning as an active entity since 2004 and in 2008 the
remaining assets were returned to the City in accordance with the provisions of the
Municipal Act. The east side of the Welland River is owned by the Niagara Parks
Commission who has had no objection to the dock location subject to verification of proper
insurance and indemnity from any claims. There have been requests to relocate the dock
to the west side of the Welland River which is owned by Ontario Power Generation (OPG).
Likewise, OPG is looking to the City to assume any responsibility and liability.
City staff acknowledge the interest of the business community to attract residents and
tourists to this area and think that the dock can help to stimulate business activity in this
area. There are concerns however, that the reinstatement of the docks in this area might
legitimize and attract unwanted use and illegal activity such asjumping offthe Weightman
Bridge, vandalism and loitering.
The impending rehabilitation and partial closure of the Weightman Bridge this summer
gives City staff and local interests an opportunity to address some of these issues in time
for reinstatement next year. For this reason the docks have been removed and stored at
the Service Centre. Staff are recommending that we continue our discussions with area
residents and business owners over the course of the summer to see if the reinstatement
option is indeed viable.
FINANCIAL/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
The issue of ownership and liability is a key consideration forthe City. Municipal BIA's are
covered under the City's insurance however it will be necessary to establish proper
procedures for inspection and regular maintenance to mitigate the risk it will assume as an
owner. Over the past two years the City has received two claims. This added responsibility
may have an impact on the operating budget. For these reasons staff are recommending
that the City assume a coordination role only.
COMMITMENT TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Implementation of these works meets the intent of Council's Strategic Priorities to establish
infrastructure investment priorities and to strengthen and promote economic development
within the City.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Plan
2. Minutes of Public Meeting, February 23, 2010.
April 12, 2010 _3_ MUV-2010-15
Recornrraeraded by:
Respectfully submitted:
Geoff H Iman, Director of Municipal Works
Ken odd, Chief Administrative Officer
S:\REPORTS\2010 Reports\MW-2010-15 - Chippawa Boat Dock Report.wpd
April 12, 2010
-4-
ATTACHMENT 1
f1AW-2010-15
Chippawa Boat Docks
___ - f -Y
/~.;)
Niagara,Falls
CANADA
R&C-2010-09
Apriil 12, 2010
REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
Sl96dVIITTE® BY: Recreation & Culture
SUfB.~ECT: R&C-2010-09 - SIIB. F. Ker Perk Concessoora Agreerv~emt
RECOIVIN9EIV®AT9O1V
That a license agreement between GNBA and the City of Niagara Falls to operate
the concession May 1 -September 15, 2010 at M. F. Ker Park be approved.
2. That Council approve the by-law listed later on the April 12, 2010 agenda
authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to execute the necessary agreement.
EXECtJT@VE SUSVEIIAARY
Greater Niagara Baseball Association (GNBA) Ladies Auxiliary operates the concession at
Oakes Park with proceeds going to the Greater Niagara Baseball Association. GNBA has
requested the opportunity to expand the GNBA Ladies Auxiliary concession operations to
M. F. Ker Park starting May 1, 2010 to the end of the playing field season September 15,
2010.
M. F. Ker Park concession is available for a community organization to operate for the
spring and summer seasons.
BACF(GROl9fV®:
The City owned concession located at M. F. Ker Park was operated by the Minor Boys'
Softball Association Ladies Auxiliary from 1981 to 2006. The Niagara Men's Fastball
League operated the concession in 2007 and four times last summer to provide food and
beverages at their tournaments.
AG~ALYSIS/RATIONALE
In 2010, no local sport organizations that obtain permits for M. F. Ker Park for their practices
and games are interested in operating the M. F. Ker Park concession.
Staff supports the signing of the Agreement with the Greater Niagara Baseball Association
(GNBA) to permit the GNBA Ladies Auxiliary to operate the M. F. Ker concession.
April 12, 2010 - 2 - R&C-2010-09
FIfVA~VCIAL/STAFFIBVG/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
The agreement will be for one season, May 1 -September 15, 2010, with an option to
renew in 2011. The organization will be responsible for receiving all approvals related to
food services and acquiring the necessary insurance. The GNBA shall comply and observe
all statutory requirements, regulations, rules and/or bylaws of Canada, Ontario and
municipal or other authorities.
All profits derived from the concession operation shall be devoted exclusively to the GNBA
Ladies Auxiliary.
Prepared by:
Kathy Moldenhauer, Manager of
Development
12espectfully submitted:
icy & Community
Todd, Chief Administrative Officer
R:\Recreation &Culture\R&C-2010-09-Ker Park Concession.wpd
Niagara~alls
R&C-2010-08
April 12, 2010
REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
SUBMITTED BY: Recreation & Culture
SUBJECT: R&C-2010-08
Request for Proposal -RFP P09-2010 Supply and Delivery of
Over the Counter Cold Beverages, Vending and Related
Equipment
RECOMMENDATION
That the proposal from Coca-Cola Canada for the Supply and Delivery of Over the
Counter Cold Beverages, Vending and Related Equipment at the Gale Centre and
Chippawa Willoughby Memorial Arena be approved.
2. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary contract
documents.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Request for Proposal for Supply and Delivery of Over the Counter Cold Beverages,
Vending and Related Equipment (P09-2010) closed on February 19, 2010. Proposals
were received from Pepsi Bottling Group and Coca-Cola Canada.
Evaluation of these proposals was completed on March 9, 2010, and Coca-Cola Canada
was selected as the preferred supplier. Staff have informed the Gale Centre concession
operator, FRT Hospitality of the above recommendation.
The term of the agreement is for three years commencing at a mutually agreed upon date,
no later than June 30, 2010 with an option to extend for an additional two years to supply
and deliver over the counter cold beverages, vending and related equipment at the Gale
Centre and Chippawa Willoughby Memorial Arena.
BACFCGROUND
In addition to price, the evaluation of the two proposals was based on the following
predetermined categories:
1. Quality and completeness of the proposal submission, compliance with all RFP
requirements and the professionalism of the proposal submission.
2. Capacity to perform, including financial ability, related experience and knowledge
of local market condition and proven experience in the marketplace.
3. Pricing and related requirements including commission rates.
4. Nature of product, including quality, type and diversity.
April 12, 2010 - 2 - R&C-2010-08
5. References for projects of a similar score or magnitude.
6. Proposed advertising allowance and sponsorship commitments.
Pepsi Bottling Group and Coca-Cola Canada both have significant experience and
knowledge in over the counter and beverage vending. Their products are competitively
priced for fountain and over the counter beverages. Both companies provide excellent
product lines including a variety of beverages in canned and fountain format.
FRT Hospitality, the Gale Centre concession operator, is aware that they will be required
to use the same supplier for their over the counter cold fountain beverages.
ANA~VSIS/RATI®~IALE
The proposal from Pepsi Bottling Group states a higher vending commission rate of 30%
compared to Coca-Cola Canada's15%, but a lower annual performance allowance of
$2500 compared to $5000 from Coca-Cola. Coca- Cola has also added $1500 in product
annually for marketing purposes.
Staff examined current vending revenues to determine possible future revenue from
vending commissions. The chart below outlines financials based on different revenue
scenarios.
Company Performance Commission Projected Vending AAarketing Annual
Name Allowance Rate Revenue Fund Financials
& Commission
Scenarios
Pepsi Bottling $2500/year 30 % @ $5,000 NA $4000
Group $1,500
$2500/year 30 % @ $15,000 NA $7000
$4,500
$2500/year 30 % @ $20,000 NA $8500
$6, 000
Coca-Cola $5000/year 15 % @ $5,000 $1500 $7250
Canada $750 in product ($5750)
$5000/year 15 % @ $15,000 $1500 $8750
$2,250 in product ($7250)
$5000/year 15 % @ $20,000 $1500 $9500
$3,000 in product ($8000)
Staff recommend Coca-Cola Canada based on a greater annual financial cash
commitment and added value through a marketing fund and performance allowances.
FI~IABVCIAL IIVIPLICATIOIVS
The Business Plan forthe Gale Centre projected that $15,000 would be generated through
vending machine sales. It is anticipated that Gale Centre vending revenue will be lower
than projected for the following reasons:
concessions will be operated for longer hours at the new facility resulting in a
reduction in the number of units sold through vending machines.
in the past, plastic bottles including water and Gatorade were available in the
vending machines. With the City's ban on plastic bottles, only beverages sold in can
April 12, 2010 - 3 - R&~C-2010-08
format will be available in the vending machines. Canned beverages are less
expensive than the larger format plastic bottles and therefore, produce less
revenue. In addition, water and Gatorade, traditionally popular choices, are not
available in can format.
• performance allowances offered by the two companies are lower than originally
anticipated.
As a result, staff estimate that annual vending machine revenue will be closer to $10,000.
CITY'S STRATEGIC COIVIIVIITIVIENT
Council's Strategic Priorities state "move forward with the Arena complex development
project". By issuing the RFP and recommending a proponent, staff continue to work
towards maximizing potential revenue opportunities at the Gaie Centre, scheduled to
open in June, 2010.
Prepared by:
athy Moldenhauer, IVlanager Policy and
Community Development
Respec~FulBy subrv~etted: '" "`
Ke Todd, Chief Administrative Officer
R:\R&C-2010-08 -Request for Proposal -RFP-P09-2010 -Supply and Deliv.wpd
~~
Niagara,Falls
CA(~A DA
P®-2010-29
April 12, 2010
I~EP®RT T®: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair
and IVlembers of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
SUBMITTE® BV: Planning & Development
SU6.9ECT: P®-2010-29
Commercial Building & Facade Improvement Grant Application
CB&FIG-2010-002, 4519-4525 (queen Street
Sal and Mary ®iPietro
IZEC®MMEIV®ATIOIV
1. That the Committee recommend to Council the approval of the Commercial Building
and Facade Improvement Grant for 4519-4525 Queen Street subject to the owners
satisfying all the program requirements including all necessary permits and entering
into an agreement with the City.
2. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute the grant agreement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMAl2V
The application can be supported because:
the item of improvement is eligible under the Commercial Building & Facade
Improvement Grant Program;
sufficient funds are available in the CIP reserve account; and
the work will improve the condition of a building with the Downtown CIP area.
BACKGR®UN®
The City has received an application for a grant for the repair and replacement of a flat roof
at 4519-4525 Queen Street. Committee may recall that this subject property was recently
subject to a facade grant which was approved for three new awnings. It was only recently
that the owner learned that the roof needed to be repaired. Based upon the Commercial
Building component of the financial incentive program, the owner would be eligible for the
maximum grant of 50% up to $10,000. The lowest roof repair -estimate is $15,600.
Therefore, the owner is eligible to receive $7,800.
AIVALVSIS
The proposed repair and replacement of the flat roof complies with the eligibility items
contained in the Commercial Building and Facade Improvement Program. This work will
maintain the usability of the building for many years into the future.
April 12, 2010 - 2 -
FIIVAfVC@AL_ 9MP~9CATEONS
PD-2010-29
If approved, the funding for this grant will come from the existing CIP reserve for
Downtown.
C@TV'S STI~A7'EC7BC C®IVIIVI9TIVEEN~'
The approval of the grant application will comply with the City's strategic commitment by
implementing the financial incentive programs of the Downtown CIP and encourage the
continued improvement of commercial buildings in the area.
t_~ST ®F ATTACHnIIEfVTS
- Appendix 1 -Location map of the subject property.
Recorxamended by:
IE~espectfa~l9y subs~6tfed:
BBolibruck:gd
Attach.
l~~ I ~ ~,,~,-m ~
Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning & Development
Keh Todd, Chief Administrative Officer
S:\PDR\2010\PD-2010-29, CB&FIG-2010-002,4519-4525 Queen Street.wpd
April 12, 2010 - 3 - PD-2010-29
APPIEY~®BX 'B
~°SIl~, ~~~1 ~ave6 ~~2~ ~an~~uv ~~r~~
~o~~~o®o~ Pq~px
February 2010
~NJCJ~? ~0~]d~
;;
Niagara,Falls
TS-2010-23
April 12, 2010
REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair
and Members of the Community Services Committee
City of Niagara Falls, Ontario
SUBMITTED BY: Transportation Services
SUBJECT: TS-2010-23
Falls Shuttle Service Enhancement
RECOMMENDATION
That Council approve the proposed enhancements to the Falls Shuttle service.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Transit staff are interested in making enhancements to the Falls Shuttle service to better
market the seasonal program. Historically, the system involved the provision of service
along Lundy's Lane (Red Route), the Downtown Core/Niagara Helicopter area (Green
Route), and the Table Rock/Marineland/Fallsview areas (Blue Route). These routes began
and finished operation at different times of the Spring and Fall and required transfers to
move from the Downtown core (Bus Terminal) through to Table Rock. With the arrival of
the GO Transit rail and bus service, the additional ridership into the Downtown core has
created challenges for customers to efficiently and quickly travel to the tourism sectors.
To ensure acceptance of this service adjustment, Transit staff sent letters to the City's
Business Improvement Area's outlining the proposal and requesting any concerns be
brought forward by Friday, March 26, 2010. The deadline was required to allow Transit
Supervisory staff the time to amend the Bus Operators' schedules and to design and
produce the requisite marketing materials to successfully promote the service. As no
concerns were received by March 26, Transit personnel will initiate the following changes
Friday, May 21, 2010;
Operate the Red, Green, and Blue routes for the Falls Shuttle season. Thus, the
Green and Blue route would simply become the Green route and would be in
operation from Victoria Dayweekend through Canadian Thanksgiving. Historically,
the Red and Green routes ran throughout the season, but the Blue route ran only
from the end of June through Labour Day weekend.
Eliminate the service provided on Friday and Saturdays after the Canadian
Thanksgiving weekend to the American Thanksgiving weekend when very little
ridership is realized.
End each daily schedule one hour earlier. Thus, the two routes would end each day
by 1:30 a.m. Counts from 2009 have indicated the service provided beyond 1:30
a.m. has extremely poor ridership.
April 12, 2010 - 2 - TS-2010-23
Staff are confident these adjustments will make it much more convenient for customers to
understand and thus, choose this transportation option when visiting our community.
Further, the hours have simply been redistributed and therefore, costs have not increased
with these amendments.
BACKGROUND
The Falls Shuttle is an additional level of municipal transit service, which has been
provided by Niagara Falls Transit through the busier summer season for more than twenty
years. Each May Victoria Day weekend the service resumes and continues through to the
American Thanksgiving. The buses run on hourly service intervals prior to the end of June
and after Labour Day. Beginning the end of June until Labour Day the buses operate on
half hour headways to better service and accommodate the increased visitor traffic. In
addition, during this Summer service period, another route (Blue Route) is provided to
service the Table Rock Facility, Upper Rapids View parking lot, Marineland, and the
Fallsview Boulevard attraction areas.
Therefore, during the prime visitation window of late June through Labour Day, the only
change will be the elimination of service beyond 1:30 a.m. Further, staff are confident the
combination of the Green and Blue routes will make it far easier to understand and market
the service to potential customers. Also, the implementation of the Blue route on a full time
basis provides access to Table Rock and Marineland for the duration of the Falls Shuttle
season. This is especially helpful when tourists arrive via the GO Train and are able to
travel directly to Queen Victoria Park via a Niagara Falls Transit Falls Shuttle bus. Staff
is optimistic this service will be provided by GO Train once again, and anxiously await an
announcement.
ANALYSIS/RATIONALE
Marketing public transit options to a visitor has to remain simple and concise. In the
current challenging economic climate, it becomes even more imperative to produce
attractive marketing programs, which will generate ridership for the municipality, as well as
drive business to the many attractions and hospitality conveniences this community has
to offer. The Falls Shuttle service amendments, which have been shared with the BIA's,
will further enable Transit staff to make all the necessary operational and marketing
adjustments to better attract and serve customers.
FINANCIAL/STAFFING/LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
As noted, there are no financial or staffing implications because the service enhancements
simply involve a redistribution of hours.
April 12, 2010 - 3 - TS-2010-23
CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMEfVT
This initiative is supported by Council's Strategic Priorities, which include developing and
implementing a comprehensive Transportation Plan and, strengthen and promote
economic development within the City.
Recommended by:
Karl Dren, Director of Transportation Services
Respectfully submitted:
Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer
D. Stuart