delegation to cobourg council regarding waterfront user ... · the waterfront user needs assessment...

Delegation to Cobourg Council regarding

Waterfront User Needs Assessment and Detailed

Design Plan

July 3, 2018

Colin Bromley

Positive Feedback

The Waterfront User Needs Assessment and Detailed Design

Plan was the main topic of the Council meeting on June 4.

Congratulations on not immediately approving the Plan and providing

more time for review and for further delegations.

Colin Bromley 2

1

Page 20 of 786

Presentation Outline

-9 Plan Omissions

Slide 5

Plan Issues

Summary

Suggestions for Council

Slide 14

irSlide 19

Slide 21

Colin Bromley 4

My Background

• Cobourg resident

• Retired engineer

• Management consultant

• As a management consultant I specialize in cause analysis and corrective actions. I critically review plans, policies and procedures.

Colin Bromley

2

1 of 786

Plan Omissions

The Plan, which covers 24 years, does not include:

1. Discussion or recommendations regarding Ontario Lake Level fluctuations over the period, which has a significant influence on the waterfront

2. Sufficient information regarding necessary supporting information to fully understand the reasons for some recommendations

Cohn Bromley 5

Omission 1: Lake Level

On December 12, 2016, the International Joint Commission (IJC) approved "Plan 2014" for the regulation of water levels and flows in Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.

The IJC acted to have water flows set in accordance with Plan 2014 in January 2017.

On April 25, 2017, the IJC stated that "the current high water levels had not been caused by Plan 2014. Lake and river levels would have been nearly identical this year under the previous regulation plan."

Cohn Bromley 6

3

Page 22 of 786

Omission 1: Lake Level (cont.)

The Government of Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, shows on their website (tides.gc.ca) since 1918 that the Lake Ontario peak mean monthly water level occurred in 2017

The high Lake Ontario water level amongst other things:

- Damaged the East Pier - Damaged Monks Cove Park waterfront - Flooded the beach and caused events to be

cancelled or moved Delayed electrical service to the marina docks

Colin Bromley 7

Omission 1: Lake Level (cont.)

In my opinion, a good waterfront plan should discuss water levels and make recommendations to mitigate the impact of both high and low levels. (i.e. What can or should be done to minimize the impact of water level fluctuations.)

The Plan itself does not mention or discuss Lake Ontario water level or include recommendations to mitigate the impact of water level. The Appendices do mention water level but not for decisions.

Cohn Bromley

4

Page 23 of 786

Omission 2: Information

The Plan makes recommendations such as the un-numbered recommendation on page 69: "The recommendation of this study is to leave the campground in its current location, and make a number of improvements to help reduce its visual and operational impact on the waterfront."

Cohn Bromley

Omission 2: Information (Cont.)

The Plan also states: "While there is very little support to use the (campground) land for a waterfront hotel as was proposed in a tourism asset study in 2015, many support the idea of phasing out the campground and integrating it with the larger waterfront."

Cohn Bromley 10

5

Page 24 of 786


While the recommendation to keep the "Campground" is supported by some financial information that the "Campground" generated a surplus of more than $172,000, there is not similar financial information for any alternatives, such as that proposed in the 2015 Study.

Without the information on the lost opportunity financial information, any decisions are based on only partial information.

Colin Bromley


The "Campground" is just an example of where there is incomplete information to make a fully informed decision.

In my opinion, the information on alternative lost opportunity financial benefits, is essential to make fully informed decisions.

Colin Bromley 12

6

Page 25 of 786

Plan Issues

Slide 14


Plan Omissions Slide 5

Summary I Slide 19

Suggestions for Council I Slide 21

Colin Bromley 13

7

Page 26 of 786

Issue 1: Monk's Cove Park

Monk's Cove Park has barriers because of shoreline erosion.

Recommendation 10.3, Monks Cove Park

— Shoreline stabilization/repair

— Provide a multi use trail

— Provide seating

— General landscape improvements (tree and shrub planting)

Scheduled as part of Project 15 (on page 110) for year 13 (on page 117)

Cohn Bromley 15

Issue 1: Monk's Cove Park

In my opinion, leaving a park derelict for 13 years is not appropriate, yet this is what this Plan proposes.

Colin Bromley 16

8

Page 27 of 786


Plan Omissions I Slide 5

Plan Issues I Slide 14

------------ Slide 19 1

Summary

Suggestions for Council

I Slide 21

Corm Bromley

Issue 2: Priorities

This issue is related to the previous issue.

The Plan has prioritized many of the Recommendations and the Priority to restore Monk's Cove Park is Priority 39 out of 80.

This seems to me to be too low a Priority when we currently have the Park sitting barricaded off and the Plan proposed to leave it that way for 13 years.

Hence, I question the validity of the Prioritization process used in the Plan.

Cohn Bromley 17

9

Page 28 of 786


Plan Omissions Slide 5

Plan Issues Slide 14

Summary Slide 19

Suggestions for Council Slide 21

Cohn Bromley 20

Summary The Plan:

1. Does not include recommendations relating to mitigation measures to cope with Lake Level Fluctuations

2. Does not include necessary supporting information for the lost opportunities of adopting the recommendations

3. Does not restore Monk's Cove Park for 13 years

4. Identifies questionable priorities

Colin Bromley 19

10

Page 29 of 786

Suggestion for Council

I suggest that you do not adopt this Waterfront User Needs Assessment and Detailed Design Plan until you feel that you have a plan that provides you all the necessary information, includes recommendations related to mitigating the impact of fluctuations in Lake Ontario levels, and a schedule that you can fully support.

Colin Bromley 21

THANK YOU

11

Page 30 of 786

of 786

Conclusion?

Page 32 of 786

of 786

But are there not any alternatives to funneling the conclusions of the Report to additional slips in the west harbour???

Page 34 of 786

An alternative to the issue of additional slips into the West Harbour Area

Recommendation #1

Page 35 of 786

What about looking for additional

slips elsewhere!

Page 36 of 786

Background information from Thinc Design Waterfront Users Report

Page 37 of 786

179 Day Season69 Transient Docks1334 Transient Visitors

Page 38 of 786

of 786

179 Day Full Season 97 Peak Season

69 Transient Slips 12351 6693

2014 Visitors 3724 3724

% of Slips Full 30% 56%

# Slips Vacant/day 48.3 38.64



2016 Visitors 3300 3300





2017 Visitors 1334 1334



The wait list for slips in Cobourg Marina varies greatly from year to year

2013 300 wait list (B. Thompson / P. Guathier 2013)

2016 44 wait list (Touristics)

2017 76 wait list (Touristics)

Page 41 of 786

The Town needs time to think and digest

Thinc Design’s Report.

Does the business case make sense?

Questions need to be asked: What do the

people who voted me in want?

What is the cost of building docks and disposal of the old

docks being replaced?

As this is a 20 year plan, what is the projected cost of

replacement of all docks, including the

100 new ones?

Why are there no other options than docks in the West

Harbour Area?

What about the aesthetic views of the

Harbour for all to enjoy?

Is the ONLY conclusion additional slips in the West Harbour Area?

All the data given are projections, what if the economy and market doesn’t support 100

new slips?

What about starting with existing docks and

seeing what the market is doing in the

next 5-8 years?

Page 42 of 786

Thinc Design stated "Prioritize adding slips through efficiencies in dock configuration. Undertake in conjunction with initiative 3.11 Replacement of Docks C, D, E, and F."

Thinc Design stated that "As an initial step in meeting the area's demand for additional season slips we recommend that the number of dedicated transient slips be reduced. By reducing the number of dedicated transient slips to 40 and introducing a policy of using

seasonal slips that are vacated for a period of at least 48 hours (i.e. providing 44 additional slips for seasonal use)

Furthermore, Thinc Designed opened up the possibility of slips East of the Centre Pier by stating "Harbour Dredge: We have provided a provision for dredging the harbour at

$50,000 each year to allow for greater use of the western portion of the outer harbour in the event the additional slips can only be accommodated on the west side of the centre

pier."

Page 43 of 786

Shoreplan had a scenario where slips could be added to the south end of the centre pier, projecting eastward. This area could easily accommodate 20 slips.Page 44 of 786

of 786

Financial Projections with Travel Lift, upgrades to centre pier, and 60 additional Seasonal Slips at Cobourg Marina(278 slips - 209 Seasonal / 69 Transient) page 165, 157

2016 Revenue Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

Every Seasonal Slip Empty is

$2000+ in Lost Revenue

$272,010.00 Seasonal Slips (209) $389,020.00 $400,690.00 $421,460.00 $436,330.00 $452,140.00 $467,720.00 $481,750.00 $496,200.00 $511,090.00 $526,420.00

$154,560.00 Transient Slips (69) $168,900.00 $173,970.00 $179,190.00 $184,570.00 $190,110.00 $195,810.00 $201,680.00 $207,730.00 $213,960.00 $220,380.00

$31,800.00 Winter Storage $169,810.00 $174,900.00 $180,150.00 $185,550.00 $191,120.00 $196,850.00 $202,760.00 $208,840.00 $215,110.00 $221,560.00

$676,420.00 Total Revenues $946,880.00 $972,440.00 $1,008,010.00 $1,037,680.00 $1,068,700.00 $1,099,900.00 $1,125,850.00 $1,160,650.00 $1,192,360.00 $1,224,960.00

2016 Expenditures Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10

$22,190.00 Dock Repair & Maintenance $18,090.00 $25,080.00 $26,250.00

$50,000.00 Marina - Dredge Harbour $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00

Reserve for Replacement $94,690.00 $97,240.00 $100,800.00 $103,770.00 $106,870.00 $109,990.00 $112,990.00 $116,070.00 $119,240.00 $122,500.00 $1,084,160.00

Capital Improvements $0.00 $45,140.00 $32,770.00 $82,770.00 $86,960.00 $108,970.00 $67,800.00 $20,680.00 $445,090.00

$631,120.00 Total Expenditures $696,700.00 $765,150.00 $772,240.00 $841,140.00 $864,840.00 $906,910.00 $886,040.00 $859,820.00 $860,690.00 $882,890.00 $8,336,420.00

Net Income before Debt Service $250,180.00 $207,290.00 $235,770.00 $196,540.00 $203,860.00 $192,990.00 $243,810.00 $300,830.00 $331,670.00 $342,070.00 $2,505,010.00

Principal and Interest Payments $130,790.00 $130,790.00 $130,790.00 $130,790.00 $130,790.00 $130,790.00 $130,790.00 $130,790.00 $130,790.00 $130,790.00 $1,307,900.00

$45,300.00 Profit $119,390.00 $76,500.00 $104,980.00 $65,750.00 $73,070.00 $62,200.00 $113,020.00 $170,040.00 $200,880.00 $211,280.00 $1,197,110.00

Page 46 of 786

This is THINC Design’s Projections whose numbers are used for the comparison on the next slide.

Page 47 of 786

Rows in BLUE Shading are projections for the NEW PLAN. Those in GREEN Shading are THINC DESIGN’S projections

Page 48 of 786

Additional Revenue would amount to $646,816.69 from Transient, $431,211.13 from Seasonal,and a savings of $52,000 each year in Principal and interest.

Profit with 60 slips after debt charges over 10 years is $1,197,11.00Profit with 20 slips and 30 season slips from Transient over 10 years is $1,993,227.82

This amounts to almost $800,000 more in profit by NOT putting in 60 slips. Talk about Revenue Potential!

Reducing transient slips by 30, and adding 20 additional slips of the south end of the centre pier to the EAST

What does this accomplish?

Marina wait lists is reduced by 50 boats

CYC has power and water for their reciprocal slips off the centre pier

The West Harbour remains as is for all residents and user groups of Cobourg

The Marina gets additional revenue from the slips.

Page 49 of 786

Recommendation #2

Ask the Question!

Page 50 of 786

Shoreplan didn’t.

Thinc Design didn’t

The Survey didn’t

Page 51 of 786

Do the residents of Cobourg want marina expansion of slips in the West Harbour Area?

Find a way to ask the question

Put it on the ballot,

Have a separate ballot at Polling Booths,

Have a secure survey,

Go door to door,

Find a way! Put the issue to rest once and for all. Look at all the good in the Report from Thinc Design that didn’t get highlighted because of the opposition to this one aspect of the Report.

Page 52 of 786

of 786

There are many great ideas in the Waterfront Report.

Slips in the West Harbour Area is not one of them.

Listen to the People, they have spoken often and loudly over many years.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today.

Page 56 of 786

My name is Harold Wontorra, I have lived in Cobourg for 15 years and have attended most of your

Waterfront Design Meetings.

I would first like to discuss some of the criteria used to evaluate the travel lift project as per the

consultant's priority matrix results (listed on page 91, table 7.1) of the Waterfront User Needs

Assessment and Detailed Design. The travel lift is given a priority ranking of 4 with a score of importance

of 49 out of 100. I question two of the criteria used to get this ranking.

The first is the criteria for waterfront access (on page 329 of appendix F); for which the boat lift has been

given a rating of 10 out of 10. Access is defined in the consultant's report (on page 326) as "improving

access to waterfront place and spaces is a key aspect of this plan. This includes providing new

opportunities or experiences along the waterfront for more user groups." How does the boat lift provide

more access for more user groups? Construction of the new boat ramp to the west of the existing boat

ramp to accommodate the travel lift would take away a valuable sandy beach used for launching kayaks,

canoes and paddle boards. The lift would decrease access for all of these user groups, while leaving

access for boaters unchanged because their needs are met by the current arrangement. If boaters no

longer wish to assist with their boat being lifted in or out, riggers and handlers can be contracted from

the crane company to assist in the process, at additional cost for the boaters. If the travel lift is given a

more accurate score on this criteria of 0/10, this would lower the overall score to 39/100, and the

priority ranking of the boat lift project would fall 4th to 20th.

Criteria 12 (on page 331) is revenue generation, for which the travel boat lift has been given a 10 out of

10 rating. As per the Touristics report (On page 161), a net profit of $50,680 is projected based on lifting

out 100 boats. In the spring of 2018, Paul Gautier (marina manager) reported that 60 boats were lifted

in, how are we going to get to 100 to achieve this small profit? Boating statistics used in the waterfront

needs assessment and detailed design do not support increased boating infrastructure such as a boat

lift. Since there is no guarantee of increased boaters requiring the lift, a more accurate score on this

criteria is 0/10, which would further lower the score of the travel boat lift project to 29/100, and would

further lower the priority ranking from 20th to 62nd.

Comparing 9 other Ontario marinas with boat slip numbers of 200-284; 3 have a travel boat lifts and

industrial boat yard repair services. The Cobourg Marina is given a score of 1 for repair services (p. 116

of Touristics Report) yet there are none, and no industrial space for such services. Upon comparing 10

marinas of comparable size, if the Cobourg Marina were to purchase a travel boat lift, it would be the

only marina to have a lift without having an industrial boatyard with repair services. (As per Exhibit 1

below)

Exhibit 1: Touristics Report Page 115,116: Evaluation of Comparable Marinas, Exhibit 18 Touristics

Report: Page 72-88

Name of Marina Number of Boat Slips

Haul Out Repair Services

Port of Newcastle 260 25 Ton Travel Lift 1

Whitby Yacht Club 250 Rental Crane

Toronto Hydro Plane and Sailing Club 210 -

Ashbridges Bay 280 -

Marina Quay West Queens Key 200 -

Page 57 of 786

Holland River Marina 250 20 Ton Travel Lift, 10

Ton Forklift, 20 Ton

Crane

2

Everglades Marina 284 Hydraulic Trailer for

Boats up to 42 feet

1

Crate Marine Belleville 200 50 Ton Travel Lift,

Forklift, Hydraulic

Trailer up to 55 feet

2

Shady Acres Cottages and Marina

Keene

200 -

Cobourg Marina 218 Rental Crane 1*

*Currently Closed

Page 59 of the Touristics report states that the town marina has 218 slips including 65 transient slips.

The 2018 Town of Cobourg operating budget estimate page 192 shows the number of transient visitors

has declined more than 50 percent from 2010 to 2017, reflecting a very noticeable decline in transient

boating on lake Ontario. Therefore, how can we justify more boat slips? Perhaps more transient boat

slips should be converted to seasonal as there is a waiting list for seasonal slips. Also The Town of

Cobourg Marina operating budget for 2017 shows revenues of $278,283 from seasonal fees and $94,444

from transient fees.

Exhibit 2: Page 192 of Town of Cobourg 2018 Operating Budget Estimates

Year Number of Transient Visitors Revenues from Transient Visitors

2010 4500 139,894

2011 4000 128,343

2012 3800 131,141

2013 3878 139,306

2014 3724 125,868

2015 n/a 128,690

2016 3413 154,561

2017 2200 94,444

In conclusion, the boat lift project does not improve access for user groups, and under no circumstances

can a case be made for it to be a profitable endeavour. If the boat lift project were to be evaluated

correctly on these two criteria, its ranking would fall from 4th to 62nd out of a total of 80 projects on the

priority matrix.

Furthermore, the numbers show that boating is in decline, the number of transient visitors is less that

half what it was in 2010. This clearly is not justification to add more boat slips, perhaps the town should

look at reassigning some transient slips to seasonal.

To fund future projects, rather than increasing the burden on the tax payer, the town should focus on

increasing revenue generation from visitors to our waterfront. Many of whom bring nothing to the

community except the garbage they leave strewn all over Victoria Park. One way to increase this

revenue is by making the residential neighbourhood to the East of Victoria Park and the parking lot at

Page 58 of 786

Donegan park paid parking zones from May to September until 9pm. Another way to increase this

revenue is by improving enforcement of paid parking, no parking zones and no stopping zones whether

the vehicle is occupied or not, and extending hours of bylaw officers and parking officials to 9pm.

Additionally, closing the East Pier to motorized users and modifying the gate so that it is wheelchair

accessible would likely encourage people to use the paid parking spots.

Page 59 of 786

Name of Marina Number of Boat Slips

Haul Out/Launch Services

Repair Services

Port of Newcastle 260 25 Ton Travel Lift 1 Whitby Yacht Club 250 Rental Crane

Toronto Hydro Plane and Sailing Club 210 - Ashbridges Bay 280 -

Marina Quay West Queens Key 200 - Holland River Marina 250 20 Ton Travel Lift, 10 Ton

Forklift, 20 Ton Crane 2

Everglades Marina 284 Hydraulic Trailer for Boats up to 42 feet

1

Crate Marine Belleville 200 50 Ton Travel Lift, Forklift, Hydraulic Trailer up to 55 feet

2

Shady Acres Cottages and Marina Keene 200 -

Cobourg Marina 218 Rental Crane 1*

*Currently closed

Data taken from Touristics Report: Evaluation of Comparable Marinas (Page 115-116), and Exhibit 1B of Touristics Report (Page 72-88)

Page 60 of 786

Number of Transient Visitors to Cobourg Marina

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Number of Transient Visitors 4500 4000 3800 3878 3724 3569* 3413 2200

Revenues from Transient visitors

139,894 128,343 131,141 139,306 125,868 128,690 154,561 94,444

*Number of transient visitors was not available for 2015; numbers from 2014 and 2016 were averaged out

Data taken from Town of Cobourg 2018 Operating Budget Estimates (Page 192)

Page 61 of 786

wvvvv.cobourg harbou r.ca

The Waterfront Report

Saving The Best For The Future

Submission By

Lisa Rundle

Preserve Our Heritage Harbour

To

Town of Cobourg July 3, 2018 Council Meeting

Page 62 of 786

Good afternoon Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, media and everyone in the public gallery.

I'm Lisa Rundle and I'm speaking on behalf of Preserve Our Heritage Harbour or POHH.

POHH is a Citizens' Advocacy Group that was established in 2015. It is not opposed to boaters or the Marina within its existing footprint. Our sole opposition is to the expansion of the Marina into the West Harbour and the proposed acquisition of a Travel Lift. Our objective is to see Cobourg's Heritage Harbour remain a tranquil, beautiful spot.

At the June 4th meeting, Mayor Brocanier said that he had never heard of us. I would like to remind him of the June 2, 2015 news conference at the harbour. This was followed by the Victoria Hall protest on June 22. That was the night Council voted to stop Marina expansion into the West Harbour.

The November 22, 2016 Request for Proposal for the Waterfront User Needs Assessment and Detailed Project Design Plan set out three objectives.

• Confirm the Community's Vision. • Review Municipal Policies and Guidelines. • New Waterfront Area Project Design Plan.

Revenue generation was not mentioned. How then did it become a standalone objective and the overriding feature of the consultant's final report?

In addition, stage 3 of the scope of work in the REP clearly stated that "a public meeting would be convened to review the final waterfront assessment and plan prior to final adoption".

Council should not be voting until after this meeting takes place. Doing so otherwise shows a complete disregard for the community. It is a shameful end to the best public engagement opportunity that Cobourg has had.

Some will claim that the final public meeting took place on October 26 last year. Not so. That meeting was designed to provide members of the public with an

Page 63 of 786

update on the progress of the project as well as an overview of the public feedback and input from the community received to date. The material was clearly marked as draft.

At the June 4 Committee of the Whole, the Director of Recreation and Culture said, "This level of engagement resulted in a clear understanding of what the majority of residents want for their waterfront".

Perhaps he can explain why the wishes of the majority of residents were completely ignored.

Why are the majority of Cobourgians being dismissed by the Director as "some groups and individuals who disagree with some of the findings and recommendations"?

What the Director and the consultants are advocating for is a fundamental transformation of the foundation of our community. It's time to stand ground and ask what part of "NO" don't they understand?

The majority of the 83 recommendations in the Waterfront Plan Report are well worth consideration. There are a few that definitely are not.

If we look at the Cobourg Waterfront from end to end, there are two main priorities that must take precedent over everything else. These are the much needed structural repairs to the East Pier and to Monks Cove.

Two of the Waterfront Plan projects, a new downtown parking structure and a new community waterfront building, which account for approximately half of the $26 million cost. Both are "nice to have" grandiose projects but the fiscal reality is they are unaffordable. The revenue generation scheme of expanding the West Harbour certainly won't pay for them and taxpayers have been clear that they won't fund them.

The controversial subject of the Marina expansion into the West Harbour and the purchase of Boat-Lift equipment continues to be the never-ending story. Between November 2013 and June 2015 when staff first brought forward the proposal, there was endless consultation, debate, user group meetings,

-2-

Page 64 of 786

delegations to Council, calls for a referendum, petitions and promised public meetings that ended up being cancelled.

Three years ago, on June 22, 2015, it was standing room only in this Council Gallery. Everyone will recall when Councillor Darling said, "We've flogged the horse and it's dead". When the amended motion that included the wording that "any further plans regarding the expansion of boat slips at the Cobourg Marina into the West Harbour cease effective immediately" was approved, the Gallery exploded into applause.

More than a year ago Council authorized that consultants undertake a detailed waterfront study. So how and why after a series of open houses, interactive pre-charette workshops, a design charette, and three surveys is the subject still alive? It's fair to say that user groups and citizens who have spent the time, effort and energy in developing and conveying the reasons underlying their opposition feel their time has been wasted.

There are three contentious issues involving the Marina that need to be settled once and for all.

The first is the valid desire by the Cobourg Yacht Club who no longer wish to continue with the physical labor and organization of the annual lift in and lift out of certain boats.

This task can easily be taken over by the Marina and does not require $829,000 in funding. All that is necessary is that the Town, not the CYC, contract with the current crane operator who would also supply the necessary staff. Yes, transferring the labor component from members to an outside source does have a cost. But the cost will be far less than repaying the $829,000 Travel Lift cost plus ongoing maintenance and operating costs. Why this simple and cost-effective solution has not been considered as a viable option simply defies all logic.

The second issue is transient vs. seasonal slips.

Currently there are 218 slips, of which 149 are seasonal and 69 are transient. This is a ratio of 68% seasonal and 32% transient.

-3-

Page 65 of 786

The argument against reducing the number of transient slips seems to center around an estimated benefit of $5.7 million at local retail outlets, restaurants and events. A number which has not been quantified in any way and ignores the economic benefits that seasonal slips and local residents confer on the community as a whole.

The current waiting listing could be reduced by 59 if the number of transient slips were reduced to, say, 10 or about 5% of the total available slips. Increasing the number of seasonal slips would not only provide greater certainty of revenue, it would improve the overall occupancy ratio. Reducing the number of transient slips would also decrease employee costs, as the rental of seasonal slips is clearly less labour intensive.

Increasing the ratio of seasonal slips would also produce a positive side benefit of increasing CYC's membership. Cobourg residents should have first choice on seasonal slips and a higher fee structure should apply for non-residents.

The third issue is that of expanding the Marina into the West Harbor.

The key reasons why Marina expansion is said to be necessary are to:

• Provide a revenue stream required to support the replacement cost of C, D, E and F docks.

• Provide the critical customer base required to support a $829,000 Boat Lift system.

We have already dispelled the need for a $829,000 Travel Lift, so the remaining issue is the need to fund the replacement cost of the docks. Expanding the number of docks by 60 or 100 into the West Harbor is not the solution and will only be self-perpetuating, until such time as the West Harbor is completely occupied by the Marina. The correct solution is to cut discretionary costs, including the staffing associated with transient boaters, increase ancillary purchases such as gas, refreshments, etc. and price all associated marina services on a full cost recovery basis.

The revenue generation plan intended to fund the Boat Lift is fundamentally flawed. It is based on a 30-year repayment period, which all financing authorities

-4-

Page 66 of 786

and reputable lending institutions would reject. Based on what the Travel Lift project entails, the maximum eligible period the project could be repaid is 15 years. It would also require that the additional 60 or 100 boats it envisages expanding into the West Harbor would all require lift in/lift out services.

The Waterfront User Needs Assessment and Detailed Design Report has not provided any convincing arguments in favour of expanding the number of slips into the West Harbour or a solid business case for the purchase of a Boat-Lift. It is nothing more than a repetition of previous attempts by staff to put forward their own agenda. An agenda, which is not popular with an overwhelming majority of citizens who over the past several years have clearly made their opposition known.

It's time to bring closure to the issue of the Marina expansion into the West Harbour and the purchase of an $829,000 Boat-Lift once and for all.

The Marina's objective of being self-sustaining on both an operating and capital replacement basis can be achieved through a framework of strong financial management within its existing footprint.

We would recommend that Council:

1) Acknowledge the significant public opposition to the expansion of marina slips into the West Harbour and the purchase of a Boat-Lift. The people of Cobourg do not support the reckless commercialization of our heritage harbour.

2) Support the Waterfront User Needs Assessment and Detailed Design Plan as a framework for further planning. It should NOT be adopted by this Council but received as a working document.

3) Instead of continuing discussions on an issue that just creates chaos and discord, Town staff would be better to focus on fixing the East Pier. Most residents support that idea — and it is a four-season use.

I also feel it is important to respond to the Mayor's comments on June 4th when he said he saw "no utility sitting here listening to the same thing over and over again".

-5-

Page 67 of 786

The utility your Worship is because it's the right thing to do. People, the people who, by law, you are required to represent, want you to leave a legacy where the preservation of our West Harbour is changeable only as nature decides.

The overriding question that all of you on Council need to ask is what future generations in Cobourg will want to see and feel when they come down to our waterfront.

The disposition of the Waterfront Report and the contentious topics of the Marina expansion in to the West Harbour and the acquisition of the Travel Lift will be the defining issues in the 2018 Cobourg Municipal election.

I leave with you this afternoon, a revised motion for consideration by Council, which is attached to my delegation as an Appendix.

-30-

-6-

Page 68 of 786

Appendix 1

Recommended Motion

Action Recommended:

THAT Council receive the presentation from the consulting firm thinc design on the Waterfront User Needs Assessment and Detailed Design Plan for information purposes; and

FURTHER THAT Council receive the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee motion of support for the use of the Waterfront User Needs Assessment and Detailed Design Plan as a framework for further planning and decision-making by Council and staff; and

FURTHER THAT Council acknowledge the substantial public opposition to some recommended projects in the Waterfront User Needs Assessment and Detailed Design Plan, namely the addition of boat slips west of the centre pier and the addition of a travel lift; and

FURTHER THAT Council receive the Waterfront User Needs Assessment and Detailed Design Plan as a framework for further planning and decision making by Council; and

FURTHER THAT Staff administer the Plan as a working document requiring regular public consultation; and

FURTHER THAT Given the importance of the waterfront, all projects involving change or expansion of current uses, shall require that Staff bring the projects forward to Council at a Committee of the Whole meeting, with a public meeting required for all projects involving either a travel lift/boat lifting equipment or any expansion of the marina's boat slips into the West Harbour.

-7-

Page 69 of 786

delegation to cobourg council regarding waterfront user ... · the waterfront user needs assessment...

Documents