HomeMy WebLinkAboutINS-14-016 - Victoria Park Equipment - Follow-up
REPORT TO:
Council
DATE OF MEETING:
January 27, 2014
SUBMITTED BY:
Jim Witmer, Director of Operations (741-2600, ext. 4657)
Greg Hummel, Manager of Park Planning, Development and
PREPARED BY:
Operations (741-2600, ext. 4598)
WARD(S) INVOLVED:
Ward 9
DATE OF REPORT:
January 17, 2014
REPORT NO.:
INS-14-016
SUBJECT:VICTORIA PARK EQUIPMENT – FOLLOW-UP
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Option 1 – Modified Operations as outlined in Report INS-14-016 be implemented
as soon as possible to reduce/eliminate the noise impact of non-Victoria Park related
City Operations functions on the Victoria Park neighbourhood; and
That Staff be directed to:
1. Continue to monitor the traffic and impacts of implementation of the modified
operations, and
2. Complete a feasibility analysis of Option 9 and report back to Council by April 2014.
BACKGROUND:
On August 26, 2013, a number of delegations came to Council to present their issues
regarding the Victoria Park Machine Shop. Five delegates presented their concerns as well
as a petition signed by residents of the neighbourhood to Council. Concerns presented dealt
with the increased number of vehicles within the park, close proximity to residences, noise of
the equipment, impact of vibration from the equipment on residents and the safety of park
users.
On October 21, 2013 staff presented report INS-13-086 Victoria Park Equipment that provided
Council with an outline of the cost and service level implications of all the proposed solutions
as well as looked at the rationale of using satellite locations instead of the Kitchener
Operations Facility.
On December 12, 2013, as part of the 2014 Operating Budget discussion, staff presented
issue paper OP 06 that provided details and costing of four potential options for consideration.
This report was tabled for public input, prior to decision.
8 a. - 1
On January 13, 2014, approximately 25 Victoria Park Neighbourhood residents attended the
2014 Budget Input Session, including 4 residents that made delegate presentations to voice
their concerns and offer potential solutions for consideration.
REPORT:
As a result of the feedback and suggestions made by residents at the Public Input session for
Budget on January 13, 2014, staff have reviewed those suggestions and developed an
additional 6 options as well as some additional components to the previous version of Option
1 for Council’s consideration.
Overview of Options
:
Option 1 Modified Operations
This option is an enhanced version of the recommended option from Operating Budget Issue
paper OP 06, as follows:
Reduce/eliminate staff trips during the day back to Victoria Park Machine Shop for
breaks and lunches
Instruct Staff to drive equipment at reduced speed and gear when travelling through
the neighbourhood to reduce noise impacts
Reschedule garbage pickup at Victoria Park Machine Shop Facility to coincide with
neighbourhood residential garbage pickup to Fridays at 2:00 p.m.
Instruct staff to fill water truck at another City facility location (to be determined), unless
servicing Victoria Park
Relocate one of the trackless units to Bridgeport Park Facility to service Bridgeport
Route
Continue to monitor traffic to ensure compliance with above and identify other traffic
noise issues
Install deep well garbage containers throughout Victoria Park to replace existing
garbage receptacles to reduce frequency of traffic related to garage pickup. (already
budgeted)
Location Victoria Park Machine Shop and Bridgeport Park Facility
Feasibility Yes
Cost Cost impact is minimal and/or already budgeted
Status Viable option for consideration
Option 2 Relocate Trackless and Sweepers to Kitchener Operations Facility (KOF)
This option was outlined in Budget Issue Paper OP 06 and includes relocating the three turf
trackless mowers/sidewalk plows and two sidewalk sweepers to the Kitchener Operations
Facility, resulting in increased travel time and lost efficiencies.
Location KOF
Feasibility Yes
Cost $82,000 to $116,000 Operating, $0 Capital
Status Viable option for consideration
Option 3 – Re-use Bramm Street Yards Block Wall Shed
This option was outlined in Budget Issue Paper OP 06 and involves renovating the existing
Block Wall Shed located near the railway lands at Park Street to allow the relocation of three
turf trackless mowers/sidewalk plows and the two sidewalk sweepers.
8 a. - 2
Location Bramm Street Yards
Feasibility Yes, for next 7 to 15 years until Bramm Yards site is redeveloped
Cost $20,000 Operating, $243,000 capital
Status Viable option for consideration, for short to medium term
Option 4 – Re-Use Former Bramm Street Trackless Storage Building and Compound
This option was outlined in budget Issue Paper OP 06 and involves renovating the storage
building at the Bramm Street yards location to allow the relocation of three turf trackless
mowers/sidewalk plows and the two sidewalk sweepers
Location Bramm Street Yards
Feasibility Yes, for next 7 to 15 years until Bramm Yards site is redeveloped
Cost $20,000 per year operating, $205,000 to $240,000 capital
Status Viable option for consideration, for short to medium term
Option 5 – Relocate Trackless and Sweepers to City Hall or other City Parking Garage
in the Downtown
This option has been previously suggested by residents and involves using a city owned
parking facility to store the three trackless units and two sweepers. It would also be
necessary to find a location for storage of salt and sweeper debris as well as equipment
washing. In addition, the nearest fueling location is at Victoria and Lancaster, resulting in
increased travel time, a higher price for fuel, and lost operating efficiencies. In addition, using
parking garage space for storage of equipment is not the highest and best use of this space.
Location City owned Parking Garage
Feasibility Not a complete solution, as there still would be a need to find another location
for fueling, washing, salt and debris storage which would be inefficient.
Cost lost parking revenue for five parking spots at $1,860 per year per stall or $9,300
total per year plus cost of renting a location for washing and materials storage
and possibly fuel storage, nearby.
Status Further analysis required to determine viability based on cost and availability of
appropriate space.
Option 6 – Trailer the Trackless and Sweepers from KOF to work locations
This option was suggested by residents in order to reduce the travel costs associated with
Option 2 and involves the same five pieces of equipment as previous options.
Location Kitchener Operations Facility
Feasibility No. As a result of the weight of this type of equipment, additional equipment
will be required to be purchased (Heavy duty truck and float trailer) to haul this
heavy equipment daily, as well as the loading and travel time costs, resulting in
a cost that is estimated to be greater than Option 2 above.
Cost Cost greater than Option 2
Status Option not recommended
Option 7 – Rent another facility in the downtown
This option involves renting a facility in the downtown to store the four previously mentioned
pieces equipment, including fueling, washing, and materials storage capacity. Staff have
undertaken a very cursory review of potential locations and have so far been unable to find
8 a. - 3
any suitable long term locations that would not interfere with other residents or be potential
commercial redevelopment sites.
Location To be determined
Feasibility To be determined. The feasibility would depend on cost, location and
availability of appropriate space.
Cost unknown
Status Further analysis would be required to determine viability based on cost and
availability of appropriate space.
Option 8 – Portable Building at Bramm Street Yards
This option was suggested by one of the residents as a potentially more cost effective long
term option to renovating the existing facility at Bramm Street Yards that would have to be
relocated in 7 to 15 years.
Location Bramm Street Yards
Feasibility No – does not reduce cost of Options 3 or 4 above, as most of cost relates to
fueling and plumbing requirements which are not portable, plus the capital cost
of the portable unit and foundation would need to be factored in
Cost $25,000 operating, $200,000 plus capital (rough estimate)
Status Option not recommended
Option 9 – Relocate 2 Trackless to Rockway Golf Compound
This option represents a partial solution and could be considered to augment Option 1 above.
This option would need to be investigated further in consultation with Rockway Golf course
staff in order to determine cost and space availability.
Location Rockway Golf Compound
Feasibility to be determined
Cost travel time for two vehicles estimated at one quarter of the cost of Option 2 or
$20,000 to $30,000 per year operating, plus capital costs to be determined.
Status Further analysis required to determine viability based on cost and availability of
appropriate space.
Option 10 Relocate 3 trackless units and 2 sweepers to Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro
facility at Victoria and West Ave.
This option has been reviewed by staff at a cursory level, but has not been further analysed
for a number of reasons: 1. Can create access conflicts/issues between two separate
organizations. 2. Limits growth capacity for Hydro’s use. 3. Shifts the noise issue to another
neighbourhood, as Hydro vehicles do not usually access site during very early morning hours,
unless they are dealing with an emergency situation.
Location Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro facility
Feasibility to be determined
Cost rental costs to be determined
Status Option not recommended.
8 a. - 4
Staff Recommendation:
That Option 1 – Modified Operations as outlined in Report INS-14-016 be implemented as
soon as possible to reduce/eliminate the noise impact of non-Victoria Park related City
Operations functions on the Victoria Park neighbourhood.
That Staff be directed to 1. continue to monitor the traffic and impacts of implementation of the
modified operations, and 2. Complete a feasibility analysis of Option 9 and report back to
Council by April 2014.
Of the 10 options outlined above, this combined recommendation of Option 1 and 9 addresses
most of the neighbourhood’s identified concerns, at the lowest additional cost to the taxpayer.
Although Options 5 and 7 could be explored further, it is unlikely that suitable locations can be
found at an overall cost less than the options that were brought forward in previous reports.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
Quality of Life: Good government balances multiple perspectives, knowledge and lived
experience. Equipment within Victoria Park is a necessary evil to meet the needs of the users
and be an integral part of the community. Residents spoke up about the impact of the
equipment and the review is being carried out.
Environment: Lead by Example. The City of Kitchener can be a model of environmental
stewardship and citizen engagement in that effort. Through the review of equipment in the park,
utilizing the satellite model proved fuel savings and travel time reduction.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
No financial implications at this time.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Staff have met with the residents of the neighbourhood a number of times since August 2013
on the issues around equipment in the park and will continue to check in with the
neighbourhood during the monitoring period of the implementation of the recommended
solution..
Pauline Houston, Deputy CAO
ACKNOWLEDGED BY:
Infrastructure Services Department
8 a. - 5