The URL can be used to link to this page

2011/01/31 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA SECOND MEETING Monday, January 31, 2011 4:00 p.m. City Hall, Committee Room #2A & B 1) Approval of the January 17, 2011, Committee of the Whole minutes. 2) REPORTS: STAFF CONTACT: a) F- 2011 -06 Waste Management Services ( HANDOUT) Todd Harrison b) MW- 2011 -07 Winter Maintenance - Pilot Policy Public Trails & Pathways Geoff Holman c) MW- 2011 -01 Cemetery Monument & Flower Bed Regulations Geoff Holman d) TS- 2011 -01 Fraser Street - Parking Control Review Karl Dren e) TS- 2011 -10 Montrose South Business Corridor TransCab Transportation Karl Dren 3) NEW BUSINESS: 4) ADJOURNMENT: IN- CAMERA SESSION a) Resolution to go into Closed Meeting. MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Monday, January 17, 2011 Committee Room 2, 4:00 P.M. All members of Council were present. Mayor Diodati chaired the meeting for item # 1 and then Councillor loannoni. 1) MINUTES: a) MOVED on the motion of Councillor Kerrio, seconded by Councillor Maves that the minutes of the December 13, 2011 Committee of the Whole meeting be approved. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council January 17, 2011. b) Chair of Committee of the Whole MOVED by the motion of Councillor Thomson, seconded by Councillor Maves that the issue of chairmanship of the Committee of the Whole be deferred. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council January 17, 2011 MOVED on the motion of Councillor Pietrangelo, seconded by Councillor Morocco that Councillor loannoni Chair the remainder of the meeting. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council January 17, 2011 Councillor Wing arrived. 2) REPORTS: a) MW- 2011 -05 DWQMS Roles and Responsibilities MOVED on the motion of Councillor Kerrio, seconded by Mayor Diodati that the report, presentation and associated documents be received and filed. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council January 17, 2011 -2- b) MW- 2011 -02 Regional Niagara Waste Collection Contract Proposed Containerized Waste Collection Kurt Klein, Klein Developments Limited, feels that the proposed change in garbage collection discriminates against apartment owners and their tenants. Mr. Klein feels that multi - residential properties having taken a lead in separation and waste diversion programs. He also felt that the bins are a legitimate way of disposing of waste, especially in a multi - residential setting. Mildred Rakich, Willoughby Drive, feels that the matter should not be passed on to the Region. City Councillors should protect the resident's interests. Shaukat Parekh, 4218 Portage Road, felt it was not right for the municipality to be collecting a waste management fee but not offer the service. Suzanna Rossi, Sarah Place, believes this decision will ultimately affect seniors in multi - residential settings. Jim McGregor, representing Shabri Properties Ltd., indicated that the City of Niagara Falls is one of the few municipalities with the enhanced level of services and his client would like to see this continue by having the Region include the condominium units and residential rental units as part of the regular contract. Sal DiPietro, expressed his disappointment with the decision. Mr. DiPietro indicated that he currently has a contract with Modern with get -out clause included if the City so decides to change its decision. Felix Pingue, does not want to see this services taken away. MOVED on the motion of Councillor Wing, seconded by Councillor Thomson that the following be approved: 1. That Council support the recommendation at Regional Council to expand the multi -res bag limit to 12 bags or 1 bag per unit to a maximum of 12. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council January 17, 2011 MOVED on the motion of Councillor Gates, seconded by Councillor Morocco that Council refer the issue of containerized waste collection to staff for more information, including what's done in other municipalities. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council January 17, 2011 -3- c) MW- 2011 -03 Niagara Falls History Museum Lundy's Lane Battlefield Legacy Project Update Don Jackson stressed the importance of the Gateway /Pedestrian walkway as a key component in the overall Legacy project. He indicated that donations are contingent upon the walkway going forward and outlined the support from the Main & Ferry and Lundy's Lane BIA's. MOVED on the motion of Councillor Thomson, seconded by Councillor Morocco that the following be approved. 1. That the City engage the consulting engineering services of R and R Associates Limited to complete the required Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Gateway/Walkway feature of the Lundy's Lane Legacy Project; and, 2. That $80,000 be allocated for the EA from the Lundy's Lane Historical Museum Expansion (Niagara Falls History Museum) project approved in the 2010 Capital Budget. Motion: Carried Opposed: Councillor Wing Action: Recommendation submitted to Council January 17, 2011 d) R &C - 2011 -01 Leash Free Dog Park Don Udell outlined the benefits of such a park. MOVED on the motion of Mayor Diodati, seconded by Councillor Kerrio that the following be approved. 1. That the development of a leash free dog park at Stamford Centre Volunteer Firemen's Association's park be approved in principle; 2. That Council refer the development of a leash free dog park to 2011 Capital budget process; 3. And that a Friends of Niagara Falls Leash Free Dog Park be developed to assist with fund raising. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council January 17, 2011 -4- e) TS- 2011 -08 Transit Adjustments to Service the New Wal- Mart/Smart Centres Plaza - Oakwood Drive Mr. Wayne Savoie, 4400 Lyons Creek, a loyal Transit user, outlined how the changes could affect him. MOVED on the motion of Councillor Wing, seconded by Councillor Thomson that the following be approved. 1. That Council endorse the proposed transit route adjustment plan to service the new Wal- Mart/Smart Centres Plaza on Oakwood Drive and approve the TransCab Service for the Stanley Avenue South Corridor. 2. That the TransCab service be reviewed within a 6 -month period. Motion: Carried Opposed: Councillor Wing Action: Recommendation submitted to Council January 17, 2011 3) ADJOURNMENT: Moved on the motion of Councillor Pietrangelo, seconded by Councillor Morocco that the meeting be adjourned at 6:25 p.m. and Committee move into an In- Camera Session. Motion: Carried MW- 2011 -07 Niagaraj1alls January 31, 2011 REPORT TO: Members of the Committee of the Whole City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works SUBJECT: MW- 2011 -07 Winter Maintenance - Pilot Project Public Trails & Pathways RECOMMENDATION 1. That staff be directed to initiate winter maintenance services to designated trails and pathways on a trial basis as set out in this report; and further, 2. That staff gather feedback from various user groups on the results of the 2011 trail maintenance and solicit comments regarding future levels of service. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff has received a number of requests from recreation enthusiasts and mobility - challenged residents to plow, sand and salt the trails and pathways that are used occasionally during the winter season. Since this is a new service it is appropriate to offer it as a pilot project so that staff can seek additional feedback from the public and review alternative methods of service delivery. The service will commence effective February 7, 2011. This will give us time to erect signs, coordinate staff and inform the public of what they can expect with respect to the condition. Staff is proposing three options for the Council to consider but are recommending that we proceed with the "As and When" (As needed ... When resources are available) standard to cover this winter season. Cost estimates for the other service level options will be presented to the Council during the 2011 Budget deliberations. This approach allows more opportunity for feedback from the citizens and special interest groups like the Mayor's Disability Advisory Committee, Mayor's Youth Advisory Committee and the Park in the City Committee. Winter maintenance will only be provided on those trails and pathways that are hard surfaced (asphalt or concrete) that can be reasonably accessed with mechanical equipment. A map of these areas is provided as Attachment 1. January 31, 2011 - 2 - MW- 2011 -07 BACKGROUND The City's Sidewalk winter maintenance policy sets out clear performance standards for plowing, sanding and salting of sidewalk sections located within municipal road allowances. The standard is needed to; 1. Quantify the dollars needed for budget purposes, 2. Provide a defensible position in the event of claims against the City for injuries due to slips and falls, 3. Articulate to the community the scope and purpose of this service. Since resources are finite and the weather conditions are uncertain, this standard only allows staff to plow about 1 /3rd of the City's sidewalks. Manpower and equipment resources are fully deployed to ensure that the standard is met. Depending on the storm intensity, duration, manpower availability (due to the Hours of Work Legislation) and antecedent conditions it may take a number of days to achieve the standard. Following minor or Tess- intense storms and during nonevent days there may be some capacity to take on additional work from time to time. Due to the unpredictability of the weather, any commitment to expand the existing routes or add new trails and pathways will result in a decrease in the existing level of service (i.e., longer response times) and / or additional equipment. At it's meeting on Monday, December 13, 2010, Council received a presentation from the Operations Superintendent outlining the current level of service and performance standards for the City's Winter Control services. During the discussion the issue of trail and pathway maintenance was discussed and staff expressed their intention to collect information and report back to Council for consideration to provide this new service. ANALYSIS /RATIONALE Staff has identified three options and has evaluated the advantages and disadvantages as follows; 1. As Required and When City Resources are Available ( "As and When ") This standard allows the City to utilize equipment and manpower resources as they become available. No additional manpower or equipment is required however some overtime costs will be incurred from time to time. This approach provides an inconsistent level of service and those using these trails and pathways will have certain expectations as to the response times and conditions. 2. New Trail Standards This standard could be set after consulting with advisory groups to allow staff to match the level of service with the expectations of the community. This approach will involve the need for more equipment and resources, as the plowing, sanding and salting operation will be conducted independently of the road and sidewalk maintenance operations. January 31, 2011 - 3- MW- 2011 -07 3. Current Sidewalk Standards This standard would be consistent with the existing sidewalk standard. This approach would make it easier for the public to understand as there would be no distinction between what was considered a trail /pathway or a sidewalk. This option will result in additional manpower and equipment resources unless the decision was made to reduce the current response times for sidewalk clearing. FINANCIAL /STAFFING /LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Staff estimates that providing the "As and When" level of service will result in a modest cost increase of $25,000 in the 2011 Operating Budget. Most of the costs will be for new signage. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT This recommendation is consistent with Council's strategic commitment to provide customer service excellence and a healthy and safe community. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Plan of Trails and Pathways Recommended by: Geoff Holman, Director of Municipal Works Respectfully submitted: Ken odd, Chief Administrative Officer G. Holman r f�„ 1 City of Niagara Falls SYSTEM Niagara/it/1s WINTER TRAIL � SSEM N al ' j`� / t Haulage Road `'r / ,'� cn i 1 I 4 Trail �2km 5 f 1:nts '�, a ^�- � V ar a i l�e Church's Lane to = ,� / o r�...i, Addison Ave -0.12 km F � me �� n�lnnn . ,i ... . u MIn'n� la , Cp. i rr0 i,, km X0.05 km - a ria -2 . Al a +� ��0n �� :�� r�- = ■ Millenium Trail < Olympic Torch Phase 4 -1.4km = ,", Run Legacy Trail PI � , � a' n �1�� (Phase 1) �1.4km vI ■ . ■ . , MORRIS/ N ST W � ■,,•••••■ ll ■ i/r i' / 11111111.11. ��nr�y , , di Immo Arms011,4 I NO Will 7/ 0111111,41:140pItar / / p cl> Mg n i I•T -,, 1 I � tilr m ,nn 11 •• .. 'ii �� "'' S�� !; XI 0 i n an all 1 : 1 LUNDY'S LN Gary Hendershot ` Memorial Trail -0.3km / ow& sim 1 11 � � ( V t tVT' . 0.23 km fac f I41---* I Millenium Trail I•Mo ___ a, , u ,__ \-,,,,, � ( Phase 1) -2km Ma L��r 0.0 km z--- ,_____ • . NOM .D RD 'Via ' r .N. Garner Neighbourhood � ! �,7 �� "11M. '' Trail -0.5km � iil 1 1 •7 ' IN BR• N RD t { MI ,,, , I , / S School 111111 r.` City Owned I ~' , Chippawa Lion's • fil ;, Park Fitness c Other Ownership Q oc•- P ',/ _ . - --.,. _ _, --- . _., -_ V ----- - - %1 0 Pathway -1km = •-•• -- Walkway Under Review cM`P �1��` r < 0 & 5 - - '' cl / 0,1 Ny K: \GIS \2011\ Custom\ Internal \MunWorks \TrailsRFP.map January 2011 /Y y/A, MW- 2011 -01 Niagaraaalls January 31, 2011 REPORT TO: Members of the Committee of the Whole City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works SUBJECT: MW- 2011 -01 Cemetery Monument & Flower Bed Regulations RECOMMENDATION That the a nts to Cemetery By -law 0 -254, pertaining to onument Regulations, be approved; and that Flower Bedg consisten i the current By-la 1. That staff come back with amendments to the Cemetery By -law to allow for 60" height; 2. That the Flower Bed regulations stay consistent but existing beds be allowed; and 3. That staff investigate the unused section of the Fairview Cemetery for larger monuments; and 4. That staff propose a fee schedule justifying increased fees for increased heights and bring forward the proposal to the Ministry of Consumer Services Cemetery Branch. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2010 Council requested Staff to review the monument regulations and report back with potential amendments to the height restrictions as well as subsequent revenue generation opportunities. BACKGROUND The Cemetery By -law was last updated in January 2000. The By -law provides direction and guidance for the operation and administration of municipal cemeteries. The public receive a copy of the By -law upon purchase of a cemetery plot as well as being available for reference and distribution at the Cemetery office. Information on the monument and flower bed regulations are most requested by the public. At the meeting on May 31, 2010 Council directed staff to review the current policies and granted approval for an exception to the standard (Maslek family). ANALYSIS /RATIONALE Monument Regulations The maximum size for monuments has been consistent for over 35 years. By -law 1973.22, section 7(18) states: "in no cemetery shall the die of a monument exceed three feet -six inches in height ". The maximum thickness of a base continues to be 10 ". Prior to 1973 monuments did not have a regulated maximum height. Prior to this date the trend was to install large monuments, sometimes reaching 15' or more in several large "family plots ", containing twelve to twenty graves. These monuments are spaced far enough apart to be aesthetically pleasing as well as not interfering with the neighbouring plot or the day to day maintenance and operations of the cemetery. These large monuments are most noticeable in the older sections of Fairview Cemetery, dating back to 1883. There is no industry standard for monument sizes, therefore cemetery owners set their own regulations. The regulations take into account the type of plot - cremation, single, double, triple, etc. The height of the monument is an important factor when considering the grave January 31, 2011 - 2 - MW- 2011 -01 opening and closing operation. A backhoe operator must manoeuver over and around monuments to open a grave and deposit the soil into a two tonne truck. This is a concise operation requiring great care by the backhoe operator and truck driver not to damage any monuments. The City would be liable for any damage caused to monuments, resulting in the replacement of the monument at a cost of several thousand dollars, as well as, understandably, the poor customer relations aspect. In preparing this report, seven municipalities were surveyed to determine their maximum allowed monument height. The current maximum height for monuments in Niagara Falls is a 42" die on top of a 10" base for a total of 52 ". This combined die and base height compares favourably with other municipalities, with St. Catharines and Thorold allowing an additional height at 60 "; while Ft. Erie allows only 42 "; Welland, Wainfleet and Chatham -Kent allows 48" and Oakville allows 54 ". The following table provides the Monument Height Comparisons between municipalities. Municipality Double Plot Triple or Base Height More Height Height Proposed Amendment 48" 48" 10" Niagara Falls Niagara Falls 42" 42" 10" St. Catharines 60" 60" inclusive Thorold 60" 60" inclusive Welland 48" n/a inclusive Ft Erie 42" 42" inclusive Wainfleet 48" 48" inclusive Chatam Kent 48" 48" > 8 (ave 12) Oakville 54" 54" inclusive In July, 2010 Monument Dealers and Funeral Directors were asked for their written comments on the monument regulations as the Cemetery By -law currently stands. A meeting was then held in October, 2010 to review the submissions and discuss potential changes to the monument regulations as a whole. The meeting was well attended with representation from four local monument dealers and two local funeral homes. As a result, a number of height and width amendments are proposed for Council's consideration. Briefly, the Amendments allow for the size of a flat marker to increase by a 2" width. A monument placed in a Single Adult & Cremation grave measuring 48" wide, will increase by 2" in width and 6" in height. A Double Plot monument will increase by 6" in width and 6" in height. Similarly, a Triple Plot will increase by 6" in width and 6" in height. In all circumstances it is understood that the Monument Regulations provide the "maximum" allowed height and width restrictions. In most cases families opt for a smaller monument than what the By -law offers. The average monument in a double plot, for example, includes a 42" base with combined base and die height of 42 ". January 31, 2011 - 3 - MW- 2011 -01 The monument industry is a competitive business, and as such, families will shop around for a particular design at the best price. As a result, Monument Dealers concurred that the City should stay consistent with the monument regulations noted in the By -law to ensure fairness to all. Staff agreed they will continue to work with the families and Monument Dealers to meet the public's needs while staying within the limits of the monument regulations, as amended. At Council's request, Staff also looked into possible revenue generation by allowing extra height to the monuments. The Ministry of Consumer Services, Cemetery Branch was contacted to clarify this potential fee. The Cemetery Branch representative stated that a cemetery owner can not charge a fee unless an actual service was provided. The Cemeteries Act (Revised), 1990 does not allow Cemetery owners to profit from monument installations, including foundations. Allowing extra height to a monument would benefit the monument dealers only and add an extra burden to the cemetery operations. Flower Bed Regulations As with monuments, the size of a garden placed in a cemetery plot, has an affect on the cemetery maintenance and operation. A Cremation Plot allows for a garden that is 12" wide, while Single, Double & Triple Adult Plots allow for an 18" wide garden. The backhoe and dump truck must manoeuver their way down the cemetery rows in order to open a grave and later to close a grave. Flower beds that are larger than the regulation size create a problem during this operation as the flower bed size must be compatible with the width of the equipment. Otherwise, Staff are left with driving over the gardens (not a good option) removing the gardens and reinstating them after the interment, or finding an alternate route to the grave site. In closing a grave, Staff would have to use Gators, rather than the more efficient use of a dump truck to haul the soil down the row to the open grave, due to the over -sized flower beds that they would have to contend with. Rather than one trip with a dump truck, the use of Gators would require up to ten trips, utilizing more staff and taking more time. Winter conditions further exasperate the opening and closing operation as Staff contend with obstacles frozen into the ground, including cement borders, vases, ornaments, etc. Day to day grass maintenance is also affected by the oversized gardens. Kubota grass cutters can not manoeuver around the gardens, therefore Staff must turn around and come in to the row from the opposite side of the Section to finish the grass cutting. Over the past several years, Staff have been successful in educating the public in the rationale of the Flower Bed Regulations. Once the public understand the reason for the size regulations, they are cooperative in keeping their gardens within the limits of the By- law. A Flower Bed Guidelines brochure (attached) is a helpful tool. This brochure is provided to the public upon the purchase of Interment Rights, is included in the mailing of the Interment Contract, is handed out to the families who are tending their gardens and is available in the cemetery office for reference and distribution. Due to the needs of the cemetery operation, Staff are recommending that the Flower Bed Regulations stay consistent with the Cemetery-By -law 2000 -254, at this time. Staff are also looking at potential revenue generation in 2011 including a Flower Garden Program, whereby families can hire cemetery staff to prepare and maintain their cemetery plot gardens. Information on this and other revenue generation ideas will be presented in a future Council Report. January 31, 2011 - 4 - MW- 2011 -01 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Monument Regulation Amendments 2. Flower Bed Guidelines brochure Recommended by: Geoff Holma , Dir tor of Municipal Works Respectfully submitted: Ken Tod , Chief Administrative Officer C. Roberts CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS MUNICIPAL WORKS CEMETERY SERVICES BY -LAW # 2000 - 254 SCHEDULE C Monument & Marker Procedures As Amended January 2011 SCHEDULE "C" CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS - MUNICIPAL WORKS CEMETERY SERVICES BY -LAW # 2000 - 254 Monument & Marker Procedures January, 2011 Amendments The following information is a summary of the procedures for installing monuments or markers in Municipal Cemeteries. A complete listing of rules and regulations pertaining to Monuments, Markers & Cornerstones is provided in the preceding Cemetery By -law. 1. ONLY ONE MONUMENT IS ALLOWED ON A PLOT OR SINGLE LOT. 2. Flat markers must be installed so that the top is level with the ground. 3. Foundations are poured between April 1st and November 1st of each year. 4. Foundations are not required for markers and pillow /bevel monuments where a base is less than 30" x 14" and base & die is no higher than 28" inclusive. 5. Where a foundation is not required, stone dust must be placed under the marker or monument to a minimum depth of 4 ". 6. All monuments, bases and markers must be made of granite only. 7. Wooden crosses are only allowed on a temporary basis of up to one year and must not exceed the height & width of the allowed monument for the applicable plot. 8. Base dimensions are regulated for various sizes of upright, bevel and pillow monuments. 9. The City of Niagara Falls is NOT responsible for any theft or vandalism to monuments, markers or lot decorations of any kind. 10. A "Marker Care & Maintenance" trust fee, as determined by the Province of Ontario, will be charged for monuments /markers as set out in the Cemetery Fees Schedule. This one time fee is placed in a Trust Fund "to maintain, secure and preserve the cemetery, its grounds and buildings and the equipment used for purposes of maintenance, security and preservation." (Cemetery Act Revised, 1990) a) no charge for a marker or base measuring less than 173 square inches b) $50.00 fee for a marker & pillow monument measuring over 173 square inches c) $100.00 fee for an upright monument measuring less than 4' in height d) $200.00 fee for an upright monument measuring over 4' in height or length The following pages provide the maximum dimensions for monuments and markers that are allowed in the Municipal Cemeteries. The monument and base size can not exceed the dimensions indicated for the specific lot (i.e. cremain plot, infant lot, single lot, double plot). r 0 J <�--\ > X RI v c = � � d o E 0 TD > ''� 4- N L d CO J_ 0t i et ----- N 0� ld 4- co, 1 Zi / 0� y . co ___/ co T. O M O 4- N to 00 ��- O Z , O O 0 .� - V L". V V .. oo Cta 4 s•. 4 - 0 Y O to � cC •� bA O p O O '2 ac O -d C O p c N p +- r. p p - - cC M v) v) 0 O oo °o X o 0 k o„ O z 4.4 0 _ _ z 0 v) Q O O O O N i ce . �..i a) O hi c.- a) - c0 • i o s.�NQ� 3-1) 0 o � Q . -2 W k N "ti 1'" i pp N ' 7. •,--' - N � 0. y •o U M O .--1 .- . u a) — .--i .. = a) U .—. CI .—i y r a) O s. p > s. > O " .. C > ►� C/0 4 j . - p 4. c7:1 N p • RS O C/] N -d cd 2 i2 1 1 1 0 c� . a 1 c 1 1 O at i 0 cC r M w w U 0 w U 0 w w U 0 O o E p c� = tom. Q 4 U 4- 0 0 aJ 4- ._ _ - d J ti F C d - - , I t� rr d , 1 N 0 7 N. d `' 0 C 5 4 O. .O 4 .- O M C o z 0 "O o b.0 bA r • 'J � O O 'C M <4. N o 1 O O U O bA O s� C .4 00 00 ••^'" r... -� 00 O 5: ' E., 00 O O M M 0 ,--.. v O O :" H , O (sr p C H0... �F- Ha o o o x To' o ° x o& 4.1 o o x - r. CN o= •moo C4 c) 4 - � ' N 7i 'o oC0 L." M M O . . 4. C M N N O 0) C M M O .. • ^-, .� � C 3 E 3 Q..) — LT .. ) . c.4 . . (I) E g .,±-i o a, C N • ci • a ' 0 "0 U C O 0 a O O ^d O 6 U O N w \" N b . -� U O cn +' .� 1 C O C ct .a G N k C 4 'C ti Z• k C N O Q - 7) s... S".. U O C N 7::$ 0 —. Cr O 0 Cr c O .—i a" O • tt - (7; �" • cC O C • c��dr+ i M C cC O � +' p p s cC cd O O �, ` ,: cC .S O N s. ai w eL) O• ti C C s. G ` � O s� O cd C .... - O i C i m i i p cd . — i O cd � - S i 1 O cd + O 4. u 0 : '.. E. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • cl e - E U d d o 0 J d a> y Zt - _ - -- 0.2 - ,- \ 0 1 � �� / V y, ' 0 1 / / \ ,V A , A \ '-� 1 1 / .+ � , y / �- % / /� > � / / / / E E .., 0 , t / / / / � C / / / 0 // / C- � / / / / / / 2 / / / ,Q J / ¢i / / / \ �V // / / / // // i C � V/ % , / / �� . A // / / Q. / / n . / i - c y / o 4 0 0 Q m 0 to 0 C4 CA 0 4.. E N w5 to z ✓ im -+ �: � E V oo O O C N O oo 0 M �+ 5 . x 0 o `. 0 a H o c H ii: H Ca li Can vD .. ' ^. E in Can Can x 0 0 1 ' ' L ' iA 0 O x :� r• E 0 a o 0 0 + 0 0 o + 0. - C '�rN o at °' '� 'c7o� oa1 1 z ... • - cn 4.4 (i) .g. CA N 0 0 -� � � '7,-; � � � E o. '- 4 - b • • ) 2 o • ▪ s o z 71- --- a. 0 'b ° ° oo 03 - 4D Z ' CO O C c) . 1:/ Z O a) �a� �z cn CL) . 0 7 v.) o - � �3 w an • - ° 0 �. '71 1 O ° o ^, x a s �; 0 o a = a = >..1 �" � w �.� °w w wUOZ ct � ° O w 1 o d rt., A o c` d a E.' N �m c m _ ,,, / \-, -\ \- _S\ - a / S * s - 0 /// / / , / . / / / / / 0 CD / a ___/ / / % to / % / ,as i �� /,,,/ ' j� �, / // \ / / / U ct O bA 4 7:1 cci 7, a) cr U sr w O o n d c to 'C to — O O x mi v, A., = + a p x • FA O d O v) C'Ci ° U O W O M 'Cr U O N i a N G� U V] E d9 — r ,, N 00 n 69 W " 69 Q N U c � bA Z '� tt E N 8 N U Z Q O a) ° moo a -c�'�p c -,z; . � �� -0 N a• a4a•Xas a u ,y,w F- E s�,E z u>.� a o a 2 . w w °UOaZ w °UZ d c �oU p ., • • • • • 0 rs, s . . . 0 • • • cu cu W x o .r F H a 0 a m % I \\ Y e- O T. , a) ct ct 0 v) -C 3 a) • L w z 0 U 0 0 . O - -� E-+ °? v) O O O f f . ] O O . - . H - " ci O + (7:: C. N bA x ~ bA c) 0 - c 91' 7 0 ... N O D O z v G Q , ,.5 ., O 6 a) CC) _; °' m a ' + °' = �' = A., VD `' -, Ct; o a� C Q ^2 O/ Q -� O °' 1 N , _ 2 0 . E G. °? y 0 ~ v i i " t ' . + N c n d • cu . w ° U w ° U w� ' 6 ° o 4.1. w > Website: www.niagarafalls.ca Cemetery Services @ corner of Stanley &Morrison Appearances Continued... 4501 Stanley Avenue Monday to Friday Phone: 905-354-4721 Cemetery Services a) a) O C 6- c (0 C C o 0 2) -c- O c U • a' a EL) O co a) 7 O O Q) (0 -o a1 C O . 9 ) Q).0 3 d 0) - O O O Y c 0 E 1- 0 •a 'a :, y c a) o ° ' c _c o a) .N ° a3 C Y c6 a) U !) il I 3 (a p 3iu 4r-Ds c - a `° i - 2 c @(n a,a - 0 ai o ° E 0 E 0 _ m a) U d ° @ O cn C (0 C Q L Q a O C `° _ vi _c CO c d 0 O= c O O(A N o a •° 7 0 vi m a) O U co ) N L c .2 v1 4) . � CO N '° f0 '6 �- U o a) L .0 2 c .� -0 N L 5 L N O 3 o c �._ ao m -cw o a)E o `a) - a.) o o U. a Eoco 2 Wa co -a _o (L 1 A ••••• "-) .. - o 5 o aOi p ca - r - • a) _ L > f E a) u) 7 O U 3 ° I''g CO C a) aC a O O o is a a) 2 , o c G E y " a, �° c c ai cn w 1 m `° m CO °� c o c 3 cts - a o E: E ov, �co o • @ • 3 m 3 (n O 0 41-.' y O O E L a)) a) 'O co w a, c �_ a) f0 E C a) i`' C c 4) 7 U C (0 p N UO ._ (6 .a :T 6, O ' r_c . co N C E G Q... (n Cn J U d a E 0) � � c O o f0 o t 0�cO U cn a f 0 _0 a o�T -0 ,m @ off ��, v c a,caa F. co C ,, U.0 > ` �° E L 2'+ ifip o R E(n E vg. -''i � Eooco IIID 0 c E 7 (o o a� c va .00 c L o � i 'in' � E CE 7 E w a, co 'E m T ' ,., E��NOt6 _ a " N . b- d _c O >, • 0 O ," �,(y , p c p O E N C � z y c L C C ( N8 € L .. (6 N w p m co ° a ° a, m c> p w E ccc_?° c o -.0 . a) ? d a) O- (0 c a E y a C C 33 o V E o N u, it �.c cis EC p VI ° ai ns "(7; _8' o '2' a Z' � c w o ° c ) 0 • m ° c a0 Ey L W Nowi 0) m o,c cca-o a, T . 0 ° 3 o ° c E_� C n 3 y o c°) a, m- E aa� o a ° aoa, � v,a,3°) u ,o7� N> '�' c cco p o = a, a• > o m a, c E ° E o0- a 3 co E a) ° E y� f..1 a 0m mE iso °- c ^ aCD �' o n ° — c = a ) L o 7 ° - c „ 9 - - c c cn . E W �' a c a, E� m 0 E u, o' er o— E � � � � � �w ° >, c c o a • E• f >,� " v a, c .- a E ° O L_ L c L N E to o U ° Y :: 0 '0 f0 ca o N O c O c = E 'a c ° O w _C (0 O w Ida 7 L A C 'a 0 a U o C N N 7 C, _ f0 - r'' w EP-cc,„?,,, O :� O U (0 N L (0 7 .- 7 N c c �' a o w U) U (0 3 (0 p a, co c E a) m° p ac ( (n a) co ( o U � a._ 3 a>, nod L o a),Na°+' ,,,1 Li. I- o Uo r: ss FrA, TS- 2011 -01 Niagarapalls January 31, 2011 REPORT TO: Chair, Committee of the Whole City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Transportation Services Department SUBJECT: TS- 2011 -01 Fraser Street Parking Control Review RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Tat a permit p ing zone is impl ented on the no side of Fraser Street from a p t 72 metres t of Stanley Ave to a point 15 m res east of the west limit of Fra r Street. 2) That parkin a prohibited on a north side of er Street from tanley Avenue to a point 15 m tres west of Sta y Avenue to pro a for a corner triction. 3) That parking be prohibited on the south side of Fraser Street and i1' be revie■eel in (c, mon+s. tea+ s - Foece assrs4 - Comedy CItA.,b to accvu,vc fatiner pa✓kirtn accornoda EXECUTIVE SUMMARY and S+p- rtpor+ back - la Co ws► -c,k l • The recommended permit parking zone will allow area residents and their visitors to park on the street through the use of a residential or a visitor parking permit. A 57 -metre segment on the north side of Fraser Street will remain unrestricted to allow for some overflow parking for businesses. BACKGROUND In response to a petition submitted by Fraser Street residents, City Staff has investigated the parking situation on Fraser Street. The concern stems from overflow vehicles from area businesses parking on both sides of Fraser Street thus reducing the available road width for residents and emergency vehicles. Residents identified that the issue is further exacerbated in the winter when snow banks narrow the pavement width. Residents requested the City establish a parking permit system at all times or after 5:00 p.m. At present time, parking is restricted at all times on both sides of Fraser Street from the west limit and a point 15 metres east. This restriction was implemented in accordance with Parking and Traffic Bylaw 89 -2000 which states that parking is prohibited at specified places when signs are present "within fifteen metres (15 metres) of the termination of a dead end roadway." In addiction, permit parking control is present on the north side of Fraser Street between a point 15 metres east of the west limit and a point 46 metres east of the west limit. This restriction was implemented in 1996 at the request of a resident. January 31, 2011 -2- TS- 2011 -01 ANALYSIS /RATIONALE Fraser Street is located in an industrial zone. It extends in an east /west direction from Stanley Avenue to a dead end located approximately 215 metres west of Stanley Avenue. The roadway is 7 metres in width, consisting of a paved shoulder on the north side and a grass /gravel boulevard on the south side. A sidewalk is present on both sides of the road. Although Fraser Street is predominantly residential in nature, all but one property abutting Fraser Street is zoned as industrial. The following establishments abut Fraser Street: Royal Canadian Legion, Deep Steam Master Cleaners, Streamline Auto Marine Interiors, and the House of Comedy. Each of the aforementioned establishments has sufficient off - street parking according to zoning regulations. However, when the parking lots from these businesses become full, drivers park their vehicles on Fraser Street. A questionnaire was delivered to each residence and business on Fraser Street requesting input from the home /business owner on their parking preference. The petition yielded a 64% response rate. Of those responding, 79% preferred to implement permit parking at all times on Fraser Street while 14% preferred that parking be restricted at all times. Discussions with the President of Branch 51 Royal Canadian Legion stated that there are only several functions throughout the year when an overflow of parking occurs. The Legion has made arrangements with the neighbouring business - Streamline Auto Marine Interiors to use their parking lot after hours. Should additional parking be required beyond that the Legion representative stated that there would be no issues requesting their patrons use the parking at Palmer Park. Upon approving a revision to the parking, the Legion will notify patrons by way of posting a notice in their facility. Discussions were also held with a House of Comedy representative. It was identified that the House of Comedy was not in favour of implementing a parking restriction on the street. The property may accommodate approximately 45 parked vehicles. A site visit on a Friday evening when the House of Comedy was hosting an event revealed that there were approximately 40 parked vehicles on the property and 8 vehicles parked on the street. The destination of the drivers /passengers of the parked vehicles was however unknown. Taking into account the residents and businesses responses as well as taking into consideration public safety staff is recommending the following. • a permit parking system be established for residents and their guests on the north side of Fraser Street westerly from the House of Comedy property. This area will accommodate approximately 12 parked vehicles. Parking permits are issued only to homeowners for their vehicles and their guests at no charge • "No parking" is recommended for the entire south side of Fraser Street. The recommended parking controls will ensure that safe passage can be maintained on Fraser Street at all times • unregulated parking be available for residents and /or businesses on the north side of Fraser Street from Stanley Avenue adjacent the property of the House of Comedy for distance of approximately 57m. This area will accommodate approximately 5 vehicles • a corner parking restriction of 15m be implemented on the north side of Fraser Street from Stanley Avenue west to ensure unobstructed turning maneuvers • overflow parking beyond the above be directed to the C.W. Palmer Memorial Park parking facility, located on the east side of Stanley Avenue, opposite to Fraser Street. No signage is required as this is a public park. January 31, 2011 -3- TS- 2011 -01 FINANCIAL /STAFFING /LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The installation /replacement of the signs is carried out by Transportation Services staff. The labour and material cost is accounted for in the 2011 General Purposes Budget. The estimated cost to install the signs is approximately $950. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Study Area drawing. Recommended by: ' c . Karl Dren, Director of Transportation Services Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer Tim Burshtein S: \General Administration \GA 1.01 Reports\2011 Committee of the Whole \01 Jan 31 \TS- 2011 -01 Fraser Street - Parking Control Review wpd t. 7 `' • x , mi ° r z -" P� fir•. ,« _ ,� k. �,� • Il • anuGAY , eIu ., "x ". . .,^ a� o ` CC co ". . , ; ! i, Y �" • .. * 1 - a }` 0 N x , f� Z a- i ' " ti � , Z i c K F n s O 0 CL ,1,,,' tiiimitti ,, • - -° • W d • I • 1 1 ems_ t ■ - : " • Mir J.‘7 ''. it a " il:::71'. • 4.--Tail -• , - . la_ ...:....„- , „ -7, . f ° . ,,, �. AMMO _ ' • � CD ' -..• ..4, . _ 3 ; ' A W .J ! < .7"1.- r V o - 4) e ',. A te' - �° y - �/ / #■ . ._ `� , 4 o (a �- . e L :b v , "r1 Z TS- 2011 -10 Niagara& lis January 31, 2011 1' REPORT TO: Members of the Committee of the Whole City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Transportation Services Department SUBJECT: TS- 2011 -10 Montrose South Business Corridor TransCab Transportation RECOMMENDATION That the TransCab pilot project, in the Montrose South Business Corridor, be extended for r six month period. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The TransCab pilot project initiative was implemented in December 2009 to fulfill transportation requirements of the employees within the Montrose South Business Corridor. The cost of the private taxi cab is paid by the municipality, but is subsidized through the sale of special tickets sold to the businesses for this service and additional fares realized by customers travelling to and from Niagara Square on Niagara Falls Transit. At present, approximately 50 percent of the cost of this service is subsidized, which is comparable to the funding model of Niagara Falls Transit. BACKGROUND In December 2009, Niagara Falls Transit, as a 6 -month pilot project, began to offer a TransCab service within the Montrose South Business Corridor located south of the Niagara Square. This grouping of businesses was outside the Niagara Falls Transit service area by approximately three kilometers making it more cost effective to use private taxi cabs based on the distance and number of customers utilizing the service. At the end of the initial pilot program, it was mutually agreed by the businesses utilizing the service and Transit staff that the initiative was well received and there was interest in continuing the program. A Report was brought to Council on June 28, 2010 where Council supported an extension of the program until the end of 2010. Supported by ongoing discussions with the businesses within this corridor, they would like Council to support its continuation. ANALYSIS /RATIONALE Though the additional TransCab fare does not fully recoup the cost incurred by the municipality to purchase the service from 5 -0 Taxi, the full rationale for this form of investment involves Niagara Falls Transit building a larger ridership base, hence gas tax subsidy, as well as enable employers to better retain and recruit personnel for the greater January 31, 2011 - 2 - TS- 2011 -10 health of the community. Further, the additional cost incurred by the municipality to provide the Taxi service to this low density catchment area is far Tess than the cost, which would be incurred if a daily routing were introduced. FINANCIAL /STAFFING /LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The annual cost for taxi service is estimated to be $36,000, which will be offset by estimated ticket sales of $18,000, leaving a net cost of approximately $18,000 for the program for 2011. This amount has been accounted for in the 2011 General Purposes Budget CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT 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. List of Attachments Montrose South Business Corridor TransCab Map Recommended by: Karl Dren, Director of Transportation Services Respectfully submitted: p Y Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer D.Stuart S: \General Administration \GA 1.01 Reports \2011 Committee of the Whole \01 Jan 31 \TS- 2011 -10 TransCab Transportation - Montrose South Update.wpd Di 1 CITY OF f - . CANADA N The City of Niagara Falls, Ontario Resolution No. Moved by Councillor Seconded by Councillor 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 January 31, 2011 Niagara Falls Council will go into a closed meeting to consider a matter that falls under the subject matter of 239(2)(d) of the Municipal Act, 2001, labour relations or employee negotiations. AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. DEAN IORFIDA JAMES M. DIODATI CITY CLERK MAYOR