Burlington Committee votes to go ahead with RFP to replace LaSalle Park Marina wave break and explore alternative funding options

During our Committee of the Whole meeting on March 4, committee members discussed the future operation of the LaSalle Park Marina and the need of a new wave break. We had four delegations on the item, a recording of which is available by click the link COW-March4-LaSalleMarina.The full staff report can also be viewed here: CM-01-19 LaSalle Park Marina Wave BreakAlso, the Report by Grant Thornton on the Wave Break Viability Review is available here: CM-01-19 Appendix A LPMA Grant ThorntonBACKGROUND:The LaSalle Park Marina was established in 1981 by the volunteer LaSalle Park Marina Association (LPMA). Its 219 slips were originally protected by a floating tire wave break that was replaced in 1998 by a floating steel tube version. Under a joint venture agreement (JV) with the City of Burlington, a group borrows from the City for a project and repays the funding over a decade. The title rests with the City.Hamilton Spectator freelance columnist Joan Little provides a very detailed summary of the background history of LaSalle Park Marina, the joint venture agreement between the volunteer association and the City of Burlington and the aging wave break in her latest column.Committee members unanimously carried the following motion:

• Direct the Interim City Manager to implement Option A regarding the future operation of the Marina at LaSalle Park as outlined in report CM-01-19. The Option states: Proceed with the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the acquisition of a new floating wave break prior to securing a long-term agreement with LaSalle Park Marina Association (LPMA) post Oct. 31, 2019. Continue to negotiate with LPMA for a long-term license agreement for the operation of the Marina. Should a license agreement not be realized with LPMA, report back on alternative governance and operating models; and
• Direct the Executive Director of Capital Works to proceed with the RFP for the acquisition of a new floating wave break and report back on the results of the RFP (Option A); and
• Direct the Director of Parks and Recreation to continue negotiations with the LPMA for a long-term license agreement for the operation of the Marina at LaSalle Park and report back on the results (Option A); and
• Direct the Interim City Manager to report back on alternative governance and operating models and the process for continuance of a community-based public Marina at LaSalle Park and report back to Committee of the Whole on or before July 8, 2019; and
• Direct the Director of Parks and Recreation to explore alternative funding options for the Marina at LaSalle Park.

The item headed to the Council meeting on Monday, March 25 and was approved.For more information or to stay up to date with the LaSalle Park Marina Wave Break Project, click the link.MY TAKE:My concern wasn't about whether we should have a marina or not, I think that was a misinterpretation of my views. I think boating in this location is great; the public boat launch in this location is great, the able sail program, the many public activities that happen there and the marina being an operator that has participated in that with us. This has never been whether we should have a marina or boating function down at this park, for me personally. This was always about what type of marina, how big it was going to be, what type of wave break and how we were going to pay for it. And those are legitimate questions for any decision-making body to ask and to have a conversation about and to do it all in an environmentally-friendly way with consultation from our community, including the folks that raised very legitimate concerns that the minister of the environment at the time took into account around the impact on not only the flora and fauna, but the trumpeter swans in that location. We heard how rare and unique that population is and how lucky we are to have them here.So, I'm happy where we've landed in terms of the floating wave break option, the fact that it will not be an expanded marina; but I do think we do need to look at those options for alternative governance and funding.The broader conversation that we need to have — and that is really highlighted by this situation — is do we continue to have joint venture as our model going forward when working with groups of volunteers or do we need to reflect on where capital projects come in, when we're partnering with the community, when we're delivering and effectively operating services. As we discovered here, it's not free, it has never been free.What our joint venture model, we are now realizing in the last few years, never really contemplated was a volunteer group of folks leading a capital project. Not only setting the vision of what it should be, but then trying to pay for that. That's expertise that a group of volunteers, who may be excellent in operating a facility, simply don't have. And it's not far to ask them to acquire that expertise in building a major capital project and we've discovered that with a number of our joint ventures that that is where the model falls apart. If things had been different, previous councils should have led the visioning exercise for what we wanted the marina to be as a very first step. And because of the way the model was, the city didn't lead that, we simply reacted to it until it was put to us a year ago: what kind of marina we wanted or if we wanted a marina, and by then the wave break had deteriorated. If the process was reversed, the city would have determined that here is a capital asset; this is what the expected life cycle is in asset management; we would have done a committee visioning exercise to see if we want to expand it, and what we need it to look like. And we would have done that early enough in the process so that we're not  at a stage where we don't know if the wave break we have out there will get us through another season.