revised report niagaram region april · revised report csd 66-2012 date: april 26, 2012 • the...

Revised Report CSD 66-2012 Date: April 26, 2012

Niagaram Region

REPORT TO: Chair and Members of Council Sitting as Committee of the Whole

SUBJECT: Provincial Offences Act ("POA") Program Facilities .

RECOMMENDATION

That this Committee recommend to Regional Council that staff BE DIRECTED to:

1. consolidate the POA Program’s present facilities into one 4 courtroom facility; and 2. report back to Council with recommendations for the location of that one 4 courtroom

facility.

PURPOSE

· To respond to CounciI’s November 9, 2011 direction.

BUSINESS IMPLICATIONS

Briefly, staff seeks Council’s direction to consolidate the POA Program’s present facilities into one 4 courtroom facility. As outlined in greater detail in the report, staff believes that this consolidation will enhance access to justice and customer service, reduce duplication, mitigate staff growth despite significant increases in the number of transactions and provide annual savings of at least $500,000. This new facility can be built at a cost of approximately $11.1 million plus land costs and will be funded exclusively by POA Program revenues.

REPORT

Background

As previously reported to Council:

• since 2000, Niagara Region has operated the Provincial Offences Act ("POA") Program on behalf of all 13 municipalities. On an annual basis, the Program’s net revenues are divided amongst all 13 municipalities each of which uses these revenues to fund other municipal services at their discretion;

• the Program operates from three permanent leased facilities in each of St. Catharines (4,913 s.f.), Niagara Falls (7,024 s.f.) and Welland (7,285 s.f.). Critically, these three permanent facilities are not purpose—built and suffer from overcrowding, physical/mechanical deficiencies as well as security concems. Currently, Niagara Region has the ability to extend these leases to October 31, 2013. The Program also leases one courtroom in Fort Erie (2,400 s.f.) 16 to 19 days a year. Leasing costs for all facilities totaled $338,010 in 2011;

1


• the Program has experienced significant increases in the number of charges filed, related

transactions and workload from 2005 — 2011 (see chart below):

Number of: _ _ V

· % Change 2005 to 2011 Charges filed +115% Counter customers sen/ed +55% Payments received (including Paytickets) +73% License Suspensions Virtually no change Applications for Extensions of Time to Pay +67% Appeal applications +38% Case Re-openings +158% Trial requests (Part I & lll) +58%

Disclosure Requests +144%

Part I Appeal appearances +161%

• the rate of growth in service demands, coupled with facility deficiencies, design limitations, the time remaining in current leases and the lead time required for determining and implementing a solution is placing the POA Program under significant stress and is having a negative impact on the provision of services to the public and several other stakeholders. Significantly, members of the public requesting a trial to resolve their charges face an average delay of nine months which may threaten the viability of these prosecutions; and

• importantly, as indicated in the following chart, for the period 2007-2010, of the defendants requesting trials, approximately 61% lived outside the local municipality where the trial was scheduled and 29% lived outside of Niagara Region:

Reslde#0utslde.Niagara r

R¤sl¤n A A

`

..

“i —i

j

• consolidation of all POA facilities into a single site/building would centralize POA (and judicial and law enforcement) so as to maximize access to justice and customer service. It would also result in significant cost savings relative to both the status quo and to the "two site" model;

2

· Revised Report CSD 66-2012 Date: April 26, 2012

• an informal public sun/ey indicated that 77% of respondents supported fewer POA facilities and 54% favoured a single facility. The ‘sing|e site’ model also received strong support from other primary stakeholders including the Local Administrative Justice of the Peace, the OPP, the local Police Senxices Board and the Chief of the Niagara Regional Police Sen/ice; and

• opposition to the consolidation proposal was also voiced most notably by the Welland County Law Association which position is summarized with staff responses below:

Welland County Law Staff Response Association Issue

• Continued access to justice • Niagara South has 3 POA courthouses serving 51% for defendants of the Niagara Region population and is where 52%

of the charges are filed. • By comparison, Niagara North has 1 POA courthouse

sen/ing 49% of the Niagara Region population and is where 48% of the charges are filed.

• The general interest of the • Will reduce confusion for the general public at large as a public/defendants regarding court location stakeholder • Improved service levels to the general public due to

concentration ofjudicial and administrative services • Enhanced barrier free access and furthering

compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act

• implementation of "function specific" sen/ice wickets will reduce wait times

• The lack of inter-municipal • inter-municipal transit, while still in the early stages of transportation development, will assist in providing a means of

transit for defendants who may have lost the use of personal transportation

• Staff propose any new facility be located adjacent to major transportation routes

• The need fora defendant to • ln most cases, a defendant attends POA court to attend court several times obtain disclosure and to attend trial. Historically, plea prior to a disposition of their negotiations generally occur on the trial date, matter however, it is anticipated that the implementation of

the Early Resolution Program will result in further pre- trial appearances

3


• The increase in travel time • Presently commute times to Niagara’s POA courts and the right to be tried in range from 7 to 51 minutes. This compares favorably one’s own community with other sun/eyed municipalities where commute

times ranged from 18 minutes (Mississauga) to 60 minutes and 15 minutes in (Durham Region).

• Analysis of travel times to all Niagara Region POA courts indicates 94% of Niagara’s population would live within 30 minutes of a centrally located facility.

• Only 39% of defendants reside in the municipality in which their trial is scheduled. POA court

consolidation would offer a potential reduction in

travel time for the remaining 61% of defendants who do go; reside in the municipality where their trials are scheduled

• For the purposes of POA charges, there is no absolute right to be tried in one’s own community

• The longer wait times • Multiple courtrooms in one location will permit "reaI throughout the day due to time" transfer of cases from busy courts to less busy the increased volume in the courts thus ensuring the matter is disposed of without one location the need for a retum date

•Taxpayers are not suffering • More efhcient use of POA resources will reduce

any loss operating expenses and increase the likelihood of

enhanced net revenue which is shared with all

municipal partners to fund necessary municipal

services which eases the burden on local municipal taxpayers

Previous Council Direction

In response to previous staff reports:

• on April 27, 2011, Council directed staff "to expedite planning and development of all POA courts not later than 2014 - including an expedited examination of the options for consolidation or continuing with community courts"; and

• on November 9, 2011, Council directed staff to:

1. "deveIop a short list of sites for both a single four-courtroom POA Program facility and two two-Courtroom POA Program facilities and report back to

Committee/Council comparing and costing both the single facility and the two- facility models with recommendations for the Iocation(s) and implementation of a resolution to the POA Program ’s Accommodation needs”; and

2. refer the staff recommendation "to the Responsive Region Implementation Team for a detailed opinion."

4


The Reguest For Information Process

In response to Counci|’s direction, on December 19, 2011, staff issued a Request For information ("RF|") seeking information on vacant land and buildings suitable to lease or purchase to accommodate POA Court facilities with the following requirements:

Four Courtroom Facility Two Courtroom Facility One Site Model Two Site Model

Building Area Between 32,000 and 36,000 Between 16,000 and 22,000 square feet preferred square feet preferred

Site Area 4.4 acres 3.2 acres

Parking Spaces 250 parking spaces 138 parking spaces

By the January 22, 2012 closing date, ninety (90) submissions involving over 46 different properties were received. While the RFI specified that Niagara Region would not limit its search to the properties submitted, it was noted that submissions were not received with respect to some properties thought to be suitable for POA purposes.

The Review Team

The submissions were reviewed by a team composed of representatives of the POA Program, Real Estate Services, Development Services, lT Solutions, Financial Management and Planning and Communications. RRIT Lead Chris McQueen attended most review meetings and was given access to all information and data reviewed.

Planning Considerations

As indicated, a professional plannerfrom Development Services comprised part of the review team and, based on currently existing legislation and policy, developed the following guiding principles for the initial review:

1. property should be within the urban area boundary; 2. priority should be given to locations where adequate full services already exist although locations

where installation of adequate full services is imminent could also be considered; and 3. locations should have existing (or planned) public transit service and linkages to the major

highway systems.

Comment was also sought from area municipal planning departments. Those responding mentioned a variety of issues including access to justice, the Urban Growth Centre, the Economic Gateway Zone and Centre, and a preference for local locations.

5


Analysis of the RFI Submissions

Given the number and variety of submissions, it became clear to the review team that staff would not be in a position to recommend specific sites until Council made its preference known for either a one site or two site model.

That said, the primary objectives of the POA Program include accessibility and excellent customer service. For the relatively few people that need to physically access POA facilities (rather than resolve their matters remotely via mail, telephone or internet), it’s consistent with these objectives to locate the facilities such that they are readily accessible to the largest proportion of the population.

Accordingly, the submitted sites were grouped into 13 ‘clusters’ to which an additional five clusters were added to include:

- suitable properties owned by Niagara Region; — some sites known to be suitable/available but which were not submitted; and - Cluster 8 located in the Highway 20/Allanburg Bridge area (traditionally thought to be the centre

of the Region by population).

While there are no known standards for courthouse locations, staff extended the approach commenced by consultants McClaren, Wilson, Lawrie lnc. who determined that drive time to the largest population is a key factor for optimum site location. Using a Location Allocation Model based on data extracted from the 2011 Census, the Emergency Medical Services street network and GIS software, the 18 property clusters (see Appendix ‘A’) were analyzed to ascertain which single cluster and which combination of two clusters were located so as to be within the maximum population catchment area based on drive times of 15, 20, 25 and 30 minutes. Please note that although Cluster 8 captured the greatest proportion of the population at the 30 minute drive time standard, it was excluded from the final analysis as it does not fall within an urban boundary.

One Site Model Results

For a one site Location Allocation Model, the analysis provided the following population capture rates:

One Site Location Allocation Model Results (17 Sites)

Drive-Time Total Demand (mins) ClusterlD Population

0-15 12 (Thorold) 261,718

0-20 15 (St.Catharines) 314,725

0-25 12 (Thorold) 367,206

0-30 5 (Welland) 404,175

Shortly put, Cluster 12 captures the largest segment of the population when considering both the 15 and 25 minute drive-time standards. Cluster 15 captures the largest population when applying a 20 minute drive-time standard and Cluster 5 captures the largest population segment when applying a 30 minute drive-time standard.

6


Two Site Model Results

Analysis of the drive-time standards when considering the combination of two facilities that captures the greatest proportion of population without duplication was obviously more complicated. Results follow:

Two Site Location Allocation Model Results (17 Sites)

Drive-Time Demand Demand Total Demand (mins) ClusterlD 1 ClusterID 2 Pop CL 1 Pop CL 2 Population 0-15 4 (Welland 14 (St.Catharines) 84,718 222,626 307,344 0-20 1 (Pt. Colborne) 17 (St.Catharines) 92,010 287,228 379,238 0-25 1 (Pt. Colborne) 17 (St.Catharines) 101,476 305,918 407,394 0-30 5 (Welland) 17 (St.Catharines) 152,997 271,365 424,362

Essentially, a combination of Port Colbome and St. Catharines gathers the largest population based on both the 20 and 25 minute standard (recognizing that Port Colbome captures less than 25% of that total captured population), whereas a Welland and St. Catharines combination captures the largest

population based on a 30 minute standard. A different Welland and St. Catharines combination captures the greatest population based on a 15 minute standard.

The review team noted that even with a two site model optimizations in access to justice, customer service and operational efficiencies could only be achieved if each site had two court rooms each. Accordingly it is questionable whether a two site model where one location "captures" 25% of the available population is viable.

Important Conclusion Drawn from the Drive-Time Analysis

When comparing a ‘two site’ to a ‘one site’ solution, it’s important to note that the second site captures only an additional 65,000 people (379,238 minus 314,725) at the 20 minute standard and 20,000 people (424,362 minus 404,175) at the 30 minute standard. Given that approximately 2.67% of the population requested trials (11,520/431,346) in 2011, the additional cost of a second site will service a maximum of 1,736 people at the 20 minute standard and 534 people at the 30 minute standard.

Financial Analysis

Responses to the RFI also facilitated a more comprehensive financial analysis which may be summarized as follows:

1. expenses have been budgeted for both a one site model and a two site model over a 20 year - operating period and then discounted to a current year cost figure;

2. as indicated in Appendix B — Land Costs, land costs vary by cluster location and include associated costs for acquisition (due diligence, land transfer tax, survey costs etc). For a one site model land costs were calculated for the three top clusters, based on the Location Allocation Model, and resulted in an estimated average land price of $1.7M. The calculation for a two site model is more complex and was completed using the top cluster combinations, based on the Location Allocation Model, augmented by an additional clusters representative of central St.

7


Catharines, Niagara Falls and Welland which resulted in an estimated average land cost of $4.0M;

3. as indicated in Appendix C - Building & Construction Costs, the construction cost (exclusive of land) for a one site facility is approximately $11.1M and for two separate two-court facilities is approximately $12.4M;

4. accordingly, on average, a one site facility will cost approximately $12.8M to build and the cost of 2 two court facilities will, on average, cost $16.4M to build;

5. as indicated in Appendix D — POA Facility Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, a 20 year projection indicates that, relative to a single site facility, two facilities will;

a. cumulatively cost and additional $17lVl (NPV=$10M); and b. on average, cost an additional $555,000 annually; and

6. in addition to the efficiencies identified by primary stakeholders in their support of a single facility solution, the NRPS has identified $300,000 in annual savings based solely on reduced security requirements.

Significant Conclusion on CostslPerson Serviced by Second Facility

When comparing a 2 site to a 1 site solution, the second site increases the upfront construction costs by approximately $3£Nl $3.6M in current dollars, and costs approximately $10M more to operate over 20 years in current dollars.

_

Recalling the drive time analysis earlier in this report, the incremental cost of servicing the trial requests

of an additional 1,736 people (based on the 20 minute drive time standard) is $2%% $2,074 per person in upfront construction costs whereas servicing the trial requests of additional 534 people (based on the 30 minute drive time standards) increases the incremental cost to $7+146 $6,742 per person.

Construction Funding

The consolidation proposal is based on the expectation that all new POA facilities be funded exclusively through POA revenues. To that end, by the end of 2013, the POA Program is scheduled to accrue a total of $4.7M to a reserve for this purpose with the remainder of the costs to be debt financed.

Leasing and Conversion/Retrofit of Existing Buildings

The RFI attracted submissions for options based on leased facilities and existing buildings that could be converted and/or retrofitted for POA use. 40% of the lease submissions were for buildings that have yet to be constructed (not existing buildings) for both models. A total of fourteen (14) sites were submitted for both models proposing the retrofit of existing buildings. In order to accurately cost compare these .

options, due diligence (space planning, estimation of conversion costs, review of business terms of a lease for the operating period, etc.) should be completed on each site to ensure accurate comparisons. Given the time constraints and large number of options presented, it was not possible to complete this analysis for this report. However, once Council chooses its preferred model, and location(s) can be narrowed, the leasing and renovation options can be fully considered in final site selection and financing calculations.

8


Customer Service Considerations

As mentioned, in addition to the positive financial outcomes, a single facility solution will incorporate the following short list of access to justice and customer service enhancements:

• concentrated resources and greater flexibility in allocating resources in serving customer needs; • improved responsiveness to demands for service; • a reduction in time to trial through "real time" transfer of matters to less busy courts; • reduced confusion for the general public re: court location; and • implementation of function specific service wickets to speed service delivery.

Staffing and Operational Considerations

Similarly, a single site facility is anticipated to provide the following operational enhancements: • a reduction in administrative duplication, redundancy & "fractured" work processes; • centralization of court records eliminates the need to transfer court records between sites; • increased supervisory oversight, guidance and monitoring of staff as well as more consistent and

effective training;

• improved scheduling response related to staff absences; and • requires less land, less space and fewer staff.

SUMMARYINEXT STEPS

Staff, assisted by consultants has conducted a comprehensive comparison of a single site versus a two site solution to the POA Program’s identified and ongoing deficiencies. As outlined in this report, a single site facility will result in increased access to justice, significant customer service enhancements and cost savings to the benefit of the general public, area municipalities, and Niagara Region.

Whether Council’s decision is to pursue a one site or two site solution; proposed next steps include completing a detailed design plan and identifying a specific property or properties for Council’s consideration.

PREVIOUS REPORTS PERTINENT TO THIS MATTER CSD 85-2011 — Corporate Services Committee — April 27, 2011 CSD 125-2011 — Corporate Services Committee — July 20, 2011 CSD 163-2011 — Corporate Services Committee - October 19, 2011 CSC 64-2011 — Corporate Services Committee - November 4, 2011

Submitted by: j

2, A| • |d • ..

4 |7 ] V'! fr

Brian Hutchings, B. mm, CGA Mike Trojan Commissioner of Corporate Services! Chief Administrative Officer Treasurer

This report was prepared by Michael Kyne, Director of Legal Services and She//ey Marr, Managen Real Estate with input from Joanne Spriet and Bill Bernard, Associate Directors, Court Services, Mari/yn Radman, Manager Development Planning, Bryan Boles, Director, FMP, Margaret Murphy, Associate Director, FMP, Beth Brens, Tangible Capital Assets Analyst and Ryan Waterhouse, Analyst, GIS.

9

Appendix A - Cluster Location Map for POA

Legend

/`/( I {

CIysIerLccati¤n

V

V. . Y VMa]0rSIreeINeIw¤rk

' ji #$_\

._j»·'i· ;; *5 — I »·

I MunIc|paIB¤undary

V

'

V]! Grimsby `

_; . -V

I I`., ?

. "'*\_I · V 1.

~

j w~L».`:’ `“`-`___‘ il Lin ca I n I} SI. C s I h a rln a s ,_,§·" _·_,,,

I

! ""··{ I 12

‘

I./7 I 11 ..»·

/,' .

1 _

|·’ I

V |ig} i I

1·——··""" I

‘

g

j L.»...··-···•·—*··**""“’% T h n r o I :4

9 10

V

if

1 8 . 1 VI

·—

__

I ’ ` `

— .

‘ ·

`

_

~ ·¥ .. '* ‘·

E Niagara Fails Q" g P lh fx rg ’

¥·=,` ‘ ‘ s a m i‘

‘

` e,. · ·

·’

N. ·

1

I 1

. ! xx"

V ` LJ ® V1 X

`

·

V V V 3*‘

_ I I B n R

·

gw I ;_

I ..

. I I 2 "= I

‘

» I I

VV

V

. xx V

- I

V

\_

V

""’°"’°""" \` ·.·vaI¤I1¤eI I Ei.

`

I E ‘

r 2`

IA _

`0 _N V5 . \\ '

V

I `

A

‘

1

y Pur: Colb¤rn¤V Fon E;rie

`K V }

I L

I , I)

.‘

‘_.

V `

I °

_ .

’ ·' ..... V

·

{ ui V

`

,_` __ `KII¤meIers_ · '. \\_"

. `

I

. .. I.` »

.

` ` ·· · ¤

T4 J

' A.

V k

`I Y

‘ ~

· I

{R f . I ....1.*.

r. —· -‘ ~

.

-""”"‘

V VV

· |. r. ~·—` 14*

I

· `

\_s<_`

»

. I.!

Cluster Locationsfcr POA, Niagara Region, 2012.

Revised Appendix B — Land Costs

A summary chart showing the anticipated land costs by cluster for each model is shown below.

The land cost assumptions are based on land rates submitted as part of the Request for Information. They do not necessarily represent market value at the time of purchase, but may represent a best estimate of currently available rates.

One Site Model- Land Costs

Cluster 5 12 15

TOTAL LAND COSTS (whole $) li ___M_ 3,183,971j

The estimated land costs, including due diligence and associated costs, for a one site model averages $1.7 M.

Two Site Model- Land Costs

M

TOTALLAND COSTS Wh0le$ Cluster |1 14 15 17

1 2.399.463 2.650.488 2.859.813 5.713L593$

3 |Ff| 2,525,929 2,795,954 2,995,278 5,840,058i |}|i 2,754,545 3,024,571 3,224,895 6,{E8,675?

5 _1,55§,Z1A’| 2,514,495 2,784,520 2,984,844 5,828,5z

9 2,399,453 2,525,93 2,754,545 2,514,495 E 3,982,852 4,183,177 L025g5$Z¤

14 2,559,488 2,795,954 3,024,571 2,784,520 3,982,852 |{

|

I 15 2,869,813 2,995,278 3,224,895 2,984,844 4,183,177 4,453,202H 16 2,419,599 2,545,054 2,774,582 2,534,531 3,732,953 4,002,988 4,203,312 1.047,098

17 S,713,SQ3 5,840,058 5,058,5m 5,828,625 7;026,9S7- T

7.497,805:;|

The estimated land costs, including due diligence and associated costs, for a two site model averages $4e4»M $4.0 M.

Revised Appendix C - Building & Construction Costs

A summary chart showing the anticipated building and construction costs for a design build scenario has been costed out for each model and is shown below.

ESTIMATED BUILDING COSTS - POA

1 Site 2 Sites

Sq.ft. 34,000 38,000

Assumptions 1 site 2 sites

Building Construction S 240.00 S 8,160,000 S 9,120,000

Site Construction 5% S 408,000 S 456,000

Total Construction S 8,568,000 S 9,576,000

Soft Costs

Design Contingency 4.00% S 342,720 S 383,040

Construction

Contingency 4.00% 5 342,720 5 383,040

Furniture 4.50% S 385,560 S 430,920

Project Management 1.50% $ 128,520 S 143,640

Special Purpose 2.00% S 171,360 S 191,520

A/E Fees 8.00% S 685,440 S 766,080

Technology 3.00% S 257,040 S 287,280

Total Soft Costs 27.00% S 2,313,360 S 2,585,520

Sub-Total S 10,881,360 S 12,161,520

HST 1.76% $ 191,512 $ 214,043

TOTAL COSTS BEFORE LAND Whole (S) S 11,072,872 $ 12,375,563

PSF (5) S 325.67 $ 325.67

The total construction cost, before land but including soft costs, is anticipated to be:

$11.1 M ($325.67 psf) for a one site model $12.4 M ($325.67 psf) for a two site model

Assumptions: • Square footage for each option is based on the mid-point of the preferred range provided

by Niagara Region ’s consulting architect (MWL) • That a one site facility is two stories. An increase in density that adds additional stories,

may require additional square footage for circulation space. • The two site facility costing is based on one tender being completed for both sites and it

being awarded to one contractor to maximize efiiciencies. lf there are separate tenders for each site, this cost would increase approximately 5%.

O LO KD (Y1 U1 (N '-Q Q Q

.. nn 1\ ·<r, 1¤ oo <r ..11

*6 Q Q Q 1. ¤¤ lh 1- -

nn <r

w C} T1 1

E., 3 S Q 2 2 1-{

9 .2 3 E 2 1-

3: J: q; RD <l' 00

TE B as = Q $8 *2

0 W > E O E* ,,,

.-1 ·:r m qu N7 <r 21-I

M 0 m .+1

- ·— .16 6 .16

jg E no 1~ ¢0.

0 ‘ u Q Q Q l·- ... <r 1\ N

.D GJ0

H'} f\I Ch (*0 Oi `LD

_·g un ·.¤ cn oo -1 11.1:

·¤ Q Q Q ". Q Q ¤ N nn 0 .. no 1~ ¤0 U <r 0*1 an r¤ rn r~ <r C 1- ,,

*1 Q VQ *6 Q Q Q 2 u N LD 1+1 -— 1- N N 0*1 ·g, ·- .-1 .-1 > LD ua ¤. N 1:1. GJ

U `4 _Q

3 E U1 Q . 3 N ..1 »..-1 u oo lh 1-

3 IZ 1~ no .:11- M ca 41 r~ <r .u:•’ 5

“‘ M .9 °q V1 r: \ QL "I °°{ ui ¤ E 15 N LH N g ¤¤ E ..1 no oo gm E U .- r~ 1~ 0 1-1.

¤ g; co 1\ oo - ‘¤ E 0 m m 1. E E Q, N LI'} QN J;

S Q ·-· .-T nf .-T °’ IU 1.

··* <F 6 15 ·— " = "’ .-1 .-1

Q ¤· +• tv C <r an ""

Q- ¢¤ g O W > 'E g u u '¤ O E U

E 1-;

g .-1 cx .¤0 ¤ -11 1.n <r .01 .g .- Ch Ch .0. ¤ vv 0 0 cn r: Q ·¤ EQ x §’

,, Q Q ¤»

.*2 cn 1~ ,¤o E 1. ¤o 01 5*, 3 LD .-1 Q1, N <|' Gi uq

°' Q Q 4Q -“ Q Q Q " E .-1 q- ;f\l co Z1 .m B Q € *6 E 0 2 ° —

U: f¤ IIIII

2 ES :.1 3 Q Q Q Q Q Q v?

_ N nn .0 _ 0 LD <r_ Q E .*2 E 2 3 .*3 S S .8 g .2· ° .~I 6 TY; ,2 6 N 0 ru

F' .-1 .-1 »-* cn O rv-4 N C `4 `4 gl

, `..{

GJ < 8 _¤

3 u 0 2 ¤¤ Q U- °¤ TE ET EY E 1\ 1.0 .0*1 GJ

_;; .5 0 0 ;0—.‘ Q zu r~ m kb. E =¤ `¤ Q Q Q - \ °u U Q Q :1 *’¤ ¤ co O1 10 °’ un ·¤ 5 m cn ;1.n vw U 5 <r cw ¤· 1: cu E 0 <r .<r M

.,,

.¤ H- Q 1.¤` up O 2 N OW Q FL gnu'

.-1 df •· N 01 .-1

IB 5 5 1~ cc ¤.

V g =¤ > 111 .1; 5 m = E U O U O 1. -•-r

3 g .*3 € ° § Fs;

*5 *. 2 2 1:: § E 5 g Q Q 5 gg #1 Q Q 2 E = <r <r 0 LH ,¤1 GJ U E cn cn `r€ .-1 r~ .1.n .1:

{E ¤·• Q Q ·¤ Q 'E Q *·' .1:

$ <r <r U N oo LD .*2 *-·

lll 1·¤ U ru ‘§ .1: Q 1: ·-

¤ Q. m E G 3 .2 'E

.;< ·5 GJ gi. M gr :5 5

GJ ua 5 Q1 111 no cj *6 V;

qu T1 RP E ¤¤ *’• °” E <v. .,, E H lv 1.. t¤

cu D" "" E > ·°’ ·: 11:

2 .. V, > < °·

U, > < ¤ -

v 1: < ·»·

‘¤’ E ¤ < ·~ *¤’ 9 :1

B T. .2 P3 Q gg, .: .2 Ei .2 gg, 3 c

_g 5 E i71 v> E; E E 171 vw

EK ,_ 2 5 B E 2 2 2

°’ E 2 g2 2i 53 ~·

cz E 0 1- —.<1 0 0 1- .4 * B

revised report niagaram region april · revised report csd 66-2012 date: april 26, 2012 • the...

Documents