Port Stanley Harbour Feasibility Study and Business …...Port Stanley Harbour Feasibility Study and Business Plan The Municipality of Central Elgin Du Toit Allsopp Hillier Riggs Engineering

Port Stanley Harbour Feasibility Study and

Business Plan

The Municipality of Central Elgin

Du Toit Allsopp Hillier

Riggs Engineering

N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited

SEPTEMBER 2009


Port Stanley Harbour Feasibility Study and Business Plan September 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary .......................................................................................... i

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................... 1

2.0 Objectives-Mission Statement ......................................................... 2

3.0 Port Stanley as a Commercial Port ................................................ 3

4.0 Moving Forward – Key Principles .................................................. 5

5.0 Development Options ....................................................................... 6

6.0 The Preferred Plan ......................................................................... 10

7.0 Operating Plan ............................................................................... 17

8.0 Summary ........................................................................................... 23

Appendix A: Analysis of Current Conditions ........................................... 24

Appendix B: Information Gathering & Community Input ...................... 27

Appendix C: Municipal Marina Analysis ................................................. 42

Appendix D: The Case for Residential Development ............................ 44

Appendix E: Correspondence .................................................................... 45


Port Stanley Harbour Feasibility Study and Business Plan i | P a g e September 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1995, the Canada Marine Act established a program designed to strengthen the key ports in the national transportation system. Smaller harbours, such as Port Stanley, were identified to be divested to local interests. Since that time, the Federal Government has had discussions with various groups including the County of Elgin, Municipality of Central Elgin (Central Elgin) and private sector interests over the possibility of assuming the responsibility of Federal land and water lots in Port Stanley. Since 2007, these negotiations have been exclusively with Central Elgin.

Negotiations to date have circled around the Federal requirement for any transferee to keep the harbour open as a commercial facility for a 10 year period. Central Elgin concluded that keeping the harbour open for this time period, with declining revenues and increasing dredging costs, would require between $18 and $20M in funding, with nothing to show for the investment after the operating period concluded.

This study puts aside the requirement to artificially sustain a commercial harbour and studies the most appropriate future use of the harbour from an economic, environmental market and community planning perspective. It then establishes a business plan that would allow it to be sustained by Central Elgin with no negative impacts on the tax base and with limited risk.

The study results in the following conclusions:

Operating Port Stanley in its current format is not sustainable. There is no reasonable outlook that suggests future revenues from commercial shipping would be sufficient to address operating costs.

A mixed-use port that offers a waterfront park, berthage for shallow draft vessels including the commercial fishery and recreational uses can be self sustaining, if capital funding can be provided.

A total capital requirement of about $24.3M is required. This requirement is summarized in the following table:

This capital funding provides the basis for small scale, low risk revenue generating opportunities such as a boat launch and transient boat slips that will create a new source of revenue to Central Elgin that should address the associated maintenance and operating costs as well as service a reserve fund. In addition to these capital amounts, $6.0M is required to fund the dredging of the harbor. This funding, properly invested, is considered sufficient to address the long term dredging requirements of the harbor. Assuming that interest accrued is rolled into any funding, a total contribution of $30.0M will be required. Finally, the potential for land claims from First Nations groups and/or issues related to unidentified soil and/or groundwater contamination represent liabilities that cannot be assumed by Central Elgin. Any transfer of land would have to come with indemnities with respect to these matters.


Port Stanley Harbour Feasibility Study and Business Plan 1 | P a g e September 2009

1.0 INTRODUCTION

N. Barry Lyon Consultants Limited, along with du Toit Allsopp Hillier Architects/Designers and Riggs Engineering have been retained by Central Elgin to assess the most appropriate future use of Port Stanley harbour considering the future of commercial harbour demand and other economic forces, as well environmental, market and community planning influences. These factors are then shaped into a business plan that meets the objectives of Central Elgin.

This study was supported by the input of the community, structured around a workshop in June 2009 and an open house and public meeting in July 2009. These meetings allowed the community formal opportunities to engage and provide input and comment into the process of assessing the feasibility of different ideas and the structure of the business plan.

Figure 1- Limits of Federal Land and Waterlots Source: DTAH, 2009



2.0 OBJECTIVES/ MISSION STATEMENT

Like many Great Lake waterfront communities, Port Stanley has transitioned from a community based on heavy industry, the commercial fishery and summer tourism to that of a local service centre. Tourism still plays a role in the economy of Port Stanley and Central Elgin as a whole, but to a lesser extent than in the past.

While the commercial shipping industry is not expected to recover to the point necessary to make the facility profitable, Port Stanley as a community has continued to benefit from its picturesque location. The community experiences modest but steady growth in terms of residential development and property values. Continued investment has been made in local businesses. As a result, Port Stanley has modest but healthy community core.

However, it is likely that the derelict nature and perceptions of environmental contamination of the Federal Lands is limiting the potential for expanded tourism and commercial opportunities. Equally important, the current industrial nature of the land is a barrier to the enjoyment of a significant portion of the waterfront to residents of Central Elgin. The opportunity to reconnect this part of the waterfront to the community therefore offers important economic and social benefits to Central Elgin.

The objective or mission statement of this study and business plan is to seek a strategy that allows Central Elgin to reconnect its community to the waterfront in a way that provides an important community and economic development asset.

Specifically, we believe that the core objectives of the business plan are to create a strategy that:

Facilitates public access to the waterfront on a year round, 24 hour a day basis;

Creates an opportunity for increased tourism and economic activity including the retention of the commercial fishery;

Facilitates the environmental remediation of the land in

manner that will allow safe public use;

Creates a long term strategy for the dredging of the harbour to a draft appropriate for recreational and commercial fishing vessels; and,

Facilitates activity on the waterfront through opportunities for passive and active recreational pursuits as well as community events.

The overarching theme in creating a final recommended strategy is to achieve all the stated objectives with no financial risk for the Municipality of Central Elgin.



3.0 PORT STANLEY AS A COMMERCIAL PORT

The following Table 1 provides a summary of annual revenues and expenses since the 1990-91 season (up to July 2004) as provided by Transport Canada. Information was not available between the years 1998 and 2000.

These figures illustrate an estimated average annual operating shortfall of $512,000 without consideration of depreciation or reserve fund contributions.

The most significant issues are “Port Repairs” and “Dredging” which represent 93% of the average annual operating costs. “Port Repairs” relate to the maintenance of the dockwall and piers and underscore the heavy liability that these pieces of infrastructure represent. The most current estimates suggest that to maintain the harbour at depth sufficient to accommodate commercial vessels in the Great Lakes, an annual budget of over $1.0M would be required.

It is important to note that even with the harbour fully dredged, commercial shipping though Port Stanley has declined significantly along with most other Great Lake facilities as the world shipping fleet has shifted to larger and more efficient vessels utilizing coastal transshipment facilities such as New York, New Jersey, Montreal Halifax or Vancouver.

There are five principal port users. McAsphalt Industries, importers of asphalt products, Richardson International (JRI), importers of agricultural products, Lakes Terminals, Talisman Energy and the commercial fishery.

Our interviews with the current port tenants indicated that Mc Asphalt will continue operations on these lands for the foreseeable future as a land based terminal and would use the harbour if commercial traffic could be accommodated. JRI however, do not have any immediate plans to resume marine operations in Port Stanley. Lake Terminals is not currently using marine access to Port Stanley. Talisman have

indicated that they would like to keep the harbour accessible for their barge to facilitate future drilling opportunities.

The biggest concern for industrial port businesses is the future of the Port and the ability to obtain a long term assurance that it will be available for commercial traffic. Given the regional and local outlook for future harbour traffic and the very high costs to maintain a safe harbour depth, the viability of the Port to operate with a positive cash-flow is doubtful without the continued subsidies of the federal Government.

Even if these subsidies were to be continued, the declining interest in an already modest port facility suggests that the benefits to the national transportation system accrued through Port Stanley are also diminishing. In the face of these influences, there is no obvious strategy available to Central Elgin to keep the port open for seaway depth vessels.

To be clear, commercial uses that make use of more shallow draft vessels such as fishing vessels or barges (Talisman Energy) could likely continue in Port Stanley. The commercial fishery, in particular, is vibrant providing a source of jobs as well as public interest to the harbour and could be a component of any future business model.



Table 1

Year 1990‐91 1991‐92 1992‐93 1993‐94 1994‐95 1995‐96 1996‐97 2001‐02 2002‐03 2003‐04* Average

Revenues

Harbour Dues $8,083 $4,992 $2,308 $2,980 $4,053 $5,726 $8,040 $992 $1,366 $1,751 $4,029

Wharfage $133,957 $122,409 $114,031 $48,161 $138,404 $137,797 $160,584 $43,002 $25,124 $70,526 $99,400

Berthage $20,768 $20,534 $22,177 $52,437 $15,793 $13,297 $47,439 $26,007 $22,359 $38,469 $27,928

Rentals $87,365 $61,288 $44,133 $110,768 $120,690 $81,258 $81,429 $73,678 $77,218 $65,513 $80,334

Other $0 $0 $0 $23,032 $0 $0 $585 $0 $0 $0 $2,362

Subtotal $250,173 $209,223 $182,649 $237,378 $278,940 $238,078 $298,077 $143,679 $126,067 $176,259 $214,052

Expenses

Harbour Master Commissions $2,482 $2,651 $1,833 $1,969 $3,408 $1,398 $2,517 $1,432 $1,385 $1,815 $2,089

Wharfinger Commissions $13,505 $23,972 $26,614 $27,838 $27,242 $29,055 $28,311 $14,021 $12,032 $23,002 $22,559

O&M $1,495 $6,758 $1,408 $974 $4,216 $4,214 $22,845 $143,389 $31,920 $8,266 $22,549

Port Repairs $447 $79,081 $151,673 $180,181 $760,633 $647,271 $365,735 $14,177 $6,076 $6,489 $221,176

Grants in Lieu of Taxes $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,005 $3,134 $3,244 $938

Subtotal $17,929 $112,462 $181,528 $210,962 $798,504 $685,072 $422,652 $173,019 $51,413 $39,572 $269,311

Dredging $413,675 $419,987 $711,029 $22,986 $253,597 $765,976 $1,982,240 $456,949

Surplus/Loss ‐$181,431 ‐$323,226 ‐$709,908 $3,430 ‐$773,161 ‐$1,212,970 ‐$124,575 ‐$29,340 ‐$1,907,586 $136,687 ‐$512,208

Note: No information was provided for 1998 to 2000; * 2004 Reporting up to June 26, 2004; Source: Transport Canada

Port Stanley ‐ Revenues and Expenses ‐ 1990 to 2004



4.0 MOVING FORWARD – KEY PRINCIPLES

The following key principles were developed in consultation with Central Elgin staff and the community and help frame and shape the foundations for a business plan. These principles act also as assumptions in the guidance development strategy, financial analysis, and final recommendations of this report. These principles are:

Central Elgin has a total population of 12,723 (2006). Its small size and associated tax base leaves little room for risk without significant potential for increasing the burden on local rate payers. There must be a reasonable assurance that acquisition and future use of the harbour will not have a bearing on future tax rates or offer new liabilities to the Municipality.

Continued dredging of the Harbour is necessary to provide access for existing recreational boaters and the commercial fishery. Dredging to depth standards of the St. Lawrence Seaway at an estimated cost of over $1.0M annually is however unfeasible. As well traditional approaches to the methodology of dredging should be tested and reconsidered within the context of the possible future use of the land and water lot.

To the extent possible protect existing sources of revenue and

assessment within the harbour. Commercial or industrial uses that are compatible with community use, and can exist with shallow harbour drafts (3.0m to 4.0m) are similarly encouraged especially where they require and use waterfront access.

Public access to the waterfront is viewed as important in terms of providing opportunities for both active and passive recreational opportunities.

The commercial fishery is viewed as an integral part of the future

of the harbour.

Any plan should create a destination at the waterfront that will serve to increase the attraction to the community which, in turn, supports community economic development. Building on Port Stanley’s already strong market identity, a well considered development plan could have significant “upstream benefits” in terms of reinforcing existing business and attracting new investment. The economic benefits in terms of increased tax revenue will be beneficial to all residents of Central Elgin.

There is no capacity within the municipality to finance significant

investments. Any business plan must establish a strategy for developing both capital and reserve funds.

Revenue sources should be identified that can fund ongoing

operating costs and mitigate the impacts of inflation.



5.0 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

In testing the potential development options available to Port Stanley we examined three general concepts, each with a range of development components, as well as varying degrees of risk and potential benefits to Central Elgin.

The plan options were developed by the consulting team with an understanding of other successful waterfronts and a general sense of costs, market potential and possible revenues. The options offered a range of developments from relatively modest and simple to a more intensive, complex and riskier development strategies.

Each plan protects the west side of the harbour for continued industrial use. Each concept also reserves both the east and west dockwall of the harbour for commercial fishery or barge use.

These plans and were presented at a community workshop as a way to stimulate thoughts and public input. The following summarizes the central elements of each plan option.

5.1 Option One

Option One provides an opportunity for significant change with the least amount of investment of all options considered.

The concept provides significant public open space with opportunity for developing an iconic landscape with a passive recreational waterfront focus. The public boat launch adds a revenue source for the municipality; the cost of constructing a boat launch is relatively low, yet can generate significant revenue through summer months. The revenue potential from the public boat launch would likely be sufficient to cover operating/maintenance costs. They would however be significant enough to fund any reserve fund requirements. Annual operating costs of this development concept would likely be relatively modest.

In the public workshop, there was little support for this option essentially due to its lack of activity.

Figure 2- Option One



5.2 Option Two

The second concept builds on Option One but adds additional revenue generating facilities including a community hall and 20 transient boat slips. This marina option provides an opportunity for visiting boaters to dock and experience the Port and the community.

The incorporation of an iconic community hall, similar to the historic ‘Stork Club’ is an important consideration in both Options Two and Three.

The Stork Club was popular for “big-band” entertainment in Port Stanley, featuring a 13,000 square foot dance floor. The Club opened in 1926 and closed in 1979 after a fire1. While replicating this facility is not feasible, a much smaller venue, which provides an opportunity to recognize the Port Stanley’s history, while at the same timing offering a new centre for entertainment and community gathering that can generate income is worth serious consideration. Our market analysis shows evidence of good demand potential for a facility of this unique nature from weddings, banquets and special events. The building, could also offer space for public washrooms. For ease of description this building is described as the Stork Club throughout the report.

The revenue generating potential of these facilities would likely be sufficient to cover operating costs with a modest surplus each year at stabilization. This option also would have the potential to create a more significant destination with strong potential to support local economic development objectives.

This option reserves the opportunity for expansion of the marina facilities in the future as market demand grows.

1 The Stork Club Big Band Museum and Hall of Fame, 2009

Stork Club circa 1930

Figure 3- Option Two



5.3 Option Three

The third concept includes an expanded space for commercial development, a full scale marina and provides for the opportunity for residential development in the longer term.

This development scheme offers the potential to create significant life and vibrancy on Port Stanley’s waterfront. There was a surprising amount of support for this option in the public meetings although the views on the residential component were mixed. This option clearly offers the best long term plan if economic development and revenue generation were the core criteria.

However, Option Three also exposes the Municipality to greater risk. Both the 300 slip marina and residential development are subject to market demand and economic fluctuations. These development components also require costly “up front” investments. Potential shortcomings to Option Three include competition issues with local marinas, need for increased capital investment, risk to the municipality, sensitivities of the boating industry, noise and congestion issues, and the potential negative perception of privatizing the waterfront in support of residential development.

Figure 4- Option Three



5.4 Outcomes from the Consultation Process

Central Elgin has a vision for Port Stanley as an active and vibrant waterfront composed of a full range of commercial and public activities. There is a clear desire on the part of the municipality and participants in the consultation process, to take back the waterfront for the enjoyment of the community and in support of the regional economic base.

A strong majority of attendees believed that development on the divested lands should be comprised of more than just green space. Many felt that the features of Option One were a great start in creating a new community gathering place, and would be far better than the land’s current condition. However, general consensus was that the concept was too simple and may not serve as a community draw, especially during winter months.

It was noted by many that the features presented in Option Two and Three held the greatest potential for improving the quality of life in Port Stanley, not to mention the potential to create a development that is financially self-sustaining. Many attendees indicated that they would welcome increased development density on the lands. It seemed that most preferred to see the lands in a use that would keep it active, especially during winter months.

Many participants felt that it would be important to extend Main Street, along with its character and activity, down to the water’s edge. The idea of creating an anchor for Main Street (in various forms, i.e. a pier, pavilion, amphitheatre, community hall) was very popular.

A significant amount of support was shown for developing the Port so that it could be developed in phases. Many liked the idea of starting with the features in Option One or Two, and perhaps moving towards a design along the lines of Option Three based on market demand and success.

A summary of community comments is contained in Appendix B.



6.0 THE PREFERRED PLAN

After considering our objectives and criteria and the comments of the community, the preferred plan is based on Option Two. This option provides a balance between active and passive recreational opportunities as well as opportunities to generate sustaining revenues without encountering significant risk to Central Elgin. Option Two also forms a good basis for future development. For example, while the 300 slip marina was deemed unfeasible for Central Elgin at this time, there may be an opportunity in the future, perhaps as a private public partnership, to explore this in the future.

The future use of the Port Stanley harbour facility includes a dredging strategy that will maintain draft at a level suitable for recreational boating and the local commercial fishery operation as well as other shallow draft commercial vessels. This strategy is critical to the success of the harbour as without it, the harbour would eventually become impassable, eliminating any use of the waterway and reducing the aesthetic value of the waterfront.

The key elements of the preferred plan are:

Main Street Extension/Stork Club; Transient boat docks/Boat Launch; Commercial Berthing; Central Open Space and Amphitheatre; Water play area; Public Access to West Breakwall. Dredging Strategy

6.1 Main Street Extension and Stork Club

Extending Main Street directly to the water’s edge not only provides the necessary access to the site but also serves as a symbolic extension of Main Street, drawing visitors to the waterfront terminating at the Stork Club Building. New facilities would include parking that could serve both the new park and Main Street; a linear

park and promenade alongside Kettle Creek that, together, might support a farmer’s or artisan type of event market.

Architecturally, the Stork Club should be iconic and a symbol of the renewed waterfront and broader waterfront community offering a concession, washrooms and transient marina support at grade, and a banquet type facility overlooking the lake, creek and park on the second floor. There has also been interest expressed for inclusion of the Stork Club museum within the new building by the museum group. Appendix C outlines the demand analysis and achievable revenues for hall facility in Port Stanley.

Figure 5- Perspective Sketch of Preferred Option



.

NBLC’s financial analysis is based on revenue derived from a modest flat rate hall rental fee. Operating costs are limited to maintenance and utilities and existing Central Elgin administrative staff are available to manage the facility and coordinate hall bookings. However, it might be more beneficial if a partnership with a restaurant or catering business could be established through a municipal procurement process. This partnership would likely represent the best case scenario for the Stork Club facility, where a flat fee could be negotiated for the municipality’s benefit, and a full service banquet facility could operate with little cost to Central Elgin. A secondary benefit of the arrangement would be derived as marketing the Stork Club facility would be undertaken by the restaurateur or catering business.

The Stork Club’s building size is assumed to be 6,000 square feet, at two storeys, construction costs per square foot are to be approximately $250. Overall, the building is estimated to cost approximately $1,500,000 to build.

The cost of renting the hall is estimated at $500 per event, with 75 events expected annually at stabilization, therefore resulting in gross revenues of $37,500 annually.

6.1.1 Transient Docks and Public Boat Launch The marina facilities would be focused on a public launch and a small transient boating facility. It is envisaged that approximately 20 serviced overnight slips for larger recreational marine craft could be established at the outset. A user pay public boat launch and parking for cars and trailers could serve both the launch area and Stork Club.

A pier within harbour serves to shelter the facility is also shown as a public feature and destination at the end of Main Street. A support space for the transient dock would be included in the lower level of the Stork Club.

Currently, the public marinas along the north shore of Lake Erie who have significant volumes of transient traffic are the Sugarloaf Harbour Marina, and Leamington Municipal Marina which generated $113,715 in gross revenue from transient boaters in 2008 (175 transient slips). On a smaller scale, the Port Dover Harbour Marina,

Figure 6- The Preferred Development Concept



which has only 5 slips dedicated for transient use, generated $22,000.00 in gross revenue from transients during 2008.

In speaking with the private marina operators and community members in Port Stanley, there seems to be untapped transient boater demand due to shallow draft levels in the Kettle Creek, where the private marinas are located. Another deterrent is the King George VI Lift Bridge. Boats with tall masts have to wait for the bridge to lift before proceeding to or from marinas north on Kettle Creek. Private marina operators sometimes have to turn away larger transient boats because they cannot travel up the Creek, or are too large for their docks.

Increasing the frequency of transient boaters in Port Stanley could create substantial economic spinoff benefits for Port Stanley. Transient boaters, especially those with larger boats, typically represent an affluent demographic, characterized by those over 45 years of age, in a high income group, who likely do not own a summer cottage.

The boat launch presents an opportunity to remedy the Port’s more informal and unsafe, boat launch on the western side of the Creek. Moreover, a public boat launch presents an opportunity to generate revenue, with low operating costs, and will aid in animating the waterfront during boating season.

Table A in Appendix B outlines the market rates of municipal marinas along Lake Erie. Of note, the rates charged at the Leamington and Port Dover boat launches are $12 and $15 per launch respectively, seasonal launch passes are also available for purchase at each marina ($175 per season at Leamington, and $195 per season at Port Dover).

Aside from assessing the rates charged by comparable launch facilities, it is also important to understand the scale of achievable revenues that can be derived through operating a public boat launch facility. At the Leamington Municipal Marina, revenue derived from the boat launch facility in 2008 was $22,488 and is expected to be close to $31,600 in the 2009 season.

NBLC assessed the feasibility of a transient marina and public boat launch located on Port Stanley’s Harbour. Inputs for the financial

modeling are derived from the results of NBLC’s municipal marina questionnaire, along with comparisons with the operating budgets of several municipal marinas. The financial model commences marina operation in 2010, and continues for 20 years, until 2029. The following are key assumptions to the marina modeling exercise:

The marina will contain 20 transient slips.

All transient marina proforma inputs are inflated at an annual rate of 2%.

Marina vacancy begins at 20% in the first year of operation, and declines to 15% in year two, finally stabilizing in year three. The low scenario stabilizes at 15%, the reference case stabilizes at 10%, and the high case stabilizes at 5% vacancy.

Marina service rates and traffic volumes are generated based on the market rates and performance demonstrated by other municipal marinas on Lake Erie. The service rates used in the financial model are as follows: o The average boat is 25 feet in length; this is conservative,

considering the transient marina is positioned to attract larger transient vessels.

o Transient mooring costs $1.75 per linear foot, per night.

It is also assumed that transient boats will occupy slips during 56 nights in the peak boating season. o Public boat launching costs $12 per launch, or $120 per

season. o In the base reference scenario, 1,200 daily boat launches

are expected to be made in year 1, and 50 seasonal launch passes are expected to be sold. In the low scenario there will be 800 daily launches, and 25 seasonal passes; in the high scenario there will be 1600 daily boat launches, and 75 seasonal passes sold.

Some marina expense inputs are derived largely from Leamington’s 2009 Operating Budget; costs have been adjusted to represent the variations in marina scale.



The marina office is assumed to be located within the Stork Club

building; therefore building maintenance is undertaken by public works.

Based on this analysis, the marina is expected to perform with positive cash flows. In Year 1, the marina and launch operation are expected to produce a combined net cash flow of about $30,500 (reference case)

In Year 1 of the reference case, the transient slips and boat launch are expected to generate $48,000 in gross revenue. Beyond Year 1 of operation, net cash flow increases incrementally as a result of declining vacancy rates, inflation to service rates, and increases in transient boat traffic.

Overall, it seems that a small scale transient marina and boat launch on Port Stanley’s Harbour has a strong potential to produce steady positive net cash flows.

The transient marina and boat launch option is fairly resilient to market fluctuations because low overhead and staffing costs lessen the impact when variables fluctuate.

6.2 Commercial Berthing

Part of the holdings which may be divested to the Municipality of Central Elgin are the dock walls which line the east and west shores at the mouth of Kettle Creek. Currently, commercial fishing boats using these dock walls in Port Stanley are not charged for their use. However, these holdings present a potential revenue opportunity if a rate is gradually introduced to charge commercial users berthing along the dock wall (presumably the local commercial fishery).

The Cedar Island (municipally owned, and primarily recreational) Marina in Kingsville has two commercial docks available for rent; they charge $47.00 per foot, per season. There is also a commercial harbour in Kingsville, the harbour is managed by the Kingsville Port Authority, an organization 50% owned by the Town, and 50% by the port users who are fishermen and aggregate stone industry. The

harbour has 30 commercial docks, and they charge a yearly fee for permanent users and also have space for transient commercial boats.

The Port Dover Harbour Authority (PDHA) manages commercial docks in Port Dover. NBLC spoke to the PDHA’s Harbour Master, who indicated that the harbour is home to 30 commercial fishing boats, all of which are approximately 70’ vessels. The Harbour Master would not provide exact berthing rates or annual revenue figures, though did note that the harbour receives about $50,000 in annual berthage revenue; and that the harbour charges a seasonal rate per linear foot. This translates to approximate revenue of $1,666 per boat per season, or $23.81 per linear foot per season.

With commercial fishing tightly regulated we do not see significant potential for growth from this sector unless vessels can be attracted from other ports.

6.3 Central Open Space and Amphitheatre

The large central part of the site is proposed as park space which will support a variety of activities. The land could be contoured to create an informal amphitheatre and stage terrace that could also be used for tobogganing in winter and as a lookout from the height of land year round. The edges of the larger green should be planted with trees to moderate the climate with shade and wind protection. Some planted areas could also be naturalized to provide habitat and reduce maintenance generally.

6.4 Water Play and Family Picnic Area

A water play splash pad is recommended in the shelter of the central park landscape and next to Little Beach. Splash pads are currently very popular for municipal parks and once established require little supervision as compared with wading pools with contained water. They are also an excellent way of extending beach activities in the late spring and early fall when lake temperatures are cooler.

A picnic area is also recommended for the Little Beach area within a grove of trees in the lee of the central park hill and within easy access of the splash pad. The picnic area should be nearby but separated from the water play and beach somewhat to enable use



by all when the picnic area is occupied by a large, single group who might monopolize their use.

6.4.1 The West Breakwall Access to the west breakwall is recommended as an important attraction for the waterfront west of Kettle Creek. Functional improvement to the breakwalls are required in any case, and we propose that a new concrete deck be provided that raises the walking surface in addition to a turned up concrete wall on the lake side to enable higher and more substantial break water of armour stone. This measure, together a metal hand rail, set back about 1 m from the harbour side will facilitate pedestrian access to the break wall and light house area. A gate or similar should be provided to close the breakwater access during the winter months and extreme weather events

The reopening of the western lighthouse pier is a critical component to the recommended development plan. This component was supported

during community consultation, and represents a rediscovering of a once enjoyed component on the Port Stanley shoreline.

Figure 7- Port Dalhousie Pier



6.5 Remaining Industrial and Port Uses

This proposal does not include specific recommendations for port and industrial uses beyond the federal holdings. However, the working waterfront activity and character are beneficial to the community for the most part, provided that environmental standards and accepted practices are observed. Built forms such as the grain silos help define the history and purpose of the Port and should be retained in the future if economically viable. Where practical, public access shared with the working wharf is a desirable feature and adds authenticity and interest to the port which supports tourism.

6.6 Dredging Strategy

The dredging strategy is based on retaining harbour depth for only shallow draft vessels including recreational boats (both power and sail) and commercial fishing vessels and barges. A target depth to the harbour mouth of 3.0 to 4.0 metres would be maintained.

Studies conducted by Riggs Engineering suggest that with a program of annual dredging, the harbour could be maintained at this depth for relatively modest costs. If the Federal Government conducted a full depth dredging (seaway depth) prior to the transfer, this annual program would not need to be initiated for about 20 years.

Within those 20 years, the strategy would involve the creation of two disposal cells within the harbour where dredgate could be deposited. This would eliminate the need for the current approach of open water disposal while at the same time having the following benefits:

Providing addition protection to the breakwalls; Creating new wetlands/habitat; and, Reducing storm surge within the harbour.

Construction of disposal facilities within the harbour property will also provide a modest form of protection from an adverse change in environmental regulations. Typically, regulatory requirements for confined disposal are less stringent than unconfined open water disposal.

Figure 8 - Possible Disposal Cells/Park/Wetlands in Red



Figure 9- 2009 Harbour Depth



7.0 OPERATING PLAN

7.1 Management and Human Resources

The construction and operation of the preferred plan would be managed by a project manager during the construction period and existing staff thereafter. During the construction period, a project manager would be required to direct and manage a range of activities under the direction Central Elgin staff. This would be best accomplished through the use of a consulting engineer. The project manager’s responsibilities would be to oversee the detailed design for the harbour capital program, oversee the development of specification drawings, issue and evaluate tender calls and make recommendations to Council on the selection of contractors. The project manager would be responsible for administration of the contract as well as supervising inspection and completion services, as well as co-coordinating sub consultants to obtain all necessary approvals.

As the project is completed, maintenance and property management including snow plowing, grass cutting, garbage as well as bookings for the Stork Club would be managed by existing Central Elgin staff. Transient slip and boat launch should be operating through an automated system which will be supervised /checked by the current complement of summer student staff. The same summer students would supervise and collect payment for the public boat launch. A reservation system could be established through a web based application, connected to Central Elgin’s web site.

To capitalize on greater operating revenue for the Stork Club, Central Elgin could enter into negotiations with/ proposals from local business where their marketing effort could generate more significant business to waterfront facilities and other existing Main Street businesses.

Some marketing will be required to ensure awareness of the transient boating facility. This can be accomplished with periodic advertisements in trade magazines and on the Municipality’s web site. Capital and operating budgets would be reviewed by staff and updated annually with appropriate adjustments made. It may also be worthwhile to consider the creation of an advisory committee of Council to report and provide advice on harbour matters. The membership of this committee could be composed of representatives from Council, the BIA, the commercial fishery, the community and other harbour users. If Council approves of the development plan, and an agreement is entered into with Transport Canada, Central Elgin would need to enter into a detailed designing process. The Municipality could consider holding an international design completion as it would draw widespread attention to the community and the project, creating anticipation and potentially providing spinoff support for local economic development and tourism.

It will likely be beneficial for the redevelopment to be implemented using a phased approach. First undertaking environmental remediation and dredging (by Transport Canada), then undertaking capital improvements like the park, boat launch and Stork Club construction, and finally breakwall repair and reinforcement, along with the transient marina.

7.2 Risk Management

The development concept recommended in this plan meets the objectives identified in this report. Providing funding sources are available from upper levels of government the risks in its implementation are those associated with major market failures, and unforeseen inflation and interest rate environments. These risks have been mitigated as much as possible by the use of conservative assumptions in the cash flow analysis.

The risks associated with unforeseen issues associated with soil and groundwater contamination and First Nations claims must also be



considered. This risk cannot be managed by Central Elgin. These are issues that pre date any transfer. Central Elgin must therefore be indemnified by the Federal Government for any issues that may arise from actions associated with First Nation Land Claims or unforeseen soil and groundwater contamination.

7.3 Financial Analysis

7.3.1 Capital Costs The Business Plan assumes that all capital funding requirements are provided by senior levels of Government. Capital requirements are categorized as follows

Funding to repair existing infrastructure Funding for Park/Waterfront Improvements Funding to address dredging

We assume in our analysis that these funds would be forwarded in one lump sum through a contribution agreement. The interest accrued from the balance (until it is spent) is rolled into the project to reduce the overall contribution requirement.

It should be noted that many of the features and costs of the waterfront improvements such as the landscaping and parking areas might assist in remediating soil and groundwater contamination issues. Reductions in capital costs may also be achieved through more detailed discussion about approaches to dredging with the Federal Government.

7.3.2 Cashflow Analysis The approach to the proforma analysis employs a 15 year cash flow analysis that provides a framework to apply three basic scenarios, a low, reference, and high scenario. The scenarios differ primarily in anticipated operating revenues.

The general assumptions for the reference case include the following:

Costs are inflated at 1.25% annually; Revenues are inflated at 1.5% annually;

Interest accrued on the balance of contribution agreement is 3.5% annually; The Treasury Bill interest rate for the dredging annuity is 3.0%;

Payroll allocations to maintenance and operation of new facilities are made within Central Elgin’s existing budget for human resources;

Central Elgin’s existing insurance policy will cover liabilities for new land and waterfront facilities; and,

The Omstead building can generate $10,000 in rent annually.

For the purposes of the financial business case, the following more specific assumptions have been used as inputs into the financial analysis:

Stork Club / Community Hall

The Stork Club’s total gross floor area is assumed to be 6,000 square feet, in two storeys;

Maximum capacity for a banquet (dinner-dance) event is 185 people;

The cost of renting the hall is $550 per event; and, It is assumed that in the reference scenario, the hall will host 78

events annually.

Public Boat Launch

Public boat launching will cost $12 per launch, or $120 per season.

Transient Boat Slips

Transient mooring is charged at $1.50 per linear foot, per night; It is assumed that the average transient boat is 25 feet in length;

and, It is also assumed that transient boats will occupy slips during 56

nights in the peak boating season.



Commercial Berthing

Commercial fishery boats in the Port Stanley Harbour are to be initially charged $10 per linear foot per season in the reference case for dock wall berthing;

It is assumed that there are two commercial ships docked in the harbour every season; and,

It is assumed that commercial boats are 70’ in length.

7.3.3 Dredging Our analysis assumes that Transport Canada will do a full seaway depth dredge prior to transferring the property. In Year 8 of the cashflow analysis funds would be expended to create the disposal cell on the east breakwall to facilitate a minor dredging at the mouth of the harbour and help reduce storm surge into the harbour. This expenditure is estimated at $1,645,000

In Year 15, the disposal cell in at the base of the western breakwall will be constructed at an estimated cost of $1,146,000.

By Year 20, we expect that an annual program of dredging will be required at an estimated cost of $200,000 per annum.

To fund these long term costs an annuity of about $6.0M will be required (assuming an annual rate of return of 3.0%)

7.3.4 Proforma Methodology & Results The following tables summarize the major capital costs and anticipated revenues under three scenarios; a low scenario representing a period of high costs and low revenues, a reference scenario which represents the most likely scenario based on our current assessment of the market and a high scenario which represents the most optimistic outlook for the development. The following table summarizes the central assumptions for each scenario. The following cash flow analysis incorporate these assumptions along with the cost estimates contained in the Routine Detailed Inspection (2007) and cost estimates from DTAH and Riggs for park and waterfront developments.

Subject to a $24.0M contribution agreement all scenarios result in a cash flow that stabilizes midway through the 15 year forecast period with modest annual increases, building a reserve fund pool in the event of any unforeseen circumstances.

The total costs of the development can be summarized in the following table









8.0 SUMMARY

The redevelopment of Port Stanley Harbour as discussed in this report is a large scale and complex project. This report suggests that given the appropriate funding, it is feasible and would result in an exciting addition to the community and landmark destination.

If properly implemented, the new park and associated facilities will build on what has already become a regional attraction and an important centre piece to the Municipality. While an economic impact study has not been conducted as part of this assignment we intuitively know through our experience that making the waterfront more accessible will draw more local and visitors to the area. This, in turn, results in new opportunities to increase sales to local businesses. The success of these businesses bolsters the tax base and establishes the basis for new ventures further adding to the Central Elgin assessment base.

We also envision that this redevelopment would only be the start of the waterfront’s revitalization. Overtime, Central Elgin will make refinements that will improve its role in servicing the community and supporting community economic development efforts.

While the operating and liability issues can be addressed, the development of this plan represents new responsibilities for Council and staff. At first, adjusting to the added issues, especially during the construction phase, will be daunting. However, as Council and Staff become aware of the resources available to them and become increasingly experienced it is likely that the, management of the harbour will easily compensate for the community benefit.

However, for any of this to be realized funding must be obtained. The Federal Government have indicated a willingness to consider providing a contribution towards upgrading infrastructure and future dredging in return for transferring the responsibilities of ownership to the municipality.

The estimate for upgrading infrastructure in 2007 was $9.4M. The estimate for dredging is more difficult to determine given that it is

unknown how the Federal government will consider dredging if a transfer is not complete.

Prior to any transfer, the Federal government will also address soil and groundwater contamination issues through a site specific risk assessment (SSRA). The cost of this are unknown but it is likely that since a risk assessment depends heavily on the future use of the land, that there may be opportunities to link costs associated with the redevelopment to the remediation strategy.

The complete redevelopment of the harbour in a manner that is truly sustainable, from virtually every point of view has an estimated capital cost of $24.3M with an additional requirement of $6.0M for dredging.

Assuming that interest accrued is rolled into any funding, a total contribution of $30.0M will be required.

If the Federal government were to fund this amount they could be assured that the resources were in place to adequately address any contingent liabilities for the long term, retain the harbour for commercial uses (shallow draft) and be part of a high profile waterfront redevelopment.



APPENDIX A: CURRENT CONDITIONS

Infrastructure

The physical infrastructure of Port Stanley consists of the West and East Breakwaters, the West and East Piers and the associated lighting and underground services. By far the matters of greatest concern to Central Elgin, with respect to the long-term maintenance of infrastructure, are the Piers and the Breakwaters.

The break walls provide protection from wave action. Their long-term protection is required to allow for safe harbour conditions. The break walls are equally important as a barrier that has allowed beach sand to accumulate, maintaining the beach in its current location.

The piers or dock wall provide a “hard edge” for the mooring of vessels. Very little maintenance has been undertaken over the past years pending the outcome of the divestiture process. Several engineering inspections have taken place over the years. The most recent inspection suggests a need of about $9.4M for repairs and maintenance of the Port facilities.

Soils

There are two major areas of environmental concern with respect to Port Stanley:

The quality of the sediment which is discharged from Kettle Creek into the Harbour, and;

The quality of the soil and groundwater within the Harbour lands.

The issue of contaminated dredge materials from Kettle Creek is discussed in the section dealing with dredging. With respect to soil and groundwater contamination, studies provided evidence that both the soil and groundwater were contaminated.

Transport Canada has indicated that they will clean-up soil and groundwater contamination using a risk based approach, approved by the Provincial Ministry of the Environment and standard practice in Ontario.

A clean up to parkland or residential standards is the most rigorous approach to site decommissioning but would provide Central Elgin with maximum flexibility in the use of the land. Achieving this standard however, often requires extensive excavation and removal of materials. In waterfront areas, this often requires working below the water table. Given that the land is created by land filling, isolating contaminated areas can be difficult. It also means that the disturbance of soil can mobilize contaminates making matters worse.

In some cases, the fill material itself was contaminated. In situations such as this, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment provides a process whereby site specific clean-up procedures can be developed through assessing the risks of the intended use of the land against the probability that contaminates will come into contact with the future occupants. With an understanding of the probable range of land uses, criteria can be established for not only the removal of soil but also for the design of buildings that will, together, provide a more cost effective and protective solution. We believe that this “Site Specific Risk Assessment” approach should be considered as part of any transfer strategy.

In addition, several industrial interests have, through the leases of land, assumed responsibility for soil contamination that may have been created by that industry during the course of that tenure. The lease provisions, given their age, likely provide a wide range of latitude in interpreting this issue. In assuming the property and these leases, the Municipality will also be assuming the potential risk of litigating with these tenants, if they fail to clean up to the appropriate standards when exiting the site. This can be a complex and expensive process. In fact, the cost of cleanup can be so great that tenants can justify large legal costs for even a small opportunity to mitigate its responsibilities. The municipality should not be placed in position where they must defend a lease agreement prepared and negotiated by the Federal Government.

Sedimentation and Dredging

Sediment deposits from the littoral drift of Lake Erie and alluvial material from Kettle Creek create a need for continuous and regular dredging of the entry channel into the harbour and the harbour itself.



The Figure 10 illustrates sounding data collected by Riggs Engineering as part of this study. The soundings illustrate the annual rate of sedimentation within the main channel of the harbour between the years 2001 and 2005. In 2001, there was major dredging undertaken of the harbour. However, the figure illustrates the rapid sedimentation each year of the harbour.

Interestingly, the basin area, south of the East Pier, seems to be largely unaffected by these forces and has maintained, a relatively consistent depth in the 4 to 8 feet range. This is important as this report considers the concept of a marina as an alternative revenue source in the following sections.

Looking at Transport Canada records, it appears that up to the mid 90’s, Transport Canada was engaged in a regular annual dredging program. However, it appears that as the future of Port Stanley became more questionable, so did its investment in dredging.

Annual dredging costs have averaged over $450,000 per year since 1991.

The analysis indicates that to maintain a sufficient depth for safe commercial traffic, this annual dredging requirement must be maintained.

Central Elgin would also have to retain responsibility for the contaminates that are known to be contained within the dredged materials. The shift from federal to municipal ownership could trigger the need for an environmental assessment to continue dredging.



Figure 10: Sedimentation 2001 to 2009 Source: Riggs Engineering









Annual Infilling Distribution

The following legend shows the colours used to represent thickness of annual deposits in the figures in this appendix.







APPENDIX B: INFORMATION GATHERING & COMMUNITY INPUT The consulting team engaged the Port Stanley community members and business owners/ operators on several occasions, both within individual stakeholder meetings, community workshops and open houses. The ongoing consultation process allowed the consulting team to utilize feedback loops throughout various stages in the development of the feasibility study and business plan. The following section will outline these various consultation events and the input gathered from each event.

Municipal Marinas on the North Shore of Lake Erie

To aid in assessing the feasibility of a potential Municipal Marina on Port Stanley’s waterfront, NBLC conducted a survey of Municipal Marinas on the north side of Lake Erie in May, 2009. The survey gathered data on each marina’s scale, services and rates, along with other variables such as vacancy rates, and operational structure. Some marinas also provided NBLC with current operating budgets, which were used as a further reference point to NBLC’s financial pro forma analysis.

NBLC’s study method used online information provided by the Ontario Marine Operators Association (OMOA), and conducted with interviews with respective marina management staff. While much of the quantitative data was found via the OMOA, valuable qualitative commentary along with supplemental data were derived through conversations with marina management. The municipal marinas interviewed as part of this study include:

Colchester Harbour Marina, Essex; Cedar Island Municipal Marina, Kingsville; Belle River Marina, Lakeshore; Sugarloaf Harbour Marina, Port Colbourne; Port Dover Harbour Marina, Norfolk; K. Walter Ranta Marina, Amherstburg; Lakeview Park Marina, Windsor; and, Leamington Municipal Marina, Leamington.

When speaking to Marina Managers, NBLC asked the following questions:

What are your marina’s annual vacancy rates, have you noticed any trends over past years?

What is the ratio of permanent, seasonal, and transient slip users? Does your marina have a public boat launch?

If so, do you experience issues with crowding or parking? How do you mitigate these issues?

Is the boat launch profitable for the marina? How many parking spaces are available / allocated to whom? Does your marina offer winter boat storage? If so, do people who have a seasonal slip use the winter

storage? How many users can you count on to use the storage? Is it often full?

How is the marina’s staff structured, are marina staff municipal employees?

Who maintains the marina facilities? Municipal works or a private contractor?

The following sections work to outline a summary of survey responses, as well as the overarching themes which were identified from the exercise. A table outlining marina services and service rates follows on Table A.

Slip Vacancy rates

Vacancy rates varied greatly between marina locations, though many of the marinas were reporting fairly strong slip sales to date. Notwithstanding generally positive sales early in the 2009 season, several marinas noted that slip sales have been declining steadily over several seasons.

Cedar Island Marina is 100% occupied at their main facility, a secondary facility, located in an area subject to lake surges only sees 3 to 4 of 30 slips sold per year.

Colchester harbour, in the past, has consistently sold about 95% of seasonal slips. So far in 2009, serviced slips are selling well, though there has been a dip in un-serviced slip sales, it is



expected that due to economic concerns many boaters will trailer their boats to the marina. It was also noted that the survey was being conducted early in the season, and that sales performance could still pick up.

Sugarloaf Harbour Marina reported that they have currently sold 50% of their 500 slips; the marina also rents 300 additional slips to a neighbouring private marina. The marina manager indicated that traffic is growing each year.

Port Dover Harbour Marina indicated that 490 of their 500 slips (98%) have been sold this year.

K. Walter Ranta Marina has sold 60% of their 104 slips. Belle River Marina reported that their seasonal slip sales have

been declining over the past three years, currently, 75% of 190 seasonal slips.

Lakeview Park Marina indicated that their seasonal slip sales started to decline at the beginning of last year, currently, about 50% of 300 slips have been sold.

Transient Slip Users

Aside for Sugarloaf Harbour Marina, a common response from marina managers was that proximity to Leamington’s Municipal Marina made transient users difficult to come by. In 2008, the Leamington Municipal Marina generated $113,715.00 in revenue from transient boaters; the marina’s 2009 budget expects transient boater revenue to be $134,034.00.

Cedar Island sees little transient traffic, reporting only about 10 transient boats per year, it was indicated that the marina is “too close to Leamington” to be a big draw for transients.

Depending on seasonal demand, Colchester Harbour designates up to 10 slips for transient boats. Over the course of the season the Harbour may have 70 to 120 transient boats visit the Harbour.

Sugarloaf Harbour Marina indicated that about half of their seasonal harbour traffic was from transient traffic. Located in Port Colbourne, Sugarloaf is located about 300 kilometres east

of the Leamington Municipal Marina and is therefore not subject to competition with Leamington.

Port Dover Marina indicated that it may sell 5 or 6 slips per season to transient boaters, also citing that Leamington takes the majority of transient traffic. However, these slips seem to be fairly profitable for the marina, these slips achieve annual sales of about $22,000.

The K. Walter Ranta Marina sees very little transient traffic, noting that they only see 5 or 6 transient boats per season.

The Belle River Marina has 100 slips dedicated to transient use, on average, these are about 40% to 50% sold. The marina manager indicated the events of September 11th have had a significant negative impact on transient boater traffic, as many transient boats are American.

The Lakeview Park Marina has 25 dedicated slips dedicated to transient boaters, at Lakeview, these are 40% occupied throughout the season.

Public Boat Launches

All of the marinas surveyed have public boat launch facilities. When asked, all marina managers indicated that launch facilities

at their respective marinas were commonly crowded on weekends, especially during fishing tournaments and other events.

Several marinas employ launch attendants who are hired to direct the flow of vehicles and alleviate congestion. Colchester Harbour has two launch attendants on duty at all times.

One marina manager indicated that the public launch is crowded as a response to economic concerns, meaning that many boaters have cut costs by purchasing smaller boats, thus eliminating docking fees and decreasing fuel expenses.

All marina managers noted that their public launches were very lucrative. The manager at the Port Dover Harbour Marina cited that it originally cost $10,000 to build their launch ramp, yet it generates $45,000 to $50,000 per year, paying for itself within two months of operation.



Parking Solutions

It was a common theme among all marina managers, that boater parking was in short supply. A majority of marina managers indicated that they did not have enough space, or would like to have more room for parking at their facilities.

Several of the marinas surveyed solved part of their parking demand issues by allocating one or two parking space(s) per seasonal slip purchaser.

While seasonal users were generally accommodated comfortably, for many public launch visitors (who arrive with both a vehicle and trailer) crowding is an issue at a majority of marinas, especially during weekends.

Marinas that did not allocate spaces to slip purchasers often had excess land/lawns where spill-over parking could be accommodated.

Some marinas have mitigated crowding by using separated parking lots for seasonal dock owners and launch ramp users.

Winter Boat Storage

Of the marinas surveyed, only the Port Dover Harbour Marina offers winter storage. Of its almost 500 seasonal slip purchasers it expected that about 100 seasonal dock purchasers will store their boats at the Marina’s facility.

It was explained by the marina manager that the low ratio of slip purchasers to storage users was due to the Municipal Marina’s close proximity to other private boat storage locations. Because storage pricing is set by ‘government’ no deals can be offered to clients, and private operations are able to undercut the Municipal facility.

Despite storage usage being relatively low, compared to the marina’s slip sales and vacancy rates, the Port Dover Harbour Marina’s storage facility generates $40,000 annually.

Marina Staff Organization

All marina managers are full-time, municipal employees. Other marina staff members are summer contract employees, often students.

At the Sugarloaf Harbour Marina in Port Colbourne, it was noted that launch ramp attendants are contracted out in order to avoid “union issues.”

Facility Maintenance

At all municipal marinas surveyed, it was indicated that small maintenance issues were looked after by either marina staff, or municipal works staff. Larger scale maintenance jobs that could not be efficiently completed by municipal works are commonly contracted out to private firms.



Table A

Un‐serviced

Serviced Rate

Charter Rate

Un‐serviced

Serviced Day SeasonSeason‐ Senior/

Comm.Colchester Harbour, Essex 122 35' 7' $40.00/ft $45/.00ft $47.00/ft $37.50/ft $42.25/ft A.C. $99/ season Yes Yes N.A. $12 N.A. $12 $116 $69.50 (senior) N.A.Cedar Island Municipal Marina, Kingsville

94 36' 5' $38.00/ft $1.50/ft/ night

Yes N.A. N.A. N.A. $7 $70 N.A. N.A.

Leamington Municipal Marina, Leamington

350 300' 10' <30':$350 >30':$450

$44/ft $1.50/ft/ night

Yes N.A. $12 N.A. $12 $175 $100 (senior) N.A.

Seasonal flat rates:Boats up to 16': $525 Boats 17' ‐ 18': $577 Boats 19': $630 Boats

19'+: $735

Port Dover Harbour Marina, Norfolk

424 210' 7' $15.00/ft $18.00/ft$843.00/ season

$46.00/ft

$1.50/ft/ night (un‐serviced); $2.00

(serveced)

Yes Yes $13 Yes $15 $195$330

(commercial)$1.40/sq.

ft.

K. Walter Ranta Marina, Amherstburg

104 38' 6' $37.50/ft Yes Yes N.A. Yes N.A. $7 $90 $75 (senior) N.A.

Belle River Marina, Lakeshore

280 (100 as transient slips)

75' 9' $33.00/ft $40.00/ft $1.75/ft/ night

Yes N.A. $10 N.A. $10 $150 N.A. N.A.

Lakeview Park Marina, Windsor

300 100' 8' $50.65/ft$1.80/ft/ night

Yes N.A. $11 N.A. $10 $200 $153 (senior) N.A.

Launch No. of Slips

Max Length

Draft

Yes N.A. Yes N.A. $12 $90500 100' 10' $42.00/ft N.A.

Municipal Marina Research ‐ Port Stanley Harbour Feasibility Study

Transient Docks

Shore Power

Engine Repair

Pump Out Haul OutWinter Storage Fee

Services

$50.00/ft Yes$55 (senior); $150 (commercial)

Sugarloaf Harbour Marina, Port Colbourne

Marina Name, Location

Mooring FeesMonthly/Charter Seasonal

Other

Slip Info



Private Marina Operators

Once the consulting team was able to narrow down the scope of three hypothetical development options, Port Stanley’s private marina operators were contacted for consultation. These private marina operators were able to provide insight into the current market conditions for the boating industry in Port Stanley, as well as offer suggestions or voice concerns to the consulting team in advance of the first community workshop.

NBLC spoke to the manager at Stan’s Marina, the following are his comments regarding a potential municipal marina on Port Stanley’s waterfront:

The manager explained that the cost to taxpayers wouldn’t be worth the necessary capital cost for a new municipal marina, he expected that a new marina wouldn’t make money.

The marina manager was not fond of the idea of a new full scale marina, as it would add another layer of competition to the boating market in Port Stanley. Stan’s already competes with the Lions Marina, Kanagio Yacht

Club and the Port Stanley Sailing Squadron, non profit operations, some of whom lease land from the Municipality.

He presumes that lower overhead at the non profit marinas has resulted in their ability to undercut the rates of private marina operators in Port Stanley.

The Manager expects there may be a market for a marina that can accommodate bigger boats, however also noted that a new marina would likely have a negative impact on vacancy rates.

When the idea of a new boat launch was discussed, it was also expressed that this would likely put Stan’s Marina at a competitive disadvantage unless comparable rates were charged at the public facility.

The idea of a passive transient oriented marina (Option 2) was well received. Dave suggested using mooring buoys and a water taxi rather than building new docks in order to reduce capital costs.

NBLC also contacted John Jackson, former Municipal Councillor, and Manager of the Kettle Creek Marina. His feelings regarding a potential marina are as follows:

Mr Jackson, who rents 40, 50’ slips at the Kettle Creek marina said that he runs a small, intimate, family run marina. He feels that a large scale municipal facility would offer a very different experience and was not bothered by the prospect of a new facility.

It was also noted that the Kettle Creek Marina cannot currently handle the demand for slip rentals, implying that there may be excess demand for boat slips in Port Stanley. Jackson said that 85% of his marina traffic on a seasonal basis comes from Greater Cleveland.

Mr Jackson commented that from his experience, he feels that a new marina business would not likely pay for itself, citing that federal infrastructure dollars would be necessary to build the facility.

An interesting comment was made regarding the location of a potential municipal marina, Jackson indicated that lake swells would likely be a major problem. He indicated that his marina, which it located on Kettle Creek, north of the lift bridge, can sometimes experience significant lake surges. John indicated that new break walls would be necessary as part of the infrastructure required for a new municipal marina operation.

When asked about the prospect of developing a passive, transient oriented marina, Mr Jackson expressed that the costs of building the necessary infrastructure (break wall) would remain, so it would only be worth doing if a full scale marina was to be developed.

NBLC conducted an interview with Gerry Koops, manager at the Portside Marina, his comments are noted below:

Mr Koops felt that taxpayer dollars should be used to focus on dredging Kettle Creek and the Port, rather than for funding a municipal run marina. He noted that the shallow creek bed has resulted in spring flooding.



When it was explained that a potential marina would likely be in addition to a dredging program, Mr Koops indicated that another layer of competition was unnecessary and would likely be detrimental to his business.

Like Stan’s Marina, the Portside Marina competes with non-profits like the Lions Marina and the Kanagio Yacht Club who offer lower rates. Gerry indicated that the Kanagio (which is located close to his facility) often fills its slips early in the season before he sees much business. He indicated that their low overhead allows them to charge discounted rates, and expressed worry that a new municipal facility would do the same.

When asked about a municipal launch ramp, Gerry indicated that a municipal launch would only affect Stan’s Marina.

While Port Stanley’s private marina operators are somewhat mixed towards the prospect of adding another marina to Port Stanley’s economy, there seemed to be consensus that there is a market for docks that can accommodate large transient boats, and that a boat launch may only affect one of the three private marina operators in Port Stanley.

Banquet Facilities and Community Hall Spaces

Public desire for multi use, programmatic space, lead the team to include a two-storey community hall as part of the recommended development plan. In speaking with the Chair of the Port Stanley Business Improvement Association, it was revealed that there are relatively few opportunities to rent a banquet facility in Port Stanley. In terms of space for a dinner-dance event, the few available hall locations are:

The Royal Canadian Legion – space for 120 people, hall rents for $150/day, excluding the cost of food and drink;

The Port Stanley Arena –space for 300 people, hall rents for $358/ 9 hours, excluding the cost of food and drink;

The Wharf Restaurant – does not rent space in summer months, however in shoulder seasons the restaurant can be rented for groups of 100 or more, and has space for a maximum of 140

people. There is no charge for space rental; however the cost a buffet dinner starts at $26 per person.

Kettle Creek Golf Club – capacity for 150 people, cost per person begins at $28.

St Thomas Golf and Country Club – space for up to 150 people, hall rents for $500/ night excluding the cost of food and drink.

Evidently, there are few opportunities available directly within Port Stanley to hold a formal dinner-dance event. The following, Table B, presents some of the available venues in nearby London Ontario, about 40 kilometres north of Port Stanley. These banquet venues range in type from hotels to private banquet halls and golf and country clubs. These spaces range in scale and finish; however some commonalities should be noted:

Despite the wide range in hall sizes, most offer space for between 120 and 200 guests;

Most venues offer catering and bar service in-house; Of venues that charge a flat fee for hall rental, fees range

between $1,000.00 and $1,300.00 per event; Catered meals cost between $30.00 and $60.00 per plate; The majority of all inclusive wedding packages (offered at hotels)

range in price from $85.00 to $120.00 per guest. These packages often include the cost of hall rental, set-up, meal, catering, bar service, late night tea, coffee, and desert; and,

Each banquet venue requires a deposit prior to the event, usually between $750.00 and $1,500.00 at the time of a contractual agreement. Some require full payment one week before the event is held; others allow final payment to be made on the day or shortly after the event is held.

Some of the venues surveyed do not charge a flat hall rental fee; rather they charge an all-inclusive, rate per plate (per person) which encompasses the costs associated with catering and hall rental and set-up.



Name Hall Capacity/ Size: Dinner‐dance event Price Notes

The Marconi Club Up to 450 people $38 ‐ $58/ personDeposit of $750 ‐ $1500 required, 6 course Italian meal

Maltese Canadian Club Up to 250 people, main room 60' x 70' $27 ‐ $34/ person Deposit of $700 required

Best Western Lamplighter Innup to 100 ppl (1900 sq. ft.); up to 250 ppl (4300 sq. ft.); up to 450 ppl (7000 sq. ft.)

$28 ‐ $48/ person; all‐inclusive wedding from 82.95/ person (includes all service charges, gratuitues, ballroom, decorations, hotel room for bridal couple)

Deposit required

Best Western Stoneridge Inn & Conference Centre

up to 60 ppl (1521 sq. ft.); up to 120 ppl (2106 sq. ft.); up to 220 ppl (3300 sq. ft.)

A la carte: $29 ‐ $45/ person; all‐inclusive $98 ‐ $120/ person (includes: cocktail reception, full 3 or 4 course meal, 3 bottles of wine/ table, bar staff, late night tea, coffee, and desert, hotel room for bridal couple)

Deposit required

Pine Knot Golf and Country Club up to 200 people Typically $40 ‐ $60/ person Deposit required

Sunningdale Golf & Country Club up to 210 people, hall 40' x 80'Room rental $1500, dinner from $50 ‐ $150/ person

$1500 Room fee required as a deposit

Fire Rock Golf ClubUp to 70 people (2000 sq. ft.); up to 120 ppl (3000 sq. ft.); up to 220 ppl (6000 sq. ft.)

Room rental $1250, dinner from $30 ‐ $120/ person

Deposit of $1000 required

Elsie Perrin Williams Estate & Grosvenor Lodge

Up to 150 people $1000 to $1300 to rent estate (5 hours) Deposit of $500 required

Delta London Armouriesup to 200 people (2035 sq. ft. and 2580 sq. ft. ballrooms)

All‐inclusive wedding from $86 to $105/ person $750 deposit required

Hessenland Country Inn Up to 170 peopleSeveral wedding packages available, includes hall and grounds rental, set‐up, meal, etc. Packages range from $51 ‐$137 per person.


The Oaks Golf and Country Club Up to 150 peopleHall rental $750 (includes set‐up, tables, chairs, l inens, table settings, podium.) Dinner ranges from $30 ‐ $50 per person


Hilton LondonUp to 50 ppl (1000 sq. ft.); up to 100 ppl (2225 sq. ft.); up to 650 ppl (12300 sq. ft.)

$79 to $117/ person (Includes hall rental and dinner)


Banquet Halls & Wedding Venues ‐ London Ontario

Source: NBLC, londonweddingring.ca

Table B



Through research, it has been identified that the size of the average Canadian wedding in 2009 is 140 people, down from 145 people in 2008 (survey of 2,000 brides in 2008 and 1,300 brides in 2009, conducted by St. Joseph Media). Moreover, the space requirement for a dinner dance banquet for 140 to 150 people is between 2,250 to 2500 square feet of floor space. Size requirements are based on 12 to 15 square feet per person plus area for ancillary space including storage, entry, stairs, washrooms, stage, and kitchens.

Community Workshop – June 17th 2009

On June 17th, the Municipality of Central Elgin hosted an open Community Workshop evening at the Port Stanley Community Centre. The purpose of the event was to make the community aware of the current issues facing Port Stanley and to present the consulting team’s three conceptual options and work to gain input from workshop participants. The evening began with a presentation from representatives from Central Elgin and members of the consulting team, during the second half of the evening, members of the consulting team facilitated a work session for groups of about 6 to 8 participants. The workshop groups discussed their motivation for attending the evening, and broke down the various components of the conceptual development options, allowing dialogue around the components of the development options.

The evening was well attended, with 59 participants, many of whom were very engaged and eager to participate in the workshop. The following provides a brief outline of the major ideas gathered from the workshop.

A strong majority of attendees believed that development on the divested lands should be comprised of more than just green space. Many felt that the features of Concept 1 were a great start in creating a new community gathering place, and would be far better than the land’s current condition. However, general consensus was that the Concept was too simple and may not serve as a community draw, especially during winter months.

It was noted by many that the features presented in Concepts 2 and 3 held the greatest potential for improving the quality of life

in Port Stanley, not to mention the potential to create a development that is financially self sustaining.

Many attendees indicated that they would welcome increased development density on the lands. It seemed that most preferred to see the lands in a use that would keep it active, especially during winter months.

The added commercial space shown in Concept 3 was viewed by most participants as a positive. It was indicated by most that the chosen development concept should create positive economic spinoff for Port Stanley.

Many participants felt that it would be important to extend Main Street, along with its character and activity, down to the water’s edge. The idea of creating an anchor for Main Street (in various forms, i.e. a pier, pavilion, amphitheatre, community hall) was very popular.

A significant amount of support was shown for developing the Port so that it could be developed in phases. Many liked the idea of starting with the features in Concept 1 or 2, and perhaps moving towards a design along the lines of Concept 3 based on market demand and success.

In terms of dredging, it was expressed that dredging should occur to maintain depths for residential boating at a minimum. Many participants felt that the character of Port Stanley as a working harbour is valuable, especially citing the importance of the commercial fishery.

Several participants indicated that further development to divested land on the west side of the harbour could be beneficial. Ideas about widening the western pier to create a promenade, building a formal municipal boat launch, or splitting up a potential marina to both sides of the Creek mouth were presented. Participants saw this as an opportunity to connect waterfront activities on the east and west sides of Kettle Creek.

It was agreed by most participants that the use of dredged material to create a new landform on the west side of the Creek mouth could be a logical and beneficial way to manage the dredge material, building on waterfront improvements and opportunities for activity on the western side of the Creek mouth.



It was also noted that dredging helps to mitigate flooding at the time of ice break-up, and should be continued to protect existing built form along the Creek.

It was made clear that the community has a strong desire to create a space which is usable in all 4 seasons, rather than just the summer. Concept 1 seems to only appeal to summer activities, while some aspects of Concept 2 and 3 contain the opportunity for facilities, commercial aspects and programming that could take place in shoulder seasons as well as the winter.

While it was not shown on the consulting team’s concept drawings, several participants (those favouring intensive development concepts) indicated that a new ‘Muskoka-style’ hotel/motel may be viable on the divested lands. It was rationalized as a potential catalyst for economic spinoffs in place of residential development in the more intensive, Concept 3.

Community Open House – July 22nd

On July 22nd the consulting team held a community open house to present two final preferred development schemes as developed through input gained from the previous workshop session and analysis undertaken since then by the consulting team.

The distinguishing element between the two development plans was residential development. Residential development was explored as a revenue generating mechanism. However, in early discussions with Transport Canada representatives, concern was raised by the Federal Government over the perception of windfall profits for the Municipality and private developer(s). Moreover, a majority of public open house participants voiced apprehension over selling a valuable public asset to private interests. While not included as part of the recommended development plan, the option for residential development has been contemplated and is considered feasible from a community planning and design perspective and should again be considered in a few years once lands are divested to Central Elgin. The value of a resident community with “eyes on the street“ is clear from a safety standpoint, as is the tax benefit to the municipality. Nevertheless, care must be taken in the design of any residential development to avoid the perception of a private enclave within a

public park. This is particularly important on the waterfront where public access should be maintained with some park land, a trail and possibly a narrow roadway.

Community input helped to shape every component in the preferred development concept. Other revenue generating development components were deemed viable and appropriate for the future use of divested lands. The elements are included in the final development strategy and business plan are:

Transient boat docks; A public boat launch; A multi-use public pavilion/ ‘Stork Club’; and, Further opportunity for revenue generation are is derived from

charging commercial fishing boats for berthing along Municipal dock walls.

The above mentioned plan elements, along with several non-revenue generating components have been included in the final future use plan for the Port Stanley harbour. These non-revenue generating components include large public open space, parking facilities, an informal amphitheatre, picnic area, board walk and paths, children’s play area and splash pad. While the impacts of these facilities will be difficult to measure, these improvements represent significant gains in social capital and should have positive spinoff effects for local businesses and residents alike. The non-revenue generating components further strengthen the development’s potential to create a regional attraction, and were strongly supported by a majority of workshop participants.



APPENDIX C: MUNICIPAL MARINA ANALYSIS

Scenario and Assumptions

NBLC has conducted a market and financial assessment for the operation of a marina located on Port Stanley’s Harbour. Market inputs for the financial modeling are derived from the results of NBLC’s municipal marina questionnaire, along with comparisons with the operating budgets of several municipal marinas, particularly Leamington’s, due to its comparable scale. The financial assessment models a 100-slip marina, adding 50 slips every three years, until reaching 300 slips in year 2022. The financial model commences marina operation in 2010, and continues for 20 years, until 2029. The following are key assumptions to the marina modeling exercise:

The marina will begin operation with 100 slips, adding 50 slips every three years, to a maximum of 300 slips.

All pro forma inputs are inflated at an annual rate of 2%. Marina vacancy begins at 20%, and declines by 0.5% annually

until stabilization in 2022. This vacancy has been chosen to represent current economic conditions, and to protect the best interests of a risk adverse client.

The ratio of seasonal slips occupied to transient slips occupied is 80:20 in Year 1, shifting incrementally to 50:50 in year 13 (2020) when the project stabilizes.

Marina service rates and traffic volumes are generated based on the market rates and performance demonstrated by other municipal marinas on Lake Erie. The service rates used in the financial model during year 1 are as follows:

The average boat is 25 feet in length. Seasonal mooring for a serviced dock costs $42.50 per linear

foot. Transient mooring costs $1.75 per linear foot, per night. It is also assumed that transient boats will occupy slips during 56

nights in the peak boating season. Public boat launching costs $12.00 per launch, or $120.00 per

season.

1,200 daily launches are expected to be made in year 1, and 50 seasonal launch passes are expected to be sold.

Pump out service costs $12.00 per. Winter boat storage costs $1.40 per square foot. The building’s lease rate for commercial space is charged at

$10.00 per square foot. The marina’s expense inputs are derived largely from

Leamington’s 2009 Operating Budget; costs have been adjusted to represent the variations in marina scale.

Profit from diesel and gasoline sales is constant at 6%.

Results from the Analysis

A summary of the detailed results from the financial analysis are presented in the following Table.

In the early years of operation, the marina is expected to perform with a very marginal upside. In Year 1, the marina is expected to produce a net cash flow of about $4,050 (future dollars), notwithstanding the costs associated with construction. Beyond Year 1 of operation, net cash flow increases incrementally as a result of declining vacancy rates, inflation to service rates, and increases in transient boat traffic. Expansion of the marina in Years 4, 7, 10, and 13 results in steeper revenue increases. When the marina expands in Year 4 to 150 boat slips, net cash flow rises to $42,654 (future dollars); in year 7 when the marina expands to 200 slips, net cash flow increases to $100,004 (future dollars); in year 10 when the marina expands to 250 slips annual cash flow is $182,570; and, when the marina expands to 300 boat slips in year 13, net cash flow equals $295,607.

Beyond year 13, the financial performance of the marina stabilizes with annual cash flows increasing less steeply. The average annual cash flow between years 13 and 20 is about $320,500.

NBLC has calculated a Net Present Value for the marina project at $721,681.50.

Overall, it seems that a marina on Port Stanley’s Harbour will produce positive net cash flows. This can only be said assuming that



market conditions gradually improve over time, and that no significant changes in market economic factors or any major unforeseen maintenance costs arise.

A major variable in this analysis is the price of fuel, as it directly affects boater usage, especially for transient boaters, subsequently affecting marina revenues. For example, if the ratio of seasonal boats to transient boats stabilizes at about 65% seasonal boats, and 35% transient boats, the marina’s projected NPV decreases to $697,206, with an average net cash flow between years 13 and 20 falling to $245,350. This is a difference from NBLC’s original scenario of about $70,000 in net cash flow when the project is expected to stabilize in year 13.

While positive net cash flows seem likely to occur, it cannot be said with great certainty that market variables will hold true over the long term. This uncertainty further increases the risk of constructing a 300 slip marina on Port Stanley’s waterfront. Some marina managers have already indicated that boaters have begun to trailer boats to their marinas in an effort to reduce personal costs. Furthermore, several municipal marinas on Lake Erie see very few transient boaters over the course of a season. Even if a Port Stanley Municipal marina can attract significant transient volume, other fluctuating variables may render net cash flows to unsustainable levels.

The uncertainty in the recreational boating marketplace, the very high capital costs associated with the marina and relatively modest returns in the early years of the project suggest that a municipally run marina could represent a high level of financial risk.

It is important to note that a private operator would likely be able to improve significantly on the financial performance of a marina through reduced labour and operating costs.



APPENDIX D: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT A residential component was included in one of the final development schemes. Community reactions appeared equally split over the possibility of residential development on the waterfront. Economically, the addition of residential development creates an increase in municipal property tax assessment base, therefore generating annual revenue for Central Elgin. Moreover, the sale of land to a residential developer would produce municipal revenue. Further, added residents will help to sustain local Main Street businesses.

From a planning perspective, including residential development on the divested land will animate the area, creating a sense of place and ensuring that public spaces are used all year round. Safety and security are also improved, as a constant community presence and thoughtful design encourage eyes on the street.

The residential component has been included in the form of townhomes. Townhouse development is the preferred housing typology as it is well absorbed by the housing market, and is a familiar, understandable built form.

Based on an estimated sale value of $350,000, townhomes on this property would likely support about $80,000 per lot. This could generate about $1.6M in land revenue and $40K to $50K in annual tax revenue after servicing.

However, residential development will obviously take land away from public use. Design and the relationship to the water’s edge becomes critical to ensure that there is no sense that edge is controlled by private interests.



APPENDIX E: CORRESPONDENCE From: Bob Weare

To: Karen Vecchio

Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:31 PM

Subject: Port Stanley Ontario Harbour Strategies Meeting July 22 2009

Karen

Karen would you please forward to Joe Preston.

After attending the public meeting on July 22 2009 at the Port Stanley Arena to observe the outcome of the $100,000 consultant brief on the Port Stanley ,Ontario Harbour Strategies .Please add my comments.

This is a good EAST SIDE ONLY STRATEGY FOR TOURISM! With the flaw being a MARSH ON THE EAST OUTER PIER.

If Central Elgin approves this plan and after the second flood caused by the east march ;even to a 1 % liability .Taking in account the MPAC assesed value of the properties in the flood plane in the business district.The cost to Central Elgin will be in the millions.

THE HAZ MAT ISSUE HAS BEEN DIVERTED AND NOT ADDRESSED.

COULD I OFFER A STARTING POINT TO THE TOTAL HARBOUR STRATEGIE WITH LATER PROVISIONS FOR A FERRY

-At the WEST sea wall install NEW metal panels with a pile driver to existing and future dredging requirements.This would be engineered as far as lengths and thickness of the metal is concerned.

-Also a NEW inner metal panel and the cavity filled with concrete and reinforcement metal rod with anchors after the silt is vacuumed from between the walls.The project would be engineered to keep the wall from moving.

-This metal pile driving method is used all along the lake.

-This would contain the haz mat AS THIS IS THE MAIN PROBLEM until full clean up is completed.

-THE SAME COULD BE COMPLETED ON THE EAST SIDE with the exception of the rail siding.

-The NEW sea walls would be from the SOUTH side of the lift bridge;to PAST the light house with the new structure in the harbour as this would not change the water flow to the lake.

-The existing customs house would be REMOVED to make way for A NEW RAILWAY SIDING to the lighthouse.

-As the concrete pad alone the west harbour sea wall is ninteen feet wide and the silo is a further eight feet;the westerly nine feet of the pad would have to be removed to install the new railway siding ;then replaced with the rail tracks inbedded in the concrete.

-As the federal government ownes thirty feet at the WEST and EAST sea walls;a railway siding could be structurally reinstalled to remove the silt VIA railway air dump cars and dumped as an EG:JUST NORTH of Moore Water Gardens.This would solve the Provincial problem of dumping silt where fish span.

-Before the silt is removed it could be stored between the new WEST sea wall and the existing pier to dry and waiting to obtain funding for the extension of the rail siding;the railway infrastructure upgrades,and the used railway air dump cars and loaders to load and place the silt after dumping .

-Clean fill could be picked up NORTH of the silt dumping area and placed to fill the new harbour infrastructure.

-When the Canadian National Railway purchased the London and Port Stanley Railway the federal government paid to have the EAST berm armor rock shipped by rail;the shipping fees helped pay for the rail upgrades between London and Port Stanley.This could occur again.

-As the new land is created;a clam could remove the harbour silt for a safe operating harbour.

-As it stands each fish tug pays in the range of $600.00 per month dockage fees;and with an in house tendering ,the dredging cost



could be reduced by using land activated dredges.The small cost between pleasure and commercial harbour depths with grain boat shipping fees added to the dredging funds we could help develope NEW HARBOUR USES AS GREEN INDUSTRAIL SHIPPING FOR SOUTHERN ONTARIO.Our Quebec neighbours can get things done by EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER!!!.

-If this plan is accepted;it would be a start for MAKING MONEY FOR THE DREDGING and avert flodding.

-As the MINISTERY OF TRANSPORTATION REPORT BY DAVID HACHSTON AND RICHARD LAKE OF THE RESEARCH AND TRAFFIC GROUP June 6 1989 for the Ontarion Rail Office STATED AT ITS CONCLUSION.

THE FUTURE OF THE RAILWAY AND THE PORT ARE INEXTRICABLY INTERWINED.

-OR BUILD A NEW HARBOUR TO THE EAST OR WEST WITH RAIL AND KEEP OUR HARBOUR PROBLEMS.

Sincerly

Robert Weare

529 George St.

Port Stanley ,On.

N5L 1H3

From: helengarton To: Sylvia Hofhuis Sent: Thu Jul 16 19:56:45 2009 Subject: Port Stanley Harbour

Honourable Mayor

As our Mayor, we look to you for leadership. Unless the following challenges are met you should walk away from divestiture of the Port Stanley Harbour.

First Nations claim should be settled.

Harbour should be dredged. We already know Transport Canada has refused to do this.

The existing contamination has to be cleaned up to satisfy the Minister of the Environment. This could cost millions.

You must know we are a small municipality with a number of seniors on fixed incomes and a lot of people unemployed and selling their homes. Unless these challenges are met beforehand Please show some leadership and commom sense to the people who elected you.

I attended the workshop night at the arena. What I saw was a wish list with no price tag attached. How can you bargain when you don't know the full cost which whatever it is will be borne by the Central Elgin Ratepayers?

My husband did not attend the workshop but he was the one who got the information package in the mail. I gave my address, phone number & e-mail on the sheets that night. Maybe because my thoughts were not very complimentary to the study and I am Vice President of CERA I got left out.

This will be the most important decision you will make as Mayor of Central Elgin. It will affect not only Port Stanley ratepayers, but Union, Sparta,Belmont and Lynhurst. Please do the right and honourable thing for all concerned. Don't be hoodwinked by Transport Canada (Government).

Sincerely

Helen Garton

From: Mary Dunn <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; David Marr <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 1:13:46 PM Subject: Port Stanely Harbour Consultations

Dear Ms. Hofhuyis and Mr. Marr

The Port Stanley Festival Theatre Board would like to express our interests in the future development of the Harbour project going forward.



We are currently working through a strategy plan, which encompasses future consideration for expansion of the Theatre, if indeed this made sense. We also would like to consider alternatives to this, if a feasibility study confirms the current premises are not cost effective to invest for future expansion. Our current plans fall into our “short term” window over the next 3-5 years and are driven based on theatre income over the next two-year period.

Therefore, we wish to be included in future consideration if indeed a mutual opportunity presented itself to us.

Several Board members attended the July 22nd meeting and were very impressed with the process so far.

Please advise if we need to provide further information.

Regards

Mary Dunn

President, Port Stanley Festival Theatre Board

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: July-27-09 1:20 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Port Stanley harbour plan

The meeting was most informative. We've been reviewing the plan and would like you to consider the following suggestions:

1. Parking for the Stork Club and boat launch may be a problem. There are only 200 slips and each boat and trailer takes up at least two spaces depending on size. If there is a function at the Stork Club there will be a problem. Parking is already a problem in the Village.

2. How many transient boat slips are on the plan? Have you considered special requirements, such as customs for US boaters?

3. Bathrooms with showers will be necessary for the transient slips. As well, pump out facilities, electricity and fuel will be necessary.

4. The only bathroom facilities on the plan are at the Stock Club. Parents will be hard pressed to drag children the half mile from the splash pad and/or Little Beach to use a washroom.

5. There needs to be public washrooms at the beginning of the part or attached to an existing building in the core area of Port Stanley. This is the number one complaint of family, friends and visitors. The only bathroom open every day is at the main beach area.

Thank you for considering our comments.

Jim and Judy MacDonald

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: July-24-09 11:00 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Central Elgin plans

Hi Andrew. I spoke to you briefly (with little Jean) just at the end of Wednesday evening. We are both on the Board of Directors for the Stork Club Big Band Museum & Hall of Fame in Port Stanley.

We are very pleased to see recognition of the important part the legacy of the Stork Club has played in your revitalization plans for the Federal land divestiture in Port. We, as well as an overwhelming majority of Central Elgin residents believe that a new Stork Club/ multi purpose community building is welcomed & needed, as you pictrue it in your plans. In fact, we have yet to meet anyone who is not thrilled at the prospect!

You may not be aware of our past & beginnings. We quickly mobilized our Board in 2006 & received charitable status early in 2007. In July, 2008, we received a $25,000 Trillium grant (completed June/09) and immediately applied for a second one. We have operated a modest Interpretive Centre since 2007 (present location 302 Bridge Street), now undergoing renovation.

We believe that we will be in an excellent position to establish a fully enhanced Interpretive Centre in the new Stork Club facility you envision in your plan, as such time is appropriate in the future.



(so.... please make room for us !!)

On a personal note, I have long campaigned for the establishment of a cultural& entertainment complex in Port Stanley. I propose the following suggestion, given the strength of the community groups that have existed & thrived here for many years:

The green space directly south of the Stork Club, along the wharf be set aside & dedicated to the development of cultural & entertainment facilities. (presently, you have it as open market area/parking etc.)

This new concept would still maintain the 'public' use of the lands but in a highly beneficial way, not only for our community, but also for tourism in Central Elgin as a whole! (more about this later)

Here are some considerations....

1. The market concept is an attractive idea. However, why not consider models such as the Gravenhurst waterfront...there, tents are set up once/week in Sagamo Park, then dismantled?

You have a perfect green area already in your plan (amphitheatre green space) to do this! This would free up the space earmarked above for the use I am suggesting.

2. You might ask " Who would ultimately occupy buildings along this 'cultural strip'"? Besides ourselves, the Stork Club Big Band Museum & Hall of Fame, there are 3 other strong community groups worthy of consideration:

1. The Port Stanley Festival Theatre

With over 30 years under their belt, they are ready for expansion. They operate a

large budget and infuse thousands into the local economy yearly.

2. Heritage Port

Formed more than 15 years ago, their numbers are steadily growing. Over 30

devotees, and many local supporters attend meetings on a regular basis...

We have a wealth of history to share & celebrate, and a future heritage/marine/shipwreck

museum is a logical next step for this organization.

3. The Port Stanley Artists Guild

This collective had its beginnings in the 1980's and has seen tremendous growth...their

membership has had to be capped at 40 - 45 local artists, with an ongoing waiting list!

This active group holds sales & exhibitions, studio tours & workshops. This fall, artist

retreats are being run for the first time.

The next logical step is to create a dedicated public area for programming, exhibitions and year-round artist retreats.

As you can guess, I am very excited about the possibility of the 4 local Port Stanley "cultural/heritage & entertainment" groups joining forces in one location...what a tremendous gem this would be!

A recent SWOTA survey pinpointed 2 types of tourists who frequent locations like Port Stanley. They were:

1. families & 2. the older demographic looking for relaxation & education

Logically, the berm development needs to address the needs & desires of these 2 groups in order to enhance tourism here, and by extension Central Elgin.

As for families, there is a great need in Port for playground equipment & picnic area... you have designated both a picnic and play area. The splash pad is great & hopefully you will include playground equipment as well.

When considering the older demographic, the concept of a cultural complex (as above) would be an absolute magnet! Enough said.

One final observation Re: the "residential" component of your preferred plan:



I strongly support a barrier of foliage all along the southerly grassy areas where the buildings sit. This would create a buffer from the public walkway. I have heard many complaints from waterfront residents over the years, who suffer from the wanderings of the careless public.

By the way, how & who will administer the 'rentals' on townhouses?? Why not 'fractional ownership'?? This makes more sense to me!

All the best,

Liz Jackson

Port resident since 1980

From: Craig Cole [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: July-23-09 11:22 AM

To: [email protected]

Cc: JOHN ROBINSON; Brian Welsh

Subject: Port Stanley Harbour Divestiture

Hi Andrew,

Could I ask you to forward this to the appropriate people?

Port Stanley Harbour Divestiture Committee Municipality of Central Elgin

Dear Sirs,

In my dual roles as chair of Heritage Port, the Port Stanley historical society, and chair of the Stork Club Big Band Museum and Hall of Fame Interpretive Centre planning committee, I would like to congratulate you on your presentation last night. Your plans for the berm are exciting and seem to be gathering widespread community support.

I am sure you are aware of what is being done in our Stork Club Interpretive Centre which is presently located in the Festival Theatre building on Bridge Street. With financial support from the Trillium

Foundation, and strong input from the Elgin County Museum we are undertaking a major renovation of this Centre. The goal of this interpretive centre is to inform, educate and entertain the general public regarding Big Band music, the dance hall phenomenon in Ontario, and in particular the role of Port Stanley's fondly remembered Stork Club. There will be a strong emphasis on interactive audio visual displays in our presentation.

When you start to develop more specific plans for your proposed "Stork Club" pavilion on the berm I hope that you will keep in mind the possibility that the Stork Club Big Band Museum and Hall of Fame Board of Directors might well be interested in relocating the Interpretive Centre to this facility. This would in no way rule out the future possibility of a more ambitious combined Museum/Concert Hall/Dance instruction facility being built further north on the berm.

If you have any questions concerning Heritage Port or the Stork Club Interpretive Centre do not hesitate to contact me.

Craig Cole M.D.

519-782-4532

Hello John and Matthew (and Mark, whose address I do not have),

Re: Port Stanley Harbour Plans

Thank you for your thorough presentation and comments at the community meeting on Wed. July 22 at the Port Stanley Arena. It was very well done and I appreciate your personal style in preparation, presentation and informal discussion. The changes that will be implemented in Port Stanley will have a major impact on the community. I am familiar with the considerable and impressive impact the changes made in Oakville at Bronte Harbour.

I agreed to send an e-mail with the ideas that John and I discussed, understanding that these are just more thoughts for discussion and consideration. You mentioned some of the costs attached to these ideas and I recognize that costs are always important to consider.

So ...



1. Adding a bridge and walkway to the eastern 'breakwall'. These types of walkways do seem to be popular as exemplified in the Bronte harbour area of Oakville and the breakwall walks in several other communities. You mentioned that the costs would be in the millions and I understand the limitations of this. Is it possible to consider this as part of a longer term 'phase in' plan? That longer term consideration might have some impact on the initial planning and construction of the eastern breakwall.

2. Extending the proposed new 'walkway' on the eastern side of the harbour along the existing pier right to the bridge (eg. 'behind' the Wharf and Theatre), thus providing a more attractive and integrated circular route along the pier to the bridge and back along Main street. That would add a bicycle or running route that would be more attractive and possibly safer. It seems that the cost of this might be manageable in the initial stage, and it would tie the existing part of the village to the new area.

3. Can the splash pad also be converted to a winter skating area? You mentioned a possible cost of $1 million for this. Again is it something to consider for a future phase? Consequently that might impact initial development and construction.

4. Is this a time to begin establishing interest on the part of private businesses in this development? Two examples: 1. With the available new parking, would a Tim Horton's as part of the Stork Club building or beside it be feasible, and would they contribute in some way to costs? 2. Would it be helpful at this point to have the perspectives of Hayhoe Homes or Don West Homes in the feasibility of the residential areas? I do appreciate the perspective that people across Little Beach from this new residential development would be concerned, however the idea you put forward about a residential area adding security and interest is important. At this point it really is just collecting information on the feasibility and interest of such a residential area.

5. A little more 'out there' idea. Recognizing the challenge of capital costs and on-going operational costs, what would be the level of interest and costs to include a fitness area, possibly with a small swimming pool (the narrow swim against the current type) to the Stork

Club building? I am trying to find ways of making that building even more useable for the community in all seasons.

6. We would request that the lighting in the new harbour area be as non-intrusive to the neibourhood and night sky, and as 'environmentally friendly' as possible.

7. Again, recognizing the limitations and potential challenge of this, are you intending to survey the community in a general way to collect information on interests?

Thank you for the opportunity for some further input, With best regards, Allen Slater and Nancy Moore,

212 Oak Street,

Port Stanley.

519 782-7978

From: M A WOOD [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: July-23-09 7:29 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Port Stanley Harbour Presentation

Mark, thanks for your time last night at the meeting.

It seems that you have the process well in hand.

But the "proof will be in the pudding"!

Looking forward to the real numbers in the Business Plan.

One issue that leaves most worried is PARKING.

Parking is at a premium presently at the main Beach area. On busy days across from GT's the area is bedlam and unsafe, emergency vehicles can't efficiently get in or out.

The Prespa development planned across from GT's will take more parking away from the Main Beach area.

One thought was that the berm could resolve this in the future.

The 200 spots planned in one of your options will not be enough.



Just look at the recent American Wind Symphony event. A poor turn out yet the parking pier was overloaded.

The Harbour development is an opportunity to plan for potential future problems in Port e.g. when the Prespa development is activated.

Terry Campbell

Jean L Macdougall – Residant 570 George Street 519.782.47.12 [email protected]

Additional comments from Jean – by phone.

Jean would like to mention that she is greatly involved with Liz Jackson (the President) in the Stork Club and this is a very important part of Port Stanley. The dance floor was the largest in the continent in the 1920’s until the 1960’s. “People don’t know how to play anymore”, as she says so well. The committee is working on having the Stork Club back to Port Stanley with the Railway as part of the whole entertainment. They are trying to put the Railways back in fonction (from London to Port Stanley) with a great connection to the south to bring people back to the beach.

The Railway built the Casino around 1920. The Stork Club was built soon after.

The people still call Port Stanley “The Railway Capital of Canada”. The access right in the middle of the lake to connect to American lands is a very important reference.

Documents

Port Stanley Harbour Feasibility Study and Business …...Port Stanley Harbour Feasibility Study and Business Plan The Municipality of Central Elgin Du Toit Allsopp Hillier Riggs Engineering