THE DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA

PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

A G E N D A

Meeting No. PED-7-2016 Thursday, June 23, 2016 8:45 a.m. Council Chamber, District Administration Building ______

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS

3. CLOSED SESSION (8:45 a.m.)

Recommendation

THAT we do now retire to Planning and Economic Development Committee in closed session to discuss the following:

i. potential land sale or lease at the Muskoka Airport pursuant to the following subsection of Section 239(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended:

(c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board.

Recommendation

THAT we do now rise from Planning and Economic Development Committee in closed session and immediately reconvene in open session.

4. PUBLIC MEETING (9:00 a.m.)

a) Public Meeting Common Element Condominium Description File No. C2016-4 (Rayville Developments (Legacy) Inc.), Town of Huntsville

5. ASSIGNED FUNCTIONS

a) Draft Approval Common Element Condominium Application C2016-4 (Rayville Developments (Legacy) Inc.) Town of Huntsville Report No. PED-7-2016-3

Recommendation (Delegated Decision)

THAT Common Element Condominium Description File No. C2016-4 (Rayville Developments (Legacy) Inc.), in the Town of Huntsville, BE APPROVED as detailed in Schedule “A” attached hereto. b) Amendment No. 6 to Draft Approval Subdivision File No. S2006-3 (Loon Call (Muskoka) Inc.) Town of Bracebridge Report No. PED-7-2016-4

Recommendation (Delegated Decision)

THAT the draft plan of subdivision and Schedule “A” to Resolution No. 29/2006 being the draft approval conditions for Draft Plan of Subdivision File No. S2006-3 (Loon Call (Muskoka) Inc.), as amended, BE FURTHER AMENDED as detailed in Schedule “A” attached hereto.

c) Approval of Amendment No. 3 to the Township of Georgian Bay Official Plan (McCain) Report No. PED-7-2016-2

Recommendation (Delegated Decision)

THAT Amendment No. 3 to the Official Plan of the Township of Georgian Bay, as adopted by Township By-law No. 2016-26, BE MODIFIED as detailed in Schedule “A” attached hereto, AND APPROVED AS MODIFIED.

d) Background for a Public Meeting Subdivision File No. S2016-1 (Port Severn Heights – Phase 2) Township of Georgian Bay Report No. PED-7-2016-5

Recommendation

This report is provided for information.

6. CEREMONIAL AND INVITED PRESENTATION (10:30 a.m.)

a) Explorers’ Edge (RTO 12) and InterVISTAS Consulting Incorporated

i. Muskoka Airport Designation Security Screening & Commercial Air Service – June 15, 2016

7. MUSKOKA AIRPORT

a) Airport Governance Report No. PED-7-2016-6 Recommendation For information and Committee direction.

8. INFORMATION ITEMS

a) Department Activity Report January 1, 2016 to April 30, 2016 Report No. PED-7-2016-1 Recommendation This report is provided for information. b) Extensions to Draft Approval

i. Plan of Subdivision File No. 44T-89013, “Hunter’s Bay Estates – Phase 2”, located in the Town of Huntsville, was granted a one-year extension to June 9, 2017.

9. NEW BUSINESS

a) Committee Discussion - Muskoka District Council Composition

Links to Previous Reports Below:

i. April 18, 2016 - https://muskoka.civicweb.net/document/27687

ii. May 16, 2016 - https://muskoka.civicweb.net/document/27865

10. ADJOURNMENT

Recommendation

THAT the Planning and Economic Development Committee adjourns to meet again on Thursday, July 21, 2016 or at the call of the Chair.

This agenda can be viewed in a larger font by increasing the magnification of the page. Please note that hearing-assistive devices are available in the Council Chamber.

*Note: Next regular scheduled meeting (July 21, 2016) will be followed by lunch and an afternoon workshop regarding the Muskoka Official Plan Review.

TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee

FROM: Sam Soja Planner

DATE: June 23, 2016

SUBJECT: Draft Approval Common Element Condominium Application C2016-4 (Rayville Developments (Legacy) Inc.) Town of Huntsville

REPORT NO: PED-7-2016-3 ______

RECOMMENDATION (Delegated Decision)

THAT Common Element Condominium Description File No. C2016-4 (Rayville Developments (Legacy) Inc.), in the Town of Huntsville, BE APPROVED as detailed in Schedule “A” attached hereto.

ORIGIN

An application for the above noted common element condominium file was received on March 30, 2016 and accepted as a complete application on April 27, 2016.

ANALYSIS

Location and Description

The subject property is located in the north end of the Urban Centre of the Town of Huntsville, in the vicinity of Hanes Road and Centre Street North and accessed by way of Legacy Lane which is a private road. The property is approximately 0.97 hectares (2.4 acres) in size and the lands are specifically described as Part of Block 23, Registered Plan 35M-694, Town of Huntsville. A location map is attached as Appendix “I”.

Proposal

This application proposes to create one common element block that would be legally tied to 23 freehold townhouse lots (i.e. Parcels of Tied Land (POTLs)) which are proposed to be created through the lifting of part lot control. This common element condominium description would contain a private road from which each townhome would gain access as well as green space

Page 1 areas. The common element condominium description is outlined in bold on the draft plan attached as Appendix “II”.

Site Characteristics and Surrounding Uses

As a site plan has been approved by the Town of Huntsville for the property, the lands are currently undergoing extensive site alteration in order to prepare for construction of the proposed development.

The property is surrounded by single detached residential uses to the south and west, the Chartwell Muskoka Traditions Retirement Residence and high density residential uses to the north, and commercial uses to the east.

Supporting Documentation

A functional servicing report consisting of detailed drawings was completed by Pinestone Engineering Ltd. dated November, 2015, and submitted in support of this application. For stormwater management, this document recommends the use of grassed swales in order to convey stormwater, the majority of which is to be directed to an existing stormwater management pond located on an adjacent property which was designed to receive stormwater from the subject lands. The report also provides details on how the property will be connected to municipal water and sewer services.

Circulation and Public Meetings

Two public meetings were held at the Town of Huntsville in 2014 related to the re-zoning of the lands in order to facilitate the proposed development. A site plan has also recently been approved by the Town which specifically reflects this overall development proposal.

In response to the circulation of the Notice of Complete Application and Public Meeting for the common element condominium description, the District requires an agreement respecting municipal water and sewer services and the disposal of solid waste as a condition of draft approval. The Town of Huntsville has indicated that they have no concerns with the approval of the above noted application, as any outstanding matters, including the implementation of the stormwater management plan, have been addressed by the Town through site plan control.

Bell Canada has also requested a blanket easement over the entire subject lands to provide service. A condition of approval has been added to require that the easement be granted prior to final approval.

Given that no additional concerns related to the proposed common element condominium have been identified by agencies or members of the public through the zoning by-law amendment process or in response to the District’s notice, District staff are of the opinion that it would be appropriate to consider approval of the proposed common element condominium at the same Planning and Economic Development Committee meeting as the public meeting, provided no additional concerns are brought forward.

Page 2

Planning Documents

Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)

The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) applies to this application. Section 1.1.3 of the PPS promotes land use patterns within settlement areas that make efficient use of land, resources, infrastructure, and public services and support active transportation. In this regard, the development proposal involves the logical extension of an existing residential area within an urban centre, which would make efficient use of land and existing public services. With a Town owned trail reserve located immediately adjacent to the subject lands, the proposal would also support active transportation by locating a residential development within proximity to destinations in the urban centre that can be easily accessed by walking, cycling or other human- powered travel. As such, the proposal would be consistent with this and all other relevant policies contained within this document.

District of Muskoka and Huntsville Official Plans

The lands subject to the proposed condominium description are located within the “Urban Centre” designation of the Muskoka Official Plan and are designated “Residential-Multiple” within the “Huntsville Urban Settlement Area” in the Town of Huntsville Official Plan. Urban centres are envisioned to be the focus of growth, with development occurring on municipal water and sewer services.

Section C.10 of the Muskoka Official Plan states that proper and adequate means of access will be provided to all lots to a standard appropriate to the situation. In this regard, access to residential development in an urban centre is generally preferred to be by a publicly owned and maintained road to ensure appropriate provision of emergency services and long-term road maintenance. However, access via a private condominium road can be considered as a suitable alternative because the Condominium Act provides for mechanisms to require the owners of adjacent condominium units or POTLs to make financial contributions towards reserve funds for long-term road maintenance.

In this case, it should be noted that the proposed condominium road connects directly to Legacy Lane, which is an existing private road owned by the Chartwell Muskoka Traditions Retirement Residence. Since the subject lands and several other properties receive their access from Legacy Lane, District staff will be discussing options for the provision of emergency access for this entire area with the Town of Huntsville.

Town of Huntsville Zoning By-law

The subject lands have been zoned in order to permit the proposed development.

Summary

Staff have reviewed the Provincial Policy Statement, the Muskoka Official Plan, and the Town of Huntsville Official Plan, and are of the opinion that, subject to the conditions of approval set out in Schedule “A” attached hereto, the proposal is consistent with the PPS and conforms to all relevant municipal planning policies. In addition, standard and site specific conditions of approval were included to address the appurtenant technical recommendations from the supporting documentation.

Page 3

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

No impacts on the 2016 Tax Supported Operating Budget and Capital Budget and Forecast are anticipated as a result of this proposal.

COMMUNICATIONS

Notice of Application and Public Meeting was circulated to required agencies and all property owners in accordance with the Planning Act, R.S.0., 1990, as amended. Similarly, circulation of a Notice of the Decision is required in accordance with the Act.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

The consideration of the proposed draft common element condominium description supports the following goal (in part) as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities:

1. Manage development and growth in a sustainable manner balancing environmental, economic, social and cultural elements….

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Sam Soja Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Planner Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development

S:\DEVELOPMENT\Sub Condo\2016\C2016-4 - Rayville Developments (Legacy) Inc\(5) Internal Reports (Draft Approval)\2016 06 08 Draft Approval Report To PEDC C2016-4 Rayville Legacy Inc.Doc

Page 4

SCHEDULE “A” C2016-4 “Rayville Developments (Legacy) Inc.”

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Part A – Approval

Condominium Description File No. C2016-4 (Rayville Developments (Legacy) Inc.) is approved subject to Parts B, C, and D herein.

Part B – Conditions

General Conditions

1. This approval applies to the Common Element Condominium Description, File No. C2016-4 (Rayville Development (Legacy) Inc. , prepared by Van Harten Surveying Inc., dated March 3, 2016 and revised April 15, 2016 which shows one common element condominium block on Part of Block 23, Registered Plan 35M-694, in the Town of Huntsville.

2. Prior to final approval being granted, The District Municipality of Muskoka shall be satisfied that the Owner has provided a copy of the final plan in digital format in accordance with The District Municipality of Muskoka Digital Draft and Final Plan Submission Requirements.

3. Prior to final approval being granted and prior to the submission of the proposed internal road name(s) to the Town of Huntsville for approval purposes, the owner shall submit names to The District Municipality of Muskoka for 911 verification.

4. Prior to final approval being granted, the Owner shall provide to the satisfaction of the District Solicitor:

i) a copy of the proposed registrable description of the parcels of tied land (POTLs ) necessary for the registration of the common element condominium corporation; and

ii) an undertaking which ensures that this common element condominium subject to this approval will be registered against each of the POTLs identified in Condition 4 i).

Conveyances

5. Prior to final approval, easements as may be required for such matters as utilities, drainage, pedestrian walkways, public access to the subject lands, access to adjacent properties or for other purposes shall be relocated and/or granted to the Town of Huntsville, Bell Canada, and any other authority or party.

Page 5

District Municipal Agreement

6. Prior to final approval being granted, the Owner shall enter into an agreement or amend an existing agreement with The District Municipality of Muskoka, in accordance with Section 51(26) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended. The agreement shall be registered on title and include provisions obliging the Owner to satisfy all the requirements, financial and otherwise, of The District Municipality of Muskoka including but not limited to the following:

i) the installation of municipal water and sewer services;

ii) the municipal assumption and operation of such services;

iii) the disposal of solid waste; and

iv) ensuring that no transfer of any Parcels of Tied Land (POTL) occurs until such time as interests in the common element condominium road created by Condominium Description File No. C2016-4 have been registered against each of the POTLs which are to be created by part lot control.

Clearance Letters

7. Prior to final approval being granted, the Town of Huntsville shall advise The District Municipality of Muskoka in writing that Condition 5 has been complied with to their satisfaction with a brief and concise statement detailing how the condition has been satisfied.

8. Prior to final approval being granted, Bell Canada shall advise The District Municipality of Muskoka in writing that Condition 5 has been complied with to their satisfaction with a brief and concise statement detailing how the condition has been satisfied.

9. Prior to final approval being granted, The District Municipality of Muskoka shall be satisfied that Conditions 1 to 6 have been complied with to their satisfaction.

Final Approval

10. The final plan for registration must be in registrable form together with all necessary instruments or plans describing an interest in the land.

11. Prior to final approval being granted, the Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development or her designate shall be satisfied that the conditions of approval have been satisfied and the final plan is in conformity with the draft plan.

Part C - Lapsing Provision

In the event that the Owner fails to fulfill the conditions of draft approval on or before June 23, 2021, the approval herein granted shall be deemed to have lapsed pursuant to the Planning Act,

Page 6

R.S.O 1990, as amended.

Extensions to draft approval may be considered provided that existing technical reports remain applicable or updates are provided.

Part D – Timing of Work

The owner is advised that any site alteration or the installation of any works or matters that may be the subject of any required agreements shall not be permitted prior to the execution of such agreements. Where any such works, alterations or matters are undertaken in violation of this clause, approval of this plan may be withdrawn as authorized under Section 51(44) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990.

Page 7

Appendix “I”

Page 8

Appendix “II”

Page 9

TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee

FROM: Melissa Halford Manager of Planning

DATE: June 23, 2016

SUBJECT: Amendment No. 6 to Draft Approval Subdivision File No. S2006-3 (Loon Call (Muskoka) Inc.) Town of Bracebridge

REPORT NO: PED-7-2016-4 ______

RECOMMENDATION (Delegated Decision)

THAT the draft plan of subdivision and Schedule “A” to Resolution No. 29/2006 being the draft approval conditions for Draft Plan of Subdivision File No. S2006-3 (Loon Call (Muskoka) Inc.), as amended, BE FURTHER AMENDED as detailed in Schedule “A” attached hereto.

ORIGIN

An application for a major amendment to the above noted draft plan of subdivision was originally submitted on August 18, 2015 by the applicant’s agent Mr. Bob List of List Planning Ltd. Since that time, the applicant has revised the development proposal a number of times, with the most recent proposal being submitted on May 9, 2016.

ANALYSIS

Location and Description

The subject property fronts onto Douglas Drive and is located with the urban centre of the Town of Bracebridge. More specifically these lands are located on Part of Lot 3, Concession 5, Macaulay, Town of Bracebridge, and are approximately 7.1 hectares (17.6 acres) in size. A location map is attached as Appendix “I”.

Site Characteristics and Surrounding Land Uses

A number of townhome units are currently under construction on a portion of the lands subject to the proposed major amendment, while the remaining lands have recently been graded and are sparsely vegetated. The subject lands directly abut the previously registered phases of the subdivision, at the end of the temporary cul-de-sac known as Little Ryan’s Way.

Page 1

The lands to the north and west of the subdivision consist of single detached residential development of varying densities. A senior’s residence, Bracebridge and Muskoka Lakes Secondary School, and the Bracebridge Sportsplex are located to the south of the lands. Abutting the subject property to the east is a Canadian National Railway (CN Rail) right-of-way.

Background

The original draft plan of subdivision was draft approved on August 10, 2006 for a total of 15 single detached residential lots and a large retained parcel, a portion of which was to be used for stormwater management purposes. Access was proposed from an internal public road originating from Douglas Drive for ten of the lots, and directly from Douglas Drive for the remaining five. Each of the lots were proposed to be serviced with municipal water and sewer services. Since that time, the property has changed ownership and has been amended a total of five times to increase the number of residential units on the lands to 45, 41 of which were to be townhomes and four were proposed as semi-detached residential dwelling units. A copy of the current draft approved plan of subdivision is located in Appendix “II”.

Proposed Amendments to the Draft Plan

This proposed major amendment will have the effect of replacing the current Phase 3A (including four townhouse residential lots and two semi-detached residential lots, as well as Block G – Parkland Dedication) with a new phase to be known as Phase 4. Phase 4 is proposed to consist of a total of 11 townhouse residential lots, one parkland block (Block G) and a new block (Block H), which is intended to be developed with one single detached residential dwelling. This represents a net increase of seven additional residential lots. All proposed townhomes will be set back 75 metres from the rail line right-of-way, as required by CN Rail.

The proposed amendment also removes land from the draft approved plan along Douglas Drive between the Phase 1 lands and the proposed Block H. The applicant intends to create four additional lots in this location through the consent process with the Town of Bracebridge. The consents were conditionally approved by the Town of Bracebridge on May 17, 2016. A copy of the proposed amended plan is located in Appendix “III”.

Supporting Documentation

A preliminary stormwater management report completed by TSH Engineering Ltd., was submitted in support of the original application. The report recommended the use of drainage swales, roadside ditches, and a wet pond stormwater management facility to achieve the necessary stormwater quantity and quality controls to ensure the existing drainage on the property is either maintained or improved. The applicant has also engaged Pinestone Engineering Ltd., who has provided two updates and an addendum letter to the original report to determine if the proposed major amendment to the draft plan of subdivision would have an impact upon the stormwater management facility, as it has already received a Certificate of Approval from the Ministry of the Environment. The updates conclude that all stormwater can be effectively managed through the existing stormwater management facility and associated conveyance measures noted above.

A Noise and Vibration Study and subsequent updates were submitted in support of the original application as the subdivision abuts a CN Rail right-of-way. These studies recommended numerous lot-specific measures in order to mitigate any potential impacts due to the proximity of the residential development to the rail right-of-way (e.g. warning clauses, mandatory air

Page 2

conditioning, special vibration foundations, brick veneer from foundation to rafters). The recommendations were ultimately incorporated into the conditions of draft approval. As part of our review, the amendment application was circulated to CN Rail for their review and comment.

Circulation

Section 51(44) of the Planning Act allows an approval authority (i.e. The District of Muskoka) to change the conditions of draft approval. Section 51(23) of the Planning Act also enables the District to confer with persons or public bodies that it considers may have an interest in the approval of the revised conditions. The proposed amendment was circulated to the Town of Bracebridge and CN Rail for their review.

The Town of Bracebridge has advised that they recommend approval of the proposed amendment provided that an amending development agreement is entered into with the Town to address the revised phasing, parkland dedication and the necessary reconstruction of a portion of Douglas Drive.

CN Rail confirmed that the applicant has entered into an agreement as well as a subsequent amending agreement with the Town that requires the applicant to address potential railway proximity issues. As these agreements satisfactorily address CN Rail’s requirements, they have no outstanding concerns with the proposed major amendment.

An amending agreement will be required with the District to address the provision of municipal services and the disposal of solid waste. The conditions have been amended to reflect these requirements.

Planning Documents

Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)

The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) would apply to this application. Sections 1.1.1 and 1.1.3.2 of the PPS recognizes the importance of accommodating an appropriate range and mix of residential uses, including affordable housing units, and promotes land use patterns within settlement areas that make efficient use of land, resources, infrastructure, and public services. Further, Section 1.4.3 requires the provision of an appropriate range of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents.

In this regard, the overall development proposal contains a mix of densities and housing forms which are intended to provide affordable housing options within the urban centre, which would make efficient use of public services, including municipal water and sanitary sewer services. As such, the proposed major amendment would be consistent with the PPS.

District of Muskoka Official Plan

The subject lands are located within the “Urban Centre” designation of the Muskoka Official Plan. Urban settlement areas are envisioned to be the focus of growth and the appropriate location for large scale residential based proposals, with development occurring on full municipal water and sewer services. The Muskoka Official Plan also promotes the provision of a full range of housing forms to meet projected demands and encourage affordable housing. As the proposed development represents a mix of residential densities and are intended to provide affordable

Page 3

housing options, the proposal would generally conform to the Muskoka Official Plan, subject to the conditions of draft approval.

Town of Bracebridge Official Plan

The subject lands are designated “Residential” within the “Urban Centre” designation of the Town of Bracebridge Official Plan which encourages a broad range of residential dwelling types at varying densities within Urban Centres. As such, District staff concur with Town staff that the application would continue to conform to this and other relevant policies of this document.

Town of Bracebridge Zoning By-law

The subject lands were recently re-zoned in order to facilitate the revised development concept.

Recommended Conditions

Staff have reviewed the Provincial Policy Statement, Muskoka Official Plan, and the Town of Bracebridge Official Plan, and are of the opinion that, subject to the conditions of approval set out in the Schedule “A” attached hereto, the proposal is consistent with and conforms to all relevant provincial and municipal planning policies. A consolidated version of the conditions of draft approval is attached in Schedule “B”.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

No impacts on the 2016 Tax Supported Operating Budget and Capital Budget and Forecast are anticipated as a result of this proposal.

COMMUNICATIONS

The notice of Committee’s decision will be circulated in accordance with the Planning Act, R.S.0., 1990.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

The approval of Amendment No. 6 (Loon Call (Muskoka) Inc.) supports the following goal (in part) as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities:

1. Manage development and growth in a sustainable manner balancing environmental, economic, social and cultural elements.

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Melissa Halford, B.A.(Hons), MCIP, RPP Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development

S:\DEVELOPMENT\Sub Condo\2006\S2006-03 Cutters Quest Meadows_Loon Call Muskoka Inc\(11) Amendments\Amendment No. 6 (Major)\2016 05 09 Loon Call PED Committee Report - Major Amendment.Doc

Page 4

SCHEDULE “A”

AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO PLAN OF SUBDIVISION FILE NO. S2006-3

"Loon Call (Muskoka) Inc."

That Schedule “A” to Resolution D29/2006, as amended, is hereby further amended as follows:

1. That Condition 1(a) be deleted and replaced with the following:

“This approval applies to Plan of Subdivision File No. S2006-3 (Loon Call (Muskoka) Inc.) prepared by T.A. Bunker Surveying Ltd., dated May 9, 2016, showing a total of 11 lots and 2 blocks, on Part of Lot 3, Concession 5, Geographic Township of Macaulay, Town of Bracebridge, District of Muskoka.”

2. That Condition 5 be amended to replace:

“Phase 3A: Lots 20-23 and 24-25 and Block G”

With

“Phase 4: Lots 1 to 11, Blocks G and H”.

3. That Condition 6 be amended to delete reference to “Phase 3A” and replace it with “Phase 4”.

4. That the following be added immediately after Condition 12:

“12(a) The owner shall enter into an amending agreement with the Town of Bracebridge authorized by Section 51(26) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended. This agreement shall satisfy all the requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Town of Bracebridge, including but not limited to revised phasing, parkland dedication and the reconstruction of Douglas Drive.”

5. That Condition 13(a) be amended to include the words “the disposal of solid waste,” after the words “but not limited to”.

6. That Condition 14 be amended to include reference to Condition 12(a).

7. That the second paragraph of the Lapsing Provision be deleted.

Page 5

Appendix “I”

Page 6

Appendix “II”

Page 7

Appendix “III”

Page 8

SCHEDULE “B”

Consolidation of Schedule “A”

PLAN OF SUBDIVISION FILE NO. S2006-3 "Loon Call (Muskoka) Inc. Subdivision"

Part A

Plan of Subdivision File No. S 2006-3 (Loon Call (Muskoka) Inc.) is approved subject to Part B herein.

Part B

General Conditions

Amd. By Res. 1(a) This approval applies to Plan of Subdivision File No. S2006-3 (Loon Call (Muskoka) Inc.) prepared by D/2016-PED T.A. Bunker Surveying Ltd., dated May 9, 2016, showing a total of 11 lots and 2 blocks, on Part of Lot 3, on June 23/16 Concession 5, Geographic Township of Macaulay, Town of Bracebridge, District of Muskoka.

1. Easements as may be required for access, pedestrian walkways, utilities, drainage, noise attenuation or other purposes shall be granted to the District of Muskoka, Town of Bracebridge, CN Rail and any other authority or party as may be required.

2. Prior to final approval being granted and prior to the submission of the proposed internal road names to the Town of Bracebridge for approval purposes, the Owner shall submit names to The District Municipality of Muskoka for 911 verification

3. Prior to final approval being granted, The District Municipality of Muskoka shall be provided with a copy of the final plan in digital format in accordance with The District Municipality of Muskoka Digital Draft and Final Plan of Subdivision Submission Requirements

4. Prior to final approval being granted, The District Municipality of Muskoka shall be circulated a draft Area Municipal subdivision agreement for review and comment and shall be in receipt of a registered copy of the Area Municipal subdivision agreement.

Phasing

5. The plan of subdivision be finalized in phases as set out on the draft approved plan and detailed below, with each preceding phase being registered and substantially complete prior to the final approval if the subsequent phase and subject to confirmation of water and sewer capacity:

Phase 1: Lots 1-2 Phase 2: Blocks A, B, C, D, E and F

Amd. By Res. Phase 2A: Lot 1 D/2016-PED Phase 3: Lots 1-13 and 14-19 on June 23/16 Phase 4: Lots 1 to 11, Blocks G and H

Amd. By Res. 6. Prior to the approval being granted to phases 2, 2A, 3 and 3A 4 the District of Muskoka and the Town of D/2016-PED Bracebridge shall be satisfied that the previously registered phases have been serviced with municipal on June 23/16 water and sewer services and that any required infrastructure has been installed.

Zoning By-law

7. Prior to final approval being granted, the property included in this plan of subdivision shall be zoned for its intended use.

Environmental

8. Prior to final approval being granted, the owner shall provide The District Municipality of Muskoka with four copies of a detailed storm water management and construction Page 9 mitigation plan for the ultimate development, which is prepared by a certified professional engineer. This plan shall incorporate the recommendations of the memorandum from the Town of Bracebridge Director of Public Works, dated May 17, 2013. The plans shall be circulated by The District Municipality of Muskoka to The Town of Bracebridge. If required, a Certificate of Approval for the plan shall be obtained from the Ministry of the Environment prior to construction of the works.

9. Prior to final approval being granted, the owner shall enter into an agreement with CN Rail respecting rail noise and vibration mitigation and other related matters.

Area Municipal Subdivision Agreement

10. Prior to final approval being granted, the owner shall enter into a subdivision agreement authorized by the Section 51(26) of The Planning Act, R.S.O.. 1990, as amended, with the Town of Bracebridge. The agreement shall be registered on title and shall provide that the owner agrees to satisfy all the requirements, financial and otherwise, of The Town of Bracebridge concerning the provision of roads, sidewalks, street lighting, utilities, landscaping, lot grading and storm drainage amongst other matters;

11. The subdivision agreement shall contain a provision or provisions in wording acceptable to the Town of Bracebridge which will:

a) Require the implementation of the plans required in Conditions 6 8 under the supervision and to the satisfaction of a certified professional engineer; b) Provide for conveyance to the municipality of any facilities and for the long-term maintenance of such facilities or works constructed in accordance with the plans;

12. The subdivision agreement shall contain, if necessary, a provision or provisions in wording acceptable to the Town of Bracebridge and CN which:

a) Implements the recommendations contained in the "Environmental Noise and Vibration Study: 73 Douglas Drive Proposed Residential Plan of Subdivision " dated April 12, 2011 and the Aercoustics Engineering Limited, Acoustical Site Plan review, dated December 5, 2012, including the following; b) Contains the following warning clause: "Warning: Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in interest has or have a right-of-way within 300 metres from the lands the subject hereof. There may be alteration to or expansions of the rail facilities on such right-of-way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). CN will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid right-of-way."

12(a) The owner shall enter into an amending agreement with the Town of Bracebridge authorized by Amd. By Res. D/2016-PED Section 51(26) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended. This agreement shall satisfy all the on June 23/16 requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Town of Bracebridge, including but not limited to revised phasing, parkland dedication and the reconstruction of Douglas Drive.

District Municipal Subdivision Agreement

13. Prior to final approval being granted for Phase 1, the owner shall enter into a master subdivision agreement authorized by Section 51(26) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, with The District Municipality of Muskoka. The agreement shall be registered on title and shall provide that the owner agrees to satisfy all the requirements, financial and otherwise, of The District Municipality of Muskoka, including but not limited to the installation of municipal water and sewer services and shall provide for municipal assumption and operation of same.

13(a). Prior to final approval being granted for any subsequent Phase, the owner shall enter into a supplemental subdivision agreement authorized by Section 51(26) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, Amd. By Res. as amended, with The District Municipality of Muskoka. The agreement shall be registered on title D/2016-PED and shall provide that the owner agrees to satisfy all the requirements, financial and otherwise, of The on June 23/16 District Municipality of Muskoka, including but not limited to the disposal of solid waste, the installation of municipal water and sewer services and shall provide for municipal assumption and operation of same.

Page 10 Clearance Letters Amd. By Res. D/2016-PED 14. Prior to final approval being granted, the Town of Bracebridge shall advise the District in on June 23/16 writing that conditions 1(a), 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 and 12(a) have been complied with to their satisfaction with a brief and concise statement detailing how each condition has been satisfied.

15. Prior to final approval being granted, The District Municipality of Muskoka shall be satisfied that conditions 1(a), 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 13(a) have been complied with to their satisfaction.

16. Prior to final approval being granted, CN Rail shall be satisfied that conditions 1, 9 and 12 have been complied with to their satisfaction with a brief and concise statement detailing how each condition has been satisfied

Final Plan

17. The final plan must be in registerable form together with all necessary instruments or plans describing an interest in the land.

18. Prior to final approval being granted, the Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development or her designate shall be satisfied that the conditions of approval have been satisfied and the final plan is in conformity with the draft plan

Lapsing Provision

In the event that the owner fails to register the conditions of draft approval on or before September 9, 2016, the approval herein granted shall be deemed to have lapsed pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended.

Amd. By Res. In the event that a phase is registered prior to the original lapsing date, the owner must fulfill the conditions D/2016-PED of approval for subsequent phases within 24 months from the date of the registration of the preceding on June 23/16 phase or prior to the original lapsing date, whichever is later. If registration does not occur within these timeframes, the approval may be withdrawn pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.0.1990.

Page 11

TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee

FROM: Scott Joyce Planner

DATE: June 23, 2016

SUBJECT: Approval of Amendment No. 3 to the Township of Georgian Bay Official Plan (McCain)

REPORT NO: PED-7-2016-2 ______

RECOMMENDATION (Delegated Decision)

THAT Amendment No. 3 to the Official Plan of the Township of Georgian Bay, as adopted by Township By-law No. 2016-26, BE MODIFIED as detailed in Schedule “A” attached hereto, AND APPROVED AS MODIFIED.

ORIGIN

The Council of the Township of Georgian Bay adopted Amendment No. 3 to the Township’s Official Plan by By-law No. 2016-26 on March 14, 2016 and has submitted it to the District of Muskoka for approval.

ANALYSIS

Purpose of Amendment No. 3

The subject property is currently designated “Cognashene Coastal Waterfront Community” in the Township of Georgian Bay Official Plan and contains an existing cottage, sleeping cabin and docking. The purpose of this amendment is to permit a 54 square metre (582 square feet) covered porch addition to an existing legal non-complying dwelling. A 21 square metre (226 square feet) porch was recently demolished in this location.

A copy of the adopted amendment is attached as Appendix “I”.

Page 1

Property Description and Surrounding Uses

The lands subject to this amendment are located on an island in the Cognashene Coastal Waterfront Community area of Georgian Bay. The lands are legally described as Island 53, formerly in the Township of Gibson, Township of Georgian Bay, District Municipality of Muskoka. The subject property is municipally known as 2 Island 1860. A location map is attached as Appendix “II”.

The subject lands are approximately 1.11 hectares (2.74 acres) with approximately 195 metres (643 feet) of water frontage. The property is surrounded by other islands and the mainland is approximately 800 metres (2,625 feet) away.

Circulation and Public Meeting

The public meeting was held by the Township of Georgian Bay at their municipal office on March 14, 2016. The applicant’s agents made oral submissions at the meeting in support of the application.

Several letters of objection were also received from neighbouring property owners prior to the public meeting citing noise, precedence and overbuilding as concerns. Some of these objections were withdrawn in writing prior to the meeting. These letters were considered by the Township of Georgian Bay Council. Other neighbours continue to object to the amendment as noted in emails to the District of Muskoka following the Township’s adoption of the amendment. Since there appears to be outstanding objections that are not resolved, this application does not meet the criteria to be processed as a “minor” Official Plan Amendment and approval is required from the Planning and Economic Development Committee. The criteria of a “minor” and “major” amendment is attached as Appendix “III”, for Committee’s reference.

Planning Documents

Provincial Policy Statement (PPS)

The Provincial Policy Statement permits development on rural lands that is compatible with the rural landscape and can be sustained by rural services. In the Muskoka context, lands within the waterfront designation are considered “rural” in the PPS. The PPS also requires protection of habitat of Species at Risk (SAR) in accordance with Provincial and Federal regulations.

Although the Endangered Species Act identifies the subject lands as being within a large area which is considered Regulated Habitat for the Eastern Foxsnake, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) have provided correspondence to the Township indicating that they have no concerns regarding this proposal (Appendix “IV”).

Therefore, the proposal would be consistent with the policies contained within the PPS.

Page 2

Muskoka Official Plan

The subject lands are located within the “Waterfront” designation of the Muskoka Official Plan. Single unit residential development and accessory buildings and structures, located on individual lots are envisioned for the Waterfront designation.

The District of Muskoka was circulated the Township’s Official Plan Amendment application for review and comment. No comments or concerns were noted as the proposal would appear to conform to the Muskoka Official Plan.

Township of Georgian Bay Official Plan

The subject property is designated “Cognashene Coastal Waterfront Community” in the Township’s Official Plan. The existing Official Plan policies generally limit the size of dwellings constructed in this community. Based on the current policies, a dwelling with a maximum gross floor area (GFA) of 277 square metres (2,986 square feet) would be permitted on the subject property. When the 54 square metre (582 square feet) covered porch is added to the existing legal non-complying dwelling (already measuring 396 square metres (4,268 square feet)), the GFA will be approximately 450 square metres (4,851 square feet).

Although a minor variance application was originally submitted, it was determined by Township staff that an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Zoning By-law Amendment were required to permit the covered porch addition. Township staff supported the proposed Official Plan Amendment.

Township of Georgian Bay Zoning By-Laws 91-19 and 2014-14

A concurrent application to amend the Zoning By-laws to permit the covered porch addition and limit the expansion of accessory structures on the subject property was approved by the Township of Georgian Bay on March 14, 2016. The by-laws will come into effect after the Official Plan Amendment has been approved and the appeal period has lapsed, pending no appeals.

Modifications

A minor modification is proposed to add the legal description to the policy in order to ensure clarity of the site specific nature of the proposed amendment. Township staff concurs with this modification.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

No impacts on the 2016 Tax Supported Operating Budget and Capital Budget and Forecast are anticipated as a result of this report.

COMMUNICATIONS

Notices of the public meeting and adoption were circulated by the Township in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act. A Notice of Decision will be provided by the District in accordance with the Planning Act.

Page 3

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

The approval of Amendment No. 3 (McCain) to the Township of Georgian Bay Official Plan supports the following goal (in part) as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities:

1. Manage development and growth in a sustainable manner balancing environmental, economic, social and cultural elements.

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Scott Joyce, MCIP, RPP Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Planner Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development

S:\DEVELOPMENT\Dev Applications\GB\OPA\OPA Approval\2016\OPA_01_16 ( OPA No.3)_Mccain\Internal Reports\Final - PED Committee Report OPA No.3 - Mccain.Doc

Page 4

SCHEDULE “A” – (Township of Georgian Bay – OPA No. 3)

As a result of the foregoing, the following modification is proposed:

1. That Section 4.1 be amended to add the following phrase immediately prior to the phrase “The maximum permitted gross floor area of a dwelling shall be 449.81 m2.”:

“For the lands identified as 2 Island 1860 (also known as IS 53), in the former Township of Gibson, now in the Township of Georgian Bay, District Municipality of Muskoka,”

Page 5

Appendix “I”

Page 6

Page 7

Page 8

Page 9

Appendix “II”

Page 10

Appendix “III”

(Excerpt from By-law No. 2016-5)

Page 11

Appendix “IV”

Page 12

TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee

FROM: Melissa Halford Manager of Planning

DATE: June 23, 2016

SUBJECT: Background for a Public Meeting Subdivision File No. S2016-1 (Port Severn Heights – Phase 2) Township of Georgian Bay

REPORT NO: PED-7-2016-5 ______

RECOMMENDATION

This report is provided for information.

ORIGIN

An application for the above noted subdivision file was accepted as a complete application on January 20, 2016. The Notice of Application was mailed out February 4, 2016. The following background material has been prepared in order to provide Committee with a general overview of the proposed draft plan of subdivision prior to the concurrent public meeting which is to be scheduled in the near future at the Township of Georgian Bay Municipal Office.

ANALYSIS

Location and Description

The lands subject to this application are approximately 17 hectares (42 acres) in area and are located in the Urban Centre of Port Severn, north of Honey Harbour Road (Muskoka Road No. 5) and west of Provincial Highway 400. More specifically, these lands are described as Part of Lot 30, Concessions 3 and 4, Baxter, Township of Georgian Bay. A location map is attached as Appendix “I”.

Proposal

The plan of subdivision proposes to create 44 residential lots intended for single-detached dwellings and 12 blocks containing 35 multiple-residential units, 28 townhouse units, and 24 single-residential units. The draft plan also includes four blocks to be designated for open space

Page 1

and three stormwater management blocks. The development is to proceed in seven phases and would permit the construction of a total of 161 residential units.

All of the proposed residential lots and blocks are to be accessed by way of an extension of a public road or by way of an internal condominium road. The proposed development would be serviced with full municipal water and sanitary sewer services. A copy of the proposed plan of subdivision is included in Appendix “II”.

Site Characteristics and Surrounding Land Uses

The subject property is currently vacant and consists of open barrens with scattered shrubs, deciduous forest cover and wetland areas. A private laneway traverses the property for access to a telecommunications tower to the north.

The lands immediately to the south of the subject lands contain draft approved Plan of Subdivision File No. S2007-4 (Port Severn Heights), which proposes a total of 225 residential units. Although the plan was draft approved on March 12, 2009, the developer has not fulfilled the conditions of draft approval and these lands remain undeveloped. Other areas surrounding the subject lands are also undeveloped. To the west of the subject property is a limestone outcropping known as the Port Severn Outlier (a Muskoka Heritage Area and Regulated Habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA, 2007)), which provides hibernacula for the Eastern Foxsnake.

Supporting Documentation

Several studies have been submitted in support of the proposed subdivision application as described below.

A functional servicing report was completed by Tulloch Engineering and dated September 8, 2015. The report documents how the proposed subdivision will be fully serviced by municipal water and sewer services. The report also makes recommendations for stormwater management, construction mitigation and includes a brief traffic impact study. This report is currently being reviewed by the District and the Township.

Given the proximity of the proposed development to Provincial Highway 400, a traffic noise impact study was also completed by R. Bouwmeester & Associates and dated January 18, 2016. This report concludes that with appropriate mitigation measures, the proposed development can meet all provincial noise guidelines. This report is currently being peer reviewed by Valcoustics Canada Limited and this review is expected to be completed within the next two weeks.

An environmental impact study (EIS) completed by Michalski Nielsen Associates Limited, dated January 2010 as well as an EIS Update completed by FRi Ecological Services, dated August 2015 were also submitted. These reports conclude that provided appropriate mitigation measures are implemented, the development will not result in any negative impact to the natural environment. The peer review conducted by Beacon Environmental expressed concurrence with the findings of the initial reports.

As the subject lands have been identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) as Regulated Habitat for Eastern Foxsnake, the applicants are also currently working with MNRF in order to obtain and Overall Benefit Permit (OBP) for this species. The OBP would

Page 2 be required prior to development. As part of this process, the applicants retained FRi Ecological Services to additional environmental work in order to identify potential impacts, proposed mitigation as well as recommended actions in order to provide a net benefit to the species in order to support the issuance of the OBP. As this matter is within Provincial jurisdiction, this report, dated February 2015 was provided as information only to the District, and any recommendations contained therein will require approval by the MNRF as part of the Provincial permitting process. The MNRF does not issue OBPs until the planning authority has draft approved any related application.

The planning justification report, prepared by Wayne Simpson and Associates, dated September, 2015 also provides planning rationale and an overview of the development proposal.

Planning Documents

The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) would apply to this proposal. The PPS promotes land use patterns within settlement areas that make efficient use of land, resources, infrastructure, and public services. Further, Section 1.4.3 requires the provision of an appropriate range of housing types and densities to meet projected requirements of current and future residents. In this regard, the overall development proposal contains a mix of densities and housing forms, which would make efficient use of public services, including municipal water and sanitary sewer services.

In addition, Section 2.1.7 of the PPS indicates that development and site alteration shall not be permitted in habitat of endangered and threatened species, except in accordance with provincial and federal requirements. As indicated above, the MNRF has been consulted and an OBP is in the process of being drafted by the Ministry. The OBP will articulate a number of mitigation measures that will be required to be undertaken in order to ensure that the requirements of the ESA, 2007 are not contravened.

The proposed draft plan of subdivision is located within the “Urban Centre” designations of the Muskoka Official Plan as well as the Township of Georgian Bay Official Plan. Urban Centres are envisioned to be the focus of growth, contain a broad, diverse range of housing types and tenure, with development occurring on municipal water and sewer services.

A preliminary review of the proposed development has been completed related to its consistency and conformity to these and other relevant policies contained within the planning documents. In addition to the matters arising from the above mentioned supporting documentation and associated peer reviews, more discussion is also required with the proponents regarding appropriate forms of access to the western blocks of the plan, which are intended to be developed with medium density residential development through individual condominium descriptions off of a private condominium road. A further detailed review of these matters and policies will be completed as the planning process proceeds.

Circulation and Notice

In addition to the plan of subdivision application submitted to the District, an application was also submitted to the Township of Georgian Bay to amend their Comprehensive Zoning By-law. However, the zoning application has not yet been deemed complete. In order to streamline the process, a combined Notice of Concurrent Public Meeting for both applications will be circulated to required agencies and all property owners within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject lands

Page 3 once a complete zoning by-law amendment application is received. The concurrent public meeting will be held at the Township of Georgian Bay Municipal Council Chambers at the first available opportunity.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

No impacts on the 2016 Tax Supported Operating Budget and Capital Budget and Forecast are anticipated as a result of this report.

COMMUNICATIONS

Notice of Application was circulated to required agencies and adjacent property owners in accordance with the Planning Act, as amended. Notices of the concurrent Public Meeting and Notice of Decision will also be sent out as required under the Planning Act.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

The consideration of the proposed plan of subdivision supports the following goal (in part) as outlined in the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities:

1. Manage development and growth in a sustainable manner balancing environmental, economic, social and cultural elements….

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Melissa Halford, B.A. (Hons), MCIP, RPP Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development

S:\DEVELOPMENT\Sub Condo\2016\S2016-1 - Port Severn Heights\(5) Internal Reports (Draft Approval)\2016 05 09 Port Severn Heights Ph 2 Background Information Report.Doc

Page 4

Appendix “I”

Page 5

Appendix “II”

Page 6

Report MUSKOKA AIRPORT DESIGNATION Security Screening & Commercial Air Service

June 15, 2016

Executive Summary InterVISTAS examined the potential to obtain security screening at Muskoka Regional Airport with the eventual end objective to be able to introduce commercial air service into the airport. The District of Muskoka, Explorers’ Edge and the Town of Gravenhurst have sought guidance in determining the possibility for the airport to have scheduled services by summer 2017. This report provides the context for security screening, an overview of consultations, the costs to obtain screening, the benefits of having scheduled services, and an implementation plan. The following four questions are key to deciding whether to pursue security screening services for scheduled commercial flights: 1. Is the community supportive? Through a series of stakeholder consultations held in the region, media coverage, and surveys, the community has indicated a high level of support for obtaining scheduled air service to the Muskoka region through the airport. Stakeholders saw benefits including increasing benefits to the local economy as well as increasing transportation options for residents. While support was resoundingly positive, support was qualified with the need for companion services (e.g., taxis, rental cars) were available, potential need for an east-west runway, and overall costs were commensurate with benefits. 2. What is the best option for facilities to do this in the short term? Four facility options were examined for the airport including building a new terminal to meet the requirements or using existing facilities with some modifications. The overall recommendation is to build a new, larger permanent structure over the long-term. This option will require time for planning, design, and obtaining requisite funding. To initiate air services for summer 2017, a temporary facility may be needed in advance of an expanded terminal building. 3. How much is this all going to cost? In terms of operating costs, CATSA cost recovery is estimated to be approximately $165,000 in the initial year and under $100,000 in subsequent years. The ongoing costs of Class 3 airport requirements are not expected to be less than $8,000 per year. For Year 1, however, $38,000 should be budgeted to help establish aerodrome regulated processes at Muskoka Airport. Therefore, operating costs are approximately $200,000 in the first year and $100,000 thereafter. In terms of capital costs for construction, the total should not exceed $1.5 million under either of two scenarios. A new building is estimated at $922,000 to $1.2 million. Sharing existing facilities with some new construction is $668,000 to $872,000 in cost. Significant cost mitigation could result if temporary portable facilities are used, costing for a standard trailer is between $65,000-$100,000, including transportation and site preparation. Purpose-built airport temporary facilities would be in the order of $400,000. The quality of the client experience would need to be factored into deciding use of temporary structures vs a permanent build, or use of existing tenant facilities. Additional costs may be incurred in terms of marketing commercial flights; determination of these costs is outside the scope of this report. 4. Does the expected economic impact justify those costs? Yes, the economic impact analysis of the expected benefits against the costs indicates that screening services should be sought in order to establish air service at the airport. Depending on the scenario, the net benefit varies. At the minimum, the investment is expected to break even for the amount of capital and operating costs required versus the incremental economic output and GDP creation that is anticipated. On the up side, there could be 3 to 5 times greater benefits than costs, in addition to the corresponding catalytic economic impacts.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) i

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Context ...... 1 1.2 Objectives ...... 1 1.3 Acknowledgements ...... 1 2.0 Security Screening Context ...... 2 2.1 Access to Domestic Aviation Network ...... 2 2.2 Scope of Security Screening ...... 3 2.3 New Airports Designated for Security Screening ...... 4 2.4 Current Process for Designation ...... 5 2.5 Case Studies ...... 7 3.0 Consultations ...... 14 3.1 Overview of Process ...... 14 3.2 Key Findings ...... 15 3.3 Additional feedback ...... 19 4.0 Cost Estimates ...... 20 4.1 Capital Costs ...... 20 4.2 Operations Cost ...... 28 4.3 Summary of Costs ...... 30 4.4 Optional Costs ...... 30 5.0 Economic Impacts ...... 31 5.1 Air Service Scenarios at Muskoka Airport ...... 31 5.2 Annual Aviation and Visitor Spending Economic Impacts ...... 33 5.3 Catalytic Impacts in the Broader Economy ...... 38 6.0 Roadmap/Next Steps ...... 41 6.1 Conclusions ...... 41 6.2 Roadmap/Next Steps ...... 41 6.3 Summary of Roadmap...... 43 Appendix A: Survey Summary ...... 44 Appendix B: Aviation and Visitor Spending Economic Impact ...... 47 Direct On-Site Airport Employment Impacts ...... 47 Aviation Economic Impacts ...... 48 Visitor Spending Impacts ...... 52

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) ii

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Context Recognizing the significant potential impact associated with attracting commercial air service to the local tourism economy, and given recent investments that have been made in airport infrastructure, the Regional Tourism Organization (RTO12/Explorers’ Edge) is evaluating what would be involved in having passenger airlines land in the region. Aviation security screening was introduced in Canada in 1973 as part of a set of amendments to the Aeronautics Act. Only a select number of airports are designated for security screening for commercial flights. Under current federal regulations, 89 aerodromes are designated for security screening and have services delivered by a crown corporation, the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA). Commercial services can operate freely between designated airports. For example, a passenger screened at Quebec City can land at Toronto Pearson and connect directly to a flight to Vancouver. Muskoka Airport is not currently part of the group of 89 airports that are designated for security screening. Without security screening, there are major limitations associated with growing commercial flight operations – specifically the inability to access major airports that are part of the group of designated facilities and the rest of the aviation network associated with these airports.

1.2 Objectives InterVISTAS Consulting was retained by project partners (District of Muskoka, Explorers’ Edge and the Town of Gravenhurst) as an aviation expert to provide guidance by delivering: • Comparison examples of airports that obtained CATSA service (e.g. Mont Tremblant and Red Deer) under old policies, and the 2015 regulations that enable new Class 3 airports; • A comprehensive process for stakeholder input and consultations; • High level estimates of capital and operating cost; • Economic analysis of benefits of obtaining commercial air service; and • A roadmap to obtain approvals for security screening and commercial passenger air service. The objective stated by project sponsors is to have the goal of scheduled services by summer 2017.

1.3 Acknowledgements In authoring this report, InterVISTAS would like to acknowledge the support of the project sponsors, as well as over 225 individuals that provided input to the process locally as well as time from Transport Canada and CATSA.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 1

2.0 Security Screening Context Aviation security screening is an integral part of the way commercial aviation works in Canada. Key to the initiative for Muskoka Airport is access to the “sterile area” of Canadian airports that allow for connectivity to other flights. Access to the commercial aviation network is critical to link Muskoka to a range of domestic, U.S. and other international destinations.

2.1 Access to Domestic Aviation Network In order for a commercial air service model to be viable, one which will enable passengers to connect on to other destinations, airports need to have security screening services. Currently, Muskoka Airport serves a range of flights with operators that access fixed based operators (FBO) at airports such as Toronto or Montreal. Major airlines typically do not operate from FBOs. As shown in Figure 1, a flight can take off from Muskoka Airport, but is limited to the destinations that can be served from commercial scheduled operators.

Figure 1: Current Flight Operations from Muskoka Airport

“Dirty” flight handling at select terminals Flight from Destination No direct connections Muskoka Airport (unscreened) Exit Airport

The reason for the limitation is that the destination airport is limited to:

• Fixed base operators away from the main terminal building; and • Select airports in Canada that can handle unscreened flight arrivals (“dirty flights”).

There are a number of examples of commercial flight operations that use the model currently available for Muskoka Airport (e.g. Nextjet Canada daily flights from Region of Waterloo

International Airport to Peterborough/Gatineau/Montreal or Integra Air fights from Edson to Calgary). However, this model is fairly limited because direct access to larger airport terminals is constrained. Direct access is important for major scheduled air carriers to provide global reach.

Figure 2: Bombardier Q-400 Aircraft from Air Canada, Porter and WestJet

Photo Credit: Bombardier and Alasdair McLellan

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 2

Major air carriers such as Air Canada, WestJet and Porter Airlines, those accessing international and U.S. travellers, typically do not work with un-screened flights due to regulatory and facility constraints, as well as difficulty in connecting with the rest of their networks. These carriers have all invested in Bombardier Q-400 equipment that provides a level of services appropriate for the Muskoka Airport market (Figure 2). With the availability of passenger and baggage security screening, the range of connectivity options are dramatically increased for scheduled commercial air carriers. In the scenario illustrated in Figure 3, the addition of security screening at Muskoka allows for direct access to air terminal buildings, such as Terminals 1 or 3 at Toronto Pearson. The added capability is unrestricted, and direct air terminal building access could assist with the connections to other flights in Canada, international destinations (e.g. United Kingdom) or the United States – depending on the kinds of air services available at the connecting airport.

Under this scenario for Muskoka Airport, a carrier such as Air Canada, WestJet and Porter Airlines can “through check” a bag to a final destination anywhere in the world. The same ticket convenience allows passengers taking off from Muskoka to have checked bags screened at an origin airport, and claimed at a final destination.

Figure 3: Added Connectivity with Security Screening from Muskoka Airport

Connecting to Canada/ Flight International

Connecting to U.S. Flight from Terminal Flight Muskoka Building (screened) Exit Airport

Note: Simplified diagram. Flights to the United States via U.S. Preclearance have security screening before U.S. Customs and Border Protection processing. Under this scenario for Muskoka Airport, a carrier such as Air Canada, WestJet and Porter Airlines can “through check” a bag to a final destination anywhere in the world. The same ticket convenience that allows passengers taking off from Muskoka to have checked bags screened at an origin airport, and claimed at a final destination.

2.2 Scope of Security Screening As noted previously, security screening was introduced in 1973 in Canada and augmented after 9/11 to deal with evolving threats to commercial aviation. For the purpose of Muskoka Airport, security screening capabilities are defined as: • Pre-board screening: The process to screen passengers in the cabin of aircraft from prohibited items (e.g., explosives, knives, other sharp objects).

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 3

• Hold baggage screening: Process to screen checked bags going on to the aircraft from any threats to the aircraft (e.g. explosives). There are items such as knives that are allowed in checked bags, but not in the cabin of the aircraft.

2.2.1 Regulatory Environment Transport Canada is the regulatory body overseeing aviation security screening. Canada is a member state to the International Civil Aviation Organization and there are international obligations the Government of Canada adheres to in the delivery of security screening and the regulation of aviation security at aerodromes. Transport Canada codifies its requirements for Muskoka Airport under the Aeronautics Act and the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations, 2012. Security measures such as the Aerodrome Security Measures are also in place.

2.2.2 Service Delivery Model Since April, 2002, the screening authority in Canada is the crown corporation Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) under the federal CATSA Act. The CATSA Aerodrome Designation Regulations falls under the CATSA Act as the document that defines the 89 airports where security screening is designated1.

2.3 New Airports Designated for Security Screening In Canada, the requirement for new airports receiving designation for security screening has two separate processes: one established in 2004 and a new initiative implemented in 2015.

2.3.1 2004 Designations When CATSA was created in 2002, several facilities (e.g. La Grande 3) were originally designated. In 2004, these facilities were removed from the list of designated airports and two facilities (Red Deer, AB and Mont Tremblant, QC) were added. Since then, 12 aerodromes have requested security screening: • Mont Tremblant, Québec, in 2004; • Red Deer, Alberta, in 2004; • Puvirnituq, Québec, in 2009-2013; • Trois-Rivières, Québec, in 2009-2011; • Schefferville, Québec, in 2012; • St. Catharines, Niagara District, Ontario, in 2012-2013; • Bromont, Québec, in 2013; • Cold Lake, Alberta, in 2013; • Dawson City Airport, Yukon, in 2013; • Edson, Alberta, in 2013;

1 See http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2002-180/page-2.html for the full list of 89 airports designated under regulations.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 4

• Sherbrooke, Québec, in 2013; and • Northern Rockies Regional Airport, Fort Nelson, B.C, in 2013. Only two airports have been successful since 2004 in achieving designation under the CATSA Act (Mont Tremblant and Red Deer), and these airports are fully funded by CATSA. For both airports, there was a significant political push to obtain the screening services and to replace airports that no longer had operations (i.e. La Grande 3). The specific criteria for determining which airports receive CATSA designation is not public information. According to former Transport Minister Lisa Raitt, “Transport Canada’s security risk methodology is used to determine whether CATSA screening is required at a Canadian airport through the assessment of various criteria including, but not limited to, passenger volumes and threat information. Together the criteria capture the overall risk environment at a particular airport. For security reasons, Transport Canada does not discuss the specific criteria used in the risk assessment.”2

2.4 Current Process for Designation Although no new airports were added since 2004, there was recognition amongst policy makers that there could be a business case that merited introducing new airports into the domestic commercial aviation system. The current process for designating new airports for security screening services dates from 2014 and has received a lot of interest from communities throughout Canada. Under direction from the previous Minister of Transport Lisa Raitt, Transport Canada started consultations with a range of airports to examine the potential for new security screening services. Some the airports Including Muskoka, there are some 11 facilities in various states of discussions with Transport Canada and CATSA3. In 2015, a private member’s bill was passed in the House of Commons that encouraged the ability for non-designated airports to receive security screening services. The bill passed with all party support and supported existing efforts from Transport Canada and the previous Minister of Transport Raitt to explore solutions. A fundamental difference occurred with both Minister Raitt’s direction – the new set of designations would be based on “fee for service” to recover costs from interested airports. In late 2015, CATSA and Transport Canada established a process that explored cost recovery for CATSA services at non-designated airports. Activity included: • Issuance of a formal Screening Checkpoint Technical Guidelines • Provision of Screening Application to the District of Muskoka • Formal cost estimates for service provision • Letter of Intent from the CATSA Vice President of Service Delivery The basis of the new process for designation is under CATSA Act Section 6

2 Speech in the House of Commons, January 27, 2014. 3 Interest in the designation program includes Puvirnituq, Trois-Rivières, Schefferville, Bromont, Sherbrooke, in Quebec; Niagara, Ontario, Cold Lake, Alberta, Dawson City, Yukon; Edson, Alberta; and Fort Nelson, B.C.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 5

6 (1) The mandate of the Authority is to take actions, either directly or through a screening contractor, for the effective and efficient screening of persons who access aircraft or restricted areas through screening points, the property in their possession or control and the belongings or baggage that they give to an air carrier for transport. Restricted areas are those established under the Aeronautics Act at an aerodrome designated by the regulations or at any other place that the Minister may designate. Under the basis of “at any other place that the Minister may designate” is the regulatory basis for the potential designation of Muskoka Airport. Muskoka Airport is one of several requests for security screening designation that are based on a broad-based request for services for both economic development and support of the tourism sector. In addition to support for Tourism Jasper for Edson, Alberta, there are a range of proposals that are based on commuter traffic. Generally speaking, a broad-based effort is critical to ensure an appropriate business case is present for carriers to sustain ticket sales, as well as ensure the viability of air services supported by a broad cross-section of the economy. Simply put, the biggest air carrier risk is volatility in a single market; proving sufficient demand across all sectors is important to take full advantage of the policy changes in security screening that was launched in 2015.

2.4.1 Alternate Service Delivery The policy to explore cost recovery for security screening was confined to the ability to have CATSA (and its screening contractor) deliver screening services. The CATSA Act does contain a section that enables CATSA to authorize the operator of the aerodrome (District of Muskoka) to deliver security screening. 7 (1) The Authority may authorize the operator of an aerodrome designated by the regulations to deliver screening on its behalf at that aerodrome, either directly or through a screening contractor, subject to any terms and conditions that the Authority may establish. (2) The Authority may not authorize the operator to deliver screening unless it is satisfied that the operator can meet the terms and conditions established by the Authority and deliver screening efficiently and effectively, having regard to the following factors: (a) the cost and service advantages; (b) the operator’s capability to deliver screening; and (c) how screening, if done by the operator, would be integrated with other security functions at the aerodrome. Under this scenario, the District of Muskoka could work with CATSA to provide local staff that are appropriately cleared/trained with the ability to deliver security screening. Transport Canada and CATSA are clear that the direction to establish the current program for security screening cost recovery from 2015 does not currently contemplate using Section 7 of the CATSA Act. However, there are likely economies of scale that can result from the use of existing staff from the region (e.g., security-cleared staff in law enforcement or correctional services). Cost/service advantages would ensure a reduced fee for security screening. There are added complexities associated with performance standards/review, insurance liability as well as regulatory/policy analyses that require further work.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 6

Summer 2017 is the expected start of air services at Muskoka Airport and it is improbable for the implementation of security screening other than through the established 2015 cost-recovery program. It is nonetheless recommended that further work be conducted after the air services starts to review costs with CATSA/TC and consider a business case to implement Section 7 of the CATSA Act.

2.5 Case Studies The role of aviation security screening is a major pre-requisite to establishment of commercial air services. It is notably not the only factor; other critical ingredients include: • Support of the community and stakeholders to sustain demand; • Profitability of routes for airlines; and • Ability to integrate the facility with local ground access and services. Several case studies are documented in this report to illustrate parallels to Muskoka Airport; it should however be noted that there are also fundamental differences related to population, market factors and available alternatives.

2.5.1 Red Deer Regional Airport

1. Description Red Deer Regional Airport (YQF) served as an old World War II training base and has been a general aviation airport for most of its existence. Located mid-way between Calgary and Edmonton, the airport faces significant diversion of traffic with many air passengers electing to drive to a major airport for flights. Although the drive time is about 1h 30 minutes to either Calgary or Edmonton, the airport was faced with competitive challenges and the sustainability of air services.

2. Request for Security Screening Designation A campaign was advanced to request designations from the federal Minister of Transport. At the Minister’s direction, Transport Canada added two airports—Mont-Tremblant, Québec and Red Deer, Alberta at the same time. CATSA was able to deploy pre-board and hold baggage screening equipment, train and certifying screening officers to have operations active December 23, 2004.

3. Results Overall, the results were successful in the long run of the 10-year history of the airport, as shown in the following graph. The availability of security screening nearly tripled traffic from 2004-05, but the airport lost CATSA services when scheduled passenger service was discontinued. A renewed initiative was advanced in 2012 to regain services.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 7

Figure 4: Enplaned and Deplaned Passenger Traffic at Red Deer Regional Airport (2004-15)

35,000 E/D Traffic 29,131 30,000

25,000 23,000

20,000 17,402

15,000 12,000 9,086 10,000 7,387 5,796 6,921 4,400 5,115 4,130 5,000 3,403

0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Source: Red Deer Airport Authority; Red Deer Regional Airport EI Study; RDRAA 2016 Business Plan

In May 2013, Red Deer regained CATSA security screening service once again after completing a number of terminal renovations. This allows passengers to be screened in order to be able to make direct domestic connections at other Canadian airports. CATSA screening allowed for new air services and essentially quadrupled the airport’s traffic4 Scheduled flights grew to 62 from eight scheduled weekly flights in 2013 with this service. In 2014, scheduled service operated to Lethbridge, Fort McMurray, Grande Prairie and Calgary resulted in a record 29,131 passengers using YQF. Passenger numbers may not return to the 2014 record numbers due to scheduled service cuts and Alberta’s economic downturn.

4. Lessons Learned There are a number of lessons learned relevant to Muskoka Airport. Although they were initially successful in achieving CATSA security screening, there was not enough sustained demand and commitment to use the service. In fact, traffic volumes 2007-09 were lower than 2004. Success since 2013 resulted in sustained growth, with significant benefits for local business and community access to flights. A key lesson is the holistic strategy used to grow traffic. In addition to sustaining services for the community and resulting local economic benefits, the initiative was able to support broader community objectives. Airport access was a key part of the success in the bid for the 2019 Canada Winter Games, which will be hosted in Red Deer.

4 In 2013, CATSA was only operating half the year but still managed to more than double traffic.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 8

The holistic strategy was part of a dedicated effort and leadership was advanced to regain CATSA services. Starting in 2011, the initiative was advanced to build the airport to become a fully strategy-led, market-driven and community-serving organization by 2013.

“Security screening at airports is important for all of us. It protects passengers, travellers and it allows the airport to get fully into the airport value chain. So we can fly from Red Deer to any secure airport through the country and you will not have to exit the aircraft and re-screen or get screened and then enter the aircraft again. It’s really, really important and it’s another fundamental step for the airport to move forward because every mainline carrier or large carrier in this country requires passenger screening.”

Red Deer Airport CEO RJ Steenstra May 14, 2013 Mountain View Gazette

Although the air services are more business/commuter driven, there are some parallels to the Muskoka Airport context. The challenge is also notably competition between the automobile and flying. According to the airport CEO RJ Steenstra, “over 93 per cent of current local fliers ‘leak’ meaning they travel to Edmonton or Calgary to fly instead of starting their air journey in Red Deer.” Leakage is a term used in aviation markets to highlight the use of other aviation facilities to meet local/inbound market demand. In the case of Muskoka Airport, air travel in the catchment area around Muskoka is served by driving to airports outside the area (e.g., Toronto). Based on the experience from Red Deer, a leadership team focused on long-term sustainability of commercial air services is needed to use strategy-led, market-driven insights to foster ongoing benefits to stakeholders, and in particular to ensure adequate and sustained passenger volumes.

2.5.2 Mont Tremblant

1. Description Mont-Tremblant International Airport (YTM) is located in La Macaza, Quebec, and has been in operation since 1962 where it initially served as a Royal Canadian Air Force emergency landing field. It was converted into civilian use in 2001 as a private airport with a goal to improve access for travellers from southwestern Ontario and northeastern U.S.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 9

2. Request for Security Screening Designation The airport is a fully private venture, with a long-term lease with the local municipality. The founder (Serge Lariviere) was formerly with Intrawest, the owner of Station Mont Tremblant. Similar to the experience at Red Deer, an initiative was advanced to request designation from the federal Minister of Transport, with CATSA operations active December 23, 2004. The airport is an integral part of the tourism product to bring skiers in, and summer visitors to the Mont-Tremblant resort area. Located 130km northwest of Montreal, the airport is an integral part of linking visitors to the world.

3. Results Both Air Canada and Porter Airlines offer scheduled services, along with charter flights from Voyageur Airways on their 50-seat regional aircraft. Air Canada provides a direct link between YTM and Toronto Pearson, while Porter operates from Ottawa, Billy Bishop and Montreal. Over the past decade, traffic grew steadily to 20,000 passengers a year. Several notable dips occurred due to a strike (2006), economic conditions (2009) and changes in air services (2013). Nonetheless, estimated passenger traffic at YTM has grown consistently between 2009 and 2015 and is expected to grow further.

Figure 5: Enplaned and Deplaned Passenger Traffic at Mont Tremblant International Airport (2004- 15)

25,000 E/D Traffic 20,000 20,000 18,463 16,226 17,053

15,000 13,414 12,723 11,106 11,775 9,417 10,000 7,450

5,000 3,456

0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Source: Sabre MIDT OD Data; http://montrealgazette.com/business/local-business/mont-tremblant-airport-flying-high- with-more-traffic-expected-in-2016 Note: YTM was unable to provide E/D passenger information therefor the data has been estimated using origin- destination traffic data accessed through Sabre Profit Essentials.

4. Lessons Learned Mont Tremblant Airport has some fundamental differences to Muskoka – it was converted from a military base to a private company (Mont Tremblant Airport Inc.) and has a primary mission to

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 10 support resort activities. As well, it is a “Prior Permission Required” airport – and will not accept aircraft landings without prior application. There are, however some similarities associated with the support from resort development as well as overall marketing efforts. Similar to the Explorers’ Edge area, a large majority of visitors arrive by car. The airport, however, became a catalyst to increasing reach to other markets. Connectivity was an important ingredient to the success of the airport. For example, express shuttle to and from the resort using executive minibuses is available with a 38-minute ride, including luggage valet service delivery to/from 8 hotels. The idea was to maximize the ability for skiing/adventures up to the last minute. One of the important lessons from Mont Tremblant is the use of a “consumer-centric regional application” approach. Similar to the initiatives of the RTO to put travellers first, Mont Tremblant is an example of ensuring all services and suppliers will be required in order to get people in and out of the airport to regional attractions, accommodations, etc, such as car rentals, shuttles, taxis, etc.

“Tremblant has a steady clientele coming by car. But, the future of our destination is by air — that is where the growth potential is.” (January 1, 2016 Montreal Gazette)

“We had to increase the Toronto and New York clientele. And you have to make it as quick a trip as possible, so you can get the weekenders as well as those on holiday. In the mind of a lot of people, a transport commitment of two or two-and-a-half hours is OK. It's like having a cottage.” (January 2, 2007 Edmonton Journal)

Mont Tremblant Airport President Serge Lariviere

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 11

The airport itself is completely infused in its design with the tourism product. Originally built as a log cabin with a beautiful fireplace, this exceptional arrival and departure point embodies French-Canadian character. We note that some aspects of the existing Muskoka Terminal already follow same look-and-feel principles (see Figures 6-7 below).

Figure 6: Mont-Tremblant Airport Terminal: Infused with Local Character

Photo credit: Mont-Tremblant International Airport and Matthew Lausch

Figure 7: Current Terminal at Muskoka Airport

Photo credit: Muskoka Airport

Another lessons learned from Mont Tremblant are that the economic benefits are not just for airlines or the airport. The revenue generated by passengers arriving at Mont Tremblant International Airport was about $7 million for fiscal year March 2014-March 2015, and was estimated to be $10 million for the fiscal year ending in March 20165. The airport is looking to grow further with direct transborder air services, pending resolution of fee structure for Canada Border Services Agency staff.

5 Montreal Gazette, January 1, 2016

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 12

2.5.3 International Examples Globally, there are dozens of new airports under construction that will connect passengers with tourism resorts – primarily in Africa and Asia. A number of these facilities are large scale investments that include brand new runways, terminal buildings and include connectivity to the security-screened commercial aviation network. Others are brownfield redevelopment of military bases, similar to Mont Tremblant. Overall, there are few comparators that can directly mirror the unique potential of a facility such as Muskoka – and its diverse roles for general aviation, business aviation and other services. From a security screening perspective, the international context is harder to compare to the Canadian experience, and difficult to match identically to the context for Muskoka Airport. A lot of the differences associated with other countries is due to the way aviation security is regulated. Globally, Airports Council International estimates that a full 40% of passengers are screened by airports/airport contractors. As a result, there are considerably different relationships between the regulator (civil aviation authority) and other countries where screening is not federalized like CATSA or the Transportation Security Administration in the United States. Security screening nonetheless plays a critical supporting role and pre-requisite to the growth of tourism and economic development. Some examples of airports that are implementing tourism- based developments include the following: • Low cost carriers in Europe have adopted a strategy to open new routes from regional and secondary airports exclusively or as intently as major airport hubs. As a result a number of airports have opened and sustained air services on the basis of meeting a range of regulatory requirements, including provision of security screening. Castellon Airport in Spain is a recent example that has attracted low-cost carrier Ryanair. • The relationship with tourism and aviation is increasingly viewed as linked. Michael Cawley, Chairman of the Irish national tourism development authority (and former Deputy CEO of Ryanair) highlighted that “downstream tourist spend benefits are 10 times the air fare! The benefits only exist because the airline routes exist” • Benefits are not confined to brand new airports. Hervey Bay Airport in Queensland Australia is a regional airport that was elevated in 2005 to be a “security-controlled airport” by the Australian federal government as part of a wider aviation security initiative, and was upgraded to full baggage screening in 2009. The number of passengers jumped from under 40,000 a year to almost 150,000 in the first year, supported by whale watching and beach front attractions.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 13

3.0 Consultations An extensive stakeholder consultation process was undertaken to assess community reaction to bringing commercial air services to the Muskoka Airport. The lessons learned from the case studies in the previous chapter highlight the importance of community buy-in. InterVISTAS’ experience in the development of air services and tourism strategies tells us that airlines value the level of commitment demonstrated in the community to sustain flight frequencies.

3.1 Overview of Process A broad-based consultation was undertaken, with feedback solicited from the general public, from tourism operators and stakeholders, from municipal and district government representatives, from various business interests, from current airport stakeholders, etc. Written feedback was encouraged, in addition to recording the input from participants in the consulting process.

3.1.1 Online Survey An online survey, hosted by Explorers’ Edge, yielded 61 responses from private individuals, resorts, local businesses and associations. Written responses were received for 9 questions: 1. Generally speaking, what are your impressions of the proposal to bring in commercial air service to the Muskoka Airport? 2. Are you pleased to see the Muskoka Airport – an important asset of the District of Muskoka – being used as a “tool” to bring more visitors to the region? If yes, why? If not, why not? 3. Do you think commercial flights into the Muskoka Airport will help build the region as a vacation destination? If so, how (what benefits can you identify)? 4. If tourists are the primary target for this project, which additional industries do you think can benefit from regional air service to the Muskoka Airport? In what way? 5. Can you identify any obstacles, challenges or impediments you believe may hinder the plan to bring commercial air service to the Muskoka Airport? 6. What programs do you think need to be in place for regional air service into the Muskoka Airport to be a success? (e.g. Info centre at the airport? Shuttle service? Marketing plan? Please name as many as you can.) 7. What investments and/or incentives do you think are appropriate to attract this air service? 8. Will the introduction of regional air service impact your organization/business? In what way? What type of demand do you think might be stimulated for your organization/business with the introduction of this service? Will this impact the number of jobs/investment your organization makes? If so, how? 9. What is your organization/business prepared to do to support and sustain commercial air service at the airport – if anything?

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 14

3.1.2 In-person Meetings To focus discussions with select groups, a set of meetings were held from April 11 to 14, 2016. 17 meetings were held in total including: • 14 meetings with local municipal government leaders, resort management and tourism operators (approximately 50 people) • A public meeting of the local General Aviation community and airport tenants (approximately 25 people) • A public meeting of tourism operators (approximately 40 people) • A presentation at the Muskoka Tourism AGM (approximately 50 people)

3.2 Key Findings Consultations from both surveys and meetings yielded comments on a wide range of topics associated with the airport – with some aspects unrelated to security screening services. Overall there were seven key findings, summarized below. Additional results are in Appendix A.

3.2.1 Strong Support for Commercial Air Services to Muskoka Airport There is near-unanimous support for the proposal to attract commercial air services to the airport. The support indicated a strong degree of enthusiasm for the potential to attract new visitors to the region, as well as support for improved access for local residents to markets nationally and internationally. Specific comments associated with the support for air services included: • Many feel that the airport is an underutilized asset that should be better leveraged for economic development purposes. • Some municipal leaders felt that it was very positive that this proposal came from the business community, rather than government trying to force it. Continuing the messaging from Explorers’ Edge to convey the potential to create “net new” visitors from Northeastern U.S. will be important to ensure that there are incremental benefits. As well some respondents commented on the ease to attract Japanese, Chinese and German tourists up for a quick 4-day weekend to the area during their visit to Canada.

“This is a great opportunity to generate interest in Muskoka and to provide an alternate transportation method. In the summer months, Highway 11 gets very busy It could take 2.5-3 hours to travel from Toronto to Muskoka.”

Local Hotel Manager

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 15

3.2.2 Tourism Package Development Appealing For tourism interests, there was a strong realization that commercial air services could potentially open new markets and also extend the length of stay. Today, the baseline is a limited amount of visitors from the U.S.. Some resort properties indicated that U.S. tourists only represent 2-5% of visitors. The potential of commercial air services at Muskoka Airport was described as enabling easy access to markets like New York, Boston, Pittsburgh and Chicago. Several near-term trends were cited. With current exchange rates, U.S. visitors typically spend more and stay longer. As well, the recent tragedies of terrorism attacks overseas were perceived as a potential driver for more visitors from the U.S. and Canada. Currently, many visitors are staying Friday to Sunday. The potential for a Thursday to Sunday and Sunday to Thursday set of flight schedules schedule was seen as potentially increasing average length of stay. Tourism operators were very enthusiastic about working together and with Explorers’ Edge to develop packages. One resort property shared that they just hired a U.S. sales person for meetings and events. They felt that this commercial service could be a key factor in winning new corporate business, particularly to increase ease of access to the region. Some municipal leaders felt that the packages would be a good way to ensure that the air service draws in new tourists to the area, and gets them moving around and spending money in local businesses. Explorers’ Edge recently retained renowned consultants Twenty31 to develop packages; this will be a critical success factor in generating alignment and support from municipal leaders and tourism operators. Along with pre-generated packages, some business leaders felt it would be important to have a central place where visitors can create their own, customized packages.

Photo credit: Explorers’ Edge

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 16

3.2.3 Longer Window for Potential Flights Discussions surrounded an initial July 2017 11-week trial. Along with July and August, the general consensus was that September and early-October would be the ideal time for the initial pilot. The reasons for this are that: • There is significant interest in Fall colours for tourists in late-September and early-October. • Some resort properties felt that air service could help them attract corporate business and events in the early-Fall. • While many spoke about mid-July to late-August being the busiest season in Muskoka, business is softer in the first 2 weeks of July, something the commercial service could help to solve. • Some also felt that commercial air service would help improve occupancy from Sunday through Thursday. This information is important to convey to air carriers to help sustain a longer timeframe for air services.

3.2.4 Action needed to ensure the Region is Market-Ready for New Tourists While not specifically tied to attracting new air services based on CATSA security screening, a number of stakeholders raised the need to be market-ready for new tourists. A number of stakeholders commented that you only get one chance to make a first impression. There is some concern that local operators may not be ready, that certain services may not be readily available and that there is a variation in the quality of customer service across the region. Specific gaps include: • Access to rental cars, shuttles, taxis, bike rentals, and other public transportation will be critical. • A number of resort properties indicated that they would likely send their own shuttle down to pick up visitors. • Along with transportation linkages, stakeholders offered a number of important assets/services to have in place: visitor information kiosk or Ambassador, food services and free Wi-Fi A number of tourism operators however commented that they could handle the increased volume within existing staffing models. A 12-week service, with 2 flights of week, will not bring in enough volume to justify hiring a lot of new staff. However, down the road tourism operators felt that job creation would follow very quickly with more volume from air traffic. At the same time, there may be challenges for resort operators to be able to continue to attract and retain hospitality workers.

3.2.5 Attracting New Investment to the Area could be a Key Benefit Many spoke about the commercial air service “putting Muskoka on the map” and giving the region credibility to investors. This was seen as the ability to have fly-in/fly-out capabilities for individuals that wanted to establish a business relationship locally, such as purchasing property. Another example was raised with a local boat company that has customers in the United States

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 17

and Southern Ontario, and felt that they would be able to increase sales by being able to bring these customers to the area to complete a sale. Convenience of access was noted as a contributing factor to attracting new businesses and investment. One proposed commercial development could benefit, and potentially be expanded, if the developer could attract investment from a larger market. Air services would make it easier to attract 4-day corporate events, Board meeting and retreats.

3.2.6 Establishing an Appropriate Return on Investment While overall support was heard, there were some cautionary notes expressed about the potential for the impact on taxpayers to advance the initiative ahead. As well, there were several comments associated with the danger of creating a product that was geared towards wealthy cottage owners.

“Increased tourism in Muskoka can only have positive benefits, both short and long term. We would expect to initially see a slight increase in business, but with the ability to interest people on a longer term basis, the possibility of visitors becoming more permanent residents bodes well. Also, if there is job creation, the local economy will see the benefit of that by way of increased spending by those employed.”

Local Business Owner (in survey response)

Stakeholders, primarily within municipal government, are awaiting more information on the costs and benefits. While it is understood there could be 3-5 years before the return on investment is realized, there are sensitivities to the current financial model of the airport and how any new investment could increase the burden on taxpayers.

3.2.7 Benefits are not just for Inbound Flights While a lot of emphasis is placed on the potential to attract new visitors, there was also a number of comments about the value of air access to local residents and businesses. Some of the specific comments include: • There are a number of businesses and manufacturers who are travelling regularly for work. This service would make it more convenient for them rather than driving to Toronto. • Local families would benefit from easier access to vacation destinations.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 18

3.3 Additional feedback In addition to feedback about the provision of security screening service to attract scheduled commercial air carriers, consultations highlighted several additional comments that need to be reviewed further: • Cross-wind runway: several respondents indicated the need to ensure the airport was usable based on wind conditions – potentially to review future runway requirements • Perception of product: the description of any project needs to highlight the positioning of the aviation product as one that isn’t only for wealthy individuals • Long-term view: several respondents wanted to ensure that there was a long-term view for future development at the airport While these comments were not specific to security screening, they were received in consultations.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 19

4.0 Cost Estimates InterVISTAS was tasked to deliver high-level cost estimates to be able to obtain security screening. Under the program that Transport Canada and CATSA have advanced in January 2016 to allow security screening at non-designated airports, the pre-requisites are to: • Ensure the facility meets/exceeds Class 3 security levels based on regulations under the Aeronautics Act • Provide facilities that are suitable for CATSA security screening There are both operational and capital costs associated with moving to a level equivalent to a security Class 3 facility.

4.1 Capital Costs

4.1.1 Air Terminal Building The current airport Air Terminal is about 600 m2 of space and provides the ability for flights to be processed from the apron. For general aviation flights, the Air Terminal functions as a fixed based operator, including a pilot’s lounge, seating areas and washrooms.

Figure 8: Current Air Terminal at Muskoka Airport

Photo Credit: Muskoka Airport

New Program Requirements There are five new functional areas that need to be allocated to help with security screening operations. Some (security screening) are exclusive use. Others are potentially dual-use: dedicated during screened flight operations, but available for other uses outside of operations. Overall, the process is as follows (outlined in the flows below): • Passengers check-in with the airline (or have a mobile boarding pass) • If the passenger has checked bags, a bag tag is provided by an airline agent

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 20

• The passenger and bag proceed to security screening (marked “D”) in the diagram below • The baggage is screened and then provided for airline baggage makeup/loading • Passengers, in the meantime, are screened and directed into the passenger holdroom to wait for boarding

Figure 9: Usable Space Requirements – Base Scenario

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 21

The description of the space parameters are as follows: A. Holdroom The passenger holdroom is based on the critical aircraft size (Dash 8-400) that has 70 passengers. There may be times that a fully loaded aircraft will require holdroom space, and guidance material for airport planning calls for a range of 1.0 to 1.5 square metres per passenger, depending on the level of service desired. A washroom is recommended to be in place. In total, 100 m2 is recommended for planning purposes, including a washroom. Additional space for retail/concessions is possible, but unlikely to be viable given the relatively small number of passengers. Smart vending/coffee machines may be a more feasible alternative to provide amenities for guests waiting in the holdroom. The holdroom must be completely sealed from the public and there is no mixture with other individuals other than authorized staff with a valid restricted area pass/identification card. B. Airline Airline space is needed to help with baggage handling. In markets similar to Muskoka, airlines often have large oversized bag items (e.g., golf clubs, fishing rods) that may require temporary storage after security screening. The 40 m2 area does not necessarily need to be an internal building structure and can be semi-exposed to the outside, with direct access to the apron. Some storage area may be needed for airline consumables (bag tags, small equipment). C. CATSA Administration Space The screening contractor employed by CATSA will need several areas, including the following: • 7 m2 Support office • 9 m2 Lunch room • 1 m2 Locked storage area + space for parts • 1.5 m2 training desk It is recommended that 20 m2 be allocated for this function. Note however that given the hours of operation for the proposed flight, a lunch room may not be immediately needed and could use common space already available at the airport. This may be the subject of further discussion with CATSA to plan for current and future needs. D. CATSA Security Screening Area CATSA’s technical documentation from January 2016 calls for an area suitable for deployment of equipment that measures 86m2. In addition to the area itself, there are specifications for power, lighting, alarms, close-circuit television and the ability to connect to a wide-area network/phone lines. The assumption is for one (1) lane of security screening – which is appropriate for the current level of traffic proposed. The design should allow for a pathway for expansion in future. E. Other Space An additional 30m2 is suggested to be available for the operations, including areas appropriate for incident response, management of local security procedures and storage.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 22

The summary of space allocation is for new program requirements that are estimate to be 276 m2 of usable area. When including gross area coverage (e.g. circulation), the requirements are some 300 m2. Several options are reviewed to assess programing elements, summarized as follows:

Figure 10: Estimated Usable Space Requirements

Space Allocation Area 2 Dedicated? Notes (m ))

During screening operations it has to A. Holdroom 100 No function as a restricted area. Not all areas have to be interior B. Airline 40 Yes space; activities could be advanced at ramp level. Some reduction in space demand C. CATSA 20 Yes should be explored (e.g., lunch Admin room) D. CATSA 86 Yes Meets current proposed flights Screening Program could be accommodated E. Other 30 No within the current building. TOTAL Space requirements could be USABLE 276 – baseline reduced to 200 m2 if space is shared SPACE with existing facilities

Options for Meeting Space Requirements There are three options available to be able to meet the programming elements • Option 1: Re-use the existing facility • Option 2: Construct new space • Option 3: Use temporary portable structures • Option 4: Temporarily use tenant facilities on the airport site

Option 1: Re-use the existing facility An evaluation was undertaken of the current Air Terminal to be able to reconfigure the space for the program requirements for security screening. Note that the terminal building construction was co-funded by the government of Norway in order to house their Norwegian Flight Training Museum. While there are benefits to minimizing the capital cost impacts, there are significant challenges to this option, including: • Disruption for existing use of the pilot’s lounge • Inability to modify or re-purpose portions of the existing terminal building (i.e. museum) and space constraints for 70 passengers with remaining portions of building • Costs to segregate a facility fully for screened passengers

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 23

• Other operational disruption of the facility • Need to secure the area for CATSA screening equipment when facility is not being used for security screening With the existing facility at 600 m2 of space, and program elements that require 200-276 m2 of space, there are difficulties with this option, even with the ability to completely dedicate the Air Terminal for screened flight operations. Option 2: Construct New Space An add-on to the terminal building is another option worth reviewing, subject to the space availability landside or airside to erect an appropriate structure. The benefits of this option is the ability to fully meet the regulated requirements from Transport Canada, and a purpose-built facility to house CATSA operations. The Altus Group of cost estimators was consulted for the range of capital construction costs. The 2016 Canadian Cost Guide6 covers cover construction costs only, based on the Canadian Institute of Quantity Surveyors’ definition of measuring each floor to the outer face of the external walls. The Altus Group has four measurements that are worth noting for Ontario: • A “regional airport terminal” is estimated to be -$260-$300 per square foot in Ottawa -$275-$350 per square foot in the Greater Toronto Area • A “bus terminal/garage” is estimated to be: -$230-$305 per square foot in Ottawa -$230-$300 per square foot in the Greater Toronto Area A broad range of $230-$300 per square foot is used to provide a high level cost estimate for a building. Assuming the entire program described on the previous page is built as a separate structure, the estimated overall cost is $922,000 to $1.2 million in capital costs. As noted previously this amount could be mitigated if existing facilities were reused and shared with airline/CATSA requirements. A $668,000-$872,000 cost is estimated as a result of having 200 square metres of usable space. Architectural fees and other costs are not included as part of this amount. Option 3: Trailer/Temporary Structures A third option is to use temporary structures to be able to house programming elements. The benefits of this option is to mitigate long-term costs, and potentially house programming elements for security screening/holdroom while Option 2 is constructed. Portables are readily used throughout Muskoka and could provide a low-cost option, particularly if a retrofitted modular office portable is used. Some evaluation would need to be undertaken to ensure CATSA equipment loads can be sustained with the structure.

6 See http://www.altusgroup.com/services/cost-guide/ for more information and caveats for use of the data.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 24

Airports similar to Muskoka are facing similar issues to bring facilities online quickly and the use of temporary/semi-permanent structures is growing for airports. To accommodate a new carrier (Ryanair), in 2011 the Magdeburg-Cochstedt airport in Eastern Germany decided to use a temporary structure instead of investing in a longer design process. This was seen as being less costly amidst uncertainty for Ryanair’s longevity at the airport. A specialist provider Neptunus connected a 900 m2 semi-permanent structure to an existing building to create a larger open plan terminal all under one roof in just a few weeks. The program is about 3 times larger than the environment contemplated.

Figure 11: Neptunus Temporary Airport Structure (Germany)

Photo credit: Neptunus BV In December 2013 Ryanair announced the cancellation of these routes; while the airport is seeking new routes it was not left with a costly building and the assets can be redeployed to a different location to recoup the investment. Significant cost mitigation could result if temporary portable facilities are used, costing for a standard trailer (e.g. ATCO) is between $65,000-$100,000, including transportation and site preparation. Purpose-built airport temporary facilities would be in the order of $400,000- $600,000, depending on the current location of a temporary airport structure such as the Neptunus product. While there may be some cost mitigation for the use of temporary structures, there are potential issues with the overall product. Mont Tremblant, for example, built a terminal infused with local tourism theming; the current facility at Muskoka has similar attributes. To preserve the “last” and “first” impression for visitors, there will need to be careful evaluation of any temporary facility to ensure the experience for the customer is maximized. Option 4: Temporarily use tenant facilities on the airport site A fourth option is available to work with existing tenants at the airport to use space for CATSA processing. The concept of operations is as follows: • Conduct security screening and flight check-in operations at a hangar • Bus passengers to an apron for flight operations • Passengers to board aircraft Similarly, for flights deplaning from flights, baggage and other functions would occur in a hangar.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 25

One private operator (Lake Central Air Services) has expressed interest to assist in provision of space in its facility in the northern part of the airport. Its facility has over 1,000 m2 of space in total, with some of it that could be allocated to process passengers and conduct security screening. Discussions are still preliminary; there may however be operational issues with a busing operation that would rely upon all passengers to leave on-time and all together. A bus would need to wait for the last passenger to board before heading to the aircraft. While larger airports (e.g., Montreal) use busing as a model, there is added complexity that needs to be factored into use of this option. Summary of Options As shown below, there are a range of facility and planning options to achieve terminal facilities for Summer 2017.

Figure 12: Comparison Options for Terminal Facilities

Option Pros Cons

• Limited capital cost • Will not meet program 1. Reuse Existing Space • Integration with existing requirements assets • Disruptive • Meets entire space • Requires highest amount program of capital investment • Allows for continuation 2. New Build • Time to design and build of existing terminal limited before Summer theme 2017

• Limits capital dollar and • Costs to integrate business risk • May not meet the quality 3. Temporary Structure • Modular for future of facilities expected by growth passengers/carriers • Limitations for direct • Private sector interest apron access for aircraft 4. Use airport tenant space • Limits capital dollar and • Operational constraints business risk for busing on the airfield

In consideration of the four facility options, the overall recommendation is over the long-term build a new, larger permanent structure. This option will require time for planning, design, and obtaining requisite funding. To initiate air services for summer 2017, a temporary facility may be needed in advance of an expanded terminal building.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 26

4.1.2 Screening Equipment Under the proposed arrangement, CATSA has indicated it would provide a fee structure to the District of Muskoka that would be inclusive of any equipment leasing costs, maintenance and installation. As a result, there is no capital cost expedited for the provision of walk-through metal detectors, x-ray screening equipment that would be used by CATSA screening contractors.

4.1.3 Airside Facilities Apron The terminal apron is an area used for aircraft parking and temporary use to load goods/people for aviation operations (see picture below).

Figure 13: Muskoka Airport Terminal Apron

Photo credit: Muskoka Airport

For operations for security-screened flights, it is expected that ramp level segregation will be used to prevent screened individuals/baggage during operations. There are however implications for this operational procedure during flight operations, including: • Limitation for other activities on the apron; • Need for staffing to be present to prevent co-mingling; and • Other operational restrictions. Operations should be monitored to evaluate future apron expansion in order to minimize impacts on existing operations and allow for smooth activities for screened flights.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 27

Cross-wind Runway Muskoka Airport has a 6,000’ asphalt runway and a 2,180’ turf runway. A number of respondents during consultations highlighted that a cross runway in the east-west direction would be desirable to ensure reliable service. InterVISTAS reviewed a November 2010 report prepared by Pryde Schropp McComb Inc.7 for Muskoka Airport using Environment Canada data from 1990-2008. The report meets typically accepted standards to conduct wind analyses and usability calculations. We note that the report concluded that the longer 6,000’ runway is the preferred runway for use under a single runway configuration achieving 98.58% usability. This usability value is significantly higher than the minimum 95% outlined by Transport Canada; there is not expected to be any issue with the airport accommodating a Dash 8 Q-400 aircraft. Ultimately, the reliability of an airport is function of air carrier equipment in combination with prevailing weather conditions. The wind rose analysis from the report should be provided to air carriers interested in serving the airport to inform flight operations planning and any analyses needed by commercial air carriers to review Muskoka Airport.

4.2 Operations Cost

4.2.1 Cost Recovery to CATSA In February 2016, CATSA provided an initial estimate of costs to the District of Muskoka for the provision of services, including all operations, maintenance and consumables. Discussions are ongoing for the overall fees that would be charged for the proposed 11-week set of flights. While the specific numbers will be finalized if and when the airport indicates to CATSA it wishes to have cost recovery services, the operating costs are estimated to be approximately $165,000 in the initial year and under $100,000 in subsequent years. An initial review of the costs with the project sponsors indicated that the fee structure was acceptable for the flights and further discussions are being advanced with CATSA to finalize a fee structure to enable discussions with an airline.

4.2.2 Additional Requirements Transport Canada has indicated that the airport needs to comply with all regulations associated with a Class 3 airport. This includes, but is not limited to: • Canadian Aviation Security Regulations, including Sections 401-496 specific to Class 3 airports; • Aerodrome Security Measures – security sensitive information that will not be discussed in this document; and • Canadian Aviation Regulations – covering safety-related aspects for airport operations. Overall, there are requirements for key areas including: • Maintaining control of a “sterile area” where screened passengers will be present • Ensuring appropriate responses to threats and incidents

7 Pryde Schropp McComb Inc. operates as WSP Canada Inc.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 28

• Providing safeguards appropriate to the national aviation security level (AVSEC) 1 (normal), 2 (elevated) and 3 (imminent/critical) • Appointment of security official/acting security official and training of aerodrome security personnel • Access control system to the restricted area • Creation of an airport security program, strategic airport security plan, airport security risk assessment • Operations-based security exercise every four years, table-top discussion every year • Response to CATSA security alarms

For the airport, there is the need to ensure appropriate documentation and processes in place. In Regulatory Impact Assessment Statements (RIAS) in the Canada Gazette, Transport Canada has indicated minimal recurring costs for Class 3 airports – less than $8,000 per year in incremental costs/contract security during operations. However, for Muskoka Airport there will be up front investments to ensure appropriate documentation is in place, which can be insourced or outsourced. A recommended budget of $30,000 is advanced to ensure appropriate assessment, plans and outputs are delivered to meet/exceed regulated requirements. In addition, there are requirements in Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) Section 303 for firefighting. One level for consideration is achieving Category 6 firefighting service – two dedicated trucks with speeds of water flow. However, Transport Canada regulations are based on “three consecutive months with the highest total number of movements by commercial passenger carrying aircraft in all aircraft categories for firefighting.” As proposed flights may not fall within a consecutive period for periodic services, there is no requirement in regulations to implement a Category 6 level of firefighting.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 29

4.3 Summary of Costs For capital costs, overall costs are not expected to exceed $1.5 million, including: • $922,000 to $1.2 million in capital costs for construction is estimated for a completely new building, excluding architects/other fees. • Sharing existing facilities together with partially new construction is estimated at $668,000- $872,000 in cost. Ongoing costs of implementing Class 3 requirements are not expected to exceed $8,000 per year, with a Year 1 cost budget of $38,000 to help establish aerodrome regulated processes at Muskoka Airport. CATSA cost recovery operations is estimated to be $165,000 the initial year and less than $100,000 the following years. Cost mitigation in the first year could be advanced via a temporary structure, such as a set of portables. This solution may be helpful to manage business risks of flight service viability.

4.4 Optional Costs Currently, the proposed flights for Muskoka Airport will be a service from a major centre in Canada such as Toronto. In future, there may be the market potential to achieve direct services from the United States. If this is the case, there is the need to look at future planning for Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) clearance for customs/immigration purposes. Muskoka Airport is currently a CBSA airport of entry and limited to 15 passengers on general aviation flight. Specifically, CBSA defines the limitation to Muskoka Airport as an Airport of Entry/15 set of services. There are a number of issues associated with the future potential of direct commercial air services from an international origin (i.e., United States), to land directly at Muskoka Airport. CBSA is facing considerable funding shortfall, but increasing requests to fund core services for border clearance. Since 2009, CBSA operates under a “Air Services Policy Framework”8 to manage requests for public funding. Alternatives are available for fee-based services, subject to resource availability. Currently, Muskoka Airport cannot meet the requirements to move to a “Tier 3” level of service. Tier 3 would provide Muskoka Airport with eligibility to receive up to eight hours of publicly funded border clearance services seven days a week or seasonal border clearance services if it has regularly scheduled international flights. However, the airport has to handle 2,500 cleared passengers a year. In future, if direct services are pursued from the United States for scheduled commercial operators, there will need to be further evaluation with CBSA on the options for public or fee- based services based on federal Treasury Board guidelines. This is however a subject that is independent from the ability for Muskoka Airport to receive CATSA designation for security screening.

8 See http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/agency-agence/csr-esb/fsum-somc-eng.html for more information.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 30

5.0 Economic Impacts The economic impact analysis measures the specific benefits of new aviation services and the accompanying tourism spending to compare against the estimated costs, as outlined above. Benefits are typically measured by employment and economic output (i.e. dollars going to the local/regional/Canadian economy). Each departure of a passenger flight at Muskoka Airport (YQA) generates labour hours for individuals with jobs involved in handling passengers, their baggage and the aircraft. This focused economic impact analysis examines the economic inputs and outputs from potential air service by determining the labour necessary to operate every aspect of a flight. These analyses are called “micro” studies to differentiate them from other broader economic impact studies of an airport that take into account all employment and economic activity at an airport, not just that associated with a given service to a particular destination. The analysis that follows provides the average economic impact of labour hours associated with turning around an aircraft on a per flight basis.

Figure 14: Examples of tourism benefits from new air services

Photo credit: Explorers’ Edge and Resorts of North Muskoka, Rocky Crest Golf Resort Further to this, any additional visitors arriving on to the Muskoka Region due to the new air service will inject money into the local economy on items such as resorts/hotels, taxis, food and beverage, entertainment, etc. The analysis in this report is validated by qualitative feedback from local businesses during consultations outlined in Chapter 4. The direct spending impacts of the visitors are also estimated. There are also economic impacts associated with visitor spending, in addition to the employment and other economic impacts, related to servicing the flight. These would include the suppliers to the hotel and restaurant industries that benefit from visitor spending. Hotel and restaurant employees spend their wages on other goods and services that create induced impacts. To avoid double-counting of impacts, InterVISTAS excludes these impacts. Thus, only the direct impact of visitor spending is shown. 9 5.1 Air Service Scenarios at Muskoka Airport To gauge impacts over a three-year time period, three possible scenarios were defined - High, Medium and Low – with gradual increases in weekly frequency, weeks per year and load factor (percent of aircraft seat capacity filled by passengers).

9 Average spend per visitor is based on data available from the Ontario Tourism Research Unit for Canada & U.S. travellers to the Muskoka District for 2012 and updated with Consumer Price Indices to account for inflation. An estimate of $820 per visitor per trip to Muskoka is used to compute the estimated tourism expenditure, based on average spend rates collected by Ontario Tourism Research Unit.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 31

The potential new air service would be operated by a 70-seat Dash 8-Q400 aircraft. The seasonal air service would begin with twice weekly operations for 10-12 weeks per year, equivalent to an annual frequency of 22 flights, for all scenarios. The scenarios are outlined in the tables below.

Figure 15: Details of Potential New Air Services

Potential Air Service: High Scenario Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Aircraft Type Q400 Q400 Q400 Seat Capacity 70 70 70 Load Factor 80%+ 80%+ 80%+ Weekly Frequency 2 3 4 Weeks per Year 11 16 20 Annual Frequency 22 48 80 Passengers per Flight 60 60 60 Passengers per Annum 1,309 2,856 4,760

Potential Air Service: Medium Scenario Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Aircraft Type Q400 Q400 Q400 Seat Capacity 70 70 70 Load Factor 65% 65% 65% Weekly Frequency 2 3 3 Weeks per Year 11 14 16 Annual Frequency 22 42 48 Passengers per Flight 46 46 46 Passengers per Annum 1,001 1,911 2,184

Potential Air Service: Low Scenario Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Aircraft Type Q400 Q400 Q400 Seat Capacity 70 70 70 Load Factor 55% 55% 55% Weekly Frequency 2 2 2 Weeks per Year 11 11 11 Annual Frequency 22 22 22 Passengers per Flight 39 39 39 Passengers per Annum 847 847 847

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 32

• The High Scenario assumes a very high load factor of 80%+, with concerted marketing and packages sold. This scenario would result in some 4,760 on-board passengers per annum 80 or more flights a year.10 • In the Medium Scenario, a moderate load factor of 65% is assumed, with annual frequency increasing to 48 flights and annual on-board passengers increasing to 2,184 passengers in Year 3. • In the Low Scenario, load factor of 55% and annual frequency of 22 flights remain the same over the three years, with 847 passengers on-board per annum. 5.2 Annual Aviation and Visitor Spending Economic Impacts Economic impacts are typically measured in four broad categories: Jobs Wages Gross domestic Economic output (in (in full-time equivalents) (in dollars) product (in dollars) dollars)

The annual employment (full-time equivalents or FTEs),11 visitor spending and other economic impacts associated with the potential air service to/from Muskoka Airport are estimated for each year over a three-year time period. Annual impacts are assessed for each of the three scenarios. A conservative approach was undertaken with commonly accepted indicators to assess the impacts of additional flights, as well as tourism spending. Economic multipliers from Statistics Canada for the Province of Ontario are used to estimate wages and other economic impacts, such as gross domestic product (GDP) and economic output. GDP is a measure of the money value of final goods and services produced as a result of economic activity, while economic output is the dollar value of industrial output produced or total sales. For example, if a local travel agent sells a tour package that includes accommodations, fishing operations, gas and other supplies, the total economic output is the addition of all sales within the package for local businesses. GDP is only the total value-added to the economy, excluding reselling. The total economic impact of a flight would also include indirect and induced effects. Indirect (e.g., businesses that supply goods and services to the airport and airline) and induced (e.g., spending in the general economy by airport and airline employees) impacts are those stimulated by the direct employment and activities at the airport. The combined economic impact of the potential air services, which includes the total impact of the airport related operations and the direct visitor spending impacts, are presented in this

10 In the High Scenario, upgauging of aircrafts is likely required depending on the carrier, very aggressive marketing and commitments from vacation and resort packages is needed, and there must be solid community and business support for the air service. More than one carrier could be operating the services by Year 3. 11 One full time equivalent (FTE) year of employment is equivalent to the number of hours that an individual would work on a full time basis for one year. Full time equivalents are useful because part time and seasonal workers do not account for one full time job.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 33

section.12 Figure 2 to Figure 4 summarizes the annual combined aviation and visitor spending impacts for each of the scenarios. • In Year 1 of the High Scenario, the potential air services would support 7.6 FTEs and $430,000 in GDP, while in Year 3 the services would support 27.1 FTEs and $1.6 million in GDP. • In the Medium Scenario, the combined direct impacts of the potential new service would increase from 5.6 FTEs and $340,000 in GDP in Year 1 to 12.3 FTEs and $750,000 in GDP in Year 3. • In the Low Scenario, the annual combined direct impacts of the potential services are estimated to be approximately 4.6 FTEs and $300,000 in GDP for each of the three years.

12 The aviation and visitor spending impacts are presented separately in Appendix A.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 34

Figure 16: Annual Combined Economic Impacts (Airport + Tourism Spending) – High Scenario

Wages GDP Economic Employment Impact ($ Thousands) ($ Thousands) (FTEs) Output ($ Thousands) Year 1 Direct 7.6 $310 $430 $920 Indirect 0.4 $30 $50 $110 Induced 0.2 $10 $30 $50 Total 8.3 $360 $500 $1,080 Year 2 Direct 16.3 $680 $930 $2,010 Indirect 0.9 $60 $100 $230 Induced 0.5 $30 $60 $110 Total 17.8 $780 $1,100 $2,350 Year 3 Direct 27.1 $1,140 $1,550 $3,350 Indirect 1.6 $110 $170 $390 Induced 0.9 $50 $110 $180 Total 29.5 $1,300 $1,830 $3,920

Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.

Based on the above table, we expect a high scenario to yield close to $4 million in total economic output by the third year. This includes all the activity and purchases by companies involved, including expenditures by the air carrier, taxis, hotel operators, restaurants, etc., as well as spending of their employees in the region. The high scenario, by Year 3 would also see 1.8 million in total GDP (including multiplier effects), which is a statement of value-added activity (i.e., removing the value of intermediate sales involved). In total, direct airport-related operations and tourism spending, together with the businesses that supply the goods and services (indirect impacts) and spending of employees in the wider economy (induced impacts), of potential Muskoka Airport passenger services are estimated to support approximately 30 FTEs, earning wages of about $1.3 million, in Year 3.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 35

Figure 17: Annual Combined Economic Impacts (Airport + Tourism Spending) – Medium Scenario

Wages GDP Economic Employment Impact ($ Thousands) ($ Thousands) (FTEs) Output ($ Thousands) Year 1 Direct 5.6 $250 $340 $750 Indirect 0.4 $30 $50 $110 Induced 0.2 $10 $30 $50 Total 6.3 $290 $420 $900 Year 2 Direct 11.1 $480 $660 $1,430 Indirect 0.8 $60 $90 $200 Induced 0.5 $30 $60 $90 Total 12.4 $560 $800 $1,720 Year 3 Direct 12.3 $550 $750 $1,630 Indirect 0.9 $60 $100 $230 Induced 0.5 $30 $60 $110 Total 13.7 $640 $910 $1,970

Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.

In the medium scenario, we have more modest job creation due to a lower load factor for flights, as well as frequencies. Just under 14 FTEs would be created (including multiplier impacts), earning $640,000 in wages by Year 3. Total economic output would be just under $2 million in the same year, based on total purchases and activities from all companies helping to support the flight, and associated visitor spending at hotels, restaurants, resorts and other services. The total GDP (value-add) would total $910,000 – a subset of economic output by netting out reselling of component goods and services.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 36

Figure 18: Annual Combined Economic Impacts (Airport + Tourism Spending) – Low Scenario

Wages GDP Economic Employment Impact ($ Thousands) ($ Thousands) (FTEs) Output ($ Thousands) Year 1 Direct 4.6 $220 $300 $660 Indirect 0.4 $30 $50 $110 Induced 0.2 $10 $30 $50 Total 5.2 $260 $380 $820 Year 2 Direct 4.6 $220 $300 $660 Indirect 0.4 $30 $50 $110 Induced 0.2 $10 $30 $50 Total 5.2 $260 $380 $820 Year 3 Direct 4.6 $220 $300 $660 Indirect 0.4 $30 $50 $110 Induced 0.2 $10 $30 $50 Total 5.2 $260 $380 $820

Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.

A low scenario assumes a modest set of services for flight frequencies and load factor averaging 55%. In this case the benefits are expected to be modest, with total employment at 5.2 FTEs per year over the course of Years 1-3. Total economic output is about $820,000 per annum, with GDP (value-add) estimated at $380,000 each year. Compared to the medium and high scenarios, the annual economic impacts remain constant each year in the low scenario, as the parameters of the air service, number of visitors, and visitor spending in the region are not assumed to be changed over the three years in this scenario.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 37

5.3 Catalytic Impacts in the Broader Economy The benefits for the District of Muskoka is not just confined to tourism-related and aviation economic impacts. Beyond the direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts noted earlier, air service also contributes other positive effects to a region that can be more difficult to quantify. From the recent Canada Transportation Act Review report, research by Richard Florida and other subject matter experts, there is considerable value to “connectivity” for a community to provincial, national and global markets. These “catalytic effects” of air transport contribute in other ways to a local or regional economy. They are important beneficial economic events or activities that occur in an area that are attributable to the presence of the airport or of a particular type of air service. Figure 5 illustrates the potential catalytic impacts of an airport, together with the direct, indirect and induced economic impacts. The connectivity provided by the potential air service will help attract tourists, facilitate trade and investment, and contribute to the growth of the economy. This section provides a discussion of these potential catalytic impacts.

Figure 19: Overview of Potential Direct, Indirect, Induced and Catalytic Impacts

Air transportation facilitates employment and economic development in the national and regional economy through increased trade, attracting new businesses to the region and encouraging investment. It supports long-term economic growth by providing linkages between a region and the national economy through greater connections to business markets and

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 38 greater access to resources. Industries and activities that would otherwise not exist in a region can be attracted by improved air transport connectivity. Thus, aviation yields additional benefits to direct users and generates further positive impact on performance and economic activity of a region. A concrete example of catalytic impacts was offered during consultations. A local boat manufacturer could tap into potential purchasers from the U.S. market – primarily because there is increased value to having a direct inspection of operations on-site for purchasers. Catalytic impacts (also known as Wider Economic Benefits) capture the way in which the airport facilitates the business of other sectors of the economy. As such, air transportation facilitates employment and economic development in the regional economy through a number of mechanisms: . Tourism. Air service facilitates the arrival of tourists to a region. This includes business as well as leisure tourists. The spending of these tourists can support a wide range of tourism- related businesses: hotels, restaurants, theatres, car rentals, etc. Of course, air service also facilitates outbound tourism, which can be viewed as reducing the amount of money spent in an economy. However, even outbound tourism involves spending in the home economy, on travel agents, taxis, etc. In any case, it is not necessarily the case that money spent by tourists flying abroad would be spent on tourism at home if there were no air service.

. Trade in Goods and Services. Although air cargo accounts for 0.5% of the volume of global trade shipments, it accounts for over 35% by value, meaning that air cargo is high value, often times perishable or time-sensitive.13 Both the trade of goods and the trade of services are facilitated by passenger air services. Face-to-face meetings play a crucial role in making sales and delivering services and support. The ability be at a client’s side rapidly and cost- effectively is important to many industries. Much of the time, these functions cannot be replaced by teleconferencing or other forms of communication.

Air transport connects businesses to a wide range of markets, providing a significantly larger customer base for their products than would be accessible otherwise. It is particularly important for high-tech and knowledge-based sectors, and suppliers of time-sensitive goods. . Investment. Air connectivity is important in attracting business and investment into a region. A key factor many companies take into account when making decisions about the location of offices, manufacturing plants or warehouses is proximity of an airport. Therefore, airports are essential assets for regions wishing to expand industrial activity. Their proximity encourages industrial development. Industries choose to locate close to airports in order to gain easy access to air transport and the associated infrastructure.

. Productivity. Air transportation offers access to new markets, which in turn enable businesses to achieve greater economies of scale; inward investment can enhance the productivity of the labour force (e.g., state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities); air access also enables companies to attract and retain high quality employees. All of these factors contribute to enhanced productivity, which in turn increases the regional income.

13 Source: Air Transport Action Group: http://www.atag.org/.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 39

Taken together, these issues contribute to an overall sense of a region’s attractiveness and competitiveness. With a significant tourism and service sector, a number of international manufacturing firms and an educated workforce,14 the introduction of new scheduled air services at YQA will play a significant role in providing the necessary transportation access and linkages. This will contribute to the growth of overall economy for the District of Muskoka.

Photo credit: Explorers’ Edge and Resorts of North Muskoka

In effect, the catalytic impact of aviation is to increase the productive potential of the economy (in economist terms, moving the production–possibility frontier). Improvements in aviation connectivity enable economies to attract more tourists, conduct more trade and draw more investment. The overall effect of all these mechanisms is an increase in employment and GDP. Without effective air transportation links, it is much harder for economies to attract tourists, to conduct trade and attract investment. As a result, the region’s economy and employment potential would suffer. It should be noted that catalytic impacts are not a simple matter of the airport generating employment and economic activity in the same way that direct, indirect and induced impacts arise. Economies are far more complex than that. It clearly takes a wide range of players acting together to generate economic growth – government, business, infrastructure providers, residents, etc. For example, providing air connectivity alone does not guarantee large volumes of tourists. There also needs to be hotels, restaurants, retail, entertainment, etc. to make a destination an attractive tourism destination. Nevertheless, without convenient air services, a destination will find it more difficult to attract tourists. What the catalytic impacts capture is that without an efficient airport and the air services it supports, the economy would not be as large or affluent. Thus, catalytic impacts are about the economic value and employment that airports facilitate rather than generate. The connectivity enabled by airports is not sufficient on its own to fully support economic activity, but it a necessary element of economic growth and development. In discussing catalytic impacts, the issue of causality often arises. For example, while air service can facilitate trade, it is also true that increased trade leads to increased demand for air services. This study recognizes that there is a two-way relationship between air connectivity and economic growth. Economic growth stimulates demand for air services while at the same time, these air services open up new opportunities for tourism, trade, business development, etc. This in turn can stimulate further demand for air services, and so on, in a “virtuous cycle.”

14 Source: The District of Muskoka Economic Profile, Sept. 2011

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 40

6.0 Roadmap/Next Steps 6.1 Conclusions An upfront capital investment of up to $1.5 million is suggested with incremental costs of $200,000 in year 1 and a recurring incremental cost of less than $100,000. The economic impact estimates a “low” scenario” of producing incremental $380,000 in GDP $820,000 in economic output. If the initiative is successful to increasing frequencies of flights and a very high load factor (80%+ of aircraft filled), the upside could be $1.8 million in GDP and $3.9 million in economic output. Overall, the payback period of the investment is several years, but could be even faster when considering the potential for catalytic economic impact benefits. As well, the $1.5 million in facilities could be significantly mitigated in cost with alternate options for capital expansion of the existing terminal building.

6.2 Roadmap/Next Steps There are several important steps to pursue following a meeting on June 23, 2016 to review the results of the InterVISTAS analyses. The following seven steps are critical to achieving approvals for the ability to conduct security screening by the summer of July 2017. It is an achievable timeline provided that there is a dedicated group of individuals and staff assigned to realizing the outcomes, and obtaining requisite approvals.

6.2.1 Step 1: Design Terminal Solution & Validate High Level Estimates (July 2016) An architect should be retained to review the program requirements for CATSA security screening and estimate the best path ahead. A review should also be undertaken to obtain a quote for appropriate temporary airport-specific facilities that could house program elements.

6.2.2 Step 2: CATSA / Transport Canada Meetings (July-August 2016) CATSA has provided a letter of intent as well as an estimate of fees. The ability to signal an intent to proceed and integrate the Transport Canada inspector into the design process is recommended, particularly when dealing with dual-use space allocation, and potential requirements for regulatory exemption/clarification.

6.2.3 Step 3: Financing Structure (July-August 2016) Rates and charges should be reviewed to determine an appropriate per passenger fee. At the minimum, consideration should be given to a $5 fee that would be commensurate with the Air Traveller’s Security Charge automatically added to airline tickets for flights from one of the 89 CATSA designated airports. This fee is only intended to cover the CATSA operational costs and would not recover capital expenditures or cover other ongoing expenses.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 41

Consideration should also be given to determining whether an Airport Improvement Fee would be used to help finance the costs of terminal expansion. Other funds that would be used to pay for capital/operating requirements would need to be determined.

6.2.4 Step 4: Airline negotiations (July to October 2016) With the formal CATSA Letter of Agreement from Vice President, Service Delivery, there is the ability to work with air carriers to formalize potential flights. Formal air service development presentations should be held to present the opportunity as well as report on the positive outcomes of consultations. Letters of support from senior officials from resorts and key business interests should be collected and presented, along with other key elements to establish the business case. Operational plans would follow to establish start of service requirements.

6.2.5 Step 5: Implement facilities and Designate (September 2016 to May 2017) Depending on the timing of construction of facilities – and a decision on temporary or permanent structure, a “go-live” facility option will need to be implemented by May 2017. The ability to house a temporary screening solution while a final solution is developed has occurred many times before at Canadian airports; while there is added complexity this may be the eventual outcome due to construction challenges during winter months. Transport Canada would need to approve designations for the aerodrome to be equivalent of a Class 3 security facility. Support is needed to ensure appropriate drawings, plans and operational procedures are submitted.

6.2.6 Step 6: Conclude CATSA negotiations (November to May 2017) Following confirmation of intent for services to start, the form “PD-010 Screening Application for Cost Recovery Airports Form” should be completed and filed with CATSA to start the process of securing services. The approvals would be contingent on Transport Canada designation of the aerodrome for security screening.

6.2.7 Step 7: Implement operational plans (July 2016 – June 2017) There is a committee of CATSA, the air carrier and airport that will need to establish a process regularly to create and maintain appropriate security assessment, plans and processes. This will need to occur in concert with the physical solution, along with documentation and clear roles/responsibilities.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 42

6.3 Summary of Roadmap The following summary outlines a set of steps necessary to achieve approvals for commercial designation. Note that there may be other requirements depending on requirements from the air carrier and timing for pre-sales/package development. 2016 2017 Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Apr May Jun

1. Design Terminal Solution A. Retain architect B. Review temporary facilities C. Develop concept plans D. Decide on July 2017 model

2. CATSA / TC Meetings A. Present concept plans B. Obtain exemption(s) as req. C. Confirm costing/timing D. Confirm other Class 3 security requirements

3. Financing Structure A. Evaluate passenger fees B. Obtain capital funding C. Obtain operational funding

4. Airline Negotiations A. Obtain support letters B. Air Service Presentations C. Commercial agreement D. Establish start date for sales E. Develop operational plans

5. Implement & Designate A. Implement facility B. Prepare operational plans C. Submit draw ings and plans D. Support TC designation

6. CATSA Agreement A. Submit screening application B. Complete agreement

7. Implement Operations Plan A. Establish committee B. Confirm processes C. Establish contingencies D. Go-live operations

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 43

Appendix A: Survey Summary A formal survey was launched and published during town hall meetings and in local media reports about the potential for security screening at Muskoka Airport. Participants and members of the public were asked to comment on several aspects. 62 responses were received. 1. Generally speaking, what are your impressions of the proposal to bring in commercial air service to the Muskoka Airport?

Of the survey responses, 92% indicated strong support for the initiative. Samples of written responses included: • I am generally supportive of the concept. It is important to take every possible step to ensure the provider of service has an excellent record related to safety, customer service, and environmental responsibility. • I am a supporter of the proposal, as it will provide a significant boost in tourism to the region from beyond the Greater Toronto Area. • As I have understood the information it seems like a smart, conservative plan to bring a somewhat regular route to Muskoka during peak times that will benefit the airport and local region. • Great news, wonderful idea! p.s. After this project, please consider advocating to get passenger train service back to the area.

Only one response was negative about the initiative with a comment “Do not see the benefit or disadvantage.” The balance of the responses was neutral (e.g., “it seems like it can’t hurt”), but not opposed to the concept.

2. Are you pleased to see the Muskoka Airport – an important asset of the District of Muskoka – being used as a “tool” to bring more visitors to the region? If yes, why? If not, why not? A similar set of results were advanced, with 92% indicating “yes” to the answer. Most respondents highlighted the reasons for a “yes” answer due to the ability to raise the profile of the region for tourism, and also to grow jobs locally. Others linked the initiative to increasing the viability of the airport. The four “no” responses were variable. Two responses objected to the way the question was asked and indicated that the airport should not be viewed as a “tool” but as a piece of infrastructure. One response diverged from the question and promoted the use of Gravenhurst Airport. A final respondent disputed a comparison to Mont Tremblant airport due to that airport’s reliance on a resort.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 44

3. Do you think commercial flights into the Muskoka Airport will help build the region as a vacation destination? If so, how (what benefits can you identify)? 82% of respondents indicated “yes” for the ability to build the region as a vacation destination. A sample of opinions for respondents who indicated “yes” included: • Costs of larger air tour operators who operate from Toronto Pearson Airport are huge. You can bus people from Toronto (e.g. Yorkdale or other), clear customs, handle their baggage and send them on their way much cheaper from Muskoka, and in a much short time. • It provides travellers another option to access our communities. • Many now dread the Friday night/ Sunday night highway traffic, or the long drive from US points. Shortening the journey will be an incentive for more tourists to visit Muskoka. A larger amount of uncertainty was noted from previous questions. Respondents who did not say “yes” provided a qualified response. An example included the following: • Maybe. It will depend on where and how the flights are marketed. The potential to bring more 'high end' tourists increases. This will create a new marketing story for the region and it defeats the traffic naysayers • Only if packages are marketed by the tourism industry complete with pick up and return to airport. Must be done on a higher scale than I see most of Muskoka operating. USA is most accessible and lucrative market. To work packages would have to come out of an airline hub to collect the volume required. Chicago, New York, Pittsburgh, etc. Most potential will be in the North East USA. 4. If tourists are the primary target for this project, which additional industries do you think can benefit from regional air service to the Muskoka Airport? In what way? There was a wide range of responses including • Aviation-related businesses such as aircraft repair and other support services • Tourism and transportation-related support businesses • Consultants or internet-based businesses • Manufacturing (e.g. boats)

5. Can you identify any obstacles, challenges or impediments you believe may hinder the plan to bring commercial air service to the Muskoka Airport? A variety of views were cited about the overall drive towards the initiative • Ten respondents (16%) warned about whether there was sufficient political will to deliver on the ability to get commercial air services.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 45

• Eight respondents (13%) cited concerns about the runway usability and the lack of a cross-wind runway. Additional views were raised with potential challenges from noise, increased activity and potential costs of the initiative. 6. What programs do you think need to be in place for regional air service into the Muskoka Airport to be a success? (e.g. Info centre at the airport? Shuttle service? Marketing plan? Please name as many as you can.) 25 responses (40%) indicated the need for ground access connectivity via taxis, car rental, shuttle services or other provision of ground transportation linkages to local attractions. 16 responses (26%) cited the need for an appropriate marketing plan around the initiative. Other responses were more terminal-specific, such as food and beverage, shopping or other amenities typically found at an airport terminal.

7. What investments and/or incentives do you think are appropriate to attract this air service? There was little consensus that could be drawn from responses to the question that was equal in quantities of responses that promoted new public investment, creative financing, support from all levels of government and costs to be borne fully by the private sector.

8. Will the introduction of regional air service impact your organization/business? In what way? What type of demand do you think might be stimulated for your organization/business with the introduction of this service? Will this impact the number of jobs/investment your organization makes? If so, how? 20 responses (32%) provided a qualified “no” in that the scale of impact depends on the kind of air services. The respondents described that the benefits would be indirect through the ability for additional opportunities for business with the growth of tourism. There were seven responses (7%) that cited the importance of international access. This includes being able to attract Chinese travelers visiting BC to the ability for Muskoka area businesses to access global markets more easily.

9. What is your organization/business prepared to do to support and sustain commercial air service at the airport – if anything? More than half of the respondents (35) indicated they would be able to provide support through co-marketing, promotions or advocacy to help with the initiative. This includes integration the approach for messaging as well as ensuring there was broad awareness of new capabilities at the airport.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 46

Appendix B: Aviation and Visitor Spending Economic Impact Direct On-Site Airport Employment Impacts To assess the potential on-airport benefits, this micro study assesses the impact of all activities related to aircraft landing, departure and activities completed during turnaround time and in- flight. Among others, these activities include unloading inbound passengers and their baggage, and then re-loading the aircraft with outbound passengers and their baggage. The estimated labour hours in this study also includes the employment involved in processing each aircraft and its passengers, such as catering, cleaning, maintenance, fuelling, ground service, etc. The employment and earnings associated with these activities are considered to be “direct” impacts of the flight. They are immediately associated with the operation of the aircraft. Furthermore, the study measures the direct labour hours of other services offered at the airport, such as car rental services for which passengers may engage. As noted in consultations this was an important aspect of connectivity to the development of new commercial flights. In addition to the airline employees in the public areas of the terminal, the airlines also have administrative employees in the office area of the terminal. The labour hours of employees behind the scenes, such as managers and supervisors, are included in this micro study, as well. The figures in this study represent the average labour impacts of the potential air service. It includes the sum of all of the labour hours from all jobs/tasks associated with the potential flight - both “hands-on” jobs as well as “overhead” jobs. In summary, as shown below, this study estimates that each round-trip (i.e., “return”) flight will generate approximately 49 person hours of labour, corresponding to roughly 0.03 full-time equivalents per flight.

Figure A-1: Local Person Hours by Job Function per Return Flight

Person Hours Job Type per Return Flight Airline In-Terminal 11 Other Terminal 23 Ground Support 15

Total Hours 49

Notes: Airline In-Terminal includes labor hours of check-in agents, gate agents, escorts (e.g. for wheelchairs) and supervisors. Other Terminal includes labor hours of jobs in air traffic control, security screening, car rental, local ground transportation and airport administration attributed to the air service. Ground Support includes labor hours of jobs in ramp crew, bag room, fueling, and grooming.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 47

Aviation Economic Impacts The annual employment and other economic impacts associated with the potential air service to/from Muskoka Airport are estimated for each year over the three-year time period. Annual impacts are assessed for each of the three scenarios. Economic multipliers from Statistics Canada for the Province of Ontario are used to estimate wages and other economic impacts, such as gross domestic product (GDP) and economic output. GDP is a measure of the money value of final goods and services produced as a result of economic activity, while economic output is the dollar value of industrial output produced. The total economic impact of a flight would also include indirect and induced effects. Indirect (e.g., businesses that supply goods and services to the airport and airline) and induced (e.g., spending in the general economy by airport and airline employees) impacts are those stimulated by the direct employment and activities at the airport. Year 1 of operations in the High Scenario would support 0.6 direct FTEs during the year, earning $50,000. The annual direct local employment associated with the air services in Year 3 would increase to 2.1 FTEs, earning $170,000. The direct GDP contribution to the local economy is estimated at $70,000 and $270,000 in Year 1 and Year 3, respectively. Over the three years, the total economic impacts (including multiplier effects) of the air service would increase from 1.3 FTEs and $150,000 in GDP in Year 1 to 4.6 FTEs and $550,000 in GDP in Year 3. The economic impacts associated with the labour hours generated annually in the High Scenario are summarized in Figure B-2.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 48

Figure B-220: Total Annual Economic Impacts of Potential Air Services at YQA – High Scenario

Employment Wages GDP Output Impact (FTEs) ($ Thousands) ($ Thousands) ($ Thousands) Year 1 Direct 0.6 $50 $70 $190 Indirect 0.4 $30 $50 $110 Induced 0.2 $10 $30 $50 Total 1.3 $90 $150 $350 Year 2 Direct 1.3 $100 $160 $420 Indirect 0.9 $60 $100 $230 Induced 0.5 $30 $60 $110 Total 2.8 $190 $330 $760 Year 3 Direct 2.1 $170 $270 $700 Indirect 1.6 $110 $170 $390 Induced 0.9 $50 $110 $180 Total 4.6 $320 $550 $1,260

Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.

In the Medium Scenario, the potential air services are estimated to support 0.6 direct FTEs during the year, earning $50,000, in Year 1. By Year 3, the direct local employment associated with the air services would increase to 1.3 FTEs, earning $100,000, annually. The direct GDP contribution to the local economy would increase from $70,000 to $160,000 over the three years. Including multiplier effects (indirect and induced), the total economic impacts of the potential air service could support 1.2 FTEs and contribute $150,000 in GDP in Year 1, while the potential air service would support 2.7 FTEs and contribute $330,000 in GDP in Year 3. Figure B-3 provides the economic impacts associated with the labour hours generated annually in the Medium Scenario.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 49

Figure B-3: Total Annual Economic Impacts of Potential Air Services at YQA – Medium Scenario

Impact Wages GDP Output Employment (Medium ($ Thousands) ($ Thousands) ($ Thousands) (FTEs) Scenario) Year 1 Direct 0.6 $50 $70 $190 Indirect 0.4 $30 $50 $110 Induced 0.2 $10 $30 $50 Total 1.2 $90 $150 $340 Year 2 Direct 1.1 $90 $140 $360 Indirect 0.8 $60 $90 $200 Induced 0.5 $30 $60 $90 Total 2.4 $170 $280 $660 Year 3 Direct 1.3 $100 $160 $410 Indirect 0.9 $60 $100 $230 Induced 0.5 $30 $60 $110 Total 2.7 $190 $330 $750

Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.

In the Low Scenario, the potential air services would support 0.6 full-time equivalents (FTEs) of direct local employment in the Muskoka District each year, earning wages estimated at approximately $50,000. The labour hours associated with the potential air service at YQA could potentially generate an estimated $70,000 in direct gross domestic product (GDP) and $190,000 in direct economic output. Considering multiplier effects (indirect and induced), the total economic impacts of the potential air service might support approximately 1.2 FTEs and contribute $150,000 in GDP annually. As the parameters of the air service are not assumed to be changed over the three years in this scenario, the annual economic impacts remain constant each year. The economic impacts associated with the labour hours generated annually in the Low Scenario are presented in Figure B-4.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 50

Figure B-421: Total Annual Economic Impacts of Potential Air Services at YQA – Low Scenario

Impact (Low Employment Wages GDP Output Scenario) (FTEs) ($ Thousands) ($ Thousands) ($ Thousands) Year 1 Direct 0.6 $50 $70 $190 Indirect 0.4 $30 $50 $110 Induced 0.2 $10 $30 $50 Total 1.2 $90 $150 $340 Year 2 Direct 0.6 $50 $70 $190 Indirect 0.4 $30 $50 $110 Induced 0.2 $10 $30 $50 Total 1.2 $90 $150 $340 Year 3 Direct 0.6 $50 $70 $190 Indirect 0.4 $30 $50 $110 Induced 0.2 $10 $30 $50 Total 1.2 $90 $150 $340

Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 51

Visitor Spending Impacts The number of visitors on the potential air services is estimated based on assumed load factors and percentage of visitors on-board the flight. Based on point-of-sale data at comparable airports, it is assumed that approximately 70% of passengers on-board each flight from YQA will be visitors that stay in the Muskoka region. The remainder of deplaning passengers is likely to be returning passengers whose trips originated in Muskoka. The number of visitors to the region resulting from the potential air services to YQA in Year 1 of the High Scenario is estimated to be approximately 920 visitors, spending nearly $730,000 per annum. The direct employment and economic impacts associated with visitor spending from the first year could potentially include seven direct FTEs and $350,000 in direct GDP in the region. In Year 3, the number of visitors is estimated to grow to 3,330 visitors and associated visitor spending is assumed to increase to close to $3 million. The associated direct economic impacts are estimated to grow to 25 direct FTEs and $1 million in direct GDP by Year 3. The direct economic impacts of the annual visitor spending from the potential air service to YQA in the High Scenario are summarized in Figure B-5.

Figure B-522: Annual Direct Visitor Spending Impacts of Potential Air Services at YQA – High Scenario

Employment Wages GDP Output Impact (FTEs) ($ Thousands) ($ Thousands) ($ Thousands) Year 1: 920 Visitors Direct 7 $270 $350 $730 Year 2: 2,000 Visitors Direct 15 $590 $770 $1,590 Year 3: 3,330 Visitors Direct 25 $980 $1,280 $2,650

Note that these are estimates only: if there are greater proportions of visitors from overseas markets (e.g. United Kingdom), the spend rate is typically higher for long-haul passengers. In the Medium Scenario, 700 visitors are estimated in Year 1 as a result from the potential air services to YQA, spending over $560,000. The direct employment and economic impacts associated with visitor spending from the potential new air service to YQA could potentially include five direct FTEs and $270,000 in direct GDP per annum in the region. In Year 3, the number of visitors and associated visitor spending per annum is assumed to increase to 1,530 visitors and $1.2 million in visitor spending. Likewise, the associated direct economic impacts are estimated to increase to 11 direct FTEs and $590,000 in direct GDP in Year 3. Figure B-6 provides the direct economic impacts of the annual visitor spending from the potential air service to YQA in the Medium Scenario.

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 52

Figure A-6: Annual Direct Visitor Spending Impacts of Potential Air Services at YQA – Medium Scenario

Employment Wages GDP Output Impact (FTEs) ($ Thousands) ($ Thousands) ($ Thousands) Year 1: 700 Visitors Direct 5 $210 $270 $560 Year 2: 1,340 Visitors Direct 10 $390 $520 $1,070 Year 3: 1,530 Visitors Direct 11 $450 $590 $1,220

In the Low Scenario, the yearly number of visitors to the region resulting from the potential air services to YQA is estimated to be approximately 590 visitors, spending over $470,000 per annum. The direct employment and economic impacts associated with visitor spending from the potential new air service to YQA could potentially include four direct FTEs and $230,000 in direct GDP per annum in the region. The number of visitors and associated visitor spending per annum is assumed to be the same in each year, as the air service parameters in the Low Scenario remain constant. The direct economic impacts of the annual visitor spending from the potential air service to YQA in the Low Scenario are summarized in Figure B-7.

Figure B-7: Annual Direct Visitor Spending Impacts of Potential Air Services at YQA – Low Scenario

Employment Wages GDP Output Impact (FTEs) ($ Thousands) ($ Thousands) ($ Thousands) Year 1: 590 Visitors Direct 4 $170 $230 $470 Year 2: 590 Visitors Direct 4 $170 $230 $470 Year 3: 590 Visitors Direct 4 $170 $230 $470

Muskoka Airport Designation – Security Screening and Commercial Air Service (June 15, 2016) 53

Prepared by InterVISTAS Consulting Inc. Airport Square – Suite 550 1200 West 73rd Avenue Vancouver, BC Canada V6P 6G5 Telephone: +1-604-717-1800 Facsimile: +1-604-717-1818 www.intervistas.com

TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee

FROM: Samantha Hastings Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development

DATE: June 23, 2016

SUBJECT: Airport Governance

REPORT NO: PED-7-2016-6 ______

RECOMMENDATION

For information and Committee direction.

ORIGIN

Further to Report No. PED-5-2016-1, at the April 21, 2016 meeting of the PED Committee, staff were asked to bring forward a staff report for the June Committee meeting on airport governance. In particular, staff were asked to summarize previous reports, including consultant’s reports that dealt with governance, and to include a table that summarized governance models at other airports. At the May 19, 2016 PED Committee meeting, staff were also asked to provide a draft Terms of Reference for a review of airport governance for the Committee’s consideration.

ANALYSIS

Business and Master Plan – SNC Lavalin

The Business Plan and Master Plan for the Muskoka Airport, prepared by SNC Lavalin, dated May 10, 2013 reviewed a number of governance options for the airport. In doing so, the consultant identified that “generally, governments do not like to provide capital or operating financial subsidies without having a significant say in how the airport is managed. Accordingly more of the smaller airports that are not self- sufficient tend to be government operated and more of the large airports have varying degrees of autonomy”. Notwithstanding this comment, the consultant expressed the opinion that “the most viable options for YQA (Muskoka Airport) are the Status Quo, and the creation of an Airport Commission”. The report goes on to note that “the status quo is working; however it is understood that opportunities are sometimes lost or stalled due to delays in the decision making process”. Ultimately, the report recommends that “the District seriously consider moving to an Airport Commission model to operate the airport”. The chapter from this report that deals with governance is attached in Appendix “I”. Muskoka District Council “received” this report but no further direction was provided to staff.

Page 1

Operational Review - Strategy Corp

The District Municipality of Muskoka Operational Review, prepared by Strategy Corp, dated January, 2014, included 7 recommendations related to the airport.

A1 The District should continue with its current governance structure for the airport, while making incremental improvements to the management and accountability for the Airport.

A2 The CAO should lead in creating a two-year Performance Improvement Plan for Airport operations, outlining the metrics against which District Council can evaluate (after the end of FY 2015), the progress that the airport is making in meeting its fiscal sustainability and its economic development objectives.

A3 It is recommended that if the financial situation of the Airport deteriorates over the period of the 2- year Performance Improvement Plan, that the District evaluate options that would transfer operating and management responsibility to a third-party that would assume more of the financial risks associated with operating the Airport.

A4 District Council should consider a policy restricting the sale of further Airport lands.

A5 It is recommended that the advisory role of the Muskoka Airport Advisory Committee (MAAC) be confirmed. It is recommended that council membership on the MAAC be reduced to one member of the Planning and Economic Development Committee (PEDC), to ensure that the directions of the PEDC are clearly communicated to the MAAC, and that the advisory opinions of the MAAC are clearly communicated to District Council decision-makers.

A6 The Airport should expand its stakeholder and community outreach and engagement efforts, to include other levels of government and their agencies, key elements of the District’s business community and other relevant stakeholders.

A7 The District should encourage or promote the creation of a chapter of the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association (COPA) within the District.

These recommendations deal with a variety of governance matters, including oversight, management and advisory committees. Relevant sections of this report are attached in Appendix “II”. Muskoka District Council subsequently accepted recommendations A1, A2, A3, A6 and A7. Council decided to consider Recommendation A4 following additional research and a staff report on the Airport’s Land Sale and Lease Policy. In addition, in response to Recommendation A5, staff were directed to prepare a report on the potential role and composition of the Muskoka Airport Advisory Committee. A report was subsequently considered by PED Committee and some preliminary consultations were held. This matter has not proceeded further in this term of Council. Further information is provided in Staff Report Nos. PED-4-2014-3, PED-7-2014-6 (2014) and PED-5-2016-1(April, 2016).

District Solicitor’s Report

In the timeframe between the SNC Lavalin Report and the Strategy Corp report, and at the request of the PED Committee, Staff Report No. PED-2-2014-5 (also attached in Appendix “III”) was prepared in January, 2014 by the District Solicitor to further explain potential airport governance models. This report explained that the Municipal Act had replaced the concept of a Commission structure with a Municipal Services Board and noted the advantages of both of these structures when more than one municipality is involved in the management and operation of a facility. This report noted that Strategy Corp was expected to make a recommendation in this regard. No direction was received from Committee in response to this report.

Page 2

Governance of Other Airports

The following table provides broader information about airport operations across the Province (slide taken from Ontario Municipal Airport Data Collection Study, 2011).

The table below summarizes a sample of governance models at other airports in Ontario. Further research/dialogue would be required to determine the detailed arrangements and effectiveness of the various models.

Airport Ownership Operation

Brantford Municipal Municipal (Property Management Dept) Collingwood Municipal Municipal Municipal Services Board (Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, Clearview) FBO services contracted out Lake Simcoe Municipal Municipal Services Board (Barrie, Oro-Medonte, County of Simcoe) Municipal (City of Barrie) employees Niagara Region Commission* Commission* North Bay Municipal Airport Corporation Parry Sound Municipal Commission Peterborough Municipal Operations contracted out under oversight of City airport administrator (Planning and Development Dept)

Page 3

Airport Ownership Operation

Stanhope Municipal Municipal (Airport Committee for “social events”) Sudbury Municipal Community Development Corporation (City staff assigned to corporation on cost recovery basis) Tillsonburg Municipal Municipal with Airport Advisory Committee (Economic Development and Marketing Dept.) Timmins Municipal Municipal (Airport Dept) Waterloo Municipal Municipal (independent FBOs) (Planning, Development and Legislative Services Dept) *Discussions underway about transferring ownership and operations to the Region of Niagara

Governance Considerations

The term “governance” can mean a variety of things, including the “WHAT” of political organization, strategic goal and objective setting, policy making and budget assignment, as well as the “HOW” of operational oversight. Currently, Muskoka District Council, through the PED Committee, is responsible for the “WHAT”. Staff, including the CAO, the Commissioner of PED and the Airport Manager are responsible to ensure that operations are conducted in accordance with the Strategic Priorities, policies and budget established by District Council.

The Terms of Reference attached in Appendix “IV” include a consultant facilitated discussion with Committee / Council at the beginning of the process to clarify the scope of the study. In addition, it includes a list of considerations, including the following:

What are Committee and Council’s expectations and objectives for the Muskoka Airport and its governance? What are the options for airport ownership? What are the options for airport operations? What other models exist, how much do they cost and what are their community benefits? Who would retain legal, regulatory and financial responsibility for the airport? Who would be the Airport Certificate holder? Who would be the Accountable Executive? Who would set budgets, how would policy decisions be made and what reporting would be required? Who would be responsible for capital asset management? What are options for existing lease arrangements? What are the implications for Muskoka Airport Reserves, runway loan repayments, etc.? What are staffing options and implications? How should success be measured?

Page 4

Staff have conducted a brief internet search for other Canadian airport governance reviews, and have not located many recent studies for similar sized airports. Two recent examples include the Dawson Creek Regional Airport http://www.dawsoncreek.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/airport/Dawson- Creek-Airport-Governance-Review-Report-23.pdf and the Northern Rockies Regional Airport http://www.flynorthernrockies.ca/sites/default/files/yye_-_long_term_strategic_plan.pdf.

The Dawson Creek study recommended that:

“1. Council expand the terms of reference (and potentially the representation) of the Economic Development Committee to incorporate airport-related business development issues and regional participation and equity issues;

2.That Council formally acknowledge those private parties advocating for an expanded runway at Dawson Creek Regional Airport and invite them to form a Task Force to pursue their long-term vision at no capital cost to City property taxpayers;

3.That Council retain direct City management at the Dawson Creek Regional Airport for operational issues”.

In the case of the Northern Rockies Regional Airport, it was recommended that “an independent organization should be created to govern the airport in the short- to medium-term. The benefits of an independent organization include increased oversight, independent financial and borrowing power, reduced liability, increased economic impact, and reduced time required by municipal council members”.

When District staff contacted this airport to obtain further information, we were advised that this recommendation was not implemented.

Most other recent studies focus on airports within the Canadian National Airports System (large airports that handle more than 200,000 passengers per year).

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Funds in the amount of $60,000 have been included in the 2016 Tax Supported Capital Budget and Forecast to undertake an Airport Economic Impact Study and Long Term Plan (Project 360023) and in the amount of $50,000 for Airport Infrastructure Studies (Project 360024). No funds have been specifically set aside for an airport governance study. A budget amendment would be required in this regard. Although initial inquiries resulted in an estimate of approximately $15,000 to $30,000, the issuance of a Request for Proposals will assist in more accurately identifying potential costs.

COMMUNICATIONS

Key stakeholders should be considered as part of a study about governance, including airport tenants and customers, the Area Municipalities, tourism and other businesses and organizations and Transport Canada.

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

This report addresses a number of the District of Muskoka’s Strategic Priorities, including the following:

3. Support the needed development and modernization of the recreation and tourism industry as a principal component of the Muskoka economy. Develop the Muskoka Airport as an economic development tool that supports the social and business needs of Muskoka.

Page 5

3.6 Examine the Eastside development plan and review the Land Sale and Lease Policy as it pertains to the Airport.

3.7 Undertake a review and update to the Airport Master Plan and Business and Marketing Plan and seek input from the Airport Advisory Committee and the public.

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Michael Duben, B.A., LL.B. Commissioner of Planning and Chief Administrative Officer Economic Development

S:\AIRPORT2\Governance\PED-7-2016-6-June-Committee Report.Doc

Page 6

APPENDIX “I” EXCERPTS FROM SNC LAVALIN MASTER PLAN

Page 7

APPENDIX “I” EXCERPTS FROM SNC LAVALIN MASTER PLAN

Page 8

APPENDIX “I” EXCERPTS FROM SNC LAVALIN MASTER PLAN

Page 9

APPENDIX “I” EXCERPTS FROM SNC LAVALIN MASTER PLAN

Page 10

APPENDIX “I” EXCERPTS FROM SNC LAVALIN MASTER PLAN

Page 11

APPENDIX “I” EXCERPTS FROM SNC LAVALIN MASTER PLAN

CORP

Page 12

APPENDIX “I” EXCERPTS FROM SNC LAVALIN MASTER PLAN

Page 13

APPENDIX “I” EXCERPTS FROM SNC LAVALIN MASTER PLAN

Page 14

APPENDIX “I” EXCERPTS FROM SNC LAVALIN MASTER PLAN

Page 15

APPENDIX “I” EXCERPTS FROM SNC LAVALIN MASTER PLAN

Page 16

APPENDIX “I” EXCERPTS FROM SNC LAVALIN MASTER PLAN

Page 17

APPENDIX “I” EXCERPTS FROM SNC LAVALIN MASTER PLAN

Page 18

APPENDIX “I” EXCERPTS FROM SNC LAVALIN MASTER PLAN

Page 19

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 20

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 21

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 22

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 23

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 24

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 25

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 26

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 27

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 28

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 29

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 30

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 31

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 32

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 33

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 34

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 35

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 36

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 37

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 38

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 39

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 40

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 41

APPENDIX “II” EXCERPTS FROM STRATEGY CORP

Page 42

APPENDIX “III” STAFF REPORT No. PED-2-2014-5

Page 43

APPENDIX “III” STAFF REPORT No. PED-2-2014-5

Page 44

APPENDIX “III” STAFF REPORT No. PED-2-2014-5

Page 45

APPENDIX “III” STAFF REPORT No. PED-2-2014-5

Page 46

APPENDIX “IV” Draft Terms of Reference for Muskoka Airport Governance Review

Project Requirements

An analysis of a preferred governance model for the Muskoka Airport is required to be undertaken by a consultant who has expertise in airport planning and governance for small to mid-size airports.

Project Deliverables

At a minimum, the following items or activities are required to be delivered by the consultant as part of this project:

a) Review of other airport governance models and SWOT analysis;

b) Facilitated discussions with the PED Committee, other District Councillors as part of individual meetings with each Area Municipality (6) and other key airport, tourism and community stakeholders to determine objectives for the airport and for governance, and to further scope the study;

c) Public consultation program, including at least one public meeting at which airport and broader community stakeholders have an opportunity to provide input;

d) Recommended governance model and any necessary transitional steps;

e) Final Report – including recommendations and expected financial, economic and social outcomes;

f) Presentation of the final report to the PED Committee

The proposal should include a detailed description of the proposed methodology and should also include examples of other airport governance studies that have been undertaken. At a minimum, it should address the following questions:

• What are Committee and Council’s objectives for the Muskoka Airport and its governance? • What are the options for airport ownership? • What are the options for airport operations? • What other models exist, how much do they cost and what are their community benefits? • Who should have legal, regulatory and financial responsibility for the airport? • Who should be the Airport Certificate holder and who should be the Accountable Executive? • Who should set budgets, how would policy decisions be made and what reporting should be required? • Who should be responsible for capital asset management? • What are the options for existing lease arrangements? • What are the implications for Airport reserves, runway loan repayments, etc.? • What are staffing options and implications? • How should success be measured – lower Net Levy for District? Increased community economic impacts? Other?

Project Timing

The final report should be presented to the PED Committee by March, 2017, or sooner. Page 47

Tentative Schedule:

July, 2016 Council approval of Terms of Reference August, 2016 Release of RFP September, 2016 Proposals due October, 2016 PED Committee project award November, 2016 – February, 2017 Consultations / Project work March, 2017 Final Report to PED Committee April, 2017 Consideration of final report by Council

Page 48

TO: Chair and Members Planning and Economic Development Committee

FROM: Samantha Hastings Commissioner of Planning and Economic Development

DATE: June 23, 2016

SUBJECT: Department Activity Report January 1, 2016 to April 30, 2016

REPORT NO: PED-7-2016-1 ______

RECOMMENDATION

This report is provided for information.

ORIGIN

This report describes the major activities of the department between January and April of this year. While the report does not contain a complete list of all activities, it does highlight most of the major items.

ANALYSIS

The Planning and Economic Development department (PED) is organized into 5 divisions. The following is a summary of each of the divisions’ major activities within the period of January to April of this year.

Muskoka Water Strategy:

Lake System Health Monitoring Program:

• The Year End Water Quality Report for the 2015 monitoring season was completed and presented to the PED Committee, and to each Area Municipal Council.

On-going Projects and New Initiatives:

• The District, in partnership with MWC and Muskoka Community Foundation, released an identification card related to increasing awareness and management of invasive Phragmites.

Page 1

• Staff is working with the Stewart Lake Association to re-naturalize the shoreline of the municipal water treatment site located on that lake. • Staff continued to work with the Georgian Bay Watershed Research Consortium. • Staff is participating in the Township of Georgian Bay Water Quality Committee.

Muskoka Watershed Council (MWC):

• Ongoing staff support has been provided to the MWC and major initiatives included:

 The Planning for Climate Change in Muskoka report was released, and associated presentations were made to District Council and to the community;  An identification card related to invasive Phragmites was developed and launched, as noted above;  New promotional materials related to MWC’s Climate Change work were developed and produced;  MWC and its activities were promoted at Toronto’s Cottage Life Show, during Huntsville’s Earth Week festivities, and at the District’s Canadian Water Week display;  Research initiatives related to Endocrine Disrupting Compounds, stormwater management, and the development of the 2018 Report Card were ongoing; and  Arrangements were made for the Muskoka Summit on the Environment.

Water Quality Model Review:

• The Water Quality Model Review was concluded. The consultants’ final report was accepted by PED Committee, and resulting planning policy analysis has been initiated. Preliminary consultations have been initiated with the Province, Area Municipalities, and the community (including some lake associations and MWC).

Muskoka Water Web:

• The Muskoka Water Web website was updated on a regular basis, and received almost 51,000 page views during this period.

Dorset Environmental Science Centre (DESC) Collaboration:

• The District and the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) renewed a partnership agreement where MOECC provided support to the District for DESC laboratory assistance related to the receipt of water samples. • An Interim Progress Report was submitted to MOECC.

Policy and Programs:

Muskoka Official Plan (MOP):

• A Request for Proposal was drafted and issued to identify a consultant to complete the review of the MOP, and Meridian Planning was engaged. A start-up meeting was initiated. • Policy Background Papers to support the MOP Review were completed. • Staff worked with Ryerson University graduate students to develop a background paper on Healthy and Complete Communities in the Muskoka context, including attending 2 presentations, reviewing draft documents, and providing general direction to the group.

Page 2

• Background research and initial consultation with Engineering and Public Works staff was conducted related to the transportation master planning process to outline a work program for this year. • To meet the requirements of the MOP and to respond to development applications in Georgian Bay Township, an updated allocation strategy for Port Severn is being updated and is to be completed this summer. • Direction was received to proceed with an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) to address a change in approach to protecting water quality stemming from the Water Quality Model Review Final Report by Hutchison Environmental Sciences.

Provincial Initiatives:

• Comments were provided to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on regulations to the Planning Act that would implement Bill 73, Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015. • Participation continues in the Municipal Implementation Group for the South Georgian Bay Lake Simcoe Source Protection Plan, and preparation for implementation of the Plan (i.e. updating applications, revising official plan policy, and education) has begun. • Frequent correspondence continues with the MOECC on the D-4 Guidelines. • Frequent correspondence continues with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry on species at risk and associated development implications.

Planning Services:

Area Official Plan Approvals:

• The Lake of Bays Official Plan Amendment was adopted, at the conclusion of the Township’s Comprehensive review. District staff worked with the Township to develop responses to outstanding issues and draft modifications prior to bringing the amendment forward for approval at the last PED Committee meeting. • Active participation on the Huntsville and Gravenhurst Official Plan Review Working Groups continues. • 2 new applications for the approval of Area Official Plan Amendments were received. • 4 Area Official Plan Amendments were approved.

Area Comprehensive Zoning By-law reviews:

• Comments were provided to the Town of Bracebridge on Phase 1 of its Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review.

Development Inquiry/Pre-consultation Inquiry Meetings:

• 37 development inquiries/pre-consultations occurred.

Plans of Subdivision/Condominium Descriptions:

• 76 applications are currently active (72 in 2015 for this period). Active means applications that are open and on-going in some part of the planning process after complete application but prior to final approval / registration.

Page 3

The chart below shows the subdivision and condominium activity for the period of January 1 to April 30 for the years 2014 to 2016. While extension and amendment activity appears to be lower for this period than in 2015, there are 11 applications pending approval which will be reflected in the next department activity report (May 1 to August 31). In addition, and as noted above, pre-consultation inquiries are significantly higher than this time last year.

January to April Plans of Subdivision & Condominium Descriptions 12 10 10 8 6 7 4 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 2014 2015 2016 New plans submitted Extension requests approved Amendments to draft approved plans Granting of draft approval of plans

Zoning By-law Amendments and Consents:

The chart below shows the zoning by-law amendments by Area Municipality for the period of January 1 to April 30 for the years 2014 to 2016.

January to April Zoning By-law Amendments 100

10

6 8 5 5 1 11 36 4 19 7 20 7 5 62 14 12 12 24 4 13 79 1 2014 By-laws 2015 By-laws 2016 By-laws Bracebridge Gravenhurst Huntsville Muskoka Lakes Georgian Bay Lake of Bays TOTAL

Page 4

The chart below shows the consents by Area Municipality for the period of January 1 to April 30 for the years 2014 to 2016.

January to April Consents 100

10

5 13 10 12 6 10 56 5 9 19 14 7 3 57 15 2 25 15 11 6 74 1 2014 Consents 2015 Consents 2016 Consents Bracebridge Gravenhurst Huntsville Muskoka Lakes Georgian Bay Lake of Bays TOTAL

Planning Services to Area Municipalities:

• Planning services, approximately 2 days per week, were provided and charged to the Township of Georgian Bay from April 1, 2016 to the end of this period and are continuing in order to assist the Township during a period of staffing challenges.

Operational Review for Planning Services & Policy:

• Discussions respecting the delegation of subdivision, condominium, and part lot control approvals from the District to the Area Municipalities have concluded, and the Area Municipal Councils have confirmed that they do not wish to proceed with delegation at this time. • Staff continue to work with the Area Municipalities to identify and pursue other efficiencies within the planning process. • 2 further streamlining initiatives brought forward in this period included delegation of minor Area Municipal Official Plan Amendments and condominium description approval exemptions to staff.

Economic Development:

• Liaison with the Muskoka Tourism and Marketing Agency is on-going.

Muskoka Airport:

Airport Operations:

• Total aircraft traffic was up 4.4% over the same period in 2015. This increase in traffic was due to an increase in itinerant piston and turboprop aircraft traffic.

Page 5

The chart below shows the itinerant, local, and total aircraft movements at the Muskoka Airport for the period of January 1 to April 30 for the years 2014 to 2016.

January to April Muskoka Airport - Annual Aircraft Traffic 4,000 3,738 3,500 3,580 3,000

2,500 2,578 2,000 2,024 1,842 1,500 1,763 1,738 1,714 1,000 500 815 0 2014 2015 2016 Itinerant Movements Local Movements Total Movements

Fixed Base Operation (FBO):

• Total aviation fuel sales were down by 19.3% over the same period of 2015. Although aviation gasoline sales were up by 5%, jet fuel sales were down by 20.5% over the first 4 months of 2016. • This winter time period normally represents about 20% of the airport’s annual fuel sales. Although the jet fuel sales slumped in the first two months, the sales volumes returned to better than average through March and April.

The chart below shows the aviation gasoline, jet fuel, and total fuel sales at the Muskoka Airport for the period of January 1 to April 30 for the years 2014 to 2016.

January to April Muskoka Airport - Annual Fuel Sales in Litres 250,000

200,000 194,071 187,839 185,444 179,011 150,000 151,513 142,245

100,000

50,000 8,627 8,828 9,269 0 2014 2015 2016 Avgas Jet Fuel Total Fuel Sales

Page 6

Airport Development:

• 3 land sale applications were received. • 1 office lease was extended.

On-going Projects and Initiatives:

• Staff worked with Explorers’ Edge, the Town of Gravenhurst, InterVISTAS, Transport Canada, and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA) to explore the potential for scheduled air services. • Staff continues to work with several proponents on new site development proposals (cargo facility, FBO opportunities, and flight schools). • A presentation was given to the Rotary Club of Bracebridge-Muskoka Lakes. • The Airport hosted a school class tour from Beechgrove Public School.

Muskoka Airport Website:

• The Muskoka Airport website usage was mostly on par with 2015 for website visits during the first 4 months of 2016, and slightly higher for pages viewed. The website continues to provide a valuable source of information and promotion for airport users.

The chart below shows the Muskoka Airport website visits and page views for the period of January 1 to April 30 for the years 2014 to 2016.

January to April Muskoka Airport Website Data (www.muskokaairport.com) 50,000 45,000 40,000 44,430 39,196 35,000 36,132 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 19,458 19,031 10,000 13,825 5,000 0 2014 2015 2016 Visits Page Views

Geomatic Services:

911 Civic Addressing:

• 31 road centreline sections were created or modified and submitted to Emergency Response Agencies for automated dispatch purposes (42 in 2015 for this period).

Page 7

The chart below shows the 911 civic addressing address changes for the period of January 1 to April 30 for the years 2014 to 2016.

January to April 911 Civic Addressing Address Changes 500 449 400 421 300

200 169 100

0 2014 Address Changes 2015 Address Changes 2016 Address Changes

Geographic Information System (GIS) Program:

• 25 Muskoka Web Mapping modifications were made including creating new historical air photo maps, modified existing Topo Map, Base Map, Water Quality Map and MET Transit Map. • The Muskoka GIS Twitter account (@muskokagis) has 514 tweets posted, and 3 new Twitter followers (304 total followers). • GIS services and training were provided during this time.

On-going Projects and Initiatives:

• Civic Address Point files and building points are being added and modified based on new air photos. • Open Data layers (roads and address points) have been downloaded by the public (1,516 downloads to date). • 191 Parcel fabric mapping errors have been submitted to Teranet for correction. • Custom mapping requests included:

 On-going zoning mapping for Township of Muskoka Lakes. The Muskoka Web Mapping site now hosts the Township of Muskoka Lakes zoning mapping;  On-going zoning mapping for the Town of Gravenhurst;  Area Municipality mapping requests (e.g. Township of Muskoka Lakes Fire Department fire zone mapping, and Town of Gravenhurst Official Plan mapping); and  Interdepartmental mapping requests (e.g. Community Services department Muskoka Extended Transit (MET) route mapping, PED D-4 waste site mapping).

Page 8

The chart below shows the GIS Corporate Layers modified, or added to the GIS System for the period of January 1 to April 30 for the years 2014 to 2016.

January to April 1500 GIS Corporate Layers modified, or added to the GIS System

1000 959 963 722 500

0 2014 Layers 2015 Layers 2016 Layers

The chart below shows the GIS website page views for the period of January 1 to April 30 for the years 2014 to 2016.

January to April Muskoka Web Mapping Website (map.muskoka.on.ca)

25,000 20,000 19,504 18,281 15,000 10,000

5,000 5,483 0

2014 Page Views 2015 Page Views 2016 Page Views

PED - Staff Attendance at Conferences, Seminars and Training Sessions:

• Staff Wellness Day Training (18 attendees) • Presenting Like-A-Pro seminar (5 attendees) • Respectful Workplace training (2 attendees) • Advancing Your Career at the District (2 attendees) • LandPro Conference (Ontario Professional Planners Institute sponsored event) (1 attendee) • Cottage Country Seminar (2 attendees) • Heavy Truck Operation Safety (5 attendees) • Wheel Loader/Tractor Safety (5 attendees) • Ontario Municipal Administrators Association Conference (1 attendee)

Page 9

PED - Public Inquiry Summary:

The chart below shows the public inquiries received for the period of January 1 to April 30 for the years 2014 to 2016. The Muskoka Airport consistently receives the highest number of inquiries which include; events, weather, runway conditions, hours of operation, fuel prices, catering, pilot information etc.

January to April Public Inquiry Tracking Summary 1102 TOTAL 855 885

528 Airport 586 393

84 Economic Development 23 28

126 Watershed Programs 36 219

60 GIS & 911 73 85

Policy & Projects & 47 16 Muskoka Official Plan 11

131 Planning Services 60 92

126 Administration & General 61 57 2014 Public Inquiry 2015 Public Inquiry 2016 Public Inquiry

Respectfully submitted,

Original signed by Original signed by

Samantha Hastings, MCIP, RPP Michael Duben, B.A., LL.B. Commissioner of Planning Chief Administrative Officer and Economic Development

S:\COMMITTEE\PED Committees\Activity\2016\1-January To April2016 Department Activity Report PED-7-2016-1-Final.Docx

Page 10