TOWN OF CANMORE AGENDA Regular Meeting of Council Council Chambers at the Canmore Civic Centre, 902 – 7 Avenue Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 5:00 p.m.
SUBDIVISON/DEVELOPMENT APPROVING AUTHORITY None
PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD
A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. Agenda for the December 18 , 2012 Regular Meeting of Council
B. DELEGATIONS AND PETITIONS 1. PricewaterhouseCoopers – Three Sisters Application Fees
C. MINUTES 1. Minutes of the November 29, 2012 Special Meeting of Council 2. Minutes of the December 4, 2012 Regular Meeting of Council 3. Minutes of the December 5, 2012 Special Meeting of Council 4. Minutes of the December 11, 2012 Special Meeting of Council
D. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES None
E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Silvertip Pathway Connection Recommendation: That council approves adding a gravel pathway connection along Silvertip Trail to the scope of CAP#1234 – Teepee Town Commuter, for completion in 2013.
2. Inter-municipal Committee Terms of Reference Recommendation: That council approve the terms of reference for the Inter- municipal Committee as presented.
3. Council Remuneration Policy and Travel Expense Policy Recommendations: (1) That council adopt the Council Remuneration Policy as presented. (2) That council adopt the Travel Expense Claims and Reimbursement Policy as presented.
4. Road Safety Programs Recommendation: That council approves the multi-pronged approach to improving road safety as presented and direct administration to develop and implement an “I drive safely” one year pilot project to be funded from the photo radar reserve to a maximum of $12,000 in 2013.
Agenda prepared by: Cheryl Hyde, Municipal Clerk Page 1 of 2
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 1 of 149 F. BYLAW APPROVAL 1. Business Registry Bylaw Amendment – 3 readings Recommendation: That council give first, second and third reading to Bylaw 17-2012.
G. NEW BUSINESS 1. Terms of Reference for the new Three Sisters Area Structure Plan Recommendation: That council approve the Three Sisters Area Structure Plan Terms of Reference as presented.
2. Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission Five-Year Business Plan including Three-Year Financial Projections Recommendation: That council approve the Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission five-year business plan as presented.
3. Pickleball Site Evaluation for The New Horizon’s Grant Recommendation: That council approves the location of pickleball courts at the Cougar Creek outdoor ice surface site.
H. CORRESPONDENCE/INFORMATION None
I. REPORTS FROM ADMINISTRATION None
J. NOTICES OF MOTION None
K. IN CAMERA None
L. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda prepared by: Cheryl Hyde, Municipal Clerk Page 2 of 2
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 2 of 149 November 28, 2012
Gary Buxton General Manager of Municipal Infrastructure Town of Canmore Canmore Civic Centre 902 - 7th Avenue, Canmore, Alberta T1W 3K1
Dear Mr. Buxton:
Re: Municipal Approvals Process Application Fees Three Sisters Mountain Village ULC
PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. (PwC) in its capacity as the Receiver and Receiver Manager of Three Sisters Mountain Village ULC. (TSMV) in Canmore, Alberta, is requesting that the Town of Canmore approve a reduction in the fees associated with the applications to be filed in support of the Area Structure Plan, Land Use Redesignation and Block Subdivision. In support of this request we attach the following material. We understand that the Receiver will have an opportunity to present this request to Council on December 4, 2012.
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS INC.
Earl K. Williams Vice President
PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. 111 5 Avenue SW, Suite 3100, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 5L3 T: +1 403 509 7500, F: +1 403 781 1825, www.pwc.com/ca
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 3 of 149 Town of Canmore: Municipal Application Fees Three Sisters Mountain Village ULC
Background
The Bylaws of the Town authorizes the charging of fees for the processing of applications related to ASP, LUB and Subdivision. The fees are based on the size of the lands covered by the application. Further, two sections in the Municipal Government Act are applicable to such fees. Section 8 (c) i. Council can establish "reasonable" fees for permits, approvals (read the entire section) Section 630.1 - Council may establish and charge fees for matters under Part 17 - Planning and Development.
The Recevier has discussed the subject of the fees with representatives of the Town of Canmore and have agreed: The fees would be applied to an area of 254.6ha (628.86 acres). The fees would exclude the undeveloped areas of the Resort Golf Course which based on the conceptual plan would be 60.7 ha (149.9 acres) and Site 9 177.2ha (437.2 acres). The subdivision fee would be excluded because the application would be for only 4 large blocks and that subsequent subdivision applications would be received from the purchaser of the assets. The fees would be charged for the applications related to the Area Structure Plan and Land Use
Based on the above principles, the Town’s current schedule and the agreed to areas the Town has advised that the fee would total $962,500 and break down as follows: Area Structure Plan $386,900 LandUseBylaw $575,600
The Recevier has been engaged in discussions with Administration on the subject of the fees and has requested the opportunity to present a request for a reduction in the fee.
Receiver’s Perspective
In October and November the Receiver completed a benchmarking of fees charged by a number of Alberta municipalities. The initial benchmarking included Calgary, Edmonton and Red Deer plus municipalities similar in size to Canmore. Following a review of the data the benchmarking analysis excluded Red Deer, Calgary, and Edmonton and focused on ten municipalities similar in size to Canmore and located within an hour’s drive of a major municipality or a recreation centre. The analysis calculated the fees which would be paid in the benchmark municipalities utilizing that municipality’s fee schedule and the TSMV area of 254.6ha.
Page 1 of 3
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 4 of 149 When compared to the 10 municipalities Canmore’s base fee is competitive and not the highest. However Canmore’s area fee per ha is the highest by a significant amount. When the fees are calculated based on the TSMV area the Canmore application fees are significantly higher. The following tables present the fees for Canmore and the benchmark communities.
Area Structure Plan Application Fees % of Populatio Area TSMV Canmor Municipality n Base Fee /ha Area Total e fee Canmore 12,288 $5,000 $1,500 254.6 $386,900 100% Banff 7,584 $5,500 $0 254.6 $5,500 1% Chestermere* 14,824 $7,500 $10 0 $7,500 2% Beaumont 13,284 $1,000 $100 254.6 $26,460 7% StonyPlain 15,051 $1,000 $0 254.6 $1,000 0% Cochrane 17,580 $7,500 $0 254.6 $7,500 2% Sylvan Lake 12,327 $1,500 $0 254.6 $1,500 0% Strathmore 12,305 $5,000 $0 254.6 $5,000 1% Hinton 9,640 $1,000 $0 254.6 $1,000 0% Okotoks 24,511 $3,000 $0 254.6 $3,000 1% High River 12,920 $2,500 $50 254.6 $15,230 4% Average $7,369 2% Excluding Canmore *$10/acre over 640
Land Use Redesignation Fees % of % of Area Fee TSMV Canmore Canmore Municipality Population Base /ha Area Total fee DC fee Canmore 12,288 $2,500 $550 254.6 $142,530 100% 25% Canmore DC* 12,288 $2,750 $2,250 254.6 $575,600 404% 100% Banff 7,584 $3,500 $0 254.6 $3,500 2% 1% Chestermere** 14,824 $1,500 $120 244.6 $30,852 22% 5% Beaumont 13,284 $1,000 $0 254.6 $1,000 1% 0% Stony Plain 15,051 $1,000 $0 254.6 $1,000 1% 0% Cochrane 17,580 $0 $250 254.6 $63,650 45% 11% Sylvan Lake 12,327 $2,000 $0 254.6 $2,000 1% 0% Strathmore 12,305 $2,000 $0 254.6 $2,000 1% 0% Hinton 9,640 $1,000 $0 254.6 $1,000 1% 0% Okotoks 24,511 $2,100 $0 254.6 $2,100 1% 0% High River 12,920 $2,000 $100 254.6 $27,460 19% 5% Average Excluding $13,456 9% 2% Canmore *DC – Direct Control **$120/ha >10ha
From the perspective of reasonableness Canmore’s fee structure for an application involving a large tract of land is too high.
Page 2 of 3
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 5 of 149 Based on conversations with planners and municipalities the fees charged for such applications are primarily a recovery of the municipalities’ costs and not a source of revenue.
Based on the principle of recovery and a period of 6 months to complete the application process the Receiver estimates the services required and costs to be as follows: Canmore Dedicated Planner $ 60,000 (6 monthswork) Canmore Other Staff $ 30,000 (3 months work) Canmore Benefit Costs $ 22,500 (25%) EIS Consultant $100,000 Other External Advisors $ 50,000 Total Cost $262,500
Receiver’s Request
Based on the benchmarking and the estimated incurred costs the Recevier requests that the application fees be established at $265,000. The fees would be paid in three installments based on the following milestones: approval of the ASP terms of reference, submission of the ASP application and approval of the block subdivision.
Page 3 of 3
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 6 of 149 Unapproved C-1
TOWN OF CANMORE MINUTES Special Meeting of Council – Sustainability Screening Report Hearing Council Chambers at the Canmore Civic Centre, 902 – 7 Avenue Thursday, November 29, 2012 at 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT John Borrowman Mayor Jim Ridley Deputy Mayor Gordie Miskow Councillor Hans Helder Councillor Joanna McCallum Councillor Vi Sandford Councillor Sean Krausert Councillor
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT
ADMINISTRATION PRESENT Lisa deSoto Chief Administrative Officer Gary Buxton Acting General Manager of Municipal Infrastructure Alaric Fish Manager of Planning and Engineering Kate van Fraassen Development Planner Cheryl Hyde Municipal Clerk (Recorder)
Mayor Borrowman called the November 29, 2012 special meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. Agenda for the November 29, 2012 Special Meeting of Council 422-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to approve the agenda for the November 29, 2012 special meeting of council with the following amendment: delete B-2 Presentation from Administration. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
B. SSR 2012-003 – Silver Creek Administration reported that pages 37 – 45 of the agenda package were included in error and do not form part of the material submitted for council’s consideration today.
1. Presentation from Applicant and Questions from Council John Third, Greg Gutek and Roland Godbout were present representing the applicant, Partners Development Limited. They spoke to a written submission included in the agenda package for today’s hearing.
Minutes approved by: ______Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 7 of 149 Town of Canmore Special Council Meeting Unapproved November 29, 2012 Page 2 of 2
C. Public Question Period The following residents asked questions of the developer, council, and administration: Dr. Duncan Brown Lisa Dunning Tracey Anderson Karsten Heuer Al Ritzer Kyle Pressman Doug Campbell Frank Kernick Doug Protz
Concerns addressed included: Maintenance of access to adjacent residential properties; Negative effects on wildlife if the property question is no longer zoned Urban Reserve and residential development is permitted; The density of the proposed development; Potential increases in traffic; Negative effects on the local construction industry if the development is not approved; Maintenance of existing trail systems; Affordability of the residences; Ensuring there are enough opportunities throughout the approval process for citizens to comment on the project.
423-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to approve Sustainability Screening Report 2012-003 as submitted. DEFEATED
D. ADJOURNMENT 424-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to adjourn the November 29, 2012 special meeting of council at 7:49 p.m.
______John Borrowman, Mayor
______Cheryl Hyde, Municipal Clerk
Minutes approved by: ______
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 8 of 149 Unapproved C-2
TOWN OF CANMORE MINUTES Regular Meeting of Council Council Chambers at the Canmore Civic Centre, 902 – 7 Avenue Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 5:00 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT John Borrowman Mayor Jim Ridley Deputy Mayor Joanna McCallum Councillor Hans Helder Councillor Vi Sandford Councillor Sean Krausert Councillor
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT Gordie Miskow Councillor
ADMINISTRATION PRESENT Lisa deSoto Chief Administrative Officer Gary Buxton General Manager of Municipal Infrastructure Lorrie O‟Brien General Manager of Municipal Services Alaric Fish Manager of Planning and Development Patrick Sorfleet Development Planner Cheryl Hyde Municipal Clerk (Recorder)
Mayor Borrowman called the December 4, 2012 regular meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
SUBDIVISON/DEVELOPMENT APPROVING AUTHORITY None
PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD Deiter Remppell, Canmore resident, asked the following question: Is photo radar used by the municipality for road safety or revenue? The mayor answered that the photo radar program is implemented for road safety.
A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. Agenda for the December 4, 2012 Regular Meeting of Council 425-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to approve the agenda for the December 4, 2012 regular meeting of council with the following amendments: 1) Under Delegations delete B-1 PricewaterhouseCoopers 2) Under In Camera add K-2 Receipt of Legal Advice CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Mayor Borrowman announced that Minister of Municipal Affairs has approved a $600,000 grant for remediation of the Dyrgas Gate sinkhole project.
Minutes approved by: ______Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 9 of 149 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting Unapproved December 4, 2012 Page 2 of 9
B. DELEGATIONS AND PETITIONS 1. PricewaterhouseCoopers – Request to Reduce Application Fees for Three Sisters Mountain Village Item deleted.
C. MINUTES 1. Minutes of the November 20, 2012 Regular Meeting of Council 426-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to approve the minutes of the November 20, 2012 regular meeting with the following amendments: 1) Under attendance, the deputy mayor was Councillor Ridley, not Councillor McCallum; and 2) Under motion 412-2012 and consolidated motion 407-2012, add the words “and insert „but not limited to‟ after the word „including.‟” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
D. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES None
E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None
F. BYLAW APPROVAL 1. Bylaw 11-2012 Bow Valley Trail Area Redevelopment Plan 427-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that council give second reading to Bow Valley Trail Area Redevelopment Plan Bylaw 11-2012.
428-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder that second reading of Bow Valley Trail Area Redevelopment Plan Bylaw 11-2012 be held in abeyance in order that the matter be referred to the Committee of the Whole, reconstituted as “The Bow Valley Trail Area Redevelopment Plan Bylaw 11-2012 Review Committee” for detailed review and consideration of amendments and studies. Upon completion of its review, the committee will report back to council by April 2, 2013 with proposed amendments, if any, to be considered at second reading of Bylaw 11-2012. DEFEATED
429-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: under s.2, Vision, add a sixth bullet: „is one of the Town‟s primary visitor accommodation areas.‟” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
430-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: under s.2, Vision, add a seventh bullet: „is a dynamic part of the Town, changing as the internal and external economic and social sustainability factors dictate.‟” DEFEATED
431-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding the following: “with the following amendment: delete all of s.3, How
Minutes approved by: ______
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 10 of 149 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting Unapproved December 4, 2012 Page 3 of 9
this Plan was Developed.” DEFEATED
432-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: delete all of s.3.1, Guiding Principles for the Development of the Plan.” DEFEATED
433-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: under s.5.1.1, General Residential Uses and Tourist Homes, in the opening sentence, delete the words: „the following‟ and delete the words: „should apply to residential development‟ and replace them with „should be established for residential development after further study of residential requirements in the BVT area,‟ and delete items 1-5 listed.” DEFEATED
434-2012 Moved by Councillor Krausert to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: delete section 5.1.1, which will result in: 1) re-wording of the beginning of point 4 to read „Notwithstanding 1 and 2 above, . . .‟; and 2) re-numbering of 4 and 5 to 3 and 4 respectively.” DEFEATED
435-2012 Moved by Councillor Krausert to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: replace the first sentence in the second paragraph of s.5.1.3 with: „Employee housing within the BVT area as described in this ARP shall be subject to any town-wide employee housing policy adopted by Council‟ and delete the second sentence.” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
436-2012 Moved by Councillor Krausert to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: revise the first sentence of s.5.2 to read: „Conversion of existing visitor accommodation units to residential, tourist homes, employee housing or PAH within the Bow Valley Trail (BVT) area may be considered in accordance with the criteria set out below.‟” CARRIED
437-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: in s.5.1.2, Perpetual Affordable Housing, delete the word „must‟ in list item 1, delete list items 3-4 and change list 5 to 3.” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
438-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: in s.5.1.3, Employee Housing Regulations, delete the second sentence, and in list item 1, delete the
Minutes approved by: ______
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 11 of 149 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting Unapproved December 4, 2012 Page 4 of 9
word „should‟ and replace with the word „will.‟” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
439-2012 Moved by Councillor Krausert to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: delete the words „in exceptional circumstances‟ from the first sentence in the first paragraph of s.5.2.1.” DEFEATED
440-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: in s.6.4, Southern Business District, change all reference to „light industrial‟ to read „light manufacturing.‟” CARRIED
441-2012 Moved by Councillor Krausert to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: Delete the second sentence of the first paragraph of s.5.2.1 in its entirety.” DEFEATED
442-2012 Moved by Councillor Krausert to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: That the entirety of the section entitled „Modifications to the Visitor Accommodation Definition‟ within s.5.2.1 be removed from the ARP, and the content of same be considered when drafting potential amendments to the Land Use Bylaw as described in s. 8.1.” DEFEATED
443-2012 Moved by Councillor Krausert to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: That the section entitled „Modifications to the Visitor Accommodation Definition‟ within s.5.2.1 be revised by deleting the title and be re-worded to read as follows: „To ensure retention of commercial-like tax classification, except for Employee Housing and Perpetually Affordable Housing, all visitor accommodation unit conversions that seek to allow long term or residential tenancies shall be treated as conversions to tourist home or some other subclass of residential.‟” DEFEATED
444-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: add a second sentence to s.5.2 Annual Conversion Limits: „The initial number of units allowed to be converted should be established prior to considering any conversions,‟ and add the words „town-wide‟ at the end of the first sentence.” CARRIED
445-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: delete the current content of s.5.4.2, Consistent Naming, and replace it with: „The naming of the Bow Valley Trail precincts will be subject to the completion of a branding
Minutes approved by: ______
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 12 of 149 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting Unapproved December 4, 2012 Page 5 of 9
exercise.‟” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
446-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: under s.6.1.2 Objective, delete the word „mainly‟ and the words „but also to‟ and add the word „and‟ between the words „visitors‟ and „residents.‟” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
447-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: under s.6.1.3 Land Uses, in the fifth bullet delete the word „Visitor.‟” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
448-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: under s.6.1.3 Land Uses, in the seventh bullet delete the words „small‟ and „(<150m2 GFA).‟” DEFEATED
449-2012 Moved by Councillor Ridley to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: under s.6.1.3 delete the following sentences: „The following are examples of uses that are appropriate within the Central BVT Precinct. This is not an exhaustive list,‟ and move the entire bulleted list under the next section: „The following are examples of uses that may be appropriate in the Central BVT Precinct.‟” CARRIED
450-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: delete s.6.1.3, Retail Uses.” DEFEATED
451-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: under s.6.1.4 Development Standards, list item 3, delete „and main entry‟ and change „from‟ to „on.‟” DEFEATED
452-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: under s.6.2.1 Purpose, third sentence, seventh line down, delete the word „small‟”. DEFEATED
453-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: under s.6.2.3, Land Uses, bullet list, fifth bullet, delete word „Visitor.‟” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
454-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: delete s.6.2.3 Retail Uses.”
Minutes approved by: ______
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 13 of 149 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting Unapproved December 4, 2012 Page 6 of 9
DEFEATED
455-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: under s.6.2.4 Efficient Use of Land, second sentence, delete the words „single use.‟” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
456-2012 Moved by Councillor Ridley to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: under s.6.2.4 Efficient Use of Land, replace with words „are not appropriate‟ with „should be discouraged.‟” DEFEATED
457-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: under s.6.3.3, Land Uses, last bullet in section, delete the word „Visitor.‟” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
458-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: under s.6.4.3, Land Uses, end of first paragraph, delete the following: „(e.g. residential and retail uses shall not be appropriate in this precinct).‟” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
459-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: under s.6.5.2, Objective, delete first sentence of paragraph 3, including all 4 bullets.” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
460-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: delete s.7.1.5, Additional Railway Crossings.” DEFEATED
461-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: delete s.7.1.11, Relocation of Gas Transmission Line.” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
462-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: under s.8.3.2, Bylaw Enforcement, second paragraph, replace the words, „the Bow Valley Trail Standing Committee‟ with „council‟ and delete the last sentence in the section.” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
463-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: delete s.8.5.1, Marketing and Business Development.” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Minutes approved by: ______
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 14 of 149 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting Unapproved December 4, 2012 Page 7 of 9
464-2012 Moved by Councillor Ridley to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: delete section 8.3.2, Bylaw Enforcement.” DEFEATED
465-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: delete s. 8.5.2, Incentive Programs.” CARRIED
466-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to amend motion 427-2012 by adding: “with the following amendment: change any reference in the Area Structure Plan to 2012 to 2013.” CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
427-2012 The vote followed on motion 427-2012: that council give second reading to Bow consolidated Valley Trail Area Redevelopment Plan Bylaw 11-2012 with the following amendments: 1) under s.2, Vision, add a sixth bullet: „is one of the Town‟s primary visitor accommodation areas.‟ 2) replace the first sentence in the second paragraph of s.5.1.3 with: „Employee housing within the BVT area as described in this ARP shall be subject to any town-wide employee housing policy adopted by Council‟ and delete the second sentence. 3) revise the first sentence of section 5.2 to read: „Conversion of existing visitor accommodation units to residential, tourist homes, employee housing or PAH within the Bow Valley Trail (BVT) area may be considered in accordance with the criteria set out below.‟ 4) in s.5.1.2, Perpetual Affordable Housing, delete the word „must‟ in list item 1, delete list items 3-4 and change list 5 to 3. 5) in s.5.1.3, Employee Housing Regulations, delete the second sentence, and in list item 1, delete the word „should‟ and replace with the word „will.‟ 6) in s.6.4, Southern Business District, change all reference to „light industrial‟ to read „light manufacturing.‟ 7) add a second sentence to s.5.2 Annual Conversion Limits: „The initial number of units allowed to be converted should be established prior to considering any conversions,‟ and add the words „town-wide‟ at the end of the first sentence. 8) delete the current content of s.5.4.2, Consistent Naming, and replace it with: „The naming of the Bow Valley Trail precincts will be subject to the completion of a branding exercise.‟ 9) under s.6.1.2 Objective, delete the word „mainly‟ and the words „but also to‟ and add the word „and‟ between the words „visitors‟ and „residents.‟ 10) under s.6.1.3 Land Uses, in the fifth bullet delete the word „Visitor.‟ 11) under s.6.1.3 delete the following sentences: „The following are examples of uses that are appropriate within the Central BVT Precinct. This is not an exhaustive list,‟ and move the entire bulleted list under the next section: “The following are examples of uses that may be appropriate in the Central BVT Precinct.‟ 12) under s.6.2.3, Land Uses, bullet list, fifth bullet, delete word “Visitor.” 13) under s.6.2.4 Efficient Use of Land, second sentence, delete the words „single
Minutes approved by: ______
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 15 of 149 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting Unapproved December 4, 2012 Page 8 of 9
use.‟ 14) under s.6.3.3, Land Uses, last bullet in section, delete the word „Visitor.‟ 15) under s.6.4.3, Land Uses, end of first paragraph, delete the following: „(e.g. residential and retail uses shall not be appropriate in this precinct).‟ 16) under s.6.5.2, Objective, delete first sentence of paragraph 3, including all 4 bullets. 17) delete s.7.1.11, Relocation of Gas Transmission Line. 18) under s.8.3.2, Bylaw Enforcement, second paragraph, replace the words, „the Bow Valley Trail Standing Committee‟ with „council‟ and delete the last sentence in the section. 19) delete s.8.5.1, Marketing and Business Development. 20) delete s. 8.5.2, Incentive Programs. 21) change any reference in the Area Structure Plan to 2012 to 2013. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
467-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that council give third reading to Bow Valley Trail Area Redevelopment Plan Bylaw 11-2012. POSTPONED
468-2012 Moved by Councillor Krausert to postpone third reading of Bow Valley Trail Area Redevelopment Plan Bylaw 11-2012 to the first regular meeting of council after administration has incorporated the amendments made by council at second reading. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
G. NEW BUSINESS 1. Year to Date Financial Report – 3rd Quarter 469-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that council accept the year-to-date financial report (quarterly update) as at September 30, 2012 for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
2. Silvertip Pathway Connection Council unanimously agreed to postpone this item to the December 18, 2012 regular meeting.
3. Road Safety Program Council unanimously agreed to postpone this item to the December 18, 2012 regular meeting.
Minutes approved by: ______
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 16 of 149 Town of Canmore Regular Council Meeting Unapproved December 4, 2012 Page 9 of 9
4. Inter-municipal Committee Terms of Reference Council unanimously agreed to postpone this item to the December 18, 2012 regular meeting.
5. Council Remuneration Policy and Travel Expense Policy Council unanimously agreed to postpone this item to the December 18, 2012 regular meeting.
6. Property Tax Task Force – Public Member Appointment (after in camera, if needed) 470-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that council appoint Peter McKeown as a public member to the Property Tax Task Force. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
H. CORRESPONDENCE/INFORMATION None
I. REPORTS FROM ADMINISTRATION None
J. NOTICES OF MOTION None
K. IN CAMERA (if needed) 1. Property Tax Task Force – Public Member Appointment Not needed.
2. Receipt of Legal Advice 471-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to go in camera at 9:19 p.m. to protect privileged solicitor-client information from disclosure. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
472-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to return to the public meeting at 9:45 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
L. ADJOURNMENT 473-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to adjourn the December 4, 2012 regular meeting of council at 9:45 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
______John Borrowman, Mayor
______Cheryl Hyde, Municipal Clerk
Minutes approved by: ______
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 17 of 149 Unapproved C-3
TOWN OF CANMORE MINUTES Special Meeting of Council – Budget Council Chambers at the Canmore Civic Centre, 902 – 7 Avenue Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 5:00 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT John Borrowman Mayor Jim Ridley Deputy Mayor Joanna McCallum Councillor Hans Helder Councillor Vi Sandford Councillor Sean Krausert Councillor
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT Gordie Miskow Councillor
ADMINISTRATION PRESENT Lisa deSoto Chief Administrative Officer Gary Buxton General Manager of Municipal Infrastructure Lorrie O’Brien General Manager of Municipal Services Terry Holt Manager of Finance Ric Irwin Senior Finance Officer Cheryl Hyde Municipal Clerk (Recorder)
Mayor Borrowman called the December 5, 2012 special meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. Agenda for the December 5, 2012 Special Meeting of Council 474-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to approve the agenda for the December 5, 2012 special meeting of council as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
B. NEW BUSINESS 1. 2013 Capital Budget 475-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that council approve the 2013 capital budget as presented.
476-2012 Moved by Councillor Sandford to amend motion 475-2012 as follows: that council approve the 2013 capital budget as presented, with the following amendment: shift $25,000 for the Sense of Community Survey from 2013 to 2014. DEFEATED
477-2012 Moved by Councillor Sandford to amend motion 475-2012 as
Minutes approved by: ______Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 18 of 149 Town of Canmore Special Council Meeting Unapproved December 5, 2012 Page 2 of 2
follows: that approve the 2013 capital budget as presented, with the following amendment: reduce the Civic Centre pageantry budget by $5000, with the funds supporting the branding budget and not the photo banners budget. DEFEATED
478-2012 Moved by Councillor Sandford to amend motion 475-2012 as follows: that council approve the 2013 capital budget as presented, with the following amendment: shift $25,000 for the Municipal Development Plan Update from 2013 to 2014. DEFEATED
479-2012 Moved by Councillor Helder to amend motion 475-2012 as follows: that council approve the 2013 capital budget as presented, with the following amendment: make the $700,000 commitment to Legacy Trail Connections contingent on obtaining grant funding for Legacy Trail completion. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
480-2012 Moved by Councillor McCallum to amend motion 475-2012 as follows: that council approve the 2013 capital budget as presented, with the following amendment: to direct administration to have the Pedestrian Crossing Improvement – Bow River Bridge design approved by council before it is implemented. DEFEATED
475-2012 The vote followed on motion 475-2012: That council approve the 2013 capital consolidated budget as presented, with the following amendment: make the $700,000 commitment to Legacy Trail Connections contingent on obtaining grant funding for Legacy Trail completion. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
C. ADJOURNMENT 481-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to adjourn the December 5, 2012 special meeting of council at 5:56 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
______John Borrowman, Mayor
______Cheryl Hyde, Municipal Clerk
Minutes approved by: ______
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 19 of 149 Unapproved C-4
TOWN OF CANMORE MINUTES Special Meeting of Council – Budget Council Chambers at the Canmore Civic Centre, 902 – 7 Avenue Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT John Borrowman Mayor Jim Ridley Deputy Mayor Joanna McCallum Councillor Hans Helder Councillor Vi Sandford Councillor Sean Krausert Councillor
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT Gordie Miskow Councillor
ADMINISTRATION PRESENT Lisa deSoto Chief Administrative Officer Gary Buxton General Manager of Municipal Infrastructure Lorrie O’Brien General Manager of Municipal Services Terry Holt Manager of Finance Ric Irwin Senior Finance Officer Andreas Comeau Manager of Public Works Cheryl Hyde Municipal Clerk (Recorder)
Mayor Borrowman called the December 11, 2012 special meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. Agenda for the December 11, 2012 Special Meeting of Council 482-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to approve the agenda for the December 11, 2012 special meeting of council as presented. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
B. NEW BUSINESS 1. 2013 Operating Budget 483-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman that council approve the 2013 operating budget as presented, inclusive of partner and affiliate funding requests and the 2013 master fee schedule.
484-2012 Moved by Councillor Ridley to amend motion 483-2012 as follows: that council approve the 2013 operating budget as presented, with the following amendments: 1) add $55,000 to the contracted services line to show a total of $272,990, with the proviso that $30,000 of that is conditional on grants or cash contributions,
Minutes approved by: ______Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 20 of 149 Town of Canmore Special Council Meeting Unapproved December 11, 2012 Page 2 of 3
2) increase the grants line under revenues by $30,000, and 3) increase the draw from the tax stabilization fund by $25,000. DEFEATED
485-2012 Moved by Councillor Ridley to amend motion 483-2012 as follows: that council approve the 2013 operating budget as presented, with the following amendment: increase the annual per capita contribution to the art trust fund from general taxation revenue from $3 to $4, effective January 1, 2013. DEFEATED
486-2012 Moved by Councillor Ridley to amend motion 483-2012 as follows: that council approve the 2013 operating budget as presented, with the following amendment: accept the arts and culture department 5- year capital plan for public art acquisition as presented in the municipal 5-year capital plan for planning purposes as required under the Public Art Policy. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
487-2012 Moved by Councillor Krausert to amend motion 483-2012 as follows: that council approve the 2013 operating budget as presented, with the following amendment: increase the bylaw services budget by $60,000 in the contracted services line in order to at least double the efforts in addressing the feral rabbit problem. DEFEATED
488-2012 Moved by Councillor Sandford to amend motion 483-2012 as follows: that council approve the 2013 operating budget as presented, with the following amendment: reduce the 2013 contribution to the Canmore Community Housing Corporation operating budget by $25,000 to maintain the existing 2012 contribution of $250,000. DEFEATED
483-2012 The vote followed on motion 483-2012: that council approve the 2013 operating consolidated budget as presented, inclusive of partner and affiliate funding requests and the 2013 master fee schedule, and accept the arts and culture department 5-year capital plan for public art acquisition as presented in the municipal 5-year capital plan for planning purposes as required under the Public Art Policy. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
C. BYLAW APPROVAL 1. Waste Control Bylaw 2013 Fees and Penalties Amending Bylaw 16-2012 489-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to give first reading to Waste Control Bylaw 2013 Fees and Penalties Amending Bylaw 16-2012. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
490-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to give second reading to Waste Control Bylaw 2013 Fees and Penalties Amending Bylaw 16-2012. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Minutes approved by: ______
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 21 of 149 Town of Canmore Special Council Meeting Unapproved December 11, 2012 Page 3 of 3
491-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to go to third reading of Waste Control Bylaw 2013 Fees and Penalties Amending Bylaw 16-2012. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
492-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to give third reading to Waste Control Bylaw 2013 Fees and Penalties Amending Bylaw 16-2012. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
2. 2013 Utility Rate Amendments 493-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to give first reading to Water Bylaw 2013 Rate Amending Bylaw 14-2012. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
494-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to give second reading to Water Bylaw 2013 Rate Amending Bylaw 14-2012. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
495-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to go to third reading of Water Bylaw 2013 Rate Amending Bylaw 14-2012. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
496-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to give third reading to Water Bylaw 2013 Rate Amending Bylaw 14-2012. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
497-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to give first reading to Sewer Bylaw 2013 Rate Amending Bylaw 15-2012. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
498-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to give second reading to Sewer Bylaw 2013 Rate Amending Bylaw 15-2012. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
499-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to go to third reading of Sewer Bylaw 2013 Rate Amending Bylaw 15-2012. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
500-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to give third reading to Sewer Bylaw 2013 Rate Amending Bylaw 15-2012. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
D. ADJOURNMENT 501-2012 Moved by Mayor Borrowman to adjourn the December 11, 2012 special meeting of council at 8:06 p.m. ______John Borrowman, Mayor
______Cheryl Hyde, Municipal Clerk
Minutes approved by: ______
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 22 of 149 Request for Decision
DATE OF MEETING: December 18, 2012 Agenda #: E-1
SUBJECT: Silvertip Pathway Connection
SUBMITTED BY: Andy Esarte, Manager of Engineering
RECOMMENDATION: That council approves adding a gravel pathway connection along Silvertip Trail to the scope of CAP#1234 – Teepee Town Commuter, for completion in 2013.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The residents of Silvertip lack pedestrian connectivity along the full length of Silvertip Trail. Though pathway connectivity does exist through a wooded area adjacent to the cemetery, it is not lit. Residents resort to walking along the road, which is a safety concern. A 335 metre long, 1.5 metre wide gravel trail would provide a safe, economical solution.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION OR POLICY A capital project for a 2.5m paved pathway along Silvertip Trail was discussed as part of budget deliberations in 2011. It was felt that paved pathway along Bow Valley Trail was a higher priority and the Silvertip project was removed from the capital budget.
DISCUSSION Since removing the Silvertip Trail from the capital budget, residents have again raised safety and connectivity concerns over this missing link from the existing pedestrian crossing to Palliser Trail at the bottom of the hill. Upon review, administration feels that a 1.5 metre wide clay/gravel path would be a suitable and economical medium term solution.
The scope of work would include some minimal grading and shaping, and a 100mm thick compacted clay/gravel surface. The total trail length is 335m. This gravel option was reviewed with the concerned residents and they felt it would be an acceptable and welcome solution.
The total estimated cost of the additional scope is $18,500.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS A 2.5 metre wide paved pathway was investigated in 2011. The cost estimate for this work was $130,000. It is felt that pedestrian demand is insufficient to warrant this level of expenditure at this time.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS Capital Project #1234 in 2012 has been completed under budget. This project included the construction of a 1.5m wide, 460 m long, gravel pathway in Teepee Town behind the hospital. Our current estimate at completion for the project is $18,000. The original budget was $36,500, leaving $18,500 remaining for the potential scope extension to include 335m of pathway along Silvertip Trail.
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 23 of 149 Silvertip Pathway Connection Page 2 of 2
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The concerned residents in Silvertip have stated that a 1.5m clay/gravel pathway is a suitable and welcome solution to connect Silvertip to Palliser trail.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Goal 4 – Canmore is a safe community. This request for decision outlines a scope of work that will move us closer to realizing a safe and complete pedestrian network.
ATTACHMENTS 1) Silvertip Trail Extension Map
AUTHORIZATION
Submitted by: Andy Esarte Manager of Engineering Date: November 19, 2012
Approved by: Terry Holt Manager of Financial Services Date: November 26, 2012
Approved by: Gary Buxton General Manager of Municipal Infrastructure Date: November 19, 2012
Approved by: Lisa de Soto, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Date: November 23, 2012
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 24 of 149
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 25 of 149 Request for Decision
DATE OF MEETING: December 18, 2012 Agenda #: E-2
SUBJECT: Inter-municipal Committee Terms of Reference
SUBMITTED BY: Lisa de Soto, Chief Administrative Officer
RECOMMENDATION: That council approve the terms of reference for the Inter-municipal Committee as presented.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The inter-municipal committee is a joint committee between the Town of Canmore and the M.D. of Bighorn. It has been operating for some time without a Terms of Reference to guide its roles and responsibilities. The current committee has recommended the attached draft Terms of Reference for respective council ratification.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION OR POLICY The Town identified an action in the 2010-2012 Business Plan to “Develop inter-municipal agreements for Fire, Business Registry, Recreation, and Transportation with the MD of Bighorn”.
At the October 23, 2012 Organizational Meeting of Council, Mayor Borrowman and Councillor Krausert were appointed to the Inter-municipal Committee.
DISCUSSION An inter-municipal committee made up of Town of Canmore and MD of Bighorn representatives has been in existence for over a decade. Its main mandate through the years has been to negotiate shared service agreements between the two municipalities. When there were no agreements being negotiated, the committee had long stretches where it would not meet.
The current members of the committee identified that a formal Terms of Reference would be beneficial to direct the committee’s work and help orientate new members who get appointed to the committee in subsequent years. A review of the past files indicates that the committee has operated without a terms of reference since its inceptions. The attached draft Terms of Reference was reviewed by the committee at their meeting on Friday November 16, 2012 and is being recommended for adoption by both Town and MD councils.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS The committee did not review alternatives as they felt a Terms of Reference was needed and appropriate moving forward. Should council wish to amend the agreement in anyway, they should propose the amendment and direct that it be brought back to the inter-municipal committee for review and adoption.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS N/A
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 26 of 149 Inter-municipal Committee Terms of Reference Page 2 of 2
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT No external or internal stakeholder engagement was conducted on the Terms of Reference. It is anticipated that the constituents of both communities would support a framework to ensure on-going dialogue between the jurisdictions on items of mutual interest.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The 2013-2015 Strategic Plan identifies the following Goal and related Strategic Initiative: Goal: Town of Canmore delivers effective and fiscally responsible services while valuing innovation. Initiative: Develop and foster partnerships with community groups, regional neighbours, other levels of government and third party organizations for the provision of seamless service to the citizens of Canmore. ATTACHMENTS 1. Inter-municipal Committee Terms of Reference
AUTHORIZATION
Approved by: Terry Holt Manager of Financial Services Date: N/A
Approved by: Lisa de Soto, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Date: November 19, 2012
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 27 of 149 TOWN OF CANMORE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT OF BIGHORN NO. 8 INTERMUNICIPAL COMMITTEE
TERMS OF REFERENCE (DRAFT)
PURPOSE The purpose of the committee is to: 1. Facilitate a respectful and productive working relationship between the two municipalities, 2. Provide a forum for the ongoing negotiation and monitoring of shared agreements between the municipalities, 3. Provide an opportunity for exchange of information between elected officials and municipal staff regarding a range of topics of interest to both municipalities, 4. Endeavor to seek consensus between the municipalities in all decision making.
STRUCTURE The committee will be made up of the following members to be appointed each year at the respective municipality’s organizational meeting: The Mayor and one member of Council from the Town of Canmore, The Reeve and one member of Council from the Municipal District of Bighorn No. 8, The Chief Administrative Officers from both jurisdictions.
GOVERNANCE 1. Meetings will be held at a minimum of twice per year, in April and September, and may be called at any other time at the request of either jurisdiction. 2. Meeting locations will rotate between the M.D. office in Exshaw and the Town office in Canmore. 3. Meetings will be chaired by the CAO of the hosting municipality. 4. Agendas will be circulated in advance of the meeting and minutes will be recorded by the CAO of the hosting municipality. 5. Decisions and/or recommendations from the committee may be referred to the respective councils for final approval. 6. Committee members will keep confidential all discussions related to FOIPP until such time as agreement for disclosure has been reached.
OBJECTIVES 1. To ensure existing shared agreements are reviewed once per annum and to negotiate any changes, amendments or updates required. 2. To review and discuss any major development proposals, with the intent to understand the impact, if any, on items of mutual interest. Examples may include; wildlife corridors, water use, waste water treatment, solid waste management, fire protection, recreation services, economic development etc. 3. To share and discuss best practices and/or new ideas with respect to municipal services delivery. Examples may include; utility rate models, taxation policy, strategic planning, procurement etc. 4. To review and provide input to any proposals, reports or documents referred to the committee from administration or a council of one of the municipalities. Examples may include; inter-municipal funding applications/agreements, budget requests for regional initiatives, negotiation of new shared services etc.
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 28 of 149 Inter-municipal Committee Page 2 of 2
GUIDING PRINCIPLES 1. The M.D. and the Town will act in good faith with the intent of seeking collaborative and cost efficient approaches to shared interests. 2. Communication between parties will be respectful, open and honest with the intent of being solution focused. 3. The concepts of fairness and equity for all rate payers shall be a primary consideration in any recommendations of the committee. 4. Committee members will work to build a solid, enduring partnership between neighbouring jurisdictions.
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 29 of 149 Request for Decision
DATE OF MEETING: December 18, 2012 Agenda #: E-3
SUBJECT: Council Remuneration Policy and Travel Expense Policy
SUBMITTED BY: Cheryl Hyde, Municipal Clerk
RECOMMENDATION: 1) That council adopt the Council Remuneration Policy as presented. 2) That council adopt the Travel Expense Claims and Reimbursement Policy as presented.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Administration recommends that council adopt revised policies for council remuneration and travel expense reimbursement. Upon adoption, existing policies will be repealed.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION OR POLICY Council approved Expense Payments: Council Staff Policy 26-94 on January 11, 1994 and Council Remuneration, Per Diem Adjustment Policy 020-2008 on January 22, 2008.
DISCUSSION While the mayor’s salary is based on a basic annual rate, councillors’ salaries are made up of a combination of a basic annual rate plus a daily rate, or per diem, claimed for attendance at approved municipal business activities. As part of a procedural review council undertook following the by-election earlier this year, councillors requested more clarity around activities eligible for per diem claims. The attached proposed remuneration policy is based on current Town of Canmore practices, best practices from other communities, and individual input from mayor and council.
Since the existing expense policy includes an outdated reference to council per diem rates and mileage rates, and both council and administration have requested more clarity in this policy as well, administration is also presenting a revised travel expense policy for council approval. Similar to the remuneration policy, the proposed policy is based on current practices, best practices from other communities, and input from the management team.
The most significant change being recommended to the travel expense policy is to change the rate of reimbursement for mileage expenses from the current 53 cents per kilometer to the rate calculated annually by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). This change will make administration of our expense policy more efficient, since reimbursement rates that exceed CRA automobile allowance rates are deemed to be a taxable benefit to the employee and require additional administration. Conversely, reimbursement rates below the CRA automobile allowance rate standards necessitate appropriate justification.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS The provisions set out in the proposed policies are entirely at the discretion of council. Council may choose to add, delete, or amend any of the conditions as they see fit.
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 30 of 149 Council Remuneration Policy and Travel Expense Policy Page 2 of 2
FINANCIAL IMPACTS Both policies are in line with current practices and costs are accounted for in the draft 2013 operating budget.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Both policies are available to the public on request.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT These policies provide for fiscal responsibility and public transparency.
ATTACHMENTS 1) Proposed Council Remuneration Policy 2) Proposed Travel Expense Policy 3) Existing Council Remuneration, Per Diem Adjustment Policy 020-2008 4) Existing Expense Payments: Council/Staff Policy 26-94
AUTHORIZATION
Submitted by: Cheryl Hyde Municipal Clerk Date: November 26, 2012
Approved by: Terry Holt Manager of Financial Services Date: November 26, 2012
Approved by: Lorrie O’Brien GM of Municipal Services Date:
Approved by: Lisa de Soto, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Date: November 23, 2012
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 31 of 149 Council Remuneration Policy
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2013
COUNCIL RESOLUTION:
1. POLICY STATEMENT Members of Canmore town council will be provided with fair and reasonable remuneration for performing the duties of their office and reimbursement for approved expenses incurred while fulfilling their responsibilities.
2. PURPOSE This policy provides guidelines and procedures for the remuneration of council.
3. DEFINITIONS 1) Council includes the mayor and all councillors. 2) Councillors are members of council excluding the mayor. 3) Mayor includes the mayor and the deputy mayor, when the deputy mayor is required to act in the mayor’s absence. 4) Per diems are the daily rates paid to councillors for attending to municipal business in accordance with this policy.
4. RESPONSIBILITIES 1) Council is responsible for reviewing and approving this policy once each term in the year leading up to the general election. 2) Councillors are responsible for submitting per diem expense claims. 3) The mayor is responsible for approving per diem expense claims.
5. BASIC RATE 1) The mayor’s position, which is considered full-time, and councillors’ positions, which are considered part-time, will be remunerated at the basic rate as set out below and as increased annually with the cost of living equivalent to that approved in the annual budget and awarded to all other Town employees. Basic rates for 2013 are: a) Councillor $22,592.05 b) Mayor $74,438.27
2) The basic rate is paid to councillors for the following: a) Up to four council meetings per month, including: regularly scheduled council meetings, committee of the whole meetings, and special council meetings, regardless of length of time of the meeting; b) Informal meetings with the CAO, staff and council; c) Staff social functions, for example: employee service awards, Christmas party, farewell lunches and dinners for staff and council;
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 32 of 149 Council Remuneration Page 2 of 3
d) Informal meetings with other municipal councils, for example: dinners and socials: e) Preparation for council and committee meetings; f) Independent work with residents, businesses, and other organizations undertaken to be more familiar with an issue, program, or Town initiative or facility; g) Public workshops, open houses and other public input sessions; h) Meetings and social functions held within the municipal boundary when attending as dignitaries representing council, for example: Remembrance Day ceremonies, Canada Day events, Bow Valley Builders and Developers Association (BOWDA) meetings, service club meetings, Miner’s Day events, Winter Carnival events, Folk Festival events, and grand openings);
3) The basic rate will be paid biweekly with the regular Town of Canmore pay cycle.
6. PER DIEMS 1) Councillors are eligible to claim per diems for attending to the following municipal business: a) Council orientation sessions; b) Council planning sessions and working sessions, as required or requested to attend; c) Board and committee meetings and meetings of commissions to which councillors are appointed and for which no other per diem is paid; d) Canmore Community Housing Corporation (CCHC) shareholder meetings; e) Council CAO meetings; f) Special council meetings over and above the four meetings of council covered by the basic rate, including: public hearings and Sustainability Screening Report (SSR) hearings; g) Town Hall meetings; h) Conferences and conventions (including the Alberta Association of Urban Municipalities (AUMA) and Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM)), including travel time; i) Educational and training courses as approved by the mayor, including travel time; j) Business meetings with other municipal councils; k) Meetings with other government agencies and businesses on behalf of the Town; l) Grand openings or meetings outside Canmore, if formally invited to present a verbal or written presentation; m) AUMA, FCM, and Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) committees, if approved by council and if no remuneration from AUMA, FCM, or CRP is paid; n) Functions and activities related to the duties of the deputy mayor appointment including attendance at the agenda setting meeting; o) All other meetings or public appearances approved by council or made at the request of the mayor.
2) Per diem rates in effect upon approval of this policy are set out below and may be adjusted annually by council during the budget process: a) Less than 4 hours: $100 (half a per diem) b) 4 hours to 8 hours: $200 (a full per diem) c) Over 8 hours: $300 (one and one half per diems)
3) Councillors may not claim more than one and one half per diems per day.
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 33 of 149 Council Remuneration Page 3 of 3
4) Time calculated for per diem claims includes travel time to and from the activity.
5) Per diem expense claims will be paid when they are submitted and approved by the mayor.
6) Remuneration for expense claims, with the exception of basic rate, must be reviewed and approved by the mayor, or deputy mayor when the mayor is absent, to ensure that expenses claimed are in accordance with this policy. Where remuneration or expenses requested are beyond those outlined in this policy or a conflict arises, the matter will be referred to council for resolution.
7. GENERAL 1) In accordance with provisions of the Municipal Government Act, one third of the aggregate basic rate and per diem will be paid to the mayor and councillors as an allowance for expenses incidental to the discharge of their duties and will not be included in computing council’s taxable income in a taxation year. This allowance for expenses is intended to cover costs related to maintaining a home office and in town travel.
2) Expenses incurred by members of council while on Town business will be reimbursed in accordance with the Town of Canmore Expense Policy.
3) Members of council will be provided with benefits in accordance with the Town of Canmore Benefit Policy. In addition council members will be entitled to any and all benefits offered to elected officials through AUMA.
8. EXCEPTIONS 1) Exceptions to this policy may be made by majority vote of council.
9. VISION ALIGNMENT The Council Remuneration Policy provides for fiscal responsibility and public transparency.
10. RELATED DOCUMENTS 1) Expense Policy 2) Benefit Policy
REPEALS POLICY: 020-2008
AUTHORIZATION:
John Borrowman Lisa de Soto, P.Eng. Mayor Chief Administrative Officer
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 34 of 149 Travel Expense Claims and
Reimbursement Policy
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2013
COUNCIL RESOLUTION:
1. POLICY STATEMENT The Town of Canmore will pay for reasonable expenses incurred by employees or members of council authorized to travel on Town of Canmore business.
2. PURPOSE This policy establishes procedures and guidelines for employees and members of council to claim travel expenses.
3. RESPONSIBILITIES 1) Employees and members of council are responsible for submitting expense claims in accordance with this policy. 2) Employees and members of council are responsible for exercising sound judgment, accountability and transparency with respect to claiming expenses. 3) Supervisors, managers, and the mayor, as appropriate, are responsible for approving expense claims and ensuring compliance with this policy.
4. VEHICLE USE AND COMPENSATION 1) Employees and members of council are encouraged to use Town vehicles for travel whenever possible. Mileage expenses for use of personally owned vehicles will be reimbursed at a rate calculated annually by the Canada Revenue Agency, if no Town vehicle is available for use. If an employee chooses to use a personally owned vehicle when a Town vehicle is available, the reimbursement rate is 20% of the Canada Revenue Agency rate. 2) When mileage expenses are claimed there is no reimbursement for fuel or any other vehicle related expenses. 3) Employees and members of council using a personally owned vehicle for Town of Canmore business shall carry adequate personal vehicle insurance. In the event of an accident, the employee shall be responsible for all costs, including insurance deductible.
5. OTHER TRAVEL COMPENSATION The Town of Canmore will reimburse the following expenses upon submission of receipts, or allow the charging of the following expenses to a Town credit card: 1) Reasonable accommodation costs; 2) Reasonable meal costs and associated gratuities; 3) Economy class airfares, and train or bus tickets required for travel to and from the destination, or, if estimated costs are expected to be less, a rental car for travel to, from and within the destination; 4) Airport fees; 5) Taxi fares and associated gratuities;
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 35 of 149 Travel Expense Payments Policy Page 2 of 3
6) Parking; 7) Telephone calls home of a reasonable duration, and telephone calls to the office or with clients or business contacts; 8) Any other minor miscellaneous expenses such as hotel gratuities or public transportation costs.
6. RESTRICTIONS In general, the Town will not reimburse: 1) Charges for alcoholic beverages; 2) Entertainment costs; 3) Upgrades to higher classes of air travel: 4) Fines for traffic or parking violations; 5) Personal items including clothing and toiletries; and 6) Additional expenses related to travelling with a spouse or other guests.
7. EXCEPTIONS Exceptions to Section 6 may be made at the discretion of: 1) The mayor, with respect to council expenses; 2) Council, with respect to CAO expenses; or 3) The CAO, with respect to employee expenses.
8. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION OF EXPENSES 1) Detailed, original receipts indicating proof of payment must be retained and submitted with an expense report or company credit card invoice. 2) Credit card slips and credit card statements alone are not considered adequate proof of payment. 3) Receipts for meals must include: a) the amount of the expenditure; b) the time and place of the expenditure; c) the business purpose of the expenditure; and d) the names and the business relationships of individuals for whom the expenditures were made. 4) GST must be identified for all expenses on which it was incurred. 5) Only expense reports that have been approved by a supervisor, manager, or the mayor, as appropriate, will be reimbursed. 6) Expenses for which detailed original receipts are missing or lost, will be reimbursed only at the discretion of a supervisor, manager or the mayor, as appropriate.
9. VISION ALIGNMENT The Expense Policy provides for fiscal responsibility and public transparency.
10. RELATED DOCUMENTS 1) Purchasing Card Program Procedure Guidelines
REPEALS POLICY: 26-94
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 36 of 149 Travel Expense Payments Policy Page 3 of 3
AUTHORIZATION:
John Borrowman Lisa de Soto, P.Eng. Mayor Chief Administrative Officer
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 37 of 149 TOWN OF CANMORE POLICY
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 22,2008 CANM0RET.M. ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION #: 020-2008
POLICY TITLE: Council Remuneration Policy
COUNCIL REMUNERATION POLICY, PER DIEM ADJUSTMENT
Basic Rate for 2008:
2008
Mayor $74,082.20 - Full time position Councillors $20,238.40 - Part time position
The basic rate is intended to reimburse part time Councillors for the following routine commitments of their position:
P Up to a maximum of three business meetings per month.
P Up to a maximum of one Committee of the Whole meeting per month.
P All work related to dealing with the citizenry.
P All work dealing with the routine correspondence, preparation for meetings and personal research into issues.
The basic rate will be adjusted annually each January 1 for cost of living increases consistent to cost of living increases awarded to all other Town employees
In addition to the above rates Councillors may receive a per diem rate of $150.00 subject to the following conditions:
P All boardltask forcelcommittee meetings to which the Council member is appointed by resolution of Council.
Any approved duties performed that would be considered the responsibility of a Councillor.
4 In addition to the above, the Deputy Mayor will be authorized to claim per diems for a range of activities relating specifically to the ofrice of the Mayor, with the Mayor's approval,
P The per diem rate to be reduced to $100.00 if the committee meeting is less than four hours in duration.
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 38 of 149
149 of 39 Page p.m. 5 2012-12-18 Meeting Council Regular
'S313llOd t13HlO H3nS 3033t13dnS 11VHS 31nlVlS lVt13034 t10 lV13NIAOkid 3HlklO lN3W33UF)V 3A11331103 3Hl 'lN3WNt13AOF)ltlt13033 t10 lVI3NlAOkid 3Hl 40 3JdllVlS V NI HltlOd 13s S313llOd t1O 'LC# lV301 3dn3 AB a31dOaV lN3W33tlF)V 3A11331103 V NI HlkiOJ 13s S3131-IOd 3Hl aNV 3UOWNV3 40 NMOl3HlA9 a3ldOQV S313llOd 3Hl N33Ml38 13114N03 ANV SI 3t13H13t13HM 3tIOWNV3 40 NMOl
'u~otaqt 40 saartoldwa ~e(n6a~ aqj se sunat awes aqt uo tgauaq dsaa UMO~aq) u! aied!3!yed hew 1puno340 sJaqllraw Ile 'Ila~s~ TOWN OF CANMORE POLICY AND PROCEDURE
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 11, 1994 ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION #: 26-94 POLICY TITLE: Expense Payments: Council / Staff
EXPENSE PAYMENTS: COUNCIL / STAFF
The following expense payment rates are established for Council and/or Town Staff, when on Town business, attending courses or conferences, etc.
A. Council Per Diem
To reimburse Council members for lost salary/wages while on Town business, the following per- diem rates will apply:
$ 125.00 full day $ 70.00 half day or portion thereof.
Councillors shall be limited to two (2) days per-diem per month; the Mayor shall be limited to three (3) days per-diem per month. Transference of unused per-diem days amongst Councillors and the Mayor shall not be allowed.
Council must approve, by resolution, additional payments of per-diem to any single member of Council, who attends out-of-town meetings, conferences, etc.
B. Accommodation and Subsistence
Council and Staff members will be reimbursed the actual expense incurred for accommodations and subsistence, upon submission of an Expense Report with attached receipts.
C. Mileage
Approved mileage rate is $.28 per kilometre for use of private vehicle.
Should Council or Staff members travel other than by private vehicle, all expenses not covered as indicated above, (taxi, bus, plane, etc.) will be reimbursed by the Town upon submission of an Expense Report with suitable receipts.
D. Parking and Other Expense
Actual parking and other acceptable expense will be reimbursed by the Town upon submission of an Expense Report with satisfactory receipts attached.
TOWN OF CANMORE WHERE THERE IS ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ADOPTED BY THE TOWN OF CANMORE AND THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN A COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT ADOPTED BY CUPE LOCAL #37, OR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN A STATUTE OF THE PROVINCIAL OR FEDERALGOVERNMENT, THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT OR THE PROVINCIAL OR FEDERAL STATUTE SHALL SUPERCEDE SUCH OTHER POLICIES OR PROCEDURES.
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. T.M.Page Registered 40 of 149 Trade Mark Request for Decision
DATE OF MEETING: December 18, 2012 Agenda #: E-4
SUBJECT: Road Safety Programs
SUBMITTED BY: Greg Burt, Manager of Protective Services
RECOMMENDATION: That council approves the multi-pronged approach to improving road safety as presented and direct administration to develop and implement an “I drive safely” one year pilot project to be funded from the photo radar reserve to a maximum of $12,000 in 2013.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In an effort to further enhance traffic safety and reduce speeds on town roads, a list of new projects is being proposed to complement photo radar and traditional traffic enforcement. Council may approve part of the program through the capital budget process.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION OR POLICY Council approved motion 355-2012 on October 2, 2012 that directed administration to bring a report to council providing a multi-pronged approach to improving road safety including a positive reinforcement program, funded from the photo radar reserve.
DISCUSSION Photo radar is an important tool used in conjunction with traditional traffic enforcement to enhance traffic safety. Administration recommends the following four multi-pronged approaches to further improve road safety in Canmore:
1. Develop a traffic calming procedure to address existing conditions
Traffic calming offers a means of resolving traffic and safety problems, including speeding, short cutting and conflicts with other road users ,such as cyclists. Typically, traffic calming involves physical devices constructed in the roadway, with alternatives ranging from raised crosswalks, medians with planting materials, residential traffic circles, bulb outs, signage, and may also include regulatory changes such as turn or parking prohibitions.
The procedure would address how concerns identified by residents, council and staff regarding traffic safety issues could be mitigated. Options for implementing and funding traffic calming measures would be identified to address the concern while increasing safety and preserving and enhancing the livability of the neighborhood they are installed in. If capital projects are recommend as a result of this procedure, they would be brought before council as part of the annual budget process.
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 41 of 149 Road Safety Programs Page 2 of 4
2. Purchase and install four vehicle activation traffic calming signs and analyze the results in reducing speeds at a pre-defined location
Vehicle activation traffic calming signs are very different from speed display trailers. The signs radar unit is used to detect speeds and inform drivers when they are speeding by displaying the words “SLOW DOWN”, along with a standard speed limit sign and flashing amber lights. When a vehicle is travelling the speed limit, the sign does not show the vehicle speed and remains blank.
One of the major assets of this type of speed control device is that it provides real time feedback, it does not allow drivers to “run up the speed” on the display and it does not affect emergency response.
An analysis to determine the effectiveness of the speed display trailer and the vehicle activation traffic calming signs will be undertaken in 2013. If they are determined to have a positive effect on reducing speeds additional 2014 capital projects, to be funded from the photo radar reserve, will be brought forward as part of the annual budget process.
3. Install audible pedestrian signals at selected locations.
Administration received a request from a visually impaired resident to install audible pedestrian signals in the community. Engineering supports this project and has identified key locations for the installation of these.
4. Implement an “I drive safely” positive reinforcement one year pilot program.
Traffic will be monitored at various photo radar locations and times of the day, by Bylaw Services officers, or through the photo radar contract. Vehicles that are observed driving at or below the speed limit will be documented and the license plate numbers will be placed into a monthly draw (4 prize winners per month), for a prize of a $250 gift certificate at a business that holds a valid Town of Canmore business license, as selected by the prize winner. The program will be promoted through local and social media to bring awareness to the program, provide positive public relations to the photo radar program, and further promote driving the speed limit in Canmore.
There are a few challenges to implementing this program:
1. It is possible that there could be a perceived conflict of interest depending on who is randomly selected for the prize. Administration will develop a procedure related to this program that will address exemptions, notifications, time periods for claims, etc.
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 42 of 149 Road Safety Programs Page 3 of 4
2. When bylaw services officers are utilized to capture and track vehicles that are driving at or below the posted speed limit, it could potentially reduce the amount of time spent conducting proactive patrols in the community. 3. This program may encourage residents who regularly don’t drive to utilize their vehicles more to increase their chances of winning one of the weekly prizes. 4. If gift certificates are awarded to out of town residents that have no intention of returning to Canmore, the prize could be viewed as impractical.
Upon approval, and after the one year pilot program, administration will review photo radar statistics to assess if the program had an impact at reducing speeds in photo radar zones. Administration will follow up with a report to council with the results and a recommendation to continue, alter or end the program.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Additional vehicle activation traffic calming signs could be purchased and located at key locations in the town prior to conducting an analysis on the effectiveness of the signs. Recognizing that speed display signage has budget implications, it is prudent to determine the effectiveness prior to allocating substantial funding to this project.
The “I drive safely” program could be altered to increase the number of prizes or amount of prizes awarded. If the number of prizes (frequency) were to increase, the amount of administrative time would increase which could make the program labour intensive and pull staff away from other duties. If the prize amount were to increase it could impact the funding for future long term capital projects.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS A $50,000 capital project for traffic safety initiatives is being requested in 2013 (to be funded from the photo radar reserve). This includes:
$2,000 to develop a traffic calming procedure $8,000 to purchase and install audible pedestrian crossing signals $40,000 to purchase and install vehicle activation traffic calming signs
The “I drive safely” program would cost up to $12,000 for awarded prizes. The current photo radar contract does not include a component of tracking vehicles below the speed limit. If this program is approved, the requirement to do so may become a component of the RFP, which could have some additional costs associated with it. These costs are not known at this time as no other communities are running a similar program. Alternatively if bylaw services officers are utilized, there would not be an increase in cost, but there would be a decrease in proactive patrols conducted. In addition to the monitoring, there would be a few hours of administrative time required each month to award the prizes.
The photo radar reserve is intended to fund expenses related to any policing and or traffic safety initiatives deemed appropriate by council. The chart bellows shows the current balance, inflow and out flow anticipated with the proposed budgets/programs.
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 43 of 149 Road Safety Programs Page 4 of 4
If fines remain static, and the current rate of spending remains the same, the reserve balance would be at $0 within 5 years. However, administration predicts that fines will decrease as a result of traffic calming programs and therefore the reserve may be depleted quicker as a result.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Administration conducted limited informal engagement of staff and residents and the majority of people surveyed were supportive of additional speed display devices and the “I drive safely” program.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Road safety is aligned with Goal 5b, “Canmore is a safe community”.
ATTACHMENTS 1. Photo radar reserve policy
AUTHORIZATION
Submitted by: Greg Burt Manager of Protective Services Date: November 8, 2012
Approved by: Terry Holt Manager of Financial Services Date: November 8, 2012
Approved by: Lorrie O’Brien, BA General Manager of Municipal Services Date: November 28, 2012
Approved by: Lisa de Soto, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Date: November 23, 2012
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 44 of 149 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 45 of 149 Request for Decision
DATE OF MEETING: December 18, 2012 Agenda #: F-1
SUBJECT: Amendment to Bylaw 14-2010, the Business Registry License Bylaw
SUBMITTED BY: Gary Buxton, General Manager of Municipal Infrastructure
RECOMMENDATION: That council give first, second and third reading to Bylaw 17-2012.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council has requested that administration conduct a review of options for the business registry being utilized to provide sustainable funding for tourism marketing. To ensure that this option remains possible for 2013, it is necessary to amend the Business Registry License Bylaw to defer certain license renewals until this review is complete.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION OR POLICY On November 20, 2012, council passed the following motion:
That council direct administration to undertake a review of the regulatory framework required to implement a municipally legislated program for tourism marketing funding, and to report back on the findings and recommendations for go forward action. The review to include:
a) An analysis of bylaw and regulatory requirements, b) An examination of the legal implications associated with the regulatory framework, and c) An evaluation of the staffing and administrative resources required to implement the proposed regulatory framework.
DISCUSSION Business licenses are issued on an annual basis for the calendar year for all businesses. Businesses are now in the process of being invoiced by the Town and renewing their licenses for 2013. Any license issued would be valid for all of 2013. If council wishes to retain the option of adjusting license fees in 2013, then licenses for those businesses whose fees may be adjusted need to be extended. If a license is issued for 2013, then a new license cannot be required until 2014. Options for adjusting fees in 2013 would be lost.
The proposed bylaw simply adds a provision to section 14 that extends the license for certain accommodations (hotels) to the end of May 2013. At that time, if no other changes have been made to fees by council, the business would need to renew at the full rate. This effectively defers collection of revenues under the current bylaw for a few months – it does not reduce it. This provides the time for administration to conduct the review required by council and still allows for fee adjustments to be made in 2013.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Council could not pass the bylaw. This would simply mean that options for adjusting business registry license fees in 2013 could not occur, and action would need to wait until 2014.
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 46 of 149 Bylaw 17-2012 Page 2 of 2
FINANCIAL IMPACTS None, other than a deferment of revenues currently anticipated.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Letters will be sent to all the businesses whose fees are being deferred.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Sustainable funding for tourism marketing is a identified as a key result in the Sustainable Economic Development and Tourism Strategy, and was identified as an action in the Town’s 2011-2012 business plan.
ATTACHMENTS 1) Bylaw 17-2012
AUTHORIZATION
Submitted by: Gary Buxton General Manager of Municipal Infrastructure Date: December 11, 2012
Approved by: Terry Holt Manager of Financial Services Date: December 13, 2012
Approved by: Lisa de Soto, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Date: December 13, 2012
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 47 of 149
BYLAW 17-2012
A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF CANMORE, IN THE PROVINCE OF ALBERTA, TO AMEND BYLAW 14-2010, THE BUSINESS REGISTRY LICENSE BYLAW
WHEREAS the Municipal Government Act authorizes council, pursuant to Section 7 and 8, by Bylaw to do all things with respect to the regulation of any development, activity, industry, or business within the municipality, including the licensing thereof;
AND WHEREAS Council for the Town of Canmore deems it appropriate to register businesses being carried on within the municipality;
AND WHEREAS Council for the Town of Canmore deems it appropriate to amend bylaw 14-2010;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Town of Canmore, in the Province of Alberta, enacts as follows:
1: PROVISIONS 1.1. Section 14 is amended by adding the following after the first paragraph:
“Notwithstanding the above, any license issued for 2012 for accommodations businesses in Classes 8, 9 and 10 in Schedule A, that levy the Alberta Tourism Levy, shall continue and remain in effect until May 31, 2013. Following that date, those businesses affected by this provision shall be required to renew their license in the normal fashion outlined in this bylaw, and shall pay the fees as if the business commenced on June 1st, as outlined under Section 12(a) above.”
2: ENACTMENT/TRANSITION 2.1. If any clause in this bylaw is found to be invalid, it shall be severed from the remainder of the bylaw and shall not invalidate the whole bylaw. 2.2. This bylaw shall have no further effect and is repealed on June 30 2013.
This bylaw comes into force on the date it is passed.
FIRST READING:
SECOND READING:
THIRD READING:
Approved on behalf of the Town of Canmore:
John Borrowman Date Mayor
Cheryl Hyde Date Municipal Clerk
Bylaw approved by: ______Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 48 of 149 Request for Decision
DATE OF MEETING: December 18, 2012 Agenda #: G-1
SUBJECT: Terms of Reference for the new Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
SUBMITTED BY: Alaric Fish, Manager of Planning and Development.
RECOMMENDATION: That council approve the Three Sisters Area Structure Plan Terms of Reference as presented.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The terms of reference outlines the content to be covered and process that will be followed in the writing of a new area structure plan for the entire Three Sisters area. The terms of reference deal only with how the process will unfold and what must be considered as part of the process, not the proposed content of specific policies.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION OR POLICY On November 20, 2012, Council approved a Framework Agreement with the Receiver (PwC) of the Three Sisters lands. That agreement indicated that PwC would be making an application for a new area structure plan for a portion of their undeveloped lands. That same night Council also approved the terms of reference for an environmental impact statement, and the next step is for Council to consider a terms of reference for the new ASP as submitted by PwC.
DISCUSSION The terms of reference are intended to guide the content of and process of creating a new ASP, that will effectively repeal and replace the existing Stewart Creek and Resort Centre ASPs and provide a new direction and details for planning on the remaining Three Sisters lands, including those areas east of Stewart Creek toward Dead Man’s Flats (Sites 7, 8 and 9).
PwC has drafted a terms of reference and worked through revisions with administration to ensure that the necessary issues will be covered. For example, where existing policies are proposed to be rescinded or changed, particularly relating to the 2004 ASPs, the new ASP will need to either provide rationale for considering the change, or include those policies in the new ASP. The ASP will also provide direction on parcels of land that have residual zoning (e.g. 1-98DC), remnants of previous decisions on Three Sisters lands.
The new ASP will require concurrent amendments to the Municipal Development Plan. The more significant proposals anticipated are a much reduced commercial component to the development (little or no “resort centre”), residential or commercial accommodation instead of a second golf course, and no future development in Site 9. The MDP amendments will be created by administration and brought to council for consideration.
The ASP is intended to guide new land use districts and block subdivisions; it will therefore need to be of a sufficiently high level of detail to address all issues prior to development. Because the proposed ASP
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 49 of 149 Terms of Reference for the new Three Sisters Area Structure Plan Page 2 of 4
represents a change from previous plans, a number of supporting documents will be prepared. These include an environmental impact statement, a municipal financial impact analysis, a transportation study, a utilities master plan, and a storm water management Plan. These are all required as new or modified developments are being proposed.
The important sections of the terms of reference are:
2.0 Plan Area – does not include all previous ASP areas, but the ASP will address these areas (identified in Figure 3) along with residual Three Sisters zoned lands.
4.0 Policy Framework – this includes the substantive policy areas: e) Environmental Policies EIS – the EIS will be completed and at a sufficient level of detail to allow land use zoning. This is significant as once zoning is in place, development that complies with the zoning is authorized with no additional environmental review requirements. Undermining – the ASP will address the issue of undermining on municipal lands and implications for municipal infrastructure. The current Provincial Undermining Indemnity Regulation only applies to third party damages, so the Town may have exposure to risk for MR lands and infrastructure. Alternative Development Principles – “Green” building initiatives will be incorporated. Wildfire Risk Management – Fire smart principles will be included. f) Land Use Concept – The plan will be organized around open space and natural areas; this is consistent with the Canmore’s sense of place as a mountain community. The land use concept will need to be detailed enough to allow land use zoning to be consistent with the ASP. g) Open Space Policies – these will figure prominently in the ASP as a guiding principle is “green infrastructure”. Also, retain and enhance natural areas and creates an integrated system of natural areas and trails that will link all ASP areas together. h) Residential and Resort Accommodation Policies – a range of densities, but a high level of detail: building types, general layout, design and building heights. It is expected the ASP will propose some or all of the 1500 visitor accommodation (hotel) units to be developed as resort accommodation or residential. i) Commercial Land Use Policies – again, a high level of detail. The ASP terms of reference suggest a business park and “landmark” buildings. j) Employee Housing Policies – includes provision for employee generation studies for commercial developments and considers employee generation of residential development (particularly recreational properties or semi-permanent residents). k) Community Lands and Perpetually Affordable Housing (PAH) – The ASP will include policies for the provision of community housing lands and PAH. l) and m) Residual Lands and 2004 ASP Policies – as discussed previously, the ASP will make reference to previous policies and zoning and where appropriate recommend inclusion, amendment, or deletion. n) Transportation – will include a transportation plan and a conceptual trail plan.
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 50 of 149 Terms of Reference for the new Three Sisters Area Structure Plan Page 3 of 4
o) Servicing – new utilities master plan will be undertaken. Analysis and recommendations for the existing irrigation intake from the Bow River and associated infrastructure will be included q) Development Phasing – The current MDP proposes development generally moving from west to east. This is definitely the most fiscally and environmentally sustainable, but the proponent has indicated a desire to have flexibility around the phasing. The Municipal Government Act (Section 633) requires Area Structure Plans to “describe the sequence of development proposed for the area.”
s) Outstanding Infrastructure Obligations – There are a number of unfulfilled development related commitments that TSMV has with the Town. These items are generally financially secured, but will need to be completed by a future purchaser or purchasers of the lands. The Town needs assurance concurrent with the ASP process that all outstanding obligations will be resolved.
6.0 Timeline – the timeline as proposed is ambitious, but is “approximate” and is open to adjustment through the process. How realistic it is depends in large part on how quickly TSMV is able to respond to areas of concern raised by the community and administration. The timeline does imply hard and efficient work by administration, which would be a first for the Planning Department, and will require additional resources to complete (see Financial Impacts below).
The issue of existing obligations is important as the Town needs to understand the possible implications of individual sales of portions of land. There are a number of obligations and expectations that are implied when the lands are owned by a single entity, but it is possible that development cells may be individually sold with no clear obligation for common TSMV lands. Examples of such issues are undertaking of wildlife corridor enhancements, maintenance of TSMV roadside entrance features, and completing unfinished infrastructure. This is not an ASP issue directly, but something that needs to be resolved prior to subdivision and land use being approved – once land use and subdivision are approved, the Town has no ability to further encumber land with obligations.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Council could amend the terms of reference as presented to address any issues they feel are not adequately represented. Substantive amendments may benefit from further discussions with the applicant.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS Fees for ASP applications are outlined in the Town’s Master Fee Schedule. Any change to those fees would require approval by Council. This project represents a significant increase in the work load for Town administration and will draw resources from other projects. Additional staff resources will be required to the currently proposed 2013 operating budget at an estimated increase of 0.5 FTE and work that will require use of consulting professionals. These costs will only be incurred if an application is formally submitted. The fees associated with any application would adequately cover any additional expenses incurred.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT No public consultation has been undertaken in drafting and reviewing the proposed terms of reference. The ASP terms of reference proposes two public open houses in addition to the minimum statutory requirements contained in the Municipal Government Act.
This application represents a significant development proposal and the proposed timeline is tight. It will be incumbent on the applicant to ensure that quality information is available for the community in a reasonable amount of time in advance of formal public hearings and council decisions. We can expect high levels of
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 51 of 149 Terms of Reference for the new Three Sisters Area Structure Plan Page 4 of 4
engagement from the community, particularly from those representing interests of the environmental community, adjacent residents, and recreational trail users. If necessary during the process, the Town may need to host additional public meetings if council feels they would benefit from additional public input.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT The ASP does not directly relate to the goals outlined in the Strategic Plan, but this is a privately owned parcel and is following the prescribed process for development. Indirectly a number of goals are relevant: 5. The Town of Canmore delivers effective and fiscally responsible services while valuing innovation. 6. Canmore has a diverse economy that is resilient to change. 8. Canmore is a municipal leader in environmental stewardship. 9. Canmore’s natural environment remains viable for wildlife while providing opportunity for human enjoyment. 10. Town of Canmore decisions are based on informed and accurate information and deliberated in an open and transparent fashion.
ATTACHMENTS 1) Draft Terms of Reference for the Three Sisters Area Structure Plan (dated Dec. 3, 2012)
AUTHORIZATION
Submitted by: Alaric Fish Manager of Planning and Development Date: December 4, 2012
Approved by: Terry Holt Manager of Financial Services Date: December 4, 2012
Approved by: Gary Buxton General Manager of Municipal Infrastructure Date: December 4, 2012
Approved by: Lisa de Soto, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Date: December 13, 2012
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 52 of 149 Attachment #1
Draft Terms of Reference
for the
Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 1 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 53 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
Table of Contents
Introduction ...... 1
1.0 Vision ...... 4
2.0 Plan Area ...... 6
Figure 1 – Current Three Sisters Land Ownership
Figure 2 – Area Structure Plan Boundary
Figure 3 – Relevant Adjacent Planning Areas
3.0 Purpose ...... 10
4.0 ASP Policy Framework ...... 11
5.0 Community Engagement ...... 18
6.0 Planning Process And Timing ...... 19
Table 1 – ASP Schedule ...... 20
Endnotes ...... 23
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 1 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 54 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
Introduction
New Area Structure Plan: In February 2009, Three Sisters Mountain Village ULC (TSMV) was placed into a court-ordered receivership. PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. (PwC) was appointed the Receiver and Receiver Manager (the “Receiver”). The Receiver, has conducted a review of the TSMV land holdings (“TSMV Lands“).Throughout these terms of reference “TSMV” will be used to denote the corporate ownership of the Three Sisters lands that is managed by the Receiver.
Based on this review, the Receiver has decided to redefine the footprint of the asset and proceed with a new Area Structure Plan (ASP) that encompasses the remaining undeveloped lands under the ownership of TSMV, including the undeveloped lands within the Resort Centre ASP and the Stewart Creek ASP (SCASP) (including Site 5, Phase III, and Phase IV), and TSMV lands directly west of the SCASP lands known as Site 4 and Lot 1, Block 7, Plan 0410094, and Sites 7, 8 and 9.
The TSMV lands identified as approved wildlife corridors by the Province as well as TSMV lands deemed as undevelopable are not included in the ASP boundary, however, policy statements in respect to these lands may be incorporated into the ASP.
Planning Background:
The adoption of the proposed ASP requires amending of several policies in the 1998 Canmore Municipal Development Plan, including, Map 2, Conceptual Land Use, and PART 6, Implementation.
In 2004, the Town of Canmore (“the Town”) approved the Resort Centre and Stewart Creek ASP’s. These ASPs will be amended or rescinded at third reading and adoption of the new Three Sisters ASP.
The Resort Centre ASP provides for a range of 1,330 to 2,525 resort accommodation units and a range of 90,000 to 150,000 square feet GFA of commercial space in the resort core with the predominant uses in the form of health/medical wellness and spa facilities within a 50-70 hectare area.
The Stewart Creek ASP provides for a maximum of 925 residential units and allocates 350,000 sq. ft. of commercial/mixed use space over 12 hectares. Approximately 340 of these units have been approved/constructed to date.
Sites 7 and 8, do not have an approved ASP at this time but there are provisions provided in Bylaw 1-98(DC) for golf course development and mixed residential units, as well as 235,000 sq. ft. of commercial/retail on 100 hectares Gross Developable Area (GDA).
Site 9 allows for the potential of 150 visitor accommodation units and 3 hectares of highway commercial development on 40 hectares GDA.
As part of the ASP approvals in 2004, the majority of the lands identified as the “Along Valley” and “Cross Valley” wildlife corridors, some 176 ha. (434 ac.), have been accepted and approved by the Province as wildlife corridors. Wildlife corridors and their management and responsibility is defined under the Wildlife Act and is under the sole jurisdiction of the Province. The Town’s Municipal Development Plan recognizes wildlife corridors as a valid municipal
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 1 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 55 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
planning issue and requires environmental reviews for development proposed adjacent to wildlife corridors and habitat patches that will be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The Resort Centre and Stewart Creek ASPs both contained specific policies related to the responsibilities and management of the recognized corridors and some of the relevant polices from the Resort Centre ASP were incorporated into the 2005 Conservation Easement Agreement between the Province and TSMV for portions of the Along Valley and Across Valley corridors.
Wildlife Human / Human Interaction Prevention Plans (WHIPP) are required by the Town and the Province in recognition of the relationship between wildlife corridors and human development and activities adjacent to those corridors. TSMV has a provincially approved WHIP Plan for the resort centre golf course and other currently-approved development that requires TSMV to administer its obligations as outlined in the WHIP Plan for the time period required by the Province for the TSMV lands in the Conservation Easement.
The obligations identified in the 2005 Conservation Easement Agreement, WHIP Plans and existing Area Structure Plans relating to TSMV lands will be reviewed as part of the EIS process.
The Town and TSMV, have also agreed to and signed a buffer easement agreement in 2007 for a 35 meter wide wildfire buffer easement that extends over 2 kilometres around the southern perimeter of the resort golf course.
The Town and TSMV agree that there are a maximum of 4049 units comprised of 2549 residential units and 1500 resort units remaining to be constructed on the undeveloped TSMV lands. As part of the new Area Structure Plan PwC will request that the Town allow some or all of the 1500 visitor accommodation units described in Bylaw 1-98DC to be developed as resort accommodation or residential units where the results of a municipal fiscal impact analysis demonstrates that such development would result in a net benefit to the community.
The new ASP will be prepared in accordance with Town of Canmore statutory plans and bylaws for the remaining undeveloped Three Sisters lands.
Comprehensive, Holistic Approach: As per Bylaw 1-98(DC)1 (See Section 3.9 in Land Use Bylaw 22-2010) ASPs are required for Sites 7, 8 and 9.
TSMV wishes to create one ASP to allow for a comprehensive planning approach and an opportunity for the Town and the community to review the resort project in a holistic fashion. TSMV believes that this approach will remove uncertainties surrounding the project by addressing long held community concerns that can only be addressed by viewing the project and lands in their entirety.
Integrated with Natural Environment and the Community: The goal of the planning process is to create a comprehensive and innovative land use plan that defines the overall development of the property and its integration with the natural landscape and community of Canmore.
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 2 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 56 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
New Plan Will Follow New Plan Policies: The new Three Sisters ASP will be developed using the policies of the Town of Canmore Municipal Development Plan, Bylaw 1-98(DC) (as amended) (See Section 3.9 in Land Use Bylaw 22-2010) and other Town policies applicable to TSMV’s lands.
Since the approval of the existing Resort Centre and Stewart Creek ASPs in 2004, the Town adopted Mining the Future: A Vision for Canmore (MTF) document in 2006. Mining the Future contains foundational values and guiding principles that Council has concluded are imperative to the future development of the community. The MTF document will be utilized by TSMV in the formulation and preparation of the ASP policies.
In addition to the MTF document, the Town has adopted the Sustainability Screening Process where all developers must submit Sustainability Screening Reports (SSR) to demonstrate how the MTF principles are incorporated into their projects and how the project will ultimately benefit the community. TSMV will submit one SSR for the entire land holdings and to demonstrate to Council and the community the net positive contributions the ASP will make to the future of Canmore.
ASP Process: Approval of the Terms of Reference for the ASP is a Town requirement before TSMV may proceed with the statutory ASP planning process. Canmore Town Council will approve the Terms of Reference by resolution which formalizes the framework for the Plan. It is recognized by TSMV that the Town of Canmore Municipal Development Plan 1998 and Land Use Bylaw 22-20102 will need to be amended in order to prepare new land use districts for the undeveloped ASP lands that will be consistent with the new ASP and to address residual zoning on other TSMV lands that are no longer proposed for development.
The 1998 Settlement Agreement between the Town and TSMV will also need to be amended or mutually terminated in accordance with the provisions of the ASP when adopted.
The following Terms of Reference establishes the vision, purpose, goals, community engagement, planning process and timing of the ASP.
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 3 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 57 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
1.0 Vision
TSMV has determined that a comprehensive ASP is required for the future of its undeveloped land holdings. The vision, which provides the foundation for the new Area Structure Plan and the future development of the resort community, is based on four corner stone principles that are intended to create a thriving outdoor oriented residential neighbourhoods, resort and commercial development that integrates into the Montane and sub-alpine environment and natural resources of the Bow Valley. The four cornerstones of the vision are:
. Outdoor Orientation . Connectivity . Stewardship and Conservation . Rocky Mountain Aesthetic
Outdoor Orientation (Through Green Infrastructure)
The main organizing element behind the ASP plan is “green infrastructure” or open space/trail framework. Much like a natural park setting, the plan will create as much green space as possible in either private or public ownership preserves or natural areas to link the development areas together.
Connectivity (human related)
Another important principle in the to be utilized in the ASP is the relationships between the built environment and the underlying human related economic, cultural and social systems that will define and create the sense of community to be created within the ASP. All built improvements and human connectivity with these constructed environs will be designed to respond to the dominant open space network.
Stewardship and Preservation
The ASP will develop policies that will stress the importance of stewardship and preservation of natural areas found within the ASP boundary and the adjacent TSMV land holdings. These natural areas will be designed to minimize potential conflicts between human activities and wildlife in the area. A long-term, comprehensive plan will be created that includes landscape management and development strategies to assure that the most sensitive natural resources are preserved for future residents to appreciate and enjoy . It is a primary goal that residents, guests and visitors alike will take an active part in understanding, preserving and respecting the unique cultural and natural resources of the property, engendering a sense of stewardship.
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 4 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 58 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
Rocky Mountain Aesthetic
The ASP will propose a design aesthetic that draws inspiration from the Rocky Mountain aesthetic and traditions in creating rustic, crafted buildings and community design improvements that emphasize the use of natural materials and the local heritage of the area.
These four cornerstones have been developed to guide the preparation of policies contained in the ASP and will be integral to achieving the vision of the ASP.
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 5 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 59 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
2.0 Plan Area
The land ownership of Three Sisters Mountain Village is shown on Figure 1: Current Three Sisters Land Ownership. The TSMV land holdings total approximately 589.9 ha (1457.6 acres). The ASP boundary, shown in Figure 2., includes approximately 452 ha (1117 acres).
Relevant Adjacent Planning Areas are shown on Figure 3. The intent of Figure 3 is to illustrate in general terms areas adjacent to the ASP boundary that may be under the ownership of TSMV, are affected by current 2004 ASP policies, or have previous TSMV related policy direction. This includes:
. Wildlife Corridors and the 2005 Conservation Easement Agreement approved by AESRD.
. Lands Within the 2004 ASPs that have policy statements that may be incorporated into the new ASP.
. Residual zoning: areas with previous land use zoning that is no longer consistent with existing or proposed planning direction. Lands with Residual zoning and not under the ownership of TSMV are also shown on Figure 3.
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 6 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 60 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
Figure 1 – Current Three Sisters Land Ownership
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 7 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 61 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
Figure 2 – Area Structure Plan Boundary
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 8 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 62 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
Figure 3 – Relevant Adjacent Planning Areas
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 9 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 63 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
3.0 Purpose
The purpose of the ASP is to establish a comprehensive planning document by combining the Resort Centre and Stewart Creek ASPs and Sites 7, 8, and 9 into a single planning area. Through a comprehensive planning process, changes regarding land use and the redistribution of units and density will be designed using the principles described in Section 1.0 Vision.
Pursuant to Section 633 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA)3, the ASP will provide a framework for subsequent land uses, subdivisions and development of the planning area and describe the sequence of development, land uses, population density, and general location of transportation routes and public utilities.
The ASP will provide policies that will result in a resort community that integrates residential, commercial, and recreation/open space areas connected by pedestrian and vehicle linkages. These policies will include sustainable infrastructure approaches and energy efficient design, bring economic development to the town of Canmore, and support a strong and diverse community.
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 10 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 64 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
4.0 ASP Policy Framework
The following framework establishes the main policies of the Three Sisters ASP. This ASP will provide a comprehensive plan for the development of the remaining undeveloped lands covered under the Resort Centre and Stewart Creek ASPs, Sites 7, 8 and 9, as well as identifying relevant policies and requirements for some of the adjacent lands included within the ASP area. The components of the ASP are based on the requirements of the Municipal Government Act, the Town of Canmore Municipal Development Plan4, Mining the Future: A Vision for Canmore, Town of Canmore Land Use Bylaw 22-2010, Bylaw 1-98(DC) (as amended), and relevant Town policies.
The ASP will consist of the following basic components:
. Introduction . Vision . Planning Context . Relationship of the ASP to Adjacent Developments . Environmental Policies . Land Use Concept . Open Space Policies . Residential and Resort Accommodation Policies . Commercial Land Use Policies . Employee Housing Policies . Community Lands and Perpetually Affordable Housing (PAH) . Residual Lands Policies . Disposition of Applicable 2004 ASP Policies . Circulation and Transportation Policies . Servicing Policies . Visual Impact Analysis . Development Phasing . Implementation . Outstanding Infrastructure Obligations . Supporting Documentation.
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 11 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 65 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
The scope of these sections in the ASP is outlined below in greater detail. a) Introduction
An introduction of the planning area will describe the purpose and authority of the plan and interpretation and application of the plan. b) Vision
The vision provides the foundation of the Area Structure Plan and the future land uses of the project. The vision seeks to create an integrated and cohesive development that supports a thriving, outdoor-oriented, resort community. c) Planning Context
The planning context will describe the relationship of the ASP to other policy documents and bylaws and the authority and interpretation of the plan. The plan will provide policies to establish a process to assist the Town of Canmore and Three Sisters in amending or interpreting a variance to the plan that remains consistent with the purpose of the existing policies and is still flexible. The ASP will provide flexibility that, with the certainty associated with the approved policies and direction of the plan, can respond to changing circumstances in accordance with the phasing contemplated in the approved ASP. d) Relationship of the ASP to Adjacent Developments
The new ASP cannot be viewed in isolation from previously constructed neighbourhoods and developments on the TSMV lands that were part of earlier approvals dating back to 1992. The integrated cohesive plan envisioned for the new ASP lands must also recognize the relationship of the new ASP to existing Three Sisters residential neighbourhoods and the social and physical connectivity that is required to link the old and new areas together, as well as with Canmore’s traditional downtown core.
Policies will be developed in the ASP that ensure physical connectivity utilizing trail linkages (regional and recreational) from outside the plan area to connect seamlessly with the future development phases of the resort. It is also important that policy be investigated to look at strengthening the social connection between the future resort development and adjacent neighbourhoods. e) Environmental Policies
Environmental Impact Statement:
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) sufficiently detailed to incorporate into subsequent land use district and subdivision planning will be submitted as supporting information to the planning area outlined in the ASP. The terms of reference for the EIS has been approved by Council.
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 12 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 66 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
Appropriate environmental policies based on the recommendations contained in the EIS, will be prepared for the ASP.
The EIS will be completed prior to first reading of the ASP by Council, and submitted to the Town of Canmore a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the anticipated date of first reading.
Undermining
The ASP will reference relevant provisions of the Provincial Canmore Undermining Regulations identified through the objectives and policies of the ASP as required to guide the land use, subdivision and development processes. The ASP will identify policies to address issues of liability on municipally owned lands and for municipal infrastructure that are not covered by Provincial regulations.
Alternative Development Principles
The new ASP will contain policies to ensure that low impact development (LID) principles are utilized to conserve natural resources and minimize impacts on the natural environment. Such policies will also identify opportunities for innovative and site adaptive development and alternative servicing/engineering standards. Energy efficiency and sustainable building structures will be key aspects of these policies. The ASP policies will be included in the regulations for the various land use districts proposed in the Plan. Recycling, reuse of storm water for irrigation and xeriscaping are some of the examples for minimizing impacts and reducing resource usage.
Wildfire Risk Management
A detailed assessment will be required for subdivision applications subsequent to the approved large block subdivisions application, approval and endorsement, pursuant to existing policies within the Town of Canmore MDP. The ASP will address the principles of a “fire smart” community through appropriate objectives and policies and identify areas within and adjacent to proposed development areas in the ASP where the current and future hazard assessment is “moderate” to “extreme”. f) Land Use Concept
A land use plan and associated policies will be described for the lands within the ASP boundary. These policies will be sufficiently detailed to incorporate into subsequent land use district and subdivision planning. Open space/natural areas will be the primary organizing land use element for the plan. The balance of the land uses will then be framed around the open space areas. The land use plan will delineate the location of land use districts, describe the types and ranges of residential and resort accommodation units and provide general design guidelines.
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 13 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 67 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
The development concept and associated land uses will provide a level of detail such that subsequent land use zonings are consistent with the development concept and land use polices created in the ASP. g) Open Space Policies
Developing in a natural area entails working with and responding to the natural systems of the land to preserve the dominance of the natural setting. The main principle behind the Plan is the concept of creating an open space framework that becomes the guiding "green infrastructure" for all improvements to the land. This framework includes an integrated system of natural areas, parks, recreational amenities and trail improvements that link all the ASP lands together and blend new buildings and related improvements into the landscape. Therefore, the open space plan will be developed for the ASP lands that reflects the goal of retaining and enhancing natural areas, minimizing potential human-wildlife conflicts, and responds to recommendations of the EIS. The open space plan will include connections to open space (natural areas, parks and trail systems) previously developed as part of the Stewart Creek subdivisions, but not included in the new ASP boundary. h) Residential and Resort Accommodation Policies
The ASP will specify a number of units, expressed as a range, and the types of residential development (i.e., single family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings) and resort accommodation development proposed within the ASP area. The plan will describe the general layout, design and building heights for development areas and create land use policies for residential and resort accommodation.
The Town and TSMV agree that there are a total of 4049 units comprised of 2549 residential units and 1500 resort units remaining to be constructed on the undeveloped TSMV lands. As part of the new Area Structure Plan, TSMV will request that the Town allow some or all of the 1500 visitor accommodation units described in Bylaw 1-98DC to be developed as resort accommodation or residential units where the results of a municipal fiscal impact analysis demonstrates that such development would result in a net benefit to the community. i) Commercial Land Use Policies
The ASP will develop policies related to commercial land uses intended for the planning area as well as describing the general layout, design, building heights and building types. Commercial floor areas will be expressed as a range for each development area. Policy surrounding the development of a business park and landmark buildings will also form part of the commercial land use section. j) Employee Housing Policies
The ASP will develop policies that will require future developers to prepare studies as part of development permit applications in order to determine the number of employees required to operate specific development projects that contain resort accommodation, commercial and mixed use commercial components of the development. Employee generation studies will be utilized to determine the numbers and types of staff accommodation required for the
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 14 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 68 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
operation of specific resort accommodation development and subdivision applications within the ASP lands. For a pure residential development, the ASP will make recommendations for policies that may be applicable for employee housing. k) Community Lands and Perpetually Affordable Housing (PAH)
The ASP will include policies for the provision of community housing lands (amounts and location) to be provided within the ASP boundary. Policies for the development of PAH will be developed in accordance with relevant municipal policies. l) Residual Lands Policies
The ASP will provide direction with respect to applications to rezone residual lands that are currently zoned as DC-1 98 and Special Recreation “R”, which are outside the development areas in the ASP in order to provide the future intent and purpose of these residual lands. m) Disposition of Applicable 2004 ASP Policies
The ASP will identify those policies from the existing 2004 ASPs that would be eliminated upon the repeal of the existing 2004 ASPs. These policies may be carried forward into the new Area Structure Plan. n) Circulation and Transportation Policies
A comprehensive Transportation Study, sufficiently detailed to incorporate into subsequent land use district and subdivision planning will be prepared as part of the planning process for the ASP. The results and recommendations of this study will be used to craft general patterns of land use and a conceptual overall transportation system for the Plan Area. The transportation policies will encompass the entire scope of moving people within the resort, commercial and residential areas as well as connecting the Plan Area to areas within Canmore. The Transportation Study will also identify opportunities for reduced automobile utilization and for both public and private transit systems to move people throughout the ASP lands as well as provide connections to downtown Canmore.
A conceptual trail plan will show a comprehensive network of all season trails that will be integrated throughout the ASP lands for a variety of commuter-type and recreational activities. Policies for trail systems will detail types of trails and their connection to the proposed development area and previously constructed trails on lands outside of the ASP boundary. Policies will be developed in the ASP that ensure physical connectivity utilizing trail linkages (regional and recreational) from outside of the plan area to connect to future development phases of the resort. Trails located adjacent to wildlife corridors will be positioned to ensure that human/wildlife interaction is appropriately minimized.
The ASP will provide direction with respect to future use and ongoing maintenance of existing trails and pedestrian bridges that are outside the development areas in the ASP area in order to provide the future intent and purpose of this infrastructure.
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 15 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 69 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
o) Servicing Policies
The ASP will establish an overall Utilities Master Plan (UMP) for the planning area and provide objectives and policies regarding utilities and sustainable infrastructure approaches. The UMP will show a general design and conceptual location for utilities (e.g., water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer). In addition, regional utility connections already existing in developments included in the Resort Centre and Stewart Creek ASPs will be incorporated into the overall UMP.
As part of the Utilities Master Plan, an analysis will be undertaken on how to best manage and utilize the private owned Bow River irrigation intake structure, the water lines to the irrigation ponds and the irrigation ponds for the future development of the ASP lands. p) Visual Impact Analysis
The ASP will identify potential visual impact sources and propose locations from which these should be evaluated at the subdivision or development permit stage. q) Development Phasing
The existing MDP contains policy direction regarding the phasing of development. In general, development phasing will follow the logical extension of utilities and be contiguous with existing development. If the new ASP proposes phasing different from current MDP policies, then a clear planning rationale for the difference must be provided. r) Implementation
The ASP will address how the land use policies are to be implemented with new land use designations on the TSMV lands and direct the repeal or amending of existing land use districts (e.g. the resort core DC 27(Z)2006, TS-RA1 26(Z)2006 resort accommodation district, TS-GD district and Bylaw 1-98 DC).
The Settlement Agreement between TSMV and the Town will also need to be addressed as part of the implementation process. s) Outstanding Infrastructure Obligations
The ASP may contain a policy statement regarding the outstanding obligations of TSMV and Three Sisters. The policy statement may serve as notification to a potential purchaser, and reference the requirement of the Receiver to prepare a letter which will identify any outstanding obligations of TSMV and Three Sisters, and negotiate terms with the purchaser(s) to assume these infrastructure obligations that will survive any transfer of title. t) Supporting Documentation
The following supporting documentation will be provided as part of the ASP prior to first reading and a public hearing of the ASP bylaw.
. A detailed Site Analysis describing the ownership, developable areas summary (private lands and road allowances), slope analysis, soils and vegetation.
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 16 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 70 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
. A detailed comparison table comparing the existing unit count, and commercial approvals, and gross developable acres, along with their geographic distribution contained in the Resort Centre and Stewart Creek ASPs and Bylaw 1-98(DC) to the proposed ASP.
. A Transportation Study that includes trip generation analysis. TSMV and the Town Administration will determine the requirements of the Transportation Study.
. A Utilities Master Plan (UMP) will be prepared for the ASP lands. TSMV and Town Administration will determine the requirements of the UMP.
. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) will be prepared for the ASP lands. TSMV and Town Administration will meet and determine the requirements of the SWMP.
. A Municipal Fiscal Impact Analysis (MFIA) that examines the impact of the proposed developments on municipal revenue and costs and economic benefits and costs included as part of the ASP. TSMV and Town Administration will meet and determine the requirements of the MFIA.
. Alternative Development Guidelines will provide information about appropriate innovative development and building principles and practices and their application to the future subdivision and development of the plan area.
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 17 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 71 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
5.0 Community Engagement
The planning area for the ASP area represents the majority of potentially developable lands in the Town of Canmore as well as important wildlife habitat and wildlife corridor areas. The proposed ASP policies will require amendments to the Municipal Development Plan and consequential amendments to existing area structure plans and the Town of Canmore Land Use Bylaw. The engagement process will allow for sufficient time for the community to understand and comment on the proposed policies during open houses and information sessions prior to the required public hearing(s).
Community engagement is important to producing a quality ASP. TSMV will be launching a community outreach website in order to engage community residents on the progress of the ASP process. The website will also contain electronic copies of the approved terms of reference, the approved environmental impact statement and the supplementary documents required as part of the ASP approvals.
As the Town ASP review process commences, a minimum of two open houses will be hosted by TSMV and their consultant team to ensure that the community is informed on the direction of the plan.
. One first open house will be held early in the planning process, prior to the formal submission to the Town, to inform the public about proposed policies for land uses; trail connections; and environmental resource management. The open houses will allow the public an opportunity for comment on issues and concerns regarding the proposed ASP.
. The second open house will be held before the ASP public hearing in order for the public to meet with TSMV and the consultant team and speak to any concerns regarding the plan.
In addition to the two open houses and website outreach, the ASP will be subject to the Town’s Sustainability Screening Process that will involve a community meeting and a Town hall meeting whereby the public and Council can ask questions about the Sustainability Screening Report (SSR). The community meeting and Town hall meeting will take place prior to the ASP being formally submitted to the Town for review and approval.
Once the SSR has been approved by Council, the ASP can be formally submitted to the Town and then referred to Council as part of the bylaw approval process. A statutory public hearing will be held as part of the bylaw adoption process.
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 18 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 72 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
6.0 Planning Process and Timing
TSMV will be preparing the ASP and as such the planning process requires a schedule (Table 1) to indicate the expected length of the process and the key dates and milestones that will culminate with the conclusion of the process and the adoption of the ASP by Canmore Town Council.
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 19 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 73 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
Table 1 ASP Schedule
Municipal Planning Process – Proposed Time Line ASP, Land Use and Block Subdivision
Actions Dates
Submit ASP Terms of Reference to Town of Monday, October 15, 2012 Canmore (Town) for review and comment.
Submit EIS Terms of Reference to Town for Monday, October 15, 2012 review and comment.
ASP Initial Team Meeting – Town staff invited to meet Monday, October 29, 2012 consultants and present SSR overview.
Meet with Town Planning Department to discuss EIS Monday, October 29, 2012 Terms of Reference.
Town holds Public Information Session Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Framework Agreement submitted to Council. Tuesday, November 20, 2012
EIS Terms of Reference submitted to Council. Tuesday, November 20, 2012
ASP Terms of Reference submitted to Council. Tuesday, December 18, 2012
ASP and EIS Terms of References placed on Three Thursday, December 20, 2012 Sisters (TS) Website.
Submit draft Sustainability Screening Report Thursday, December 20, 2012 (SSR) to the Town for review and comment.
Town submits SSR review comments to Thursday, January 10, 2013 applicant
Meet with Town Planning Department to discuss SSR Wednesday, January 16, 2013 comments.
Formal submission of SSR to Town. Thursday, January 24, 2013
Open House for SSR. Thursday, January 31, 2013
SSR submitted to Council. Tuesday, February 5 , 2013
SSR placed on TS Website if approved Friday, February 8, 2013
Submit Draft ASP to Town for review and Monday, January 21, 2013 comment.
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 20 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 74 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
Actions Dates
Submit draft EIS to the Town for review and Monday, January 21, 2013 comment.
Meet with Planning Department to discuss draft ASP Monday, February11, 2013 and EIS.
Public Open House 1 conducted by TSMV Wednesday, February 20, 2013 Presentation of Conceptual Land Use Plans for ASP
Meet with Planning Department to finalize EIS and Friday, February 22, 2013 ASP.
Town’s Environmental Advisory Review Committee Wednesday, March 6, 2013 reviews EIS for compliance with approved terms of reference.
Formal application for ASP Bylaw to Town of Canmore Friday, March 8, 2012 for review and comment. Submission includes all support documents including: Master Utility Plan, Transportation Plan, Storm Water Plan and Municipal Fiscal Impact Analysis (all support documents have been previously discussed with the Town).
EIS submitted to Council. Tuesday March 19 , 2013
Meeting with Planning Dept. to review final comments Monday, March 25, 2013 on ASP and support documents.
Revisions to Draft ASP and re-submit to TOC Friday, March 29, 2013
Consideration for Council 1st Reading of ASP Tuesday, April 16, 2013 Bylaw
Public Open House 2 conducted by TSMV to present Wednesday, April 24, 2013 draft ASP prior to Public Hearing
Public Hearing Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Consideration for Council 2nd and 3rd readings Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Land Use Bylaw Application
Submit Draft Land Uses to the Town for review and Thursday, April 4, 2013 comment
Meeting with the Planning Department to discuss Land Thursday, April 11, 2013 Uses and make amendments
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 21 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 75 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
Actions Dates
Land Use Bylaw Application to the Town Thursday, April 25, 2012
First Reading for TSMV Land Use Bylaw Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Public Hearing for Land Use Bylaw Tuesday, June 11, 2012
Second and Third Reading for Land Use Bylaw Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Subdivision Application
Meeting with Planning Department to discuss proposed Thursday, April 4, 2013 Block Subdivision application.
Submit Block Subdivision Application to the Thursday, April 18, 2012 Town
Meet with Planning Department to discuss any issues Wednesday, June 12, 2013 raised by the subdivision review and conditions of subdivision approval.
TSMV Block Subdivision submitted to SAA Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Block Subdivision submitted to Town for Friday, July 12, 2012 endorsement
Note: Key Milestones are bolded and underlined.
The above noted dates are approximate and will be adjusted by TSMV and the Town working cooperatively as the project proceeds.
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 22 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 76 of 149 Terms Of Reference: Three Sisters Area Structure Plan
Endnotes
1 Bylaw 1-98(DC) refers to the land use bylaw that governs the land uses for the Three Sisters property. Passed in 1998 and last amended in 2006 the bylaw established development sites and entitlements that include 1500 hotel rooms and 3447 residential units. The bylaw also identified sites that required area structure plans prior to development proceeding.
2 Land Use Bylaw 22-2010 is the Town of Canmore’s Land Use Bylaw that deals exclusively with the regulation and control of the use of land and buildings within the municipality. The Land Use Bylaw divides the town into various land uses categories (zoning districts) with specified regulations for each.
3 The Municipal Government Act is a Provincial Act that governs the operations of municipalities throughout Alberta and states that the purpose of a municipality is to provide good government, services, facilities or other things that, in the opinion of council, are necessary or desirable for all or a part of the municipality and to develop and maintain safe and viable communities.
4 Canmore Municipal Development Plan is a statutory planning document adopted by every municipality in Alberta that establishes policies that direct future growth and development of a municipality. The municipal development plan must be consistent with Section 632 of the Municipal Government Act.
ASP Terms of Reference – For Council consideration- v Dec 3 2012 23 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 77 of 149 Request for Decision
DATE OF MEETING: December 18, 2012 Agenda #: G-2
SUBJECT: Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission Five-Year Business Plan Including Three-Year Financial Projections
SUBMITTED BY: Andy Esarte, Manager of Engineering Koji Miyagi, General Manager of the BVRTSC
RECOMMENDATION: That council approve the BVRTSC five-year business plan as presented.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Material changes to the BVRTSC business plan were approved by council on February 7, 2012. A revised business plan incorporating those changes has now been approved by the Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission board and is provided to Canmore’s council for approval in accordance with the commission’s operating bylaw.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION OR POLICY Council approved the December 15, 2010 BVRTSC five-year business plan on January 18, 2011.
The December 15, 2010 Business Plan outlined a process for forming the Bow Valley Regional Transit Service Commission. In accordance with the business plan, the commission and its board of directors has been formed and in September 2011 a general manager was hired. In November 2011 the commission approved their operating bylaw BVRTSC BYLAW 3-2011.
The operating bylaw states that “Voting Members shall be required to distribute the annual and three-year rolling financial plans to their respective organizations and constituents and consult with them on these plans, and the voting members shall be entitled to vote on these plans after the consultations have been completed.”
On February 7th, 2012 Canmore’s council approved amendments to the Bow Valley Regional Transit Business Plan. Those amendments are reflected in the attached BVRTSC five-year business plan.
DISCUSSION At the October 31, 2012 annual general meeting of the Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission, an amended version of the business plan was passed. Material amendments to the business plan are identical to those approved by council on February 7th, 2012 and are as follows:
A) Additional service hours for the Canmore-Banff regional Roam service. B) Fare box recovery rate adjustment for the Canmore-Banff regional Roam service C) Bus procurement change for Canmore-Banff regional Roam service D) Upgrades to the electronic fare collection equipment sooner than identified in the original business plan. E) Some administrative costs not clearly stated or identified in the original business plan F) Delay in the start of the Parks Roam service
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 78 of 149 Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS N/A
FINANCIAL IMPACTS There are no new financial impacts anticipated beyond those approved by council on February 7th, 2012. An additional year of financial projections is now available and regional transit costs are expected to be as follows:
2013 2014 2015
Budget items Approved Approved Proposed
Operating $ 124,000 $ 132,000 $ 144,000
Capital Reserve $ 27,000 $ 25,000 $ 30,000
Total $ 151,000 $ 157,000 $ 174,000
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT In the winter of 2012 the BVRTSC conducted a ridership study randomly surveying residents and businesses in the Bow Valley in order to determine preferences for fares, schedules, and routes. Based on this information a proposed service was presented at an open house in Canmore in June 2012 and information was presented to Banff residents at one of the farmers markets in July.
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT Goal 7. Canmore’s services and programs meet the needs of a diverse socio-economic population. Through the Bow Valley Regional Transit Commission, create regional and local transit systems.
ATTACHMENTS BVRTSC 5-Year Business Plan (including 3-Year financial information).
AUTHORIZATION Submitted by: Andy Esarte Manager of Engineering Date: December 4, 2012 Approved by: Terry Holt Manager of Financial Services Date: n/a
Approved by: Gary Buxton GM of Municipal Infrastructure Date: December 4, 2012
Approved by: Lisa de Soto, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Date: December 13, 2012
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 79 of 149
BOW VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT SERVICES COMMISSION
FIVE-YEAR BUSINESS PLAN Fall 2011 to Summer 2016
i
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 80 of 149
Executive Summary
The Bow Valley includes the Towns of Canmore and Banff, Improvement District #9 (ID #9), and Banff National Park in Alberta. There is currently a variety of transit services offered in the Bow Valley Region, but many residents and visitors continue to make the majority of their trips in the Region by car. This travel pattern in the Bow Valley Region is in contrast to many national and state park areas in the United States and worldwide that are attracting significant numbers of visitors to transit. These parks promote the use of transit through focused marketing, as well as policies and investments in attractive and environmentally friendly transit services, vehicles, and bus stops. By providing more sustainable mobility options in these parks and their surrounding areas, park systems are increasing their ability to attract both local and international visitors, by enhancing the experience of visitors.
For some residents and visitors to the Bow Valley Region, there continues to be no alternative to using a car; many of the attractions do not offer access via transit, and only some of the transit services currently offered are frequent or low-cost enough to be competitive with the automobile. The impacts of this dependence on private vehicles include the following:
• increased congestion on local, provincial, and park roads; • strains on the existing parking supply; • increased greenhouse gas emissions; • significant expenditures on parking facilities, road construction and related maintenance; • use of roadway shoulders in the Bow Valley Region for parking, which may create unsafe conditions, hinder wildlife movement, and damage plants; • loss of wildlife and habitat; • water pollution; • large expenditures on personal vehicles, insurance, and traffic-related injuries; • a less competitive region in comparison to other tourist regions that have transit systems and can offer more affordable mobility options; • loss of roadway space for bicycles and pedestrians; and • limits on the number of people who can visit, live in, and enjoy the Bow Valley Region.
The short-term goals of the Bow Valley Transit Steering Committee are to establish Alberta’s first Regional Transit Services Commission for the Bow Valley Region with the mandate to initiate transit services for the Park summer visitors through a partnership with Parks Canada and a regional connecting service between Banff and Canmore. Once this is done, the Commission would be able to worka towards ccomplishing the following longer-term actions:
• partner with other organizations (e.g. ski resort operators, hotels/motels, tour operators, and other businesses that could significantly benefit from enhanced transit services) to provide additional transit services; • enhance existing transit services and provide new transit services more quickly than would be possible if individual parties acted alone • obtain greater funding from provincial and federal transit and infrastructure programs by applying for funding as a regional entity with a larger ridership base rather than as an individual municipality;
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 81 of 149 i
• find operational, planning, scheduling, marketing and administrative efficiencies for transit services through re-design and consolidation; • provide a new service product, experience, and mobility option for local residents and regional and international visitors to the Bow Valley Region; and • market these transit services more effectively to a large regional and international audience so that more riders are attracted to the public transit system and will make transit an integral part of living in or visiting the Bow Valley Region.
To make this happen, the Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission (BVRTSC) would manage the administration, financing, marketing, capital planning, procurement and service planning of many of the public transit services for the Region with the assistance of a transit manager. It would open up transit services to a greater audience through effective marketing and pricing. It would also better meet the transportation needs of the Region’s residents and visitors through the ta iloring and regional branding of transit services.
Transit Services
It is assumed that the BVRTSC would become responsible for the management of the local Banff transit service (also known as Banff ROAM) that is already in operation and ensure that it complements other services and achieves enhanced efficiency and effectiveness. The Banff ROAM service is essential to the Commission’s success, given the benefits that would be generated in terms of service integration, bulk capital purchases, and the ability to attract more funding from senior levels of gov ernment.
The Commission would also add a new regular regional transit service that would connect Banff to Canmore, and a seasonal service serving popular recreational sites within the Banff National Park (which would be known as the Park ROAM service). Collectively, these initial three transit services, also known as the Tier I services, would serve to remove automobiles from the highway, provide mobility options for residents and visitors, and increase economic activity for all areas served.
Furthermore, when additional funding sources are identified or a given municipality is ready to commit more funds to transit, the BVRTSC may develop other new transit services (Tier II services), such as a local service in Canmore and a regional service between Banff and Lake Louise. Without the BVRTSC, these other services might eventually be individually offered by the towns and businesses. However, as a result of consolidated contract administration, marketing, fare and contribution collection, and a wider array of funding sources, the Commission would enable these services to be offered or enhanced earlier, at a reduced cost to the municipalities, and in a more integrated manner.
It is expected that the direct operating cost of the Tier I transit services managed by the Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission would be $1.1 million in its first full year and grow to $2.4 million per year within five years (in 2010 dollars) as a result of service improvements. The table below shows how these services would be introduced as proposed by this business plan. The direct operating cost estimates below exclude the administrative and marketing costs, and the contributions that would be made to the capital reserve.
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 82 of 149ii
Tier 1 Services – Proposed Implementation Schedule
Year Transit Services Provided
Year 1 • Banff Local (provided at current service levels) Sept 2011 Year 2 • Banff Local (provided at current service levels) 2012(Commission • Regional (Canmore-Banff) (12 revenue hours daily)
Year 3 • Banff Local (provided at current service levels) 2013 • Regional (Canmore-Banff) (12 revenue hours daily) • Park Service planning and service design phase, commitment from Parks Canada Year 4 • Banff Local service (possible new route to Cave and Basin to 2014 Banff Centre if funding availble) • Regional ROAM (Canmore-Banff) (12 revenue hours daily) • Park ROAM (4 routes: Moraine Lake loop Upper Lake Louise Loop, Banff-Lake)* Year 5 •Lou Enhancise roeudt e,B anandff La Localke M sienrvneicewan formka l ooyearp) one 2015 • Enhanced Regional (Canmore-Banff) (increased service hours from year based on ridership and funding availability) • Park ROAM (5 routes: Moraine Lake loop, Banff-Lake Louise route, and Lake Minnewanka loop)* *references to Parks service is based on proposed options only. Parks Canada will need to confirm the level of any service suggested in this document based on their decision to proceed with any of the services.
Anticipated Capital Needs (see Table ___Proposed Capital Budget for related cost estimates ) • a new on-street transit exchange in the Town of Banff, where local, regional and seasonal (i.e., services to camping/hiking sites in the spring/summer) services can interconnect; • bus shelters; • appropriate buses for the Parks service • other infrastructure investments (e.g. bike racks, real-time bus arrival information at bus stops, regional SmartCard); and • additional bus storage facility for the buses used by the Tier I services.
A portion of these capital needs would be covered by Parks Canada such as the buses needed for the Parks service. Grants would be sought as often as possible to contribute towards capital purchases. It is hoped that the Commission would not have to use debt to pay for its capital needs.
It is expected that these transit services would be provided through a variety of contractual agreements with the private or public sectors to provide needed services which the BVRTSC may not be able provide directly. Further, if the BVRTSC is in the position to contract out or lease buses, these buses will need to meet the standards set forth by BVRTSC such as being fully accessible.
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 83 of 149iii
Summary of Benefits
The benefits of the Regional Transit Services Commission are expected to grow as more transit services are consolidated under its administration. This is because certain costs are essentially fixed, such as some of the capital investments, and if there are more services, these fixed costs would be shared over a greater number of services. Another benefit is that there would be a greater number of origins and destinations that are linked through a transit service network. There are also efficiencies that can be achieved by using certain services for multiple purposes. For example, service between Canmore and Banff could transport people residing in Canmore to and from ski areas and also serve Banff residents who need to travel to Canmore to access social and other services.
The Banff, Canmore-Banff, and seasonal recreational transit services provided by the Commission (Tier 1 services) would benefit each of the three municipalities, the Bow Valley accommodation sectors, and Parks Canada in the following ways:
• the early provision of an inter-municipal transit service, starting with a connection between Canmore and Banff; • the earlier provision of more services to hiking and camping sites; • a reduction in the number of commuter trips made by automobile in the Bow Valley; • protection of the natural ecosystems within the Bow Valley Region; • an enhan cement of the profile and reputation of the Bow Valley Region as a tourist destination; • increased business and labour market for local accommodation and other employment sectors within Canmore, Banff, and Lake Louise; and •increased mobility for local Bow Valley residents and staff, as well as visitors.
Important Implementation Steps Taken to Date
The Bow Valley Region has already taken steps and built momentum towards consolidating services and sharing costs. Banff’s local transit system (ROAM Transit) has replaced some of the private hotel shuttles, and par tnership arrangements and ridership are growing (several Banff hotel accommodations are also contributing to the cost of this service in exchange for transit passes for staff and guests). This service is delivered by a contract with a private sector bus operator. Also, the Towns of Banff and Canmore and Improvement District #9 signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on January 7, 2009 stating that they would work together to form a Regional Transit Services Commission. As of today, all municipalities have passed a motion approving draft versions of this business plan submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in April 2010 (see Appendix E).
Also, since the 1970s, Sunshine Village, Lake Louise Ski Area, and Mount Norquay have been operating ski resorts bus services for visitors and staff, and have been marketing their ski areas through a combined effort. They have also played a pivotal role in the establishment of the Bow Valley Regional Transit Steering Committee and have indicated their strong interest in being a part of the BVRTSC in the future. In addition, the existence of the Banff-Lake Louise Hotel Motel Association and other business organizations also reflects cooperation among many parties towards reaching common goals.
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 84 of 149iv
The Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP), of which the Towns of Banff and Canmore are members, is also supportive of establishing a regional transit services commission within the Bow Vall ey Region. The Commission would he lp further the CRP’s goals of making public transit more accessible to the public and improving the mobility of the region’s residents. A letter of support from the CRP has been included in Appendix D.
The provincial approval of the Regional Transit Services Commission’s regulation, bylaw and initial business plan occured in the spring of 2011. The municipalities should plan their short-term and long-term operating and capital budgets to approximately coincide with this five- year business plan, realizing that there may be adjustments made in years two to five, based upon actual costs, schedules and potential changes to the plan, and the needs of the contributing members.
The BVRTSC formed a Board of Directors in April of 2011, hired a General Manager in September of 2011. The General Manager in the first year has established the Commission as a functional business entity and commenced various activities to assume the Banff local service, procure the buses needed for the regional Canmore service and has been working with Parks Canada on the strategizing the future Parks service.
As the BVRTSC’s transit services expand, new parties (e.g. ski resorts, Banff-Lake Louise Tourism Association, the Canmore accommodation association, the Canmore tourism association and companies and businesses that offer recreational activities at local attractions) that also benefit from enhanced transit services will be actively engaged as s t akehol ders and possible business partners in service expansion and infrastructure development.
Table of Contents (will be renumbered based on the amendments)
1. Vision and Mission Statement...... 1 2. Context ...... 3 a. Current Transportation Options within Bow Valley and BVRTSC’s Role ...... 3 b. Examples of Transit Services in National Parks/Resort Municipalities …...... 5 3. Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission Organization and Governance...... 7 a. Board of Directors of the Commission...... 7 b. Transit Manager...... 7 c. Other Transit Staff ...... 7 d. Public Input...... 7 4. Cost and Revenue Sharing Principles...... 8 5. Transit Service Contracts Managed by the Commission and Their Direct Operating Costs………………………………………………………………..………....11 a. Existing Transit Services ...... 11 b. Transit Services Managed by the Commission and Their Direct Operating Costs...... 11
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 85 of 149v
c. Contracting Services to Private Sector Bus Operators ...... 28 d. Cancellation / Addition of Services ...... 28 6. Marketing Principles, Plan, and Costs...... 29 7. Administrative Costs ...... 32 8. Capital Program and Costs...... 33 a. Existing Assets...... 33 b. New Vehicle and Non-Vehicle Assets...... 34 c. Capital Equipment Replacement Criteria ...... 35 d. Capital Funding Plan...... 35 e. Capital Assets in Event of Commission Dissolution ...... 36 9. Fare Schedule, Media, and Discounts...... 37 a. Fare Schedule and Media ...... 37 b. Discounts...... 38 10. Funding for Services Provided by the Commission ...... 39 a. Existing Funding and New Sustainable Funding Sources ...... 39 b. Legislative Change Requirements ...... 42 11. Estimated Total Costs of 2015...... 43 12. Implementation Actions…………………………...... 44 a. Action Requirements within 5 Years ...... 46 13. Benefits of Establishing the Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission ...... 45 14. Conclusion...... 52
Appendix A –Benefits to Beneficiaries...... 53 Appendix B – Cost Sharing Formulas ..…………………………………………………….……55
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 86 of 149vi
Table of Figures
Figure 1 – Quarry Lake, Canmore, Bow Valley Region ...... 1 Figure 2 – Bow Valley Region Service Area...... 3 Figure 3 – Acadia Island Explorer Bus...... 5 Figure 4 – Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus in Whistler ...... 6 Figure 5 – Banff ROAM bus ...... 12 Figure 6 – Map of Existing Banff ROAM Service ...... 14 Figure 7 – Park Bus Service in Yosemite National Park ...... 20 Figure 8 – Lake Louise Shuttle ...... 23 Figure 9 – Downtown Canmore...... 23 Figure 10 – Ski Resorts Bus Service ...... 24 Figure 11 – Map of Tier I Services ...... 26 Figure 12 – Map of Tier I and II Services ...... 27 Figure 13 – Parks Canada Staff at...... 29 Figure 14 – Banff ROAM Transit SmartCards...... 29 Figure 15 – Banff Transit Information Panel...... 33 Figure 16 – Example of a Transit Exchange...... 35 Figure 17 – Hotel Room in the Bow Valley ...... 39 Figure 18 – Cars Parked in Downtown Canmore ...... 40 Figure 19 – Restaurant in Canmore ...... 46 Figure 20 – Quarry Lake, Canmore ...... 46 Figure 21 – Lake Louise Hostel...... 47 Figure 22 – RVs in a Lake Louise Parking Lot ...... 48 Figure 23 – The Fox Hotel, Banff...... 50 Figure 24 – Elk in the Banff National Park ...... 51
Table of Tables
Table 1 – Existing Transit Service Contracts ...... 11 Table 2 – Five-Year Marketing Plan ...... 30 Table 3 – Existing Assets...... 33 Table 4 – Annual Contributions for Capital Reserve Fund ...... 36 Table 5 – Fare Schedule for Banff ROAM ...... 37 Table 6 – Fare Schedule for Regional ROAM (Canmore-Banff) ...... 37 Table 7 – Potential Parking Revenue in Banff and Canmore ...... 40
vii
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 87 of 149
1. Vision and Mission Statement
Figure 1 – Quarry Lake, Canmore, Bow Valley Region
Vision:
It shall be the vision of the Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission (BVRTSC) that the Bow Valley Region be a place where residents and visitors are provided with enhanced mobility to be able to enjoy all that the area has to offer. The town centres, regional attractions, ski resorts, recreational trails, camping and hiking areas, accommodations, restaurants, schools and natural beauty shall be accessible by public transit and residents shall be able to get to and from work without a car.
Mission:
It shall be the mission of the BVRTSC to:
1. Create new and enhanced transit services that are part of a regional transit system that would enhance the experience of existing riders and attract new riders and visitors to the Bow Valley Region; 2. Increase the share of local and regional trips completed on transit within the Bow Valley Region; 3. Enhance the transit customer’s experience in using transit and their knowledge of the Bow Valley Region; 4. Provide integration between local, regional and seasonal transit services; 1
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 88 of 149
5. Provide excellent customer service to transit passengers; 6. Improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector; 7. Reduce deaths and injuries on local and provincial roadways; and 8. Raise the local and international awareness of the sustainable transit mobility options within the Bow Valley Region.
To achieve this mission, the Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission would take the following actions and initiatives:
• Assume the administration, planning, marketing and contract management of the existing transit service currently provided by the Town of Banff, which is known as Banff Local service; • Administer, plan, and market an all-year regional transit service between Canmore and Banff and a set of seasonal-only transit services to recreational attractions in the Park (referred to as Regional Service and Park Service, respectively, throughout the rest of this business plan) that are coordinated with existing transportation services; • Request competitive and performance-based bids for transit services from a diverse and competitive group of private sector and qualified bus operati ng companies. It may take over some on-going contracts be tween its members and private operators and renew, cancel, or adjust them as needed; • Consider partnering with external parties to provide other transit services (e.g. ski resorts bus service, regular regional Banff-Lake Louise service); • Assume the control - by lease - of existing transit service vehicles and supporting transit infrastructure currently owned by the Town of Banff Purchase four new Regional Service buses using GreenTrip 1 grant funding • Lease any vehicles that may be purchased by Parks Canada for the Park services and build new transit-related infrastructure (e.g. bus stops) as necessary to support the maintenance and growth of BVRTSC transit services; • Ensure fleet maintenance (e.g. by contractors) and staff facilities are provided; • Market BVRTSC locally, nationally, and internationally as an integrated, high-quality service; • Prepare and carry out annual and five-year transit operating and capital financial plans and budgets with strategic directions; • Establish and collect transit service contributions/fees and passenger fares and pursue new, sustainable, diverse operating and capital funding sources to pay for the cost of providing transit services in the service area; • Establish routes, frequencies, service and performance standards; • Monitor the use of BVRTSC’s services, and customer satisfaction and needs; • Disburse funds for transit services; • Be the main conduit for provincial and federal transit and related infrastructure capital and and/or ope rational funding; and • Establish a regional SmartCard, a convenient method of transit fare payment for customers that builds on the Banff fare payment system.
2
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 89 of 149
2. Context
Transit services are intended to consolidate vehicle trips, provide an alternative to driving in a private automobile, and offer transportation options not cu rrently available for residents and visitors. As such, transit service has the potential to be a more efficient and sustainable means of transporting people, as well as a customer service by freeing people from the need to drive and the associated costs of driving.
The transit services provided by the BVRTSC would offer a new transportation experience for visitors and residents in the service area (see Figure 2). The transit services currently provided would continue and could be fur ther enhanced over the next five years.
Figure 2 – Bow Valley Region Service Area
This initiative is supported by the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP), of which the Towns of Banff and Canmore are members (see letter of support in Appendix D). The BVRTSC would promote the CRP’s goals of providing more accessible regional and local transit services and improving the mobility of its residents. It would also support the four pillars of the CRP, which are to have: enriched communities; prosperous economy; healthy environment; and sustainable infrastructure.
a. Current Transportation Options within Bow Valley and BVRTSC’s Role
Currently, transportation services are sponsored by a wide range of organizations for many different purpose s. However, the services are not coordinated and are not operating as effectively and efficiently as possible to serve local and regional needs. These transportation 3
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 90 of 149
services are listed below:
i. Daily local bus service in the Town of Banff; ii. Banff-Canmore regional service twice a week for seniors and low-income individuals who qualify for this free service; iii. Banff-Canmore regional service provided by Banff Airporter and Brewster, which are private bus companies; iv. Daily bus service during the ski season for resort employees and skiers; v. Local shuttles to transport hotel guests to the town centre of Banff, although some of these are being replaced by the local transit services in Banff; vi. Winter shuttle bus service between Lake Louise Ski Area, the Village of Lake Louise, and Chateau Lake Louise hotel, and summer shuttle bus service between Lake Louise Campground, the Village of Lake Louise, and the Lake Louise Gondola; vii. Greyhound Canada provincial and inter-provincial service serving Canmore, Banff, and Lake Louise as part of its Calgary–Vancouver service; and viii. School bus service.
As described in Chapter 1, the assumption of this business plan is that initially the BVRTSC would only manage and plan t h e Banff local and t h e C a n m o r e t o B a n f f Regional public transit services (i.e., roughly encompassing services i) to iii)). In the future, the BVRTSC may also manage the other existing services (i.e. services iv) to vi)). It is not envisioned, however, that the BVRTSC would replace the Greyhound service, which originates outside the service area, nor the school bus service. To ensure the success of the BVRTSC transit program (i.e., there is sufficient ridership to achieve the expected cost recovery rates), it is expected that once the BVRTSC establishes a transit service along a certain corridor, the Commission will regulatory control over transit services operating or wishing to operate on that corridor. For example, the BVRTSC may have exclusivity to specific stops or transit exchanges, and they may be the only service provider permitted to operate along a corridor. The Commission would also obtain any operational certifications that are required and make a fully accessible transit system.
The integration of school bus services with BVRTSC transit services may be a subject of future discussions and consideration, but should not be pursued until the BVRTSC is established and up and running for a couple of years. This may change if the consolidation of the school bus operations with other transit services could provide a win-win situation in which: the BVRTSC could harness an additional source of funding; the school systems could obtain school bus services more cheaply; and the school bus users do not overload public transit services during the peak periods.
The BVRTSC would add transit service as needed to meet the transit needs of the Region and its contributing parties (e.g. the municipalities, Parks Canada, and accommodation sector, and possibly the ski resorts in the future) and in accordance with its available resources. In the longer term, it would add/develop new transit infrastructure, such as buses, bus shelters and transit exchanges, as it becomes necessary to support and enhance existing and new transit services. These investments would be possible through a capital fund that is built up from fees paid by contributing parties and grants from provincial and federal public transit and infrastructure programs. 4
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 91 of 149
b. Examples of Transit Services in National Parks/Resort Municipalities
To help provide a context for this initiative, below are descriptions of the transit services that are provided in one other national park and one other resort municipality within North America. To effectively compete with these areas and ones like them in terms of transportation services, it is imperative that Bow Valley implement a convenient and affordable regional transit system.
Acadia National Park
Acadia National Park is located in the State of Maine and receives approximately the same number of visitors per year as Banff National Park. It is served by the Island Explorer transit system, which consists of eight routes served by approximately 25 propane-fueled buses. The transit services in Acadia began as services for elderly and low-income passengers, but expansions w ere pursued in response to small businesses looking for a means to attract more customers in the small towns scattered around the Park lands and add ress the parking problems Figure 3 – Acadia Island Explorer Bus in Bar Harbor, the main gateway community with 3,300 residents.
Ridership on the transit services has been greater than expected and has grown steadily despite rises and falls in Park visitation numbers. The Island Explorer services are free, and 80% of surveyed riders said that they were at least partially encouraged to take transit because of the digital next-bus arrival time displays at bus stops. Service is provided from late June to Columbus Day (the second Monday in October). 99% of surveyed riders said transit service should continue, implying satisfaction with the service.
Visitors to the park pay $20 for a week-long visit, and p art of this revenue stream goes to supporting the Island Explorer service. The Island Explorer also receives funding from the Federal Transit Administration and businesses that receive front door service. Local municipalities also contribute to the services, with Bar Harbor paying about half of the municipal contributions. L.L. Bean, a local clothing company, is also a large supporter of the service, voluntarily contributing about $200,000 per year.
5
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 92 of 149
Whistler
Whistler has a high transit m o d e share for work trips (14% to 30%, depending on the season), and high numbers of visitors also take transit. In total, the Whistler and Valley Express (WAVE) transit system carries about 2.8 million passengers per year. The system started in 1991 as a five-bus operation, growing to a 21-bus operation today. The fleet is expected to be 100% accessible with the next set of bus purchases. The cost to operate WAVE is about $6.1 million per year, and WAVE Figure 4– Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus in Whistler performs very well, having a very high cost-recovery rate (35.6% in 2006) for a system of its size. This is despite providing a free Village Shuttle and nine routes that operate 22 hours per day and 365 days per year. The high use of transit even created a need for more storage/locker facilities so that customers would not be carrying as much gear onto the buses and taking up limited room.
Transit services are considered part of the “Whistler Experience.” Satisfaction is relatively high, at 88% in the winter and 79% in the summer (when service levels are lower). There is little variation in ridership on weekdays and weekends. 28% of rides board after 6pm, compared to 9% in similar sized systems in BC, suggesting that resort municipality services cannot be designed the same way as conventional services.
Like competitors such as Vail and Aspen, Whistler has also b een active in enhancing regional transit. Routes to Pemberton and Squamish have been established and are doing fairly well. Although the transit mode share for regional travel in the Pemberton-Squamish corridor was only 5% during the winter of 2007, ridership has increased significantly on the Whistler- Squamish service after it was extended bto eing a year-round service. From 2007 to 2008, transit ridership during the winter months jumped an astonishing 45%. BC Transit, the provider of the transit system, is also considering including additional trips on these regional routes (currently, there are only up to four round trips to Squamish and about nine trips to Pemberton), which would help attract a larger share of commuters. A major question facing Whistler now is whether all transit services should be free.
WAVE is part of the BC Transit Municipal Systems Program, and is delivered by the private operating company Whistler Transit Ltd. Typically, BC Transit funds 46.69% of the cost of conventional transit services of the Municipal Systems Program and the rest is covered by the municipality. However, since 2003, the Resort Municipality of Whistler has used the “flexible funding” option provided by the Province to finance all of its service expansions. For the regional services, the costs not covered by BC Transit or fares are divided evenly between Whistler and Pemberton/Squamish. 6
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 93 of 149
3. Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission: Organization and Governance
a. Board of Directors of the Commission
It will be the responsibility of the Board of Directors of the Commission to approve strategic transit plans, annual and five-year financial plans, regional transit policies, performance stand ards, transit user satisfaction measures, fare schedules, service contracts, and service marketing plans. It should also ensure that the policies and prog rams of the Commission are monitored on a regular basis, that there is sufficient staff to manage the transit services, and that the transit services are coordinated with other services in the Region.
The Board will function as per the Bylaws that govern the Commission. Operating Bylaw 3- 2011 defines the Commission’s ability to operate, manage and administer services to its customers, including approving amendments to the Business Plan and annual budgets.
Other Bylaws and policies will be developed to further define and enhance the business practice of the BVRTSC.
b. General Manager
As the administrative head of the Commission, the General Manager ensures the effective and efficient business operation and management of the BVRTSC and its transit services. This position commenced in September of 2011. The responsibilities of the General Manager are defined in the Operating Bylaw 3-2011.
c. Other Transit Staff
Additional transit staff may be needed to support the General Manager in the effective execution of Commission business. Through General Manager recommendations and Board approval, staff will be hired as needed, especially as the transit system expands and operations become more complicated.
d. Public Input
The Commission will seek and encourage public consultation in the formation of new transit services, enhancement of existing transit services, and creation of strategic and financial plans. Regular and annual meetings will be open to the public except during discussions about real property, personnel issues, internal issues of the Board, or whenn receivi g advice from a solicitor involving litigation issues, subject to the provision of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act of Alberta.
7
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 94 of 149
4. Cost and Revenue Sharing Principles
The guiding principles that would be used to estimate the BVRTSC’s various operating and capital costs and to determine its cost and revenue alloca tions are as follows. These principles would be reviewed every three years.
Cost Estimation Principles
• Direct Operating Costs: Annual direct operating costs for each service would be calculated based on the cost per revenue vehicle hour1, with the cost of the driver, maintenance, deadhead and other non-productive time built into this charge. If the buses are provided by a contracted private operator, then the capitalization cost of the buses would be included in the hourly charge. • Marketing Costs: Annual marketing costs of the BVRTSC during the first 5 years would be approximately 4-5% of the annual direct operating costs and would not be less than $60,000. • Administrative Costs: Annual administrative costs would be p r e s e n t e d b y t h e BVRTSC administration to the Board for approval . Estimates will be based on business need and transit best practices. • Capital Reserve Fund: The annual amount to be placed into the capital reserve fund would depend on present and future capital requirements (i.e., for infrastructure expansion and/or replacement). Such requirements would include a transit exchange in Banff, and possibly a new indoor bus storage garage(s) for the buses BVRTSC uses if private contractors are unable to provide them (assuming bus maintenance can occur at the current Banff Transit facility and/or at private contractors’ facilities). All of the bus hardware (e.g. fare collection equipment) the Commission would purchase would also be paid for through the capital reserve. • While it is assumed that no or limited provincial or federal operating grants would be available initially, efforts would be made to apply for capital grants such as the Green TRIP program to help pay for a portion of the Banff transit exchange and possibly a new indoor bus storage garages(s). In this five-year business plan, it is assumed that the capital reserve would likely be used to cover 50% of these costs, while capital grants would cover the remaining 50%. In addition, the Commission would lobby governments for operating grants.
Cost Sharing Principles
• Direct Operating Costs: • For the Regional service to Canmore, the distribution of the operating costs would be split evenly between the Towns of Banff and Canmore. This assumes that the level of ridership and level of .,service (i.e the benefits received) would be approximately the same in the two towns. • As it would be difficult for Parks Canada to obtain approval from Parliament to pay for any overhead costs (e.g. marketing and administrative costs), Parks Canada would only be able to
1 1Revenue vehicle hour is a measure of the scheduled hours of service that are available to passengers for transport. One revenue vehicle hour is equivalent to one transit vehicle traveling in one hour in revenue service. In calculating the revenue vehicle hours of a route, deadhead hours are excluded while recovery/layover time is included. However, to calculate the total direct operating cost of a route, the cost associated with the deadhead hours are included in the direct operating cost per revenue service hour. 8
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 95 of 149
pay for the direct operating cost of the Park service. However, it is assumed that they would cover 100% of the net direct operating cost (i.e., total direct operating cost minus fare and other revenue) of this service. Furthermore, to compensate the other contributing members, Parks Canada may purcha se fully accessible buses (unless the contracted private bus operators have reliable, appropriate accessible buses) for the Park service. These buses would be available to be leased by the Commission for a nominal fee (e.g. $1) so that they can be used for other services during the non-summer pea k season. If the purchase of buses is not necessary, then another method of compensation would be agrran ed. It is worthy to note that this type of arrangement would allow Parks Canada to be a long-term funding pnart er of the BVRTSC. Marketing and Administrative Costs: • All contributing parties (except for Parks Canada) will pay for the overhead costs, including the overhead costs associated with the Park service (Parks Canada will pay for Direct Costs of their service). • If a contributing party is contributing less than $50,000 to the direct operating costs of a given year (i.e., it is receiving less direct service), it will make a base level contribution of $10,000 to each of the marketing and administrative budgets. It will not have to make additional contributions to these two budgets. • If a contributing party is contributing more than $50,000 to the direct operating costs of a given year (i.e., it is receiving more direct service), it will make an advanced level of contribution, which will be a percentage of the remaining marketing and administrative budgets. This percentage will be based on the level of service (i.e., percent share of total revenue vehicle hours) it directly receives from the transit services the BVRTSC provides (not applicable to the Park ROAM services). • Capital Res erve Fund: • If a contributing party is contributing less than $50,000 to the direct operating costs of a given year, it will make a base level contribution of $40,000 to the capital reserve. It will not have to make additional contributions to the capital reserve. • If a contributing p arty is contributing $50,000 or more to the direct operating budget in a given year, they would contribute $10,000 plus a percentage of the remaining capital reserve based on the p ercent share of revenue vehicle hours received. • Later in the five-year period, the BVRTSC could conduct annual passenger surveys or use on-board bus equipment to measure ridership, trip origins and destinations, kilometres traveled, and hours of service to determine if the fees paid by the contributing parties need to be redistributed.
Revenue Sharing Principles
• Any annual fare or advertising revenue in excess of the budgeted amount for a specific transit service would be used first to cover any outstanding marketing or administrative costs. To minimize the administrative burden on the Commission from having to return small amount of funds to the contributing parties, if the surplus for a service is less than 5% of the total annual revenue for all the services of a given year, it would be retained by the Commission to cover future cost overruns. For example, if the total annual revenue for a given year is $1 million, the remaining surplus for any provided transit service would be retained by the Commission if it is less than $50,000. If, however, the surplus for a particular service is over 5% of the total annual revenue, it would be paid to the contributing parties of that service on the
9
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 96 of 149
basis of the cost-sharing formula used to fund the direct operating cost of that service th at year. • To encourage more residents and visitors to use transit for their daily trips, free transfers between some of the services would be available. Those who purchase or obtain a regional bus ticket/all-day (single or family) pass/SmartCard would be able to use the local Banff service for free as a cost included in the initial fare. A similar transfer system could be investigated if the local Canmore and Lake Louise services, regional Lake Louise-Banff service, and ski resorts bus service are assumed by the BVRTSC • Fare revenues would be allocated as per the cost sharing agreements of that service.
The Board will levy fees annually to its customers to cover the identified costs.
In the event of budget shortfalls for a service, voting members will pay in accordance with their share of the net direct operating costs as agreed upon in that year’s financial plan. For any surpluses greater than 5% of the year’s total direct operating cost for a service, the amounts will be distributed to members in accordance with their share of the net direct operating costs. More details are provided in Appendix F.
If expenditures other than a fare shortfall or service cost overrun are required, emergency funds may be needed. Each municipality will be liable for a share that matches their share of the current year’s direct operating costs.
10
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 97 of 149
5. Transit Service Contracts Managed by the Commission and Their Direct Operating Costs
a. Existing Transit Services
The existing transit services that are currently provided within Canmore, Banff, and Improvement District #9 (Lake Louise specifically) and are contracted out to private operators include those shown in Table 1.
Table 1 – Existing Transit Service Contracts (cost estimates based on 2010 figures) Service Provider Description Estimated Annual Direct Current Operating Cost in 2008 (in Contractor 2008 dollars)
Towns of Banff and Twice a Week During School Year: $6,000 ($4,000 from Town of Same as school Canmore Canmore-Banff Low Income/Senior Banff, $2,000 from Town of bus operator Service Canmore) Lake Louise Ski Area Winter: Chateau-Village-Lake $314,000 Individual and Lake Louise Louise Ski Area drivers and Accommodation Summer: Lake Louise Traxx Sector Campground- Village-Lake Louise Gondola Lake Louise Ski Area Banff – Lake Louise Ski Area A total of $2 million, plus Traxx Sunshine Village Banff – Sunshine Village administrative costs, was spent Brewster Sunshine Village Lake Louise – Sunshine Village last year to operate the ski bus Brewster Mount Norquay Banff-Mount Norquay services to the three Pinnacle Mount Norquay Lake Louise-Mount Norquay mountains. Pinnacle
b. Transit Services Managed by the Commission and Their Direct Operating Costs
The intention is to start the services managed by the Commission at a reasonable and affordable level. The services would be built up slowly as the BVRTSC matures, gains more experience in managing a regional transit system, and is able to access additional funding in the for m of federal and provincial grants and/or contributions from new local parties. Therefo re, the service contracts that may be managed by the Commission within the next five to six years are organized into two categories:
i) Tier I Services (those services of higher priority and with available funding sources) – Banff Local Service, Regional (Canmore-Banff) Service, Park Service (may include Parks service options identified in Teir II – based on Parks priority setting)
ii)Tier II Services (those services that may be provided if additional funding sources are identified in the future) – Local Canmore and Lake Louise Services, extension of Regional service to Lake Louise, Ski hill winter services
11
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 98 of 149
Tier I Services
The cost-sharing schemes shown below for the Tier I services only apply to the direct operating costs. They strive to achieve a delicate balance and ensure all beneficiaries of these services, including users, are contributing fairly to these services. However, to attract even more riders, transit fares may need to be reduced. To do so would require larger contributions by the other beneficiaries or new beneficiaries. The other alternative is to increase fares, in order to reduce costs to other beneficiaries. However, this may reduce ridership levels and the overall benefits of regional transit, and would therefore require careful consideration.
It is important to note that the percentages and absolute costs outlined below are only meant as a best guide for the first five years of the Commission, using the best available information today. These numbers may fluctuate as the Commission evolves and, matures the condition of the market changes, the actual cost and performance of the services, the availability of grant funding for the purchase of buses and other capital assets, and a range of other factors that cannot necessarily be predicted.
Furthermore, it should be noted that this report has taken a conservative approach in estimating the potential ridership of the various services, as well as in determining the average fare per passenger and cost recovery rates. In addition, although there may be other contributing parties joining within the first five years of the BVRTSC, these potential funding sources have been left out of this business plan, as they have not yet been confirmed.
The direct operating costs presented below show the estimated value of the service contracts that would be managed by the BVRTSC (and therefore include maintenance, and in some cases annualized capital costs). The rationales for the cost-sharing schemes, as well as the specific benefits to the contributing parties, are further described in Appendix B. The exact methodology used to calculate the distribution of the direct operating costs, as well as the marketing and administrative costs, and the costs to build the capital reserve, can be found in the Commission’s Bylaw 1, Schedule A.
Enhancement of Current Banff Local Service
The Banff Local service is essential to the Commission’s success, given the benefits that would be generated in terms of service integration, bulk capital purchases, and the ability to attract more funding from senior levels of government. Therefore, the intent is to transfer the existing contract with Brewster to the Commission.
The current Banf f Local service has two routes that operate every 40 minutes Figure 5 – Banff ROAM bus between 6:00 am and 11:30 pm daily, 12
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 99 of 149
except during the peak summer season when an additional bus is added on the weekends to Route #1, resulting in headways of 20 minutes on that route . This operating schedule would continue until Year 4.
The cost to lease the hybrid buses from Banff, which would be about $79,000. This cost will be review by the Commission and the Town of Banff annually. The accommodation sector in Banff will also continue to contribute to the operating cost of the Banff ROAM service through the Hotel partners pass annual contracts.
13
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 100 of 149
-Route 1 Sulphur Mountain
-Route 1 Peak (From June 1 - Sept. 30)
-Route 2 Tunnel Mountain
•Transit Stop @ Transit Stop with Next Bus display
* Banff Town Hall
I Change voucher reimbursment location
I Banff lodging Co.
H Hospital
Figure 6 - Map of Existing Banff ROAM service
14
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 101 of 149
Regional (Canmore-Banff) Service (all year round)
This new regional service between Banff and Canmore would be introduced in Year 2 Fall and would add to the current transit services that connect the two communities. The current services include the Canmore-Banff Community Bus service, Banff Airporter service, and Brewster services. The Canmore-Banff Community Bus service is currently free to seniors and low- income individuals. The Banff Airporter service currently provides trips between Canmore and Banff approximately ten times a day in each direction for $15. Efforts would be made to try to rationalize the provision of transit services along this corridor to ensure the viability of the Commission’s public transit services. The public transit system would likely have a higher level of service and likely lower fares than the private services to help attract ridership.
BVRTSC conducted research in the spring of 2012 to determine a feasible route, service times and fare tolerance for this service. As this service is launched, further ridership monitoring will be conducted to ensure the most appropriate service level is provided for this service within the annual budget allocation.
Following service times and bus stops reflect the information gathered through the research.
(Left column represents ridership)
40
This graph shows where the research respondents have identified their desired times of travel on the bus.
30 Using the information above, a schedule was designed as follows:
20 Banff to Canmore Canmore to Banff
10
- 9:00 am up to noon to up am 9:00 noon to up am 9:00 noon to up am 9:00 noon to up am 9:00 noon to up am 9:00 noon to up am 9:00 noon to up am 9:00 Noon up to 3:00 pm to 3:00 up Noon pm to 3:00 up Noon pm to 3:00 up Noon pm to 3:00 up Noon pm to 3:00 up Noon pm to 3:00 up Noon pm to 3:00 up Noon 6:00 am up to 9:00 am 9:00 to up am 6:00 am 6:00 to up am 3:00 am 9:00 to up am 6:00 am 6:00 to up am 3:00 am 9:00 to up am 6:00 am 6:00 to up am 3:00 am 9:00 to up am 6:00 am 6:00 to up am 3:00 am 9:00 to up am 6:00 am 6:00 to up am 3:00 am 9:00 to up am 6:00 am 6:00 to up am 3:00 am 9:00 to up am 6:00 am 6:00 to up am 3:00 3:00 pm up to 6:00 pm 6:00 to up pm 3:00 pm 9:00 to up pm 6:00 pm 6:00 to up pm 3:00 pm 9:00 to up pm 6:00 pm 6:00 to up pm 3:00 pm 9:00 to up pm 6:00 pm 6:00 to up pm 3:00 pm 9:00 to up pm 6:00 pm 6:00 to up pm 3:00 pm 9:00 to up pm 6:00 pm 6:00 to up pm 3:00 pm 9:00 to up pm 6:00 pm 6:00 to up pm 3:00 pm 9:00 to up pm 6:00 9:00 pm up to midnight to up pm 9:00 midnight to up pm 9:00 midnight to up pm 9:00 midnight to up pm 9:00 midnight to up pm 9:00 midnight to up pm 9:00 midnight to up pm 9:00 Midnight up to 3:00 am 3:00 up to Midnight am 3:00 up to Midnight am 3:00 up to Midnight am 3:00 up to Midnight am 3:00 up to Midnight am 3:00 up to Midnight am 3:00 up to Midnight Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 15
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 102 of 149
Depart Banff : Stop B Arrive in Canmore L eave Canmore Arrive in Banff Service Stop 1 Stop 8 Stop A hours 6:00am 6:20am 6:30am 6:50am 7:00am 7:20am 7:30am 7:50am 1 8:00am 8:20am 8:30am 8:50am 2 9:00am 9:20am 9:30am 9:50am 3 10:00am 10:20am 10:30am 10:50am 4 11:00am 11:20am 11:30pm 11:50pm 5 12:00pm drop off only 6 Shift two 3:00pm 3:20pm 3:30 3:50pm 4:00pm 4:20 4:30 4:50 1 5:00pm 5:20pm 5:30pm 5:50pm 2 6:00pm 6:20pm 6:30 6:50 3 7:00pm 7:20pm 7:30pm 7:50pm 4 8:00pm 8:20pm 8:30 8:50PM 5 9:00pm 9:20pm 9:30 9:50 6 10:00pm // 10:10pm 10:30 10:40 11:00 7 11:05 drop off 8
Monday to Wed 13 hours = 39/ week x 52 = 2028 (Mon to Wed service ends at 10:10pm in Banff) Thurs and Friday 14 revenue hours/ day = 28/week x 52 = 1456 weekday total : 3484 (Thurs and Fri service ends at 11:05pm in Banff)
Saturday,
Depart Banff : Arrive in Canmore Leave Canmore Arrive in Banff Service hours Stop B Stop 1 Stop 8 Stop A 12:00pm 12:20 12:30pm 12:50pm 1:00 1:20 1:30 1:50 1 2:00 2:20 2:30 2:50 2 3:00 3:20 3:30 3:50 3 4:00 4:20 4:30 4:50 4 5:00 5:20 5:30 5:50 5 6:00 6:20 6:30 6:50 6 7:00 7:20 7:30 7:50 7 8:00 8:20 8:30 8:50 8 9:00 9:20 9:30 9:50 9 10:00 10 Saturday shift = 10 hours x 52 = 520
Sunday and Statutory Holidays
16
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 103 of 149
Depart Banff : Arrive in Canmore Leave Canmore Arrive in Banff Service hours Stop B Stop 1 Stop 8 Stop A 12:30 12:50 1:00 1:20 1:30 1:50 2:00 2:20 1 2:30 2:50 3:00 3:20 2 3:30 3:50 4:00 4:20 3 4:30 4:50 5:00 5:20 4 5:30 5:50 6:00 6:20 5 6:30 6:50 7:00 7:20 6 7:30 7:50 8:00 8:20 7 8:30 Drop off 8 Sunday = 8 hours x 52 = 416
Annual total revenue hours = 3484 + 520 + 416 = 4420 = 12.1 hours per day average over 365 days
17
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 104 of 149
Regional Service Canmore stops
18
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 105 of 149
Regional Service Banff Stops
19
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 106 of 149
Park Services (summer peak season only) Note: References to Parks service in this document is based on proposed options only. Parks Canada will need to confirm the level of any service suggested in this document based on their decision to proceed with any of the services.
The Park service would addre ss a major deficiency in the Bow Valley Region tourism experience and attract more over seas visitors (e.g. those from Europe) who are accustomed to not having a personal vehicle and more likely to stay longer if they could access Park activities without a car. It is also anticipated that the parking facilities currently available at Moraine Lake and Lake Louise would be closed for specific hours or reduced in size once the new Park Management Study developed by Parks Canada is implemented.
The service would initially consist of three routes during the first five years of the BVRTSC and would serve popular hiking and camping sites. One route would focus on the sites around Upper Lake Louise including Moraine Lake, another would serve the camping/hiking sites near Highway 1A and connect Banff with Lake Louise, and the third route would start from Banff and make a loop just northeast Figure Park 7 – Bus Service in of Banff out to Lake Minnewanka (see Yosemite National Park Figure 12).
The BVRTSC has been retained by Parks Canada in 2012 to produce a Transit Service report. Parks Canada will review the information in the report and decide on the implementation sequence of the future Parks service based on the information provided. BVRTSC will work closely with Parks Canada to ensure Parks has the best information possible to make their decision on the implementation sequence.
The expected annual direct operating cost for the Parks service will be dependent on the routes Parks decides to implement and at what sequence. Capital costs will vary based on the type of buses to be purchased. As an alternative to charging transit fares, Parks Canada may consider offering this as a complimentary service. The Banff National Park gate fees could be increased by a nominal amount ($1.00-$2.00), and the extra revenue collected could be used to fund this Park service. This would spread the cost of the service more evenly amongst all the park visitors, and increase the affordability of the service (especially for families), thereby enhancing the attractiveness of the service and ensuring a high ridership. It would also be a unique service to market nationally and internationally. However, any increases to park entrance fees would require federal approval.
20
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 107 of 149
One of the primary objectives of the Parks service start up is to reduce vehicular traffic to the desired destinations at Lake Louise and Moraine Lake. In order to accomplish this, there will need to be complementing strategies that include bus purchases of varying sizes, appropriate service frequency and a commitment for effective parking management which includes overflow parking lots. The following tables provide options of buses and other infrastructure costs as well as route options (with related diret operating costs) which may be considered by Parks Canada. Parks Canada will need to decide on the type of buses, services and implementation timelines to best suit their needs. BVRTSC will work closely with Parks Canada through this process. (figures in the tables are estimates only).
Bus options
Quantity Item Application Each Unit Cost
4 40 ft municipal 65 passenger Highway 1 and 430,000 style low floor carrying 1A bus Biodiesel capacity
8 20 ft low floor 35 passenger Upper Lake 170,000 cutaway Louise, Moraine Biodiesel Lake, Lake Minnewanka
This combination of buses will allow for the need to swap out a higher capacity 40 ft bus with a smaller cutaway if the ridership permit for a small capacity bus to operate. The larger bus then can be used during peak demand times at Upper Lake Louise or Moraine Lake service. This is also the least expensive combination of buses to be considered for the types of service proposed.
Other One time Capital costs:
bus stops and signs 1200
Electronic Fareboxes 10,000 for each bus
Bus wraps 78000
Fare media 20000
Nextbus LED signs 30000 5000 each x 6
Nextbus software 20000 One time set up costs for Parks Canada buses and routes
Miscellaneous Capital 10000 21
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 108 of 149
5) Estimated Direct Operating Costs For Each Type of Serivce (all costs in 2012 prices)
Route No. of Days No of drivers Service Hours Cost
Trans Canada 1 130 2 1430 172,000 (TC1) Seasonal Highway 1A (1A) Seasonal 130 2 130 187,000
Lake Louise 90 2 630 76,000 Village to Upper Lake Louise (LL1) Non Peak Service
Lake Louise 40 3 480 86,400 Village to Upper Lake Louise (LL1) Peak Service
Lake Louise 90 2 630 76,000 Village to Moraine Lake (LL2) Non Peak Service
Lake Louise 40 4 480 115,000 Village to Moraine Lake (LL2) Peak Service
Lake Minnewanka 112 2 1120 134,000 (L Minn)
Sub total 846,400
Peace Officers 3 – part time 48000
Route maps, design 10000 and print
NextBus 4000
Misc Operations 5000
Sub total 67,000
total 913,400 22
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 109 of 149
Tier II Services
In this next section, the estimated value of the service contracts for the Tier II services is provided. These are services that are currently outside of the five-year plan, and would require additional sources of funding to be available. Therefore, no details are provided Figure 8 – Lake Louise Shuttle with regards to the cost-sharing schemes.
Lake Louise Local Services
The Lake Louise local service is currently provided to users free of charge. It operates between Lake Louise Ski Area (LLSA), Lake Louise Village, and Chat eau Lake Louise during the winter, and between Lake Louise Campground, Lake Louise Village, and the Lake Louise Gondola during the summer (see Figure 8). This service could be kept as a complimentary service, and the existing frequency (about 10-17 round trips per day, depending on the time of year), hours of service (approximately 8:00 am to 5:00 pm), and days of service (beginning of November to end of September) could be retained under the BVRTSC.
The estimated annual operating cost of the service as it is currently scheduled would be 371,000 (in 2010 dollars). This is more than the current operating cost, as it would include the capitalization cost of the shuttle that LLSA currently owns and uses for this service. If any further enhancements are made to the service (e.g. the addition of a new route), the annual operating cost would also increase.
Canmore Local Services
A local Canmore transit service would help achieve the following goals: help reduce traffic congestion; draw more Figure 9 – Downtown Canmore visitors to Canmore’s local attractions; and increase activity for Canmore businesses such as restaurants, retail shops, and temporary accommodations. This service would also provide more transportation options for those traveling locally to and from their jobs and homes or regionally to Banff and Lake Louise. 23
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 110 of 149
The type of service and its routing along with associated costs will be proposed by working closely with the Town of Canmore to identify their public transit needs.
Banff-Lake Louise Regional Service (all year round)
Similar to the Canmore-Banff Regional ROAM service, the trips for this service could be scheduled to accommodate people traveling to and from jobs, as well as those making trips for recreation, shopping, or visiting. Also, if the schedule (and fares) of these services could be coordinated with existing bus services in the Highway 1 corridor, then convenience to customers would be greatly enhanced. Once again, further market analysis could be conducted to determine the most effective operating schedule.
Based on the expected initial demand, 30-ft or 40ft buses could be used for some or all of the trips. The expected annual operating cost would be approximately $400,000 to $600,000 (in 2010 dollars), assuming there are 8 to 10 round trips made each day.
Ski Resorts Bus Services
If the BVRTSC takes over the management of the ski resorts bus services, the services would provide connections between the three municipalities and the three ski areas – Lake Louise Ski Area, Mount Norquay and Sunshine. Depending on if transit exchanges are built in Canmore and Lake Louise and their locations, most clients could be picked up by the ski resorts buses at the exchanges instead of at the hotels to realize transit service operating efficiencies. There could be select Figure 10 – Ski Resorts Bus Service trips at peak periods that would pick up customers at local hotels. However, clients would be able to get onto a local bus to get to the exchanges for free. If exchanges at Canmore and Lake Louise are built, they would be located so customer pick-ups and transfers at the exchanges are easily facilitated both from a customer and operations perspective.
If the service frequencies and operating hours that the three ski areas are currently providing are retained by the BVRTSC, the annual operating cost would be approximately $2,123,000 (in 2010 dollars). If additional service enhancements are made, the operating cost would increase accordingly. 24
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 111 of 149
Figure 11 shows a map of the Tier I services, while Figure 12 illustrates the complete network of Tier I and II transit services being proposed for the Bow Valley Region.
There may be demand in future years for services other than these Tier II services. If new services are desired to or from points outside of the agreed upon service area (e.g. connecting Banff to Kananaskis), then the regulation will have to be revisited to incorporate additional municipal members and expand cthe servi e area. The Board will have to vote on whether they wish to open up membership to an additional member, who would be expected to provide funds to the Commission and provide two additional directors.
25
Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 112 of 149 Business Plan 12/15/2010
I 93
... l A \
lA. m" u.J/l! l.D!L , LDI4>e nat Banff Figure 11 - Map of Tier I Services 26 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 113 of 149 Business Plan 12/15/2010 Figure 12 - Map of Tier I and II Services 27 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 114 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 c. Contracting Services to Private Sector Bus Operators It is recognized that there are experienced private sector bus service providers currently operating in the Bow Valley and in other parts of Alberta and BC. Thus it is recommended that the contracts for the services managed by the Commission be competitively bid Private qualified contractors may be hired to operate and dispatch the transit services as required. BVRTSC should always review and weigh the financial and operational benefits of contracting out services so as to take the best course of action for the contributing partners of the Commission. BVRTSC will only lease vehicles that are wheel chair accessible and meet the requirements of the BVRTSC. To ensure that no single company gains a monopoly on the service and controls transit service costs, it is recommended that no company be allowed to operate more than half of the service contracts, by dollar value. d. Cancellation / Addition of Services A major cancellation or addition of services involving change in cost of a service will be decided as per Operations Bylaw 3-2011. 28 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 115 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 6. Marketing Principles, Plan, and Costs It is recognized from the experience of other new regional transit authorities that marketing would be one key to the success of the existing and new transit services proposed for the Bow Valley. The following is a list of principles that have been developed for shaping the marketing plan and development of cost estimates for the marketing efforts. • Marketing of transit services would benefit from close collaboration with those groups that market the Bow Valley Region as a tourist destination to domestic and international markets. Any marketing on the Bow Valley transit services should benefit the Region’s attractiveness as a whole, and the commission should push for transit services to be mentioned in any marketing of the Bow Valley. Information about the transit services should be available at the visitor information centres. • Some capital costs, such as those Figure 13 – Parks Canada Staff at related to fare collection and signage, Banff National Park Gate Entrance can be leveraged for marketing purposes. • There are many opportunities for the BVRTSC to participate in win-win collaborations with participants in the tourist industry, such as Parks Canada, travel guide publishers, travel agents, Banff Airporter, and the Bow Valley accommodation sectors. • A key marketing strategy should be to place SmartCards in the hands of as many people as possible. Once an individual has a SmartCard, various barriers to using transit, such as finding exact change and figuring out the fare amount, are eliminated. • Information and marketing should reach people before they have started their trips (e.g. via BVRTSC and municipal web sites, and marketing Figure 14 – Banff ROAM Transit SmartCards materials linked to tour operators) so that they can incorporate riding transit into their travel plans, and maybe even leave their cars at home or skip renting a car altogether. • The transit services can be marketed as a new way to experience the Bow Valley Region, and 29 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 116 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 in doing so, bring some people back to the Region. It can be marketed as an adventurous, do-it- yourself, and responsible way of visiting the local attractions in order to appeal to certain types of travelers. Some visitors may also view the new transit s ervices as a means of gaining knowledge about the Region that one would not be able to obtain while riding in an automobile. • The transit services should be marketed in such a way as to take advantage of people’s growing interest in green travel options. Furthermore, it may make the Bow Valley stand out as a desirable destination for incentive t ravel, which is a large market. • The transit services should be marketed as a hip, easy to use, affordable and interesting service to attract as many users as possible. Consistent transit branding should be use throughout the region with distinct names or colours for each service. • With its ability to reduce car traffic, transit services can also be marketed to appeal to the type of visitor who comes to the Bow Valley Region in search of peace and quiet. Table 5 and 6 show the total annual marketing cost estimates (which are estimated to be approximately 4-5% of the annual direct operating costs) for the Tier I services. Table 6 also shows how these costs would be distributed amongst Banff and Canmore according to the level of transit service each municipality directly receives each year. See Chapter 4 for the cost-sharing principles that have been applied and Schedule A of Bylaw 1 for the exact calculation methodology that has been used. It should be noted that these costs are contingent on the transit services being implemented as proposed in this business plan. If any of the Tier II services are implemented or if additional funders become available, the marketing costs may also increase and/or the distribution of the marketing costs may change. Table 2 – Five-Year Marketing Plan (in 2010 dollars) Year Marketing Efforts Year 1 Up to $60,000 per year on continued marketing efforts building on the successful branding of and 2 Banff’s local System, using the following: -Signage (e.g., posters) -BVRSTC website -Maps -Real-time arrival signs -Wrapped buses -Press releases -Special events -Branding consultant Year 2 UIncreasedp to $80 ,000 on the following: and 3 -IncreasedPress Re l eases -Special Events -International tourism market advertising US, Canada, Japan, China, France, and Germany 30 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 117 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 Year Marketing Efforts -Providing updated information to hotels -Distributing information at the gates of Banff National Park -Distributing information at the Calgary Airport -Providing material on municipal websites -Conduct a survey of riders Increased point of sale Year 3 Up to $90,000 on the following: and 4 -Same as Year 1 -SmartCard reloading machines at key points in the Bow Valley -Joint Marketing with other tourism points Year 4 Up to $105,000 on the following: -Same as Year 3 -Providing content to travel, cycling, and ski magazines -Providing content to “green” publications Year 5 U-Cponduct to $10 a5 ,000surv eyon ofth er ifdoellrso wing: -Same as Year 4 31 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 118 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 7. Administrative Costs The annual administrative costs of the BVRTSC were initially assumed to be 10% of the annual direct operating costs. This 10% guideline did not accurately recognize or factor in the various internal business costs associated with running an effective transit service. BVRTSC administration will propose annual budgets based on costs necessary to provide the services required. Annual budgets will be developed with the understanding of sound transit service design which includes public safety and improvement in service necessary to provide the type of service required. Further, the budgets will be based on previous year’s actuals and analysis of potential growth, decline and / or stabilization. BVRTSC administrative costs are based on low overhead with the ability to leverage external resources through partnerships with municipalities, cost for service and simply being resourceful in business applications. With that said, budgets will be presented by Administration that reflects the reasonable needs of business operations for the approval of the Board. Annual budgets will be approved at the Annual General Meetings held as per the Operations Bylaw 3-2011. These estimates only cover the Tier I services. Again, these costs are contingent on the Tier I services being implemented as proposed in this business plan. If additional services are provided or additional funders become available, the cost distribution may be altered. 32 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 119 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 8. Capital Program and Costs As a new public transit system, it is unlikely that the BVRTSC would have the financial resources to buy all of its equipment and carry out all of its planned capital construction and purchases immediately. Therefore, a capital program for the BVRTSC has been developed to take advantage of some of the existing assets, collect and build a capital reserve, and purchase minor and major capital assets when major funding becomes available. This capital program assumes no debt for the Tier I scenario. Figure 15 – Banff Transit Information Panel a. Existing Assets The existing assets being used by Banff are shown in Table 8. The buses owned by Banff would be leased by the BVRTSC, at least during the first five years of the BVRTSC, extracting from these lease costs contributions made to these assets by federal and/or provincial grants. The Town of Banff would also be reimbursed for the maintenance of the Banff ROAM buses, as the Town of Banff would continue owning and operating the Banff maintenance facility during the first five years. Table 3 – Existing Assets Asset Description Replacement Year Replacement Cost ($2010) Banff Bus Hybrid-Electric 2024 $675,000 Banff Bus Hybrid-Electric 2024 $675,000 Banff Bus Hybrid-Electric 2024 $675,000 Banff Bus Hybrid-Electric 2024 $675,000 Banff Maintenance Currently being operated by the Town of 1 2090 $2,500,000 Facility Banff Banff Bus Wraps Each bus is wrapped with images of a different animal (elk, bear, goat, and 2013 $40,000 wolf) and their habitat Banff Bicycle Racks Each bus is equipped with a bike rack 2016-2018 $6,000 for two bicycles Banff Bus Information These panels have been installed at bus Depends on degree to $4,000 Panels stops which they are Banff Fareox Electronic fareboxes that accept bills, v andalized 2020-2022 $100,000 Equipment and Software coins, tickets, tokens, passes, Banff NextBus System GPS real-time information system 2016-2018 $52,000 Displays at 10 bus stops Banff Other Transit Depends on their current Miscellaneous items $64,000 Inventory condition TOTAL $4,197,000 33 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 120 of 149 Business Plan 12/15/2010 1This amount represents the value of the portion of the maintenance facility that is used by transit vehicles. In other words, it is just a partial value of the total value of the maintenance facility. b. New Vehicle and Non-Vehicle Assets i. Vehicle Assets As mentioned earlier, Parks Canada may purchase several fully accessible buses for the seasonal Park services (this is the assumption made within this business plan). These buses would be leased to the Commission for a nominal fee (e.g. $1), and may also be used for other transit services during times of the year when the Park service is not operating. If, however, private operators are able to supply a full fleet of reliable accessible buses, then these purchases may not be necessary. The cost of the service contract(s) for the Park services as well as some of the other services, however, will be higher. ii. Non-Vehicle Assets As shown in Table 9, the non-vehicle asset needs of the Commission items include a transit exchange, as well as other non-vehicle equipment such as bus wraps, real-time arrival displays, fare collection and payment equipment, bus shelters, and fare media. These assets would help integrate the new Tier I services with the existing local Banff service and properly brand them. Additional non-vehicle assets would be required if the Tier II services are also established. In addition, although not included in Table 9, a new storage facility may be required. The current Banff Transit facility is already at capacity and private contractors may not have the necessary facilities to store transit buses indoors. It is estimated that the cost for a storage- only facility with minimal features (i.e., no fueling stations or maintenance equipment) would be approximately $215,000 (2010 dollars). The cost of the land would necessitate additional funding unless Parks Canada is able to contribute the required land at minimal cost to the Commission. Smart Cards Banff Transit currently offers refillable SmartCards to pa ssengers for one-, three-, and six- month periods. This method of payment increases the convenience and flexibility of using transit and can o ffer deep discounts for regular transit users. The SmartCard could be expandeda to ll of the services provided by the Commission as an effective and flexible means of increasing ridership. There will be an electronic fare collection (EFC) system installed in all the buses managed by the BVRTSC. This system will use chip enabled cards that will provide fare products such as a 31 day pass, ride decrements, and hotel guest, staff passes. It will issue transfers and provide receipts and change vouchers. The old EFC system (in the Banff local buses) was replaced in the fall of 2012 due to incompatibility to new technology and applications. 34 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 121 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 Transit sExchange To furother impr ve the operating efficiencies of the existing and new services, the inter- connections b e t w e e n l o c a l , r e g i o n a l a n d seasonal transit services could be facilitated at major one/off-stre t transit hubs/exchange s. Under the Tier I set of services, only one on-street exchange at Banff would be established. However, exchanges at Canmore and Lake Louise could also be built during the five year plan, nif fina cing is available. These exchanges may help reduce the mileage of the s e a s o n a l a n d r e g i o n a l s e r v i c e s and ensure all local services are well coordinated with the regional services. As a result, operating costs and travel times would be reduced. These transit hubs are shown in Figure 12. c. Capital Equipment Replacement Criteria The buses owned by Banff should be re placed after 15 years. Buses kept beyond these ages would be more costly to maintain, less safe, and less fuel-efficient. Similarly, other assets acquired by the Commission would need to be replaced at the end of their useful life, and the capital program, including the level of capital reserves (see next section), recognize these capital needs. d. Capital Funding Plan To pay for the new non-vehicle assets, a capital reserve fund would need to be established, and grants from senior levels of government would have to be pursued. The capital funding plan presented in Table 9 (which includes Parks Canada’s bus purchases) only includes those needed to support the Tier I services and does not include the new bus storage facility that may be required. However, this proposed business plan would allow the cost of such a facility to be covered by the capital reserve (the estimated net balance at the end of the five years is approximately $521,000 in 2010 dollars). If any of the Tier II services are also implemented, additional funding would also be required. To prepare for the Regional (Canmore-Banff) service and Park services, the amount initially collected for the reserve fund would as $215,000. It would then be increased in subsequent years to enable the Commission to establish the Banff transit exchange, to purchase more Figure 16 – Example of a Transit Exchange equipment, to construct other transit exchanges and, as mentioned, perhaps to build a new bus storage facility. An estimate of the amount each party would contribute to the capital reserve fund is presented in Table 10. Once again, these estimates are based on the cost sharing principles and schemes outlined in Chapter 4, and they are contingent on the transit services being 35 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 122 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 implemented as proposed in this business plan. See Schedule A of Bylaw 1 for the exact calculation methodology that was used. 1,2 Table 4 – Annual Contributions for Capital Reserve Fund (in 2010 dollars) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Banff (residential/business/commercial property $135,000 $188,000 $188,000 $240,000 $237,000 taxes or parking revenue) Canmore (residential/business/commercial $40,000 $27,000 $27,000 $25,000 $28,000 property taxes or parking revenue) Improvement District #9 (residential/business/commercial property $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 taxes or parking revenue) Total $215,000 $255,000 $255,000 $305,000 $305,000 Total capital reserve: $1,335,000 1Values may not sum to total due to rounding. 2The capital reserve fund excludes the capital purchases that Parks Canada would make. At the end of the first five years, approximately $221,000 will be left over in the capital reserve, which can be used to fund future capital requirements. e. Capital Assets in Event of Commission Dissolution In the event that the Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission is dissolved, assets will be transferred to either Parks Canada or the municipalities. Parks Canada will already own the buses it purchased, and it will retain any improvements made to those buses (e.g. fare collection equipment). Buses used for local Banff service will be transferred back to the Town of Banff and Banff will similarly retain any improvements to the buses. This business plan does not assume buses will be purchased for the regional services in Years 1 to 5. However, it is possible that funds from the provincial Green Transit Incentive Program (GreenTRIP), matched by municipal contributions, will enable two buses to be purchased for the regional service. If that is the case, then the buses will be shared by the Towns of Banff and Canmore so that services could continue through a partnership of these two municipalities. If improvements are made to a private opera tor’s bus, then what happens to those assets should be addressed in the service contracts with the private operators. If any of the assets were purchased through grants, then the Commission may havev to erify with the granting agency that the transfer is legal and to follow the procedures for transferring assets. If Parks Canada or the municipalities want to sell their assets, then they may do so. 36 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 123 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 9. Fare Schedule, Media, and Discounts a. Fare Schedule and Media All fare media and fare structure will be designed and appropriately priced through the work recommended by the BVRTSC administration and approved by the Board based on the business needs and revenue to cost requirement. The proposed fares schedules (in 2010 dollars) and media for the different transit services are described below. These fares would ensure the services are affordable for local residents and visitors, especially seniors, youth, and low-income residents. At the same time, they would allow the BVRTSC to collect enough fare revenue to cover a significant portion of the operating and maintenance costs. Regular customers would also be rewarded with lower fares. i. Banff Local Service 1 Table 5 – Fare Schedule for Banff ROAM Adult Senior/Child/Low Income Residents 2 Cash fare – one-way $2 $1 One-way Tokens 4 tokens (4 one-way trips) $6 $3 10 tokens (10 one-way trips) $15 $7.50 Monthly SmartCards Allowing Unlimited Rides 1 month $30 $15 3 months $65 $32.50 6 months $105 $52.50 Reload Monthly SmartCards Allowing Unlimited Rides 1 month $25 $12.50 3 months $60 $30 6 months $100 $50 1Thi s reflects the 2009 Banff Transit fare schedule. Cash fares and tokens have a time limit of 2 hours. SmartCards have no daily time restrictions. 2If stored value SmartCards are made available, these could also be use in place of cash. ii. Regional (Canmore-Banff) S ervice 1 Table 6 – Fare Schedule for Regional ROAM (Canmore-Banff) Adult Senior/Child 2 Cash fare – one-way $6 $3 One Way Trip Concession Bundle 10 rides (10 one-way trips) $50 $25 Monthly SmartCards Allowing Unlimited Rides 1 month $80 $40 1All fare media include free transfers to the Banff local service. Cash fares and tokens have a time limit of 30 minutes. Monthly SmartCards have no da ily time restrictions. 37 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 124 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 iii. Park Service As mentioned previously, the Park services could be provided as a complimentary service. However, if the Park chooses to charge for the service, it will need to be strategized carefully with parking costs (if in Lake Louise and Moranie Lake). Appropriate fare costs will be discussed with Parks Canada and the BVRTSC. b. Discounts Seniors and Child concession fee is based on the existing 50% rate discount established by the Banff local service. Given this precedent, it is recommended that other fare structures follow that breakdown until the next fare review is done. It is suggested that a fare review be conducted every two years. The Banff local service has not had a fare increase in 4 years (initial fare structure set in 2008). Low Income Transit Pass (LITP) It should not be assumed that the BVRTSC will automatically offer a LITP program. LITP program can be a complicated program to manage effectively. Low Income Pass program should be funded as initiatives from the respective municipalities. The client management of the Low Income Pass needs to be performed by the municipalities as the BVRTSC does not have the administrative capacity to manage this type of program. For example, the Town of Banff’s LITP program has been grandfathered into the Banff Local service when the BVRTSC assumed management of the local service. The client management is kept with the Town administration and negotiations have taken place so that pass issuance accountability is in place for the distribution of the passes. Any future LITP programs will need to be discussed with BVRTSC and approved by the Board through BVRTSC administrative recommendations with clear definitions on the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved. 38 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 125 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 10. Funding for Services Provided by the Commission a. Existing Funding and New Sustainable Funding Sources During the initial years of the Commission’s operations, the operating costs of the existing services and their enhancements, the Commission’s annual administrative and marketing costs, and the contributions to the capital reserve for capital investments would be funded from the following sources: • transit fares; • advertising revenue; • existing Banff hotel partners program (for the Banff local service only); • municipal contributions; and • contributions made by Parks Canada. The Banff transit exchange should be funded from provincial and federal public transit and related infrastructure funds if they became available, with capital reserves being used for local matching funds or to meet full costs as needed. It is important that new and sustainable sources of operating funding for future years be pursued by the BVRTSC in order to continue to provide increased and dependable transit services. These Figure 17 – Hotel Room in the Bow Valley additional and sustainable funding sources would enable the BVRTSC’s existing services to be enhanced and new services (e.g. the Tier II services) to be implemented. It would also enable the opportunities and risks from funding to be spread among more parties who benefit from the services and reduce the risk of having insufficient funds if one revenue source is terminated. These revenue sources may include the following: new provincial public transit funding programs (e.g. Green TRIP or other); a gasoline tax; a municipality resort tax; the Banff, Lake Louise, and Canmore tourism sector and the Canmore accommodation sector, and other businesses that could benefit from enhanced mobility in the Bow Valley (i.e., restaurants, bars); ski resorts; parking fees from the municipalities; and potential new provincial and federal transit programs. Some of these sources are further described below. HotelRoom Contributions Currently, the province collects a 4% hotel room tax from short-term accommodation purchases. The municipalities of Canmore, Banff, and ID #9 could request that a quarter to a half of this tax revenue be remitted back to them. In addition, if these municipalities are able to obtain resort municipality status, they could implement an additional resort tax of 2% for all short-term 39 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 126 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 accommodation purchases. This would, however, require new l e g i s l a t i o n and approval from the Alberta Government. Parking Fees As many other municipalities (including resort municipalities such as Whistler, BC) have shown, the introduction or an increase in parking fees does not deter people from visiting a particular location. Parking demand may be reduced (which reduces the need to provide additional parking facilities), but the actual number of visits made remains steady. Visitors simply find an alternative means of travel (e.g. carpooling, public transit, walking, etc.) or pay the nominal parking costs. Therefore, the introduction of parking fees in Canmore and Banff in exchange for the high costs the municipalities have to pay to provide these on-street or structured parking spaces (e.g. the average cost is over $20,000 per space) is considered as a viable funding mechanism for the local Banff and Canmore transit services (and perhaps for the Regional service). Moreover, if the benefits of parking fees are made apparent (i.e., with the provision of transit service), local residents and businesses are more likely to support the idea of having pay parking. A 2008 consulting study estimated the level of parking revenues that could be generated year round in Banff and Canmore, based on cur rent parking use and hourly rates of $0.75 cents for on- street and o ff-street lots per hour and $0.50 cents for parkades. The results are shown in Table 15. Increasing the hourly cost by $0.25 per hour to a more convenient single coin for street and off- street parking and $0.75 per hour in parkades is also illustrated. These figures exclude costs for capital and operating costs to collect revenues. Table 7 – Pot ential Parking Revenue in Banff and Canmore Figure 18 – Cars Parked in Downtown Canmore Municipality $0.75 per hr. for on- and $1.00 per hr. for on- and off-street and $0.50 per hr off-street and $0.75 per hr for parkades for parkades Downtown Banff $572,000 to $720,000 $763,000 to $959,000 Downtown Canmore $589,000 to $736,000 $785,000 to $979,000 Total $1,161,000 to $1,456,000 $1,548,000 to $1,938,000 Note: Excludes reductions for capital and operating costs to collect revenue Source: Banff, Lake Louise & Canmore Regional Transportation Authority: Feasibility Study, June 2008, Shirocca Consulting 40 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 127 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 Additional Contributions from Banff-Lake Louise Accommodations Currently, only a few accommodation facilities in Banff are contributing to the direct operating cost of the Banff local bus service through partnership arrangement in exchange for transit passes for staff and guests. However, the Banff-Lake Louise Hotel Motel Association recognizes the key benefits of operating a regionalized transit system (e.g. more opportunities to attract international tourists, access to a larger pool of potential employees, etc.), and the need to be competitive with other North American and other world-wide tourist areas in terms of transportation options. It is therefore interested in becoming a more prominent funder of the Commission’s services in the future once the economy has recovered and the accommodation sector is in a better financial situation. Contributions from Canmore A ccommodations Organization Canmore currently has an accommodation organization that collects and disburses member fees to market and enhance Canmore’s accommodation sector. This organization is a potential source of funding for transit services and transit infrastructure. Banff and Lake Louise hotels currently pay a voluntary fee ($200 for basic membership) to join the Hotel Motel Association, and this association has been able to contribute funding to the local Banff transit service and enhance the streetscape of Banff Avenue, where the transit buses currently operate. A similar type of contribution could be made by the Canmore accommodation organization. Ski Resorts The three ski resorts of Bow Valley - Sunshine Village, Norquay Village, and Lake Louise Ski Area - are currently operating their own ski resort bus systems and a local Lake Louise shuttle. They have played a large role in the establishment of the Bow Valley Regional Transit Steering Committee and have indicated a strong interest in being a part of the BVRTSC to ensure the delivery of the ski resorts bus service continues. As they would also benefit from the connecting local and regional transit services, they may also become a funding partner of those services in the future. However, they have not been included in the Business Plan, and there are several reasons for this. The first is that the ski resort bus service is a large undertaking, and one that might overwhelm a new commission in its early years. Also, representation of the ski resorts on the Board is difficult given existing Ministry of Municipal Affairs rules; and without representation on the Board, the municipalities are not well protected against overruns and the ski resorts would not have su fficient representation. Despite the obstacles, the ski resorts and the BVRTSC should coordinate their services from the first day of BVRTSC operations. They should also continue to work towards the eventual integration of services to maximize benefits to each other and to visitors to the Bow Valley. In the future, the ski resorts may pay the Commission to operate the ski resort buses in much the same way that Parks Canada will be reimbursing the Commission for the direct operating cost of the Park services. Other Businesses 41 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 128 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 Similar to the accommodation sector, transit services benefit other businesses (e.g. restaurants, retail shops, theatres and other attractions, etc.) by increasing the accessibility of their locations to visitors and employees. Therefore, they may be receptive to the idea of helping fund a regional transit system. Philanthropy There are several non-profit organizations that operate in the region to help protect the Park. These and other organizations may be a source of funding in the future. Donations from non- profit organizations are a source of funding for some transit services in national parks in the US. b. Legislative Change Requirements Securing some of the sources described above would require aggressive pursuit for legislative changes by the Government of Alberta and possibly by the federal government. Some of these changes are described below. Parks Canada To allow dedi cated funding from Parks Canada to be increased (from sources other than general park gate revenues) and used partially to fund transit services provided by the BVRTSC other than the Park services, legislation changes may need to be passed. Resort Municipality Status To be able to collect a municipality resort tax (as has been done in provinces such as BC) to help cover the unique costs imposed on these areas relative to their tax base, the Province of Alberta would need to introduce legislation allowing municipalities dependent on tourism to obtain a special resort municipality status. As mentioned above, the Province may also allow resort municipalities to levy an additional 2% hotel room tax. A 1% hotel room tax increase would generate approximately $2.0 million per year (Shirocca Consulting, 2008). This could be collected at the same time the current 4% provincial hotel room tax is being collected and then remitted to the municipalities. There may also be other funding sources the resort municipality designation might bring to the Region in the future. Sustainable and Long-Term Funding Sources (e.g. Gas Tax) To help cover the long-term costs of new transit services, efforts may need to be made to convince the Alberta Gover nment to contribute a portion of the gas tax revenues to the BVRTSC. Funding of five cents per litre is now provided to the Cities of Calgary and Edmonton for transportation infrastructure. 42 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 129 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 11. Estimated Total Costs to 2015 Annual Operating and Capital Budget Contributions from Contributing Partners 2011 Hi Lites and priorities Operating Capital Banff $38,000 $45,000 Canmore $30,000 $30,000 I.D.#9 $8,000 $40,000 Total $76,000 $115,000 Start up year. Requisitions reduced to reflect partial year- September start up to December of 2011 2012 Banff $610,000* $188,000 *Full year Banff local service costs, prorated Regional service –Sept 2012 start up Canmore $68,000* $27,000 *prorated Regional service –Sept 2012 start up I.D.#9 $20,000 $40,000 Total $698,000 $255,000 2013 Budget shows Full year of Regional service to Canmore Banff $671,000 $188,000 Canmore $124,000 $27,000 I.D.#9 $20,000 $40,000 Parks No funds indicated until confirmation of Canada direction on their transit service intentions Total $815,000 $255,000 Full year Banff local and regional service, no Parks service 2014 Banff $645,000* $240,000 *Banff local service driver’s contract ends in 2013. Drivers and associated staff hired directly by the Commission Canmore $132,000 $25,000 I.D. #9 $20,000 $40,000 Parks No funds indicated until confirmation of Canada direction on their transit service intentions $797,000 $305,000 2015 Canmore regional service driver’s contract ends in 2014. Drivers and associated staff hired directly by the Commission Banff $675,000 $240,000 Canmore $144,000 $30,000 I.D. #9 $20,000 $40,000 Parks No funds indicated until confirmation of Canada direction on their transit service intentions $839,000 $310,000 2016 To be calculated based on availability of Parks information 43 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 130 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 Proposed Capital Reserve Fund Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Banff (residential/business/ commercial property taxes or $45,000 $188,000 $188,000 $240,000 $240,000 $115,000 parking revenue) Canmore (residential/business/ commercial property taxes or $30,000 $27,000 $27,000 $25,000 $30,000 $139,000 parking revenue) Improvement District #9 (residential/business/commercial $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $200,000 property taxes or parking revenue) Total $115,000* $255,000 $255,000 $305,000 $310,000 $1,240,000 *Reduced due to partial year startup 12. Implementation Actions b. Action Requirements within 5 Years • Create a regional transit service between the Towns of Banff and Canmore. • Create services to the recreational camping and hiking attractions around Banff National Park. • Explore the feasibility of starting a local transit service in Canmore and a Regional Banff-Lake Louise service. • Explore the feasibility of the BVRTSC taking over the management of the ski resorts bus services and the Lake Louise lo cal service. • Enhance aloc l Banff transit service. • Limit parking in sections of Banff National Park. • Restrict parking in Canmore and Banff. • Develop TDM measures such as local parking taxes, which would raise revenue for local and regional transit services, assist in paying for the significant municipal costs required to provide these free spaces, and act a push factor (i.e., to encourage the use of the provided transit services). • Through provincial legislation, seek resort municipality status for all three municipalities and develop a municipality resort tax. • Through provincial legislation, develop a voluntary new hotel room tax. • Negotiate with the Alberta Government to receive financial contributions from the provincial gas and/or other provincially legislated taxes. • Secure other steady funding sources. 44 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 131 of 149 Business Plan 12/15/2010 13. Benefits of Establishing the Bow Valley Regional Transit Services Commission Tangible Benefits • Local, regional and seasonal transit services introduced earlier through c o m b i n i n g resources of parties and efficiencies in transit service designs • Longer visitor stays in Canmore, Lake Louise, and Banff and higher related expenditures on recreation, accommodation, entertainment, etc. • Economic return for money spent on public transit. According to the American Public Transportation Association, for every $1 spent on public transit, $4 is gene rated in economic returns. The Association has also found that for every $10 million in capital investment, there is a return of up to $30 million in business sales alone. • Improved air and water quality • Wildlife protected in the Bow Valley Region • Enhanced local and inter-municipal mobility for residents, visitors and workers • Higher probability of greater provincial and federal funding for transit infrastructure and service • More competitive with Whistler, which can market itself as a green tourist area in part because of its extensive transit services • Access to a larger employment pool • Reduced road capital and maintenance costs • Reduced parking-related costs • Reduced administrative costs related to transportation for members • Reduced greenhouse gas emissions • Fewer vehicle-miles traveled on Highway 1 • Reduced turnover among employees • Cost savings for residents • Reduced liability and property damage for car accidents Intangible Benefits • Enhanced visitor experience in the Bow Valley Region • Greater employment opportunities The specific benefits to each of the financially contributing parties of the BVRTSC include: Canmore: Economic • The largest employer of Canmore residents is the food and accommodation sector. Businesses in this sector would be served by the proposed regional service, in term of access for employees and increased visitors and expenditures. 45 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 132 of 149 Business Plan 12/15/2010 • Providing a regional transit service to Canmore will assist integrating Canmore more effectively into the economic milieu of the Bow Valley economic region, with the Town of Banff. • The regional service will provide employment for some local residents. • In Alberta, 458 people died and 24,530 people were injured in traffic collisions in 2007. A disproportionate number of the deaths and injuries occurred in rural environments. Reducing the number of vehicles on the road would reduce these numbers. The costs of traffic accidents are estimated to cost $4 billion according to the Alberta government. Figure 19 – Restaurant in Canmore • Total revenues are about $32 million per year for the Town of Canmore, and the transit services proposed in this five-year business plan are a very small cost in comparison. • The growth in the transit services serving Canmore has been staged in this five-year business plan so as to enhance the affordability of joining the BVRTSC (i.e. the Town’s financial pressures over the next few years from other areas such as fire services has been considered). • The purchase of a transit fare could possibly provide visitors to the Banff National Park with a discount on the Park entry fee. This will have to be coordinated with Parks Canada. • With transit service, Canmore will be more competitive with Banff as a tourist destination. • As a member of the BVRTSC, Canmore will benefit from closer identification with Banff National Park. Environmental • It is estimated that 12.3 % of GHG emissions in Canmore come from transportation. Public transit services that reduce single occupant driving would reduce emissions and help the Town meet its GHG emissions reduction targets. 72.8% of Canmore residents who have full-time work commute alone by car. • On average, 17,740 vehicles pass Canmore on Highway 1 every day, according to 2007 data. In the summer, this number is 21,230 per day. Annual growth in traffic volumes is estimated to be 2.4% Figure 20 – Quarry Lake, Canmore per year. These vehicles account for at least 62 wildlife deaths per year (but probably significantly more because many wildlife collisions are not reported) between the park entrance and Highway 40. Regional transit services would be able to help contain this growth in regional traffic and reduce the number of wildlife deaths. 46 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 133 of 149 Business Plan 12/15/2010 Social • There is a movement to provide more bicycles and to continue and to improve walking connections/pathways for town residents and visitors, and this could complement the regional bus service. • Canmore may receive local transit services sooner than they would otherwise by joining the Commission. • With better transit connections to Banff, the value of housing and accommodations in Figure 21 – Lake Louise Hostel Canmore will be enhanced. Banff Economic • 27% of the residents of the Town of Banff work in the accommodation sector, 12% in the food and beverage sector, and 9% in retail. Transit is compatible with each of these employment sectors in that these types of jobs generally do not require a vehicle, are centrally located, do not require the employee to carry tools or equipment to the job site, and can have regular hours. The Commission could examine how to best serve those working in the service sector, as well as those who working regular office hours. • Banff may need more regional transit services to stay competitive with other tourist towns such as Whistler, Aspen and Vail. • The Town of Banff has total revenues of about $26.5 million per year and transit services are a small cost in comparison. • Visitors to the Town of Banff currently spend about $75 million pe r year on local transportation. Transit would allow visitors to save money that they could spend on other goods and services. Social • There is a shortage of affordable housing in Banff, and better transit services has the potential to reduce transportation costs associated with vehicle ownership. • There is essentially a cap on the total allowable amount of commercial floor space. Transit services will give residents and visitors better access to businesses offering services that are not available in the Town. • Transit services make it possible to avoid having to expand any of the existing surface parking lots and for the Town to stay within its designated boundary without having to build more expensive structured parking. • The town’s limits are fixed by federal law and cannot be extended. Transit can allow them to 47 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 134 of 149 Business Plan 12/15/2010 convert more road space into productive uses such as housing. • A larger than average percentage of the population is 20 to 24 years old, and this age group may be more willing to take transit services, given income levels, mobility, and environmental consciousness. • Two goals of the Banff Community Plan 2007 are to create memorable national park experiences and showcase Banff as a leader in environmental practices and hospitality, and transit would help them achieve both goals. The town also wants to reduce the demand for infrastructure expansion. • According to the 2006 Census, 1,275 people have regular inter-municipal commutes among Banff, Lake Louise and Canmore (see Table 23 above). It is likely that more people make inter- municipal commutes in the peak winter and summer seasons. Regional transit services give people an alternative to driving their cars. • The Park services will give Banff residents and visitors more access to hiking and other recreational activities in Banff National Park. • Transit service enhancements will come to Banff earlier with the creation of the Commission. Lake Louise and Improvement District #9 Economic • Total revenues are about $3.4 million p e r year for ID #9 and transit services are a small cost in comparison. • Visitors to ID #9 currently spend approximately $289 per p erson. A typical visitor to Lake Louise may want to make one visit to the Town of Banff and spend one day on a hiking trail in the area. According to the proposed fare schedule, the cost of taking transit for these trips would be $22 ($11 for a trip to and from Banff using the Park ROAM service and $11 for a trip to and from a trail head), which is only about 8% of what a visitor typically spends. Social • The parking lots at Moraine Lake and Upper Lake Louise are at capacity during peak times, especially during the weekend and early afternoons. The presence of RVs is especially problematic because they take up multiple lanes and block circulation aisles. The presence of more extensive transit services would enable visitors to avoid these parking problems. • The Banff-Lake Louise Park ROAM service could mitigate some of the impacts of Highway 1 construction (Phase 3B of the Trans Canada Figure 22 – RVs in a Lake Louise Parking Lot Twinning Project), which is expected to continue through 2011. • In the Lake Louise area, 24 people died and 119 were injured in traffic collisions in the five years before 2003. Reducing the number of vehicles on the road would reduce these figures. The costs 48 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 135 of 149 Business Plan 12/15/2010 of traffic accidents in Alberta are estimated to cost $4 billion per year according to the Alberta government. • According to the 2006 Census, 1,275 people have regular inter-municipal commutes among Banff, Lake Louise and Canmore (see Table 23 above). It is likely that more people make inter- municipal commutes in the peak winter and summer seasons. Regional transit services give people an alternative to driving their cars. • Transit enhancements could come sooner to ID #9 by joining the Commission. Environment • The Lake Louise Community Plan from 2001 supports transit services to Lake Moraine and Upper Lake Louise as a means to “improve habitat effectiveness, wildlife movement and the experience of visitors if it can be practically implemented.” • 7,500 vehicles pa ss on Highway 1 per day on average (2002). In the summer, this number is more than 10,000 per day. Highway traffic has been increasing about 1.5% per year, contributing to local air pollution. • Traffic levels on the Trans-Canada Highway are exceeding thresholds in the area around Lake Louise, leading to congestion. • Wildlife fatalities over the past 20 years between Castle Junction and the BC border have totaled 334, most of which were elk and deer, but two of which were grizzlies, seven were black bears, thirty- one were coyotes, and six were wolves. These figures are likely an under-representation of the real number of fatalities, as many collisions with wildlife go unreported or undetected. Regional, seasonal and local transit services would likely be able to reduce these fatality rates. • The presence of seasonal transit would enable private cars to be restricted from certain parts of Banff National Park in the future. Banff-Lake Louise Accommodation Sector • In 2006, the average length of stay for visitors to Banff and Lake Louise was 2.5 days. In comparison, in Whistler, BC (where transit service is much more extensive), the average length of stay during the winter and summer seasons is approximately six and three nights, respectively. The average length of stay in Aspen, Colorado (which also provides extensive regional transit services), in the summer of 2008 was also higher at 5.8 nights. With transit service being more readily available within the Bow Valley, a visitor may stay in the Region longer, as they will save money on vehicle operating costs and have a wider range of activities to choose from. • In 2008, over 34% of the visitors to the Banff National Park were of European origin and another 4% were from Asia. The residents of these areas of the world are accustomed to getting around by transit instead of driving. Providing transit service to this market segment may increase the attractiveness of the region as a vacation spot. 49 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 136 of 149 Business Plan 12/15/2010 • According to the 2009 Banff-Lake Louise Tourism Business Plan, Canadian resorts continue to fight for market share and gross sales. Western Canadian resorts continue to expand with the introduction of Golden and Revelstoke, who strive to out-compete other southern BC resorts such as Fernie and Kimberly. Moreover, US ski operators are also beginning to work together to increase their marketing power. Providing an exceptional transit service would help maintain the Bow Valley Region’s competitiveness with these other resorts and Figure 23 – The Fox Hotel, Banff national parks, especially those such as Whistler, BC and the Zion National Park in Utah, who are continually expanding and greening their transit services. Whistler, for example, is starting introducing 20 hydrogen fuel cell hybrid buses. Meanwhile, Zion National Park provides a free shuttle service that links nearby downtown Springdale to the Park. • Although a visitor or staff may not have to pay to park at a hotel, it does not mean there are no costs associated with providing a parking spot. Each parking space costs several tens of thousands of dollars to build and this financial burden is usually passed onto the property owners. By providing transit service to guests and employees, the accommodation owners would be able to provide fewer parking spaces or avoid having to expand their existing parking facilities, thereby achieving cost savings. • With increasing consumer awareness about the environmental impacts of transportation, providing a new t ransit service product may help capture the “green” market. • With energy prices increasing, operating a vehicle will become more expensive. Providing a relatively more affordable transportation alternative will help keep the costs down for visitors and increase the attractiveness of the Region. • Some of the weaknesses of the Banff National Park identified in the 2009 Business Plan were that it lacked product innovation and agility, and was slow to respond to change. Implementing a regional transit system would provide the opportunity to market a new product and respond to the consumer and market trends mentioned above. • The accommodation sector will be able to use the results of the market research done for the transit service development. • Hotels and other accommodations will have fewer car related incidents. Parks Canada Environmental • Although the construction of overpasses, underpasses and fencing have succeeded in reducing mortality rates of wildlife overall, results vary between species. Fencing has almost eliminated ungulate road deaths (especially elk), for example, but mortality rates for coyotes continue to climb. Regional and seasonal transit services that replace car driving can reduce incidents of collisions between vehicles and wildlife by reducing vehicles on the road and having a professional driver at the wheel. 50 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 137 of 149 Business Plan 12/15/2010 • All forms of transit services can help the Park carry out its mandate of protecting the Park while still accommodating visitors to the park. • Regional and seasonal transit services can reduce pressures on parking so people do not park on the side of the road where they can trample the flora. Economic • $17 to $18 million in entry fees are collected every year at the East Gate, and transit services are a small cost in comparison. Figure 24 – Elk in the Banff National Park • Regional and summer services can reduce road and parking lot maintenance costs due to fewer cars and fewer accidents. Social • The parking lots at Johnston Canyon are at capacity during peak times, especially during the weekends in the summer. Summer services have the potential to reduce the parking pressures. • The presence of summer transit services would enable private cars to be restricted from certain parts of Banff National Park in the future. • Banff National Park may need more extensive transit services to stay competitive with other National Parks in North America. It should be noted that the local transportation industry in the Bow Vall ey Region, which provides contracted transit services within Banff and to other areas in the Region, is a prominent local valley employer who would also benefit from the BVRTSC. This industry would be provided with more opportunities to bid on the expansion of existing transit services or the introduction of new transit services. These transit service contracts could be put out for bid in packages where one company could not de liver more than two contracts. This would assist in maintaining a competitive situation, and avoid a monopoly situation. 51 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 138 of 149 Business Plan 12/15/2010 14. Conclusion The establishment of the BVRTSC and the enhanced and new transit services proposed in this business plan would have significant implications for the health of the local economies, residents, and natural environment of the Bow Valley Region. The tourism and other local businesses would be able to capitalize on the increased number of tourists using the transit services, residents would have more affordable transportation options to access employment and educational opportunities, as well as other services, and the negative environmental impacts of transportation would be reduced. As well, local governments would experience a reduction in traffic congestion, parking demand, and roadway infrastructure costs. Furthermore, by providing a regionalized transit system earlier on, cost efficiencies can be achieved and connections between local and inter-municipal transit systems can be better integrated into a seamless transit system. This would increase the long-term sustainability of the transit system and increase the convenience and reliability of the system, which in turn would encourage a higher transit ridership. Furthermore, by bringing more riders onto public transit services, the region can potentially attract more funding, especially for grants that are based on transit ridership. These services, however, can only be made possible if there are sustainable funding sources. Therefore, this business plan has recommended that the various parties (local governments, Banff accommodation sector, Parks Canada, etc.) benefiting from these services contribute to their costs. This allows the benefits to be more fairly distributed and the risk of having insufficient funding to be reduced. Moreover, by having such parties work together in such a collaborative manner, the relationships be tween them can be fostered and further developed such that future collaborations in other areas would be possible. As a result, more win-win situations can be developed and the Bow Valley Region can emerge with a stronger voice within the province and on the international stage. 52 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 139 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 Appendix A- Benefits to Beneficiaries Banff Local Service Benefits to Beneficiaries Users: • They would not need to pay for car operating costs (gasoline, insurance, parking fee, etc) • They may not have to rent a car if they are coming from out-of-town to visit Banff • They would not have to spend time looking for parking Town of Banff: • There would be an earlier enhancement of more efficient and effective local transit service providing increased mobility for residents and visitors • There would be increased business for local accommodation and other employment sectors within Banff, leading to enhanced economic and employment growth • There would be less congestion in town • The roads would be safer for driving • Less municipal funding would need to be spent on roads and parking facilities Accommodation sector: • They may not have to supply parking for those guests and employees who use these services • Visitors may stay in the Region longer if they are able to get around the Town without a car • They may have access to a wider pool of employees • Employees may stay with their employers longer if they are able to get around Banff without a car • They would not n eed to supply shuttle service to hotel guests who want to visit the Banff town centre Regional Service (Canmore-Banff) Benefits to Beneficiaries Users: • They would be able to spend less on car operating costs (gasoline, etc.) • They may not need to rent a car if they are coming from out-of-town to visit Canmore and Banff • They would not need to spend time looking for parking • They would be able to reduce their impact on the Bow Valley Region • They would be able to save money and travel at their own pace, as they are not reliant on chartered buses to access town attractions • They would be able to connect to the local Banff service for free, and also connect to the Park 53 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 140 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 ROAM bus routes. Canmore and Banff: • The earlier provision of a Regional Canmore-Banff transit service would reduce the number of commuter trips on the highway between Canmore and Banff. According to the 2006 Census, there were 1,060 commuters traveling between Banff and Canmore year-round in either direction for work. However, it is expected that during the peak winter and summer seasons, the total number of commuting trips made between these two municipalities is significantly higher as a result of the seasonal workers • There would be increased business for local accommodation and other employment sectors in Canmore and Banff, leading to enhanced economic and employment growth • There would be increased mobility for Canmore and Banff residents andt visitors in erms of connections with local and seasonal services at transit hubs/centres Park Services Rationale for Cost-Sharing Scheme • Parks Canada would be the largest beneficiary of this service (see the benefits listed below), and they would cover all of the net direct operating costs. Benefits to Beneficiaries: Users: • They would not need to pay for car operating costs (gasoline, insurance, parking fee, etc) • They may be able to access sites they would not have otherwise been able to (this is dependent on Parks Canada policies about future access to attractions) • They may not have to rent a car if they are coming from out-of-town to visit the Bow Valley Region • They would not need to spend time looking for parking • They would be able to reduce their impact on the Bow Vall ey Region and Banff National Park • They would be able to travel at their own pace by not being reliant on chartered buses to access attractions Parks Canada: • Summer is the peak season for visitors to the Bow Valley Region, when use of the regional amenities and Banff National Park’s camping and facilities is highest • It would not need to supply parking for visitors arriving to attractions by transit • It would have reduced maintenance costs if more people arrived by transit • It would be able to reach more people through information provided on the buses • It would be better able to carry out its mandate of making the Banff National Park available to all and protecting the Banff National Park against environmental degradation 54 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 141 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 Appendix B – Cost Sharing Formulas For any given year, the distribution of the BVRT SC’s direct operating costs and overhead costs (e.g. marketing and administrative costs, and capital reserve) will be calculated using the methodology outlined below. This methodology will be used to estimate the fees to be paid by each contributing member for the upcoming year, and to track the accuracy of these estimates throughout the year and to determine if additional fees need to be collected. Step 1: Key Inputs 1.1. Collect the following key inputs. Input Comment #1 Annual direct operating cost of Will depend on type of buses used and who owns each service them (i.e., the Commission or a contracted private operator), which will affect the operating cost per hour. Maintenance services could be awarded as part of operating contracts, or they could be issued under separate contracts. #2 Annual revenue vehicle hours for Will depend on hours of service and frequency. each service #3 Annual fare revenue collected from Can use the revenues estimated in the Business Plan each service as a starting point. #4 Annual advertising revenue Typically approximately 2% of the annual direct collected from each service operating cost. #5 Allocation of revenue vehicle hours Will depend on which contributing parties are for each service subsidizing each service. The following assumptions are made about the Banff ROAM, Regional ROAM (Canmore-Banff) and Parks ROAM services: o 100% of the Banff ROAM’s revenue vehicle hours are spent in the Town of Banff. o 50% of the Regional ROAM’s revenue vehicle hours are spent in the Town of Banff. o 50% of the Regional ROAM’s revenue vehicle hours are spent in the Town of Canmore. o 100% of the Park ROAM’s revenue vehicle hours are spent within the Banff National Park (i.e., within Parks Canada’s area of interest). #6 Total annual marketing costs 4-5% of total direct operating cost, at a minimum of $60,000 #7 Total annual administrative costs Based on staffing needs as service and workload. Needs to be Board approved. #8 Total annual capital reserve budget Will depend on the capital requirements of present and future years. #9 Total annual capital purchases by Will be spent on buses, bus stops, and perhaps other Parks Canada capital requirements for the Park service. #10 Total annual capital grants received For Banff transit exchange or other capital purchases 55 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 142 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 Step 2: First Set of Calculations 2.1. Calculate the total for all services for each of the following: o Annual direct operating cost (using input #1) o Annual revenue vehicle hours (using input #2) o Annual fare revenue received (using input #3) o Annual advertising revenue re ceived (using input #4) 2.2. Calculate the following percentages for each individual service: o Percentage of total annual direct operating cost (using input #1) o Percentage of total annual revenue vehicle hours (using input #2) 2.3. Calculate the total revenue vehicle hours each contributing member is receiving (using input #5). Step 3: Distribution of Direct Operating Costs NOTE: the percentages used in this step may change if, for example, new funders become available. If that is the case, then similar equations will be used (with the appropriate percentages) to determine the other funders’ contribution to the direct operating costs of each service. Likewise, similar equations will also be used if other services are provided. 3.1. Banff ROAM: o Assign the Town of Banff 100% of the net direct operating cost of the Banff ROAM service (see Equation 1). Equation 1: Town of Banff's Contri bution to Banff ROAM's Operating Cost Banff ROAM Banff ROAM Banff ROAM Town of Banff’s Contribution Annual Direct - Annual Fare - Annual Advertising X 100% = to Banff ROAM’s Direct Operating Cost Revenue Revenue Operating Cost 3.2. Regional ROAM (Canmore-Banff): o Split the net direct operating cost of the Regional ROAM service 50/50 between the Towns of Banff and Canmore (see Equation 2). Equation 2: Town of Banff/Canmore's Contri bution to Regional ROAM's Direct Operating Cost Regional ROAM Regional ROAM Regional ROAM Town of Banff/Canmore’s Annual Direct - Annual Fare - Annual Advertising X 50% = Contribution to Regional Operating Cost Revenue Revenue ROAM’s Direct Operating Cost 56 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 143 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 3.3. Park ROAM: o Assign Parks Canada 100% of the net direct operating cost of the Park ROAM service (see Equation 3). Equation 3: Parks Canada's Contribution to Park ROAM’s Direct Operating Cost Park ROAM Park ROAM Park ROAM Annual Parks Canada’s Annual Direct - Annual Fare - Advertising X 100% = Contribution to Park Operating Cost Revenue Revenue ROAM’s Direct Operating Cost 3.4. Summary: o Sum up each contributing party’s total contribution to direct operating costs. Step 4: Distribution of Commission Administration Costs 4.1. Calculate Base Level Contributions: o If a contributing party is contributing less than $50,000 to the direct operating costs of a given year, it will make a base level contribution of $10,000 to each of the administrative and marketing budgets. It will not have to make additional contributions to these two budgets. o If a contributing party is contributing $50,000 or more to the direct operating costs of a given year, it will contribute a percentage of the remaining marketing and administrative budgets, based on level of s ervice received. 4.2. Calculate Advanced Level Contributions: o Calculate the remaining marketing and administrative budgets. o Using the results of pste 2.3, divide the tota l revenue vehicle hours each contributing party directly receives by the total revenue vehicle hours the Commission is providing, not including the Park ROAM service. o Multiply each contributing party’s percent share of the total revenue vehicle hours (not including the Park ROAM service) by the annual marketing costs and the annual administrative costs (see Equation 4). Equation 4: Advanced Level Contribution to Commission Administration Costs Total Revenue Vehicle Hours Contributing Annual Received by Contributing Member Total Base Member’s Marketing/ X - Level = Contribution to Total Revenue Vehicle Hours Provided by Administrative Contributions Marketing/ BVRSTC not including Park ROAM Budget Administrative Cost 4.3. Summary: o Sum up each contributing party’s total contribution to the capital reserve. 57 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 144 of 149 B usiness Plan 12/15/2010 Step 5: Distribution of Capital Reserve Budget 5.1. Calculate Base Level Contribution: o If a contributing party is contributing less than $50,000 to the direct operating costs of a given year, they will make a base level contribution of $40,000 to the capital reserve. They will not have to make an additional contribution to the capital reserve. o If a contributing party is contributing more than $50,000 to the direct operating costs of a given year, they will contribute $10,000 plus a percentage of the remaining capital reserve budget. 5.2. Calculate the remaining capital reserve budget. 5.3. Calculate Additional Contribution: o Multiply each contributing party’s percent share of the total revenue vehicle hours (not including the Park ROAM service) by the remaining capital reserve budget (see Equation 5). Equation 5: Each Municipality's Additional Contribution to Capital Reserve Total Revenue Vehicle Hours Contributing Total Capital Base Level Received by Contributing Member Party’s Reserve Contributions X - = Additional Total Revenue Vehicle Hours Provided by Budget Made by All Contribution to BVRSTC not including Park ROAM Contributing Parties Capital Reserve 58 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 145 of 149 Request for Decision DATE OF MEETING: December 18, 2012 Agenda #: G-3 SUBJECT: Pickleball Site Evaluation for The New Horizon’s Grant SUBMITTED BY: Chris Hay, Recreation Services RECOMMENDATION: That council approves the location of pickleball courts at the Cougar Creek outdoor ice surface site. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since August 2011, Recreation Services has been working with stakeholders to determine an appropriate location to provide an outdoor pickleball opportunity to the Canmore community. A series of meetings have occurred with the pickleball and tennis groups to discuss the advantages, disadvantages, and evaluate a number of preferred sites. After significant stakeholder engagement, both the pickleball group and the Canmore Tennis Association (CTA) agree and support the implementation of pickleball courts at the Cougar Creek ice surface site. PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION OR POLICY This item was introduced as a 2012 Capital Project at the December 6, 2011 Council Meeting. Council passed the following motion as part of the capital budget approval: That item #222 Pickleball Court not proceed until prior approval of Council. DISCUSSION The goal of the pickleball project is to improve the quality of life for a growing senior population through active living and social interaction opportunities. The senior population in Canmore is the fastest growing demographic. Senior volunteers will be engaged to assist in the delivery of pickleball programming to the community. This will include: 1. Organizing League and drop-in recreational opportunities 2. Coordinating instruction and demonstration sessions 3. Promoting social interaction between seniors and youth 4. Managing pickleball equipment for community use 5. Organizing tournaments with surrounding communities The Town was successful in securing a $14,256 in New Horizons Grant funding for this project. The Town of Canmore Public Works will be responsible for the maintenance of the court and Recreation Services will provide administrative support through the permitting process, and work with volunteers to develop programs that encourage participation to meet the needs of the seniors and the broader community. Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 146 of 149 Pickleball Site Evaluation Page 2 of 4 The following is a complete list of the potential sites that were considered in an initial brainstorming session with the stakeholders. 1. Veteran’s Park Tennis Court 2. Lions Park Tennis Court 3. Montane Basketball Court 4. Three Sisters School Ice Surface 5. Cougar Creek Ice Surface 6. Daycare Ice Surface 7. Lawrence Grassi Basketball Court 8. High School Basketball Court 9. Chateau Canmore Tennis Court Stakeholder Consultation and Selection Criteria After a preliminary meeting with the Pickleball Group and the Canmore Tennis Association, it was apparent that agreement was not going to occur on this project if the selected site was one of the existing tennis courts. The Canmore Tennis Association felt strongly that the addition of pickleball to any existing court significantly impacted playability. With the intention of working with both stakeholders to find a win-win solution, the Veteran’s Park and Lion’s Park Tennis Courts were removed from consideration. Further evaluation of the remaining sites, resulted in three more sites being eliminated from the discussion. Lawrence Grassi School site, the Canmore Collegiate High School, and the Chateau Canmore Tennis Courts The reasons ranged from accessibility, property ownership, surface conditions, required infrastructure, and existing use and traffic. More thorough evaluations were then completed on the remaining sites, using a number of criteria including, location, cost, impacts, site quality, site parking, usage, and alignment with Town goals. This evaluation focused on the Montane Basketball Courts, the Three Sisters School Ice Surface, the Cougar Creek Ice Surface, and the Daycare Site Ice Surface. Initial discussion eliminated the Montane and Three Sisters sites, for reasons of accessibility (proximity to target group / visibility / parking) and infrastructure requirements. Further discussions identified the Daycare Site Ice Surface as preferred over the Cougar Creek Rink however, due to the uncertainty of its development future it was finally agreed that the Cougar Creek would be the best option to implement the project grant. Although not the perfect fit for the Pickle ball Group , they have agreed that implementing this project sooner than later, will provide an outdoor pickle ball opportunity for the users, while allowing the activity to be introduced to the community. This site is presently being used for a multitude of purposes including; basketball, road hockey, ice hockey, as well as a number of other informal uses. This is an existing Town facility that has the appropriate structure to contain play and accommodate 3 courts. It has good accessibility, reasonably close parking and trailhead bathroom facilities at the Cougar Creek Trailhead. The implementation of pickle ball at the Cougar Creek site will increase the summer use at a primarily winter use facility. Evaluation of the existing asphalt surface has concluded that the surface is less than perfect and will require minor surface works to make it safe and playable. This work is an adjustment to the scope of the original Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 147 of 149 Pickleball Site Evaluation Page 3 of 4 project. Work to complete this has been evaluated and is scheduled to be completed prior to the project end date in May 31, 2013. This work will be coordinated with additional work currently being planned by the Parks Department. Quotes to complete the new project scope have been collected and approval has been received by New Horizons to complete the altered project. It should be noted that the pickleball group has provided a tremendous amount of input and energy into moving this initiative forward. As part of the evaluation process they offered a very thorough report noting several recommendations and are requesting consideration during future recreation facility development discussions. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 1. Implement pickleball at the Veteran’s Park Tennis Court site. This alternative is the location proposed in the original grant application and has no financial implications however, is not supported by the Canmore Tennis Association. 2. Cancel the New Horizon’s Grant, return the money, and re-apply next year with the intention of identifying a new site. This alternative is not supported as there has already been a political announcement of the grant to the Town of Canmore, and puts at risk the present and possibly future funding. 3. Implement pickleball courts at the Daycare site (location most preferred by pickleball users). This site is not being recommended due to the uncertainty of future development at this location. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The recommended site will require no additional capital funding. The New Horizons Grant of $14,256 will be sufficient to fund the required patch work and equipment purchases to implement 3 pickleball courts at the Cougar Creek outdoor ice surface. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT A significant amount of engagement with the relevant external stakeholders has occurred to date. Internal stakeholders have also been engaged in this process, including Parks, Planning, and Engineering. Feedback from the Canmore Tennis Association indicates that their position is against implementing a pickleball court at any existing tennis facility. The CTA opinion is that pickleball would have a significant impact on playability for tennis users. The Pickleball group does not concur with the tennis association’s position and their clear preference is to support multiuse courts that include both pickleball and tennis. The recommended option represents a compromise position for the pickleball group. STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT This supports the following goals identified in the 2012 Business Plan. 1. Canmore’s service and programs respond to the social, cultural, and recreational aspirations of its residents. 2. The Town of Canmore delivers effective and fiscally responsible services while valuing innovation. 3. Town of Canmore decisions are based on informed and accurate information and deliberated in an open and transparent fashion. ATTACHMENTS: None Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 148 of 149 Pickleball Site Evaluation Page 4 of 4 AUTHORIZATION Submitted by: Chris Hay Manager of Recreation Services Date: December 3, 2012 Approved by: Terry Holt Manager of Financial Services Date: December 13, 2012 Approved by: Lorrie O’Brien General Manager of Municipal Services Date: December 4, 2012 Approved by: Lisa de Soto, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Date: December 11, 2012 Regular Council Meeting 2012-12-18 5 p.m. Page 149 of 149