Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO-004-10Staff Report # 1 Clari~~ton _ J Leading r>:e way REPORT CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Meeting: COUNCIL Date: May 10, 2010 Resolution#: By-lavr#: NIA Report #: CAO-004-10 File: C'. -do l - I b c -aoa-lo Subject: DREDGING OF BOWMANVILLE CREEK RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that Council approve the following: THAT Report CAO-004-10 be received for information. Submitted by: L~ ~'`~'~-"'- ~fv` fit, Franklin Wu Chief Administrative Officer CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T (905)623-3379 F (905)623-0720 REPORT NO.: CAO-004-10 PAGE 2 1. BACKGROUND: 1.1 At its meeting held on April 26, 2010, Council approved the following recommendation from the GPA Committee as follows: "THAT Report PSD-042-10 be received; THAT the CAO be requested to prepare a report, within 4 weeks, on the further opportunities and logistics regarding the cost recovery of dredging, installation of a gate and activation of the parking meter at the municipal boat launch in Bowmanville." 1.2 The purpose of this report is therefore to provide the information sought by Council. Since the issue of dredging is very much tied to the activities of the boat launch and the parking lot, staff took the liberty to expand the scope of this report so that a complete financial picture is available for Council deliberation. 1.3 Significant amounts of information respecting dredging was provided via Report PSD- 042-10. This information will not be reproduced here but staff would urge Council members to revisit this information prior to their consideration of this report. 2. THE NEED FOR DREDGING 2.1 The Municipality has never been involved in any dredging activity of the Bowmanville Creek. It inherited the Conservation Area with the boat launch as a result of a long term lease with the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority in 2000. To the best of our knowledge, CLOCA did not dredge prior to that. 2.2 The boat launch is used by both local and out-of-town residents primarily for launching their small water crafts; mostly power boats. The Municipality has no record of any historical data on the depth of the creek adjacent to the boat launch. It is also noted that the Municipality has not received any complaints from past users regarding any siltation issue adjacent to the boat launch nor any difficulty in launching their boats due to insufficient water depth. However, our recent inspection reveals that the water depth. at the end of the wooden pier is about ten (10) inches, whereas the usual depth at the same location is about two to three feet. We believe the shallow water depth is REPORT NO.: CAO-004-10 PAGE 3 caused by both siltation and unusual low water level of the creek. If the water level remains low, users may have difficulty launching their boat at this location. 2.3 Creek dredging would be a new service which is neither contemplated in the Municipality's Strategic Business Plan nor included in the annual budget, notwithstanding it may or may not be able to recover the cost of dredging through charging a fee of the users of the boat launch. 3. COST ANALYSIS There are direct costs related to dredging and several in-direct and related costs in connection with dredging. Breakdown of these costs are as follows. 3.1 Direct Dredging Cost a) The Municipality was never involved in any dredging activity of the Bowmanville Creek and therefore has neither past experience nor cost information to rely on. In the absence of detailed information that would be obtained from a tender process, we rely on information recently obtained from marinas in neighboring municipalities. Typically marina operators would spend between $20,000 to $40,000 annually to maintain the depth of their respective channels. This amount could be higher for Bowmanville Creek due to the substantial length of the channel, as well as the uncertainty of not knowing if the dredged materials can be deposited nearby. b) It has been suggested that the dredging cost can be shared with the marina operators. The aforementioned cost to the Municipality will be reduced but the amount of municipal contribution remains unknown until further information can be obtained through negotiation and tender. It is not advisable to enter into any cost sharing arrangement without actually knowing the specifications and firm pricing of the works. REPORT NO.: CAO-004-10 PAGE 4 3.2 Boat Launch Repair/Maintenance Cost a) The boat launch was constructed in 1977 by CLOCA. Despite regular maintenance by CLOCA and the Municipality, the structure is deteriorating and will be in need of major upgrades or repairs. The Bowmanville Boat Launch consists of a ramp approximately 10 metres wide, with wooden piers on either side set on stone cribs. The ramp itself is block construction. The ramp provides a gradual decline leading to the water. Currently both the piers and block ramp are showing signs of heaving due to deterioration and frost. In its present state of deterioration the Boat Launch is currently in need of major reconstruction to restore it to a safe and serviceable condition. Our Capital Budget for 2010 currently includes $35,000 for pier renovations but excludes ramp reconstruction. b) A preliminary estimate for the boat launch ramp includes a design cost of approximately $15,000 and construction cost between $80,000 to $140,000. Not included in this estimate would be any and all additional fees from CLOCA and/or other external agencies for permits required to complete the project. It is important to note that these figures are estimated costs and should only be used for approximate budgeting purposes. c) Maintenance on the parking lot is currently negligible and should remain so for the next five years. For the last ten years the boat launch has been leased property from CLOCA and only this year came into Municipal ownership due to a land exchange. Until now, staff has conducted yearly inspections and work was restricted to those items required for public safety. 3.3 Equipment Cost Related to Charging Fees In order to charge the users, equipments would have to be purchased. There are three options to accomplish this objective. a) Install a central parking meter (pay and display system) that would accept both cash and credit card. This type of equipment costs more than the conventional central meter used in our downtown municipal parking lots. Equipment that would accept credit card is probably the best option to reduce the probability of vandalism REPORT NO.: CAO-004-10 PAGE 5 at this remote location. The cost of this equipment is about $10,000. Plus installation. b) Install a barrier gate lift system at the boat launch entrance using equipment that would accept both cash and credit card. This method would directly charge the users of the boat launch without penalizing the other users of the parking lots for other purposes. The cost of this equipment is about $8,000. plus installation cost. c) Hire students to collect a fee on site. Given the fishing season generally runs from May to October, and from dawn to dusk (12 hours day), the wages would be about $26,000. 3.4 Enforcement Cost Any park and display system would require some form of enforcement which would involve checking vehicles for valid tickets, issuing tickets for violation, and checking the equipment to ensure proper functioning. The cost of providing parking enforcement for the six months (May-Oct.) including overtime on weekends and statutory holidays is approximately $10,000. The Municipality can theoretically recover a portion of this cost through parking fines. However, this will be negligible because the parking lot is used mostly by residents from Quebec. As Quebec does not have a reciprocal agreement with Ontario for the collection of outstanding parking fines, our chances of collecting any fines based on voluntarily action would be rather unrealistic. 3.5 Potential Liability Cost The cost of liability is extremely difficult to identify. If the Municipality decided to dredge as a partnership arrangement despite not owning the land under the creek, it can be construed to have accepted responsibility and the liability that goes with it. The nature of the liability and the associated cost will not likely be known until a claim is filed against the Municipality. Remote as it may be, Council should be aware of the potential ramification of its decision to dredge the channel. Detailed comments from the Director of Finance on this subject are attached herein. REPORT NO.: CAO-004-10 PAGE 6 4. REVENUE ANALYSIS There are essentially two options available to the Municipality. 4.1 Charping a Boat Launching Fee The Municipality does not keep any data or information as to the number of visitors or boat launch users and therefore has no reliable means to even make a best guess estimate. However, since a little information is better than none, we would assume that the boat launch will draw an average of 10 users per day over a six month period (May- October). In this instance, the total users will be1825, and at $5 daily rate, which is the rate charged in Cobourg and Port Hope, or at $10 daily rate in Whitby, gross revenue of $9,125 to $18,250 can be realized. It should be noted that once the Municipality charges a fee, there will be expectation from the users with respect to higher maintenance standards of the parking lots and the boat launch structures. 4.2 Status Quo This option basically leaves things the way it is. There will be no charge to any user, and no investment by the Municipality for any capital improvements other than the regular maintenance and the pier repairs provided for in the 2010 budget. 5. CONCLUSION The concept of cost recovery by charging a fee for the privilege of using the boat launch, and hence using the proceeds to offset the cost of dredging is a noble idea. However, the foregoing discussions have identified several limitations that will cause difficulty in the implementation of the concept. In any event, Council should be satisfied whether or not it wishes to add dredging as a new municipal service and if so, to decide how best to provide funding in future budgets. Since the 2010 budget has already been struck, it would be advisable for Council to receive this report for information and defer the matter to future Council. C1rr_~~n Le~ndn~ the Way ~...1 MEMO FINANCE To: Franklin Wu, CAO From: Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance Date: May 3, 2010 Subject: DREDGING FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE IMPLICATIONS If the Municipality were to partner with the proponents and other interested parties tc undertake dredging at the Port Darlington Marina, the first priority would be establishing which party would be the lead with respect to physically undertaking the work. If the Municipality is not undertaking the work, but simply contributing toward the cost, it is recommended that appropriate formal agreements be entered into which include limitations around financial obligations, insurance provisions and hold .harmless and indemnification clauses. If the Municipality is undertaking the work, appropriate funds would be required, in advance, for each party's proportionate share of the cost. With respect to ongoing operational liability, this is addressed under the Occupiers Liability Act. An "occupier" is defined as: A person who is in physical possession of the premises, or A person who has responsibility for and control over the condition of premises or the activities carried on, or control over persons allowed to enter the premises, despite the fact that there is more than one occupier of the same premises. As an occupier of the premises, Clarington will owe a duty to take such care in all circumstances to see that persons, and property brought on the premises are reasonably safe while on the premises. In deciding whether "reasonable" care has been exercised, Clarington will have to put in place a system of inspection for the parking lot and the dock. With the installation of a pay per use gate, the expectation of users will increase and the determination of "reasonable' care. Clarington would no longer be able to provide only minimal maintenance on the gravel parking lot and replace loose boards. A formal system of inspection and maintenance would need to be put in place by the Operations Department. Also, warning signs of risk to individuals or property is recommended and potentially improved lighting. The Municipality would not require additional insurance coverage. However, at renewal the insurer will assess the risk to determining if it has increased enough to make an impact on the Municipality's insurance premium. Any claims received would be an important factor in determining this. CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON 40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379 F 905-623-4169 Pale 12 In the event of any damage to third parties' persons or property, a claim would be filed through the Clerk's Department. Essentially, if a plaintiffs evidence can demonstrate to a court that the Municipality's parking lot and/or dock was in a state of disrepair and in generally poor condition, the Municipality will be found liable. Furthermore, if a trial judge finds that the system of inspection and repair of the parking lot or dock was inadequate the Municipality will be held negligent for the damages. Joint and several liability principles would apply. With respect to costs, the Operations Department would incur maintenance and inspection costs somewhat greater due to the higher duty of care than would incur currently. Meter revenues can be used to offset costs for the parking lot maintenance but not for boat launch maintenance and inspection since parking .revenues must be segregated and used for parking purposes. There may be an opportunity to set the charge as a combined parking/boat launch fee in order to extend the ability to use the funds for boat launch maintenance or future dredging costs. However, every vehicle entering would then be required to pay the combined fee, regardless of whether they were utilizing the boat launch itself. Council would have to approve, by By-law, the combined fee and the authorized apportionment between the parking components versus the boat launch portion. The other option would involve establish a manned booth during weekends to specifically charge for the launch or installing a second gate at the boat launch itself, requirement payment before the arm would lift to allow launching. Cost recovery on both these options may be unlikely. Yours truly, Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance. /hjl