Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2011/02/28
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA FOURTH MEETING Monday, February 28, 2011 4:00 p.m. City Hall, Committee Room #2A & B 1) Approval of the February 14, 2011 Committee of the Whole minutes. 2) PRESENTATIONS: a) Presentation by Boy's Soccer Club re: Indoor Soccer Facility 3) REPORTS: STAFF CONTACT: a) R- 2011 -05 Implementation of a Smoke -free By -law for Parks, Recreation Outdoor Facilities and Greenspace Kathy Moldenhauer b) MW- 2011 -11 2011 Water Conservation Program Geoff Holman c) MW- 2011 -10 Mewburn Road Bridge Project Cost Sharing Referral to the Canadian Transportation Agency Geoff Holman d) PD- 2011 -14 Final Location for Queen Victoria Monument Alex Herlovitch f) HR-2011-01 Fire Services Full Time Recruitment Trent Dark 4) NEW BUSINESS: 5) ADJOURNMENT: IN- CAMERA SESSION a) Resolution to go into Closed Meeting. MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Monday, February 14, 2011 Committee Room 2, 4:30 P.M. All members of Council were present. Councillor loannoni chaired the meeting. 1) MINUTES: a) MOVED on the motion of Councillor Morocco, seconded by Councillor Thomson that the minutes of the January 17 and 31, 2011 Committee of the Whole meeting be approved. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council February 14, 2011. 2) REPORTS: a) MW- 2011 -09 Front End Bin Collection for Multi- residential Buildings MOVED on the motion of Councillor Thomson, seconded by Councillor Pietrangelo that staff be directed to confirm its agreement with the Region of Niagara's recommendation to extend the front end bin collection service to eligible multi - residential properties in the City of Niagara Falls for one year period effective March 1, 2011 in accordance with the proposal from Modern Landfill Inc. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council February 14, 2011. b) TS- 2011 -11 Portage Road - Speed Control Review MOVED on the motion of Councillor Thomson, seconded by Councillor Morocco that two (2) speed humps be installed on Portage Road between Mayfair Drive and Stamford Green Drive. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council February 14, 2011. Councillor Wing arrived 4:45 p.m. -2- c) TS- 2011 -12 Transit Routing Ad -hoc Advisory Committee MOVED on the motion of Councillor Thomson, seconded by Councillor Pietrangelo that: 1. Council Approve the establishment of a Transit Routing Ad -hoc Advisory Committee for the purpose of developing a comprehensive Routing and Scheduling Implementation Plan; and 2. That Councillor loannoni be appointed as Chair of the Committee and the second member be appointed when Council makes their appointments for the various committees for the current term. Motion: Carried Action: Recommendation submitted to Council February 14, 2011. 3) ADJOURMENT: MOVED on the motion of Councillor Morocco, seconded by Councillor Maves that the meeting be adjourned at 4:50 p.m. and Committee move into an In- Camera Session. Motion: Carried Clerks Department Inter - Department Memorandum TO: Councillor Carolynn Ioannoni DATE: February 28, 2011 & the Committee of the Whole FROM: Dean Iorfida City Clerk Ext. 4271 RE: Presentation by Boy's Soccer Representatives from Boy's Soccer will be making a presentation regarding a proposed indoor soccer facility they wish to develop. They are looking to partner with the City, similar to what was done with the organization in the development of the Boy's Home for Soccer at E.E. Mitchelson Park. RECOMMENDATION: That Committee receive the presentation and refer the matter of a partnership to staff for a future report. d ,)111A- Working Together to Serve Our Community (2/23/2011) Dean Iorfida - NFSC - Council Meeting Page 1 From: Nick Montanaro <nick.montanaro @niagarahri.com> To: "diorfida @niagarafalls.ca" <diorfida @niagarafalls.ca> CC: "nfscoffice @gmail.com" <nfscoffice @gmail.com >, "Ichamberlain3 @cogeco.ca "... Date: 2/19/2011 4:44 PM Subject: NFSC - Council Meeting Hello Dean; Thank you for taking the time with your colleagues to meet with us last Monday afternoon. We would like to request that the meeting with City Council be arranged for Monday February 28 as we discussed. I will put together a power point presentation of our information and either email if possible or bring with me the day of the meeting. We are very excited to try and get this project off the ground and to have an appropriate location for the community to work on their soccer training and much more. Sincerely; Nick Montanaro Director of Food and Beverage Hilton Hotel and Suites Niagara Falls /Fallsview /'/j►� R &C- 2011- 05 Niagaraaalls February 28, 2011 REPORT TO: Councilor Carolynn loannoni, Chair and Members of the Committee of the Whole City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Recreation & Culture SUBJECT: R &C- 2011 -05 Implementation of a Smoke Free By -law for Parks and Recreation Outdoor Facilities and Greenspace RECOMMENDATION That smoking NOT be permitted at all City facilities, including bus shelters. 1. at the City o Niagara Falls stablish smok -free parks /pla rounds, trails, playing fie .s, splash p ds and swim ing pools as signated by s ns and enforced by mu 'cipal by -law ffective May , 2011. 2. That P. ks By -law N . 71 -57 be a ended. 3. That the 'ty of Niagara ails establis smoke -free in entrance a designated outdoor sm. ing areas at II City Com nity Facilities s designated b signs, with a $100.00 fin- for noncom fiance. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Numerous Ontario Municipalities are implementing smoke -free policies and by -laws for parks and playgrounds to create a safer and healthier environment for children. Research is clear on the negative impacts of second -hand smoke on a casual bystander. To reduce the negative health impact, Recreation & Culture is recommending the creation of smoke - free community facility entrances and all outdoor facilities including parks and recreation facilities and open green space. A complete list of smoke free outdoor park and recreation facilities are listed in Attachment #1. Attachment #2 shows each community facility smoke - free main entrance and the proposed smoking area. BACKGROUND The Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion states tobacco use is the biggest preventable cause of death and disease in Ontario. It kills 13,000 Ontarians each year. Smoking costs Ontario $4.3 billion: $1.7 billion in health care costs and $2.6 billion in lost productivity. Ontario has established a comprehensive Smoke -Free Ontario Strategy which combines public education with programs, policies and legislation to encourage young people not to smoke, help smokers quit, and protect people from exposure to second -hand smoke. Through the Smoke -Free Ontario Act (enacted May 31, 2006), the Ontario Government protects the health of all citizens by prohibiting smoking in enclosed workplaces and enclosed public places. As of January 21, 2009, smoking in a motor vehicle with children under age 16 years present is also prohibited. February 28, 2011 - 2 - R&C- 2011 -05 ANALYSIS /RATIONALE Second -hand smoke is linked to cancer, increased risk of heart disease and respiratory illness. Outdoor concentrations of second -hand smoke have been found to rival those of indoor second -hand smoke during periods of active smoking (depending on the direction of the wind and the distance from the smoker). Cigarette butts are a common form of litter and a safety hazard if not properly extinguished in outdoor recreation areas. The concept of a smoke -free playground is not new. Canadian and international jurisdictions have created by -laws and legislation prohibiting smoking in children's recreational play areas and other park properties. Examples of municipalities, program descriptions and policy examples are outlined in Attachment #3. The chart highlights similar legislation that covers recreation areas in various Canadian municipalities. Smoking is prohibited in public schools (including the grounds), in private schools or on private school property that is in use by the private school (e.g., a playground). School - based children's play spaces are protected from second -hand smoke. Remaining play spaces in the surrounding neighbourhood do not have the same environmental supports. Creating smoke -free city- managed playgrounds, aquatic facilities, parks and sports fields entrances would provide a consistent message to the public about the importance of smoke -free play spaces. In addition to reducing children's exposure to second -hand smoke, reducing a child's exposure to adults who smoke or chew tobacco can have an impact on smoking initiation by children. Coaches, parents and leaders involved in recreation are role models for youth and can have a positive affect on the lifestyle choices they make. When children see an adult smoking in a family - friendly space, it normalizes smoking, making it more likely that children will try cigarettes or other tobacco products. The proposed change to the revised Parks By -law is as follows: 3. No person shall in any park... (u) smoke /chew tobacco or hold lighted tobacco: (I) at a playground surface; (ii) at a playing field, park or trail; (iii) at outdoor aquatic facilities (swimming a pool, splash pad surface or wading pool). The creation of smoke -free outdoor parks and recreation facilities and greenspace is supported by the Park in the City Committee, Recreation Committee and Mayor's Youth Advisory Committee. The Niagara Region Health Department actively supports legislation that protects individuals from the harmful effects of second -hand smoke. In addition to the well -known risks of smoking, we have so much evidence that second (and even third) hand smoke is extremely dangerous to others, especially our children. Smoke -free policies have become the new norm. In addition to the powerful impact on our youth, we know that the decision to make areas and workplaces smoke -free can help those who want to quit. "As a physician, I breathe easier knowing that, more and more, our most vulnerable can breathe smoke -free air," says Dr. Andrea Feller, Associate Medical Officer of Health. February 28, 2011 - 3 - R &C- 2011 -05 FINANCIAL /STAFFING /LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Signage will be ordered and placed at all City outdoor parks and community facilities. The revised by -law will be promoted on the City web site, Leisure Guide and information e- mailed to the user groups and shared at the annual Playing Fields Allocation meeting. City operation staff will be responsible for advising people of the by -law at parks, playgrounds, splash pads, playing fields and community facility entrances. Once the public and users are informed of the revised park by -law the public will assist by self - policing and reminding smokers to butt out at all outdoor parks and recreation facilities and community /recreation facility entrances. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT City of Niagara Falls 2011 -2014 Strategic Priorities focus on Improving Quality of Life. Healthy and Safe Community promotes the awareness and opportunities for active living. Developing smoke -free parks, community and recreation facilities including all playgrounds, playing fields, swimming pools and splash pads will facilitate a safe and healthy environment for the community to enjoy their recreation pursuits. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. List of smoke -free Parks and Recreation outdoor facilities and entrances. 2. Community and Recreation Facility Maps. 3. Smoke Free Canadian Municipal Policy Chart. / ( jt i�� P �'f �4- `lam- S . <- Prepared by: Kathy Moldenhauer, Acting Director of Recreation & Culture 144,71 Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer KM /d Attachment #1 City of Niagara Falls Recreation Facility & Park List Parks Address A G BRIDGE PARK CULP ST A J MCKINLEY PARK SIMCOE ST ALEXANDER PARK INGLIS DR ALPINE PARK ALPINE DR ALTHEA PARK ALTHEA ST BADEN POWELL PARK 9240 MONTROSE RD BALMORAL PARK VALLEY WY BAMBI PARK DELTA DR BROOKFIELD PARK CLARE CR C B WRIGHT PARK AILANTHUS AV C W PALMER PARK STANLEY AV CAROLYN PARK CAROLYN AV CENTENNIAL SQUARE 4310 QUEEN ST CHERRYHILL PARK CHERRYHILL DR CHIPPAWA BOAT RAMP PARK SODOM RD CHIPPAWA LIONS PARK 3970 WELLAND ST CORONATION PARK SUMMER ST CORWIN PARK WALTER AV CRIMSON PARK CRIMSON DR CROWLAND PARK 8061 SCHISLER RD CUMMINGTON SQUARE 8191 CUMMINGTON SQ EAST DEERFIELD PARK FORESTVIEW BV DON W JOHNSON PARK TEMPERANCE AV DUFFERIN ISLAND PARK NIAGARA RIVER PY E E MITCHELSON PARK 3750 -3800 SPRINGDALE AV EDGEWOOD WOODLOT PARK GARNER RD ELLIS PARK WHIRLPOOL RD EMPIRE PARK RODNEY ST F H LESLIE PARK 5250 VALLEY WY F J MILLER PARK VALIANT ST FERN PARK FERN AV FERNWOOD PARK HENDERSHOT BV FERNWOOD WOODLOT PARK GARNER RD GARNER PARK MCGARRY DR GARNER TRAIL MCLEOD RD GARY HENDERSHOT MEMORIAL TRAIL CUVIELLO CT GEORGE BUKATOR PARK CHIPPAWA PY GLENGATE PARK PETTIT AV GLENVIEW PARK VICTORIA AV GREY ROBINSON PARK ROBINSON ST GUSTAVUS MUNRO PARK RIDEAU ST HAULAGE ROAD TRAIL ST PAUL AV HENNEPIN PARK HENNEPIN CR HERITAGE PARK HERITAGE DR JOHN N ALLAN PARK KALAR RD KALAR PARK KALAR RD KITCHENER PARK 5145 CENTRE ST L B PEARSON PARK DORCHESTER RD LARRY DELAZZER NATURE PARK ORCHARD GROVE PY LIND SOMMERVILLE PARK DARCY CR LUNDY'S LANE BATTLEFIELD 6137 LUNDY'S LN M F KER PARK 3420 SINNICKS AV MACBAIN PARK 7150 MONTROSE RD MAPLE STREET PARK 5100 MAPLE ST MEADOWVALE PARK BRIARWOOD AV MEWBURN ROAD RECREATION AREA MEWBURN RD MILLENNIUM RECREATIONAL TRAIL MCLEOD RD MOUNT CARMEL PARK THOROLD STONE RD MOUNT FOREST PARK OLDEN AV MULHERN PARK BALDWIN AV N S & T - TRAIL I THOROLD STONE RD N S & T - TRAIL II KALAR RD N S & T - TRAIL III MEADOWVALE DR NIAGARA FALLS LIONS PARK 4981 DRUMMOND RD OAKES PARK 5700 MORRISON ST OLYMPIC TORCH TRAIL 4284 QUEEN ST ONTARIO PARK ONTARIO AV PADDOCK NATURE PARK PADDOCK TRAIL DR PATRICK CUMMINGS MEMORIAL SPORTS COMPLEX WILLOUGHBY DR PREAKNESS PARK PREAKNESS ST PRINCE CHARLES PARK ARAD ST PRINCE EDWARD PARK 6570 FREDERICA ST RIVERVIEW PARK SARAH ST ROBERT F KEIGHAN PARK BEAVERTON BV ROYAL MANOR PARK WINDSOR CR RUSSELL PARK STAMFORD GREEN DR SCVFA FIREMENS PARK: PLAYGROUND AREA 2275 DORCHESTER RD SHIRLEY PARK SHIRLEY AV SHRINERS WOODLOT PARK KALAR RD SOLAR PARK JUPITER BV STAMFORD GREEN PORTAGE RD STAMFORD LIONS PARK ORLANDO DR STONEFIELD PARK STONEHAVEN AV THERESA PARK GAIL AV VALOUR PARK VALOUR CR VICTORIA PARK 6179 RIVER RD W L HOUCK PARK VALLEY WY WALKER GREENSPACE FOREST RIDGE DR WALKER PARK RAVINE RD WEAVER PARK DUNN ST WESTFIELD PARK WARDEN AV WILLOUGHBY CENTENNIAL PARK WILLOUGHBY DR WILSON PARK HEXIMER AV Outdoor Aquatic Facilities BUCK HINSPERGER POOL CHIPPAWA LIONS PARK F.H. LESLIE POOL & SPLASH PAD VALLEY WAY & SIXTH AVE. MACBAIN PARK SPLASH PAD MONTROSE ROAD NIAGARA FALLS LIONS POOL & SPLASH PAD DRUMMOND & SCOTT PATRICK CUMMINGS MEMORIAL SPORTS COMPLEX ARAD & DRUMMOND PRINCE CHARLES POOL SPRINGDALE SCVFA POOL & SPLASHPAD (EE MITCHELSON) DRUMMOND & SCOTT Recreation Facilities CHIPPAWA WILLOUGHBY ARENA 900 SODOM ROAD CORONATION 50 PLUS RECREATION CENTRE 5925 SUMMER STREET GALE CENTRE 4171 FOURTH AVENUE MACBAIN COMMUNITY CENTRE 7150 MONTROSE ROAD Museum NIAGARA FALLS HISTORY MUSEUM 5810 FERRY STREET designated smoking area TBC after opening Libraries VICTORIA AVENUE LIBRARY 4848 VICTORIA AVENUE COMMUNITY CENTRE BRANCH MACBAIN COMMUNITY CENTRE STAMFORD CENTRE AND CHIPPAWA BRANCHES* *NA as not City owned buildings R &C- 2011 -05 Smoke Free Attachment Facilities #2 & Outdoor Spaces N Falls Public library f ..,— , es n � n � ;� , p , " see; " # ' 'tf ' 9 9 k ' R F '$fin€ t .off ,..° " r hp K , k 5"' j dZ A�.� . t 41t4 SMOKI ZONE ; ;4,,,,.°, , , Y '''' i 1,1'''I' ,..,,t..4"! f4,.-4 0 - P,, '.,,-*i .--: -,.., , ,ir...., t ..., I E "` � f ,,, UP*. ; FRONT i ; f ENTRANCE d fin f # s 'R P' . € 4`` .� > r 4 fa -.* * q s p % � � ' , t - s t\ii. £ I jr -. 4 ° F r ki• a . °� _ "�3 �, �e"'.N YO B . b ZZ } w ''''' ' / 'lli*It Ilf ' ° : ": k- � " V I II ' : . a I: \ ; 4 -4#414... 6 '1 , ,:iift 4'14.`„7" " ' , i ; Et i . x t I .. — < R &C- 2011 -05 Smoke Free Facilities & Outdoor Spaces Attachment #2 Gale Centre ,.., • } 1 } 4 w w EROTE '' 3 { a i 1 a1 -. .. w is BACK ., __ -- TRANCE w 1 w d s , SMOKING ZONE R &C- 2011 -05 Smoke Free Facilities & Outdoor Spaces Attachment #2 Coronation Centre 4 ; ,- antes► ir.64 ,; . ' ''''''!"11,41:; *** 7 #! :, ki„,...-:):o �b i am '�'"' *-- -i,z,;;;ii--.. r FRONT ''''Y'' r 4 a ' ` as�. '.;f:-...' �, I ,x Y t y93 1 �� w «+ E _ t s 6, ' t zF f l A,, r" 1,9 t H , ° 1 � 9 CAF ., y ENTRANCE ' �. � �� �_ � 3 ,��G���� m�r t am a� �� �, � 1 �'$,; yrW' " �F • �� '� '� rig �. " ., X✓,.. ° r� k rf tic3 a ; fi ie -2 x f Q � g Y om - r ii w ' s I se ^. x �. z ,✓ bv� .�`r _y Y arr�w� erg t .mss"' ..� s�/ '<4J f. � '' fir '' . . � sa' ` s b ���� f Illillid ```j`r:.rw -_,._._ SMOKING ZONE Outdoor Spaces 2011-05 Smoke Free Facilities & Commu Centre ni „.--,, t . .....: , ... ,,,, --..., i -...., , • , ,?.;.' i , --4 -;::I . r =&-7:7i3411,,L-.1.:';' , /AL:, L''', ,,,*::: ,.„;.' ,; •' :: 1,i .1:: .1„'k.!%12, —:', "4 '*.14;f :--p'4:,,t,:ii,..:;,11'*:;"0,:. ,Z;, ,,-., ro , ; ir-0, • &rev- „ , ..• . ' - •-•!: )7, „,.. . 7. X I ' 4,17"41 1 . i .. 4 '.41 ft TYR119:* , 8 , I 1 ” , , * . 4 ,'" , • • • , — — , •;;;.‘ 1 4441. i -... ..iii • 1 ...i IN it? ii.)-1' .4 f , i 141 . IE At*' t -..,„,, - FRONT , .. -- 4, ENTRANCE •,, _ - i, . 73144tc, ' '":14 ol : -ar.7 ' ,,:". ;:f 4.,. 7:44, .;.,r,-..0, ,,,,,, %,,:-::,,,,,:d,,L„,:,-,-,j,.,„..:.,.:1:.;,,,A;:r:-sit,,!7 ,,, — ., ,,.,,,,,,,,..., . —...q. ° 7 a "'"4-.'" ', - - - - I If- ; - , , , . i . ti,-,„..1, .-140004 ff- fi,- 4- , , + ' 7 7 f1 rAl -- '4,1 At ° * ! - 7.ifirl ,.. 'AM i 1 6 flit z , ../ - j r 4 . _ ... 1... ' — .:' ,tt , 4, . A ,.,;i-- — — -ttitv, - „ r 4'4 ti.t•it 1•.' -•••• ' i',..itils:', it rl 8 TA ,,, . --7;11ti-t , 51 ' , .. r -f,,,•;;;;,;,/w,,,,„fi- 0 1 k : ,, .- . ''''- , - ,.,'** ZO NE vr° ' „ : . 4 111 1 lkT ri , l'; ' '''' ' ' '' ' • :Iiiiititit't* at; ' t`yi' , ' ''„, , , i SM OKING 7° ____ _ -LI ,` .4;,, * – ' „- ,:..,.,,,,A1::, 4,1r ,,, " . le ' , , ;";:41:44 'A. M — . ' :/',:v4,g.:14.; ''- ,e ;,4V, .:,;.; ',,49' 8 . 7„ - „-.- Alm— . , ,,,,,,.:,,s.--- , .,,IT-- :;;;;001,4071 .:,,,.. ,iL„4-..,!#-: ,.,-...4. ...,: _ : , .,,---,-,-- .4c '14,-1 -ir.g7J.; 4-e4 ; .i #4. 4... .4 .4,,;7,7,•%,. *,,, R &C- 2011 -05 Smoke Free Attachment Facilities #2 & Outdoor Spaces Chippawa Willoughby Arena SMOKING ZON *M z Y ,.' g 4, - t,,, .1.1. „,,,A,,, • ' ; 4. 4r tti- :'$'70 *.a t ,-- 1 , i' tilt* 4.01 a O 1 i FRONT . � ENTRANCE l4„ 9 , , ,:- 11 1 44 , frzit; P � . ,� �;. l ei � ix% s• ce. vev - " 0 ' - r �5. n . - . � ✓1 , . J , Y ,� bi �< spy s x g 3� x3 '`� 4 .....,,, Y „a 3 , 2 r ,� � � � ��a x � -„r L Canadian Societe Attachment #3 Cancer canadienne Society du cancer May 2010 Smoke -Free Outdoor Bylaws: Join the Growing Trend Issue Overview Tobacco is a major health issue that needs the attention of municipal leaders. In Canada, tobacco use is still the leading cause of preventable death. Every year, 37,000 Canadians die of tobacco - related illnesses including cancer. In addition to smokers, others are put at risk through exposure to second -hand smoke (SHS) which contains about 50 carcinogens and is so toxic that the US Surgeon General and the World Health Organization have determined that there is no safe level of exposure. Municipalities in Canada have long shown leadership in adopting smoke -free bylaws for indoor workplaces and public places. Municipalities have paved the way for province -wide laws. And today, as in the past, many municipal bylaws go beyond the minimum standard in provincial smoke -free laws. Tremendous progress has been made in Canada, and currently virtually all indoor workplaces and public places in Canada are smoke -free. Now, municipal councils are banning smoking in specified outdoor areas. There are many benefits of such municipal bylaws. Why implement a smoke -free outdoor bylaw? 1. Protection from second -hand smoke Second -hand smoke is extremely toxic. It contains over 4000 chemicals including at least 50 known cancer - causing substances. In an outdoor setting, SHS can be a hazard, though this can be affected by circumstances. According to researcher Niel Klepeis from Stanford University: "when measured close to a person who is actively smoking, air pollution can reach very high levels that are similar to levels observed for indoor smoking.i 2. Increases the motivation for smokers to quit or cut back Smokers respond to smoking restrictions by cutting back or quitting. Research conducted by Statistics Canada has demonstrated that when smoking bans have been implemented in homes and workplaces, many smokers have chosen to cutback or quit. 3. Decreases negative role modeling for children If children and youth are not exposed to adult smoking behaviour, they may be less likely to think of it as normal. Since most smokers start before the age of 18, this is important for public health. 4. Protects the environment and reduces litter Prohibiting smoking in outdoor locations would reduce the number of discarded butts. A 2006 litter study in the City of Toronto found that tobacco related litter (butts and packaging) made up 16.4% of pieces of small litter. Furthermore, the 2007 Great Canadian Shore Cleanup reported that in Alberta, tobacco related litter outnumbered other types by a ratio of 3:1. Reduced litter will reduce municipal clean up costs. 1 www.tobaccosmoke.org / outdoor - tobacco - smoke - study/ are - levels - really- the - same -as for - indoor - smoking , Accessed May 17, 2010. Original study "Real -Time Measurement of Outdoor Tobacco Smoke Particles" Published in the Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association Page 1 of 4 Smoking related litter is also a heath hazard. In the US about 8000 potential toxic exposures are reported every year due to the ingestion of tobacco products by small children. In addition, fish, birds and other animals often swallow discarded butts which results in illness and death. 5. Reduced fire risk Smoking, particularly in wooded areas, increases the risk of fire. An outdoor smoking bylaw may reduce this risk by controlling the places where smoking is allowed. Municipalities are urged to join the growing trend to adopt municipal bylaws requiring certain outdoor places to be smoke -free. Municipalities have the opportunity to improve public health within the community, at virtually no cost, and even with some cost savings. Many municipalities have already adopted successful municipal bylaws in this area. See examples below. The following table indicates which municipalities have required specified outdoor places to be smoke -free. As this area is quickly evolving, additional municipalities could inevitably be added to the listing. Restriction Municipality Entrances/exits to buildings • Anmore (BC) (7.5m) • Surrey (BC) (7.5m) • Belcarra (BC) (7.5m) • North Vancouver (District of) (BC) • Pemberton (BC) (6m) (6m) • Pitt Meadows (BC) • Vancouver (BC) (6m) • Port Moody (BC) (7.5m) • Victoria County (NS) (5m) • Powell River (BC) (6m) • West Vancouver (BC) (6m) • Richmond (BC) (6m) • Whistler (BC) (6m) • Richmond County (NS) (5m) • White Rock (BC) (7.5m) • Stettler (AB) (6m) • Whitehorse (YT) (3m) • Wood Buffalo Region (AB) (10m) Patios of restaurants /bars • Anmore (BC) • Richmond (BC) • Brighton (ON) • Saskatoon (SK) • Burpee & Mills (ON) • Squamish (BC) • Capital Regional District /Victoria • Surrey (BC) (BC) • Tehkummah (ON) • Kingston (ON) • Thunder Bay (ON) • North Vancouver (District of) (BC) • Vancouver (BC) • North Vancouver (City of) BC • West Vancouver (BC) • Pitt Meadows (BC) • Whistler (BC) • Port Moody (BC) • White Rock (BC) • Powell River (BC) Perimeter around • North Vancouver (BC) (6m) • Surrey (BC) (7.5m) restaurant /bar patios • Port Moody (BC) (7.5m) • Vancouver (BC) (6m) • Powell River (BC) (6m) • West Vancouver (BC) (6m) • Richmond (BC) (6m) • White Rock (BC) (7.5m) _ • Squamish (BC) (3m) 2 Provincial laws banning smoking at entrances /exits to all workplaces and public places are Alberta (5m), Yukon (5m), N.S. (4m), B.C. (3m). Some municipal bylaws (not those listed above) ban smoking at entrances /exits of municipal buildings, but not all workplaces and public places. 3 Alberta, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and the Yukon prohibit smoking on patios of restaurants /bars. Municipal bylaws in Alberta and Nova Scotia with 100% smoke -free patios are not listed above because province -wide laws are now also in place. 4 No person may smoke within a certain distance of a patio, which for Vancouver is 6m. Page 2 of 4 Municipal parks • Barrie (ON) • Bridgewater (NS) • Belleville (ON) • Cornwall (ON) • Kentville (NS) • Port Moody (BC) • L'Ancienne- Lorette (QC) • Squamish (BC) • Vancouver (BC) • White Rock (BC) Children's playgrounds • Abbotsford (BC) • Pemberton (BC) • Adjala- Tosorontio (ON) • Port Moody (BC) • Arnprior (ON) • Powell River (BC) • Barrie (ON) • Quinte West (ON) • Belcarra (BC) • Richmond (BC) • Bridgewater (NS) • Sault Ste. Marie (ON) • Clearview (ON) • South Bruce (ON) • Collingwood (ON) • Squamish (BC) • Cornwall (ON) • St. John's (NL) • Elliot Lake (ON) • Toronto (ON) • Kentville (NS) • Uxbridge (ON) • L'Ancienne- Lorette (QC) • Vancouver (BC) • Midland (ON) • West Vancouver (BC) • New Tecumseh (ON) • Whistler (BC) • North Vancouver (BC) • White Rock (BC) • Orillia (ON) • Woodstock (ON) Sports /playing fields • Abbotsford (BC) • Barrie (ON) • Adjala - Tosorontio (ON) • Belcarra (BC) • Clearview (ON) • Bridgewater (NS) • Elliot Lake (ON) • Georgina (ON) • L'Ancienne- Lorette (QC) • Kentville (NS) • Pemberton (BC) • Midland (ON) • Port Moody (BC) • North Vancouver (BC) • Powell River (BC) • Sault Ste. Marie (ON) • Richmond (BC) • Squamish (BC) • Whistler (BC) • Orillia (ON) • White Rock (BC) • Quinte West (ON) • South Bruce (ON) • West Vancouver (BC) • Woodstock (ON) Seating areas; stadiums • Abbotsford (BC) • Peterborough (ON) • Barrie (ON) • Port Moody (BC) • Belcarra (BC) • Red Deer (AB) • Bridgewater (NS) • Richmond (BC) • Cornwall (ON) • Sylvan Lake (AB) • Mission (BC) • Whistler (BC) • New Tecumseh (ON) • White Rock (BC) • Orillia (ON) • Woodstock (ON) • Ottawa (ON) Events on municipal property • Bridgewater (NS) • St. Albert (AB) • Clearview (ON) • North Vancouver (BC) Outdoor venue for assembly of • Belcarra (BC) • Pemberton (BC) persons (e.g. entertainment) • Devon (AB) • Whistler (BC) 5 Owen Sound (ON) and St. John's (N &L) are examples of banning smoking on playgrounds by policy, not bylaw. 6 In addition, many municipalities have adopted policies (as opposed to bylaws) so that municipal sports fields (e.g. soccer fields) are smoke -free. Examples include Owen Sound (ON) and Fernie (BC). In Newfoundland and Labrador, 46 communities (including St. John's) representing 73% of the population have policies for smoke -free athletic and recreational properties (source: Alliance for the Control of Tobacco, 2009). Georgina Civic Centre soccer fields Public gathering places where people sit or stand together in close proximity. Page 3 of 4 [ Bus stops /transit stops • North Vancouver, City (BC) • Richmond (BC) • Pemberton (BC) • West Vancouver (BC) • Powell River (BC) • Woodstock (ON) • Port Moody (BC) Perimeter of bus shelters • North Vancouver, City (BC)(7.5m) • Richmond (BC) (3m) Transit property • Ottawa • Near school property • Bridgewater (NS) • Yarmouth (NS)" • Pemberton (BC) • Whistler (BC) (25m) • Powell River (BC) Beaches • Orillia (ON) • Squamish (BC) • Arnprior (ON) • Vancouver (BC) • North Vancouver (BC) • West Vancouver (BC) • White Rock (BC) Perimeter of wading pools • Toronto (9m) splash pads • West Vancouver (6m) Perimeter of municipal • Barrie (25m) • Woodstock (30m) swimming pools • Cornwall (ON) (9m) Zoos (as specified) • Peterborough (ON) • Toronto (ON) Cemeteries on municipal • Bridgewater (NS) property Grounds of a town building • Bridgewater (NS) University /college grounds • no bylaws yet known but some universities have 100% smoke - free campus policy (e.g. Dalhousie and Acadia) Hospital grounds' • Woodstock (ON) • Many hospitals voluntarily prohibit smoking on their property Street or sidewalk along • Bridgewater (NS) parade route Particular outdoor • Calgary (AB) (Olympic Plaza) • White Rock (BC) (the promenade; street /walkway • Truro (NS) (Inglis Place) the pier) Trail or path on municipal • Barrie (ON) • Bridgewater (NS) property • Kentville (NS) • Vancouver (BC) 9 Some municipalities prohibit smoking in transit shelters, or within distance of transit shelters, but not all bus stops. School Area designated under Motor Vehicle Act 11 certain streets, 8am -4pm on school days 12 In the U.S., many municipalities in California and on the Eastern seaboard prohibit smoking on beaches, as do some municipalities in Australia and New Zealand. 13 Only applies to municipal beaches 14 Yukon territorial law bans smoking on the property of Yukon College. 15 P.E.I. legislation bans smoking on almost all hospital grounds. Page 4 of 4 MW- 2011 -11 Niagaraaalls February 28, 2011 REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair and Members of the Committee of the Whole City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works SUBJECT: MW- 2011 -11 2011 Water Conservation Program RECOMMENDATION That Council approve the 2011 Water Conservation Program including the Low -flow Toilet Replacement rebate program and the Rain Barrel program and that funding in the amount of $40,000 be included in the 2011 Municipal Utility Budget for these programs. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The cost of providing water and wastewater services to the community are expected to increase marginally from year to year in order to cover the fixed costs of operating the systems and increasing requirements from senior governments for additional quality control and monitoring. The City is obligated to fund the delivery of these services from user fees generated through water rates and sewer surcharges. Current economic conditions are forcing many homeowners to look at their consumption habits and practices to offset these annual increases. Clean potable water is abundant in Canada however on a world wide basis it is a limited commodity. From the perspective of infrastructure sustainability and environmental stewardship it is important that residents do what they can to manage their water consumption and wastewater flows. To assist in this regard staff are proposing a two - pronged water conservation program for this year targeting both indoor and outdoor water use. The Low -flow Toilet Replacement Rebate Program will allow homeowners an opportunity to replace older, Tess efficient, toilets with new models that require as little as 4.8 litres per flush. As of January 1, 2011 the sale of all 13 Titre (or greater) toilets are no longer permitted under the Ontario Building Code for new installations. This new program will require public education and awareness. For this reason staff are proposing a start date of May 2 2011, for this program. The Rain Barrel Program has been offered in the past and has been very successful. This program is usually a one day event often coordinated with other community events such as World Water Day or Earth Day. There are many details and coordination issues to be worked out in the interim period however staff is looking for Council's direction and endorsement for this year's program. February 28, 2011 - 2 - MW- 2011- 11 BACKGROUND Canada is fortunate to have about 20% of the world's freshwater resources and it is easy for Canadians to take this valuable natural resource for granted . In fact, we consume on average 343 litres of water per capita per day (lcd). This is remarkable compared to other cultures and countries like Israel (135 lcd) or Sweden (200 lcd). In an effort to reduce our water usage, municipalities have developed water metering programs, incentives for water efficient technology (i.e. low flow toilets, shower heads, etc.), grey water management (i.e. rain collection systems, rain barrels, etc.) and education around water resources. At its meeting on May 31, 2011, City Council passed a motion directing staff to investigate a program to encourage variable flush toilets. Staff have conducted extensive research into toilet tank retrofits that offer claims of cost savings and water conservation. These products are fairly new and unproven and therefore staff are reluctant to implement this program until more technical data can be obtained from various suppliers. Since the Replacement Rebate program offers more certainty with respect to flow reduction it is recommended that we offer it first. City Council has historically adopted strategic priorities that embrace infrastructure sustainability and environmental stewardship. Since 2002 Municipal Works, in collaboration with the Recreation & Culture Department has offered Niagara Falls residents the opportunity to purchase Rain Barrels at a discount to reduce the City's use of potable water. More than 6000 rain barrels have been sold over 8 years as part of this outdoor water conservation initiative. Following a review of water conservation programs, it was noted that toilets represent the largest single use of household water. In fact, a third of the normal water consumption in an average household is from flushing toilets. Recent 6L per flush rebate programs have recorded dramatic reductions in water consumption as well as cost savings (i.e. related to water usage) to the home owner. In 2010, in an effort to promote indoor water conservation practices, a low flow toilet incentive /rebate program is proposed through Municipal Works with the support (i.e. public education initiatives, etc.) of the Park in the City Committee. In the province of Ontario, "low- flow" has been part of the building code for the past 13 years as part of the province's efforts to save money by reducing the need for new water filtration plants. Many municipalities currently offer rebate programs for 6L per flush toilets. However, as of January 1, 2011, the sale of all 13L per flush toilets will be banned. As such, incentive programs (i.e. rebates) toward the purchase of 6L per flush toilets will be obsolete. As a result, municipalities are refocusing rebate programs to include the "new" technology including High- Efficiency Toilet (HET). HET's use 20% less water per flush than standard 6L per flush models. The average family can save over 30,000 litres of water a year with a 4.8 litre high- efficiency toilet, a significant reduction in household consumption as well as an improved cost savings. February 28, 2011 - 3- MW- 2011 -11 ANALYSIS /RATIONALE High Efficiency Toilet Replacement Rebate Program A high efficiency toilet replacement program provides the quickest return of water savings at the residential level. Toilets represent the largest single use of household water at 28 %. Since 1998, the building code has mandated low -flow toilets be installed in new homes. Most homes in Niagara falls, were built before this time and therefore do not realize the benefits of low- flush, and more recently high efficiency toilets. Replacement of non - efficient toilets (using 13 to 20 litres per flush) with efficient toilets (using no more than 6 litres per flush) has a potential for great savings in water consumption and associated costs. Implementation of the Program: Beginning March 22, 2011 (World Water Day) residents of Niagara Falls would be offered an incentive /rebate of $60.00 toward the purchase of high efficiency toilets (maximum of two per household) to replace inefficient toilets. All eligible toilet models must meet the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) WaterSense Performance Standard guidelines. The WaterSense standards require toilet models to be high efficiency (3.0L or 4.8L /flush) and must include chemical resistant trim components and a minimum flush capacity of 350 grams. Residents must purchase a WaterSense toilet model in order to qualify for the High Efficiency Toilet rebate program. A list of acceptable models will be made available at City facilities and on the City's website. After purchasing a high efficiency toilet for the full price (approximately $150.00) from local retailers, residents of Niagara Falls can then submit a rebate application form with their purchase receipt to the City of Niagara Falls Municipal Works, to receive a subsidy of $60.00 per toilet, which represents 40 per cent of the retail cost. Rebates will be credited to the applicants utilities bill. Rebate application forms will be available at City facilities (i.e. City Hall, Service Centre, MacBain Centre) or can be downloaded from the City's web site. The High Efficiency Toilet Rebate Program only applies to installations in single or multi- family homes constructed prior to January 1, 2011. In addition, the program requires the disposal of the higher flushing toilets from homes to ensure these toilets are not longer in circulation. The City of Niagara Falls reserves the right to arrange an inspection of your newly installed high efficiency toilet. The program is funded to a maximum of $30,000 per year and submission of an application does not guarantee a rebate — each application will be evaluated and processed on a first -come, first -serve basis. Rebate applications must be made within 90 days of toilet purchase. Rain Barrel Program The Rain Barrel Program has been very successful in the past to help reduce fresh water usage for outdoor watering. The initial rain barrel sales were run on a first come first serve February 28, 2011 - 4 - MW- 2011 -11 basis with a predetermined number of rain barrels to sell. In 2009 the Rain Barrels were pre -sold so that the number of units could be predicted and distributed more effectively. A limit of two barrels per property was established. The City's manufacturer cost is $45.00 plus tax and freight per rain barrel. In an effort to reduce the costs, staff will contact surrounding municipalities to coordinate shipping to reduce the freight costs. The rain barrels are sold to residents of Niagara Falls for $25.00. The City subsides each unit by $20.00 from the Utility Budget. The one day rain /shine sale occurs on a Saturday for the residents convenience. Remaining rain barrels are stored at the Service Centre for collection or resale. The last rain barrel sale held in April 2009 sold 752 rain barrels, all remaining rain barrels were sold within the following week as storage space is limited at the Service Centre to keep rain barrels in stock for purchase. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 2011 toilet replacement rebates are estimated to reach a maximum of 500 units at $60.00 for a total investment of $30,000. The estimated number of units to be distributed in 2011 is based on neighbouring municipalities experience with similar water conservation rebate programs in respective years. Staff are estimating the sale of 500 rain barrel units at $20 per unit for a net cost of $10,000. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The recommendation is consistent with Council's strategic priority to ensure effective delivery of core municipal services. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. Indoor Water Use in a Typical Single Family Home Recommended by: Geoff Holman, Director of Municipal Works LA — rt j Respectfully submitted: Ken T odd, Chief Administrative Officer G. Holman 0 0. }: 9^ Ca C 40 I Nu V CP 2 0 N 0,/ E cin --,..,, 0 .c MI X WNW I NPR Vi 4 j1 ril 4 3 I NM m E sl ...c 11 0 .4 �+� . ..i ■ , y i d /r/ UM . I � co � t V L gg tn 0 al) m a sli CU in c • .. 0 , x' re * j � /�■ / ?> < al /ate ai NNW i.li 03 wil 41 (i) L _- 2 al I— s �-_ al = (o c 1 ... G LL. 3 113 c RS MW- 2011 -10 Niagaraaalls February 28, 2011 REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair and Member of the Committee of the Whole City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works SUBJECT: MW- 2011 -10 Mewburn Road Bridge Project Cost Sharing Referral to the Canadian Transportation Agency RECOMMENDATION That Council authorize staff to file an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency to resolve outstanding cost sharing issues with CN for the replacement of the Mewburn Road Bridge. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Mewburn Road Bridge is owned by Canadian National railways (CN) but has been closed by the City of Niagara Falls due to its concerns for the safety and well -being of its residents because of it's poor condition. A Municipal Class Environmental Assessment was conducted at the City's expense to examine the preferred alternative for the reinstatement of vehicular and pedestrian access over the CN line on Mewburn Road. This investigation concluded that a new structure would be the best solution based on the condition that external funding under the Gateways and Border Crossings Fund would be available. Staff have now been informed that the project is not eligible for funding under this program largely because the municipality does not own the existing structure nor does it meet the merit -based criteria of "enhancing Canada's economic competitiveness and productivity by improving the efficiency of gateways, trade corridors and assets of National significance ". Municipal Works staff have had numerous discussions with CN regarding cost sharing and, in each case, they have limited it's responsibility to a maximum of 15% of the project cost. Staff believe that CN should have more responsibility than this and are recommending that we pursue this matter through all available legal channels. The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the recent interpretation by representatives of the Gateways and Border Crossings Fund and to seek authorization to proceed with the filing of an application with the Canadian Transportation Agency. February 28, 2011 - 2 - MW- 2011 -11 BACKGROUND At its meeting on June 28 2010, Council approved the recommendations set out in report MW- 2010 -48 which endorsed the preferred alternative in the EA to replace the existing structure and directed staff to pursue funding under the Federal Gateways and Border Crossings Fund (see attachment #1). Staff contacted representatives from Transport Canada who administer the funding program and were informed that: "Unfortunately the proposed project would not be eligible under the GBCF. The fund's Terms and Conditions state that only municipally -owned structures are eligible for rehabilitation under the Local Road Infrastructure category. As the Mewburn Road Bridge is owned by CN, it would not be eligible for funding." (see attachment #2) Staff revisited the cost sharing discussions with CN representatives on January 20 2011 however no agreement was made to share the project costs beyond the previous commitment of 15 %. They did offer assistance if required with the City's GBCF application. (see attachment #3) Subsequent follow up with Transport Canada officials on February 1S 2011, confirmed that, notwithstanding the ownership issue" the project would not likely meet the merit -based criteria of the GBCF " and that "most of the GBCF's funding has already been committed'. (see attachment #4) ANALYSIS /RATIONALE Residents living in this area have been extremely tolerant under the circumstances and it is important for many reasons to bring a resolution to this matter as soon as possible. The current situation is frustrating and staff believe that CN should be forced to contribute significantly to the total cost of the project for the following reasons; • CN has objected to the construction of a level crossing alternative which is much less expensive. • The existing structure cannot be repaired or replaced to the current standard as it wouldn't comply with the Ontario Bridge Code. CN has taken the position that any new bridge would be for the sole benefit of the road authority. • The existing bridge was installed by CN in 1923 largely because of its need to lower the tracks at this crossing to accommodate trains climbing the escarpment. Traffic volumes and safety risks are much lower at Mewburn Road than other level crossing locations throughout the City. • It is unreasonable to expect the City to fund the replacement of infrastructure it doesn't own. February 28, 2011 - 3 - MW- 2011 -11 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS in the amount of 400 000 for the City's project was included in the 2010 Capital t $400,000 ital y p l P Budget and some of these funds may be required to engage outside legal o r consulting g services in preparation for the presentation to the Canadian Transportation Agency. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The dispute resolution process is set out in the attached "Guidelines for the Apportionment of Costs of Grade Separations" (see attachment #5). While the decision of the Canadian Transportation Agency is binding, appeals to the Federal Court and the Governor in Council may be available under the appropriate circumstances. CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT This recommendation is consistent with the Council's Strategic Priorities for economic vitality, infrastructure sustainability, financial stability and sustainable transportation. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. MW- 2010 -48 Mewburn Road Bridge - Class Environmental Assessment 2. Email from Ted Mackay, October 22, 2010 3. Letter from CN, January 21, 2011 4. Email from Ted Mackay, February 1, 2011 5. Canadian Transportation Agency - Guidelines on Apportionment of Costs of Grade Separation Recommended by: Geoff Holman, Director of Municipal Works Respectfully submitted: Ken Todd, Chief Administrative Officer G. Holman Mtachme-to MW- 2010 -48 Attachment #1 NiagaraaalIs June 28, 2010 REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair and Members of the Community Services Committee City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Municipal Works SUBJECT: MW- 2010 -48 Mewburn Road Bridge Class Environmental Assessment RECOMMENDATION 1. That the Mewburn Road Bridge Class Environmental Assessment (June 2010) be received and the preferred alternative to replace the existing structure be approved. 2. That staff be directed to pursue opportunities forfunding from the Federal Gateways and Border Crossing Fund, Canadian National Railways and the Region of Niagara. 3. That the Notice of Study Completion be advertised effective June 29 2010. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Mewburn Road Bridge was closed to pedestrian and vehicular traffic in April 2009 based on the recommendations from the City's structural engineering consultant. The existing structure was showing significant deterioration posing a serious risk to those using the bridge. Council directed staff to undertake the required Class Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the best option for reinstating the access across the Canadian National Railway (CNR) line. The study took into consideration a number of factors including socioeconomic, environmental, financial and public safety impacts and concluded that the replacement of the existing structure with a new one was the preferred alternative to a permanent closure or an at -grade crossing. The study included an extensive public process which overwhelmingly supported the construction of a new bridge. The staff recommendation is contingent on the availability of funding from external sources. Mewburn Road, due to its function as an inter - municipal connector roadway has been identified by the Region of Niagara as a candidate for transfer from the City to the Region. Given the vested interest in the future of this roadway staff will be seeking contributions from both CNR and the Region. Staff has also been directed to the Federal Government's Gateways and Border Crossings Fund (GBCF) which, if the application is successful, offers funding up to 50% of the eligible costs. The preferred alternative identified in this study has been estimated to cost $2.6 million. June 28, 2010 -2- MW- 2010 -48 BACKGROUND At its meeting on June 8 2009, Council received an update report (MW- 2009 -42) on the status of the temporary closure of the Mewburn Road bridge and directed staff to meet with representatives from CNR, Niagara Region and the Town of Niagara -on- the -Lake to coordinate maintenance and emergency response issues on an interim basis. August 31s 2009, Council authorized the engagement of DelCan Corporation (MW- 2009 -59) to conduct an EA to identify the best solution moving forward. In addition, on January 25 2010, approved the recommendations outlined in report MW- 2010 -03 directing staff to restrict access to the structure by all users. The Public Information Centre (PIC) was held on January 14 2010 at Mountain Park Church and was attended by 44 people. A significant majority of the participants expressed their preference to replace the old bridge. The Mewburn Road bridge, prior to its closure, had a relatively low volume of traffic largely due to reduced load limits and poor pavement conditions. The structure provides the ability for maintenance and emergency service vehicles to cross the CNR line without having to give way to an increasing volume of rail traffic. The Bruce Trail also uses this structure for crossing the railway. Mewburn Road often acts as a service road when construction delays or emergencies occur on the QEW at Sand Plant Hill. Removal of the structure and replacement with an at -grade represents a reduction in the current level of service. Those in attendance that did not support the replacement of the structure cited cost concerns and noted that this location had much lower vehicle /train volumes than other locations in the City that have at -grade crossings. ANALYSIS /RATIONALE In consideration of the issues raised and the importance of reopening this important link in the road infrastructure the estimated $2.6 million costs are not affordable for the City under the current and short term economic climate. The availability of external funding is a critical element in the decision. In examining the at -grade crossing option the cost of land to adjust the approaches as well as the costs of signals, signage and road improvements are estimated to cost approximately $1.5 million. By adopting this option the City would not be eligible for funding from any of the potential funding sources. Conversely, If the City proceeds with the replacement option and is successful with its funding requests to the Federal Government, Niagara Region and CNR it can potentially reduce its share to approximately $650,000. The cost sharing is shown on the table below. Option City of Niagara Falls CBCF CNR Region At -Grade Crossing $1.5 million $0 $0 $0 $1.5 million (100 %) New Bridge $975,000 $1.3 million $195,000 $130,000 $2.6 million (37.5 %) (50 %) (7.5 %) (5 %) June 28, 2010 -3- MW- 2010 -48 The City's actual costs are significantly reduced by adopting the more expensive solution due to the availability of funding from external sources. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: This project was included in the 2010 Capital Budget and is expected to be funded over two years. 2010 Capital Budget $400,000 Engineering and Land Costs 2011 Capital Budget $2,600,000 Construction Costs The project funding is conditional on the receipt of external contributions which have yet to be confirmed in writing from the various sources. The funding allocation referenced in this report is based on verbal commitments from representatives of the various agencies. In some cases, such as CNR, staff has information that could support a larger contribution on their behalf. The cost sharing shown in this report represents a conservative estimate. It should be noted that if purposed funding partners do not materialize the City will be forced to rework the capital budget on this project as no funds are allocated for additional expenditures. COMMITMENT TO COUNCIL PRIORITIES The recommendation contained in this report is consistent with Council's priorities to identify and evaluate altemative sources of revenue and to establish infrastructure priorities. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS 1. MW- 2009 -42 2. MW- 2009 -59 3. MW- 2010 -03 4. FIGURE 4.1 Preferred Design Concept • c Recommended by: Geoff Holman, Director of Municipal Works Respectfully submitted: `&1/44'Yk`i Ken Tod , Chief Administrative Officer (2/10/2011) Geoff Holman - RE: City of Niagara Falls - Mewburn Rd Bridge Replacement-- Gateways& Border Crossing FurRbge 1 From: "Mackay, Ted" <ted.mackay @tc.gc.ca> To: 'Selene Tudini' <studini @niagarafalls.ca >, Geoff Holman <gholman @niagara... CC: "Hurcomb, Caitlin" <caitlin.hurcomb @tc.gc.ca >, "Swol, Karen" <karen.swol... Date: 22/10/2010 8:51 AM Subject: RE: City of Niagara Falls - Mewburn Rd Bridge Replacement - Gateways& Border Crossing Fund Good Morning Selene and Geoff: I am sorry for the delay in responding to your request that we consider the eligibility of the Mewburn Road Bridge Replacement project under the Local Road Infrastructure category of the Gateways and Border Crossings Fund (GBCF). Unfortunately the proposed project would not be eligible under the GBCF. The fund's Terms and Conditions state that only municipally -owned structures are eligible for rehabilitation under the Local Road Infrastructure category. As the Mewburn Road Bridge is owned by CN, it would not be eligible for funding. I have also consulted colleagues in the Rail Safety branch here at Transport Canada regarding other possible funding programs. Since the crossing in question is not at- grade, however, the project would not qualify under the Grade Crossing Improvement Program (GCIP). I would strongly recommend that you contact the Ontario Ministry of Transportation regarding other possible funding options for this project, if you have not already done so. In the case of most current Government of Canada funding programs (eg, Building Canada Plan, Infrastructure Stimulus Fund), potential projects must first be identified as Provincial priorities before they can be considered for federal funding. In closing, I would like to thank you for providing us with the Mewburn Road Bridge Replacement project information and I am sorry that our eligibility assessment could not have resulted in a more positive outcome. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions. Ted Mackay Director / Directeur Highway and Border Policy / Politique en matiere de routes et de frontieres Transport Canada / Transports Canada Tower C, Place de Ville, 27th Floor / Tour C, Place de Ville, 27ieme etage 330 Sparks Street / 330 rue Sparks Ottawa, Ontario K1A ON5 Tel: (613) 991 -5981 Fax: (613) 998 -2686 Email: ted.mackay @tc.gc.ca Original Message From: Selene Tudini [ mailto:studini @niagarafalls.ca] Sent: October 15, 2010 5:21 PM To: Hurcomb, Caitlin; Mackay, Ted Cc: Geoff Holman System Engineering Eastern Region Design & Construction 4 Welding Way Administration Administration Road P.O. Box 1000 Concord, ON, L4K 1 B9 T: 905.669.3114 F: 905.760.3406 21 January 2011 VIA EMAIL Mr. Geoff Holman, C.E.T. Director of Municipal Works City of Niagara Falls 4310 Queen Street Niagara Falls, ON, L2E 6X5 RE: Mewburn Road Bridge Replacement, Mile 5.40 Grimsby Subdivision Dear Geoff: Thank you for meeting at CN offices yesterday to discuss the above noted project. As per our discussions, CN would be willing to contribute 15% towards the unfunded portion of the construction costs provided that the City assumes 100% of the maintenance costs of the new structure. Please advise if you require any assistance from CN with regards to the Gateways and Border Crossings Fund application. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Marissa Crawford, P.Eng. Manager, Design & Construction marissa.crawford(a cn.ca Page 1 of 4 Geoff Holman - RE: City of Niagara Falls - Mewburn Rd Bridge Replacement - Gateways& Border Crossing Fund From: "Mackay, Ted" <ted.mackay @tc.gc.ca> To: 'Geoff Holman' <gholman @niagarafalls.ca> Date: 2/1/2011 5:08 PM Subject: RE: City of Niagara Falls - Mewburn Rd Bridge Replacement - Gateways& Border Crossing Fund CC: "Marissa.Crawford©cn.ca" <Marissa.Crawford @cn.ca >, Jim Diodati <jdiodati @niagarafalls.ca >, Ken Todd <KTodd @niagarafalls.ca >, Selene Tudini <studini @niagarafalls.ca >, Todd Harrison <tharrison @niagarafalls.ca >, "Hurcomb, Caitlin" <caitlin.hurcomb @tc.gc.ca> Hi Geoff: Thank you for the additional information that you provided in your message of January 23. I appreciate the unique situation regarding Mewburn Road Bridge ownership. That being said, based on the project information provided, it remains unlikely that the proposed project would be eligible for funding under the GBCF. Looking beyond bridge ownership issues, although the proposed project could yield benefits by improving efficiency and safety along Mewburn Road, it would not likely meet the merit -based criteria of the GBCF. The GBCF is intended to enhance Canada's economic competitiveness and productivity by improving the efficiency of gateways, trade corridors, and assets of national significance to facilitate inter- provincial and international trade and travel. Although Mewburn Road Bridge is located close to the QEW, and is located in an important border region, the specific stretch of road in question does not appear to be of national significance in terms of international traffic and trade. The bridge passes over an important CN rail line, but it is not indicated in the proposal that rail traffic is negatively affected by the current state of the bridge structure. I should also note that most of the GBCF's funding has already been committed. With respect to the remaining funds, the federal government is in ongoing discussions with provinces and other stakeholders to determine Gateway funding priorities. In closing, I would like to thank you again for providing us with information on the Mewburn Road Bridge Replacement Project and I would encourage you to contact the Province with regard to other possible funding options. Please feel free to contact me with any further questions. Ted gklackay Director / Directeur Highway and Border Policy / Politique en matiere de routes et de frontieres Transport Canada / Transports Canada Tower C, Place de Ville, 27th Floor / Tour C, Place de Ville, 27ieme etage 330 Sparks Street / 330 rue Sparks Ottawa, Ontario K1A ON5 Tel: (613) 991 -5981 Fax: (613) 998 -2686 file : / /C:\ Documents %20and %20 Settings \gh - NET\ Local %20Settin2s \Temn\XP se \4fl4R'I DF 1r) 11 n t 1 CTA 1 Guidelines on Apportionment of Costs of Grade Separations Page 1 of 4 »► Canadian Office a , >_ Tranaportatton des transports ►s s:c;(% Agency du Canada CdIldC c . r 'Canadian Transportation GUIDELINES ON APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS OF GRADE SEPARATIONS INTRODUCTION Under the Canada Transportation Act, the Agency is responsible for making cost apportionment decisions concerning the construction and reconstruction of grade separations (structures that allow railway and road traffic to cross each other at different elevations), when the parties involved in the project are unable to reach an agreement. The Agency uses these guidelines in its deliberations for any such decision it is requested to make. The publication of these guidelines is designed to assist parties in their negotiations or in the preparation of their submissions to the Agency. These guidelines consider, among other things, the benefits accruing to each party for the construction and reconstruction of grade separations as well as the responsibility that each party has, as an essential part of Canada's transportation system, to co -exist at crossings. Consistent with section 101 of the Act, the Agency expects the parties involved in a grade separation project to attempt to come to an agreement on all issues relative to the project, including apportionment of costs. Once an agreement has been reached, either party can file that agreement with the Agency. The filed agreement becomes an order of the Agency authorizing the parties to construct and /or maintain the grade separation and apportion the costs, as set out in the agreement. If the parties cannot agree, the Agency will rule on any outstanding issues. This ruling is based on submissions to the Agency from the parties. A submission can address any of the items outlined in these guidelines as well as any other relevant matter. Every case is assessed on its own merits to determine whether the guidelines apply. It should be emphasized that the Agency retains complete discretion, in the case of a dispute, to apportion costs for grade separations. Agency decisions may vary from the guidelines for a particular grade separation project, if appropriate in the circumstances. DEFINITIONS a. A road means any way or course, whether public or not, available for vehicular or pedestrian use. b. A road crossing means the part of a road that passes across, over or under a railway line, and includes a structure supporting or protecting that part of the road or facilitating the crossing. c. An established road crossing is normally one that has been in existence for public use http: / /www.otc- cta.gc.ca/doc.php ?did = 1026 &tang =eng 1 1 PI i'nnn CTA I Guidelines on Apportionment of Costs of Grade Separations Page 2 of 4 for at least three years. d. A grade separation is a structure, including its approaches, that allows road and railway traffic to cross each other at different elevations. e. A basic grade separation is that portion of the work that is required to provide adequate facilities for present -day needs at the time of construction or reconstruction of the grade separation. f. An overhead bridge is a grade separation that carries a road across and over a railway. g. A subway is a grade separation that carries a railway across and over a road. h. A road authority is any authority having jurisdiction to construct and maintain a road. i. A railway company means a railway company subject to the jurisdiction of the Agency. APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS 1. The costs of construction and maintenance of a basic grade separation on a new route are normally paid in full by the party deciding to construct the new route. 2. If an existing grade separation is to be reconstructed for the purposes of the party having exclusive responsibility for that grade separation, the costs of reconstruction and maintenance of the basic grade separation are normally paid in full by that party. 3. For a basic grade separation that is required: • to eliminate an established road crossing at grade or to divert substantially all highway traffic from that crossing; or • to reconstruct an existing grade separation in situations where both parties have responsibility or where the reconstruction is for the purposes of the party having no responsibility. a) If a grade separation is to be constructed or an existing grade separation is to be reconstructed, the construction costs are normally apportioned as follows: • 85% road authority 15% railway company • i) On projects due primarily to road development - • 50% road authority 50% railway company • ii) On projects where both road and railway development have contributed largely to the need for the project - • 15% road authority 85% railway company • iii) On projects due primarily to railway development - b) If a grade separation is to be constructed, the maintenance costs are normally apportioned as follows: i) the road authority pays all maintenance costs of the substructure, superstructure and retaining walls of an overhead bridge; ii) the railway company pays all other maintenance costs of an overhead bridge, including the cost of maintaining the railway approaches, track structure, railway drainage and communication facilities; iii)the railway company pays all maintenance costs of the substructure and the http: / /www.otc- cta.gc.ca/doc.php ?did = 1026 &lane =eng 11 PI iInnn CTA 1 Guidelines on Apportionment of Costs of Grade Separations Page 3 of 4 superstructure of a subway; and iv) the road authority pays all other maintenance costs of a subway, including the cost of maintaining the road approaches, retaining walls, road surface, sidewalks, drainage and lighting. c) If an existing grade separation is to be reconstructed, the established maintenance responsibilities for the existing grade separation are normally considered in the apportionment of maintenance costs of the basic grade separation. 4. The costs of construction and maintenance of a basic grade separation are not to include the costs that would otherwise be incurred by the railway company or the road authority if the crossing did not exist. 5. The costs of construction and maintenance of additional facilities in excess of the costs of the basic grade separation are normally to be paid by the party requesting the additional facilities. 6. Clearances and pier protection in excess of the following are normally considered to be additional facilities: a) For overhead bridges i) a vertical clearance of 7.16 metres above the base of rail for new or reconstructed basic grade separations; ii) a lateral clearance of 5.5 metres from the centerline of the nearest track to the nearest pier or abutment in the basic grade separation; and iii) pier protection, as per the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance -of -Way Association specifications. b) For subways i) vertical and lateral clearances as per the design standards for grade separations for the province in which the grade separation is located. APPLICATION In the event of a dispute, any of the involved parties may ask the Agency to apportion the costs of the grade separation project. An application must be made in writing, signed by the applicant and sent to the Agency at the following address: Secretary Canadian Transportation Agency Ottawa, Ontario K1A ON9 If you wish to hand deliver or courier your application, please use the following address: Secretary Canadian Transportation Agency 15 Eddy Street 17th Floor, Mailroom Gatineau, Quebec J8X 4B3 http://www.otc-cta.ac.ca/doe.nhn?did=-1076k12n 0=P11 1 1 in innnn CTA I Guidelines on Apportionment of Costs of Grade Separations Page 4 of 4 Fax: (819) 997 -6727 In addition, a copy of the application should be sent to each of the other parties involved. PROCESS In accordance with its General Rules, after receiving an application, the Agency ensures that each interested party has the opportunity to comment on the application and any disputed issues. In general, the Agency invites the other interested parties to comment within 30 days, and then allows the applicant 10 days to comment. The Agency reviews all material submitted, makes the final decision or determination, and issues the necessary decisions or orders. The Agency strives to deal with all of its cases within 120 days. However, the Agency may take more than 120 days to issue a decision due to the complexity or the particular circumstances of a case. Parties are encouraged to continue any negotiations or pursue alternative dispute resolution options even though an application may be before the Agency. DECISIONS AND APPEALS Any Agency decision is subject to the following conditions: • it is binding upon the parties and remains in effect until it is amended or rescinded; • it may be reviewed by the Agency, if there are new facts or circumstances; • it may be appealed to the Federal Court on a matter of law or jurisdiction, within 30 days of the order or decision; and • it may be appealed to the Governor in Council at any time. CONFIDENTIALITY All documents filed with the Agency become part of the public record and may be made available for public viewing. However, in accordance with the Agency's General Rules, a claim for confidentiality can be made. For More Information For more information, please follow this link How to contact the Canadian Transportation Agency. Last Modified: 2009 -06 -22 http: / /www.otc- cta.gc.ca/doc.php ?did = 1026 &lanw =eng i i hi)nnn PD- 2011 -14 NiagaraJalls February 28, 2011 REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair and Members of the Committee of the Whole City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Planning, Building & Development SUBJECT: PD- 2011 -14 Final Location for Queen Victoria Monument RECOMMENDATION r\ o rT ecol' That the Queen Victoria Monument be located at the southeast corner of the Niagara Falls History Museum site. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the August 9, 2010 Council meeting, Council directed that staff and representatives of the Museum Board, Municipal Heritage Committee and Main and Ferry BIA to meet with the purpose of recommending a location for the Queen Victoria Monument. The parties met on four separate occasions, August 30, 2010, October 4, 2010, November 2, 2010 and February 15, 2011. Although the parties were unable to come to a unanimous decision about the specific location, they were able to agree that the monument will remain on the Museum property. The representative on behalf of the Municipal Heritage Committee stated it was felt the monument should be located at the northeast corner of the property (intersection of Ferry Street and Sylvia Place) whereas the Museum Board stated why they preferred the southeast corner of the property. Staff has recommended that the Queen Victoria Monument be located at the southeast corner of the Niagara Falls History Museum site for the reasons stated within this report. BACKGROUND It was determined that the Queen Victoria Monument needed to be moved from the front of the Niagara Falls History Museum because it was within the footprint of the proposed museum expansion. On August 9, 2010, Community Services Committee recommended that staff, and representatives of the Museum Board, Municipal Heritage Committee and Main & Ferry BIA work together to determine the appropriate future location for the monument and report back to Council. The Museum Board's preference was to move the Queen Victoria Monument to the Redmond Heights property next to the Battle Ground Hotel Museum. The Municipal Heritage Committee did not want to see the monument leave the Niagara Falls History Museum site. It was the BIA's position that the monument was an important part of the history of Drummondville and should not leave the BIA area, suggesting Sylvia Place Market as a possible location. Representatives from each group met with staff four times February 28, 2011 - 2 - PD- 2011 -14 during the last six months and discussed each group's preferred location, as well as suggestions received from the Chippawa Citizen's Committee. The Museum Board members indicated in order to resolve this matter, they were willing to compromise and agree to have the monument on the Niagara Falls History Museum site as long as it was on the southeast corner of the property. Their position was it met the Heritage Committee's desire to stay on site and felt that this location would give the monument the prominence at the rear entrance which will be the most frequently used entrance to the Museum; is within the Main and Ferry Business Improvement Area and will allow the retaining wall on Ferry Street to be rebuilt as it was originally constructed. In addition, the monument, thus placed, will be able to be used as part of the Museum's educational programming. The Municipal Heritage Committee feels there is contextual value to have the monument on the same site as it has been for the last 80 years. However, they believe that the northeast corner will provide the monument with the respect and prominence it deserves. It is the Committee's opinion that the monument is also intrinsically linked to a Ferry Street location. The representative referenced five of the "Eight Guiding Principles of Heritage Preservation ", as being applicable to northeast location for the Queen Victoria Monument. ANALYSIS Staff reviewed the points raised by the representative groups relative to five of the eight Guiding Principles and found: 1. Respect for Original Location - Do not move buildings unless there is no other way to save them. The only way to save the monument was to move it, thus the primary goal of this principle is being met. The monument had previously been moved from its original site. Reinstalling the monument on the Museum site is the same property it has occupied for the last 80 years. While the northeast corner of the site maintains the monument on Ferry Street, the corner is elevated and would not be accessible. If the corner was lowered to sidewalk grade, the retaining wall would need to be altered which would not be consistent with Principle #3. The southeast corner provides a number of opportunities to give the monument prominence. 2. Respect for Historic Material - Repair /Conserve - rather than replace building materials an finishes, except where absolutely necessary. At the request of the Municipal Heritage Committee the monument was moved intact. The monument will be lifted by crane into its new location. Thus, it was possible to satisfy this principle. 3. Respect for Original Fabric - Repair with like materials. The monument will need some restoration once placed in its final location. Repointing of the monument will be done in an appropriate manner, using appropriate restoration methods and historic materials. If the northeast corner was selected for the site of the monument, it would require lowering the grade to make it accessible and would necessitate relocating and altering the stone retaining wall. This would not be consistent with nor would it satisfy the requirement that the original fabric be respected. February 28, 2011 - 3 - PD- 2011 -14 4. Respect for Building's History - Don't restore to one period at the expense of another. The issue of whether to restore the monument to a working drinking fountain can be considered once the final location is determined and based on budget. 5. Legibility - New work should be distinguishable from old. No additions or modifications are proposed to the monument. New plaques should not be affixed to the monument which would suggest that they are original to the structure. All groups agreed a plaque describing the movement of the monument should be separate. The location at the southeast corner of the Niagara Falls Museum site requires that compromises have to be made by all parties. Although this is not a unanimous decision, the advantages to such a location are: • maintains the monument on the Museum site; • ensures contextual value associated with the Stamford Town Hall is maintained; • respects that it is a heritage attribute of the designated property; • can be incorporated as a garden feature to ensure visual prominence on -site and to Sylvia Place Market; and • would be eligible for inclusion in Federal /Provincial funding for site. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Should the monument be located at the southeast corner of the site, the costs for this relocation would be included in the Federal /Provincial funding allocated for the project. The Niagara Falls History Museum contractor, Collaborative Structures Ltd., and the architect, Moriyama and Teshima, will have to be advised as there will be some design costs to incorporate the structure into garden area. CITY'S STRATEGIC PRIORITIES Economic vitality is one of City's strategic priorities and this is to be accomplished by encouraging development of new tourism products. The Niagara Falls History Museum site will be marketed as a tourism product and the monument would be an appropriate feature of this site. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ► None. Recommended by: & K Alex Herlovitch, Director of Planning, Building & Development Respectfully submitted: n Todd, Chief Administrative Officer P.Boyle:mb S: \PDR\2011 \PD- 2011 -14, Matters Arising from MHC, Final Location of Queen Victoria Monument.wpd (2/24/2011) Dean lorfida - TEXT.htm Page 1 Begin forwarded message: From: "Gwen Donofrio" <gdonofrio@niagarafalls.ca> Date: February 24. 2011 10:24:13 AM EST To: "Janice Wing" <janice wing(&,cogeco.ca> Cc: "Laurel Campbell" <cford5@cogeco.ca >. "Peggy Boyle" <pboyle@niagarafalls.ca> Subject: Queen Victoria Monument Motion & Articles Hi Janice. Here is the motion and articles that you requested to send to Dean and Council prior to the Feb 28th Council meeting. Please let me knom if you require anything further. Thanks. Gwen MOVED BY I.aurel Campbell and SECONDED BY Margaret Mingle that as the Municipal Heritage Committee has discussed at length and are unanimous in their decision regarding the final resting place of the Queen Victoria Monument. that the Municipal Heritage Committee reconfirm their position that the monument remain with the property in a prominent position along Ferry Street. (2/24/2011) Dean lorfida - QV - Documentation NO. 2.pdf Page 1 . , 1 It i 1 !` „,,„ -._ ,,, A ,,, 1 Alt*, , l ' 0 , 0 4 Mit' I 5 tint 150)1. td1 ititi eitit - . 0,1 (ill Intt'i: ..)//,=, (,-/ - (ontvm , 04 , , / -,' , '/ . '/ ' /- NW LIDAy; 1 17,: aistw:wat NI usown otxl,tpies 1,}E; kirriThr ,bi,, T0 hall i n Niagara tails, This handsome (nit stone building wit,T; erected in 1874 by "Drummondville's noted architect and contrac,tor, John Latshaw”. It is located on the site of the Battle of Lundy's Lane, the fiercest conflict in all of the War of 1812 where British, Canadian and American forces fought valiantly July 25, 1814. Architecturally significant, it was designated as an historic building in 1974. Events: July 1, 1999 Canada Day Celebrations at Optimist Park, Display Table and Gifi Shop items, Displays, (;t10 di[i.piuy iu i:. L)yef :)t (,:Iiy f1;111: ft. 1 : 10ti Orii1 AO ( New Acquisitions. Williau I lin kr I lilt f:;iito irtlook, t ail,,i Ritn -u Gift Shop Items: ft,look, ihome H Shil ts FieproeuGLori al i period ievyellery, 1:25th Anniversary Wooden i ;our..;, \t;tieo,. DID YOU KNOW THAT .,, the Queen Victoria Memorial Drinking Fountain erected in1901 was once located at the corner of Lundy's Lane and North Main Street but was deemed a menace by city officials and in 1923 was removed to the Township Hall. Now the Lundy's Lane Historical Museum. 5810 Ferry St, Niagara Falls, Ontario L26 1S9 Phone: 905-358-5082 Fax: 905-358-0920 JUNE 1999 (2/24/2011) Dean lorfida - QV - Documentation NO. 2.pdf Page 2 Queen Victoria's Fountain Standing off to the right of the front entrance of Stamford "township Ilal1, and partially hidden by the 11,3V. stone wall, is a fire rut state memorial. Though scarcely- noticed by passersby todtis, this excellent monument gas ones :et} much a part of the south -end scene and presents an interesting chapter in Stantiord', htsory. h was designed a.; a memorial to the long and beneficent reign of Oneen Vie i1111.11 taro i<ted a tx rnnnirrl . ou�� r< of .. as ; Irinhing i3untam i rnan tar, Ire.,: t. .. did in Janu3r1,, 2001 , At i itergit 0rc1 ;r. - i,,t, yr , r :, } _, ■sit le 101d:11 t in ,i T cc ; d lov,tudtip Ana nac r r t1 rt,y tiw u it1 e si 1 t mo 1 n t1 d� amain:mot:tie Lenin and then l to hale r o r r I re , wa 'hai hoitt ._ >r , met tr e/ i +, tu.1, ,,, ildtt1 1 11.ded unott its the id, al tarsiiiii -tce meta ,t1 the osi 1 00 / tans stem: _? t ,,i3 r h; " t � _ k7r .r �t rnc: i , lir �r :? and b�. i. =..rrt.r �� vrr 1 � , , d.;.• h, t u t_ , rOtTfn s i ,,, F,, =i L• =u i v ss t i ❑ eny; ri c r W i tpemat 0000 no =r. � i :rtei<imor,i 1{ili c_metn,1 t of he,_ lulled i,i r1 0 1 1(0 1 i side 1(11'1111:d „ 110110% q1 11.11d th. ,00111.11110 01 On th platfot .vine lieu C ason i,ewge 10111 i'rt0iu :n1 of the C.tnrd,s 1 " iUie ir,narical 5oratto, Harlan Brush, the t_;.5 Consul at that urne, Adam Jlroan, the president. of the ltuy1J Canadian linnlane association, and Miss Veronica Acheson. The three men gave appropriate addresses. after nhich NGs% Acheson pulled a cord which released the flag. veiling the memorial \facer also began to _flog, immediately to quench the thirst of humans, horses and dogs from the three separate Levels in the fountain. This memorial drinking fountain stood for many years on this plot of historic ground, kept green with grass and bright floors_ But alas. with the passage of time, horses gave waq to the horseless carriages, which so increased in numbers that by 1923 the fountain became a traffic hazard. i So n was decided In Stamford Township Council in that war to move it to a site in front of the Townal itt Hall_ where id rest", today. The moving of the monument took place on November 12. 192,1 td commemorate the Ben Beneficent following words: "filessed Queen are the �iso.bears they plig l ue J On r vshtch is inscribed create r h, loyal sitizens, .Al). 1901 Committee. e Id Ellis. =harrm,tu Councillors 9.. Fraser, 9 For de. C Slitirnpten 4,1.7 iy i._,on, God o: the Itinf;' o „ :I s. the rwninnee. swan! a die orris- 1111'11101 <',1 hit curt reeled t; memory 9 (lu <•,■ 1, :it0 . 11 ,,f0t n nrf1. }!1 ' t 1 37 :1 �t 4 (2/24/2011) Dean lorfida - QV - Documentation NO. 2 pdf Page 3 . . , :,-.. 4 4`.: :. ,','' _-. I, - ..',• ''' - *.■ 4 i .'r J. ' ;R.,'--3 1 ,_ -,-- c, 1 5 -..-' -"- -_, : '1 ::', " .....„ :::: 6'c s al r'i , •'. ' j , r , „.----', —; ---- --, ... --', . , tl, 0 ' ',f ' — "--' - ril t 4 :' 1 , :=-'• (1 . ' , 0 ' I. A e-- --- t"-- .. t 2 , r” A ', i , -4,- \ , , ') - - - -..... , • i ' til - 41,, , It' '' - - ' :: 7, - ' - t,,1 I • , ' ii. I ''''' 'K .,;%V - '="7■ 1 , ,1 , , 1 i i 1 _ — ‘ 7 " . ,._ '...- ' .: ..A _ = ,- , '.,, ' - • •,---, , , ,. , , . `, 3 -- ' ' 1,17 k ,,._. , , A ... , f '."3 r , :'''.' 1 1*,: MA* . r .e rZ •■,''''' 0 / J'5, ---S CC I , - , - I -- ' ••' C y,' - P 7, - 14,1 , W .. _" i . 404 ,-!, ,,,. .0 M ...,‘ . CE . '' Q-, •-=-- ,-,' ,-,' r r' ' ' sr. trti ?..... I — ..-: P - .,--. 77 0 "r =± _ _, c C. .. r ' ' • , rt.. * f0 et) /0 r - a 2 a , r ,--- r _ r- if . - ‘). ...., , — -• ''. 4ov, : J1 , ,,- ,,‘,,.,..,,,, , „--.., -, -,,,, e '—' . ''''' ' • ---...7t / 9 F` -; ".-.. >7 7 - ,11 'I' ,_._ ,-- ...-■ ,-- ''.-7 -.- e ,...... r - itar..414kigrZ-. 1 HR -2011- 01 Niagarapalls February 28, 2011 REPORT TO: Councillor Carolynn loannoni, Chair and Members of the Committee of the Whole City of Niagara Falls, Ontario SUBMITTED BY: Human Resources /Fire Department SUBJECT: HR- 2011 -01 Fire Services Full Time Recruitment RECOMMENDATION In consideration of Council's request to review the full time recruitment process of the Niagara Falls Fire department, the following options are suggested: 1. at the recruit nt process f her bonus Nia ara Falls volunteer fire fighter ca idates, provid candidates m et the mandato qualifications and testing, by incre sing existing w fighting and sc ening criteria a d /or, 2. That the ecruitment en ure that all Ni ara Falls resi nts and volunteer fire fighters are ffered first int rviews provide they meet the m datory qualifications and Brock to ting. -� That the issue of Fire Service recruiting be referred back to staff to return with a recruitment policy based on the Council discussion at the COTW meeting. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY /BACKGROUND Following recent discussions regarding the Niagara Falls Volunteer Fire Station 4 located in Chippawa, City Council has requested a report from staff on the hiring and recruitment process for full time fire fighters. Of particular interest, is the number of staff hired from the Niagara Falls area and within the volunteer ranks. The recruitment of fire fighters for the Niagara Falls Fire department is the most involved process of its kind within the municipality. The written and physical testing, screening and interview process, has enabled the department to select the highest caliber of candidates for the City in fire fighting, rescue and other related emergency services. To be eligible for the position, the mandatory and basic qualifications include a high school diploma, a valid class "D" Ontario Driver's License with a "Z" endorsement, a driver's abstract, a clean criminal background check, first aid and CPR certificates, legally eligible to work in Canada and successful completion of the Brock University Testing. For a fee of $320, and to be considered for an interview, candidates must pass the Brock testing which consists of an aptitude and clinical test, a physical ability assessment, an acrophobia evaluation and a tread water test. These tests are designed to simulate the necessary skills and abilities involved in fire fighting. Working Together to Serve Our Community Corporate Services Department Human Resources February 28, 2011 - 2 - HR 2011 -01 During the "Candidate Physical Ability Test (CPAT) ", candidates are tested on stair climbing, equipment carry, forcible entry, hose drag, etc. This is a pass /fail test with a maximum time of 10 minutes and 20 seconds. During the clinical assessment, candidates are tested for body composition, pulmonary function, maximum aerobic fitness and trunk flexibility. The Brock testing (CPAT) has been recognized as an industry standard across the province of Ontario. It has also been approved by the International Association of Fire Chiefs and the International Association of Fire Fighters. Also using this test are fire departments in St. Catharines, Fort Erie, Welland, Cambridge, Guelph, Niagara on the Lake, Burlington, Brampton, Peterborough, Toronto, etc. After submitting an application, the candidate resumes are assessed and screened by the interview panel consisting of the Deputy Chief, the Director of Training (a member of the NFPFFA) and a representative from the Human Resources Department. Only those that have met the mandatory qualifications and passed the Brock testing are considered for interview. During the recent 2010 -2011 recruitment drive, 176 applicants met the mandatory qualifications. The panel then must short-list applicants for interviews. Using objective rating criteria, candidates are screened based on the Brock test results, education (ie. university, college diploma or certificate, college courses, etc.), experience (ie. professional fire fighter, paramedic, ALS, volunteer fire fighter, etc.) and other criteria (ie. place of residency, community volunteerism, skilled trade, current related employment, etc.) Depending upon the number of years as a volunteer fire fighter and whether the individual was an officer or not, volunteer fire fighters are bonused up to 15 %. Residents of Niagara Falls are bonused up to 5 %. Of the current fire department staff composition, 94% are from the Niagara region and 53% live within the boundaries of the City of Niagara Falls. Of the current fire department complement,14 fire fighters have been hired from the volunteer ranks. Applicants receiving the top overall marks in the Brock screening, the resume and qualifications receive an interview. During the last round of recruitment, 48 applicants were interviewed. The top candidates from the first set of interviews receive a "CritiCall" test conducted by the Niagara Falls Fire Department, designed to test the candidate's ability to multi -task and perform the duties as an emergency dispatcher in the alarm room. Following a second round of interviews, supervisory references are requested and a medical examination is conducted based on the NFPA 1582 standard (ie. vision test, audiogram, urinalysis, etc.). Offers of employment are then made. During the 2010 -2011 fire fighter recruitment, nine applicants accepted a full time position; of those nine, one was a Niagara Falls volunteer fire fighter. February 28, 2011 - 3 - HR 2011 -01 CITY'S STRATEGIC COMMITMENT The Fire recruitment process is aligned with Council's strategic priority to recruit and retain top talent and facilitate customer service excellence within the organization. SUMMARY CONCLUSION The Niagara Falls Fire recruitment process has helped to attract and hire the very best talent to the City of Niagara Falls. As such, the high quality candidates has enabled the department to enjoy a stellar reputation amongst its peers and provide the City with service excellence. Should Council desire, the recruitment process may be further adapted to enable Niagara Falls residents and fire fighting volunteers greater opportunity to join the services of the department. Recommended by: / Trent Dar , erector of Human Reso rces Lee Smi , Fire Chief Respectfully submitted: .4Arri Ken odd, Chief Administrative Officer 11 CITY OF! 4 CANADA NI RA 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 February 28. 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 a matter under 239(2)(f) to receive advice subject to solicitor - client privilege and 239(2)(c)pending disposition of land. AND The Seal of the Corporation be hereto affixed. DEAN IORFIDA JAMES M. DIODATI CITY CLERK MAYOR