Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2010/09/20
1) Approval of the August 30, 2010 Community Services Minutes. 2) REPORTS: STAFF CONTACT: a) CD- 2010 -09 Bellevue Street Property (Glenholme Avenue Road Allowance) Dean Iorfida b) CD- 2010 -10 Chippawa Boat Dock Update Dean Iorfida c) TS- 2010 -46 Inter - Municipal Transit Pilot Project Karl Dren 3) NEW BUSINESS: 4) ADJOURNMENT: PORATE SERVICES COM Monday, September 20, 2010 City Hall, Committee Room #2A & B a) Resolution to go into Closed Meeting. ERA S-ESSIO Niagara& s September 20, 2010 REPORT TO: Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Clerks Department SUBJECT: CD- 2010 -09 Bellevue Street Property (Glenholme Avenue Road Allowance) RECOMMENDATION 1. That Council consider selling the Glenholme Avenue Road Allowance on the open market, or; 2. That the City provide grants, equal to the value of land, servicing costs and permit fees for the Bellevue Street Property (Glenholme Avenue Road Allowance) to one of the organizations that have expressed an interest in the property. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The matter of the Bellevue Street Property ( Glenholme Avenue Road Allowance) has been before Council on two previous occasions. There continues to be interest in the property by various institutional and social entities in the community. The City's Official Plan currently encourages the provision of surplus land for affordable housing. Both proposals presented to the City have a social value and it is difficult to recommend one over the other. In terms of the municipality's interest, staff feels it is incumbent, in light of continued budget challenges, to recommend selling the property on the open market. BACKGROUND CD- 2010 -09 In April 2009, Council approved providing a grant equal to the costs of the land and various permits. The land was to be used by Niagara Regional Housing (NRH) to accommodate a house being donated by the Nieuwesteegs. The Niagara Catholic District School Board (NCDSB) was also a partner in the project. Due to the moving costs exceeding the costs of building new, NRH pulled out of the project. Council's approval was contingent upon approval of the partners (NRH, NCDSB and the Nieuwesteegs) and the project going ahead. If the project was not to go ahead, it was stipulated that the City would keep the property; therefore, any Council approval did not transfer to subsequent proposals. Subsequently, the NCDSB looked to partner with Gateway Residential & Community Support Services. The house would have been used as geared to income housing for persons with mental health issues. Concurrently, Habitat for Humanity expressed an September 20, 2010 - 2 - CD- 2010 -09 interest in the property. The Niagara District School Board of Niagara would be a partner in Habitat's efforts. Similar to other Habitat projects, a home would have been built on the property for a family in need. As a result, Council had two worthy, yet competing, expressions of interest in the property. At the request of Gateway, the matter was deferred when it was on the agenda in February. In reviewing pending items, staff sent correspondences to the various parties to gauge their current interest. Habitat remains interested in the property. Although Gateway is no longer interested, the NCDSB has a new partner in the YMCA and have requested to make a presentation to Council in September. ANALYSIS /RATIONALE The analysis, of whether to provide a grant equal to the value of of land, servicing costs and permit fees, remains unchanged from report MW- 2010 -09. A sale of the property on the open market could realize the municipality revenues of $65,000, building permit and development charges and future tax revenues. As noted during the recent Official Plan (OP) exercise, the OP states: City shall dispose of surplus lands suitable for residential use for the purpose of affordable housing development by non - profit organizations. Similarly, various boards, commissions and agencies shall be encouraged to dispose of surplus lands suitable for residential use for the purpose of affordable housing development. Based on Council's recent feedback, the policy will likely change during the OP review, however, it does provide justification for Council to consider a donation of the land. As outlined in MW- 2010 -09 the Habitat for Humanity proposal would incur greater relief at the outset but would realize property taxes going forward. More details are required on the latest proposal from the NCDSB. Because it involves the moving of an existing house, grants equal to building permit and development charges are likely unnecessary, however, property taxes may not be applicable depending on the end use. The property owners of the house (the Nieuwesteegs) want to make a final decision on its disposition. FINANCIAL /STAFFING /LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The financial implications would be similar to those outlined in MW- 2010 -09. It should be noted that Development Charges have decreased based on recent indexing. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT If the land was to be sold on the open market, it would meet the strategic commitment of identifying alternative sources of revenues. It has been noted that the Official Plan currently encourages surplus land for affordable residential housing. September 20, 2010 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Recommended by: Respectfully submitted: DI - 3 - • Recent correspondences with the interested parties. • MW- 2010 -09 • BS- 2009 -01 CD- 2010 -09 Dean Idrfida, City CI Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer (9/7/2010) Dean lorfida - RE: Bellevue Street Property Page 1 From: Dean Iorfida To: John Crocco CC: Ed Nieuwesteeg; Marco Magazzeni; Ted Salci Date: 7/30/2010 9:31 AM Subject: RE: Bellevue Street Property Thanks John for the quick reply. Our meeting in September is on the 20th. We can bring the matter forward for that date. Just a point of clarification, the Council approval for the Bellevue property was in association with a proposal in which Niagara Regional Housing was the lead organization. Council's approval was contingent upon approval of the partners (NRH, NCDSB and the Nieuwesteegs) and the project going ahead. If that project was not to go ahead the city would keep the property; therefore, any Council approval did not transfer to the subsequent proposal or interest by Gateway and its partners. If I need anything further, I will be in touch and will contact you closer to the date with times etc. Thanks Dean »> "Crocco, John" <john.croccoOncdsb.com> 7/30/2010 12:05 AM »> Hi Dean... Thank you for the email and the voice mail that I picked up in my office earlier tonight. We continue to plan that we are retaining the Bellevue property for our community based project and shortly we expect a letter from the YMCA confirming our partnership and their ownership of the house on the Bellevue property. We would like to present at the September City Council meeting to confirm that the City will transfer the land to the Y (from Gateway as originally approved) and we can then move forward to move the house. The transfer of the land from Gateway to the Y remains within the same criteria and requirements as the City approved to Gateway last year. Our substantial list of community partners involved with moving and setting up the Peer Street house on the Bellevue property remains intact including we trust, the City in waiving permits etc as originally approved and noted in our documentation. This project will be an extraordinary major community partnership for the City of Niagara Falls. Can you confirm the date of the September Council meeting so that we could be present when this will be discussed by City Council and to make a formal presentation and /or to answer questions of Council ? Thanks Dean...appreciate all of your coordination and support. John Original Message From: Dean Iorfida J mailto :diorfida@niagarafalls.cal Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:34 PM To: Crocco, John Cc: Ted Salci Subject: Bellevue Street Property Hi John: (9/7/2010) Dean lorfida - RE: Bellevue Street Property Page 2 I left you a voice mail to this effect but figured I'd drop you a quick e-mail: If the NCDSB is still interested in the Bellevue Street property, please provide me with something in writing outlining your interest, any partners involved and any expectations you have of the municipality, in addition to the provision of the land (i.e., any in -kind services etc.). As you know other organizations have also expressed an interest in the property. Thanks Dean Dean Iorfida, City Clerk Niagara Falls 905 - 356 -7521, Ext. 4271 905 - 356 -9083 (Fax) Please consider the environment before printing this email. This email, including any attachments, is the property of the Niagara Catholic District School Board. This information is intended only for the use of the individual to whom, or entity to which, it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and then permanently delete this message. Mr. John Crocco, Director of Education Niagara Catholic District School Board 427 Rice Road Welland, ON L3C 7C1 -and- Mr. Ed Nieuwesteeg c/o Patterson Funeral Home 6062 Main Street Niagara Falls, ON L2G 5Z9 �t)Irtn Dear Gen /emen: Niagaraaalls July 2, 2010 Re: Bellevue Street Property (Glenholme Road Allowance), Niagara Falls As you will recall on February 22, 2010, Niagara Falls City Council deferred a decision on what to do with the municipally -owned property noted above. At the time, the Gateway of Niagara organization, in partnership with you, expressed an interest in the property. Anecdotally, the City has learned that Gateway of Niagara is no longer interested in the property. Please let the undersigned know of your organization's intentions vis a vis this property, as soon as possible. Sil�cerely, gt(4- Dean Iorfida City Clerk nada =L2E6X5 905 -356 -7521 'www.nia.arafails.ca Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerks Department Ext 4271 Fax 905 - 356 -9083 diorfida @niagarafalls.ca Mr. John Crocco, Director of Education Niagara Catholic District School Board 427 Rice Road Welland, ON L3C 7C1 -and- Mr. Ed Nieuwesteeg c/o Patterson Funeral Home 6062 Main Street Niagara Falls, ON L2G 5Z9 Dear Gen(lemen: Niagaraaalls July 2, 2010 Re: Bellevue Street Property (Glenholme Road Allowance), Niagara Falls As you will recall on February 22, 2010, Niagara Falls City Council deferred a decision on what to do with the municipally -owned property noted above. At the time, the Gateway of Niagara organization, in partnership with you, expressed an interest in the property. Anecdotally, the City has learned that Gateway of Niagara is no longer interested in the property. Please let the undersigned know of your organization's intentions vis a vis this property, as soon as possible. Dean Iorfida City Clerk )N, anada 12E 6X5 905- 356 -7521 wwwniagarafalls.ca Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerks Department Ext 4271 Fax 905 - 356 -9083 diorfida @niagarafalis.ca Alastair Davis, Chief Executive Officer Habitat for Humanity Niagara 150 Bunting Road St. Catharines, Ontario L2P 3G5 Dear Mr. Davis: NiagaraaIJs C1 N A D A July 22, 2010 Re: Bellevue Street Property (Glenholme Road Allowance), Niagara Falls As you will recall on February 22, 2010, Niagara Falls City Council deferred a decision on what to do with the municipally -owned property noted above. At the time, Council had a couple of worthy, yet competing, interests in the property. Please let the undersigned know of your organization's intentions regarding this property, at your earliest convenience. Also, if you could outline, in addition to the provision of the lot, any other consideration you would want from the municipality. Si • cerely, Dean Ior da City Clerk iL c. Mr. Warren Hoshizaki, Director of Education, District School Board of Niagara 4310 Queen Street, P.O. Box 1023, Niagara Falls, ON Canada _L_2E 6X5 905- 356 -7521 www.niagarafalls.ca Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerks Department Ext 4271 Fax 905 - 356 -9083 diorfida @niagarafalls.ca Niagara 1a is REPORT TO: SUBMITTED BY: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: BACKGROUND: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair and Members of the Community Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Municipal Works MW- 2010 -09 Glenholme Avenue Road Allowance MW-2010-09 February 22, 2010 1. The Council consider selling the Glenholme Avenue Road Allowance on the open market, or; 2. That the City provide grants, equal to the value of land and servicing costs for the Glenholme Avenue Road Allowance to Habit for Humanity Niagara as is and that no other funds be provided or liabilities be assumed by the City. On April 6, 2009, City Council approved report BS- 2009- 01(attached) to provide a grant equal to the costs of the land and costs for various permits known as the Glenholme Avenue Road Allowance located on Bellevue Street. The land was to be used by Niagara Regional Housing (NRH) to accommodate a house being donated by the Nieuwesteeg's. Due to the moving costs exceeding the costs of building new, NRH has indicated it is not in a position to participate in the project (see attached letter). The City has received requests from two groups to use the property, Habitat for Humanity Niagara (HFHN) and Gateway. Based on Habitats partnership with the District School Board of Niagara and return on investment to the community, staffs recommendation is that a grant, equal to the value of the land as is and various servicing /permit costs of the Glenholme Avenue Road Allowance, be given to HFHN if Council chooses not to sell the lot on the open market. I n April 2008, the City received a letter from DSBN (attached) requesting that the City enter into a partnership with DSBN and HFHN by donating a lot to construct a home for an "At Need Family" in Niagara Falls. Staff met with HFHN and DSBN officials to discuss opportunities and provided information as to lots that were surplus to the City. Habitat reviewed the list and indicated which of the lands would be suitable for their needs. During this time the City was also contacted by the Nieuwesteeg's, NRH and the Niagara Catholic District School Board (NCDSB) to discuss the concept of moving a single family home that the Nieuwesteeg's owned on Peer Street to the Glenholme Avenue Road Allowance located on Bellevue Street. This resulted in report BS- 2009 -01 House Moving Concept that was presented to Council on April 6, 2009. As a result, Council approved that February 22, 2010 -2- MW- 2010 -09 the City provides Grants equal to the costs of the lot and various permit costs. At the September 14, 2009 Council meeting Alister Davies of Habitat made a presentation to Council regarding their activities and looking to the City to partner with them. The partnership would require the City to provide a lot and waive associated fees such as development charges and building permits. Council took no action with regards to the presentation as was indicated to Mr. Davies that the City was already involved with NRH and NCDSB with respect to the Glenholme Avenue Road Allowance. On December 2, 2009, the City was informed by NRH that they were no longer interested in pursuing the project as the costs to move the home would exceed the costs to build a new structure. As a result, staff met with John Osczypko of Gateway Residential and Community Support Services. Gateway requested (attached) that they take the place of NRH and be provided the same considerations as per report BS- 2009 -01. The house will be used to provide geared to income housing for persons with mental health issues. Gateway staff support is provided three times a week and additional support as needed. Gateway is looking to create three apartment units which would require rezoning. ANALYSIS: The projects are similar in nature in that they provide an opportunity for high school students to gain practical hands -on experience. In the case of the Habitat project more experience would be gained as the project involves the construction of a new home as opposed to preparing an existing home for a move and converting it to a triplex. The Habitat project provides affordable housing for a family at need which has been demonstrated as a method of breaking the cycle of poverty. Studies carried out by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation with respect to Habitat projects have identified the following. • 36% or Tess reliant on Social Assistance. • 53% noticed improvement in child behaviour. • 33% moved onto better jobs. • 24% of parents went back to school. • 39% showed remarkable improvement in children school grades. The Gateway project will provide three units of geared -to- income housing for individuals "in need" within the community. The provision of housing for those individuals with mental health issues will provide a stable environment and support system. By providing this stable environment, the individual can focus on their health maintenance and recovery. In Tight of the current budget challenges facing the City, Council should consider selling the road allowance which will potentially result in revenues of $65,000 to the City. FINANCIAL: The following costs would be applicable for both projects; • Opportunity lost for lot $65,000.00 • Servicing (water and sewer) $14,000.00 February 22, 2010 -3- MW- 2010 -09 Servicing Permit Phase 1 Environmental Audit For the Gateway Project the following additional fees would be applicable; Foundation permit Demolition permit Permit to convert to Triplex Rezoning to a Triplex For the Habitat Project the following additional fees would be applicable; Building permit City Development charges Both projects are requesting a waiver of all of the costs and fees. In addition the Gateway does not pay property taxes for the facilities that it owns. It is anticipated that the Habitat project would generate $2,500 in yearly property taxes of which approximately $840 would be realized by the City. It should be made clear that the property is provided as is and that no other funds be provided or liabilities be assumed by the City. STRATEGIC COMMITMENT: Under the Housing Strategy of the Official Plan it states that the policies, "are intended to guide the provision of housing which is affordable." Accordingly, the City has made a commitment to provide opportunities for affordable housing in the City. ATTACHMENTS: 1. BS- 2009 -01. 2. Niagara Regional Housing letter, December 2, 2009. 3. District School Board of Niagara letter, April 25, 2008 4. Habitat for Humanity Niagara letter, November 25, 2009. 5. Gateway Residential and Community Support Services letter, November 12, 2009. Recommended by: $ 225.00 $ 2,000.00 Total Costs $81,225.00 $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $ 600.00 $3,300.00 Total Costs $4,200.00 $ 1,129.29 $10,000.00 Total Costs $11,129.29 Ed Dujlovic, Ex- cutive Director of Community Services Respectfully Submitted by: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer S: \REPORTS\2010 Reports \MW - 2010 -09 - Glenholme Avenue Road Allowance.wpd April 6, 2009 Members: RECOMMENDATION: For the consideration of the Committee, BACKGROUND: City's Involvement Niagara ,, Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair and Members of the Community Services Committee City of Niagara Falls Ontario 136-2009.01 a ,Is The recommendation(s) contained in this report were amended by committee and ratified by City Council Re: BS- 2009.01 House moving concept in partnership with Niagara Regional Housing, Niagara Region, Niagara Catholic District School Board, Ed and Ruth Ann Nieuwesteeg and the City of Niagara Falls That the City provide grants equal tolilarid costs, various permit costs and to assist in dealing with Hydro and the Niagara Regional Police. On Monday, December9, 2008, representatives from Niagara Regional Housing, Niagara Region, Niagara Catholic District School Board along with Ed and Ruth Ann Nieuwesteeg, the Mayor and Chief Building Official met to discuss the concept of moving a single family dwelling from 5818 Peer Street to a surplus City owned piece of land, known as the Gienholme Avenue road allowance, located on the north side of Bellevue Street. Mr, and Mrs. Nieuwesteeg are prepared to donate the Peer Street property to Niagara Regional Housing conditional on not being responsible for the costs of moving the dwelling two (2) kilometers. If approved, the home would be placed on a new foundation and duplexed to provide affordable housing. The municipally -owned property is surplus to the City's needs. On January 30, 2009, the Niagara Regional Housing Board of Director approved the plan in concept only. Further approval of the Niagara Regional Housing Board would be subject to costing out the project, including ongoing operational costs, and the approvals of the other various Councils and Boards that are involved. The City has been asked to consider grants equal to land costs, various permit costs and to assist in dealing with Hydro and the Niagara Regional Police. Hydro lines may need to be moved when transporting the building and a Police escort is mandatory. Planning Comments: The Bellevue Street lot is'66 ft. X 125 ft. not serviced , zoned R2 which permits -a- duplex on an interior lot and'would meet the criteria for set backs, lot frontage and coverage. ` ,� i ;t•i"'%co':r %. Street, P.O +.Bo =Niagara Falls ;btv;'Canada' 1.2E 6H5 905-356.7521 wvuwniagarafalls.ca T 4, Working Together to Serve Our Concmursity Community Services Department Building Services April 6, 2009 - 2 - BS- 2009.01 Financial Implication to the City a) Cost of lot $ 60,000.00 to $ 65,000.00 b) Cost to service lot, water and sanitary sewer - $10,000.00 to $14,000.00 c) Cost of Phase 1 Environmental Assessment - $ 2,000.00 d) Building permit fee for foundation - Bellevue Street - $150.00 e) Demolition permit fee for foundation - Peer Street - $150.00 f) Permit fee to install services - $225.00 g) Permit fee to convert Single Family Dwelling to Duplex Dwelling - $ 1,000.00 + - h) Development Charges - exempt. It is important to note that the Region(Niagara Housing) typically pays all permit fees when undertaking a project within the City; therefore, Council could consider only providing a grant equal to the cost of the lot. It is doubtful that the project would proceed if Council was only to provide relief on the permits only and not the cost of the lot. In terms of revenue to the City, Niagara Regional Housing properties are subject to the full tax rate, so, in essence, the municipality would gain one housing unit in taxation. CONCLUSION: The provision of affordable housing in our community is always to be encouraged. The concept, proposed by the various agencies and parties, is unique. Nonetheless, it is an example of the lower -tier municipality being asked to provide relief in the social services area, traditionally the responsibility of the upper -tier municipality. The Committee will have to weigh the community benefits of the .r -cc ersus the costs to the tax base. Recommended by: Approved by: attach. tor of Building Services Ed Dujolvic, Executive Director of Community Services ON. 1904) 15.959 /I if 1 F:.►5►w ■NE1~1110011•11111111 % may - -- III INN 111111i111111111 IINII MN 0)12111E1310: „ , jj Fes'' IS ;. ' RCM l.'4 ' i DR a i r .Ai. ERNE 125°° X2.1 12 f 1 r 12rrr 4 .8% AL 50t0 0 85 .2 0 0q. 01 . REPORT TO: Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Clerks Department SUBJECT: CD- 2010 -10 Chippawa Boat Dock Update RECOMMENDATION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND CD- 2010 -10 NiagaraFalls September 20, 2010 That staff continues efforts to solicit all applicable approvals to return the public boat dock to its original location on the south side of the Welland River, in time for next year's boating season; and That staff be directed to work with the Chippawa Public Docks Committee in their effort to realize a permanent wharf on the north side of the Welland River. During recent Council deliberations on the location of the Chippawa Public Boat Dock, the Welland River - Weightman Bridge has been identified as an area of great potential. Businesses in the area identified the need for a public dock to be returned and promoted the idea of additional dock locations to capitalize on the popular boat trade that visits Chippawa in the summer. A group that formed to promote a public dock on the north side of the river is accepting of the public boat dock going back in its former location, however, the group wishes to continue to pursue "the design, location and implementation of a permanent wharf on the north side of the river. The group would like City staff assistance. On June 14, 2010 Council considered report CD- 2010 -05, Chippawa Boat Dock, the third in a series of reports regarding what to do with the public boat dock that had been initiated by the, now inactive, Chippawa Business Improvement Association. The report outlined the two competing interests in the placement of the dock: the status quo/ former location on the south side of the Welland River or reinstallation on the north side of the river. Council moved that the Chippawa public dock be installed in the original location and that a committee be formed to establish a long term plan for public docks on the Welland River. Staff endeavoured to have the dock back in for the 2010 summer season. Unfortunately, the requisite approvals stretched out through the summer. The following organizations were circulated: September 20, 2010 - 2 - CD- 2010 -10 Niagara Parks Commission - it was necessary to get formal approval from the Commission. Approval, subject to insurance, a permit and proper signage, was received on July 23, 2010. Ontario Power Generation - no objections to the dock being returned to the south side. Approvals will be necessary if a dock is to be installed on the north side. Transport Canada - no objections to the dock being returned to the south side. Approvals will be necessary if a dock is to be installed on the north side. Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA) - responded on August 13, 2010 requesting formal plans of the dock. In light of the still pending approval from the NPCA, it was too late to install the dock for 2010. ANALYSIS /RATIONALE As Council will recall, the decision on what to do with the public boat dock centred around where to put it. Staff met with the group that coalesced promoting the dock on the north side of the river, the Chippawa Public Docks Committee (the "group "). The group are accepting of the former BIA dock being installed permanently in its former location on the south side of the river. They, however, still see the value in a permanent wharf, that is fully accessible, on the north side of the river. Ideally, such a wharf would be on both sides of the Weightman Bridge. The group would like to work with City staff and other interested stakeholders in pursuing the project further. The City's role would be that of a coordinator, as opposed to a formal partner. The City would be asked to facilitate meetings, especially with the superior approval authorities, giving legitimacy to the endeavour. Staff may be asked to assist in some design work and develop a plan for the area. The group will form a not - for - profit or registered charity for the purposes of funding raising. FINANCIAL/STAFFING /LEGAL IMPLICATIONS At this time, the Committee is asking that the appropriate staff resources be dedicated to furthering the goal of a permanent wharf on the north side of the Welland River. The involvement of City staff, and endorsement by Council, would legitimize the efforts of the Committee, especially to superior approval authorities. At this point in time, the Committee is not expecting any financial support from the municipality. Ultimately, the wharf may need to be in municipal ownership with applicable insurance. Also, It has been pointed out to Council that there is currently not the staff resources available or expertise to maintain the former BIA dock. There would need to be a plan put forward by the Committee on future maintenance of the north side wharf. Nonetheless, committing staff resources at this time is in keeping with Council's direction from June. September 20, 2010 - 3 - CD- 2010 -10 CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT Strengthen and promote economic development in the municipality. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Recommended by: Respectfully submitted: DI CD- 2010 -05 Letter to various approval agencies. Correspondences from the Chippawa Public Docks Committee. Dean lorfida, City,Clerk Ken odd, Chief Administrative Officer CD- 2010 -05 Niagara) alls June 14, 2010 REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair and Members of the Community Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Clerks Department SUBJECT: CD- 2010 -05 Chippawa Boat Dock RECOMMENDATION That in light of the Weightman Bridge construction, the Chippawa public boat dock not be reinstalled for 2010; and That staff continue to work with the Chippawa Public Docks Committee and other stakeholders to make possible public boat docks in 2011. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Chippawa public boat dock (the "Dock ") was removed by the City because of liability and maintenance issues. After suggesting the Dock's decommission, staff were directed to explore other options. There is a public interest in reinstalling the Dock. A group of interested has formed and has offered to take over stewardship. The group's proposal calls for a relocation of the Dock. There may be some within Chippawa who feel if the Dock is reinstalled it should go back to its original location. The Weightman Bridge construction may preclude the reinstallation this summer for safety reasons. A relocation on the north side of the Welland River would require a number of approvals from a variety of public agencies. BACKGROUND The Chippawa Boat Dock was a major initiative of the Chippawa B.I.A. in the late nineties and cost approximately $25,000. The B.I.A. became dormant circa 2004 and in 2008, the municipality, at the behest of last Chair, closed the B.I.A.'s bank account. The Dock largely fell to the proprietor of the Riverside Tavern to maintain over the years. Despite his best efforts, the dock was a source of loitering, subject to vandalism and resulted in a claim, still ongoing, against the City in 2009. With the B.I.A. effectively defunct, all of its assets become the possession of the municipality (s. 214(1) of the Municipal Act). Due to liability issues, the dock was removed in late 2009. Staff report PRC- 2009 -31 recommended it be decommissioned. Council asked that staff explore various options (cf. MW- 2010 -15). June 14, 2010 - 2 - CD- 2010 -05 Subsequent to the staff reports, various business people and residents of Chippawa have expressed a desire that the Dock be returned to the Welland River. A correspondence was submitted by a group of interested parties calling themselves the Chippawa Public Docks Committee, lead by Mr. Jay Mason, who is the Chair of the Chippawa Dock Owners Association. The correspondence suggests that the dock be installed on the north side of the Welland River, with half of the Dock on the Tim Horton's side of the Weightman Bridge and the other half on the Boathouse Restaurant side of the Bridge. ANALYSIS /RATIONALE The issues facing the municipality are the following: ► whether the municipality should provide the Dock for a public purpose or dispose of it. • whether to reinstall the Dock this summer • where to install the Dock, should it be reinstalled There is a value in having public docking capability along the Welland River. Although the Dock may not have had the economic impact originally envisioned by the B.I.A. it has been utilized, especially by law enforcement and emergency services, as outlined in the various letters submitted by the Chippawa Public Docks Committee; however, there is no statutory requirement that the municipality provide such a service. With the B.I.A. dormant, the Dock became the property of the municipality. Last year it was necessary to remove the Dock because it was no longer being looked after, a legal claim had occurred and the City did not have the staff or resources to maintain it. If the Dock were to be reinstalled, the City should have reassurances that any volunteer group involved will be committed to the maintenance over a long term period. It is comforting that a group of local businesses and interested parties (Chippawa Public Docks Committee) has taken up the cause to revive the public Dock. The parties involved have credibility and experience on the Welland River. Their proposal calls for the Dock to be reinstalled on the north (Niagara Falls) side of the River, split on each side of the Weightman Bridge. Since the Committee is asking that the Dock be transferred to their stewardship, the Council may want to consider selling it to the group for a nominal fee. There may be some opposition to the Dock being installed on the north side of the River, as noted in one of the attachments. The Dock was funded by the Chippawa B.I.A. businesses south of the Weightman Bridge. Attempts, at the time, to have the businesses north of the bridge as part of the B.I.A. were unsuccessful; therefore, there is a possibility that the businesses that did not contribute to the original levy that funded the project will now benefit from the Dock. Having said that, if the project was to be revived, it would be hoped that the benefiting businesses on the north side would contribute to the maintenance of the Dock. Returning the Dock on the south (Chippawa) side would be in keeping with the original intent of the B.I.A.; however, there is no guarantee of the maintenance of the Dock in this location. As noted in the past reports, while on the south side the Dock was a loitering point and subject to vandalism. Although there are periodic discussions of the B.I.A. being revived, that process could take some time and there is no guarantee that the businesses would be any more successful now in maintaining the Dock. Also, the proposal by the Chippawa Public Docks Committee is premised on the reinstallation on the north side. June 14, 2010 - 3 - CD- 2010 -05 Any proposal for the north side would have to address any safety concerns. For example, would the presence of the Dock aid or hinder the issue of people diving off of the bridge? Would the issues of vandalism and loitering be curtailed by the relocation or would they just be moved to the other side of the River? The Chippawa Public Docks Committee believes that the Dock on the north side would be more accessible to the public due to the nature of the embankment. Two other factors for consideration in whether the Dock could be installed in 2010 are the reconstruction of the Weightman Bridge and the various approvals required. The relocation of the Dock would require approvals from a variety of authorities: the City, Ontario Power Generation, the Niagara Parks Commission, the Ministry of Natural Resources (Provincial), the Department of Oceans and Fisheries (Federal) and Canadian Border Services (Federal). A standard approval the Municipality had to secure from Oceans and Fisheries for the Weightman Bridge construction took approximately three months. Of course, the support of the Municipality would be necessary in the ad hoc Committee getting approvals from the various agencies. One prohibiting factor in installing the Dock on the north west side of the Weightman Bridge (Tim Horton's side) is that this is currently the staging area for the contractor. Although arguably various approvals would not be necessary to put the Dock back in its original location on the South side, the contractor is concerned about safety. Staff has not investigated whether it would be necessary to get new approvals if the Dock was to be put in 30m further east, as suggested by the contractor. Although staff appreciates the loss that may be felt with the lack of a public dock this summer, there are a number of prohibiting factors to its reinstallation. The City lacks the resources to maintain the Dock but are comforted by a volunteer group coming forward. The group is credible and would have the wherewithal to maintain the Dock. As a result, the City should explore selling the Dock for a nominal fee. Of course, there may be some concern that the original contributing businesses would be "losing" the Dock they funded. FINANCIAL/STAFFING /LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The Chippawa Public Dock became a risk and liability to the City forcing its removal from the Welland River. The City lacks the resources to be the sole steward of the Dock moving forward. There is no requirement that the City have a public dock in the area, however, it has been utilized by law enforcement and emergency services. These public entities should financially contribute to the Dock, if it was to be revived. A relocation of the Dock would require a host of approvals from various public agencies. The success of any approvals would be contingent upon the City supporting any future application. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT Arguably, a successful public dock could strengthen and promote economic development within the City. The Cummington Square/ Weightman Bridge has been identified as an area with potential, which may call for a long -term vision for the area. June 14, 2010 - 4 - CD- 2010 -05 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS • Request from the Chippawa Public Docks Committee • MW- 2010 -15 • PRC- 2009 -31 • E -mail from Rankin Construction • E -mail from Fred Cade Recommended by: Respectfully submitted: DI Dean lorfida, Cit Cle k Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer (9/13/2010) Dean lorfida - Chippawa Public Boat Dock From: To: CC: Date: Subject: Attachments: Gentlemen: Thanks Dean Dean Iorfida, City Clerk Niagara Falls 905 - 356 -7521, Ext. 4271 905 - 356-9083 (Fax) Dean Iorfida barry.putt @tc.gc.ca; dean.norton @opg.com; Gillis Dave; smiller @npca.c... Cynthia Roberts; Geoff Holman; Kent Schachowskoj 7/8/2010 12:04 PM Chippawa Public Boat Dock Chippawa Dock.pdf You will all be receiving a personalized, signed hard copy of the attached letter. Niagara Falls City Council recently passed a motion to reinstall the Chippawa Public Dock in the location it had been in, up until last fall (south shore of the Welland River, east of the Portage Road (Weightman Bridge), Niagara Falls). Please note, this is not a new location but merely returning the dock to where it was for the last ten years or so. Please provide me with any approvals, permits, requirements of your respective agency. Also, there is talk about a possible future installation on the north shore; therefore, any information you could provide would be helpful. Page 1 (9/13/2010) Dean lorfida - Chippawa Dock.pdf Page 1 July 2, 2010 Barry Putt, Regional Manag er Navigable Waters Protection, Transport Canada Steve Miller, Coordinator, Watershed Regulations, Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority Dave Gillis, Planning and Properties Manager, Niagara Parks Commission Dean Norton, Public Affairs and Property Management Advisor, Ontario Power Generation Re: Chippawa Public Dock South shore of the Welland River, east of the Portage Road (Weightm an Bridge) Niagara Falls For approximately the last ten years, a public dock has been situated on the south shore of the Welland River, east of the Portage Road (Weightman Bridge) crossing, in Niagara Falls. The dock was an initiative of the former Chippawa Business Improvement Association (BIA). With the inactivity of the BIA, the dock became the property of the municipality . Last fall, the dock was removed due to maintenance issues. Niagara Falls City Council recently passed a motion to have the dock reinstalled, in the location noted above. Thedock provides the boating public and various law enforcement and safety agencies (Water Patrol, Canadian Border Servi ces, Niagara Reg ional Police etc.) with a place along the Welland River to dock. Please advise the municipality ofany approval process required, to reinstall the dock, by your agency (i.e., permits, applications, fees etc.) by e- mailing the undersigned at diortidaca niagarafalls.ca , as soon as possible. Also, there may be a future proposal to locate a public dock on the north shore. Any information would be appreciated. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. S' cerely, Dean lo ida City Clerk c. Geoff H olman, Director of Municipal Works, City of Niagara Falls Working Together to Serve Our Community Clerks Departm ent Ext 4271 Fax 9 05-356-908 3 diorfida ©niagarafalls.ca CIIIPPAWA PUBLIC DOCK! COMMITTEE August 11, 2010 The City of Niagara Falls City Hall, P.O. Box 1023 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada L2E 6X5 Mayor, Council and Staff; Attn: Dean Iorfida, City Clerk Ken Todd, CAO Re/ Public docks ( "the Docks ") on the Welland River ( "the Creek ") and our included request to form a City organized oversite group of vested interests per Coun. Thomson and Fisher. We fully support and request the creation of such a group with the City of Niagara Falls providing the template and logistics for its formation. As was stated by Coun. Thomson, and roundly agreed, it is a solid opportunity for public and private interests to work together for community betterment and fulfillment of necessary safety requirements along the Welland River. Regards, Jay Mason for the Chippawa Public Dock Committee cc: Marie Middlemiss CHIPPAWA PUBLIC DOCKS COMMITTEE May 20, 2010 The City of Niagara Falls City Hall, P.O. Box 1023 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada L2E 6X5 Mayor, Council and Staff; Attn: Ken Todd, CAO Re/ Public docks ( "the Docks ") on the Welland River ( "the Creek ") I represent a group of Chippawa residents and businesses (Schedule A) concerned with the disposition of the Docks on the Creek at Cummington Square. It has come to our attention that the Docks were removed by a third party and subsequently ended up at the Stanley Avenue Works Yard where they were inspected on our behalf (Schedule B). It is our understanding that the Docks are the property of the City of Niagara Falls. We have formed an `ad hoc' community volunteer group, which I have been selected to Chair due to my prior experience as the founder and current Chairman of the Chippawa Dockowners Association (CDOA). During the formation of the CDOA we gained knowledge in; maintenance requirements, dock scantlings, upland and crown land agreements and risk management within the jurisdiction. The CDOA was formed as a non - profit corporation charged with providing; licencing for use, maintenance and insurance for the Ontario Power Generation lands along the Creek. We have provided these services uninterrupted, since our formation in 1992. After an affirmative vote by the Committee on the following motion, we are collectively requesting that the docks be transferred to our stewardship (we will form a not- for -profit corp.) the docks be permanently moved to the east side of the Welland River and be split evenly with 70' of dock on each side of and adjacent to the Weightman Bridge ( "the Bridge ") and i that the current insurance be continued In furtherance of these initiatives we seek to establish a partnership with Niagara Parks Commission, the City of Niagara Falls and Ontario Power Generation to; 1. develop a use agreement with Niagara Parks Commission for the north side of the Creek and east side of the Bridge 2. develop a use agreement with the City of Niagara Falls and OPG for the north side of the Creek and west side of the Bridge CHIPPAWA PUBLIC DOCK! COMMITTEE The Docks have several uses, and will be sorely missed by the community members, as well as, visiting and local boaters who utilize them to access nearby businesses and to enjoy the parklands. Additionally, as you may know, the Docks represent an essential component in the commitment to safety and policing along the Creek (Schedule C). They are an important part of the strategic planning for; ➢ St. John's Ambulance and their water safety unit ➢ Niagara Regional Police Marine Unit ➢ Chippawa Volunteer Fire Dept. ➢ Niagara Parks Police ➢ EMT - various As a community volunteer committee our mandate would be to; ➢ Maintain the docks in a good, safe working order ➢ Report to partnering agencies and the City ➢ Work with regulatory agencies for enforcement of; o Noise and damage control o Safety and Accessibility Our committee will hold regular meetings and will be available on an "as needed" basis to report to, and partner with, the various agencies outlined. We will concurrently fundraise to cover the costs of upkeep. Find attached petitions (Schedule D) signed by supporting residents of the area. Yours truly, Jay Mason, Chairman Chippawa Public Docks Committee Niagara September 20, 2010 REPORT TO: Councillor Victor Pietrangelo, Chair and Members of the Corporate Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Transportation Services Department SUBJECT: TS- 2010 -46 Inter - Municipal Transit Pilot Project & Purchase of Transit Buses RECOMMENDATION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: TS- 2010 -46 1. That Council enter into a three -year pilot project agreement, with the Regional Municipality of Niagara, to provide inter - municipal public transportation. 2. That Council approve the purchase of three Orion transit coaches, funded from a Region of Niagara Grant, for inter - municipal service. 3. That Council approve the purchase of two Orion buses, funded from Provincial Gas Tax Subsidy, which will be utilized for our municipal service. 4. That RFP #P19 -2010, for the Supply of five Buses be awarded to Orion. 5. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute the necessary agreement. Regional Council has approved the implementation of a triangular inter - municipal service. This service will be operated by the three municipal transit providers on behalf of the Region. Therefore, it will require that the City enter into an agreement with the Regional Municipality of Niagara to provide inter - municipal transit services between Niagara Falls, Fort Erie, Welland, and St. Catharines, as well as, the purchase five Orion forty foot transit coaches. The inter - municipal transit service initiative will be a three -year pilot program with all capital and operating costs assumed by the Regional Municipality of Niagara. Three of the five Orion buses will be utilized for the inter - municipal service while the two remaining buses will be purchased with the City's Provincial Gas Tax transit subsidy and utilized to enhance the Niagara Falls Transit municipal service. If the pilot program continues beyond three years, Niagara Falls Transit will continue to own, operate, and maintain the three Orion buses. If however, the pilot project were to be discontinued, Niagara Falls will have the right of first refusal to retain the buses by compensating the Region for the depreciated value of the buses based on a twelve -year, September 20, 2010 straight line depreciation. If Niagara Falls did not want to retain the vehicles, the buses would be sold and the proceeds would be remitted to the Region. BACKGROUND: - 2 - TS- 2010 -46 In 2009, the Niagara Region initiated a Study through ENTRA Consultants to facilitate improvements to the inter - municipal transit services, which resulted in Niagara Region's Transit Vision and the development of transit service concepts - namely the triangle service, feeder services, and the rural demand responsive services. ENTRA suggested a progressive ramped up service for a 10 -year period starting with the triangle service between the downtown areas of Niagara Falls, St. Catharines and Welland. Based on ENTRA's recommendation to initiate the Triangle Services, Niagara Region included $3,700,000 in there 2010 Capital Budget. At the May 12, 2010 Region's Inter - Municipal Transit meeting, two proposals for running a pilot project for up to three years were submitted jointly by St. Catharines, Niagara Falls, Welland, Port Colborne, and Fort Erie. This was followed by the staff report agreeing with Proposal one, as outlined in PWA 60 -2010, and approved by Regional Council on June 24, 2010. The preferred option recommended a start-up fleet of eight transit buses for connecting the terminals of the existing three transit service providers (Niagara Falls, St. Catharines, and Welland) and increasing trip frequencies to Port Colborne and Fort Erie. The pilot requires six buses in operation with two spares for maintenance and inspections, three for Niagara Falls Transit, three for St. Catharines Transit and two for Welland Transit. The recommended option includes: a capital cost of $3,700,000, an annual operating expense of $2,700,000 and an annual operating revenue of $800,000 resulting in an anticipated expense of $1,900,000. Both the capital and the operating expenses during the pilot period will be funded by Niagara Region through grants to the Service Providers, which includes Niagara Falls Transit. In addition, an amount of $450,000 will be budgeted by Niagara Region in year one to cover start-up expenses, marketing, and promotion costs. There is no direct costs for this project to be paid by the City. If the pilot program continues beyond three years, Niagara Falls Transit will continue to own, operate, and maintain the three Orion buses. If however, the pilot were to be discontinued, Niagara Falls will have the right of first refusal to retain the buses by compensating the Region for the depreciated value of the buses based on a twelve -year, straight line depreciation. If Niagara Falls did not want to retain the vehicles, the buses would be sold and the proceeds would be remitted to the Region. Further, Niagara Falls would not be responsible for making up any difference in the selling price versus the straight line depreciated price being remitted to the Region. If approved, the additional five buses to the Niagara Falls Transit fleet will enhance the percentage of accessible buses by 5% from 69.2% to 74.2 %. This equates to 23 out of 31 buses being fully accessible, getting the City closer to it's target of having a 100% fully accessible transit fleet. September 20, 2010 - 3 - TS- 2010 -46 Transit and Regional staff are presently exploring the possibility of the Pilot Project attracting its share of Provincial Gas Tax revenue from the Ministry of Transportation. Subject to the pilot's eligibility, a mechanism to reconcile the Gas Tax revenue will be addressed. As the Region is not in the business of providing conventional transit and is funding the Pilot Project through grants, Transit staff will work with the Ministry of Transportation to identify the pilot's share of Gas Tax Subsidy (if eligible) to be accounted and reconciled on an annual basis. A Request for Proposal was issued, resulting in three vendors responding to the RFP; NovaBus, New Flyer and Orion. The prices (not including taxes) submitted by the proponents (per bus), are as follows; Orion $376,000.00 New Flyer $428,000.00 Novabus $448,000.00 The budgeted cost for the municipal bus purchase is $480,000.00 per bus. This amount is included in the 2010 Capital budget. Therefore, staff recommends Orion, being the low bidder, be awarded the contract to supply five, forty -foot, low floor accessible buses equipped with bike racks. In addition, these buses will also be equipped with new fare boxes, a stop announcement system, and GPS hardware at an additional upset cost of $30,000 per bus. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The cost associated with purchasing two Orion Buses for the municipal service was accounted for and approved in the 2010 Capital Budget. The costs associated with purchasing and operating the three Orion buses for the inter - municipal service will be paid entirely by the Niagara Region. If the pilot program continues beyond three years, Niagara Falls Transit will continue to own, operate, and maintain the three Orion buses. If however, the pilot were to be discontinued, Niagara Falls will have the right of first refusal to retain the buses by compensating the Region for the depreciated value of the buses based on a twelve -year straight line depreciation. If Niagara Falls did not want to retain the vehicles, the buses would be sold and the proceeds would be remitted to the Region. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT: To strengthen and promote economic development within the City through the development of alternative sources of revenue and further, to develop and implement a comprehensive transportation plan. September 20, 2010 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: Region of Niagara Report PWA60 -2010 Recommended by: Karl Dren, Director of Transportation Services Respectfully submitted: Ken odd, Chief Administrative Officer D. Stuart - 4 - TS 2010 - 46 S: \General Administration \GA 1.01 Reports \2010 Corporate Services \9 Sept 20 \TS- 2010 -46 Intermunicipal Pilot & Purchase of Transit Buses.wpd Niagara IMF Region REPORT TO: Chair and Members of the Committee of the Whole Council SUBJECT: Inter-Municipal Transit Proposal RECOMMENDATION(S) That this Committee recommends to Regional Council: 1. That the local transit operators be advised that it is the Region's intent to include a net allocation of $1.35 million in the proposed 2011 Operating Budget, in order to provide them with a grant to carry out a pilot project to improve inter-municipal transit in Niagara, in accordance with their Proposal #1. 2. That the Region agrees to transfer up to $3.7 million from capital funding, as part of the grant, contingent upon the Commissioner of Public Works' approval of satisfactory arrangements with the local transit providers, consistent with the service and operating levels proposed in this report. 3. That staff be authorized to continue discussions with the three local transit providers in order to finalize the operational details for introducing improved inter- municipal transit, in accordance with their Proposal #1, commencing in the third quarter of 2011, FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS If the recommendations in this report are approved, the amount of $3.7 million would have to be identified for transfer as a one-time grant to the local transit providers. The approved 2010 Capital Budget included an allocation of $3.1 million for the purchase of inter- municipal transit buses. If the recommendations in this report are approved, staff will prepare a further report which initiates this project and recommends the source of funding. It will take approximately a year for the buses to be delivered; therefore, provisions would have to be made in the 2011 Operating Budget to fund the ongoing operational costs. If the buses are ordered in August 2010, service should be able to commence by Labour Day, 2011. The transit operators estimate these annual costs to be $2.7 million gross and 1 PWA 60-2010 June 23, 2010 approximately $1.9 million net for the first full year of operation. Therefore, for 2011, a budget of approximately half that amount (or $1.35 million) should be set aside. In PWA 46-2010, it was suggested that these operating costs could be funded from the Contingency Reserve. This proposed funding would also be transferred to the local transit operators as a grant to cover annual operating expenses. If the proposed three-year pilot project is to continue, provisions would also have to be made in the 2012 and 2013 Operating Budgets to fund the annual operating losses. BACKGROUND PWA 60-2010 June 23, 2010 On May 12, 2010, a special meeting of Committee of the Whole was held to consider the issue of Inter-Municipal Transit and the Phase 2 Work Plan, prepared by ENTRA Consultants. Committee heard delegations from a number of members of the public regarding this issue and also received a detailed presentation from Dennis Fletcher of ENTRA (Genivar) regarding the Phase 2 Work plan Report. Committee also considered a staff report, PWA 46-2010, entitled "Authority to Implement Inter-Municipal Transit — Phase 2 Work Plan Report and Recommendations". In this report, staff made a number of recommendations to implement the work plan contained in the Phase 2 Report. One of the items of correspondence received at this meeting was an e-mail from Ken Todd, CAO, City of Niagara Falls (C7499 - see Appendix 1), respecting an Inter-Municipal Transit Proposal from the municipalities of Fort Erie, Port Colborne, St. Catharines, Welland and Niagara Falls, It was explained by CAO Mike Trojan that, since this proposal was received only hours before the meeting, there was insufficient time for staff to adequately review the proposal. Therefore, Committee of the Whole voted to defer consideration of PWA 46-2010 until staff had sufficient time to review and consider the Inter-Municipal Transit Proposal submitted on behalf of the five local municipalities. REPORT The Inter-Municipal Transit Proposal received from the local municipalities is, in fact, two proposals which provide options for the Region to consider regarding three-year pilot projects to improve inter-municipal transit service in Niagara. It is stated in both proposals that the viability of the pilot projects is based on the capital and operating costs being assumed by the Region. 2 Proposal # 1 Proposal #1 would provide hourly service, Monday to Saturday, between the downtown terminals of the three existing transit providers and improved service for the existing connections from Fort Erie to Niagara Falls and Port Colborne to Welland. It is proposed that this service would operate independently of the existing buses which connect Brock University and the two Niagara College campuses. This proposal is similar to the recommended short-term system recommended by ENTRA in the Phase 2 Work Plan, but does not provide quite as high a level of service. The service plan schematic for this proposal is attached as Appendix 2. The transit operators are recommending that this service would require the purchase of eight accessible buses, which would provide for two spare units. This would require an initial capital expenditure of approximately $3.7 million. The operating loss for the first year of this service is estimated at $1.9 million, based on expenses of $2.7 million and revenue through the fare box of $0.8 million. Proposal # 2 3 PWA 60-2010 June 23, 2010 This proposal would increase the frequency of service on some of the existing inter- municipal routes (connecting Niagara Falls and Welland to the Brock Hub) and improve service for the existing connections from Fort Erie to Niagara Falls and Port Colborne to Welland. This pilot project would require the addition of three new buses, at an estimated capital cost of $1.4 million. The estimated annual operating expense for the first year of this service enhancement is $0.92 million. The annual operating revenue is estimated at $0.32 million assuming full revenue recovery from students. This results in an annual operating loss of approximately $0.61 million. Staff feel that this proposal only addresses the request by the students for enhanced service to the campuses and does little to improve connections to the downtown business areas for employment, business and shopping trips. It also fails to provide improved connectivity to other transit services such as GO bus (or future GO rail), Therefore, staff prefer Proposal # 1 as we feel it better addresses needs, as identified in the ENTRA report. Following discussion with CAOs from the municipalities submitting this proposal and their transit operators, we are confident that the proposal can be refined to meet our needs for a pilot project to improve inter-municipal transit in Niagara. PWA 60-2010 June 23, 2010 Staff have reviewed Proposal #1 and offer the following comments: Advantages to Funding Inter-Municipal Transit Proposal #1 Staff has considered Proposal 1 and identified a number of service improvements in this pilot project which warrant Council's considerations, Proposal #1 would: • Provide a much improved level of service for transit connections between the major downtown urban centres. • Avoid the need for the Region to seek Triple Majority approval to be in the conventional transit business. • Take advantage of the existing resources and expertise of the three existing transit operators. • Allow the Region to evaluate the potential and need for improved inter-municipal service without making a major commitment or significant investment in infrastructure or resources. • Potentially provide better connectivity to local transit service, GO bus and other inter-regional services. • Have no negative impact on the existing service between Brock University and the Niagara College campuses, which is being paid for by the students. (However, it also does not address the service improvements that the students have requested). • Provide a good first step towards achieving Council's visions for public transit in Niagara. Disadvantages to Funding Inter-Municipal Transit Proposal #1 Despite the numerous advantages to moving forward with this proposal, there are some concerns that staff feel need to be identified for Committee's consideration: • Proposal #1, as presented, is not quite as good as the triangle level of service recommended in the Phase 2 Report. However, staff feels that we can work with the transit providers to address any issues of this nature by agreeing to minor adjustments in the proposal. In fact, the proposal did state that additional late evening trips may be required to Niagara Falls during the summer. 4 PWA 60-2010 June 23, 2010 • The financial outcome of this proposal is that the service would be funded proportionally on the basis of assessment by all twelve local municipalities. In the ENTRA Phase 2 Report, they recommend that the municipalities receiving direct benefit from inter-municipal transit pay a greater share of the operating costs than those municipalities receiving only indirect benefit from the service. Council's Transit Vision does provide that the cost for providing inter-municipal transit be distributed in a "fair and equitable manner". • The proposal does not provide for the introduction of other additional services recommended in the Inter-Municipal Transit Work Plan Phase 2 Report (other Second-Tier Feeder Services and Rural Demand Response Service), Recent Discussions with Proponent CAOs and Transit Managers: On Monday, June 21, 2010, Regional staff met with the Transit Managers and CAOs from the municipalities who are making this proposal. There was general agreement on the way forward if Regional Council adopts the Proposal #1 recommendations in this report. The following elements were agreed, in principle, to be included in the Inter-municipal Transit pilot project and will: • Require a further refinement in Proposal #1 submitted to finalize operational issues and levels of service. • Provide regular information updates to the Region on a semi-annual basis in the first year of capital acquisition, and on a quarterly annual basis thereafter, on the performance of the transit pilot project, including revenue/cost ratios, ridership statistics, and other relevant operational and service metrics to determine the value of the transit pilot. • Provide adequate annual funding from the Region to cover the operating deficit, or provide a return of unused grant funds to the Region if the ridership revenues exceed the operational expense requirements. 5 SUMMARY Council is basically left with two choices if it still wishes to proceed with improvements to inter-municipal transit service over the next few years. Council could: 1. Approve the staff recommendations contained in PWA 46-2010, which direct staff to attempt to obtain Triple Majority Approval and then implement the recommendations contained in the Phase 2 Work Plan Report, or 2. Approve the recommendations contained in this report (PWA 60-2010), which would initiate implementation of Proposal 1 of the submission on a pilot basis, which would be funded by an annual grant provided by the Region. In the event that the staff report (PWA 46-2010) and a Triple Majority are not approved, Council may wish to consider Proposal #1, as submitted by the municipal partners. There still remains the concern that, if inter-municipal transit is funded by an annual grant, then it is not "fair and equitable" to those municipalities receiving only the indirect benefits from the service. Staff have evaluated the two options and suggest a preference for Proposal #1 to improve Niagara's inter-municipal transit services, commencing in the third quarter of 2011. In the interim, staff will continue to work with the transit providers to finalize the operational details associated with Proposal #1. Submitted by: Approved by: 41fiff 4111 Ke ne J Brothers, • .Eng. Commissioner of Public Works Attachments: 1. Inter-Municipal Transit Proposal- Appendix 1 2. Proposal #1 Service Schematic - Appendix 2 6 Mike Trojan Chief Administrative Officer PWA 60-2010 June 23, 2010 Background Proposal INTERMUNICIPAL TRANSIT PROPOSAL 1 (Downtown) - May 11, 2010 l he Region has S3.1 million in capital funds allocated in 2011) for the purpose of purchasing transit buses. An operating plan is yet to he finalized, pending resolution of governance :tnd financing issues. The Region's consultant is preparing a report which \eill include a proposed inter - municipal schedule Wit tinancial forecasts and gorcrnanec recotlitlieti( i1ttins. \ \'hilc the Region ion progresses with their imalYsis, it is worth considering the introduction of a I ri c uy lean <tt pilot project, between the downtown terminals of the existing three transit providers, with increased frequencies to l ort 1 :,vie and Port Colborne. This pilot project would run f,r a three year tern. which would allow all the stakeholders sufticicnt time to market and monitor the service to determine its long term feasibility. The viability of this pilot project proposal is based on the capital and operating costs being assumed by the l�e�ion. 1 he aclrantages of proposal 1 (dc vnto\rtt) \could be: r It \co uld demonstrate leadership in the public transit sector, v, inch could In turn encourage the expansion of ( ) ,cry ice. \ ddtiional ni:uip :1nc1 buses \\ould he required but they could be put into operation by the three cststiii ; providers with no large overhead increases. i1 \vinild provide accurate itisighi into a large portion of the potential inter ililunicil):ll transit iliarket. 1 he three downtown terminals are currently used by intercit bus operators, allo \ring for nitercit\ connections. it would provide much greater public transit availability between the Region's larger P" vitiation centers. It is recommended that the tareboxes in the new inter municipal buses have data collection capacity, the ability to issue transfers, read multi -trip magnetic cards and are Sniartc: reach. The three transit operators \r charge the same fate to :tar inter - municipal passengers. New fireboxes have the capacity to provide detailed usage and revenue information if the suitable software is installed at each point they are dumped. 1 ;ach operator would periodically credit the Region for revenues collected, Based on the firebox data collected. APPENDIX 1 'lilt plan is for hourly service between each city patting, Monday to Saturday from " a.m. to 9 p.nn.. Work would be equalized between the drivers of each of tine three existing transit operator,. It is possible that additional late evening trip, may ile required coming out of Niagara I :ills during the summer. 'There is time allowed in the attached schedule fur 6 Wit( 1S per trip, t lonuecttons to butt and Port t .oll,rnc would be improved by \Arnie (If the increase in frequency and quicker travel times between terminals. In addition, tine full( >wing schedule improvements would be ml roduced to these feeder services: ,V,/,,var,/ 1 Alii,, -- / :(irt J ;IYs' • " round trip:. daily, Monday Saturday, year round, some exceptions during holiday pert( ,cls. 11 I r; nr;r` Pori (.■ll)/urlr • 6 round trips daily, 11ondav Saturday, \car round, some exceptions (luring holidat pertod,. Sttttcla). or holiday schedule has been developed because of the litnitcd local transit connections currently ;tvaihthlc on these d :n s. It would be advantageous for Inter municipal buses tc: stop at existing transit stops, 1 credit allowance t<, transit operators could be determined to account for diversion <>f existing transit customers t<> the inter immunicipal buses. 11f'r>s'A' ,ll:.! .�lil +'rltil S',./w‘hiles Tice c'xt,nn;), departure' /arrivals at Brock and die two Niagara College campuses would remain unaffected by the introduction of tints 'Fri city proposal assuming, no changes arc made to the e\istitng contracts between the students' unions and the existing transit operator,. It would he up to the Region to determine whether to charge the ,tuclents' union, stn extra tcc' for the a \'aila of nc \y inter - mnicipal departures between terminals. It would he best to have 4 accessible buses capable of highway operation, 2 of which would be <I,are. ;l\ore the Region is planning fig. 7 buses, however it is felt that one spare is not sufficient to ;tlloW for MT( ) inspections, maintenance and periodic failures). Produced on: (>i 12'20l t) i ..tell transit properly would: r Provide two buses dail\ and require the ee1W\•alen if approximately 5 :iddiu„n:il den ct•s eneh. r lie responsible for the licensing, insurance and maintenance of their assigned eludes. the two spares \V( be the responsibility of Niagara Galls Transit. i'r, n iclr emergency servicing of each other's buses \\ hen necessar\ . lie responsible for obtaining the necessary permits under the Public \ chides \et. r \lake emplo\ec layover t;acilities a\'ailal)le to the other rwo operators \\ ithin their respective downtown terminals. I 'nsure all bus radios include frequencies of all three transit operators. First Year Cost St,z : ari• Initial (.appal \nnual ( )perating 1'.xpensc \nnual ( )perauttg Revenue \ nnual ( ) pc•r -wog Loss lt.'( not() ( )ti1, r ( r, r ,..; Produced on: 6 1? 2010 ti3.7 million for eight basses S2.7 million S0.1-1 million (based on l nira estimate of new ridership) S 1.') nlillit>n I he intent is to introduce this service as soon as new buses can he delivered. It should be no lo.' I t hat Coach Canada, ( ire\ hound and (;O Transit offer frequent express service bee cep the Niagara Lill: and St. Catharines bus terminals using the ( I 1 \ \' t„r a one \ aV fare of "I lie'1 ri ( I i t\ •c r\ tcc « Quid not use the limes ,u the tertiiinals are designed to be customer friendly "memory schedules ". They are subject to mochtirauon during the pilot period, and in am case \\ould need to he reworked to accommodate new demand for public transit generated by the new hospital and,`or the intnKluCi 1 of weekday (;( ) train service. Proposal INTERMUNICIPAL TRANSIT PROPOSAL 2 (Brock Hub) — May 11, 2010 . \ pother option would he to improve the existing connect ms at the Brock 1 lob, with increased frequencies to fort I .rie and Port ( :olborttc. As with proposal 1, this option would run as a pilot protect for a three year term. which would allow all the stakeholders sufficient time to market and monitor the service to determine its Zone terns feasibility. The viability of this pilot project proposal is based on the capital and operating costs being assumed (IN the Region. Schedules Produced on: 612:2010 4 '1 he ad )0itages of proposal 2 (Iir > ,ck 1lui> w he: • It M ould provide :01 improved transit alternative between tit. Catharines, Nugara 1 :Ills and Welland. r (' nuu•cuotts 0) I ort 1 .rie and P, >rt ( ;ol1rorne would be improved. r Additional manpower and buses would be required but they could be put into ol>c•ratiotl by the three existing providers with no large overhead increases. • l he cost would he dow than Pro 1 (1)ownt >> v n). [lie pl is to increase the trequcnc\ on some existing routes. Total trips would he as to11> >w s: N /,1;..1,11 I • 1 round trips per w eekda\', from September to April resulting in hourly service from appn>xanarely am ,) pill, excluding the peal, morning and late :rtrernoon period; when service would he hall hourk. • 15 round trips per weekday from \lay to \ugust. • 15 round trips on tiaturdars rear round. \1,1.:VnrI ,l 1'0r1 I.ri,' • tunnel trips daily. \Iondav - Saturday, year round, some exceptions during lolid pert, ,ds. /110 /3/» .1. • 16 round trips per \veekda\ from September to April resulting in hourly service from approximately , am >) pm, excluding tltc peak morning :Ind late itiernoon periods when sun ice would he half hourly. • 1 r trips per weehda\ from \1:lv to August. • 16 r trips on Saturdays year r > ,und. i • Ci round trills daily, NiOnda\' - Satlird:il', Year found, some exceptions during h011da\ 11c1rtc ls. fit. c ai h.n 1 i11e , ' 1 ' r,ittsir \\'ould assist in 1)ro0.'icling the adelirir,n:rl nll, during 1)c:lh hour',. fit. t :.itharnles Transit \could also he required to operate some extras on its own existing routes. [he existing departures "'arrivals at lirock and the two Niagara College campuses \uu1d remaifl unaffected by the introduction of this augmented set\ ice l)r()l)t).al, ilS n(, changes are made t() the cNistini; contracts between the students' unions and the existing transit operators. The disadvantage of this pr(,l)Os :d IS that there Are ttlereases in frequency Oil two routes \vhich are currently paid for ht' lit 'St.. and SAC. It \could he up to the Region to delcrn)inc \\het her t(, charge the students' unions an extra fee for the :nail;lhility of ne\\* departures. It caul be safel\ assumed that the t\\o students' unions mould inal(e every effort to tale ach :ultar;c 1(t this si ntanon tin:nutall\. \V h the llr(,p(iscd schedule, .i additional accessible buses \V ulcl be required, one designated t tr each transit property. It is rec()lnmcnded that the larch( ),:cs in the new inter municipal buses have data collection capacit\, the ability In issue transfers, read multi trill magnetic cards and :ire Smartc;trd read\. 1 he three transit operators would charge the same standard cash fare t() any inter municipal passengers. \ew tatrclii have the capacity to provide detailed usage and re\enue informant n it the• sint:il,le sot't\\are is installed at each point the) are dumped. llic11 operator would llcrl(xhea11v credo the Region for revenues collected, based in the tslrelloy, data c4 l lected. Produced on: C): 12'1010 First 'l'c•ar Cost SLJIntrtt:11y Initial (al�ital Annual ( )berating I \nnual ( )hc tatini, Revenue- 1111111:11 ( )1cr;tting 1 <, R (' rim() Produced on: 6712/2010 `I. I million for three It.c-; S ).92 milli +ni Sn.31 (assuming full revenue 1*CCON cry tiO.61 million )m stud LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMT PILOT PROJECT PROPOSAL #1: TRIANGLE SERVICE Lincoln Pelham Wainfleet St Catharines Pe" urj flock liffive/Sey 0 Niagara Co liege Welland Campus ; ,,11, 1 ■■It Fairview Malt 0 Seaway Mall Downtown Teroenal horold Niagara College Glendale Campus Niagara-On-The-Lake Rio Can Niagara Falls Niagara Falls N F Matet ! form fdin • ' ''•• • N41 fry Hub., prql, k c APPENDIX 2 /' New York 3 wara.o.f.Ar legend Route Names Route 1 Ntaeara 1.1Ils St ( atflalto VIEraIrS, Route 2 - Ntacaf, Falk. - Welhoti lIMEN Route 3 - St C3thaffles Welland Roferffoce Pomls, 4%43- Doettforf of 11,4,1+1 ft>, <1110(110040 ¢9i l d CITY OF,4 ! C 1A_PA NIAGARA FAi - The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Resolution No. Moved by Seconded by WHEREAS all meetings of Council are to be open to the public; and WHEREAS the only time a meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter falls under one of the exceptions under s. 239(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT on September 20, 2010 Niagara Falls Council will go into a closed meeting to consider a matter that falls under the subject matter of 239(2)(c) of the Municipal Act, 2001, a proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality. AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. DEAN IORFIDA R. T. (TED) SALCI CITY CLERK MAYOR